5 ms·
Where would you move that won't be affected by a United States collapse, or alternatively you can't predict a bleak scenario over a 10-year timeline?
by breppp 2y ago
Where would you move that won't be affected by a United States collapse, or alternatively you can't predict a bleak scenario over a 10-year timeline?
- hiAndrewQuinn 2y agoWell, presumably you'll have a much easier time living through the fall of a country in another country. As to "which countries don't seem like they'll collapse with over 1 in 10 odds within 10 years"... Most of them? I guess if you thought this risk was exceptionally high the EU's visa free travel would be the best hedge you could get right now.
- almostnormal 2y agoEven if the EU doesn't collapse there's a non-zero risk of war though, after Russia is done with Ukraine.
- timeattack 2y agoI highly doubt that Russia is capable or willing to get into a fullscale war with EU. It's more than 3 years into war with Ukraine without any meaningful result, but repercussions for Russia, while not fatal, still significant. There was very limited military aid for Ukraine, yet Ukranian UAVs explode in Moscow and regions almost every day. Also there's a gas pipe from Russia to EU amidst the conflict which both sides afraid to even touch. Also EU has nuclear.
- almostnormal 2y agoFull scale is unlikely. Russia could not, but they might send 250k/year to die in Estonia. EU and Nato (with or without US) would defend. But I doubt they would go all the way through Russia to force them to stop. Nuclear option is not likely to be used for some "minor" conflict like that, because it would go both ways quickly.
- NoOn3 2y ago[flagged]
- jdcasale 2y agoThis assertion is sharply undercut by the facts. I have an incredibly hard time believing that you're engaging in good faith here. There is literally zero evidence whatsoever that Russia cares about 'equality for ordinary people' and a mountain of conclusive proof that it does not. Ukraine did not owe Russia anything at all, so these 'negotiations' were nothing more than theater. Russia gave Ukraine the choice between either surrendering their sovereignty (for literally zero benefit in exchange) or being invaded. That is not a negotiation, that's state-sponsored terrorism.
- NoOn3 2y agoFor example It is clearly that some Ukraine nationalist did bloody crimes before the war even if Russian media exegarates it. Even the European Court of Justice has acknowledged crimes on the side of Ukraine. https://tass.com/world/1927493 https://tass.com/world/1927493 https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-ukraine-2 https://www.echr.coe.int/w/judgment-concerning-ukraine-2 I'm Russian, but it is my real opinion. I don't get paid anything for it. And I understand that not all Russian(goverment) actions are good, some were incorrect or questionable. Russia just don't want NATO expansion to the East even without transparent referendums. It's all very complicated in reality, in war no side perfectly correct and right and clean... :(
- ethbr1 2y agoWhy does Russia have any right to say whether sovereign countries on its borders join NATO or not? The only reason Russia cares is because it wants to continue controlling them -- not because it's worried about the mythical NATO invasion of Russia its news and leader trumpet. And in contrast, the only reasons those countries want to join NATO is because they're scared of Russia invading them, which it historically has. (See: Finland and eastern Europe)
- breppp 2y agoThe EU is facing severe demographic and economic challenges through the aging of its own population, rise of the radical right, issues integrating its immigrant population and Russian threat. While your savings will probably disappear due to the fall of the dollar. However, in my opinion the United States is not going to collapse, worst case it will be replaced like the British Empire, leaving an advanced Western country (i.e. UK) behind it, minus the entire managing the world part Also you should read about The Decline of the West, and its influence on Nazi ideology, not every prophecy is correct, and not every prophecy is beneficial to follow
- t-writescode 2y ago> worst case it will be replaced like the British Empire, Didn't something similar happen to the Roman Empire? It just kinda ... slowly broke apart?
- breppp 2y agoMy impression was that it took time but it was also violent (e.g. sack of rome)
- t-writescode 2y agoThe fall of any empire has bursts of violence. In 100 years, we may see Jan 6th and probably many future events as quite violent.
- watwut 2y agoI would point out that having raising radical right is still waaaay better then having them ruling the country ... and have zero checks and balances applied to them. Which is the case of US.
- breppp 2y agoDislike the current Trump administration as you might, this is a very far cry than the european brand of radical right from the thirties, which was preoccupied with human sacrifice
- lurk2 2y agoThe ones who can afford it have been building bunkers in New Zealand and Argentina, but if you sincerely believe a civil war is on the horizon, almost anywhere would be a better option. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had a negative impact on international markets, but if you were from either country you would have been better off living abroad when it happened. Similarly, you would be better off almost anywhere outside of Europe from 1933 to 1947.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- breppp 2y agoThe beauty about the future is that it is unknown. New Zealand might be hardly self-sufficient in a world of economic collapse, might be occupied by the chinese in 20 days in another timeline, or might be the only safe haven where one could eat lamb until they die of a heart attack. When you are pessimistic any country has a dark future, while judging from history, historical events do not look inevitable before they actually happen, and are hardly expected. For example, recently half of the world, including many in the west, believed in the inevitable prophecy of socialist utopia, where there will be no private property and everyone will be free of the oppression of capitalism. Millions of lives later and oops
- lurk2 2y ago> The beauty about the future is that it is unknown There are factors at play in historical development which make the development predictable. The Chinese would have to go through half a dozen hostile countries to reach New Zealand. These countries have a combined population of around 300,000,000. Even if the Americans abandon the region, there is no feasible scenario in which the Chinese can afford to invade and occupy New Zealand.
- breppp 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_during_World_War_II#/media/File:Second_world_war_asia_1937-1942_map_en6.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_during_World_War_II#/med...
- herbst 2y agoSimple, Switzerland. All the positive things when you think Europe, without the negative things when you think EU plus all the wealth, quality of life and any other metric you can wish for.
- justlikereddit 2y agoOne of the most expensive European countries to live in and one of the hardest to get a residential permit in.
- herbst 2y agoIt's never as simple as that. What it costs more to live here I save on taxes, products aren't generally more expensive, just work hours are. What's a good thing in the end as everyone earns more. Also I am an immigrant and went trough several other immigration processes and honestly it's not hard, pretty straight forward actually, if you either have skills or a little backup money.
- E_Bfx 2y agoSwitzerland has no oil and depend on its banking sector. If USA crashes then likely all modern supply line will be cut and finance will be something of the past. The current well being of a country does not indicate much how it will survive a global crisis. A farmer in rural Africa would be less affect by the implosion of USA than a trader at Geneve.
- herbst 2y agoWhat do you think happens when the US goes down? You don't need oil to move within a small country and we self supply on food more or less, many areas are already power independent. Who cares about the banks then? You may also overestimate the relevance of banking for the countries finances.
- E_Bfx 2y agoWestern country are self suplient of food because we have engine and chemical industry, ones this goes down, shortage of food will be quick to come. In part of the world where labour is still mostly manual, it will be more resilient. Also without bank, a lot of people will find themself without any properties and will likely get more violent. Again, in part of the world where people own real objects and not number in a computer in a datacenter, this won't happend.
- FinnKuhn 2y agoRealistically probably China as they are probably among the countries that depend the least on the US in terms of defense, banking, manufacturing, digital services, culture and the like. If you want to live there is different question for a number of reasons, but I do think it is probably your best bet avoid the impact of a US collapse (which I think is very unlikely).
- nradov 2y agoRegardless of what happens in the USA, a violent civil war in China is entirely possible within the next few decades. From a historical perspective those are by no means uncommon. The Communist Party has been able to suppress most internal dissent lately but when Chairman Xi leaves power anything could happen.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- FinnKuhn 2y agoFair enough, but I would view China's stability independently from the evaluation of the impact of a hypothetical US collapse.