Science Fiction here, but if the federal government decided to take a permanent holiday and the Republic was disbanded, which states would rise to the top? Which states would be at a huge disadvantage? Take a second and think how well your state could support itself or comment on others as well. Apologies if this kind of question has already been posted.
Turtle
This will probably be moved to IMHO before I am finished posting, but as long as I’m here…
I’m inclined to say states that are economic hubs and that are sufficently endowed with natural resources would do well. It would also help if those areas had ports. Texas comes to mind as does California. Both believe they are independent countries anyhow so it wouldn’t be that much of a change.
I would also bet on Alaska and Hawaii, they have a history of lack of dependance on the lower 48 so they could do well also.
I suppose it depends on your definition of “doing well” but I would say my experience with North Dakota is that they are extremely independent and don’t really acknowledge the rest of the country most of the time so they might not be on many maps but they’ll keep on going the way they are.
I think the rust belt states could do rather badly and initially many of the farm and ranch states since so much of the argiculture industry is propped up by the feds. I think eventually they could work out a way to deal that agriculture though and survive.
TV
The perceived “independence” of isolated areas is mostly illusory. The Hawaiian economy, especially, is extremely dependent on imports from the mainland, and would suffer greatly from tariffs or other trade barriers that might result from dissolution of the Union.
How exactly is this science fiction? It’s more political fiction.
Anyway, the states wouldn’t stay completely independent for long. The differences between regions is significant, but the division between any two states is mostly arbitrary. Why, for example, would North and South Dakota remain two independent entities? Why would Missouri and Illinois not band up with the rest of the Midwest to form a larger, more powerful unit? So this becomes a question of how well regions of this country could do without the Federal government.
But what would compel the seperation of regions of a traditionally unified country? Even if the old Federal government died, I think something on a national scale would emerge to take its place. It wouldn’t be as strong, perhaps, but it would be more than the EU currently has. If nothing else, the necessity of Californians to trade with Europe via the East Coast would compel us to create a national trade and travel system.
This is more a matter of speculation and opinion than facts, so I’ll move this thread to the IMHO forum.
bibliophage
moderator GQ
I’d be extremely worried about food. Losing the massive income we get from the military would leave us a lot poorer. Getting enough food to feed our 1.2 million people would be very difficult. Hmm, do you think we could get the UK to rent Pearl Harbor for a buttload of money? We’ll change it to Pearl Harbour.
I think Texas would probably do the best. Large state, lots of growing land. Industries. Sea ports. New York and California probably wouldn’t be too far behind. States like Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska could probably do well enough selling food.
I guess Florida would do the worst. Lots of retired folks would be a great burden for the nation of Florida. Plus it seems like it would attract a lot of interest from drug traders as a point of entry onto the continent. Very long coastline which would probably see lots of trade with the Caribbean. I imagine it would be nearly impossible to patrol anywhere near half-assed.
This does require some speculation as I am interested in how the resources, natural and otherwise would affect the individual “countries.” Now, who would have the strongest military presence? Assuming all the soldiers go back to their home states, but they must leave vehicles etc behind, who becomes the military power in North America? Does North Dakota gain bargaining power through its stockpile of nukes?
Which state aside from Alaska, of course, becomes the dominant petroleum producer?
And, although it strays a bit from my OP but since the subject has been broached, which new countries would be most likely to form alliances?
Turtle
Consider how much states pay in federal taxes vs. how much they receive in federal benefits:
According to the OMB, 16 states are “givers”, meaning they pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits. 33 states are “takers”, meaning they receive more federal benefits than they pay in taxes. Indianna breaks even.
People tend to think of states with large urban areas as takers. Not so. States with large urban areas are more likely to be givers. Ironically, states populated by those fighting against the growth of “biggumint” are some of the biggest takers. These tend to be highly rural states. Cut them off and you could watch them die.
Since takers would suffer from a federal dissolution, and givers would benefit, givers would do much better. This means the West coast and much of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. New York and California would do particularly well, since they have extremely diverse economies and thus have little reliance on single industries.
Art
If the union were dissolved, is there any chance that our neighboring countries would attempt to annex some states? Can we see Canada adding Maine or Vermont? Or Mexico just rolling troops into Arizona? Just a tought.
I think Texas would be the best off. Texas already has a good bit of industry and agriculture, as well as its own oil supplies. Economically, I think there are few states that are as diverse (someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, this is just off the top of my head). Also, if worse came to worse and any two states went to war, my money would be on Texas. Some people here already hold more allegiance to their state than to their country, so I think Texans would rise up to meet all challenges for the good of their beloved state.
Quack
-A Yankee in Texas
Being part of the US apparently isn’t working for West Virginia so maybe it’d actually be better if WV was on her own.
I lived in Athens, OH for 2 years, just a little jump from Parkersburg, WV (and I was actually performing an outreach production of “The Tempest” in Parkersburg this week) and I remember hearing rumblings from across the border…what’s going on?
The Turtle Moves…
I would hope that an independent California would no longer be required to maintain a balanced budget. That would solve a lot of problems in the state right now.