Back in this article, I discussed the parameters I was personally using to determine a new place to live when I move out of the slowly collapsing US in or before 2025. That article also lists the countries and regions I was interested in and definitely not interested in.
To summarize the aspects I was (and still am) looking at for a future country to move to, I have these five measurements:
- Non-horrible long-term economics
- Low odds of war and civil unrest
- Low or zero terrorism
- Not reliant on any other countries with those above three problems
- Mild climate
Recently, International Man published an article with their own set of criteria they believe people should use to find a safe haven. The criteria are similar to mine but with some extra added aspects.
The first one is to determine which countries have minimal trade with at-risk countries.
For example, the smaller ASEAN countries tend to buy more from each other than they do from the EU or US. Their exports tend to be the same. Similarly, South American countries tend to buy more from each other than from the US or Canada. They tend to “buy Spanish.” Even products like Coca-Cola and Hershey’s chocolate tend to be made locally under license, rather than imported from the north. This means that an economic debacle in North America will have little impact on such countries.
The steps they recommend in determining this (besides your own online research) are:
1. Visit the country, go to a grocery store, and look at the labels of the food to see if they are sourced locally or by nearby non-Western countries (rather than distant at-risk areas like the USA or Europe).
2. Ensure there isn’t a very high percentage of tourism that contributes to the country’s GDP. To quote the article, “Many countries have very few visitors from at-risk countries and, as such, won’t miss the loss in business if it dries up.”
3. Investigate which countries tend to go to war. That’s an easy one.
In both world wars, most countries in the Caribbean and Central and South America sat out the wars. This is significant in that these countries are more peaceable places to live if a major war breaks out. But, additionally, they’re likely to continue their level of prosperity, as they’re not draining their coffers to pay the devastating cost of war.
As you know, I already did this research. This is precisely why I’m still looking at South American countries like Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile as possible places to live in, get a second passport in, or base my business in; they stay the hell out of all these stupid wars that the USA/Europe seems addicted to.
The second aspect they recommend is to determine which counties will actually benefit if there is some kind of economic collapse or strife in the Western world.
In a time of monetary collapse, there are always people who choose to exit rather than remain in a problem jurisdiction. Most of them tend to be those who possess enough wealth to make the exit easy. From the standpoint of the destination country, this means an injection of wealth and investment, which in turn means that the destination country prospers more than it did in normal times. Such countries are rife with opportunity in such times.
I already talked about the exodus of millionaires from their home countries here, so this is already beginning to happen. (I heard Doug Casey say recently that he has no idea why anyone with assets would still be in Europe.)
Frankly, I still think most non-Western countries will experience some economic disruption if the entire West, or a significant portion of it, collapses. When Europe finally goes under, I think you might “feel” a little bit of this even if you live in SE Asia or South America. Yet, I’ve already explained before, we’re talking about an issue of degree. If you live in Eastern Europe while Western Europe goes under, you’re fucked. But, if you live in Chile or Cambodia, you may have some trouble in your investments and international business, but you’ll still come out okay, particularly if you have a diversified Alpha 2.0 financial structure by then.
Some countries (especially empires) rely on muscle to establish and maintain their position in the world. Many other countries (particularly smaller ones) tend to focus instead on providing opportunity to attract new residents. In difficult economic times, the former group tends to be hit hard; the latter group tends to thrive.
I think this is a slight overstatement, but I still more or less agree with it. Again, I point to countries in SE Asia, Oceania, and the southern region of South America as good examples of this. They don’t have massive armies to bully the world with, so they’re forced to think creatively and cooperatively if they want to economically prosper.
Those who live in prosperous countries tend to visit other countries from a tourist standpoint. However, if one’s home country is in decline, it’s wise to spend those tourist dollars by travelling to countries that are potential alternative homes and, whilst there, instead of going to the beach bar for daiquiris, spend time examining the lifestyle for residents, cost of living, business opportunities, etc.
Yep, I start this process next year in 2018. Starting then, and for the next few years, I plan on visiting several countries on my short list as places to move to when I make my final exit in 2025 (if not sooner, particularly since Trump seems intent on carrying on with Bush-Obamism, and a socialist is likely coming right after him). I will go to these places not to be a tourist or have fun, but to ruthlessly evaluate them as places I’d enjoy living in for 5-10 months out of the year for the rest of my life. New Zealand and Argentina are first on my list. It will be an eye-opening experience I’m sure. Can’t wait!