Best place to survive a major economic crisis?

This thread is inspired by a question asked in the European Debt Crisis trend.

So, I think that it might be fairly said that these are not entirely pleasant times, economy-wise.

But things can always get worse.

Suppose that they do, and we get a truly devastating crisis on our hands.

The question of this thread is simple: what is the best place for one to move (or be) in order to weather the crisis with a minimum of discomfort? For the sake of discussion, let us suppose that the person moving has a moderate, but not unreasonably great, amount of money, and that they will have to find a job in their new country.

Places that have been mentioned so far are:

1. Canada;
2. Scandinavia;
3. Australia.

Neither of them is probably entirely fail-safe, and they all have strengths and weaknesses.

Thoughts?

edited 28th Nov '11 10:22:14 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

No where :(

Dutch Lesbian

No place is perfect, sure, but still, there are degrees. For example, going to Somalia in order to avoid the economic crisis might be a slightly bad idea.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

The world is more inter-connected now than it was in the 1930's

Dutch Lesbian

The best place to survive large problems with modern civilization is a small to medium sized town near farmland - large enough that there are doctors and farmers and plumbers and carpenters, but small enough that the place won't be considered a target if someone decides that attacking various places with large-scale weaponry is a good idea.

For what it's worth, I think survivalists are funny, but I don't take them seriously.

"There is no process. Ideas are constant. Execution is what takes time and concentration." - Andrew Hussie

^ I've read that somewhere, too. A ten-thousand person town, roughly, woudl be a spot to start. Something with a sense of community.

Nation-wise? No idea.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

One possibility, if one is feeling adventurous, is finding and out-of-place region of a reasonably stable third-world country with relatively little economic interactions with the rest of the world.

It would be a huge change of lifestyle; but still, if the person doing the moving comes from a first world country then whatever funds they have will be able to buy a lot more there, and I get the feeling that a fancy Western education could actually turn out to be relatively sought after for certain jobs.

It would be far from easy, however, and the transition would be very difficult.

As for what such a country could be... I am not sure. Perhaps some country in South America, like Paraguay for example?

edited 28th Nov '11 11:04:17 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

If you live in the USA and don't want to leave the country, try Nebraska or Iowa. We seem to weather these things better than the coasts. Mind you, you'll still be affected by whatever hits the US, but a bit less so than many of the more populous regions.

Now, if you're looking for foreign shelter from economic clusterfucks? I dunno, become a scientist on Antarctica? Move to the third world? But really, the worst that'll happen in the first world is being knocked down a few pegs, whereas the third world is already a shithole.

edited 28th Nov '11 11:17:24 AM by Balmung

And what happens when whoever is financing you loses their funding?

edited 28th Nov '11 11:18:35 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Penguin hunting, duh.

Nation wise somewhere with enough natural resources to be guaranteed to be part of the upswing again, I think. Which excludes Europe (and China, not that anybody wants to live in a dictatorship). Given that, Australia and Canada look like good candidates...

Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 Fanfic

So in other words the only logical choices are living in some squalid third world hell hole where there's a high chance where you might be kidnapped or stabbed for your money or going out to the middle of nowhere and live a subsistence based life full of back breaking labor from dawn to dusk.

I don't know about you but I'd rather cut my wrists now. Survival instincts seem irrational in THESE circumstances.

Well, we are considering worst case circumstances. It's not going to be fun no matter where you are, and we are discussing where it will be less unfun.

This said, not all third world countries are "squalid hell-holes" or are that dangerous. Sure, you don't get cheap broadband internet access there, probably, but eh...

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Scandinavia's been mentioned, but there's variety there, too.

The most isolated one of us (Nordic countries, so I'm expanding Scandinavia to include all of us) is Iceland. The economy went to the shitter due to deregulation in 2008, but they're on the way back; and because it's such a small country population-wise, they're gonna bounce back. Iceland is a NATO member, in case that matters.

Sweden is the biggest of the bunch, and is in the EU but not in the Eurozone, so that's one country you might want to try. Denmark doesn't have the Euro either, but its economy is even more closely connected to those of Germany and France, so if you want a country that's a bit less dependent on the rest of Europe, Sweden is the better choise. Denmark is a NATO member. Sweden is a NATO "Partner in Peace," which means limited co-operation but no promise of mutual defence and no presumption that they're gonna take part in any NATO operation.

Finland is the only Nordic country that has joined the Euro yet, and we're actually doing alright, despite being struck pretty hard by the recession. There's currently a right-wing trend here (though even the economic far-right of Finland wouldn't dare suggest cutting universal healthcare,) but it'll probably pass soon. But since you're looking for a country that isn't gonna dive with the Euro, I guess we're off the table. Finland is a NATO "Partner in Peace," just like Sweden above.

So now you're left with Norway. Like the rest of the Nordic countries, it has just about the highest standard of living in almost every comparison. Like the rest of us, it's accomplishing this with an economy that is primarily based on the service industry. But unlike the rest of us, it's also got huge natural resources; namely, oil. And despite having the highest standard of living in the world, it's not using any of the oil profits to achieve that. Instead, Norway's oil profits go into a huge government-owned pension fund that collects interest on 40% of the accumulated wealth while investing the remaining 60% in international stock markets, under the management of an ethical board that limits the investments to only sustainable, peaceful uses; so no tobacco or nuclear weapons companies can be bought by Norwegian oil money. Because of this huge pension fund (one of Europe's major investors, BTW,) you would do well to choose Norway. Norway is not a member of the EU, but is a full NATO member.

All of these countries are in the Nordic Council, a kind of limited mini-EU born out of necessity, as all of the Nordic states are very closely connected to each other in every way except language.

All of the Nordic countries except Finland speak very similar Germanic languages which are very easy to learn if you know German or English to start with. Finnish, on the other hand, isn't even a part of the Indo-European language family, but is a Uralic language, most closely related to Estonian (which Finns can usually understand pretty well because the languages are so similar, and Estonians understand us even better) and Hungarian.

So yeah, in case you were considering the Nordic countries, those are some of the basics. Feel free to ask for more info if you're interested.

edited 28th Nov '11 12:16:02 PM by BestOf

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

While Canada is very nice and it banks on resource-commodity trading to keep the economy going, a US collapse would still be fairly painful. Australia would be somewhat more sheltered from a US collapse, but a US collapse would lead to a Chinese collapse, thereby harming both of Australia's major partners.

Scandinavia on the other hand isn't that dependent on the international markets in comparison to everyone else. While they'll be negatively affected, I doubt it would be as much. Also on the plus side, I tend to find those governments more competent and less corrupt, so that would definitely weather economic storms in a superior fashion.

Then there is Iceland which appears to be on its way to getting back on its feet in short time.

edited 28th Nov '11 1:47:59 PM by breadloaf

Canada, as I don't see the US getting to much worse.

Consider Scandinvia is both more foreign to Americans, and more connected to Europe (where the real trouble is brewing) and that's not good.

edited 28th Nov '11 1:51:10 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

What about Iceland? It's not, strictly speaking, a Scandinavian country; but it is a Nordic country with a very high quality of life, with comparatively few ties with Continental Europe, and which apparently survived rather well its bank crisis (by mostly ignoring the austerity measures recommended by the IMF, by the way).

EDIT:' Ninja'd

edited 28th Nov '11 2:34:54 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

If languages are not an issue I'd propose Germany. Low unemployment rates, universal healthcare and we have good beer too.

But very susceptible to the European Crisis, though — if the rest of the EU falls, Germany loses its main export market and its currency suffers...

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

But this counts for the whole of Europe including Scandinavia.

I suppose so, but Scandinavia seems somewhat less exposed to me...

Other possibility: what about Brazil? It's generally poorer than Europe or the US, but this does not mean that all of it is so. One could live pretty nicely there, I think. Plus, it has some really good natural reserves...

edited 28th Nov '11 2:53:54 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Canada has public healthcare and a strong social welfare net, so I would say Canada.

... and whatever other countries have comparable healthcare and social welfare nets. Except maybe countries that don't have enough money to sustain said welfare nets like Greece.

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

It would look something like this.◊

More like this.

I'm baaaaaaack

It's not about the place, I'd think, but about your skill and adaptability. Let's say the scenario is that the oil runs out and nothing is really replacing it. You don't want to be in a city when the barrel's been scraped, and you don't want to be in the middle of a desert, but aside from that, your cheese has done moved, and local growing looks like an up-and-coming industry. Vladek Spiegelman - paragon of stinginess, street smarts and learning the heck out of every trade you can get your mitts on - should probably be a role model in any horrific disaster, frankly.