Some economists are beginning to study the rising again of the nation-state, not from a political point of view, but rather an economic one. If the US were comprised of nation-states, we would have 37 of the largest economies in the world. Here's the thumbnail article: http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-countries-how-would-they-rank/241977/#slide1 And here's the report: http://www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/2011/report.pdf Check Page 11. Clearly the Middle East should be quaking in their boots. We're larger than Qatar and are nipping at Kuwait's heels. After Kuwait, it's Iraq. If we were a state, we'd be right behind Nevada (Page 25 of the report). The other part of this study has to do with comparing the metro areas to themselves. If you look at the growth rates, we suck eggs (#128 and #89 on a real basis). Given the quality of life we provide, we should be growing much faster. We have all the tools to be an attractive place to relocate, except for our government. The good news is that our unemployment rate is in the top twenty in declines over the past 12 mos. Of course, our unemployment rate was among the highest in the nation, so we have a way to go. It's estimated that we'll reach our pre-recession level of an unemployment rate midway through 2014.
Is it ok for me to say that I immediately question the results of any board that has Villagarosa's name at the top of the report?
Measuring "success" in monetary terms reveals an unhealthy obsession with fictional values coupled with an ignorance of true values. The pursuit of money is condemned as a vile sin by all major religions. All wealthy societies throughout history have eventually collapsed under the weight of their own "wealth". But aside from that philosophy why on Earth is the focus always on tempting companies to relocate? Companies are merely people, and we already have people here. Most of us are people, in fact. Not only that but we have higher-skilled, higher-educated, and more creative people than most other places. The focus should be on rewarding them/us, and encouraging them/us. Not on making our children's children pay (somebody will have to pay for the infrastructure through taxes) for some NY corporation's $200 million systems development costs that were waived by the city council to attract a new factory or headquarters.
I'm amazed that the article doesn't mention the obvious. The U.S. is a big unified economy, so there is a giant economy of scale. All its cities are connected into the economy. If you separate the cities, you lose the cooperation and standardized laws. Cargo transportation slows if trucks and trains must stop at customs. Tariffs, conversions between dialects of the English language, conversions in weights and measures (some of the newly separate cities will go metric), conversions at the borders of monetary currencies... When a big entity splits up it loses its economy of scale. It's obvious to me. I guess not so to the author. If the U.S. split into city-states, they wouldn't have half the GDP they have now.
