NationStates

In the US,which state could be economicly successful as its own country?Economiclly,I think Tennessee for 3 reasons:
1]large amounts of coal
2]t people have a keen interest in politics
3]Just to follow the rules
I tried to add a poll,but there are too many states for a poll.

Hawaii.

All of them.

Technically, all of them.
Realistically, none.

Minnesota. They have access to a semi-major shipping route via Duluth and Lake Superior. They also have quite a bit of food (I can't remember if they are as large on grain as they were a really long time ago). Lastly, they'd be able to trade with Canada. :3

Genivaria wrote:Technically, all of them.
Realistically, none.

Why not?

Christian Democrats wrote:Hawaii.

This

Wait, a THIRD thread about entities in a country separating?

Lackadaisical2 wrote:All of them.

Errr...I doubt it. If they were separate countries we'd have to have such lax border, trade and emigration laws that we'd basically be a confederacy.

Alaska: they pretty much are their own country, the Eskimo Express takes years to get news to them so they basically run themselves without the national government interfering. I heard Sarah Palin is the only Alaskan to have a telephone.

Just kidding, no offense to any Alaskans.

Off the top of my head, only Texas and California seem large enough, and even then, the states' economies are so deeply linked and interdependent it wouldn't be easy for any of them to go it alone.

Minnysota wrote:Minnesota. They have access to a semi-major shipping route via Duluth and Lake Superior. They also have quite a bit of food (I can't remember if they are as large on grain as they were a really long time ago). Lastly, they'd be able to trade with Canada. :3

You're likely biased. Look at your nation's name.

Vassel wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Technically, all of them.
Realistically, none.

Why not?

How long do you think any one state could survive on its own?
Without the protection of the US military an individual state would be quickly gobbled up.

Tlaceceyaya wrote:Wait, a THIRD thread about entities in a country separating?

No!Not at all!I'm just asking which state would economiclly strongest in your opinion.

Any of them that don't mooch off the Federal Government to stay afloat. So that's at least 1/3 of them.

Vassel wrote:

Tlaceceyaya wrote:Wait, a THIRD thread about entities in a country separating?

No!Not at all!I'm just asking which state would economiclly strongest in your opinion.

.....Virginia.

I think Wyoming would be a good country.

I'd say California or Hawaii or New England as a whole.

Rich in resources but would need help with national defense unless it actively encouraged immigration.

I'm thinking Indiana, espesialy if it has michigen too.

Northern Virginia.

And by NoVA, I mean this:

The Murtunian Tribes wrote:

Lackadaisical2 wrote:All of them.

Errr...I doubt it. If they were separate countries we'd have to have such lax border, trade and emigration laws that we'd basically be a confederacy.

Theres plenty of small countries. They may need to have their defense needs taken care of by larger entities, but that doesn't mean they lack functionality or sovereignty.

Time guards of shadow wrote:I'm thinking Indiana, espesialy if it has michigen too.

Euskirribakondara wrote:I'd say California or Hawaii or New England as a whole.

Genivaria wrote:

Vassel wrote:No!Not at all!I'm just asking which state would economiclly strongest in your opinion.

.....Virginia.

Ack barnes wrote:I think Wyoming would be a good country.

Haha! I bet OP was expecting Texas.

Manhattan Commune, surely

Alaska i'd like to imagine also Texas and California could emerge as respectable nations. Multitudes of minor powers of course as well i'd imagine.