LogFAQs > #971731663

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, Database 11 ( 12.2022-11.2023 ), DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Honestly, the US would probably do better if it split.
bigblu89 02/22/23 10:36:48 AM #27:	furb posted... First off, how would you split it up? This is really the fist problem, at least for the "blue states" as there is a lot of "red" land separating them. You'd basically have to make two separate "blue countries". One on the east coast, one on the west, like TC described in Post #7 Even the most democrat or republican counties still have around 20 to 30 percent of folks voting for the other party. Do those folks just all have to move? My assumption would be the people that wanted to move would move, or otherwise live an a "country" who's belief structure they do not align with. Which actually happens all the time. Secondly, who gets what federal infrastructure? This would include federal lands and things like military bases. My guess is whatever is in each state, stays there, and it's on the new country to build off of what they have. How would commerce work? You would need to develop trade agreements between the two new nations. Exactly that. Trade agreements between the countries, like we currently have with other countries. How would currency work? The dollar is a fiat currency and backed by, basically, the power of the unified country. The new currencies would be valued how and what if they are valued drastically less than the dollar? Whoever has the gold makes the rules. Just imagine needing to develop all sorts of new foreign agreements and military and trade agreements too. This would probably be the most telling of all the aspects of the split, which "side" foreign countries would want to work/trade with more willingly. I am not sure of a scenario where the countries end up in a better position separate than together. I feel that "blue" side of this equation would make out better than the "red" side would, as blue states currently control most of the current economy, and whatever agricultural advantages red states currently have can be made up by trades and the vast amount of untapped land currently in blue states. This is all obviously hypothetical and quick thinking without doing a true deep dive into it. --- It takes zero effort to be a good person. <cite>bigblu89 posted [p:971731663] in Honestly, ... [t:80355156]...</cite> <quote>furb posted... </cite><quote>First off, how would you split it up?</quote>This is really the fist problem, at least for the "blue states" as there is a lot of "red" land separating them. You'd basically have to make two separate "blue countries". One on the east coast, one on the west, like TC described in Post #7<quote>Even the most democrat or republican counties still have around 20 to 30 percent of folks voting for the other party. Do those folks just all have to move?</quote>My assumption would be the people that wanted to move would move, or otherwise live an a "country" who's belief structure they do not align with. Which actually happens all the time.<quote>Secondly, who gets what federal infrastructure? This would include federal lands and things like military bases.</quote>My guess is whatever is in each state, stays there, and it's on the new country to build off of what they have.<quote>How would commerce work? You would need to develop trade agreements between the two new nations. </quote>Exactly that. Trade agreements between the countries, like we currently have with other countries.<quote>How would currency work? The dollar is a fiat currency and backed by, basically, the power of the unified country. The new currencies would be valued how and what if they are valued drastically less than the dollar?</quote>Whoever has the gold makes the rules.<quote>Just imagine needing to develop all sorts of new foreign agreements and military and trade agreements too.</quote>This would probably be the most telling of all the aspects of the split, which "side" foreign countries would want to work/trade with more willingly.<quote>I am not sure of a scenario where the countries end up in a better position separate than together.</quote>I feel that "blue" side of this equation would make out better than the "red" side would, as blue states currently control most of the current economy, and whatever agricultural advantages red states currently have can be made up by trades and the vast amount of untapped land currently in blue states.This is all obviously hypothetical and quick thinking without doing a true deep dive into it. --- It takes zero effort to be a good person.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1