After looking too much towards the past I felt I should look a bit into the
future now.

Following your discussions on intra-U.S. boundaries I begin to wonder if
there is, in the U.S., anybody who ever has estimated the waste of $ caused
by maintaining some 50 states. Three reasons:

1) The relative size of some states is drastically divergent (Rhode Island
vs. Texas and California)

2) There is often little intra-state homogeneity (New Jersey, for example,
split between an industrial, NY-City-oriented half and woodland towards DE
and PA; similar situation with N.Y. State)

3) The boundaries of many states seem drawn too straight to make sense
(cities are sometimes split, like Texarkana, and others).

I know there is a historical reason for all that, but is this situation not
contrary to the otherwise so "forward-looking" America? A reform could help
saving billions of dollars that could be used for a better purpose than
nurturing small-size or disparate governmental administrations. Or: Is there
a difference, geographically, ethnically, culturally or otherwise that
supports a reason for North AND South Dakota?

(I may even offer a recipe: Amalgamate the 50 into 6 new states, NE, SE,
mid-S, mid-N, SW, and NW)

I know this sort of discussion, carried in by a foreigner, is not to the
liking of patriotic Americans. And precisely for that reasons I bring this
up. Give me a reasonable answer please, forward-looking.

Wolfgang