Hypothetical - secession or war?

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Secession? Why don't we just send the Chinese an engraved invitation?

 

[fskimospy]

Secession? Why don't we just send the Chinese an engraved invitation?

I'd be interested to hear exactly what you think the Chinese would do.

 

[Red Dawn]

According to wikipedia, the US receives 25% of its oil from the Gulf. Would the federal taxes currently going to DC now go to the southern form of federal government in this scenario? Even if the companies are owned outside of the new south, I am sure much of the tax revenue would now stay in the south. How much this would offset, I don't know. All I am saying is that much of the tax revenue would now stay in the south, am I missing something?

How much of that Oil is pumped in Federal Waters?

 

[Jaskalas]

Everyone cares about the North and South of the civil war. Ignorant of the 'Chicano' invasion of the Southwest. They'll secede in due time, just look what they teach in elementary schools.

 

[Nebor]

Why would you assume that? I welcome the south forming its own country. The positives FAR outweigh the negatives. And given a long enough time line we would become their masters. Everything from finance to marketing to electronics and content could be tailor made for indigent fools who grow some wheat and pump some oil.

The southern wage would go down to around $7000 per year with no chance of healthcare. Our health insurance companies would still exist albeit smaller then now to service the wealthy and healthy in the south while the north enjoys uhc.

Jesus and god would become the utmost power in the south. Other religions would be banned. Those intelligent people would have to move north.

As someone that lives in the south, I would welcome all of that. Sounds good. :thumbsup: I assume we would no longer have people moving down from the North because they didn't like it there, and then attempting to make their new home just like their old one.

 

[fskimospy]

Everyone cares about the North and South of the civil war. Ignorant of the 'Chicano' invasion of the Southwest. They'll secede in due time, just look what they teach in elementary schools.

No they won't.

 

[irishScott]

Why would you assume that? I welcome the south forming its own country. The positives FAR outweigh the negatives. And given a long enough time line we would become their masters. Everything from finance to marketing to electronics and content could be tailor made for indigent fools who grow some wheat and pump some oil.

The southern wage would go down to around $7000 per year with no chance of healthcare. Our health insurance companies would still exist albeit smaller then now to service the wealthy and healthy in the south while the north enjoys uhc.

Jesus and god would become the utmost power in the south. Other religions would be banned. Those intelligent people would have to move north.

ROFL. Yes, because slicing the US in half has more positives than negatives. All those important military bases? They belong to a new country now. All that oil and food? Yeah this new nation can put whatever taxes and tarifs it deems fit on all of it. And that's just off the top of my head.

And if you think the south would end up like the stereotypes you're forum-gasming over, you obviously don't know many southerners. The south is no more a bunch of redneck moonshine swilling illiterate hillbillies than the north is a hive of pussy sheeple completely subservient to and dependent on the government. But by all means, continue your downward social comparisons. I hope basing your conclusions on stereotypes makes you feel special.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's in the interest of any nation to supply it's own power needs first. The south would need to develop it's industry and then sell it's surplus. The energy which fuels the North would be a secondary consideration. Most likely the difference would be made up with shale and coal but at considerable cost. There is no mandate that the south has to be a client state whatsoever. Its survival depends on eliminating it's dependence on the North.

What if the north paid more for the oil then the south? Are you saying that those southern energy companies would be beholden to the government of this new southern country before profits? Wouldn't this fly in the face of all the reasons the south would exist? Why would they then remove the freedom of a company like BP to sell its oil anywhere? Would the south become Venezuela? lol.

 

[fskimospy]

It's in the interest of any nation to supply it's own power needs first. The south would need to develop it's industry and then sell it's surplus. The energy which fuels the North would be a secondary consideration. Most likely the difference would be made up with shale and coal but at considerable cost. There is no mandate that the south has to be a client state whatsoever. Its survival depends on eliminating it's dependence on the North.

Once again though, oil is a global commodity. Why would the North face an energy crisis? The total amount of global oil would not change, nor would the price. The north could easily import its oil from other sources, and the price per barrel it would pay would be the same.

(I mean of course the price would be disrupted by the act of secession itself and the instability, but not the supply/demand)

 

[JSt0rm]

ROFL. Yes, because slicing the US in half has more positives than negatives. All those important military bases? They belong to a new country now. All that oil and food? Yeah this new nation can put whatever taxes and tarifs it deems fit on all of it. And that's just off the top of my head.

And if you think the south would end up like the stereotypes you're forum-gasming over, you obviously don't know many southerners. The south is no more a bunch of redneck moonshine swilling illiterate hillbillies than the north is a hive of pussy sheeple completely subservient to and dependent on the government. But by all means, continue your downward social comparisons. I hope basing your conclusions on stereotypes makes you feel special.

I find it odd everyone assumes that this new southern country would be anti-capitalism. Maybe that is so. Maybe they would become totally insular and not let anything leave the country. Good luck with that.

 

[Chaotic42]

I hate the gulf coast states with a passion. Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama are without a doubt the worst, most backwards, ugly states in the country. Lowest in income, education, health... you name it, they suck at it. I wish those three states would split off and form their own country. Better yet, if they could just split off and slide into the fucking gulf of mexico, that would be great. Texas would get a bigger coastline, and Georgia would get a West coast.

Love you too, baby.

 

[davmat787]

How much of that Oil is pumped in Federal Waters?

Not sure, but from what I understand I guess you could say all of it. However, these Federal Waters would now be owned by the new Southern Federal .Gov under this scenario right?

Just skimming some articles, I am coming across state leases and federal leases, but will drill down (pun intended) on it soon to better understand it.

Anyone know of a good website to look up federal tax income data? Specifically I am trying to locate data that shows how much income is generated for the fed via Gulf Of Mexico oil. Any pointers? Thanks.

 

[Nebor]

I find it odd everyone assumes that this new southern country would be anti-capitalism. Maybe that is so. Maybe they would become totally insular and not let anything leave the country. Good luck with that.

As a resident of the new Southern United States, I feel that a lot of people would prefer a much stronger central government in the new country. We'd get to write a new governing document to replace the constitution, and the result could mix powerful centralized authoritarianism with a little bit of theocracy to satisfy the large religious sects of the south. And we'd finally be free of the wishy washy, "we don't feel like telling you what to do" governance of Washington.

 

[soulcougher73]

Let them leave peacefully, but instead of such a terrible thing how about go with the option of enticing them to stay.

Champion state's rights, let this Union of ours be true to its name. If the people who wanted to leave were given more leverage over their lives then they would not feel so repressed to the point of violent confrontation or dramatic separation.

310 million people need their space. The one shoe fits all federal government isn't giving it to them via its expansionist policy of invading every last aspect of our lives. If there is need to act on our civil divisions, it is only because we are being pushed by either side. Stop pushing each other and learn to live together in peace.

This. The right to secede should always be an option for every state.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Once again though, oil is a global commodity. Why would the North face an energy crisis? The total amount of global oil would not change, nor would the price. The north could easily import its oil from other sources, and the price per barrel it would pay would be the same.

(I mean of course the price would be disrupted by the act of secession itself and the instability, but not the supply/demand)

The world supply would be the same however virtually all oil would be imported. That creates a North which is more economically vulnerable since virtually all oil is imported. Instability would push the price of oil to never before seen levels. If oil doubles in price (not an unrealistic possibility) then we deal with a crisis of affordability. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that price of oil becomes too expensive to buy in needed quantities. To provide an analogy, if there was food but you could not afford to obtain it, then you starve just the same as if the food doesn't exist at all.

The South would not be as susceptible if they used their own oil. If the new government took the oil on a cost of drilling plus a fee basis, then it's removed from speculation and market price pressures. Low energy costs gives a competitive edge to the south. This doesn't mean that the South won't have it's own problems, but my point isn't about how one side or the other is a clear winner, but rather that the red/blue state paradigm people are citing (red states getting more money than blue) is completely irrelevant, and energy is one factor among many.

 

[JSt0rm]

The world supply would be the same however virtually all oil would be imported. That creates a North which is more economically vulnerable since virtually all oil is imported. Instability would push the price of oil to never before seen levels. If oil doubles in price (not an unrealistic possibility) then we deal with a crisis of affordability. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that price of oil becomes too expensive to buy in needed quantities. To provide an analogy, if there was food but you could not afford to obtain it, then you starve just the same as if the food doesn't exist at all.

The South would not be as susceptible if they used their own oil. If the new government took the oil on a cost of drilling plus a fee basis, then it's removed from speculation and market price pressures. Low energy costs gives a competitive edge to the south. This doesn't mean that the South won't have it's own problems, but my point isn't about how one side or the other is a clear winner, but rather that the red/blue state paradigm people are citing (red states getting more money than blue) is completely irrelevant, and energy is one factor among many.

We are all speculating here and its fine that you have your own vision of what would happen but I think you are way off base. GREED for money would pump so much oil in that case it would drop to 30 a barrel before too long.

 

[Nebor]

We are all speculating here and its fine that you have your own vision of what would happen but I think you are way off base. GREED for money would pump so much oil in that case it would drop to 30 a barrel before too long.

Why isn't that happening now? No greed in the world?

 

[davmat787]

We are all speculating here and its fine that you have your own vision of what would happen but I think you are way off base. GREED for money would pump so much oil in that case it would drop to 30 a barrel before too long.

lol. Why do you think all of the sudden oil companies would turn retarded and lower the cost of a barrel to 30 dollars? I think your hatred of the South is clouding your projections here. The oil would go onto the open market, and I doubt the Gulf produces enough to drive the barrel price down to anywhere near $30, let alone 10% less of current market value.

 

[dali71]

The world supply would be the same however virtually all oil would be imported. That creates a North which is more economically vulnerable since virtually all oil is imported. Instability would push the price of oil to never before seen levels. If oil doubles in price (not an unrealistic possibility) then we deal with a crisis of affordability. It's entirely within the realm of possibility that price of oil becomes too expensive to buy in needed quantities. To provide an analogy, if there was food but you could not afford to obtain it, then you starve just the same as if the food doesn't exist at all.

The South would not be as susceptible if they used their own oil. If the new government took the oil on a cost of drilling plus a fee basis, then it's removed from speculation and market price pressures. Low energy costs gives a competitive edge to the south. This doesn't mean that the South won't have it's own problems, but my point isn't about how one side or the other is a clear winner, but rather that the red/blue state paradigm people are citing (red states getting more money than blue) is completely irrelevant, and energy is one factor among many.

And let's not forget that the South has significantly higher refinery output.

 

[JSt0rm]

lol. Why do you think all of the sudden oil companies would turn retarded and lower the cost of a barrel to 30 dollars? I think your hatred of the South is clouding your projections here. The oil would go onto the open market, and I doubt the Gulf produces enough to drive the barrel price down to anywhere near $30, let alone 10% less of current market value.

Because if the price of oil went to $200 a barrel the gulf would be the only ones pumping more? LOL

 

[JSt0rm]

Why isn't that happening now? No greed in the world?

How much can they increase supply before the price goes down? I'm talking about already inflated prices people will pump more to take advantage of that (and not just retarded south)

 

[davmat787]

Because if the price of oil went to $200 a barrel the gulf would be the only ones pumping more? LOL

And this would lead to your $30 a barrel projection how?

 

[JSt0rm]

And this would lead to your $30 a barrel projection how?

If the price of oil shoots up its because of demand or speculation then people will produce more oil to sell at those higher numbers.

As more people do this the price will drop. This is simple supply and demand.

 

[Tom]

It's in the interest of any nation to supply it's own power needs first. The south would need to develop it's industry and then sell it's surplus. The energy which fuels the North would be a secondary consideration. Most likely the difference would be made up with shale and coal but at considerable cost. There is no mandate that the south has to be a client state whatsoever. Its survival depends on eliminating it's dependence on the North.

How would the South compensate the North for all the TVA works built with Federal dollars ?

Not to mention Miss river flood control. Hope y'all like having all your fresh water controlled by Yankees.

 

[TheSlamma]

Let em go.. take all thumpers with