yes, Canada has oil too... but as Democrats and liberals are opposed to transporting their oil ( assuming democrats/liberal would magically form a one party state in the absence of Texas), it would seem Texas would be the wiser choice to purchase from, as the delivery infrastructure is already in place.
and yes, the purchase of equipment would still be handled by out of state firms.... such is the nature of trade.. .even international trade.
why are you assuming that the current equipment would magically disappear cause a demand shock on the equipment market?.. i'm not following where this demand shock would originate
sure, it could hurt... though i find it odd that you feel the only this oil revenue can be used to fund universities....
true enough...Capitalists are rather skilled at mitigating persuasive negative impacts, and doing such is a non-stop element to any production based firm/industry.
that all any of us are doing
why do you feel that it's impossible for Texas to raise revenues to administer their state?... i mean, taxation of some sort is a given... and i'm not sure why you seem to believe why it's impossible for Texas when every single developed country on the face of the planet does it?
if Texas decided to retain current federal taxes, but levy them at the state level ( the new national level, more accurately,) it would gain an additional 220 billion, per year ( based on 2012 stats)..which is 2.5x the amount of current state expenditures.
cut those rats in half, and budget concerns are addressed adequately, in terms of raw dollars at current expenditures levels.
it's obvious, to me anyways, that a deficit would occur, at least initially... but coupled with chartered banks, sovereign currency, and credit guarantees based on such.. the deficit would be manageable.... and beneficial.
in short, revenues are , in all reality, easy to address.... once you get past the idea that it's impossible for a nation to raise it's own revenues.