« Ed Glaeser on Jane Jacobs | Main | Assorted links »
My preferred exile
A loyal MR reader requests the following:
If you were exiled from the United States and had to go live semi-permanently in some other country, which country would you choose?
Another reader asks:
Let's say you had enough cash (would 10 million do it?) and needed to disappear. Where would you go? Option one, you only spoke English. Option two, you could endow yourself with any language(s) you wished.
Secondary question: would 10 mil be enough?
$10 million would be enough, thank you. Toronto or even London would be obvious choices but then it's not interesting so let's restrict it to the non-English speaking world. And I'm assuming the choice is for me alone, otherwise it boils down to how altruistic I am.
I pick either Berlin or Cologne, the latter for its central location in Europe. In either city there would be plenty of art and music, lots of smart people to talk to, access to other good locales, and the near-certainty of public order, yet with bearable winters and good health care. The key question between the two would be whether I need my Germany to be on the Rhein and conquered by Romans.
Germany may seem like an odd choice but I prefer northern Europe yet don't want a small country or a very cold country and England is out by assumption. The Mediterranean world would not be grundlegend enough for me, not for permanent residence.
Buenos Aires and Mexico City would be tempting, and more fun than Deutschland on any given day, yet I couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger on either one. I can't stay up late (B.A.) and I don't like horrible air pollution (D.F.). As much as I enjoy seeing the children and the families, the Spanish-speaking world is best to roam through.
Asia has too much population density for my taste.
Would I really rather live in Braunschweig than Barcelona?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 5, 2009 at 04:46 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
The Mediterranean world would not be grundlegend enough for me, not for permanent residence.
Tyler, could you explain what you mean by "grundlegend" here?
It translates to "fundamental" but I'm not really sure what you mean by it.
Posted by: Billy Chass at Sep 5, 2009 5:01:50 AM
What about the Netherlands?
Posted by: Gabriel at Sep 5, 2009 5:10:37 AM
Being native in a Germanic language that has the word "grundlegend" as part of its vocabulary I also wondered why it showed up in this context?
Also, weather in Europe is at least as dependent on East-West as North-South location, with West being warmer. Berlin is certainly not a warm city on average. It is a very "cool" place :-) So, not a bad pick.
What about Paris?
Posted by: Carsten Valgreen at Sep 5, 2009 5:30:19 AM
Why not a small country?
Posted by: Rob at Sep 5, 2009 5:30:27 AM
I'd go for Tel Aviv.
Beachs, 24/7 bars, restaurants, cafes, high tech companies, businesses, fashion, markets, promiscuity, upscale shopping, film festivals, historical jaffa, multiculturalism, skyscrapers.
Posted by: Daniel at Sep 5, 2009 5:43:51 AM
When you say "disappear", does that mean that someone or some group is actively tracking me and will, say, kidnap me and extradite me if they find me - or I'm just on the run from the law in the US or something like that?
If it's the latter, then I just need to find a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US. 10 million probably won't be enough to live comfortably in the first world for the rest of my life, so I need somewhere cheap in the third world where it will be. Mexico, maybe? There's already a lot of US retirees down there.
As for exile, I'll go with Canada, particularly Toronto. Close enough that I can pretty much enjoy a lot of the benefits of being near the US, while enjoying the benefits of Canada, and living in an urban area with lots of stuff to do and hopefully a wider variety of employment.
Posted by: Brett at Sep 5, 2009 6:17:49 AM
Well, I'm very happy here in Australia. Much better than my last location in Troy NY. In Europe I'd likely choose France as the best compromise country. I used to live in Israel, I wouldn't pick Tel Aviv! To my mind it's a hot humid dirty dump.
$10 million is plenty of money to live on anywhere.
Posted by: David Stern at Sep 5, 2009 7:47:12 AM
Berlin is a good choice if you can only get by in English. You would need to learn German to talk to Ossis who were forcefed Russian, but while struggling along with your Sprachschule you could still make friends.
Posted by: Helen DeWitt at Sep 5, 2009 8:21:36 AM
Singapore seems like a great place.
Posted by: josh at Sep 5, 2009 9:06:13 AM
I'd probably select Australia. While it's a long way from other places, with a $10 million nest egg the cost of travel won't be a problem.
Posted by: Peter at Sep 5, 2009 9:45:51 AM
Asia is too crowded? Where? Eastern Siberia? Seoul? And are even the crowded parts really more crowded than Europe, on average?
And I can't believe that Mexico City would even be on the table. Mexico, yes, but not DF.
I would pick Northern France. I speak the language well enough to be fluent within a year. Great food, nice climate, close to other interesting parts of Europe, as well as Paris itself (although I doubt I would actually live in Paris).
Having spent a lot of time in Toronto, that would be the easiest choice. No more adjustment needed than moving to any other large North American city.
Posted by: KingM at Sep 5, 2009 10:26:04 AM
English: Vancouver or Wellington. Probably the latter, since it has nicer weather.
Non-English: Brussels or maybe Krakow.
Posted by: Andy at Sep 5, 2009 10:48:11 AM
If you accept a slight tweak to your criteria, Montreal is a great city to live in. Ignoring the "English speaking countries excluded" I'd suggest Vancouver rather than Toronto. You discount Asia, but consider Bombay (Mumbai for you diehards) or Goa if you want a bit less density.
Posted by: David Rotor at Sep 5, 2009 10:48:35 AM
Toronto? Good heavens.
If you want a North American city culturally proximate but with a bit of flare, why not Vancouver or Montreal? Toronto is so... Cleveland.
Posted by: Geoff NoNick at Sep 5, 2009 11:01:40 AM
Tyler, luv ya man, and far be it from me to begrudge anyone their preferred exile destination, but when you write off all of Asia because of population density you sound like one of those Americans without a passport. (I'm American so I can say that right?)
You might disqualify some Asian possibilities for various reasons, but I could name 10 nice places with thriving 'expat' scenes (if you want), where population density wouldn't be a problem: been to Ubud lately?
You can have it without the isolation of pre-internet civilization obviously too. And, I could make a case that I'm less isolated, culturally and otherwise in Bali than I'd be in Cologne (in January??) though probably not Berlin. I was within earshot of four languages today at lunch, and that would be unusual probably even in NYC...
Posted by: Tom at Sep 5, 2009 11:03:26 AM
Surprised that you said Toronto instead of Vancouver. It doesn't snow very often in the city, but Whistler is 1.5 hours away, as is Mt Baker (tho if you're in exile from the USA it's unlikely you'd go back for a volcano).
Actually very surprised that you didn't mention cities which are highly rated for their livability like Zurich or Geneva.
Also, I think you're generalizing too much with Asia, while many cities like Bangkok and Shanghai have high population density, there are suburban and rural areas much like eastern North America that actually facilitate a high standard of living... alternatively you could live on a deserted beach for about 4 dollars a day on the gulf coast of Thailand.
Posted by: Jon at Sep 5, 2009 11:14:00 AM
Yeah, I'm surprised Paris doesn't get a mention from Tyler.
Posted by: thehova at Sep 5, 2009 11:21:00 AM
I'd choose Bangkok, and live right by a BTS station. The frustration for me with population density is traffic, but I'd avoid that entirely. And I'd be happy at $2mm there, don't need the $10mm.
I think you exclude too much by pushing aside the entire English-speaking world by fiat. I'd definitely have to rank Melbourne up there in my preferred choices..
Posted by: Gary Leff at Sep 5, 2009 11:23:48 AM
The pollution in Mexico City has improved drastically over the past 20 years and is getting tolerable. I do outdoors sports regularly without trouble now in the D.F. Certainly it would be at the top of my list.
You'll only get to bed after a party an hour earlier than in B.A., though. (5am v. 6am)
Seoul has more beautiful women than any other city in the world and deserves a top spot if we're allowed to stipulate competence in the language. The weather isn't so agreeable when Siberian or Mongolian winds get going.
Posted by: Brian at Sep 5, 2009 11:46:40 AM
I haven't traveled extensively by comparison to many readers, but I have lived in Berlin, and I am very pleased to see it make the list. I loved it there. For those bargain hunters out there, it was also amazingly inexpensive as city living goes.
Posted by: Alicia at Sep 5, 2009 11:50:58 AM
I can recommend Cologne - I was in Freiburg for a language course this winter and spring. I went to Cologne for a weekend and ended up going back twice and then again for a few days in July! It's an interesting place and from my superficial acquaintance looks very livable.
If you want to try Switzerland, Basel is a nice choice - scenic, and right in the corner with France and Germany.
Posted by: Michael Tinkler at Sep 5, 2009 12:14:06 PM
I once posed a similar question to Tyler nearly twenty years ago (if he remembers) and he replied...Brazil. I suppose he has changed his view.
Posted by: Marc Poitras at Sep 5, 2009 12:48:52 PM
Money or no money makes a big difference. I wouldn't want to try to live in Zurich as a poor nonnative. But with money there's a nice life to be had just about anywhere in the world. What can't money buy in this post-communist world, other than nice weather and freedom from air pollution?
If I were rich, my only other worry would be social isolation: what would I do with my time and who would I spend time with. For that I'd much prefer a hip city with great cafes, access to Western culture, and the kind of vibe that would lead my U.S. friends to come stay with me in order to see the place (even if they dispproved of me: "yes, dear, I know about the scandal, but look, we can live in a houseboat on a canal in Amsterdam for free").
If I needed to worry about extradition I'd be in Cuba or Aleppo, Syria. I know a lot of people here will say, "Syria?" But it's actually a comfortable country with great weather, great food, spectacular food markets, a table-hopping cafe scene (seriously!), beautiful old houses that can be rented for basically nothing, excellent public transportation, and Aleppo is the kind of town that has statutes of poets instead of statutes of the current dictator. There is a real split in the Muslim world between the religious hinterland and a limited number of pro-sinning party towns. Aleppo is one of the party towns.
But if money were no object, I'd spend my summers in Cambridge, England and my winters in Venice, Italy.
Posted by: Diana at Sep 5, 2009 1:35:37 PM
Interesting, but predictable. My choice would be Bombay, India. I won't use Mumbai, but that's another story. Two most enjoyable years were spent there in the late 90's. Great culture, fascinating people, immense diversity without ever going beyond borders and a country on the ascendancy, unlike Europe. Australia is tempting having lived there for two years in the 1980's but ultimately the country is just too far from everywhere else.
Posted by: OregonJon at Sep 5, 2009 2:04:24 PM
May I humbly recommend Prague?
Posted by: Marian Kechlibar at Sep 5, 2009 2:48:32 PM
