The links given by silenus and ftg show significant differences in which states are net givers and which are net takers of federal funds. In particular, Florida is shown to be a net giver in yellow/green states list of silenus, but the biggest net taker in ftg’s Wikipedia link. I wonder why the discrepancy? Anyway, in our hypothetical, are we assuming that residents of the seceding state would lose their social security benefits, or would they be treated as Americans living abroad?
I’d agree with West Virginia being about the least able to go it alone as a separate country. It’d be entertaining to watch them try though.
My state of Hawaii would be absolutely screwed. Like Nevada, Oahu would look like swiss cheese with all the federal military bases. And we’d lose our non-passport US Mainland tourism.
I cannot even begin to think how our social services would survive without Fed dollars. With our heavy immigration and a relatively poor populace (especially the minority races compared to the standard of living), it would be a disaster.
Yet there are always these groups that can’t wait to restore Hawaiian sovereignty.
Colorado would be just fine. We have tourism and a healthy economy, but the biggest thing is the Colorado River. Dam it up in Western Colorado and Phoenix and Southern California would be at Colorado’s mercy for their very survival. Water is the currency of the West.
I disagree. as you say, much of the federal spending imbalance may come from SS payments which would continue for US expatriates in retirement to the Democratic republic Florida, so this shouldn’t count against them. Also, even if Florida would take the biggest hit from losing government support, but they have a fairly long way to fall.
Mississippi would really have a struggle ahead of it. In almost every survey ranking states by education, income, house prices, healthcare etc. Mississippi always comes out at or near the bottom.
Mississippi is probably the most least likely to succeed as an independent nation.
My family owns land there, and I have never been anywhere in the US that even approaches the level of dire poverty, squalor and disease than central Mississippi.
But can they get in the big freighters and tankers that are needed to sustain a modern country. A deep water port is huge to economic self sufficiency. New York and New Jersey are embarking on a major project to raise the road level of the Bayonne Bridge just so they can get the bigger ships into their ports.
Mississippi is a mess. If they could get their act together at least they have immediate access to the ocean.
Any state that lacks sufficient water is screwed. Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada would be on the ropes if water prices multiplied. We are talking about states becoming independent countries so all water agreements go out the window. Colorado might be able to keep enough to sustain adequate farming but it wouldn’t be easy and then Arizona and Nevada would be totally fucked. Idaho at least has the Snake River and a low population.
There is some logic behind the “United States”. Too bad that too many yokels can’t see the big picture and don’t realize the advantage of working together for the common good. The USA would be a better place with a better attitude towards cooperation and without the individuals that are still fighting the Civil War.
Pineapples are long gone as a principal part of the economy. Del Monte have packed up for the Philippines and other places. There might be a few Dole fields left here and there, but agriculture not near as big as it used to be (same with sugar).
Hawaii did okay on their own, but we’re spoiled by all these here modern conveniences. Take away spam and there’d be another revolution
Is there enough area to store all of the water if you put a dam at the CO - UT border ? Seems like Grand Junction and a few other towns might have to relocate.
Texas would be a great contender, not that it would not make it on it’s own, but it just seems like it would not be a pleasant place to live in and may quickly become a police state, well more then it is know to be now.
Yes, but if Texas were to revert back to it’s original possessions when it was a Republic, all your mountains are belong to us, and that would include the river as well.
Eh, that’s only like 25% of their GSP, and they’re running a surplus. As an independent country, they’d have a pretty low debt/gdp ratio compared to pretty much any other developed country.
And they’re net contributors to the federal budget, so they’d save money by going it alone.
Not to mention diamonds and bauxite. And they’re on the Mississippi.
I’m thinking South Dakota would struggle, farming notwithstanding. They get a lot of their money from the government (like Florida) and the financial services sector (like Delaware), both of which would have the problems mentioned previously. They’d still have tourism but I suspect this would shrink somewhat if you needed a passport to get there.
The diamond mine didn’t pay off commercially, and is a tourist trap, where one pays to dig. Not to say that some guys have not found diamonds.
I don’t believe Reynolds mines bauxite here anymore. “Company towns” that house workmen, cheap small houses built by the company are deserted in Bauxite and Tull now.
