Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Not satisfied with your analysis on this one. If Mr. Barone is right and these cities are "boomtowns" then their increased economic activity will generate more tax revenue. Your reference that

"Red states, on average, suck taxes from DC (more than they pay) and Blue states, on average, pay for those net-welfare Red states"

Is based on the previous balances where the coastal cities were booming and the interior cities were smaller. The people are flowing like water to the places where they have the most economic advantage. Taxes gathered by DC are based on personal and corporate income. Therefore more federal taxes will come from the interior boom towns, potentially shifting the balance of who pays for Leviathan.

The most interesting question to ask here, in my opinion, is whether the Coastal Megalopolises will follow the Rust Belt into economic and then demographic decline. New York seems immune, but could Los Angeles and other cities take the trajectory of Detriot?

To answer the question above, I could see some cities like Los Angeles diminishing slightly, but nothing like Detroit. I think Detroit is unique among large cities in its reliance on a single industry. Los Angeles has lost many manufacturing jobs, but the overall economy seems resilient.

The original article was interesting. The analysis of demographics was interesting; however, the final political conclusion is poor. The idea was Red states are growing so Republicans will do better in the coming presidential elections based on the electoral college. This argument is weak, since you really get the purpling of a lot of these states and the old political rules end. The largest in flux was Las Vegas. Nevada was a Republican stronghold. This movement has made it a purple state. But this isn't a political cite...

I think all the movement is a good sign of the overall connectivity of the country. New York too expensive to recruit for your bank, move to Charlotte. This is "globalization' within this country. Good news. The extreme variability in the housing market is part of the rule change for the new century. Companies and individuals will move were it is cheaper and they can see a noticable difference in the bottom line. Due to the connectivity available, (free web based phone calls and $100 flights), this shift will continue. In 10 years Charlotte and Las Vegas might not be booming, it may be Detroit again or Boise. Connectivity allows these large population movements.

The Atlantic Monthly had an article a few months ago about how cities in America were becoming--more than ever---centers for highly educated people to connect economically. The result was that rich, educated, people were overwhelmingly preferring cities because it maximizes their talents and potential. The number of PH.d's in places like Washington, Boston is through the roof. It's always been high, but the article suggested that the city is booming, not starting a decline. Networking in a concentrated area for financial opportunities is best done in a city.

That seems to make sense.