Would the north be better off with out the south?

http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/24/would-the-north-be-better-of-without-the-south/ ^

[djone]

"Without the South, the US would lose a great deal of its economic dynamism. And unless there was free migration between the two nations, northerners would lose a valuable foot voting option. In fairness, the South would never have achieved its recent economic successes without investment by northern and foreign business interests. But the issue is not whether southerners are solely responsible for the region’s revival since the 1960s, but whether southern secession today would leave the rest of the nation better off."

[AlexW]

I know the south would be a lot better off if we could get rid of the carpetbaggers.

[LibLieSlayer]

Unless GOD gives us a miracle... you will find out but it will not just be the South alone. Most Americans do not want to live under socialism or worse... and we will not... and not all of us live in the South. Build a wall... shoot them when they try to breach it. Let them eat one another in the USSA... we will prosper and give praise to GOD in the USA.

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

You betcha!!! Alaska is in the South you know! ;-)

LLS

[mrsmel]

i mean it's incredible...did it ever even once dawn on him why a state like Mississippi which is nearly 40 percent black ..like him..has these problems

is he aware of what all these negatives look like when you take the Black part out?

Damn straight. MS has the highest rate in almost all the negative indicators-and the highest rate of black population per capita, which drives those negative indicators. But when we're getting mocked and bashed for those negatives, it doesn't behoove the mendacious hypocrites to put the blame exactly where it belongs.

Before the Civil War and reconstruction, Natchez MS had the highest rate of millionaires per capita in the country. After destroying our region, some leftist Yankees have the nerve to conveniently forget all the reasons why we've had economic problems and pretend decades of history never happened.

[mrsmel]

One statistic about MS which doesn’t get touted-we’ve held the number #1 spot in private charitable giving for about 10 years straight-not bad for the poorest state. But the slimeballs won’t want to trumpet that little fact. New England states (some of the richest) have the lowest rate.

[who knows what evil?]

I was surprised to discover just how many members of Alcoholics Anonymous there are running around New England...something else they have in common with their Soviet comrades...

[who knows what evil?]

Amicable split is a great idea, but how to we divvy up when the lefties inhabit both coasts? Do we make I-70 a leftist corridor connecting the two regions?

[who knows what evil?]

Have a Democrat deportation program.

That should be implemented NOW. :-)

[who knows what evil?]

...usual old Yankee womyn...gray bobbed hair...thick...mandals...no make up...very masculine,,,

Reason #1 why northeast conservatives are fleeing to the south and west in wholesale numbers...moving vans are getting tough to find north of the Potomac.

[who knows what evil?]

One statistic about MS which doesn’t get touted-we’ve held the number #1 spot in private charitable giving for about 10 years straight-not bad for the poorest state. But the slimeballs won’t want to trumpet that little fact. New England states (some of the richest) have the lowest rate.

You are correct. New England states are also considered the least religious...coincidence? I don't think so.

[x]

The south would probably be better off without the north.

I dunno. The percentages of people on food stamps, medicaid, and welfare in some Southern states is pretty high.

The statistics aren't all one way or the other but many Southern states get back more from Washington in government spending than they send in taxes.

All the bravado aside, the South benefited materially in recent decades from being part of the United States.

[nascarnation]

Texas has more people on Medicaid than Iowa has people.

[rockrr]

Unfortunately I think that most states, north and south, are spending more than they are generating. I’m not particularly impressed that there is anyone who has the fortitude to break that spell.

[mrsmith]

Anout WW2 the South started getting some redistributed wealth from the feds.
This keeps the costs of NEs industries there cheap and their profits high. NE pays the taxes on southern profits since they own the industries.

Of course there are many reasons the South has never recovered from it’s looting after the war.
Most of them no one wants to examine.

[Little Ray]

Great. Then we would have TWO borders to mine and patrol.

[Little Ray]

Secession is “settled science.” States cannot secede from Union. Not even if they ratified the Constitution with the right to secede reserved.
Sucks, doesn’t it?

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“Great. Then we would have TWO borders to mine and patrol.”

There are already two borders. :-) But...I get your point.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Maybe. One third of all Americans getting food stamps are in California, roughly 16,000,000 people.

I guess it depends on where you draw the line. ;)

[x]

This keeps the costs of NEs industries there cheap and their profits high. NE pays the taxes on southern profits since they own the industries.

So y'all are all still so poor and the Yankees have all the money? Doesn't sound like you get out much.

Some of those business are owned by Northerners, some by foreigners, but some would have to be owned by Southerners.

Depending on the year, there are over 10 Fortune 500 companies based in Georgia, over 10 based in North Carolina, and something like 50 based in Texas -- almost as many in Texas as in California or New York.

The rural South still is one of the poorest parts of the country, and our taxes like yours go there. I'm not complaining. It's just something we should keep in mind, when the ranting starts about who needs who and who takes what from who.

[mrsmith]

Profits aren’t taxed at a company’s headquarters but at the owners’ domiciles.

It wasn’t just the slave owners whose business was destroyed by the war but everyone’s.
There was no capital in the South so there was no Southern investment in the South.
There was no ‘Marshall Plan’ for the South. Northerners came and took what they wanted for nothing or pennies.

It mostly stayed that way, though gradually improving, until WW2.
WW2 is the starting point for any comparison of the South’s economy.

You don’t want to hear that.
And those you often argue with on these threads don’t want to hear that the war could have been avoided by national investment and the South enabled to recover by it.
No one wants to examine the war, just argue their points.
Take this article: if the North could get par for their investments here it would indeed be to their benfit to seperate, if they got only what the market offered them in that situation it wouldn’t. But that very heart of the matter isn’t even discussed.

Maybe in another 150 years there’ll be some understanding.