A theory on future US government?

[Galvan]

This is just a hypothetical situation based on my limited knowledge of government and economics.

From what I have read, which is by no means a hefty amount, the Nordic countries (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway) have the highest standards of living in the world and are thriving from their conversions to social welfare states. The argument against the US becoming a social welfare state is that there are so many more people here and the socio-economic demographics vary too much.
So say instead of one country, the 50 states instead became 50 independent countries, all social welfare states with their own federal laws, and there was in place a free trade agreement between them.

I'm not asking if this could feasibly one day happen. I'm asking what the ramifications would be in this hypothetical situation.

[Nik]

United we stand, divided we fall.

[Claystead]

Well, it wouldn't work out well.

Kansas, Arizona, Idaho, Tenessee, Montana, Hawaii, Maine, Missisippi, West Virginia, North Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Maryland, Alaska, New Mexico, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Vermont, Ohio, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Utah, Indiana, Georgia and Rhode Island would all have to raise taxes simply to keep themselves self-sufficient. The two worst deficit states, Mississippi and New Mexico, would both have to double theirs.

California would most likely be the most successful state due to its relatively large size and population. Texas next, with their oil reserves. New York could probably survive as a city-state. But all of the Midwest would be in financial and social turmoil, the Russians would probably try to take back Alaska, Mexico would try to regain the states the US stole from them in 1846, and many of the northern states would probably rather just join Canada. A couple of states might ironically end up as puppets of Norway, on of the very countries they try to emulate (Norway, through a proxy oil company by the name of Statoil, is already purchasing vast swathes of American land for the black gold underneath, possibly leaving some states like Ohio and West Virginia dependent on Norway's exploitation of those resources in case of independence).

[CCT]

Well, each state in a union has a degree of autonomy. This is true of many countries: Australia, Spain, The UK, etc. In each union, there are states with more developed infrastructure, better finances and economy, more resources, more effective governance etc, and there are states that are less well off. The US federal system can be likened to welfare, as well off states pay more taxes to the revenue and these taxes are distributed with a bias towards deprived areas (at least, in theory, though probably not in practice tbf). There are many US states that you could argue, would have a very hard time without federal subsidies, and some that would be better off without having to pay the subsidies. So oil rich Alaska could decide exactly how to utilise its oil reserves, and, no longer being part of the US, Alaskans would keep all the reward to themselves. I'm no expert, but I can tell you one thing about politics. It isn't about the truth. It's about stretching the truth. It's about abusing statistics. I live in the UK, in England, and much of the tax generated in England, goes straight into Scotland's purse. The UK is a welfare state, but it isn't as successful as the Nordic states. Why? 'They have a different, 'Nordic', wellfare system' many political commemtators in the UK say, when you ask why we aren't as rich. It's true the Nordic countries do things differently politically, but they also have a different, more relaxed, more open culture, a pristine natural landscape (I've been there, it's beautiful, like Narnia), less people, more land, and an efficient, resourceful ethic (think Ikea). As much as you can argue that Nordic economic success is due to governance, you can argue that it's down to so much more than that. The US is backwards, it's constitution has remained almost unchanged since the days of imperialism. There's no neutrality in US politics, the election run is a smear competition rather than a serious political debate and the population is divided like oil and water on issues that get only neutral, unbiased, open minded airplay in Europe (like abortion, gay marriage, drugs and immigration). If you have an open minded view on all of these things in the US you are branded a 'liberal', whereas it's the norm in Europe. The UK has a terrible binge drinking culture that has lead to many, many problems, such as increased violence and a massive strain in the healthcare system, and there are deep class prejudices and aggravation that our government is made up of 'privellaged snobs'. Yet all these differences are cultural. I would say that Scandanavia is probably the fairest, most sincere and least corrupt society you could hope to live in, is that culture mirroring politics, or politics mirroring culture? Or is politics simply an extension of a nation's identity- part of its culture. I would say cultural change is imperative, and in the US, vast economic and demographic differences and deeply ingrained prejudices most be addressed before a fairer political system, ie liberal social wellfare, can be adopted successfully. And in the UK, the government and media must become more representative of the population, not dominated by those from the upper middle class upwards.