Dan Mitchell has a great article below that I thought you would be interested in.
February 3, 2013 by Dan Mitchell
A reader from New York has a follow-up question for me.
Referencing a “Question of the Week” from last month, in which I expressed guarded optimism that America could be saved, she wants to know what I would do if things go the wrong way.
In other words, what if things go really wrong and America suffers a Greek-style fiscal collapse? And imagine how bad that might be since there wouldn’t be an IMF or European Central Bank capable of providing bailouts to the United States.
Perhaps because of an irrational form of patriotism, I’m fairly certain that I will always live in the United States and I will be fighting to preserve (or restore) liberty until my last breath.
But I probably would want my children someplace safe and stable, so I’ll answer the question from that perspective.
The obvious first choice is a zero-income tax jurisdiction like the Cayman Islands that is prosperous and reasonably well governed.
But I’m not sure about the long-run outlook for the Cayman Islands, in part because the politicians there have flirted with an income tax and in part because the jurisdiction inevitably would suffer if the United States was falling apart.
So what’s a place that is stable and not overly tied to the American economy.
But while Switzerland is not dependent on the U.S. economy, it is surrounded by European welfare states. And I’m fairly certain that nations such as France, Italy, and (perhaps) Germany will collapse before America.
And even though most Swiss households have machine guns and the nation presumably can defend itself from barbarian hordes in search of a new welfare check, Switzerland’s probably not the ideal location.
Estonia is one of my favorite countries, and they’ve implemented some good reforms such as the flat tax. But I worry about demographic decline. Plus, I’m a weather wimp and it’s too chilly most of the year.
Another option is a stable nation in Latin America, perhaps Chile, Panama, or Costa Rica. I haven’t been to Chile, but I’m very impressed by the nation’s incredible progress in recent decades. I have been to Panama many times and it is one of my favorite nations. I’ve only been to Costa Rica two times, but it also seems like a nice country.
The bad news is that I don’t speak Spanish (and my kids don’t speak the language, either). The good news is that Hispanics appear to be the world’s happiest people, so that should count for something.
This brings me to Australia, the country that probably would be at the top of my list. The burden of government spending in Australia is less than it is in the United States.
But the gap isn’t that large. The reason I like Australia is that the nation has a privatized Social Security system (called Superannuation) and the long-run fiscal outlook is much, much better than the United States.
Plus the Aussies are genuinely friendly and they speak an entertaining form of English.
So if America goes under, I recommend going Down Under.
We don’t have to fall apart in the USA if we are willing to make the tough cuts and reshape the entitlements. Below is a great video that discusses this.
What Can We Cut to Balance the Budget
Published on Oct 16, 2012
If the U.S. government cut all government services except Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and payments on the debt, federal spending would still outpace revenues. Prof. Antony Davies argues that there are not specific cuts that will enable government to balance the budget. He says, “Nothing less than a redesign will solve this problem.” That redesign should begin by determining what the proper role of government is.
Europe is going down the tubes fast if they keep on the same path.
December 3, 2011 by Dan Mitchell
There’s a rather simple solution to Europe’s fiscal crisis, but politicians will never do the right thing unless every other option is exhausted.
That’s why American taxpayers should not be involved in any sort of European bailout, either directly or indirectly.
This cartoon captures my sentiment.
At the risk of being picky, however, I would replace “Fed” with “USA/IMF” or something like that.
As I explained a few days ago, the Federal Reserve’s recent announcement that it will provide dollar liquidity to Europe is not necessarily objectionable. After all, the Europeans have to pay us back if they borrow dollars, with interest, at current exchange rates.
Yes, I worry European politicians may interpret the Fed’s actions as a signal that they can defer long-overdue reforms, and I also worry that it might be a precursor for easy-money policies in the future.
But the real threat to American taxpayers is that the International Monetary Fund may provide more bailouts to Europe.
I keep explaining that the only solution is for Europe’s welfare states to copy the Baltic nations and actually cut spending, but that will never happen if European politicians think that they can get an IMF handout (and thus shift some of their bad fiscal policy onto the backs of American taxpayers).