California Poised to Overtake Germany as World’s No. 4 Economy

[Shawn]

dimondpark hits it on the head: the USD is at historic highs now vs. the rest of the fiat currencies.

At today's USDJPY spot (148.33), the California economy is 86% the size of the Japanese economy. Does that seem real to anyone?

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Shawn

At today's USDJPY spot (148.33), the California economy is 86% the size of the Japanese economy. Does that seem real to anyone?

California doesn't have an economy, or at least not one to compare to a national economy (such as Japan's), until it secedes from the US.

Then we can have the comparative discussion. Until then, it's silly talk.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by pj3000

California doesn't have an economy, or at least not one to compare to a national economy (such as Japan's), until it secedes from the US.

Then we can have the comparative discussion. Until then, it's silly talk.

If California secedes and/or the United States federally disintegrates, California’s economy would indeed suffer. How much is an open question, obviously, and not one I want answered.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

If California secedes...California’s economy would indeed suffer. How much is an open question.

I don't understand this^

I remember a few years ago, Scotland voted to remain a part of the UK, but in the run up to the vote, there was no scary talk of economic turmoil, such as we always here about CA seceding from the US. It makes no sense, CA has one of the world's most advanced and dynamic economies. Like suddenly we wouldn't be able to function? What on earth makes out-of-staters believe such things?

I don't want this to happen, but it's strange to think that suddenly the sky would fall. Why would it?

[muppet]

Scotland leaving the UK would also leave it with all the North Sea oil and gas to split between only 5 million people, which it has been ferrying to the rest of the country for decades, and quite a bone of contention. Edinburgh is also the second largest tourist destination and finance centre after London (Glasgow third). Scotland can also rejoin the EU (the biggest selling point at the moment -it voted against Brexit), and set itself up, like Ireland as an alternative gateway to Europe (English speaking, so lingua franca to the world), now that London's largely lost that moniker. Ireland for example is increasingly taking that role, and is now the richest country in the world that's not a city state. Moreover Scotland with its own autonomy and laws very much resembles socialist Scandinavia in how progressive they are (eg free university, free drugs, civil rights, open arms to migrants etc), not to mention the culture, sparse population, similar landscape and Viking heritage, rather than the UK -even the accent is a Scandic one.




Saying that England argues that independence means all the tax revenue from London that powers the rest of the country would be stopped. A border also means much less crossing of it -in business, in visitors, and varying exchange rates where Scotland becomes another small country with less spending power, if given its own currency rather than the always string, always stable £ (though recent events under Truss has of course pissed on that argument). Like a microcosm of what UK underwent in Brexit, leaving a larger whole may mean isolation and a loss in markets. What's the point of suddenly gaining back your resources, when you lose your buyers to sell it to? What's the point in gaining in GDP scores if it means the caving in of the middle and working classes?

Oh and food. Scotland would have to import it.

In short it can go either way, but independence means huge change will be in store for better or worse, in both short and long term, both economic and cultural.

[muppet]

What would be the advantages and disadvantages of California seceeding? What would be the economic change? What would be the cultural change? What would be the defining 'national character' that would outline it from the rest of the US?

It's questions like that that policy makers would need to look at. For example under Labour's Blair, Scottish independence was positively encouraged. Whilst in Wales it's really not as popular as a drive as one would imagine -despite millennia of English invasion and domination -and 600 castles to rule them, the United Kingdom is arguably a Welsh construct thanks to one of its kings, and becoming independent would make the country one of the smallest and weakest in the world -smaller in size than Rwanda or the Solomon Islands.

Northern Ireland is a shitbox of fireworks waiting as Catholics have doubled and now outnumber Protestants -currently in return-to-civil-war-limbo thanks to Brexit and the new threatened border to Ireland on one side, and one instated to the rest of the country (Great Britain) on the other -a complete reverse. Northern Ireland has long had a porous open border with the rest of Ireland, as part of the Peace Agreement, that is vital to its economy -however very contentious now that UK does not have free movement with the EU.

For example EU law now dictates that all goods from UK has a few more hurdles of checks and paperwork, cripplingly so (as intended), and everything needs to be pored over for organic material. Yes organic material - even cotton, or bits of lint. The currently open border with Ireland means those in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) can no longer receive goods from the rest of the country -if we ship items over there we need to abide with EU restrictions as we're effectively shipping to the country of Ireland/ EU also. Thus not worth it for companies to do so, nor for customers to pay double and wait a month. The same complexities applies for migrants, visitors etc. Thus Northern Ireland is currently suffering from the worst of both worlds, with the threat of civil war returning.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I don't understand this^

I remember a few years ago, Scotland voted to remain a part of the UK, but in the run up to the vote, there was no scary talk of economic turmoil, such as we always here about CA seceding from the US. It makes no sense, CA has one of the world's most advanced and dynamic economies. Like suddenly we wouldn't be able to function? What on earth makes out-of-staters believe such things?

I don't want this to happen, but it's strange to think that suddenly the sky would fall. Why would it?

Scotland didn’t actually leave, so there’s that—you can’t exactly use an example that never panned out.

Look at the UK leaving the EU for an actual example, except if California left it’d be worse. It has nothing to do with quality talent or good leadership and policy, both of which California has in spades. The problem is that you’d suddenly interrupt supply chains, you’d have new governments to deal with and trade deals and restrictions, and California would no longer have unfettered access to the materials and raw goods in the rest of the U.S. nor access to its distribution network of rail and road nor the consumers in the rest of the country. All of those things would require decades of economic restructuring so that California’s economy functions as a standalone national economy, rather than a single state within a national economy. For examples of how decades-long economic restructuring hurts people, see all of Latin America from the 60s thru the 90s.

I am not sure how you can’t see how California would be hurt, or any state would be hurt, by leaving.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Shawn

dimondpark hits it on the head: the USD is at historic highs now vs. the rest of the fiat currencies.

At today's USDJPY spot (148.33), the California economy is 86% the size of the Japanese economy. Does that seem real to anyone?

Not too long ago, the Japanese Economy was nearly 60% of the size of the American Economy. It wasn't 'real' then, and it isn't 'real' now.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I am not sure how you can’t see how California would be hurt, or any state would be hurt, by leaving.

This is all crazy talk. One of the problems with the U.S. Civil War was that it forever planted the seed in people's minds that individual states or groups of states could (ought to?!) leave the United States because there was that one time when a group of them actually did.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I don't understand this^

I remember a few years ago, Scotland voted to remain a part of the UK, but in the run up to the vote, there was no scary talk of economic turmoil, such as we always here about CA seceding from the US. It makes no sense, CA has one of the world's most advanced and dynamic economies. Like suddenly we wouldn't be able to function? What on earth makes out-of-staters believe such things?

I don't want this to happen, but it's strange to think that suddenly the sky would fall. Why would it?

There was definitely talk about whether Scotland was economically viable as an independent country. There still is talk of that now that Scotland is considering a second referendum.

If you want a preview of what California seceding from the U.S. would look like it's Brexit but probably 100x worse.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Scotland didn’t actually leave, so there’s that—you can’t exactly use an example that never panned out.

Nope, the point is no one was predicting this dire, end-of-the-world economic scenario for Scotland, such as what we constantly read about when it comes to California-the world's 5th largest and arguably most dynamic economy.

Look at the UK leaving the EU for an actual example, except if California left it’d be worse.

Why, exactly?

It has nothing to do with quality talent or good leadership and policy, both of which California has in spades.

So the state has the financial resources and talent and leadership to form a government, to create monetary policy, to create trade policies, to create a military and it's own military industrial complex, etc.

The problem is that you’d suddenly interrupt supply chains, you’d have new governments to deal with and trade deals and restrictions.

This is only an issue if the United States makes it one. The 2 countries wouldn't have to 'suddenly' change anything if CA continues to use the USD and keeps current US regulations in place and only gradually implement it's own fiat and regulations. For some reason you say this has to be an overnight change, but it doesnt.

...and California would no longer have unfettered access to the materials and raw goods in the rest of the U.S.

The US would stop selling to it's new biggest trade partner? That makes total sense from a business standpoint. Furthermore, California is not enemies with China, not enemies with Russia, not enemies with the entire Middle East, not adversarial in any way with Mexico and Latin America, nor Canada for that matter-all areas very rich with natural resources that I'm sure would be happy to sell to us at possibly cheaper rates than what we'd get from the US.

I was looking at various industries and CA would be the world's 5th largest manufacturing country--

Manufacturing GDP:
China $4 Trillion
US(Minus CA) $1.4 Trillion
Japan $1 Trillion
Germany $806B
California $400B
South Korea $372B
India $298B
France $274B
United Kingdom $244B
Mexico $175B

nor access to its distribution network of rail and road nor the consumers in the rest of the country.

You mean the US will destroy all roads and railroads to California? Gee that sounds really spiteful. LOL.

All of those things would require decades of economic restructuring so that California’s economy functions as a standalone national economy, rather than a single state within a national economy.

What do you mean 'standalone' economy? The US economy is the sum of it's component states. The US govt's role is regulation and foreign trade, otherwise, states are already basically on their own. Right?

Only states that receive more federal funding than they pay to the IRS are not 'stand alone' imo

I am not sure how you can’t see how California would be hurt, or any state would be hurt, by leaving.

Never said that there wouldnt be an adjustment of sorts, but you are exaggerating the hows and whys.

I personally think CA should stay in the US but not for economic reasons, CA would do just fine and probably better economically if it were independent, but CA must stay because the US is at risk of being taken over by right wing extremism.

[WhipperSnapper]

You think the trillion dollars in venture capital will go up if California left the US?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

So the state has the financial resources and talent and leadership to form a government, to create monetary policy, to create trade policies, to create a military and it's own military industrial complex, etc.

The UK never adopted the Euro. It always had a level of autonomy that Germany, France, etc., never had. That financial business explains why London was always Europe's standout city and will remain so, even after leaving the EU.

Also, any rebel U.S. state would have to buy all of its military equipment from the United States, just like all of our allies do right now:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us...nd%20Singapore.

The U.S. partly controls its allies through their military purchases since the U.S. has the power to cut off spare parts and the software support.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

So the state has the financial resources and talent and leadership to form a government, to create monetary policy, to create trade policies, to create a military and it's own military industrial complex, etc.

It doesn't, though. They would have to recreate everything from scratch and without a big consumer market. First, the U.S. would rip out all of the national security infrastructure from California. California wouldn't have a military supplier industry at all. All of the aerospace suppliers would flee the state, likely going to a place like Texas. And California wouldn't have anywhere near the military apparatus to recreate that industry. Not to mention that the U.S. would forbid allied governments from purchasing any military products from California.

Second, the tech industry would likely prefer to be in the U.S. than be in California, if they were forced to choose. Meta, Alphabet, and Apple would almost certainly leave California. Much of the venture market would also follow.

Third, move industry would leave California and I think it's pretty self-explanatory why. The industry would likely just re-consolidate back around NYC, or potentially establish a hub in a place like Texas.

California could probably survive as an independent nation, but it won't be the fourth or fifth largest economy. Depending on how amicable is the hypothetical breakup with the U.S. would determine its fate.

[MolsonExport]

This would solve all your problems, Cali.


With Canada, the rest of the Pacific coast, the Northeast megalopolis and parts of the midwest, we would have one hell of a viable country.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

This would solve all your problems, Cali.


With Canada, the rest of the Pacific coast, the Northeast megalopolis and parts of the midwest, we would have one hell of a viable country.

"Jesusland" would still be a very powerful country with probably close to 200 million people, several military installations, very important inland and coastal port cities, major industries, world class universities, and a very diverse population.

[MolsonExport]

^Indeed. Probably the second most powerful country (at least militarily), next to the United States of Canada, with probably close to 200 million people, several military installations, very important inland and coastal port cities, major industries, world class universities, and a very diverse population.

[Steely Dan]

^ i think with the growth and blue-shift of NoVa, Virginia has now left Jesusland.

CO and NM probably need to be carved out now as well.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^Indeed. Probably the second most powerful country (at least militarily), next to the United States of Canada, with probably close to 200 million people, several military installations, very important inland and coastal port cities, major industries, world class universities, and a very diverse population.

Actually, they'd be almost exactly even in population. And most of the U.S. military infrastructure on the mainland would be left in the old country's territory. California is the only state shaded blue with a large military base. With that said, the U.S.'s most important bases are the ones overseas though, so military strength would really depend on which side got control over that. Also... this would mean that the blue U.S. states have taken control of Canada, since the blue states together have over 3x the population of Canada lol.

[The North One]

I would love a border with Ohio instead of Windsor, yes please.