Would the world be better off with a balkanized U.S.?

"poor" in terms of transfer payments AND natural resources?

#10 on the list North Dakota - the state going through an economic boom right now BECAUSE of natural resources?

#9 in Conneticut, traditionally considered a "rich" state not one on the dole; same for #4, #3 and #2 (which, by the way, illustrates the problem of this sort of list - how it's calculated. those three states make the list only because they are military heave states)

#8 West Virgina - all they HAVE is natural resources.


#1 Alaska? Again, natural resources out the wazoo.

As i explained above, all you end up with is a new equilibrium in terms of the economic transfer.

California and new York are "payer" states? Where do they get tier oil products? Natural gas? Coal? groceries?

From the "poor" states. they can't simply pocket the money and remain "richer" while the folks in West Virginia starve (although there would be a delicious irony in WV selling their coal to, say, Missouri instead of New York...but NY would still have to buy it somewhere)


the conciet that the only reason WV doesn't descend into the stone age is because NY cuts them a federal check is based on a faulty premise.

The market. The same place they get them now. Unless the world economy has collapsed this will not change. It's not like a farmer in Idaho says 'Well the Chinese are paying this much, but I'll sell it for less to New York b/c they are Americans.' Hell, lets be honest, it's not like 99% of the farmers control where their product ends up anyway.

True. But it seems to me that there are still opportunities for a resource - even if it's something as simple as a highway - to pay off more for the state that has it in the new order in order to balance out the business of federal spending.

In any case, if someone is going to make the case to me that some states are on the Federal dole, they are going to have to parse out the NATURE of that spending. Putting Virginia in the top five just because of military just discredits that list entirely as a source to support the point. If you want to argue that, say, Arkansas is in deep shit - you might have something (I wouldn't argue Arkansas would amount to much by itself) but Virginia?

Beyond that - you have to then examine how much of the Federal spending is on things the state WANTS done and how much of it is because the Feds mandate it must be done. for example, the second biggest line item expense in Mississippi - even after the massive Federal contribution - is Medicaid. If MS ends up part of some Neo-confederate state that doesn't have or want medicaid or it's functional equivalent, then all that "lost Federal money" is irrelevant.

In any case, I'm no economist but it seems logical to me that relative economics reach a point of equilibrium. In a continent with some many natural resources, and those highly developed (as opposed to much less developed resources in, say, Africa) it's inconceivable to me that some region of this country would descend into third-world status.

that's not to say that one area won't be "Peru" to another's "Brazil" - but even "Peru" will be alright once the equilibrium point is reached.

(albeit, there might be a decade or two of upheavel to get there)

Unless you were one of the people relying on medicaid. That's not just the people getting their care paid for, it's the people that were being paid. Or if your business relied on a lot of customers from the military base down the road.

Would all depend on how it happened. It seems likely that in any Balkanization there would be a core that maintained a chain of progression in regards to things like treaties and debts (see how Russia still belongs to treaties signed as the USSR).

It would never become null and void in regards to creditors wanting repayment, the question would instead be if the successor states to the USA thought that defaulting on debt and dealing with the economic repercussions of that would be better than upholding it.

It most certainly is not, don't even go there!

the economy adjusts. It takes time, of course, and some folks will hurt in the mean time (me probably being one of them if I can't get out) but I stand by my previous remarks.


I disagree with the oft-heard thesis that the fact that a government act (such as a post office or a military base) supports a local economy is reason enough by itself to justify the act. no doubt that local economy would suffer terribly if the base closed, just as many towns before have suffered when, for instance, an auto-plant closed.

That doesn't mean it makes sense for the government to spend tax dollars to do what they do inefficiently so that town doesn't have to deal with economic reality.

Yes.

Whole goddamn premise of my book.

well, in that regard - it's an entirely different discussion to ask if the world would be better off now if the U.S. had never really held together to grow to this size from the start. the various alternate space-time continuum which branch off depending on what assumptions you make are incalculable.

I don't think that would be a good thing. A balkanized US and a chronically estranged EU would give China and Russia all the influence they need/want. No, I'm not keen on learning Mandarin.

Eh. I think the days of world conquest are pretty much in the past. A nation might well be expansionist in it's region, but I doubt anyone outside far east or southeast Asia would have much to worry about in terms of direct control.

it's the economic dominance that would be the attractive bauble to the ambitious.

True enough, the last thing we need is another bunch of fuckin' maritimers dragging down the national average of, well, everything.

Don't move to Toronto or Vancouver...

Isn't Vancouver mostly Cantonese?

Don't BS me. I've been to Yakima multiple times. I know all there is to know about Eastern Washington.

As dissatisfied as we all are at times with our government structure, I can't really come up with a better one and certainly not one that would pass muster with enough states to make for an orderly transition. I think we'd still be looking at a common currency and a common defense and what you'd effectively have is another layer of government...one for each state, one for their new federal partners and then a new weaker federal state to handle various common issues.

Looking at history the Articles of Confederation were a miserable failure that led to the new Constitution which I suppose was written by many of the same men as the Preamble says "To form a MORE perfect union." (Not a perfect one)

One of the areas where states have to work together in ad-hoc groupings is water rights. Georgia, Florida and Alabama work together trying to divvy up water rights. It's hard enough now, imaging if one or two of the states were in a different country. Seriously, if you start looking at water rights issues it's one of the most horrifying legal tangles you can imagine, but if you divide the states into new countries that don't respect existing tensions over water rights, I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that shooting wars could break out between border states that belong to different nations.

I will respect Marso's request to not sully what is an interesting discussion with partisan hackery, however, I do have to say it would be amusing to put together a map of a new country with nothing but states that currently send more to Washington than they receive and another with states that take more than they send.

The Romans tried this. They ended up being eaten alive by invaders.

We enjoy a quality of life in this country that is only possible with the status quo. We do not have trade wars, or invasions over tax bases. Americans are safe and secure from foreign aggression and the designs and ambitions of a growing China and nostalgic Russia. It would create duplication of every government office, and suffocate business.

There's a reason why we came together in the first place. There are no reasons for division.

Fucking Crackima? You're killing me, bro.

This is a good example of why we need to create a mechanism for alternative combinations of authority. Water, transportation, several other issues cross state lines and we don't have a satisfactory mechanism in this country for handling such regional issues. I think most would agree that we don't want a federal solution, because water rights in Georgia really have nothing to do with somebody who lives in Massachusetts. But some way to better foster regional collaboration without balkanization would be good.

Sounds like you are advocating the notion that 'the government which governs best is the one which is local to the problem.'

So wouldn't the FedGov be a redundant waste of resources at this point?

Interesting. The America haters are constantly decrying our foreign adventures and such- do away with the Federal Beast and you are left with a half dozen or so more regional states without the resources or inclination to interfere in Taiwan, Afghanistan, and other far flung shit holes currently soaking up our blood and treasure like a damp sponge.

No, because some problems are best addressed at the largest level -- your career is a prime example of such.

You Americans did a pretty good job of fucking the world economy as a united nation.

No. The Federal government exists explicitly to solve these interstate problems.

Too many would-be empire builders out there fighting over imaginary lines on a map. It's a waste of resources.