Nowhere To Run To.

Business and politics have always been linked. After WW2, it appears governments had real power over business and more importantly it focused on the greater good for society rather than grift ["The Not-Quite Golden Age" of Capitalism - Robert Reich]. This, as a general statement, across the western world seems reasonably accurate. There was a thirty year period of all boats rising.

It appears that the 1980’s was a period where business, religious, and ethnic majority interests aligned and decided to take over governments (US, UK, New Zealand, Australia, etc.) all had versions of this. The steady privatization of everything basically turned public goods over to private entities. Meantime, authoritarianism ruled in other parts of the world. Is there any country that has avoided these two traps?

No country has entirely avoided the twin traps of neoliberal privatization and authoritarianism, but some have navigated them better than others. The key challenge has been balancing economic prosperity, democratic governance, and public welfare while resisting corporate capture and authoritarian tendencies.

Countries That Have Somewhat Avoided These Traps:

1. Nordic Countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland)

   • These countries have managed to preserve strong social safety nets, public services, and state involvement in key industries while maintaining high levels of economic freedom and democracy.

   • While they embraced some privatization, they retained government control over essential services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure.

   • Their strong labor unions and high voter engagement helped prevent the kind of corporate capture seen in the US and UK.

   • However, in recent years, they have faced pressure from neoliberal trends and rising right-wing populism.

     
     

2. Switzerland

   • Switzerland has a unique form of direct democracy that makes it harder for corporate or political elites to dominate policymaking.

   • While it has a strong private sector, its public institutions and infrastructure remain well-funded.

   • However, it has also been a haven for global finance, which means it plays a role in enabling neoliberal capital flows worldwide.

     
     

3. Singapore (A Partial Exception)

   • Singapore has avoided full-scale privatization by maintaining strong state control over essential industries (housing, healthcare, transportation).

   • However, it is an authoritarian technocracy, meaning it didn’t avoid the second trap.

     
     

4. Taiwan

   • Taiwan has successfully balanced economic growth, democratic governance, and public welfare.

   • It has resisted corporate domination better than many Western countries, and its democratic institutions remain strong.

   • However, its geopolitical situation (China’s threats) means it faces a unique form of external authoritarian pressure.

     
     

Why Did These Countries Resist Better?

• Strong Democratic Institutions: Countries with strong civic engagement, union power, and direct democracy mechanisms resisted neoliberalism better.

• Public Ownership of Key Services: Retaining public control over healthcare, education, and infrastructure helped prevent corporate monopolization.

• Ethical Governance: Corruption and corporate lobbying were kept in check through transparency and institutional accountability.

While no country has completely escaped the global trends of privatization and creeping authoritarianism, these examples show that strong civic institutions, democratic engagement, and strategic state control over essential services can mitigate the worst effects.

The world feels like a game of Monopoly. Things have evolved, or devolved, or played out as outlined in the game Monopoly in a somewhat linear fashion. It’s unsustainable. The good thing about unsustainable things is they eventually fail. The bad thing is, the world is so interconnected and reliant on each other that an economic and political collapse in a key area dooms everyone.

Yeah, we’ve essentially played Monopoly to its logical endgame—where a handful of players own everything, and the rest are just trying to survive while the system grinds to a halt. The real problem, as you pointed out, is that in a hyperconnected world, collapse isn't localized. If one major node in the global system fails, the ripple effects can take down everyone else.

The Unsustainability of Monopoly-Style Capitalism

1. Wealth Concentration: The game ends when one player has everything. In reality, wealth concentration chokes economic mobility, innovation, and social stability.

2. Corporate Feudalism: As wealth and power consolidate, corporations function like fiefdoms, controlling resources and dictating terms to governments and individuals.

3. Debt Dependency: Unlike Monopoly, where players go bankrupt, modern economies just pile on debt. Governments, corporations, and individuals are all running on borrowed time.

4. Political Capture: The wealthiest players influence laws to prevent new challengers, much like how monopolists in the game dictate terms.

5. Environmental Destruction: Monopoly doesn’t model externalities like climate change, but in reality, unregulated profit-seeking leads to resource depletion and environmental collapse.

The Collapse Problem

If this system were isolated, it would eventually reset like a game of Monopoly when everyone agrees to flip the board. But the interdependence of global supply chains, financial markets, and political alliances means a collapse in a major economy (like the US or China) would pull down everyone else.

• 2008 was a warning: A crisis rooted in the US financial system nearly collapsed the global economy.

• China’s real estate bubble: If China’s economy crashes, it could trigger a domino effect worldwide.

• US political instability: If the US experiences internal breakdown (e.g., due to political extremism), global markets and security structures would be thrown into chaos.

What Happens Next?

The good news is, unsustainable systems eventually fail. The bad news is, the transition period is often chaotic and painful. The real question is:

• Will collapse lead to reform (like the New Deal after the Great Depression)?

• Or will it lead to reactionary authoritarianism and widespread suffering?

Avoiding the worst outcomes requires systemic change before the crash, but history suggests that people only demand real reform after things break. The challenge is whether we can recognize the writing on the wall and act before the board flips.

If an individual was looking to ride out this storm, where would be the safest place to do so?

If someone is looking to ride out the coming storm—whether economic collapse, political instability, or climate-driven crises—they’d need a place that balances stability, self-sufficiency, and resilience. The safest places will have:

1. Political Stability – Strong democratic institutions, low corruption, and minimal risk of authoritarian takeover.

2. Economic Resilience – A diversified, self-sufficient economy that isn't over-reliant on global markets.

3. Climate Resilience – Moderate temperatures, fresh water, and low risk of extreme weather or natural disasters.

4. Low Geopolitical Risk – Not a primary target in global conflicts or economic wars.

5. Social Cohesion – Low inequality, strong community ties, and minimal risk of civil unrest.

Potential Safe Havens

1. New Zealand

✔️ Politically stable, strong social safety nets✔️ Low population density, abundant farmland✔️ Geopolitically neutral⚠️ Housing is expensive, risk of earthquakes

2. Canada (Rural Areas, Particularly in British Columbia or the Maritimes)

✔️ Abundant natural resources, fresh water✔️ Politically stable, strong institutions✔️ Relatively insulated from global conflicts⚠️ Cold winters, urban areas have housing crises

3. Iceland

✔️ Energy independence (geothermal & hydro)✔️ Politically stable, socially cohesive✔️ Self-sufficient in food production (greenhouses)⚠️ Remote, expensive imports

4. Switzerland

✔️ Strongest financial institutions, low corruption✔️ Direct democracy makes corporate capture harder✔️ Highly self-sufficient in food, energy, and security⚠️ Expensive, difficult to immigrate

5. Uruguay

✔️ Politically stable, low crime (for South America)✔️ Climate-resilient, good farmland✔️ Minimal geopolitical risk⚠️ Small economy, limited advanced healthcare

6. Portugal (Rural or Coastal Areas Like the Azores)

✔️ Affordable compared to most of Europe✔️ Mild climate, strong local agriculture✔️ Politically stable⚠️ Economy is fragile, EU-dependent

7. Finland

✔️ Strong economy, high trust in institutions✔️ Low corruption, excellent public services✔️ Abundant natural resources, water security⚠️ Harsh winters, close to Russia (geopolitical risk)

Key Considerations

• Self-Sufficiency: Look for access to fresh water, farmland, and local industry.

• Community: Isolation isn’t ideal—small, resilient communities matter.

• Immigration Laws: Some countries (Switzerland, New Zealand) make it hard to move there permanently.

• Currency Stability: Countries with strong, independent currencies (CHF, CAD, NOK) are safer from financial collapse.

If you're serious about long-term resilience, New Zealand, Canada (rural), Iceland, and Switzerland are among the best bets. Portugal and Uruguay are good if affordability is a concern. The ultimate choice depends on what risks you think are most pressing.

I think even these areas would get sucked into the vortex and anti immigration sentiment would likely make being an immigrant difficult

Yeah, even the "safe" places aren’t truly isolated from global collapse. If the world economy implodes, no country will be untouched—trade disruptions, resource shortages, and mass migrations could overwhelm even stable regions. Anti-immigration sentiment would also likely spike, making it harder for outsiders to integrate.

What Would a Truly Resilient Option Look Like?

Rather than just picking a "safe country," real security would come from personal resilience, community ties, and geographic isolation. The best bet isn’t just finding a safe place—it’s ensuring that wherever you are, you have:

1. Food & Water Independence – Ability to grow your own food, access fresh water, or be near reliable farmland.

2. Energy Security – Off-grid capability (solar, hydro, or geothermal power).

3. Community Resilience – Being in a place where locals are used to cooperation rather than conflict.

4. Low Visibility – Not being in a major urban center or a place where wealthy outsiders are an easy target.

A More Viable Strategy

Instead of banking on a country staying stable, you might be better off looking for a low-profile, self-sufficient rural area in a relatively stable region—somewhere that doesn't rely too much on global supply chains but also isn’t a hotbed of nationalism or unrest.

• Rural Canada or Alaska (If You Can Handle the Cold) → Plenty of resources, low population, and self-sufficiency is easier.

• The Azores (Portugal’s Islands) → Far from mainland instability, mild climate, strong agriculture, and less anti-immigrant sentiment than mainland Europe.

• Southern Chile or Argentina (Patagonia Region) → Remote, resource-rich, and less tied to Western economic collapse.

• Parts of the US (If You Can Find the Right Community) → Certain rural or off-grid communities in the Pacific Northwest, Appalachia, or parts of New England could be surprisingly resilient.

If things really go south globally, even the safest countries will face upheaval. The best approach might be thinking locally—finding a small, adaptable, and cooperative community rather than just a stable country. Being seen as a contributing member of that community rather than an outsider would be key to long-term security.