The United States of the World...

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kontiki
That's not quite accurate considering the poorest US states like Mississippi and Arkansas still have per capita GDPs equal to or higher than France.

Firstly, are you sure? I thought West Virginia was below France's? But secondly, that wasn't the point I made. Even if the rest of the US is entirely above the French GDP per capita, there may still be areas in France that have a higher GDP per capita than California, or certainly a lot closer than France's average.

Originally posted by Kontiki
The biggest factor is simply economies of scale. Each state is (obviously) a part of a massive global superpower with 300 million people. That means that stuff produced in any given state has the benefit of a huge internal first world market without many of the redundancies and inconsistencies (such as language or culture) found in the EU. If California was truly an independent country - and had been for some time - certain areas of it's output would undoubtably be much smaller. The entertainment industry, for one, would likely be a fraction of the size it currently is. Ditto much of the stuff around defense contracting and/or the military in general. The tech sector would probably be considerably smaller too given the need for people/products/ideas to cross international boundaries. And so on...

I'm not sure size is such a big factor - Luxembourg and Switzerland have higher GDP per capitas than the US, yet are far smaller.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Drogue
I'm not sure size is such a big factor - Luxembourg and Switzerland have higher GDP per capitas than the US, yet are far smaller.

I think it's definitely a factor; US states are part of one of the largest free trade areas in the world, so their GDPs should be, on average, x% larger than they would be if they had to deal with an average tariff of x% on inter-state trade.

Switzerland and Luxembourg probably benefit from a similar effect (i.e. servicing a much larger market than their domestic market, partially thanks to trade agreements).

[Ramo]

Louisiana = Indonesia? Wonder if that was intentional...

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Drogue

Firstly, are you sure? I thought West Virginia was below France's? But secondly, that wasn't the point I made. Even if the rest of the US is entirely above the French GDP per capita, there may still be areas in France that have a higher GDP per capita than California, or certainly a lot closer than France's average.

The numbers obviously differ a bit depending on your source, but my quick look put Mississippi (the poorest per capita GDP-wise in the US) as the only US state below France, and even there only just. But if you're going to select certain areas of France, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Isolating the Isle-de-France is akin to isolating LA, not California. California has 33 million people and many destitute areas of its own.

I'm not sure size is such a big factor - Luxembourg and Switzerland have higher GDP per capitas than the US, yet are far smaller.

Based on IMF stats, there's only two countries in the world with higher GDPs per capita than the US on a PPP basis (Luxembourg and Norway), both of which are easily explained away by unique factors. If you extend it to nominal GDP the list grows to seven, again most of which are due to unique factors. All of which is beside the point, though. Look at it this way - the US spends somewhere in the neighbourhood of $450 billion a year on defense, much of which is produced domestically. California represents approximately 11% of the US population. Suppose California was independent - do you really think they'd spend almost $50 billion on defense? Do you think LA would still be the entertainment capital of the world if it was independent from the US? Pretty much every US state gains more economically being part of a collective whole than it would being a stand alone entity.

[Rasputin]

makes we wnat to piut my hand on my heart and swear allegiance.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kontiki


The numbers obviously differ a bit depending on your source, but my quick look put Mississippi (the poorest per capita GDP-wise in the US) as the only US state below France, and even there only just. But if you're going to select certain areas of France, make sure you're comparing apples to apples. Isolating the Isle-de-France is akin to isolating LA, not California. California has 33 million people and many destitute areas of its own.

I'm not sure size is such a big factor - Luxembourg and Switzerland have higher GDP per capitas than the US, yet are far smaller.

Based on IMF stats, there's only two countries in the world with higher GDPs per capita than the US on a PPP basis (Luxembourg and Norway), both of which are easily explained away by unique factors. If you extend it to nominal GDP the list grows to seven, again most of which are due to unique factors. All of which is beside the point, though. Look at it this way - the US spends somewhere in the neighbourhood of $450 billion a year on defense, much of which is produced domestically. California represents approximately 11% of the US population. Suppose California was independent - do you really think they'd spend almost $50 billion on defense? Do you think LA would still be the entertainment capital of the world if it was independent from the US? Pretty much every US state gains more economically being part of a collective whole than it would being a stand alone entity.

they gain economically true but they lose politically. I'm sure Californians would never have elected shrub as their president.

Or to look at it another way, if Canada and the US were to enter some sort of political union Canadians might come out ahead economically (even taking existing NAFTA benefits into account) but they would surely lose big time politically.

[KrazyHorse]

Canadians might come out ahead economically

I doubt it. Having an independent monetary policy helped us, for instance, completely miss out on that recession you guys had a few years ago.

The two economies are already virtually inextricably linked (via Nafta and a host of other agreements going back a century), so trade is already as high as it's going to get.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I doubt it. Having an independent monetary policy helped us, for instance, completely miss out on that recession you guys had a few years ago.

Wait, what do you mean by an independent monetary policy?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drogue

Wait, what do you mean by an independent monetary policy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The two economies are already virtually inextricably linked (via Nafta and a host of other agreements going back a century), so trade is already as high as it's going to get.

Even if trade across the border were completely free there would still be trade barriers (e.g. regulatory diffences).

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think they're all that important. The annual trade volume is already 30% of our GDP

[Drogue]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Canada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve

Sorry, I read "California" not "Canada" after the earlier discussion

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The two economies are already virtually inextricably linked (via Nafta and a host of other agreements going back a century), so trade is already as high as it's going to get.

I thought lumber sales weren't as high as they could be. Or have you kissed and made up?

[Heresson]

Poland needs a corridor to the sea