Best country in America

[Divine_Malevolence]

Suicidesoldier#1

Well governed?



Well, unfortunately, practical things, like resources become relatively important when independence becomes necessary, and much of the north is bad for growing crops or getting basic resources for things like energy (fossil fuels, for example), but uh, I imagine that things like bandits or looters would become proliferated among all societies more or less equally, since there's typically a percentage of the population who will commit crimes pretty much everywhere. The idea that these people, apparently impoverished, would be able to travel hundreds of miles to loot, while you know, they'd lack the resources to handle such a campaign, or know too well about the conditions in the north, presumably cut off from those sorts of things, seems a little far fetched, even if we are to assume that for some reason they'd collapse. And the idea that all of them would become bandits and head to the north collectively also seems a bit crazy.

I mean, the north typically has few guns or wilderness areas to even hunt in, so they in general wouldn't be able to rely on that either. Central park could maybe support 40,000 people in a very primitive style of living, but the 10's of millions? There's quite a bit to surviving in general and maintaining a large population than governing which is virtually the same in all the state's due to general things, like the constitution and federal mandates that most state's have adopted and would continue to abide by anyways, but uh, an interesting theory nonetheless.


Just to go out on a limb here, what specific things would you say are "better governed" and how would that help them survive as a state?

For resources, they'd have trade.
Their neighbors just to the west would desperately need to trade, and instantly a symbiotic relationship would emerge.

Meanwhile the southern states, based entirely on their attitudes right now, would do a few things.
Cut the ******** out of taxes. This widely increases the wealth gap and makes the governments that form completely ******** useless, allowing infrastructure to basically rip itself apart and corporations to abuse the people there.
Even if they tried to begin to regulate guns, which they would need to as corporations abusing the people would rid them of any economic stability.... Which they already seem to mostly lack, like hot damn, the lack of tax collecting power combined with the fact that basically nobody in the area has any real money to pay taxes with, would lead to a situation wherein you've got a bunch of poor people with guns and nothing to really offer.
As the money in the region disappeared, the corporations would no longer find it to be worthwhile to do any business there, as they're more likely to get robbed than any form of deal. They'd move neigh entirely to regions prospering economically, namely New England who can heavily influence the trade of the great lakes and already have a lot to offer, and the West Coast, who essentially control their neighbors in the Rocky Mountains entirely while also having a lot to offer.
Which would leave it an essentially lawless region that has a lot of guns and no real commerce. I literally never said they would go north, but they'd probably take note of the Mississippi River traffic and look to loot it.


When it comes to food production, the most major players aren't southern states, they're central states and California. For instance, Texas produces less food than Iowa. Texas also has eight times as many people as Iowa. That means that if Texas can even pretend to be self sufficient, Iowa has the ability to sell off seven eighths of the food it produces. And who would they do this with?
New England.
It's basically like, who else? New York and Iowa combined don't have as many people as Texas, but they'd still have a lot more food.
When it comes down to it, fossil fuels aren't actually that important and if actually put in a situation where they needed an alternative, the North would probably be entirely powered by electricity within a few years. Tidal power, solar power, dams, nuclear if they really need it though they probably wouldn't. Imagine a country filled with nothing but people who drive indestructible ninja cars.
That would be New England.
They would make a fortune off of it, too. Like, damn. We've already got a solar powered plane that can fly for twenty six hours straight. And that mother's just a prototype. When the science drops they'll probably have travel that's limited only by maintenance costs and sunshine.
And at the end of the day, the close codependency of New England and the lake states would lead them to unite. The far inferior state of the states to the south and the fact they need to use the Mississippi River without being harassed would probably cause them to wipe out and annex the entire region around the river. The newfound control of the river would therein lead to a rather mutual relationship between the new union and the Dakotas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

And the mutual dependency of the rocky's with the west coast would probably lead to a union there.
Which would leave us with about four countries post divide.
Northeast union, which would control everything east of the Dakotas minus Texas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and maybe Alabama. They'd probably be doing really, really well.
The Western Union, which would consist of everything west of the Northeastern Union, which would also be doing well, but a slight but less so due to less opportunity for BAing it up.
Texas, which would technically still be afloat getting by mostly on the fact that they're not bothering anyone.
And the Southeast, which would consist of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, plus maybe Alabama. They wouldn't be doing well at all and if they retained independence it would be wholly on the fact that the Northeast Union hasn't found any reason to take 'em over yet.


After this state of affairs, I would then expect the Northeast Union and the Western Union to get into a conference, be like "We were a country once and most of our people have strong ties with each other, so let's get back together."
And they would fuse to become true Usonia. With any luck it would still have Hawaii and Alaska, both of which are heavily reliant on the West Coast for survival and would retain loyalty to it.
Usonia would basically be the US. Except it wouldn't have Texas, everyone from the bible belt would be dead, and the part of the Southeast that wasn't killed off for plaguing the Mississippi wouldn't be part of the country unless it decided it wanted its vacation spot back.

[Meung If Elba]

There are already multiple countries in 'America'. Can't we just say canada and move on?

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Divine_Malevolence

Suicidesoldier#1

Well governed?



Well, unfortunately, practical things, like resources become relatively important when independence becomes necessary, and much of the north is bad for growing crops or getting basic resources for things like energy (fossil fuels, for example), but uh, I imagine that things like bandits or looters would become proliferated among all societies more or less equally, since there's typically a percentage of the population who will commit crimes pretty much everywhere. The idea that these people, apparently impoverished, would be able to travel hundreds of miles to loot, while you know, they'd lack the resources to handle such a campaign, or know too well about the conditions in the north, presumably cut off from those sorts of things, seems a little far fetched, even if we are to assume that for some reason they'd collapse. And the idea that all of them would become bandits and head to the north collectively also seems a bit crazy.

I mean, the north typically has few guns or wilderness areas to even hunt in, so they in general wouldn't be able to rely on that either. Central park could maybe support 40,000 people in a very primitive style of living, but the 10's of millions? There's quite a bit to surviving in general and maintaining a large population than governing which is virtually the same in all the state's due to general things, like the constitution and federal mandates that most state's have adopted and would continue to abide by anyways, but uh, an interesting theory nonetheless.


Just to go out on a limb here, what specific things would you say are "better governed" and how would that help them survive as a state?

For resources, they'd have trade.
Their neighbors just to the west would desperately need to trade, and instantly a symbiotic relationship would emerge.

Meanwhile the southern states, based entirely on their attitudes right now, would do a few things.
Cut the ******** out of taxes. This widely increases the wealth gap and makes the governments that form completely ******** useless, allowing infrastructure to basically rip itself apart and corporations to abuse the people there.
Even if they tried to begin to regulate guns, which they would need to as corporations abusing the people would rid them of any economic stability.... Which they already seem to mostly lack, like hot damn, the lack of tax collecting power combined with the fact that basically nobody in the area has any real money to pay taxes with, would lead to a situation wherein you've got a bunch of poor people with guns and nothing to really offer.
As the money in the region disappeared, the corporations would no longer find it to be worthwhile to do any business there, as they're more likely to get robbed than any form of deal. They'd move neigh entirely to regions prospering economically, namely New England who can heavily influence the trade of the great lakes and already have a lot to offer, and the West Coast, who essentially control their neighbors in the Rocky Mountains entirely while also having a lot to offer.
Which would leave it an essentially lawless region that has a lot of guns and no real commerce. I literally never said they would go north, but they'd probably take note of the Mississippi River traffic and look to loot it.


When it comes to food production, the most major players aren't southern states, they're central states and California. For instance, Texas produces less food than Iowa. Texas also has eight times as many people as Iowa. That means that if Texas can even pretend to be self sufficient, Iowa has the ability to sell off seven eighths of the food it produces. And who would they do this with?
New England.
It's basically like, who else? New York and Iowa combined don't have as many people as Texas, but they'd still have a lot more food.
When it comes down to it, fossil fuels aren't actually that important and if actually put in a situation where they needed an alternative, the North would probably be entirely powered by electricity within a few years. Tidal power, solar power, dams, nuclear if they really need it though they probably wouldn't. Imagine a country filled with nothing but people who drive indestructible ninja cars.
That would be New England.
They would make a fortune off of it, too. Like, damn. We've already got a solar powered plane that can fly for twenty six hours straight. And that mother's just a prototype. When the science drops they'll probably have travel that's limited only by maintenance costs and sunshine.
And at the end of the day, the close codependency of New England and the lake states would lead them to unite. The far inferior state of the states to the south and the fact they need to use the Mississippi River without being harassed would probably cause them to wipe out and annex the entire region around the river. The newfound control of the river would therein lead to a rather mutual relationship between the new union and the Dakotas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Kansas.

And the mutual dependency of the rocky's with the west coast would probably lead to a union there.
Which would leave us with about four countries post divide.
Northeast union, which would control everything east of the Dakotas minus Texas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and maybe Alabama. They'd probably be doing really, really well.
The Western Union, which would consist of everything west of the Northeastern Union, which would also be doing well, but a slight but less so due to less opportunity for BAing it up.
Texas, which would technically still be afloat getting by mostly on the fact that they're not bothering anyone.
And the Southeast, which would consist of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, plus maybe Alabama. They wouldn't be doing well at all and if they retained independence it would be wholly on the fact that the Northeast Union hasn't found any reason to take 'em over yet.


After this state of affairs, I would then expect the Northeast Union and the Western Union to get into a conference, be like "We were a country once and most of our people have strong ties with each other, so let's get back together."
And they would fuse to become true Usonia. With any luck it would still have Hawaii and Alaska, both of which are heavily reliant on the West Coast for survival and would retain loyalty to it.
Usonia would basically be the US. Except it wouldn't have Texas, everyone from the bible belt would be dead, and the part of the Southeast that wasn't killed off for plaguing the Mississippi wouldn't be part of the country unless it decided it wanted its vacation spot back.

What would the north have to trade, at all? It's sustained by outside resources, it's got a lot of things like banks and credit union's in it, but it doesn't really have useful resources. It's not a great place to grow food or really live due to the climate, which makes it perfect to live in in the modern world, since it doesn't take up more useful farmland areas, but because of that if it got cut off from the rest of the U.S. it would begin to have problems rather quickly. It's supported by outside people; most of the North's capital comes from service industry's, accounting and management, that type of thing. If it was cut off it wouldn't really do too well. There are some farm's, but not very many, not enough to sustain their population.

As for Iowa producing more food than Texas, there's no reliable statistics for that, but even if we assume that it did, Iowa is pretty far away from the north east, and would have to travel a fairly significant difference to get there, or vice versa, which would make trade relatively difficult. Michigan might make sense, some of those surrounding urbanized areas, but all the way up to the North east would be rough, if simply not worth the effort. Places along the Mississippi river would likely have an easier time surviving, due to the easier time trading and the food production and whatnot.

I realize you've got all your political crazy stuff in here, but, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't want to implement gun control, and that everyone wouldn't become bandits all of the sudden. Most people wouldn't want to rob or steal from anyone, and stealing would still be possible and easy without guns. Places like Michigan have some of the highest crime rates yet don't possess many guns, so, that might become a problem that ordinary people don't have guns to defend themselves with if something this big shook up the U.S.. But it any case, I highly doubt that tax cuts would completely destroy the places, let alone turn them bandits. And even if they did, they're not trying to cut taxes any enormous amount. Those that do are largely effecting state taxes, which, even if they make it lower, federal taxes would be going to the state's instead of to a central government like in DC, making it kind of irrelevant, since they'd have those resources now. Most northern states receive more in federal benefits than they give back in federal taxes, so it would be harder for them to survive when cut off and left on their own. Places like Texas give more tax money than they receive in return, so more or less, they'd probably be doing fine on their own.

The problem with any new energy source is that it doesn't exist right now. Building dozens of new nuclear power plants would take many years, possibly well over a decade, meaning places like the northeast which are heavily urbanized and consume an enormous amount of fossil fuels and energy, would be left in the dark quite some time, possibly enough to kill most of the people; water takes up 16% of our energy supply, so without electricity you don't have water purification, which by itself kind of makes people without it screwed. Rural and suburban areas stand the best chance, or that have a low population density, as their energy consumption is rather low in comparison and they tend to produce more resources in addition to not needing as many. We have to beg the question, if that's the case, why haven't you switched already? Solar panels for instance until recently consumed more energy than they put out (making it more or less useless to put in all your energy to make solar panels only to get out a few percents more), and things like wind and offshore power don't really put out that much energy, let alone to feed the North East's needs. Anything dependent on the weather is going to have to questionable reliability, in addition.

I don't think Hawaii or Alaska really depend on the north east, nor do they have any "loyalty", and most likely would become their own country's, given their distance away from the U.S. in general, and might even get taken over. Most of the military is not in the north east, so it's not like they would really be able to rush out and defend anyone, either.


All in all, I think you have a rather optimistic view that political views are the end all be all of success, but it's rarely the most important thing. Often times country's are rich regardless of their views, which is why power is unbalanced and often in the hands of inefficient tyrants regardless. It might surprise you to learn that much of the mid U.S. is moderate to conservative leaning, I.E. the thing you oppose, but I suppose it doesn't really matter.

[Sugarbeary]

Petrograd

I think California has a bigger economy than Texas and could do well independently.
It would be interesting to see Hawaii independent, their economy is largely tourist based though.

French parts of Canada could create a good country, too.

American countries in general are interesting, they're generally not as impoverished as many African countries. (The lower AIDS levels certainly helps.)

Costa Rica is a pretty good country from an environmental perspective.

California would be a liberal cesspool and would go bankrupt faster than it already is.