I use economics because I don't know how to politically measure "success". As it is now, what a politician wants is clearly divorced from what their constituent

I use economics because I don't know how to politically measure "success". As it is now, what a politician wants is clearly divorced from what their constituents want. >The infrastructure and logistics in a city are generally geared toward supporting that city, not the rural areas. But thse large states also help fund small states. Which small states are considered "donor states". > But we are talking about what is important to a functioning large scale country and economy at the basic level. California is the 4th largest world economy. It can certainly break off and operate fine by itself if things got truly dire. The main thing missing is a standing army and nukes. The latter of which is probably the main bargaining chip of the smaller states at this point. I think you underestimate how efficient the larger states can be. And overestimate the economic value of the smaller ones under the stereotype that "they produce the most food". They produce a lot, but not the most.