2006 Western USA to 1962

[Zyobot]

Nov 10, 2018 16:01:37 GMT stevep said:

Nov 10, 2018 14:06:45 GMT Zyobot said:

Sorry, I'm rather confused by this response. Do you consider the "deeply conservative" and "racist Deep South" two different political blocs (which I think would make the most sense)? Because at least the former doesn't enforce Jim Crow anymore, and are in many ways more socially liberal than the downtimers. Whether they're more fiscally conservative I'm not sure about, as I don't know how economically left/right the '62 US was compared to the 2006 version.

And why does the future depend on how the Old Northeast reacts, do you think?

  I did mean the 1962 south as one racist and deeply conservative bloc.  Thought Jim Crow was still very much in force there are the time?  Or have we got crossed wires somewhere?

  In terms of the 2nd point I thought the centres of power of the Democrats in 1962 were the deep south and the industrialised and largely unionised old northern industrial centres, which had consolidated around the Democrats under the New Deal ?  Or is this wrong?

Oh, you were referring to the original scenario I laid out in which the South remains a downtimer stronghold, and not the hypothetical addition of Texas and other 2006 Southern states. My bad.

But yes, Jim Crow legislation was the law of the land in those parts until roughly 1965(?), I think. What you said about Deep South conservatism makes me curious, though; while they were certainly socially conservative even by downtimer standards, did that conservatism apply to economic policy as well, or no? To me, a comparatively uninformed AT member, it seems that "political crossover" was more common and acceptable back then compared to nowadays.

On the Democratic consolidation, I'm not sure what happened in the Northern industrial centers. The people who would've populated those areas seem to have been the types who'd support the New Deal coalition, however, but that's not my area of expertise by a long shot.

[Zyobot]

As I've said earlier, there will be major political issues that both Americas have to sort out. Any ideas on what settlements and public opinion, both uptimer and downtimer, would come about on the Draft or the 18-year-old vote--among other heated disputes?

Once again, I suspect that OTL changes such as those will definitely stir the pot amongst the youth of '62...

[stevep]

Nov 12, 2018 3:02:41 GMT Zyobot said:

As I've said earlier, there will be major political issues that both Americas have to sort out. Any ideas on what settlements and public opinion, both uptimer and downtimer, would come about on the Draft or the 18-year-old vote--among other heated disputes?

Once again, I suspect that OTL changes such as those will definitely stir the pot amongst the youth of '62...

  I'm not sure what the situation was with the young pre-Vietnam over the draft but with the development of rock and roll and other counter-culture movements there was pressure building up for change plus I think one of the key things about the youth 'revolt' in the west in the 60's was that for the 1st time teenagers were actually earning enough money to be of economic importance and have some independence.  In this case you could possibly see a greater polarisation than OTL with the young reacting with anger to the horrors of Vietnam and the older generations that 'we should have done more to win the war'.

  I suspect the US would probably move toward a volunteer army, as they did anyway in the 70's but probably not without some institutional and social conflict on the idea.  Doubt many in the WUSA would accept an attempt to impose the draft in their territory, or deny 18-21 year olds the vote.  Similarly with sexual and racial issues, although probably with greater conflict over the matter.  One advantage of the degree of powers the states still have is that a lot could be sorted out on such issues at state level.  Definitely not going to be much support for formally recognised gay marriages and the like in the EUSA for quite a while.

  The big problem could be the 1964 elections as I don't know whether there could be some agreement on a common voting age by then so that would definitely be an issue.  Also whether the assorted parties and interest groups had sorted out some coherent strategy by then.  Not to mention the issue of the people who now exist twice!

  Not sure what constitutional amendments or more general laws Congress has passed between 1962 and 2006 but likely to be a lot of clashes there.

[mullauna]

1962's one year old Monique M. Corzilius will suddenly become quite famous once a copy of "Daisy" makes its way to the EUSA.

[lordroel]

Nov 12, 2018 17:36:06 GMT mullauna said:

1962's one year old Monique M. Corzilius will suddenly become quite famous once a copy of "Daisy" makes its way to the EUSA.

mullauna , i like you taking part in many of the threads, but would you please keep discussions ore questions related to child actress/model ore any talking about young children out of them, i see you asking these questions twice already in this thread alone, so i asking you to stop it please.

[Zyobot]

Nov 12, 2018 19:01:09 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 12, 2018 17:36:06 GMT mullauna said:

1962's one year old Monique M. Corzilius will suddenly become quite famous once a copy of "Daisy" makes its way to the EUSA.

mullauna , i like you taking part in many of the threads, but would you please keep discussions ore questions related to child actress/model ore any talking about young children out of them, i see you asking these questions twice already in this thread alone, so i asking you to stop it please.

Any thoughts to add, lordroel, if I may ask? I think that many of us would be interested in hearing (or, well, reading) them.

[lordroel]

Nov 12, 2018 19:48:52 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 12, 2018 19:01:09 GMT lordroel said:

mullauna , i like you taking part in many of the threads, but would you please keep discussions ore questions related to child actress/model ore any talking about young children out of them, i see you asking these questions twice already in this thread alone, so i asking you to stop it please.

Any thoughts to add, lordroel, if I may ask? I think that many of us would be interested in hearing (or, well, reading) them.

Not at this point, but i do wonder what the capitol of this modern part of the United States would be.

[mullauna]

Sacramento?

[Zyobot]

Nov 12, 2018 20:11:58 GMT mullauna said:

Sacramento?

Quite possibly as a temporary option, due to being the capital of one of the most populated and economically vibrant of the 2006 states.

That said, I wonder if the uptimers would opt for eventually finding another candidate so that one state doesn't monopolize the power. That is, they'd give whatever city they pick the D.C. treatment.

Moreover, WUSA would be best off making these key decisions with EUSA's agreeability; they'd already trigger firestorms with their hi-tech, new media, social permissiveness and dogged insistence on Civil Rights, no more Draft, the 18-year-old-vote, etcetera. In order to mitigate the inevitable strife over that stuff, doing something with downtimer consent may be interpreted as a nice change of pace.

[stevep]

   Well I suppose I better address the elephant in the room. Is it possible that the two sides will find the differences so great that compromise proved impossible and they decide to split into two separate countries? While the idea of a permanently divided US would be deeply unpopular with many in both communities but it could be that they couldn't come to agreement on a common constitution and set of laws?

  One other point that just occurred to me.  How are the two going to interact economically and fiscally?  How do the 1962 and 2008 dollars compare and who would manage the interaction between the two?

[Zyobot]

Nov 12, 2018 22:41:51 GMT stevep said:

   Well I suppose I better address the elephant in the room. Is it possible that the two sides will find the differences so great that compromise proved impossible and they decide to split into two separate countries? While the idea of a permanently divided US would be deeply unpopular with many in both communities but it could be that they couldn't come to agreement on a common constitution and set of laws?

  One other point that just occurred to me.  How are the two going to interact economically and fiscally?  How do the 1962 and 2008 dollars compare and who would manage the interaction between the two?

The former seems to be a real, perhaps the most realistic possibility. That's what I was thinking coming into this thread, but my interest in hearing alternative ways of going about a split America kept me from immediately saying that. Maybe WUSA could vie for Hong Kong-esque status, which could potentially end in a few decades' time when the downtimers are (hopefully) caught up with them on important issues? Or no?

To (at least partially) address the second point, a quick value plug-in using the US Inflation calculator told me that a $1 in 2006 is equivalent to $0.15 in 1962. If my math is correct, that makes it worth 6.666... times more, but I can't predict much else about ISOT-related currency fluctuations or the means of stabilizing them. I also know next to nothing about JFK-era fiscal policy nor the ins and outs of Dubya's, sorry.

As far as material resources, WUSA has an abundance to trade with EUSA, but I'm not sure if that applies the other way around.

[stevep]

Nov 13, 2018 1:25:10 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 12, 2018 22:41:51 GMT stevep said:

   Well I suppose I better address the elephant in the room. Is it possible that the two sides will find the differences so great that compromise proved impossible and they decide to split into two separate countries? While the idea of a permanently divided US would be deeply unpopular with many in both communities but it could be that they couldn't come to agreement on a common constitution and set of laws?

  One other point that just occurred to me.  How are the two going to interact economically and fiscally?  How do the 1962 and 2008 dollars compare and who would manage the interaction between the two?

The former seems to be a real, perhaps the most realistic possibility. That's what I was thinking coming into this thread, but my interest in hearing alternative ways of going about a split America kept me from immediately saying that. Maybe WUSA could vie for Hong Kong-esque status, which could potentially end in a few decades' time when the downtimers are (hopefully) caught up with them on important issues? Or no?

To (at least partially) address the second point, a quick value plug-in using the US Inflation calculator told me that a $1 in 2006 is equivalent to $0.15 in 1962. If my math is correct, that makes it worth 6.666... times more, but I can't predict much else about ISOT-related currency fluctuations or the means of stabilizing them. I also know next to nothing about JFK-era fiscal policy nor the ins and outs of Dubya's, sorry.

As far as material resources, WUSA has an abundance to trade with EUSA, but I'm not sure if that applies the other way around.

  Well its the obvious way to resolve the huge cultural gap but it would cut deep into the sense of identity of the US, which many in both states would hold very dear so I suspect if a formal separation occurred it would only be after a lot of attempts to avoid it.

To (at least partially) address the second point, a quick value plug-in using the US Inflation calculator told me that a $1 in 2006 is equivalent to $0.15 in 1962. If my math is correct, that makes it worth 6.666... times more, but I can't predict much else about ISOT-related currency fluctuations or the means of stabilizing them. I also know next to nothing about JFK-era fiscal policy nor the ins and outs of Dubya's, sorry.

  I was thinking less of the inflation over the 44 years than the effective buying power, which could be a different matter.  Although how world markets would respond to the appearance of the WUSA and its own fiscal organisations would respond to the sudden shift.  Unless there is some quick agreement the EUSA now has a markedly larger per capital national debt as its 'lost' the population of the WUSA.  The latter has no foreign debts as there are no 2006 people it was indebted to but has also lost all foreign assets its people may have owned and also any links with the rest of the world.  Both 'countries' are likely to be in turmoil for a period, as well as the impact on the rest of the world's economics. 

  Another factor of course is that the EUSA is still on the gold standard as is a fair chunk of the western world I think at that point.  It doesn't have a lot of the fiscal changes that the WUSA has and remembering that this is a couple of years before the 2008 crash that could be a good thing.  Also could the WUSA draw on reserves in Fort Knox for instance?

As far as material resources, WUSA has an abundance to trade with EUSA, but I'm not sure if that applies the other way around.

  In some ways yes although how many high tech WUSA equipment would work without related infrastructure?  How quickly could satellites be put up and cable laid down across the EUSA - or other 'export' markets for internet connection for computers, mobile phones, modern TVs etc?  Also a lot of the high tech manufacturing, especially of key chip components comes from the Far East in 2006 so it could have problems sustaining production until it can set up its own manufacturing capacity. 

  Some things like solar power plants might be a good export, especially if they can persuade a lot of the 1962 world of the dangers of global warming, although it was a good bit colder then.  [In part I think because air pollution improvements which removed contaminants that prompted global cooling were only just starting to have effects.]

  Not sure how the WUSA would be in terms of food self-sufficiency but that's possibly something that the EUSA could supply.  However unless the WUSA suffers prolonged problems with its own manufacturing its unlikely to want any EUSA industrial goods.

[mullauna]

The EUSA, particularly the South, won't tolerate most 2006 television, radio and movies, particularly anything sexual (or in the South, anything featuring a black in a non-servile role. 1962 was still in "black-free edits of tv shows shown in the Lower Mid-West and the South" era)

[Zyobot]

Nov 13, 2018 11:57:04 GMT mullauna said:

The EUSA, particularly the South, won't tolerate most 2006 television, radio and movies, particularly anything sexual (or in the South, anything featuring a black in a non-servile role. 1962 was still in "black-free edits of tv shows shown in the Lower Mid-West and the South" era)

Ah yeah, they were used to the Hayes Code back then. Not that they can really stop WUSA from still enjoying their media, but could EUSA regulate the spread of it within their own borders?

[stevep]

Nov 13, 2018 12:42:12 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 13, 2018 11:57:04 GMT mullauna said:

The EUSA, particularly the South, won't tolerate most 2006 television, radio and movies, particularly anything sexual (or in the South, anything featuring a black in a non-servile role. 1962 was still in "black-free edits of tv shows shown in the Lower Mid-West and the South" era)

Ah yeah, they were used to the Hayes Code back then. Not that they can really stop WUSA from still enjoying their media, but could EUSA regulate the spread of it within their own borders?

  They can try and probably a lot of people outside the deep south would want to as well but once you start getting access to WUSA programmes, whether via broadcasting, cable or physical distribution by say dvd or the like, which would of course mean buying new TVs probably it would be very difficult to stop.

  One other factor is how 1962 people would react to hearing they became famous.  How does Neil Armstrong respond to being called the 1st man on the moon before he even gets there.  Or assorted other celebrities, whether in science and technology, sports, entertainment, politics etc.  Not necessarily positive news of course.  How would Teddy Kennedy's career be affected by reports from WUSA of the Chappaquiddick incident or Nixon of Watergate?  This would of course apply to people outside the US as well.  Does Khrushchev still fall from power, possibly earlier than OTL or manage to stave off his opponents and if so how might that affect things?  Have mentioned the potentially explosive possibilities for China as well.