Can California be its own country?

We've heard about this what-if scenario all the time. Would California be able to support itself as a country?

Although we have some of the highest state debts in the U.S, our excellent GDP levels it out. The debt is only a fifth of the GDP (and decreasing steadily), so it would make us a potential country to be money lenders. Also, California provides 1/3 of the fruits and vegetables for the nation and well known companies (HP, Google, and Apple) generate mad money for the state. The alternative energy projects are adding jobs to the economy.

Also, we pay so much in taxes and we don't get that money back for us to use. Our taxes pay for the more vacant states that don't pay as much in taxes (even if they get taxed as much as Californians, they still pay less taxes overall). The U.S is incredibly broke ever since 2001 and California doesn't need that considering how our federal taxes are being wasted on unnecessary military interventions and our fragmented healthcare system.

The U.S will definitely lose a ton of Democrats in the House of Representatives since we provides 53 representatives and 38 of them are Democrats. Sorry U.S. Also, our GDP is a sizable chunk of the U.S GDP, so I doubt the U.S will let us go without a fight. We can take Oregon and Washington with us as well

But overall, what do you guys think?

 

I know nothing on this topic so:

 

I read what you said and i have no idea why they need to be

 

I don't see why they need to be a separate country.. California to me is a state of the United States of America.. It doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

"I doubt the US will let us go without a fight. We can take Oregon and washigton with us as wlel"

As the confederacy how it went in the 1850s when they tried to leave the US.

 

Well it has an extremely large GDP and has a huge population, but I doubt that we'd ever want it to happen.

 

Theoretically: it could be.

Reality: Nope. If they left the USA it would be unconstitutional.

 

It could be, but I highly doubt that the government would ever allow it to secede.

If it did, California would have to come up with its own currency.

 

Think of it this way, it's slightly larger than Italy and has a surprisingly high GDP. It *could* become its own state, but as someone already mentioned, it'd go against the laws of the U.S. Constitution.

 

California also makes money because it's part of the USA. If it were independent, maybe those companies wouldn't have been based in California at all and if they became independent those companies might move.

But it's possible in theory I guess. They have enough money and population to make a stable country.

The argument about 'is against the constitution' doesn't really work. Think about this: how many nations have become independent even though it was against the will of their mother country? For recent history check Kosovo. Or take a look at Spain, in their constitution their country is also indivisible, but does that stop Catalans from wanting independence and organizing referenda?

Instead I'd say, Californians don't really want independence enough for it to happen and certainly wouldn't want to risk a civil war for it.

 

I have no idea whether it would work out or not. No idea, sorry!

 

CAN California be an independent country? Legally? No. Once a state joins the union, it has no right to secede. This issue was settle by the American Civil War.

COULD California be an independent Country? Theoretically? Possibly.

I could see an independent California modeling itself after EU nations, like Germany, France, etc. but with an American/Mexican culture twist. California certainly has the industry, agriculture, population, tourism and economy to be a powerful country. I believe California alone has the worlds 8th largest economy, beating out Russia.

HOWEVER, an independent California would lose the Dollar as it's currency. The Dollar isn't as it use to be, but it certainly isn't weak. Idk how that would affect the California economy. PLUS, an independent California would have to begin funding it's own military and protections, and companies that are based in California might leave because it would be no longer part of the United States.

 

I have a friend from Philadelphia who insists that the US needs to fracture because the differing mindsets and political ideologies of the people who live there are too great for it to function as one country - i.e a Californian or New Englander are a world away from a Mississippian or Texan.

California could function as an independent country I suspect considering it would be in the top 10 largest economies if it were a separate country - but Aquilo makes a sound point - the companies based in California are also based in the US - if California was separate, those companies might seek to relocate because they didn't ask to be based in an independent California, and capital flight would probably ensue (this is already happening with Scotland as the independence referendum nears - major banks are already planning to relocate their HQ and people are moving their money out of Scotland and into England).

 

I disagree with your friend from Philadelphia.

Our greatest weakness - our size/cultural differences- are also what make us incredibly strong. Our size allows for the use of an unimaginable amount of resources to support a gigantic industry. And although we are compared a lot to them, the United States isn't like the Roman Empire. We don't need war to expand our economy, though it has helped us in the past. We prefer to be at peace than at war. We were strong because we invented things, like the car, the airplane, the microwave, the computer and internet, itouches and iphones, the list goes on. We are strong through innovation.

If we were to split up, then each of the new smaller countries wouldn't be able to do anything nearly on the scope of what we do today as a unified nation. Yes, cultural boundaries would fit into nicely fit boxes, 'scuse me, borders, but that's all we'd really gain from it.

And states like Wyoming and Kansas aren't useless; they help feed our nation. California might be growing oranges andhas the glamourous city of Los Angeles, but it's states like Iowa and Nebraska that are feeding us. Alaska and North Dakota provide us with oil, and Texas isn't a weak state at all. It's our 2nd most strongest, beating out New York and only second to California itself. AND it's a southern state.

P.S. also, it says I'm in Germany, but I'm american living with the United States military, another example of the U.S.'s might that would be impossible to achieve should we different smaller countries.

 

I disagree with you here. The European Union is not a country, but is still united in some way. That's also a possibility for the United States. Still being a nation, but every state being its own country.

I'm not saying this is what I want (because I think it's good the way it is now), but it's a possibility.

 

Sorry, my American is showing.

---------- Post added 13th Sep 2014 at 02:45 AM ----------

The European Union is NOT even close to the United States. Maybe the currency and economy, but the EU has only really been successful for some countries like germany and france. Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, all of these are nations that are struggling since they joined the E.U.

The E.U. also doesn't have nearly as strong a military. They have one, whatever it is, but it's always usually the U.S. who has to lead the charge. The United States military has what's called Force Projection, which is where we can actually go and sustain a strong military presence in other nations WHILE defending our own. We're in Germany, Israel, South Korea, Japan, AND we have hundreds of bases around our homeland. In fact, Germany hasn't even HAD military since ww2. This was due to fear of it ever causing trouble again. WE are Germany's primary defense should it be invaded. If we said "screw you all, we're done protecting you, that's your job now," I bet we'd have a much stronger economy than we do at the moment, since we're not wasting it defending all these other countries. But alas, since they are our allies and need us, we won't abandon them. Not in the forseeable future at least.

 

Well, to address your first point - Greece, Spain and Portugal are three of the major beneficiaries of the EU as they receive more money from the EU than they give - the EU isn't the cause of their economic problems - they are three of the longest standing EU members, having joined in the 80s (after a few unsuccessful bids to join). The Euro currency is arguably one reason for their problems as it takes a 'one size fits all' approach - the Euro currency benefits Germany and its export-driven economy at the expense of import-oriented nations in Southern Europe. Their problems started in 2008 - before that, they experienced rapid economic growth and a sharp rise in living standards, starting after the fall of fascism in these countries. They also have no control over their monetary policy - the European Central Bank controls the monetary policy for the entire Eurozone. The UK and US stimulated their economies via quantitative easing because they have their own central banks and currency - Spain et al can't do that.

Your second point - the US has the strongest military, but it isn't the only country capable of exerting military force beyond its own borders while protecting its own - the UK and France do that as well. The UK was right behind the US (unfortunately) in Iraq and Afghanistan. France was a major player in Afghanistan as well and one of the leading forces in the Libya conflict, and has (or had) troops deployed in the Central African Republic to combat Muslim extremists. Don't underestimate the military might of other nations. The UK also retains military bases all over the world.

The US would no doubt be a major player in defending Germany such it ever be invaded, but the UK, France, Germany and Italy combined have the second largest military budget in the world after the US, and are more than capable of defending themselves - but since they are all part of NATO, if one is attacked, then other members are obliged to help. The US, for some reason, is insistent on playing the world police, so usually takes a leading role in global conflict - which is fine by us.

But this is too focused on military might - a country's priority should be about providing its citizens with high living standards, not having the largest military. I guess some nations have different priorities.

 

A lot of California's industry comes from Entertainment, that is Entertaining the U.S whose population surpassed 300,000,000. California leaving would still leave the U.S at around 300,000,000 people.

It would be stupid to leave a country who is your main market. I am positive, movie studios,and the likes would then relocate to other American states. It's just easier for the bulk of your production to be within your own borders. THe only reason Canada has such high movie production is because it is dirt cheap to film here, but California is not cheap.

Yes, they have silicon valley, and yes they have tourism and agriculture. They also have a big of an oil industry. However Silicon valley would most likely have business' relocation to American states to have EASIER access to the already mentioned 300,000,000 people that live in the U.S.

I believe California could be autonomous, but I also think it wouldn't be the smartest move, the only reason their economy is so big is because they are supplying the demand in Entertainment, and Technology industries for the U.S.A not for itself. California doesn't have a big enough population to boast the profits they currently boast in these industries.

THeir population is comparable to Canada, and they would , like Canada, could not self sustain as many large billion dollar companies as they currently do without the other American states consuming their products.

Again, stupid idea, just like Quebec splitting would be incredibly stupid as well, cutting off access to all the resources Canada has to offer.

People need to realize California's GDP is so HIGH because it has ACCESS to the AMERICAN PUBLIC, their MONEY, and THEIR INTELLIGENCE. A lot of California's industries were founded by people who aren't originally from that state. It only has gained so many large companies because of it's climate.

California would have a hell of a time finding water for it's population as well had it separated without being dependent on the rest of the U.S. 80% of their water comes from an Area spanning 8 STATES. Water is the most IMPORTANT resource basically, before agriculture even. You need water to grow all that crap they grow in California. Did you know that state was basically an ARID wasteland before modern technology.

http://www.nature.org/media/california/california_drinking-water-sources-2012.pdf

States aren't their own autonomous countries, they are heavily reliant on EACHOTHER for resources not available within their own state.

To me, Michigan, or Texas would be better autonomous. They at least have proper water resources, which is basically the most important.

Even my province; ONtario, would be a better candidate, with all the available hydroelectrical, mineral, timber, water resources available. Plus our population is small enough that we could easily feed ourselves, and already have a huge excess of power, water, and mineral resources

 

Could it survive? Yes, but only if they got rid of Prop 13. The state budget is so dependent on capital gains taxes that because of the boom-and-bust economic cycle and Prop 13's tight restrictions on tax increases that when the economy slows and the stock market recedes, California doesn't take in as much tax revenue. This was one of the things that led to Gray Davis being recalled, as in two years, California went from a budget surplus to a $34.6 billion shortfall, and Arnold Schwarzenegger paying state employees giving tax refunds with $364 million in IOU's in 2009. However with an economy that large, I have a feeling that California could survive on its own.