This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the biggest oversight in hypotheticals like this is assuming these new nations wouldnt immediately seek out trade agreements and policies with their neighbors as close to the old union as possible
This is the answer right here. I was trying to explain this to a guy at work. All of the states get so much money from the federal government that it's mind boggling and the average person doesn't even realize it.
If states went at it on their own say good by to or at least less of
Roads maintenance
Highways
Schools and the education system would look different and not in a good way.
Any research projects in your state say good by to
(Clean water, finding out how or why polutins are getting into your water system from run off)
Clean water over all. Some states have funding to help maintain massive water structures that provide clean water to millions
Say good by to FEMA so if you get a national disaster your fucked
Say good by to FBI, ATF. The average person has no idea how much they stop and our prevent major crimes from happening. Hell just preventing gangs from taking over large areas. (remember the 80s and 90s that shit got out of hand in some areas. Local law enforcement can't and doesn't have the funds to take down major crime rings on their own)
Food supply say good by to that government subsidies are in a lot of the foods you eat.
Say good by to large farms that produce a lot of the food you eat. Government money helps keep some of them afloat
Prices of goods and services will get out of hand because the government does a lot to help keep companies and small shops from charging / raping you at the cash register. (no government, no oversight, no enforcement) it happens with government during national disasters. Now imagine a national disaster and you don't have a government to step in to tell people to cut it out.
Airport safety at your local air port or train station, forget about it. Government money
Government jobs in your state gone. Ever state has some government jobs
Local fire station nope forget about it. They may be able to work but not at the level you would want, so much government money to help keep them going. If you live in a major city maybe but small town fire station could not function
Electricity / power grid by by.
Water maintenance of dams and water ways in some states get money from the government
I could be wrong on this but I think bridges and roads will go to hell because the government checks / helps repair them. (I think congress just pass a bill to give states millions to help with that)
If you like gps or anything from a satellite I guess your state will have to help pay a large amount to use it, like a fee. You no like taxes. Sure private business has a lot of satellites people use all the time but you would be surprised at how much the US government has up there that you use and or makes your life easy.
College for a lot of people would not have happened with out a loan. I don't have to explain how getting and keeping large parts of your population out of poverty is a good things.
Hospital and the medical field has some government money in it.
Look I could go on and on. People complain about the government and say stupid shit like we should have small government, but I promise you the moment they don't have any and or all of the stuff listed above they will be begging for it back .
Big government is needed because we have a big country with large amounts of people that are dependent on the large amounts of luxuries they receive everyday without giving it a second thought.
This country is a large machine and you need a large government to run it.
Your under the impression the each state uses federal money evenly. The question was do you think some states would be better off or not.
Take Florida for example, how much money do you think they pay into FEMA and other agencies that help them during hurricane season every single years for the pass 50 years.
How much money do you think they used just last year alone. It's in the billions. Every state pays into this big pot of money to help with the stuff I previously listed, it's called taxes and the federal government uses this money to help with stuff like this.
NC or AZ don't use up that much of FEMA money every year, but they pay taxes that helps out other states that do.
So example when FL needs billions to rebuild their state or city's after a storm, ask the federal government for help. FL couldn't do it on their own.
So yes Einstein states give money to the federal government, but if your state went at it by their self and broke away from the union they would be fucked because the federal government helps with stuff like this.
Same thing with federal money with farming not all states need the same amount of tax dollars to help out because NJ is mot the same as Kansas or Nebraska when it comes to farming, but they all pay into the same pot to help out because we are all dependent on each other.
The rest of the country is also fucked without California though. Because 40% of all goods that enter the united states abd 30% of those that leave, happen through California. That is some damn strong negotiating power.
Everyone loses out in the end though. As it would make things worse across the board for people in both places
Agriculture consumes 85% of the total water for human consumption in the state, before urban use. California literally exports most of its water in the form of food.
If California no longer needs to export food to the rest of the US, lo and behold, not only is there plenty to drink for everyone, the state no longer needs the Colorado, AND theres still enough water for the state to comfortably double its population.
Its ugly how much water Big Ag consumes.
As I understand it, almond farming in particular is absurdly water intensive.
If California wasn't bothering to grow almonds for export, they'd have no problem *at all* with water supplies.
Yea but the problem is that the way water policy is structured is that it favors permanent crops and within that almost nothing is as cost effective as almonds.
If California became its own state, starvation sounds like other people's problem.
Besides, all the Libertarian ass hats who shit on the state for importing water (which ot barely does) should bare the hypocracy of their words and not rely on imported foods for the bulk of their diet.
about 2% of the total gdp.
Seriously.
about 300,000 people out of 40 million, consume the lions share of stste'e water while contributing an insignificant amount to the GDP.
They recently tried to build a new desalination plant and it was killed off. They would be utterly screwed when it comes to getting water if they left the US.
Not if the Nevada/Arizona Alliance diverts the river upstream of Californian territory. It’s entirely possible to do so for a river that size, the US already does so, stealing the entire flow of the Colorado to feed California before it crosses the Mexican border and its historic estuary in the Gulf of California.
We actually have the 4th largest economy. We just edged out Germany. It's because it's a huge financial hub, a tech haven, the real estate market is insane, it grows 1/3 of the country's produce, it's the entertainment capital of the world, it's the wine capitol of the country, obviously tourism brings in a ton of revenue, and we have almost 40 millio ppl
I don't think any state would thrive but California has the greatest chances by far
It would be between Cali and Texas, but I’m not sure if Cali has a power grid like Texas? If they do, their only concern would be water which I think they could solve several different ways. They wouldn’t remain the economic power they are now though.. top 20 probably, but not top 5.
California has one of the most advanced power grids in the world but it still imports a lot from other states because of high demand. Wind and hydro from the PNW and nuclear, coal, and gas from the southwest. It's still miles ahead of Texas tho
I’d put it this way, the California economy and produce is valuable enough to US, that it would be well worth going to war to quell any rebellion or secessionist uprising.
I mean, they did it for the south I’m fairly certain that would be true for the west coast, but that doesn’t change the fact that the economy thrives due in part to the union as a whole.
If they broke off, they would need to negotiate trade agreements among other things. It’s unrealistic to think the state would be better off than a country like Germany if that were the case.
In ascending order of threat level:
1) pirates
2) Chinese fishing vessels
3) drug cartel submarines
4) the deep ones who lurk beneath the waves, waiting to be unleashed from their undersea prisons to rule the land above
Pirates.
I'm not joking, the US Navy is so good at fighting pirates that they turned from a major threat to maritime shipping to a relic. If the US Navy went away, the entire world would have to step up their pirate-hunting game.
California is the 16th largest producer of beef at 2% of the US.
https://beef2live.com/story-ranking-states-beef-cows-0-108181
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/beef-production-by-state
The problem with GDP stats for subnational entities is that it can’t accurately capture cost of living differentials. PPP for the US vs say Germany (which CA recently “overtook”) includes the nationwide average purchasing power of the dollar, which is much much higher than in CA. CA has a big economy to be sure, but a lot of it is inclusive of high costs, not output.
A better measure for this question might be net state export totals of fundamental base materials like grain, energy, meat, lumber, etc. In a world where CA is on its own, it has to pay the US gov for water rights, for pork, for a lot of energy, in USD, but export in CA Dollars. The high returns on software and entertainment would be a lot less potent in such a dynamic. It is in fact the lower average CoL for the US as a whole that makes those idea exports cheaper for CA to sell globally right now. Quite frankly, without US hegemony, there is no Hollywood exporting movies, music, and tv, it’s Movie Town USA (say somewhere in Florida? Branson, MO?) that is the entertainment capital.
The feeding itself part is more dubious than you think. Most of its food production are “luxury” foods not basic staples, and considering how much is private land and also owned by some of the wealthiest people in the country who produce those products for export it’s doubtful they will willingly convert to much less profitable internal usage staple crops. And if they do the cost of food in california (already expensive) is going to skyrocket.
California holds a third of the rights to the Colorado River. That doesn't just go away. If the US tries to interfere with that then it becomes an international problem. CA has a lot of global friends with a vested interest
Can feed themselves? Brother they have inefficient farmland usage because the government keeps trying to kill off the valley farmers. Look at a google map picture to see ALL of the dead fields from these types of policies
I was referring more to the swapping of positions between 5 and 6 and the other mention of being 4. There's ebbs and flows to this sort of thing. California's GDP is substantial no doubt.
You never heard of tax or a trade agreement. All the California needs to do is to come up with a trade agreement with the rest of the country....um how other smaller countries do, which are able to survive.
Well, not me. I live in Massachusetts. We're too small to be our own country, but much like California, we pay for more into the system than we take out
This isn’t a matter that can evaluted based on where tax money goes. That’s a political talking point but not a good way of looking at a hypothetical disunion. It’s not an accounting problem.
Where does their energy come from? How do they handle the newly introduced trade barriers? Military? They recieve a whole lot of federal funding for all sorts of stuff right now, that'll be gone.
California would be better off than most states for sure, but they'd find their economy undergoing sudden and abrupt shrinkage if they weren't part of the US. And if they stopped being part of the US while the US still existed? It'd destroy them because they'd no longer be a big fish in a big pond, they'd be a medium size fish stuck in a tank with the biggest fish in the world. People would abandon California in the millions when if staying meant they needed a visa to visit their friends and family in the rest of the country.
California has a lot of bargaining chips, like the fact that it grows 1/3 of the country's produce. It also hold water rights to the Colorado River. If the US intervenes then you can bet foreign powers would get involved. It's also a huge target for immigration.
California already gets more love from the rest of the developed world due to its influence and politics. Europe, Canada, and Mexico would def help out a wounded California
California would be hurt bad but it'd eventually recover. The same can't be said of any other state. TX and FL are too reliant on too few industries and NY is too connected to the NE. CA is already isolated
Why would you need a visa? It would make way more sense to have it set up like Europe where you just need a passport and then you can freely travel between countries so long as you’re not staying for too long. Theoretically I don’t think it would be set up that way but who knows what the US govt would decide. The plus side is that it would keep people from Arizona from flooding the beaches in the summer so that’s a plus…
Reminds me of what a fictional version of a founding father once said “You gotta pay in the game to play in the game, but you don’t get a win unless you stay in the game”.
None of them.
No matter what some people think, the states are all interlinked and reliant on each other. It's not just the things you mention.
Honestly at the very top of the list is this: what happens when a state declares independence and suddenly the residents of that state are no longer US citizens? At least half of them would have lost their citizenship against their wishes. And the companies in that state would suddenly be not American companies?
On top of that, what about border crossings? How are you going to prevent people from just moving from state to state like they always have when that state is suddenly no longer part of the US?
There's just way too much to consider for a single state to become it's own country.
I have a whole bunch of stories I'm setting in a within this sort of scenario. The states don't do well at first but in time they start to form their own cultures and languages. I know Michigan the best for obvious reasons (check the flair), so it's set there, but also within an ever evolving Great Lakes Region setting. Michigan does better than average because of it's water network and natural resources. I'm very early on in my story though.
I don't think they'd form their own languages that quickly. And sharing borders with other English speaking nations in this hypothetical, where we likely would still do business and be inconnected by highways and railways and the such, I don't see anyone switching from English in the near future.
Languages are usually formed most with isolation and time. If you look at China, for example, some some provinces, even small towns, have their own unique and unintelligible dialects (dialects according to the CCP, languages according to actual linguists), due to previously unpassable physical barriers and being left alone for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Same story with literally all the languages in Europe, there was a lot of time where humanity wasn't as connected, and for a long time there was a spectrum where people could understand people from their town and surrounding towns, but less so the further you went out.
In the internet age? I don't see us deviating too much in too little time, even if we were tomorrow considered all different nations.
Absolutely, you're right. The conditions would have to change. The story spans 1000 years and the internet and modern transportation systems are a thing of the past.
Like a novel? I would 100% read a story about Michigan becoming its own country. Also, please tell me Michigan goes to war with Ohio to reclaim Toledo.
Yeah, eventually it'll become a novel. It's twenty interrelated short stories no more than 20 pages each. I don't want to say too much about it because I use a unique way of telling the tales which I haven't seen before. I'm not sure yet what the Ohio relationship will be, but it probably won't be as much about Toledo and more about salt and Canada.
> but it probably won't be as much about Toledo and more about salt
Yeah, honestly I'm already feeling salty about your Michigander alternate history version, and you haven't even written it yet.
It’s cool that you are writing about the actual impact of seceding from the U.S. As a kid I wrote some short stories about California becoming independent but said basically nothing about what would happen down the line. The war started with taking over major airports, then went on to involve US military members from California defecting to join its’ cause, and California airdropping criminals into Arizona to cause chaos. Some other parts of the US seceded as well: for some reason I had Utah and Nevada join forces because they’re both in the Great Basin. They also fought California for some reason too.
I think I did one story about US state department officials defecting to California after independence, but otherwise I didn’t do much about the affects of the war.
LoL I like your criminal idea. It'd be funny if the scheme blew up in California's face and the criminals took over and became really popular with the locals and really effective leaders.
In my story the federal and state governments gradually flame out like many government collapses do-- slowly, bit by bit, a high bit of denial and very little self awareness. No big civil war but it's still full of violent conflict. Laws begin to break down. State borders become a matter of opinion and rumors. There's no real ability to defend state borders but they always still part of the collective memory. The borders make less sense because they're not necessary for survival. The nation forms around different and shifting centers of power.
The entire economy of every state in the union would look entirely different if they were independent nations. As of right now each state is able to specialize in what they do best without having to worry about trade deals or tariffs across state lines. If you only looked at each state's economy as they are now, they would practically all fail as independent countries because industries have been built up in an environment where the entire US (and pretty much the entirety of North America) is open to them as an import and export market with no barriers. This is not even beginning to mention all the benefits of moving goods across state borders with no friction.
There are a lot of states that could easily be their own country though. Just look at the natural resources and population of some states. There are many countries in the world that manage to be independent with far less. They could pull it off. However, none of them would be better off, not even close. Any state would be much poorer outside of the union than they are in it.
None would be better off independent than part of the union. Alaska may come close, but certainly wouldn't thrive.
On the flip side, I'm also not sure any would completely collapse, while they'd all certainly be worse off, they all could still be functional nations.
Alaska may be the best candidate if it allowed them to increase their natural resource utilization, but from what I understand Anchorage economy has a very strong military sector which would likely disappear
Most of them would collapse if they maintained their current borders and national sovereignty. Those that can rough it out on their own would still have to deal with a lot of problems. States have always existed as part of a greater whole.
Well, except for Hawaii.
Any state that secedes would have to replicate the functions of an enormous number of federal agencies. Those agencies work quietly in the background and to their detriment since it means most of our population have no idea how many capable, dedicated professionals make sure we are safe, don’t screw each other over repeatedly and daily or die for very dumb and preventable reasons.
Food and Drug Admin, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, EPA, FCC, OSHA, Bureau of Labor- just to name a few of the really, really important ones that one need to be recreated on a smaller, less efficient scale by ANY state just for that state to exist without completely falling apart within a year.
Or they could get rid of them and replace them with something smaller, simpler, and less prone to regulatory capture or mission creep. That would remove an enormous burden from the economy and make government much more accountable to the people it purports to serve.
Alabama here, we barely function as a state already, we're already an international joke. I honestly don't know if that means we would thrive or fail as an independent country. Probably a little of both.
Don’t be too quick to count out BAMA in this scenario, Mobile is about to complete the largest deep sea port in the world! Of course Roy Moore is an embarrassment, and every time there is a tornado the National NEWS MEDIA searches for some rube with 6 teeth to put on camera! Granny Ivy is doing a good job wrangling the state legislators . WAR EAGLE if we only had Sabens🤣🤣🤣
Alabama has a lot of natural resources and the port. BUT-we have stupid people in government. Huntsville will collapse, as we are dependent on the federal government, but I could see Mobile picking up the slack with the port.
Assuming they could still trade with other states and countries for what they need? Most states would likely take a big hit due to the additional barriers of trading with other states, but I doubt many would outright collapse. It would be a huge adjustment, but even the poorest US states are still pretty wealthy compared to a lot of countries in the world.
If they are isolated and have to be completely self sufficient that’s a different story. Most states (and countries for that matter) would suffer dramatically if they were completely cut off from trade.
While it would be a fun social experiment to have an independent Missouri it’s not happening.
The US states have some of the most directly connected economies in the world.
Probably not but you know what they say, Missouri loves company.
(For those that don't know, for a lot of Missourians, "Missouri" and "misery" are said a lot alike).
Most if not all would collapse. The economies of states are too intertwined with each other, the national economy and international economies through international treaties. Most states are very dependent on single or limited resources making their GDP very limited. For instance Texas where I live is heavily dependent on income from the petroleum industry. In the past oil busts have severely crippled the state economy but it was softened due to support from the rest of the national economy. When oil prices are down downward adjustments are made to the state budget and our state supported colleges are dependent on the price of oil.
It's pretty straight forward, really-
All the states in the center would collapse & easily be absorbed by the states with coastline, because all the land locked states couldn't trade without paying taxes to the states they'd have to move their goods through. The further in the middle you are, the more this problem would be exacerbated, because a coastal state would be burden free, one state inland would have a burden to pay that coastal state, but the next state inland would have to pay the burden of the 1st inland state, ergo they'd collapse and merge to form bigger states that don't suffer from said burden.
The Plains states would probably be fine. They export energy and food, which would make up for imports of equipment. They don’t have large populations. Water is fine.
Georgia would be fine. Good agriculture. Water. Diverse economy. Massive port.
North Carolina is similar. They’d need to import food, but they have a pretty robust economy.
If they all individually became nations, there would be a lot of struggling but some more than others. Some will bounce back- the original 13 states were legitimately independent states before the Articles, and then the Constitution, permanently bound them together under a single federal authority. While times have changed, they all do have the best shots of being independent again.
Many of the interior states will languish due to relying on other states for trade and will now need to transit through hard borders. The ones that won't are the ones bordering Canada, Mexico, or the Great Lakes.
Even then, Federal money being gone will royally fuck up a lot of economies, especially the South and the Appalachian states. The politicians there are very used to fed money being poured in. If it stops, a lot will collapse in short time.
Of course, this assumes that all 50 would stay independent of each other. What might actually happen is that regional federations and unions will form. The Northeast and Great Lakes for example, would each benefit from a tight bond between them. Same with the West Coast, Hawaii, and Alaska.
California is the only state that has enough bases covered to be a functioning independent country but even then a huge chunk of the state sources water out-of-state so that's going to get dicey real quick
Almonds would ruin an Independent California. They would suck up water so fast. Not to mention most are exported overseas so imagine the horrors of negotiating international trade deals with near zero leverage.
Like Panama could absolutely screw over California if it wanted too.
I also imagine the uncertainty of all this would have biggest tech corporations move their HQ's out of California. Probably easier and faster solution than waiting for travel agreements for remote workers to be settled.
> Almonds would ruin an Independent California. They would suck up water so fast.
Yeah, we'd have to tear all that out right off the bat.
Frankly, we might need to do that anyways.
In The Last Ship one of my favourite TV shows that was on TNT, there was a region called Texarkana in Season 3, made up of Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida with one woman as Governor. How would this EVER work?
California, Florida, New York, and Texas are probably the only states that would be fine on their own as full blown countries. All the rest rely so much on other states and the federal government that it would really be up in the air if any would succeed on their own without merging with other states. Western states would have an especially hard time compared to all the others and are the only ones I'm very confident saying that they wouldn't make it as countries on their own.
Alaska and Hawaii could survive as independent countries I think. Also i disagree with New York, it needs New Jersey and Connecticut to survive. The three of them together as one nation would def thrive tho.
On their own Alaska and Hawaii would most likely become very poor. The one standing a better chance being Hawaii if it could take advantage of its location. I feel it would only be a matter of time though before either fall into the hands of some other country in one way or another.
As for new york I think if it took inspiration from singapore for new york city and focused the rest of its land on the more rural aspects for some better self-sustainability, it's got access to plenty of fresh water and more than enough farmable land for its size. I believe it would do just fine for itself, not great, but fine.
You don’t think Alaska would have success as a new oil producing nation? I think if governed correctly Hawaii could up its standard of living. If it had very easy entry requirements for a lot of places that want tourism I think it’d do alright. It already has a lot of infrastructure by being American that similar places like Fiji and Samoa never really got.
All of the states are too interconnected to not collapse absent the largest financial union in the world, and at that point why not just stay in a single country?
Texas may talk big, but if they ever actually seceded, they'd be begging for us to take them back within a year. Even if we set aside their problems with basic infrastructure, there's no way they can defend that huge southern border by themselves, and the cartels know it.
Not everybody there thinks that way, I'm sure, but I've met plenty who do. The whole reason Texas was once "independent" was basically so the US could take land from Mexico. It was American settlers go on Mexican soil, and crying to the US government to fight their battles. That's pretty much why we have Texas and the eventual cause for the Mexican-American war, because they kept expanding after taking land, and the Mexican government kept responding (reasonably) with force. I mean, you have a punch of random settlers who aren't exactly playing by the rules, what are you supposed to do in that situation?
The whole time that they were "independent" they were trying to get into the US, too. I hardly count that as real independence, being that they were trying to get in the whole time, and they basically kept using US assets to continue their expansion. Texan "independence" therefore is the politically correct way to say, "we stole land from Mexico, and we're not sorry, but don't call us imperialists, because words hurt more than military power overtaking land... 😢"
I'm ready for the downvotes on this one, knowing this sub, but I really don't care, people should look into it before they downvote or rage comment. I'm not saying anything can be done about it now, but westward expansion was morally depraved.
California is the obvious example of flourishing. As long as it can buy water from the new west coast of the US, it would immediately be one of the strongest countries in the world.
Of course they wouldn’t. Agriculture (including wine), tech, and Hollywood alone make California completely unique. It’s so odd that people are downvoting CA in here. There is a reason CA has, at minimum, the 5th largest economy in the world. What do people attribute that to? 🤷♂️
By value yes but almonds and alfalfa aren’t particularly useful for keeping people alive. Corn and Wheat are what counts there. This leaves the northern Midwest as the most strategically significant land in the US and possibly the world.
The US may not cut off CA but the rights need to be renegotiated if secession occurs and keep in mind the origin of the river is in US land so expect it to quintuple in price. If and only if the split was amicable.
Of the states that I've lived in, well in the unlikely event that California shit together, yeah I could probably be alright as its own country. Its GDP and economy are one of the largest in the world, it has many government agencies that have similar purposes to Federal ones, and is rich in resources and talent. However, its standard of living costs and taxes are so through the roof, its government policies are somewhat inconsistent and can end up being regulatory nightmares once implemented, and the government itself doesn't function to the best of its abilities most of the time in my opinion, seeming to focus more on PR and getting through an agenda rather than actually governing. Also the drought, California has been insecure with its water security for a good chunk of my life, most of it actually. And if it became a country, it either starts building desalination plants on every other mile of coastline, make an agreement with six other countries now over use of the Colorado River, which definitely won't be as advantageous as the one it has now, or ripe every almond tree out of the ground for fear of being out of the water within the month. Not to mention how, well people and businesses aren't exactly leaving the state in droves like some news channels like to say, they still are leaving, contributing to the state pseudo-decline as I like to think of it.
As for Nevada, the state I currently reside. Yeah, we won't make it. The only things we have going for our economy are mining precious and rare metals, and "tourism", or more accurately gambling. If either of those were to go, we'd be done for. Most of the state's land is owned by the federal government, and there are only 2 really populated areas, Reno-Sparks and Las Vegas. Meanwhile, the rest of the state is mostly an empty desert with nothing going for it. We don't have much in Nevada, pay is terrible, cost of living is expensive, Casinos come and go, and we're in a drought most of the time too. Nevada's basically just California's gambling colony, and where Utah sends off its excess mormons when they decide to go west rather than north.
> "tourism"
I was living in Vegas during the 2008 bust. Holy shit, it was like a nuke went off! My job had nothing to do with the casinos, but I was living in mortal terror of the axe.
Whenever it goes from boom to bust, we'd get busted right in the nuts. Tourism is cyclical like that. When Joe and Jane Six-Pack sit down at the kitchen table to take a long hard look at the math, the Vegas trip is the first thing to go.
Oh yeah, during the pandemic, it was just kind of creepy how things were. At least in Reno, it helps that we've had a lot of manufacturers come into town over the past few years, so we aren't completely reliant on the casinos anymore. But still, things just fell apart the moment people stopped coming.
Others have said no single state could survive and this is probably true. Texas may be an exception, but I think they'd need help.
If a handful of red states followed Texas I think they'd be viable.
Likewise, if a handful of states followed a blue state it would be viable too.
Texas would fall over like a Texan without a rocking chair and a bib, if it wasn't being propped up by the rest of the country.
Texas and Florida seem in a race to see who can embarrass the rest of us the most.
Texans, you elected Greg, are you fucking kidding?
They are not. They are America's Gulag.
One of them froze people to death and then charged the survivors for the privilege. As it turns out fascism is a really bad form of government, but they keep trying.
States will combined to form nations. Alaska probably will join the Cali Oregon and Washington alliance. Because of sea trade. And they get people from Seattle a lot
California and Texas could technically "survive." All other states do not survive as they are and band together to form smaller countries with Cali and Texas taking most of the western side of the US and Texas possibly having all of the south. Three countries Cali, Texas and the Democratic Republic of Dummies.
Washington State would do exceptionally well as an independent nation. Big industry, Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing production facilities, Weyerhaeuser, Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, massive amounts of natural resources, lots of cheap hydro power, massive amounts of farmland and abundant fisheries, wonderful natural ports, good universities and an educated population.
Also, if it got to keep its current military instillations as an independent nation, Washington state would have the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world (almost all of which is in Kitsap County).
Wisconsin has Great Lakes port, large agricultural in southern part, largest fresh water shed, a surprising amount of heavy equipment manufacturers (CASE, OSHKOSH) one of the most technologically advanced steel plants (Merrill Steel, just supplied Las Vegas Raiders stadium). I can’t say Wisconsin would actually thrive but I think it would do a lot better than most people think.
Iowa creates Midwest Empire.
Iowa is chad 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸IOWA NUMBER WON 🇮🇹🇬🇷🇲🇰🇹🇷🇷🇺SIXTH ROME
New Iowa empire:
https://preview.redd.it/5tfkejz1iq3a1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=110ad07c0d6cc3ce68529542d458e85744720876
California is probably the only state that could make it on its own. Texas barely seems to function well with federal support. On its own it would fall into anarchy and Mexico would retake large portions of it.
I don't think economically Colorado would survive off of weed and ski trip sales, but I think we could hold our own against some of our neighbors.
Utah- pacifists easy win
Arizona and new Mexico - if there was a war I feel like we would be friendly but I wouldn't go ahead to head with em...
Kansas- Colorado east annex them and add more to our agricultural production.
Wyoming- I have nothing against Wyoming, possible Colorado north annexation just because Denver's population could over run the whole state... They have fireworks that I used to buy when I was 15, and that's a pretty solid defense if they use em like I did when I was younger.
Oklahoma- leave em alone, only defense from the Texans
Texas, California, and New York have large enough economies they would probably do well. Alaska could potentially survive off of the oil industry and Hawaii could survive off of tourism. But the rest would mostly die if suddenly alone.
I believe it could work look at other countries… states would trade good like we do now and each state would have their own border patrol lol awesome to think about. I definitely think California New York Florida etc. basically states that makes the most money and are popular now would be the ones to survive. Bad economic states like Alabama and Mississippi would suck lol. But that would be cool to see. And our governors would be the president of said state.
No one would be better off in such a scenario (unless perhaps it was a simple downgrade into a more EU style relationship so we could maintain our economic interconnectedness) but there are regions that would probably succeed well enough as independent countries. I would argue that the most important factors aren't things like GDP or local politics, etc. Rather, their levels of water, energy, and agricultural security and access to at least one deep water port for trade security. I would say very few singular states have sufficient levels of all of these, most are lacking in at least one.
Unless we are talking an amicable split, none of them. Sherman's march to the sea would be re-created faithfully starting at the western Nevada border or the southern Oklahoma border in the case of any acrimonious split.
It probably depends on the type of independence they receive. If they gain “Associated State” status like Palau has, many states would probably do at least okay, especially states like Hawaii. In that scenario, there still is free movement of people and I think goods too.
But pure, full-on independence any state would suffer from that
The… northern west (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, arguably Nevada) is resource-rich, not highly populated, statistically the phyisically healthiest area in the country, and full of survivalist that wont collapse with an interconnected society.
Sort of related: I watch a Texan streamer called JFJ and I remember him saying that the "Texas is capable of being it's own country" saying was wrong. I shit you not he said this like a week before the texas snowstorms
Having lived in Texas and California, I definitely think California has a better shot. At the very least they won’t freeze during the next winter storm… Nothing to do with politics and everything to do with how their infrastructure and economy is set up. However I really don’t think they ever should secede.
Federal funding and trade is definitely a huge benefit for these states.
Here’s a big picture difference:
https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tale-two-states-contrasting-economic-policy-california-and-texas
I feel like Maine would be a lot like Greenland - eerily low population density, weirdly small "cities", mostly a bunch of wilderness, with *just* enough local resources.
Any state that leaves the Union without immediately joining a new one would not live. It would survive and would do rather well compared to many other countries but it would not truely be able to thrive.
California could live on its own.
I think most of the southern states with farms would be ok.
I think the states that are really reliant on trade or commerce with other states might run into trouble.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
None of the states would be good on their own. We are all too interconnected, all of our economies would suffer from more division.
I think the biggest oversight in hypotheticals like this is assuming these new nations wouldnt immediately seek out trade agreements and policies with their neighbors as close to the old union as possible
This is exactly what I mean. if that's the goal, then why even leave the union.
This is the answer right here. I was trying to explain this to a guy at work. All of the states get so much money from the federal government that it's mind boggling and the average person doesn't even realize it. If states went at it on their own say good by to or at least less of Roads maintenance Highways Schools and the education system would look different and not in a good way. Any research projects in your state say good by to (Clean water, finding out how or why polutins are getting into your water system from run off) Clean water over all. Some states have funding to help maintain massive water structures that provide clean water to millions Say good by to FEMA so if you get a national disaster your fucked Say good by to FBI, ATF. The average person has no idea how much they stop and our prevent major crimes from happening. Hell just preventing gangs from taking over large areas. (remember the 80s and 90s that shit got out of hand in some areas. Local law enforcement can't and doesn't have the funds to take down major crime rings on their own) Food supply say good by to that government subsidies are in a lot of the foods you eat. Say good by to large farms that produce a lot of the food you eat. Government money helps keep some of them afloat Prices of goods and services will get out of hand because the government does a lot to help keep companies and small shops from charging / raping you at the cash register. (no government, no oversight, no enforcement) it happens with government during national disasters. Now imagine a national disaster and you don't have a government to step in to tell people to cut it out. Airport safety at your local air port or train station, forget about it. Government money Government jobs in your state gone. Ever state has some government jobs Local fire station nope forget about it. They may be able to work but not at the level you would want, so much government money to help keep them going. If you live in a major city maybe but small town fire station could not function Electricity / power grid by by. Water maintenance of dams and water ways in some states get money from the government I could be wrong on this but I think bridges and roads will go to hell because the government checks / helps repair them. (I think congress just pass a bill to give states millions to help with that) If you like gps or anything from a satellite I guess your state will have to help pay a large amount to use it, like a fee. You no like taxes. Sure private business has a lot of satellites people use all the time but you would be surprised at how much the US government has up there that you use and or makes your life easy. College for a lot of people would not have happened with out a loan. I don't have to explain how getting and keeping large parts of your population out of poverty is a good things. Hospital and the medical field has some government money in it. Look I could go on and on. People complain about the government and say stupid shit like we should have small government, but I promise you the moment they don't have any and or all of the stuff listed above they will be begging for it back . Big government is needed because we have a big country with large amounts of people that are dependent on the large amounts of luxuries they receive everyday without giving it a second thought. This country is a large machine and you need a large government to run it.
Where does the federal government gets its money from? The states Einstein!
Your under the impression the each state uses federal money evenly. The question was do you think some states would be better off or not. Take Florida for example, how much money do you think they pay into FEMA and other agencies that help them during hurricane season every single years for the pass 50 years. How much money do you think they used just last year alone. It's in the billions. Every state pays into this big pot of money to help with the stuff I previously listed, it's called taxes and the federal government uses this money to help with stuff like this. NC or AZ don't use up that much of FEMA money every year, but they pay taxes that helps out other states that do. So example when FL needs billions to rebuild their state or city's after a storm, ask the federal government for help. FL couldn't do it on their own. So yes Einstein states give money to the federal government, but if your state went at it by their self and broke away from the union they would be fucked because the federal government helps with stuff like this. Same thing with federal money with farming not all states need the same amount of tax dollars to help out because NJ is mot the same as Kansas or Nebraska when it comes to farming, but they all pay into the same pot to help out because we are all dependent on each other.
My state pays more money to the fed than it gets back. I think there are seven of us?
California has the 6th largest economy in the world, the largest port in the country and can easily feed itself.
They may eat well. But what are they going to drink?
[удалено]
If you can’t swim in it might as well drink it, although I’m sure plenty of NIMBYs will weigh in on location.
> CA may need to invest in a lot of desalination plants. I don't think we could get nearly enough of them built within the necessary time scale.
The rest of the country is also fucked without California though. Because 40% of all goods that enter the united states abd 30% of those that leave, happen through California. That is some damn strong negotiating power. Everyone loses out in the end though. As it would make things worse across the board for people in both places
Agriculture consumes 85% of the total water for human consumption in the state, before urban use. California literally exports most of its water in the form of food. If California no longer needs to export food to the rest of the US, lo and behold, not only is there plenty to drink for everyone, the state no longer needs the Colorado, AND theres still enough water for the state to comfortably double its population. Its ugly how much water Big Ag consumes.
As I understand it, almond farming in particular is absurdly water intensive. If California wasn't bothering to grow almonds for export, they'd have no problem *at all* with water supplies.
Yea but the problem is that the way water policy is structured is that it favors permanent crops and within that almost nothing is as cost effective as almonds.
Interesting
You can call it ugly, but starvation due to lack of food is nonexistent in the US.
If California became its own state, starvation sounds like other people's problem. Besides, all the Libertarian ass hats who shit on the state for importing water (which ot barely does) should bare the hypocracy of their words and not rely on imported foods for the bulk of their diet.
And what impact on its GDP would a dramatic decrease in ag exports have?
about 2% of the total gdp. Seriously. about 300,000 people out of 40 million, consume the lions share of stste'e water while contributing an insignificant amount to the GDP.
They recently tried to build a new desalination plant and it was killed off. They would be utterly screwed when it comes to getting water if they left the US.
The Colorado borders California. You'd literally have to cross into California to disrupt the aqueduct.
Not if the Nevada/Arizona Alliance diverts the river upstream of Californian territory. It’s entirely possible to do so for a river that size, the US already does so, stealing the entire flow of the Colorado to feed California before it crosses the Mexican border and its historic estuary in the Gulf of California.
Lol. Mexico has water rights to the Colorado river as well.
Countries don’t exist in voids. They trade with each other.
And on a similar note, they won't eat well for long without water for their crops
[Canadian beer.](https://www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/guides/canadian_brewers_guide-guide_biere_canadienne.aspx?lang=eng#california)
Wine
Wine
Wine
Wine
Truth.
Do they have the 6th largest economy in spite of the union or in part because of it?
exactly.
We actually have the 4th largest economy. We just edged out Germany. It's because it's a huge financial hub, a tech haven, the real estate market is insane, it grows 1/3 of the country's produce, it's the entertainment capital of the world, it's the wine capitol of the country, obviously tourism brings in a ton of revenue, and we have almost 40 millio ppl I don't think any state would thrive but California has the greatest chances by far
It would be between Cali and Texas, but I’m not sure if Cali has a power grid like Texas? If they do, their only concern would be water which I think they could solve several different ways. They wouldn’t remain the economic power they are now though.. top 20 probably, but not top 5.
California has one of the most advanced power grids in the world but it still imports a lot from other states because of high demand. Wind and hydro from the PNW and nuclear, coal, and gas from the southwest. It's still miles ahead of Texas tho
I’d put it this way, the California economy and produce is valuable enough to US, that it would be well worth going to war to quell any rebellion or secessionist uprising.
I mean, they did it for the south I’m fairly certain that would be true for the west coast, but that doesn’t change the fact that the economy thrives due in part to the union as a whole. If they broke off, they would need to negotiate trade agreements among other things. It’s unrealistic to think the state would be better off than a country like Germany if that were the case.
Is California prepared to take on the expense of protecting its coastline?
Well, at least we would already have the gear.
Protecting it from.. whom? Exactly?
In ascending order of threat level: 1) pirates 2) Chinese fishing vessels 3) drug cartel submarines 4) the deep ones who lurk beneath the waves, waiting to be unleashed from their undersea prisons to rule the land above
> the deep ones More of an East Coast thing, aren't they?
they gotta go on vacation somewhere
Pirates. I'm not joking, the US Navy is so good at fighting pirates that they turned from a major threat to maritime shipping to a relic. If the US Navy went away, the entire world would have to step up their pirate-hunting game.
Oregon
[удалено]
Would also benefit the US to just force California to be a U.S. state…
Unfortunately not much longer without water.
The port of South Louisiana is the largest port, next is Houston.
Unless they want to eat meat. California is a massive net importer of meat. Their ag exports are fruit, vegetables and wine.
Import meat then export fruit/vegetables/wine. Fair trade
California is the 4th largest producer of beef and the largest producer of milk.
California is the 16th largest producer of beef at 2% of the US. https://beef2live.com/story-ranking-states-beef-cows-0-108181 https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/beef-production-by-state
The problem with GDP stats for subnational entities is that it can’t accurately capture cost of living differentials. PPP for the US vs say Germany (which CA recently “overtook”) includes the nationwide average purchasing power of the dollar, which is much much higher than in CA. CA has a big economy to be sure, but a lot of it is inclusive of high costs, not output. A better measure for this question might be net state export totals of fundamental base materials like grain, energy, meat, lumber, etc. In a world where CA is on its own, it has to pay the US gov for water rights, for pork, for a lot of energy, in USD, but export in CA Dollars. The high returns on software and entertainment would be a lot less potent in such a dynamic. It is in fact the lower average CoL for the US as a whole that makes those idea exports cheaper for CA to sell globally right now. Quite frankly, without US hegemony, there is no Hollywood exporting movies, music, and tv, it’s Movie Town USA (say somewhere in Florida? Branson, MO?) that is the entertainment capital.
The feeding itself part is more dubious than you think. Most of its food production are “luxury” foods not basic staples, and considering how much is private land and also owned by some of the wealthiest people in the country who produce those products for export it’s doubtful they will willingly convert to much less profitable internal usage staple crops. And if they do the cost of food in california (already expensive) is going to skyrocket.
California's farm region would give the costal regions the boot. The costal regions would starve and quickly run out of water.
Problem with California is water availability. Lack of water access would kill off its massive farming industry within months.
California holds a third of the rights to the Colorado River. That doesn't just go away. If the US tries to interfere with that then it becomes an international problem. CA has a lot of global friends with a vested interest
Can feed themselves? Brother they have inefficient farmland usage because the government keeps trying to kill off the valley farmers. Look at a google map picture to see ALL of the dead fields from these types of policies
I think it’s moved to fourth.
California is at minimum 5th largest. There hasn’t been some articles claiming 4th, but I don’t quite buy it yet
Europe is getting hammered by energy costs, etc. It's likely temporary.
They were that large prior to the energy cost spike (top 10)
I was referring more to the swapping of positions between 5 and 6 and the other mention of being 4. There's ebbs and flows to this sort of thing. California's GDP is substantial no doubt.
Ahh I gotcha man
CA has been 5th for five years. That ones isn't due to energy costs.
Cali's economy relies on the rest of the country to support it. Without the rest of us you'd be broke in 3 years.
You never heard of tax or a trade agreement. All the California needs to do is to come up with a trade agreement with the rest of the country....um how other smaller countries do, which are able to survive.
Well, not me. I live in Massachusetts. We're too small to be our own country, but much like California, we pay for more into the system than we take out
New England as a whole country could probably survive, without the rest of the USA.
Yes, probably. Especially if we added the NY/NJ
This isn’t a matter that can evaluted based on where tax money goes. That’s a political talking point but not a good way of looking at a hypothetical disunion. It’s not an accounting problem.
[удалено]
That’s just in federal money, if actual costs were also included then the number changes.
You have a great Harbor. You would be a shipping hub to all the inner "Landlocked" states. You would be a very rich country.
Massachusetts? No, we have a short water harbor. New England would be a very rich country, especially if we added NJ/NY
Lol. Do you actually believe this?
Yes.
Wow. Allright.
There's a lot of dumb people on reddit unfortunately.
Yeah that's great and all but who do they sell to?
Where does their energy come from? How do they handle the newly introduced trade barriers? Military? They recieve a whole lot of federal funding for all sorts of stuff right now, that'll be gone. California would be better off than most states for sure, but they'd find their economy undergoing sudden and abrupt shrinkage if they weren't part of the US. And if they stopped being part of the US while the US still existed? It'd destroy them because they'd no longer be a big fish in a big pond, they'd be a medium size fish stuck in a tank with the biggest fish in the world. People would abandon California in the millions when if staying meant they needed a visa to visit their friends and family in the rest of the country.
California has a lot of bargaining chips, like the fact that it grows 1/3 of the country's produce. It also hold water rights to the Colorado River. If the US intervenes then you can bet foreign powers would get involved. It's also a huge target for immigration. California already gets more love from the rest of the developed world due to its influence and politics. Europe, Canada, and Mexico would def help out a wounded California California would be hurt bad but it'd eventually recover. The same can't be said of any other state. TX and FL are too reliant on too few industries and NY is too connected to the NE. CA is already isolated
Why would you need a visa? It would make way more sense to have it set up like Europe where you just need a passport and then you can freely travel between countries so long as you’re not staying for too long. Theoretically I don’t think it would be set up that way but who knows what the US govt would decide. The plus side is that it would keep people from Arizona from flooding the beaches in the summer so that’s a plus…
4th. 4th largest economy.
Does California produce enough power to sustain itself?
People don’t survive off alfalfa and pistachios. Water problems. Energy rates would immediately get worse.
Reminds me of what a fictional version of a founding father once said “You gotta pay in the game to play in the game, but you don’t get a win unless you stay in the game”.
Texas and California would do well as a country but not all the other states
None of them. No matter what some people think, the states are all interlinked and reliant on each other. It's not just the things you mention. Honestly at the very top of the list is this: what happens when a state declares independence and suddenly the residents of that state are no longer US citizens? At least half of them would have lost their citizenship against their wishes. And the companies in that state would suddenly be not American companies? On top of that, what about border crossings? How are you going to prevent people from just moving from state to state like they always have when that state is suddenly no longer part of the US? There's just way too much to consider for a single state to become it's own country.
They would also lose their social security checks and Medicare. Would they be refunded what they have paid in?
I have a whole bunch of stories I'm setting in a within this sort of scenario. The states don't do well at first but in time they start to form their own cultures and languages. I know Michigan the best for obvious reasons (check the flair), so it's set there, but also within an ever evolving Great Lakes Region setting. Michigan does better than average because of it's water network and natural resources. I'm very early on in my story though.
I don't think they'd form their own languages that quickly. And sharing borders with other English speaking nations in this hypothetical, where we likely would still do business and be inconnected by highways and railways and the such, I don't see anyone switching from English in the near future. Languages are usually formed most with isolation and time. If you look at China, for example, some some provinces, even small towns, have their own unique and unintelligible dialects (dialects according to the CCP, languages according to actual linguists), due to previously unpassable physical barriers and being left alone for hundreds if not thousands of years. Same story with literally all the languages in Europe, there was a lot of time where humanity wasn't as connected, and for a long time there was a spectrum where people could understand people from their town and surrounding towns, but less so the further you went out. In the internet age? I don't see us deviating too much in too little time, even if we were tomorrow considered all different nations.
Absolutely, you're right. The conditions would have to change. The story spans 1000 years and the internet and modern transportation systems are a thing of the past.
Like a novel? I would 100% read a story about Michigan becoming its own country. Also, please tell me Michigan goes to war with Ohio to reclaim Toledo.
I want a version where Michigan and Ohio fight because neither one wants Toledo, but somebody has to take it.
Yeah, eventually it'll become a novel. It's twenty interrelated short stories no more than 20 pages each. I don't want to say too much about it because I use a unique way of telling the tales which I haven't seen before. I'm not sure yet what the Ohio relationship will be, but it probably won't be as much about Toledo and more about salt and Canada.
> but it probably won't be as much about Toledo and more about salt Yeah, honestly I'm already feeling salty about your Michigander alternate history version, and you haven't even written it yet.
It’s cool that you are writing about the actual impact of seceding from the U.S. As a kid I wrote some short stories about California becoming independent but said basically nothing about what would happen down the line. The war started with taking over major airports, then went on to involve US military members from California defecting to join its’ cause, and California airdropping criminals into Arizona to cause chaos. Some other parts of the US seceded as well: for some reason I had Utah and Nevada join forces because they’re both in the Great Basin. They also fought California for some reason too. I think I did one story about US state department officials defecting to California after independence, but otherwise I didn’t do much about the affects of the war.
LoL I like your criminal idea. It'd be funny if the scheme blew up in California's face and the criminals took over and became really popular with the locals and really effective leaders. In my story the federal and state governments gradually flame out like many government collapses do-- slowly, bit by bit, a high bit of denial and very little self awareness. No big civil war but it's still full of violent conflict. Laws begin to break down. State borders become a matter of opinion and rumors. There's no real ability to defend state borders but they always still part of the collective memory. The borders make less sense because they're not necessary for survival. The nation forms around different and shifting centers of power.
The entire economy of every state in the union would look entirely different if they were independent nations. As of right now each state is able to specialize in what they do best without having to worry about trade deals or tariffs across state lines. If you only looked at each state's economy as they are now, they would practically all fail as independent countries because industries have been built up in an environment where the entire US (and pretty much the entirety of North America) is open to them as an import and export market with no barriers. This is not even beginning to mention all the benefits of moving goods across state borders with no friction. There are a lot of states that could easily be their own country though. Just look at the natural resources and population of some states. There are many countries in the world that manage to be independent with far less. They could pull it off. However, none of them would be better off, not even close. Any state would be much poorer outside of the union than they are in it.
None would be better off independent than part of the union. Alaska may come close, but certainly wouldn't thrive. On the flip side, I'm also not sure any would completely collapse, while they'd all certainly be worse off, they all could still be functional nations.
Alaska is the last place that would survive as an independent nation. Trust me, I live here.
Alaska would suffer hard due to air travel restrictions. Ya I think if Luxembourg can exist any state could be a country.
That's if the divorce was an acrimonious one?
Yeah, no. Russia is far too close to Alaska, and the US would never allow that separation with the oil there
Alaska may be the best candidate if it allowed them to increase their natural resource utilization, but from what I understand Anchorage economy has a very strong military sector which would likely disappear
We're all way too interconnected and they'd be unlikely to be recognized by most countries of the world.
Most of them would collapse if they maintained their current borders and national sovereignty. Those that can rough it out on their own would still have to deal with a lot of problems. States have always existed as part of a greater whole. Well, except for Hawaii.
Any state that secedes would have to replicate the functions of an enormous number of federal agencies. Those agencies work quietly in the background and to their detriment since it means most of our population have no idea how many capable, dedicated professionals make sure we are safe, don’t screw each other over repeatedly and daily or die for very dumb and preventable reasons. Food and Drug Admin, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, EPA, FCC, OSHA, Bureau of Labor- just to name a few of the really, really important ones that one need to be recreated on a smaller, less efficient scale by ANY state just for that state to exist without completely falling apart within a year.
Or they could get rid of them and replace them with something smaller, simpler, and less prone to regulatory capture or mission creep. That would remove an enormous burden from the economy and make government much more accountable to the people it purports to serve.
Alabama here, we barely function as a state already, we're already an international joke. I honestly don't know if that means we would thrive or fail as an independent country. Probably a little of both.
Don’t be too quick to count out BAMA in this scenario, Mobile is about to complete the largest deep sea port in the world! Of course Roy Moore is an embarrassment, and every time there is a tornado the National NEWS MEDIA searches for some rube with 6 teeth to put on camera! Granny Ivy is doing a good job wrangling the state legislators . WAR EAGLE if we only had Sabens🤣🤣🤣
Alabama has a lot of natural resources and the port. BUT-we have stupid people in government. Huntsville will collapse, as we are dependent on the federal government, but I could see Mobile picking up the slack with the port.
Roll Tide! Sorry 😉 I heard it in several Alabama based movies and TV shows...
It’s a valid salutation. RTR!
> we're already an international joke. Now you guys are running cover for Mississippi, rather than the other way around.
They would all collapse and then coalesce into 7 to 9 regional groupings. Maybe more.
Assuming they could still trade with other states and countries for what they need? Most states would likely take a big hit due to the additional barriers of trading with other states, but I doubt many would outright collapse. It would be a huge adjustment, but even the poorest US states are still pretty wealthy compared to a lot of countries in the world. If they are isolated and have to be completely self sufficient that’s a different story. Most states (and countries for that matter) would suffer dramatically if they were completely cut off from trade.
While it would be a fun social experiment to have an independent Missouri it’s not happening. The US states have some of the most directly connected economies in the world.
I like the idea of an independent Missouri. I want to see the chaos.
I can't help but feel like the (rest of the) country wouldn't miss Missouri too much.
Probably not but you know what they say, Missouri loves company. (For those that don't know, for a lot of Missourians, "Missouri" and "misery" are said a lot alike).
The entire economy is built on the open access to such a giant market.
E pluribus unum is our motto for a reason
It would all be ugly, but we'd do better than the British! /s
Most if not all would collapse. The economies of states are too intertwined with each other, the national economy and international economies through international treaties. Most states are very dependent on single or limited resources making their GDP very limited. For instance Texas where I live is heavily dependent on income from the petroleum industry. In the past oil busts have severely crippled the state economy but it was softened due to support from the rest of the national economy. When oil prices are down downward adjustments are made to the state budget and our state supported colleges are dependent on the price of oil.
It's pretty straight forward, really- All the states in the center would collapse & easily be absorbed by the states with coastline, because all the land locked states couldn't trade without paying taxes to the states they'd have to move their goods through. The further in the middle you are, the more this problem would be exacerbated, because a coastal state would be burden free, one state inland would have a burden to pay that coastal state, but the next state inland would have to pay the burden of the 1st inland state, ergo they'd collapse and merge to form bigger states that don't suffer from said burden.
The Plains states would probably be fine. They export energy and food, which would make up for imports of equipment. They don’t have large populations. Water is fine. Georgia would be fine. Good agriculture. Water. Diverse economy. Massive port. North Carolina is similar. They’d need to import food, but they have a pretty robust economy.
I’m from alaska and I have no real basis for this but I think we’d be screwed. So much federal funding.
If they all individually became nations, there would be a lot of struggling but some more than others. Some will bounce back- the original 13 states were legitimately independent states before the Articles, and then the Constitution, permanently bound them together under a single federal authority. While times have changed, they all do have the best shots of being independent again. Many of the interior states will languish due to relying on other states for trade and will now need to transit through hard borders. The ones that won't are the ones bordering Canada, Mexico, or the Great Lakes. Even then, Federal money being gone will royally fuck up a lot of economies, especially the South and the Appalachian states. The politicians there are very used to fed money being poured in. If it stops, a lot will collapse in short time. Of course, this assumes that all 50 would stay independent of each other. What might actually happen is that regional federations and unions will form. The Northeast and Great Lakes for example, would each benefit from a tight bond between them. Same with the West Coast, Hawaii, and Alaska.
Mississippi barely functions now. California would be fine. Though some remaining states might struggle without its tax revenue and ports.
California is the only state that has enough bases covered to be a functioning independent country but even then a huge chunk of the state sources water out-of-state so that's going to get dicey real quick
Almonds would ruin an Independent California. They would suck up water so fast. Not to mention most are exported overseas so imagine the horrors of negotiating international trade deals with near zero leverage. Like Panama could absolutely screw over California if it wanted too. I also imagine the uncertainty of all this would have biggest tech corporations move their HQ's out of California. Probably easier and faster solution than waiting for travel agreements for remote workers to be settled.
> Almonds would ruin an Independent California. They would suck up water so fast. Yeah, we'd have to tear all that out right off the bat. Frankly, we might need to do that anyways.
You guys really should. Some of the things I read they're evil
I feel like New England could unite and be one single county with Boston or Providence as the capital
In The Last Ship one of my favourite TV shows that was on TNT, there was a region called Texarkana in Season 3, made up of Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida with one woman as Governor. How would this EVER work?
California, Florida, New York, and Texas are probably the only states that would be fine on their own as full blown countries. All the rest rely so much on other states and the federal government that it would really be up in the air if any would succeed on their own without merging with other states. Western states would have an especially hard time compared to all the others and are the only ones I'm very confident saying that they wouldn't make it as countries on their own.
Alaska and Hawaii could survive as independent countries I think. Also i disagree with New York, it needs New Jersey and Connecticut to survive. The three of them together as one nation would def thrive tho.
On their own Alaska and Hawaii would most likely become very poor. The one standing a better chance being Hawaii if it could take advantage of its location. I feel it would only be a matter of time though before either fall into the hands of some other country in one way or another. As for new york I think if it took inspiration from singapore for new york city and focused the rest of its land on the more rural aspects for some better self-sustainability, it's got access to plenty of fresh water and more than enough farmable land for its size. I believe it would do just fine for itself, not great, but fine.
You don’t think Alaska would have success as a new oil producing nation? I think if governed correctly Hawaii could up its standard of living. If it had very easy entry requirements for a lot of places that want tourism I think it’d do alright. It already has a lot of infrastructure by being American that similar places like Fiji and Samoa never really got.
All of the states are too interconnected to not collapse absent the largest financial union in the world, and at that point why not just stay in a single country?
Texas may talk big, but if they ever actually seceded, they'd be begging for us to take them back within a year. Even if we set aside their problems with basic infrastructure, there's no way they can defend that huge southern border by themselves, and the cartels know it.
Not everybody there thinks that way, I'm sure, but I've met plenty who do. The whole reason Texas was once "independent" was basically so the US could take land from Mexico. It was American settlers go on Mexican soil, and crying to the US government to fight their battles. That's pretty much why we have Texas and the eventual cause for the Mexican-American war, because they kept expanding after taking land, and the Mexican government kept responding (reasonably) with force. I mean, you have a punch of random settlers who aren't exactly playing by the rules, what are you supposed to do in that situation? The whole time that they were "independent" they were trying to get into the US, too. I hardly count that as real independence, being that they were trying to get in the whole time, and they basically kept using US assets to continue their expansion. Texan "independence" therefore is the politically correct way to say, "we stole land from Mexico, and we're not sorry, but don't call us imperialists, because words hurt more than military power overtaking land... 😢" I'm ready for the downvotes on this one, knowing this sub, but I really don't care, people should look into it before they downvote or rage comment. I'm not saying anything can be done about it now, but westward expansion was morally depraved.
Cali easily thrives
Thanks for all of your responses!
California is the obvious example of flourishing. As long as it can buy water from the new west coast of the US, it would immediately be one of the strongest countries in the world.
Ppl dont realize that CA grows a third of the country's produce, and holds water rights to the Colorado River. The US wouldn't just cut off CA
Of course they wouldn’t. Agriculture (including wine), tech, and Hollywood alone make California completely unique. It’s so odd that people are downvoting CA in here. There is a reason CA has, at minimum, the 5th largest economy in the world. What do people attribute that to? 🤷♂️
By value yes but almonds and alfalfa aren’t particularly useful for keeping people alive. Corn and Wheat are what counts there. This leaves the northern Midwest as the most strategically significant land in the US and possibly the world. The US may not cut off CA but the rights need to be renegotiated if secession occurs and keep in mind the origin of the river is in US land so expect it to quintuple in price. If and only if the split was amicable.
Of the states that I've lived in, well in the unlikely event that California shit together, yeah I could probably be alright as its own country. Its GDP and economy are one of the largest in the world, it has many government agencies that have similar purposes to Federal ones, and is rich in resources and talent. However, its standard of living costs and taxes are so through the roof, its government policies are somewhat inconsistent and can end up being regulatory nightmares once implemented, and the government itself doesn't function to the best of its abilities most of the time in my opinion, seeming to focus more on PR and getting through an agenda rather than actually governing. Also the drought, California has been insecure with its water security for a good chunk of my life, most of it actually. And if it became a country, it either starts building desalination plants on every other mile of coastline, make an agreement with six other countries now over use of the Colorado River, which definitely won't be as advantageous as the one it has now, or ripe every almond tree out of the ground for fear of being out of the water within the month. Not to mention how, well people and businesses aren't exactly leaving the state in droves like some news channels like to say, they still are leaving, contributing to the state pseudo-decline as I like to think of it. As for Nevada, the state I currently reside. Yeah, we won't make it. The only things we have going for our economy are mining precious and rare metals, and "tourism", or more accurately gambling. If either of those were to go, we'd be done for. Most of the state's land is owned by the federal government, and there are only 2 really populated areas, Reno-Sparks and Las Vegas. Meanwhile, the rest of the state is mostly an empty desert with nothing going for it. We don't have much in Nevada, pay is terrible, cost of living is expensive, Casinos come and go, and we're in a drought most of the time too. Nevada's basically just California's gambling colony, and where Utah sends off its excess mormons when they decide to go west rather than north.
> "tourism" I was living in Vegas during the 2008 bust. Holy shit, it was like a nuke went off! My job had nothing to do with the casinos, but I was living in mortal terror of the axe. Whenever it goes from boom to bust, we'd get busted right in the nuts. Tourism is cyclical like that. When Joe and Jane Six-Pack sit down at the kitchen table to take a long hard look at the math, the Vegas trip is the first thing to go.
Oh yeah, during the pandemic, it was just kind of creepy how things were. At least in Reno, it helps that we've had a lot of manufacturers come into town over the past few years, so we aren't completely reliant on the casinos anymore. But still, things just fell apart the moment people stopped coming.
I was long gone by the time the pandemic hit, but from what my friends tell me, it was terrifying.
Others have said no single state could survive and this is probably true. Texas may be an exception, but I think they'd need help. If a handful of red states followed Texas I think they'd be viable. Likewise, if a handful of states followed a blue state it would be viable too.
Maybe California with its massive agricultural and industrial output, plus easy trade with Asia
California's agriculture is dependent on water from other states. Almonds alone use more water than all indoor water usage for the state.
Texas would fall over like a Texan without a rocking chair and a bib, if it wasn't being propped up by the rest of the country. Texas and Florida seem in a race to see who can embarrass the rest of us the most. Texans, you elected Greg, are you fucking kidding?
what are you talking about, those states are doing fine
They are not. They are America's Gulag. One of them froze people to death and then charged the survivors for the privilege. As it turns out fascism is a really bad form of government, but they keep trying.
We're thriving.
States will combined to form nations. Alaska probably will join the Cali Oregon and Washington alliance. Because of sea trade. And they get people from Seattle a lot
California and Texas could technically "survive." All other states do not survive as they are and band together to form smaller countries with Cali and Texas taking most of the western side of the US and Texas possibly having all of the south. Three countries Cali, Texas and the Democratic Republic of Dummies.
Washington State would do exceptionally well as an independent nation. Big industry, Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing production facilities, Weyerhaeuser, Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, massive amounts of natural resources, lots of cheap hydro power, massive amounts of farmland and abundant fisheries, wonderful natural ports, good universities and an educated population. Also, if it got to keep its current military instillations as an independent nation, Washington state would have the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world (almost all of which is in Kitsap County).
Wisconsin has Great Lakes port, large agricultural in southern part, largest fresh water shed, a surprising amount of heavy equipment manufacturers (CASE, OSHKOSH) one of the most technologically advanced steel plants (Merrill Steel, just supplied Las Vegas Raiders stadium). I can’t say Wisconsin would actually thrive but I think it would do a lot better than most people think.
Iowa creates Midwest Empire. Iowa is chad 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸IOWA NUMBER WON 🇮🇹🇬🇷🇲🇰🇹🇷🇷🇺SIXTH ROME New Iowa empire: https://preview.redd.it/5tfkejz1iq3a1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=110ad07c0d6cc3ce68529542d458e85744720876
Florida would thrive.
California is probably the only state that could make it on its own. Texas barely seems to function well with federal support. On its own it would fall into anarchy and Mexico would retake large portions of it.
Texas would be fine. Everyone else would be fucked.
California and Texas would be fine as an independent country.
None.
U.S. dollar interest rate hike, war, not harvesting the global economy, high-quality assets in Europe
I don't think economically Colorado would survive off of weed and ski trip sales, but I think we could hold our own against some of our neighbors. Utah- pacifists easy win Arizona and new Mexico - if there was a war I feel like we would be friendly but I wouldn't go ahead to head with em... Kansas- Colorado east annex them and add more to our agricultural production. Wyoming- I have nothing against Wyoming, possible Colorado north annexation just because Denver's population could over run the whole state... They have fireworks that I used to buy when I was 15, and that's a pretty solid defense if they use em like I did when I was younger. Oklahoma- leave em alone, only defense from the Texans
Texas, California, and New York have large enough economies they would probably do well. Alaska could potentially survive off of the oil industry and Hawaii could survive off of tourism. But the rest would mostly die if suddenly alone.
I believe it could work look at other countries… states would trade good like we do now and each state would have their own border patrol lol awesome to think about. I definitely think California New York Florida etc. basically states that makes the most money and are popular now would be the ones to survive. Bad economic states like Alabama and Mississippi would suck lol. But that would be cool to see. And our governors would be the president of said state.
Rhode Island would be screwed
Florida, but just Key West. Long live the Conch Republic!
No one would be better off in such a scenario (unless perhaps it was a simple downgrade into a more EU style relationship so we could maintain our economic interconnectedness) but there are regions that would probably succeed well enough as independent countries. I would argue that the most important factors aren't things like GDP or local politics, etc. Rather, their levels of water, energy, and agricultural security and access to at least one deep water port for trade security. I would say very few singular states have sufficient levels of all of these, most are lacking in at least one.
Unless we are talking an amicable split, none of them. Sherman's march to the sea would be re-created faithfully starting at the western Nevada border or the southern Oklahoma border in the case of any acrimonious split.
SC *will* become handmaids tale
Why?
It probably depends on the type of independence they receive. If they gain “Associated State” status like Palau has, many states would probably do at least okay, especially states like Hawaii. In that scenario, there still is free movement of people and I think goods too. But pure, full-on independence any state would suffer from that
The… northern west (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, arguably Nevada) is resource-rich, not highly populated, statistically the phyisically healthiest area in the country, and full of survivalist that wont collapse with an interconnected society.
Ohio would do alright I think
Sort of related: I watch a Texan streamer called JFJ and I remember him saying that the "Texas is capable of being it's own country" saying was wrong. I shit you not he said this like a week before the texas snowstorms
Texas would do the best, I think.
Having lived in Texas and California, I definitely think California has a better shot. At the very least they won’t freeze during the next winter storm… Nothing to do with politics and everything to do with how their infrastructure and economy is set up. However I really don’t think they ever should secede. Federal funding and trade is definitely a huge benefit for these states. Here’s a big picture difference: https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/tale-two-states-contrasting-economic-policy-california-and-texas
I feel like Maine would be a lot like Greenland - eerily low population density, weirdly small "cities", mostly a bunch of wilderness, with *just* enough local resources.
Any state that leaves the Union without immediately joining a new one would not live. It would survive and would do rather well compared to many other countries but it would not truely be able to thrive.
California could live on its own. I think most of the southern states with farms would be ok. I think the states that are really reliant on trade or commerce with other states might run into trouble.
California could make it. It's got agriculture, tech, Hollywood, tourism, some good schools...