TexasCHLforum.com

J.R.@A&M

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Financially it would depend on a number of things.

If Texas seceded peacefully, where we maintained good relations with the US, then we would not need a large standing army. As long as we minded our own business, we really just have to fear Mexico invading, which is pretty darn unlikely, IMHO. And importantly, if we were able to break away without assuming any of the US national debt, then I think we would be completely fine. Even better if we manage to avoid trade wars and excessive tariffs on trade with the US and Mexico. It doesn't matter who owns the natural resources as long as Texas is able to tax those companies on their sales / profits from the resources. There would be some unrest as companies relocated to / from Texas, but after the dust settles, it would be OK.

But, if the split is contentious, and involves a shooting war, or even a trade war, we would definitely be in worse shape.

It is surely very complicated, and I’m not smart enought to think it through. But even if Texas could free ride on North American National security, there are lots of other financial obligations that the State has heretofore never had to cover, and perhaps couldn’t. Even under the best case trade scenario, the State revenue picture is variable enough to imply that an unstable currency and high interest rates would make us relatively poorer than the status quo, unless we got some other advantage, e.g., a corporate tax haven or something like the Ireland next door.

J.R.@A&M

bblhd672 wrote:
Lynyrd wrote:
Grundy1133 wrote:Texas would be allowed to secede per the treaty that was signed.
I don't know where you got that Texas retained the right to secede per the treaty. I do not believe that to be true. The only unusual thing granted was the ability to subdivide into more states, but not greater than 5, in order to gain more senators.

http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/annex.htm

http://thetexasrepublic.com/history-of- ... agreement/
In the book I linked about, that's exactly what Texas does, breaks into 5 different states of Texas. Can you imagine the progressive socialists heads exploding if that were to happen?

What would stop the regions containing Bexar, Dallas, El Paso, Harris, Tarrant, and Travis counties from splitting off and remaining with the United States?

J.R.@A&M

bblhd672 wrote:
J.R.@A&M wrote:And Texas grain, beef, cotton, etc., would continue to be exported, although farmers would have harder time financing crop production without federal farm programs. Overall, I would think the rural parts of the State would suffer more from having fewer economic development resources.
And that’s why there will never be change, people want less government unless it negatively impacts their favorite redistribution program.
[sarcasm]Why we just can’t live without big.gov holding our hands and guaranteeing our results. [\sarcasm]
We’ll all ride the ship to the bottom cause no one thinks that iceberg has fatally wounded the hull.

No argument from me about the merits of federal farm policy.

I am simply predicting that if risky Texas row crop agriculture has trouble getting financing in newly Independent Texas, then more cropland will revert to grass, which means fewer rural businesses, fewer rural jobs, lower tax base, and declining rural infrastructure. Wind and solar enterprises would not change that just as they haven't in the current state of affairs.

J.R.@A&M

twomillenium wrote:Not sure I would like that Texas as "we" don't own the oil.

Right. I assume the same amount of Texas oil (owned by whomever) would be sold as before. And Texas grain, beef, cotton, etc., would continue to be exported, although farmers would have harder time financing crop production without federal farm programs. Overall, I would think the rural parts of the State would suffer more from having fewer economic development resources.

J.R.@A&M

Grundy1133 wrote:
J.R.@A&M wrote:It is South Carolina (http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-g ... 32169.html), and it is a dumber idea now than it was in 1861. Not because of the martial implications, but because of the economic ones. South Carolina would make a pretty poor country. Its currency would be weak, and its interest rates would be sky high, and its economy would regress.
Texas on the other hand would be pretty decent.. I mean heck we've done it before. lol

Better off than South Carolina, certainly. But I doubt Independent Texas would be economically as well off as Texas remaining in the United States. There are a lot of shared national expenses (defense, R&D, social security, medicare) that would probably be more expensive for Independent Texas to provide for its own citizens, assuming economies of scale in those services. And the currency/sovereign debt question is a real problem. Bond and currency markets don't give a hoot about how patriotic you or I feel.

J.R.@A&M

It is South Carolina (http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-g ... 32169.html), and it is a dumber idea now than it was in 1861. Not because of the martial implications, but because of the economic ones. South Carolina would make a pretty poor country. Its currency would be weak, and its interest rates would be sky high, and its economy would regress.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 6 matches

Re: Secession?

Re: Secession?

Re: Secession?

Re: Secession?

Re: Secession?

Re: Secession?