One could say that the US has tried before, and it didn’t work out well for them. The time to do it would have been after the Spanish American War; instead of a Cuban republic, absorb it into the US as a state (or collection of states).
It is unclear whether nations are better off trying to have high average value (per capita gdp, say) or high total value (total gdp, say). If a nation is pursuing the first strategy, then they wouldn’t accept a petition for a lower-value region to join. One could try to ask whether or not the US is better off with Puerto Rico than it would be if Puerto Rico were independent, for example. If a region has an economy dominated by agriculture and tourism, for example, a country whose economy is dominated by services and manufacturing will find any wealth redistribution schemes flowing out of the developed part to the undeveloped part. It’s probably better to let the businesses do that with their own funds, rather than have the government play a part.
As well, the general rule since ~1950 appears to be that countries should only become smaller.
But we also took Texas and California, and all Americans would agree that at least one of these acquisitions worked out for us.
I meant that the invasion plan failed, not that if the invasion plan had succeeded, it would have been worse than the mainline history.
If we had absorbed Cuba in 1902 instead of letting it go, I think it would have worked out well (but not as well as Texas or California—it probably would seem comparable to Florida as a state).
One could say that the US has tried before, and it didn’t work out well for them. The time to do it would have been after the Spanish American War; instead of a Cuban republic, absorb it into the US as a state (or collection of states).
It is unclear whether nations are better off trying to have high average value (per capita gdp, say) or high total value (total gdp, say). If a nation is pursuing the first strategy, then they wouldn’t accept a petition for a lower-value region to join. One could try to ask whether or not the US is better off with Puerto Rico than it would be if Puerto Rico were independent, for example. If a region has an economy dominated by agriculture and tourism, for example, a country whose economy is dominated by services and manufacturing will find any wealth redistribution schemes flowing out of the developed part to the undeveloped part. It’s probably better to let the businesses do that with their own funds, rather than have the government play a part.
As well, the general rule since ~1950 appears to be that countries should only become smaller.
But we also took Texas and California, and all Americans would agree that at least one of these acquisitions worked out for us.
Well the population of those regions was replaced/swamped with Anglos.
Yep, Texas has been a great acquisition.
I meant that the invasion plan failed, not that if the invasion plan had succeeded, it would have been worse than the mainline history.
If we had absorbed Cuba in 1902 instead of letting it go, I think it would have worked out well (but not as well as Texas or California—it probably would seem comparable to Florida as a state).