Is the US better of being split?

Status
Closed
Aug 2014
4,592
Australia
#11
What percentage of the California and Texas Economy is dependent on the Inter-state commerce vs. International commerce negotiated and regulated by the Federal government ?
There is a difference between "independent" and "isolated". An independent state can still trade and co-operate with other states. All it requires is a bilateral agreement, which is far easier to negotiate than multilateral ones.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,080
Dispargum
#12
The urban areas get far more subsidies than rural areas. Welfare recipients are far more numerous in cities.
But most of the taxes that pay for those welfare checks are collected in the cities so there's no transfer of wealth from rural to urban areas. Most American wealth is concentrated in the cities. You can't tax poverty. Rural areas are where you find most military bases, national parks, etc which are mostly paid for with urban tax dollars. Roads, powerlines, sewer lines, etc. are more expensive in rural areas because the distances they have to run are greater and the number of people paying to use them is less.

As for urban areas doing a better job developing people's cooperation skills; do see race riots in rural areas anywhere as often as cities?
...
Rural areas by far are more peaceful than urban. A lot of it is because there are less people. Put more people together and more problems arise.
Putting multiple groups of people together only creates more friction. Diversity doesn't unite, it divides. Assimilation is what unites, as it blends the differences together.
And yet we don't see cities experiencing major population decline anymore. Yes, urban populations declined in the 1970s, but these days, everyone who wants to move to the suburbs already has. Those who stayed learned how to cooperate with their diverse neighbors. Many cities today are experiencing gentrification as Caucasians move back into cities. It's the very conflict you talk about that teaches people to cooperate. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. The lack of conflict in rural areas is why rural people don't learn how to cooperate and periodically threaten to secede.
 
Oct 2010
5,175
DC
#13
There is a difference between "independent" and "isolated". An independent state can still trade and co-operate with other states. All it requires is a bilateral agreement, which is far easier to negotiate than multilateral ones.
I am sure of that of course, I was wondering about the strong custom regulations that the USA would keep when/if a state leaves.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,080
Dispargum
#14
What percentage of the California and Texas Economy is dependent on the Inter-state commerce vs. International commerce negotiated and regulated by the Federal government ?
This is very difficult to measure. For instance, it's not just commerce in the traditional sense. For instance, both California and Texas have a lot of military bases and defense industries. Presumably, if either state seceded, these would move to the remaining United States.
 
Apr 2017
1,404
U.S.A.
#15
But most of the taxes that pay for those welfare checks are collected in the cities so there's no transfer of wealth from rural to urban areas. Most American wealth is concentrated in the cities. You can't tax poverty. Rural areas are where you find most military bases, national parks, etc which are mostly paid for with urban tax dollars. Roads, powerlines, sewer lines, etc. are more expensive in rural areas because the distances they have to run are greater and the number of people paying to use them is less.



And yet we don't see cities experiencing major population decline anymore. Yes, urban populations declined in the 1970s, but these days, everyone who wants to move to the suburbs already has. Those who stayed learned how to cooperate with their diverse neighbors. Many cities today are experiencing gentrification as Caucasians move back into cities. It's the very conflict you talk about that teaches people to cooperate. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. The lack of conflict in rural areas is why rural people don't learn how to cooperate and periodically threaten to secede.
I did not suggest there was a wealth transfer, just that cities aren't the perfect utopias some people claim they are.
You can tax poverty, the government does it everyday. You just don't get much from it.
I readily admit urban areas are wealthier, I just point out rural areas are important as well. They are not poor ignorant areas inhabited by low brow rednecks as some portray them. Rural areas have important industries that are necessary for the country to function, they are not just flyover territory.
Not all cities are getting better, and many are mixed bags.
Some urban areas are stuck spinning their wheels in internal conflict for decades. Chicago is a good example. Racial unrest has been a problem in Oakland for decades.
Many rural areas are the friendliest places you can find, as are some urban areas. Generalizations are often inaccurate.
 
Oct 2010
5,175
DC
#16
And yet we don't see cities experiencing major population decline anymore. Yes, urban populations declined in the 1970s, but these days, everyone who wants to move to the suburbs already has. Those who stayed learned how to cooperate with their diverse neighbors. Many cities today are experiencing gentrification as Caucasians move back into cities. It's the very conflict you talk about that teaches people to cooperate. It doesn't happen overnight. It takes time. The lack of conflict in rural areas is why rural people don't learn how to cooperate and periodically threaten to secede.
How do locals react to "gentrification" ?

I am looking for data on population growth/decline but I have not found a good source I fully trust yet.

12 major American cities that are shrinking

Population shift: What cities are Americans moving away from? And Population migration patterns: Cities Americans are flocking to
 
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#17
How will the US divide itself in this scenario? Texas and California secede separately causing a domino effect or will states divide over another political/economic/social cause?
The issue of secession from the Union was settled by 1865: no state or group of states can secede. And, althoough there is a great deal of heat and animosity, the split is not really geographic as in pre-Civil War days; It’s political.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,080
Dispargum
#18
I am looking for data on population growth/decline but I have not found a good source I fully trust yet.
The articles you cite mostly center on people moving for economic reasons. I was trying to make the point that race riots and other social unrest do not drive people out of cities and into suburbs like they used to.
 
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
#20
That seems the most likely scenario. Either Texas or California secedes first (depending on who controls the White House at the time) and the other will follow shortly afterwards. After that, other states will pick sides and create two separate confederations.

California is the 5th largest economy in the world - similar to the UK. Texas is the 15th largest economy in the world - similar to Mexico. Both are easily capable of operating independently.
California imports a minimum of 1/4 of its energy from neighboring states. Without that energy, the big cities collapse. They're also very water dependent on rivers that originate from out of state (the Colorado River being one of the most important). But then again, a good chunk of the water goes to agriculture, which would collapse should California ever try to become independent. Check out political affiliations of farmers, compare that to the urban areas and state govt. It'll be like Zimbabwe all over again.
 
Status
Closed