A 2025 Retrospective.
-
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 01:58 last edited by
I wouldn't mind it if California and the New England area got kicked out.
-
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 02:34 last edited by
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
-
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 03:05 last edited by Doctor Phibes 12 Mar 2020, 03:06
@Larry said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
I wouldn't mind it if California and the New England area got kicked out.
You'd probably want to lose New York too, if it wasn't the birthplace of the Great Man.
-
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 12:03 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
Not really.
There's more industrial capacity than you might think in smaller cities and towns, far away from the coasts. And a lot depends on how the more rural areas of California .
-
@Larry said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
I wouldn't mind it if California and the New England area got kicked out.
You'd probably want to lose New York too, if it wasn't the birthplace of the Great Man.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 12:04 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@Larry said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
I wouldn't mind it if California and the New England area got kicked out.
You'd probably want to lose New York too, if it wasn't the birthplace of the Great Man.
Sacrifices must be made.
-
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 12:12 last edited by
The idea that New England doesn't contribute significantly to the success of the US as a whole is a pretty foolish one.
-
The idea that New England doesn't contribute significantly to the success of the US as a whole is a pretty foolish one.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 12:15 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
The idea that New England doesn't contribute significantly to the success of the US as a whole is a pretty foolish one.
Didn't say that.
Read the scenario again.
-
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 12:22 last edited by
I realise that's not what the scenario says.
"Tom Trenchard is an American professor"
I wonder what he's a professor of. I'm guessing it's not history.
-
@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
Not really.
There's more industrial capacity than you might think in smaller cities and towns, far away from the coasts. And a lot depends on how the more rural areas of California .
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 14:01 last edited by@Jolly said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
Not really.
There's more industrial capacity than you might think in smaller cities and towns, far away from the coasts. And a lot depends on how the more rural areas of California .
I am sure they is true, but I think it is also true that independent rural US + independent city US is much less than the two combined as one actual country.
-
@Jolly said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
Not really.
There's more industrial capacity than you might think in smaller cities and towns, far away from the coasts. And a lot depends on how the more rural areas of California .
I am sure they is true, but I think it is also true that independent rural US + independent city US is much less than the two combined as one actual country.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 14:03 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@Jolly said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
Not really.
There's more industrial capacity than you might think in smaller cities and towns, far away from the coasts. And a lot depends on how the more rural areas of California .
I am sure they is true, but I think it is also true that independent rural US + independent city US is much less than the two combined as one actual country.
But the question is which one can do without the other?
-
@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@Jolly said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
Not really.
There's more industrial capacity than you might think in smaller cities and towns, far away from the coasts. And a lot depends on how the more rural areas of California .
I am sure they is true, but I think it is also true that independent rural US + independent city US is much less than the two combined as one actual country.
But the question is which one can do without the other?
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 14:15 last edited by@Jolly Neither.
-
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 14:17 last edited by
Most of the wealth and substantially all of the creativity is in the blue areas.
The red have farms and natural resources.
We become Singapore on steroids. United counties becomes..... Kazakhstan?
-
@Jolly Neither.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 14:33 last edited by -
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 14:44 last edited by Doctor Phibes 12 Mar 2020, 14:45
Without people to pay for and eat their food, farmers aren't actually going to survive for very long.
So, you can split the country in two, but they're still going to be totally reliant on one another.
-
Without people to pay for and eat their food, farmers aren't actually going to survive for very long.
So, you can split the country in two, but they're still going to be totally reliant on one another.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 15:14 last edited by Jolly 12 Mar 2020, 15:14@Doctor-Phibes said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Without people to pay for and eat their food, farmers aren't actually going to survive for very long.
So, you can split the country in two, but they're still going to be totally reliant on one another.
What do the cities have that the rural counties do not have?
The natural resources are in the more rural parts of the country. So are the refineries. And the small towns and cities are not bereft of manufacturing.
And, if COVID gas shown us anything, a city is not needed an intellectual nexus or even a financial hub.
-
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 15:14 last edited by
Jolly’s a prepper at heart. When he asks ‘which would do better’ I think he has survival scenarios in his mind that assume no trade with the outside world. Then sure, farms win.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Without people to pay for and eat their food, farmers aren't actually going to survive for very long.
So, you can split the country in two, but they're still going to be totally reliant on one another.
What do the cities have that the rural counties do not have?
The natural resources are in the more rural parts of the country. So are the refineries. And the small towns and cities are not bereft of manufacturing.
And, if COVID gas shown us anything, a city is not needed an intellectual nexus or even a financial hub.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 15:19 last edited by Doctor Phibes 12 Mar 2020, 15:19@Jolly said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Without people to pay for and eat their food, farmers aren't actually going to survive for very long.
So, you can split the country in two, but they're still going to be totally reliant on one another.
What do the cities have that the rural counties do not have?
Large numbers of people.
You can't run a large farm without selling the stuff to somebody. You can't have a modern industrialized nation based on farming.
I suspect you'd have been happier living in 1860, but it's nearly 2021.
-
@Jolly said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@Doctor-Phibes said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Without people to pay for and eat their food, farmers aren't actually going to survive for very long.
So, you can split the country in two, but they're still going to be totally reliant on one another.
What do the cities have that the rural counties do not have?
Large numbers of people.
You can't run a large farm without selling the stuff to somebody. You can't have a modern industrialized nation based on farming.
I suspect you'd have been happier living in 1860, but it's nearly 2021.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 15:56 last edited by@Doctor-Phibes by any current measuring, the more agricultural a country is, the poorer it is.
Obviously, you need a balance but cities need rural areas and rural areas need cities.
As @jon-nyc mentioned, some smaller places can succeed by being cities only (like Singapore or maybe Hong Kong) but I am not sure how that would scale up for somewhere like the US.
-
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 16:39 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
Kind of fun "what if " article, but that is all it is.
Each part of the US contributes to the success of the US, and without each other, the rurals and the cities would not be able to survive.
You swallow the leftwing line like a starving person being handed cheese. Your statement is almost word for word straight out of the Left's talking points. It's also incorrect. There is absolutely nothing - N. O. T. H. I. N. G. cities offer that the rest of the country can't provide themselves. The "rural" America isn't like rural Taiwan.
-
@Doctor-Phibes by any current measuring, the more agricultural a country is, the poorer it is.
Obviously, you need a balance but cities need rural areas and rural areas need cities.
As @jon-nyc mentioned, some smaller places can succeed by being cities only (like Singapore or maybe Hong Kong) but I am not sure how that would scale up for somewhere like the US.
wrote on 3 Dec 2020, 16:41 last edited by@taiwan_girl said in A 2025 Retrospective.:
@Doctor-Phibes by any current measuring, the more agricultural a country is, the poorer it is.
Nope. Not true at all. lol