posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 01:45 PM
A secession would actually impact the economy very little. Most large corporations would still accept U.S. dollars, as would most banks that conduct
business across state lines - any secession from states would almost inherently or immediately be amended to include allowing the banks to continue
The biggest change would be in the programs formerly subsidized by federal spending.
As for GDP - it really depends upon what you consider a "red" state versus a "blue" state. What is more important than GDP is how much is
currently spent on various forms of federal aid related to how much revenue the state provides.
There are two large demographics that end up consuming tax payer dollars - the elderly, and single parent families. States, like the one I live in,
currently receive more in aggregate from federal funding than is generated in that state (though I've not found a good break-down of what all is
being spent, where - as roads and education aid would be lumped in with social security and others).
The logical assumption would be to presume these states would then 'collapse' if they were to try and secede. This would not necessarily be the
case. It would mostly depend upon what the state attempted to do - if they attempted to print their own money, that would ultimately end in an
economic collapse as the state's notes would have very little to no accepted value.
Other factors, such as whether or not to establish and enforce a minimum wage, or leave that up to third-parties such as labor unions or "industry
standard" organizations (IEEE and the like). Tax rates and policy would also have an impact.
However, most of these states would suddenly find themselves with a deficit - populations that were once content on receiving federal aid will now
face being cut from programs that the state cannot afford and has not deemed a priority. Entire aid programs will be restructured (ideally for better
efficiency - but that can go either way). The state will no longer be allowed to rely upon a printing press, unless they are so foolish as to attempt
what I mentioned earlier, and authorize their own notes.
In either case - the state will become a huge target for businesses. People will be looking for work and, quite honestly, willing to work for far
less than 'industry standard.' This may or may not be legal, depending upon what the state decides to do - but it will happen. Populations will
condense into more communal living to reduce living expenses as businesses move in to provide an outlet for the newly arising labor market.
I'll be honest - at either of the jobs I'm working, I could work a few months, get fired, and draw unemployment for far more than I'm making at
present. When companies in that area are not required to have unemployment insurance and benefits - I'm not going to be looking at being able to
work for a few months, get fired, and spend ... what is it, now, eighteen months on unemployment? Drawing more than I'd make working in a
I can't get unemployment because I'm still under my reserve contract while working at a restaurant on top of a factory job - so the example doesn't
apply to me, but the principle applies.
When that's gone, and when you can't get paid to be a single parent, your work ethic goes up. And where there is work ethic, there will be people
willing to put you to work doing something. If it's cold and someone says: "come help chop down this tree and let's build some shelter" - you'll
do it, or freeze your balls off.
So, to recover, a lot of these states will end up having to tear a few pages out of the "civil rights" manual. Most would find agricultural
pursuits rather profitable - but only with a considerable amount of mechanization, skewing the popular notion that we'd see the return of
slave-labor. We would see the return of employer-provided housing and rather low pay - but it's little different than the way most Americans live
today - hand-to-mouth ("Paycheck-to-paycheck")
We currently live under the illusion we are not slaves, but when asked if you could afford to quit your job, your answer would be no - and you likely
don't have even a 'short' six months of expenses sitting in reserve to deal with such a situation. So, you can consider most of what you lease
and/or rent to be provided by your employer, as well as your food and other consumables.
So, if the difference is that you get provided a place to live, personal transportation and food while working for $0.25 per hour - it's likely going
to be little different from living the way you do, now - as that's about all of the income the average person leaves to discretionary spending,
In a strange and unexpected way, we'd probably see an improvement in the average standard of living within two to three years, but it would be
another 20-50 before the states started to see substantial migration towards skilled labor and the 'indentured servant' inherently replaced with
machines maintained by employees and contractors as we are familiar with them, today.
It would be a rough decade following secession - no doubt. However, the states would probably be much better off in the long run - provided the
nation, as a whole, didn't do some considerable downsizing of the federal government.
As for whether or not states should be allowed to secede? The state has every right to secede - just as any person has the right to claim a plot of
land and challenge anyone who says otherwise. In a sense - if I say that your house is mine, and successfully throw you out of it - it becomes my
house. Now - society has established rules, and since society recognizes you as the owner of that house, a bunch of people would soon show up to
'correct' my error. As such - whether the constitution provides for it, or not, any state could flip the national government the bird and walk away
from the union. Hell, A city could give both the state and the national government the bird and declare independent sovereignty. It's their right
as a group of people.
It would be short-sighted, however, to only consider the rights of those seceding. Those being seceded from have every right to challenge that
secession. This is what we saw happen during the first Civil War. Now - I can appreciate the sentiment of preserving the union. The most important
part of the Union is that we stick together - We are not the cluster# of america - we are the United States, and that's part of what makes us great.
Wisconsin isn't out there just looking out for Wisconsin, they have a vested interest in the status of every other state (even if they lack any legal
jurisdiction). When you come talk to one state as a foreign country - you talk to all of us.
Of course, we also didn't become a superpower by envying wealth and prosperity. We became a superpower by striving for wealth and prosperity. By
penalizing those with wealth out of some faux moral crusade, you inherently defeat the very principle that has lead to the prosperity of the nation
(wealth being generated). If those creating wealth in the country are criminalized, then it should stand to reason that the country will essentially
criminalize its own success and global standing.
If national policy is in direct conflict to the overall financial success and future of the state, then it is the duty, responsibility, and right of
the state to declare its independence and set its own economic policies as it sees fit.