Which country in the world is the best from an objective viewpoint?

I thought it was Japan, especially Tokyo. South Korea sounds good too.

It may not be the best, but Iceland is an awesome place! Laid-back-ness to rival the Caribbean and it's a beautiful place. Only problem is they're economy probably isn't too good atm, but definitely somewhere to think about retiring too!

Oh and the lack of sunlight during the winter and occasional earthquake, they aren't too strong though and feel really weird!

Ever heard of the United Nations Human Development Index?

Aren't the suicide rates really high?

Germany comes to mind. Located in the heart of Europe, an economy built on very strong foundations (engineering and exports), very few natural disasters, great transport, a fairly low cost of living, political stability, financial prudence and a culture not too dissimilar to the uk.

Germany also has a demographic crisis, but it's more immigrant-friendly than Japan.




Japan's a ticking timebomb - national debt is over double GDP, the workforce is shrinking, and demographics are disasterous (an upside down pyramid).



Iceland owes around 7 times it's gdp in banking liabilites!

Taking into account safety from natural disasters, wild animals, neighbours, education, opportunities for you and your children, healthcare, weather, general stability, and the future of that country (i.e. global warming, economic shifts, ageing populations), which would you say is the best?

I am inclined to say Britain and more specifically England. Although healthcare, opportunities, education, weather, and an ageing population, is slightly worse than the rest of Europe this is offset by the fact that our chances of invasion are relatively low (being that we are an island). We also benefit heavily from being at the centre of time - 8 hours behind China and 5-8 hours in front of America, which makes Britain an almost indispensable country in business terms. Our language is also the international language, which is a clear advantage.

Having said that, it may well be that Scandinavia - in particular Norway and Finland, are the best. They have the best education and healthcare, as well as opportunities. When and if global warming does occur there should be sizeable benefits to these countries - however the drawbacks could be immense, with much of the world fighting for their land. Norway also has an extremely large sovereign wealth fund, especially when compared to the size of their population. For the present (the next 50 years or so), I cannot see either of these countries ever becoming involved in anything but peacekeeping missions, and I also cannot see them being invaded either. The weather is a rather large draw back - with a fairly large portion of the year being almost sunless, and an almost identical chunk being sunny almost 24 hours a day. The obvious problem with moving to either of these countries for my children's benefit is that I don't stand a chance of learning their languages beyond the very basics, which would be very rude indeed.

So what do you think? Which country is objectively the best? Where would you raise your children?

There are other factors, than political or economic. There are cultural factors also.

I don't believe in objective things or absolutes, but the UK being the centre of time is historical accident. And it's likely that English will not be the lingua franca forever, why should it?

There are other factors, than political or economic. There are cultural factors also.

I don't believe in objective things or absolutes, but the UK being the centre of time is historical accident. And it's likely that English will not be the lingua franca forever, why should it?

It depends who you are.

Scandinavia is often cited as a good example of a place to live but that is probably more the case if you are a person of ordinary financial means, who has grown up there. When it comes to where to move to if you are successful and wealthy and looking for somewhere to emigrate to, bear in mind that you will pay far more in taxes in the Scandinavian countries than you would in the UK. They have a comprehensive welfare state and high standard public services but thats because the state is a big part of their society.

Here's an article about Sweden in 2008, yes it's three years old but broadly should be similar to the situation now, high pension provision, 2/3 of the electorate either working for the public sector or drawing benefits, long periods of parental leave guaranteed. The downside is most people pay between 49% and 60% of their income back to the state through various state and local government taxes. So if you are rich and wanting to move there then I'm sure they will welcome you but you will be paying most of your income for the generous provisions which everybody else enjoys.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/nov/16/sweden-tax-burden-welfare

On Switzerland....double edged sword here. One of my aunts has lived there for about 15 years. It's often cited as the place to move to if you have made it financially eg its a popular destination for hedge fund managers. The pros are it's nice visually, has efficient public services, good career opportunities, and relatively low tax. The cons are the cost of living is very high. In the UK, things feel expensive but if you are a streetwise consumer you can usually find bargains, firms have always got some form of rotating sale on so you can find ways to get things cheaply if you look around. In Switzerland for whatever reason they don't have a culture of sales, things cost what they cost, and it's generally high. I used to think it was just an expensive place to go as a tourist but my aunt assures me you pay those prices for everything all the time. The big drain on your income is health insurance which is very expensive, that eats up a lot of the advantages of lower income tax, and if you have kids and want to get them into a good school especially an international school it's difficult and again is very expensive. The other problem is Switzerland has a lot of red tape and petty bureaucracy, it's easy to get fines for breaking some rule if you don't know how the country works. As regards crime, my aunt is in Zurich and she has a lot more security measures on her house than people do in the UK and she has had problems with break-ins, some areas of the city are no go. Outside of Zurich it's probably quite a safe country.

Having said this, she's lived there for a while and has no intention of leaving, she has a good job there - but her advice is always that people in the UK looking to emigrate to Switzerland need to do more research than they typically do. You get a lot of people especially young people who are working in the financial sector, who have the idea of Switzerland as a goal in mind thinking it is low tax and the place to accumulate money. If you want that go to the Gulf states or somewhere like Belize, Switzerland is low tax but it has ways of making your money disappear in other ways and it's not the place to go if you don't like bureaucracy or red tape.

It's likely to stay that way for a long time (I'm assuming we're talking about the language not the culture)... Because it's the language used internationally in finance, and it's important to some of the more powerful countries in the world (UK and USA mainly).

That could change... But for a long time to come, at least, English will be an important language for people to learn worldwide.

It depends on the global power balance, which is why English became widespread in the first place. If the UK and US become less powerful, then why use English?

If there are other factors that are more important to you that political or economic that's fine, list your country and why you think it's the best. Most 'good' countries though have a relatively uniform culture, as I have noticed no one has picked China or India. English might not be the lingua franca forever and ever, but the international community has already adopted it to talk to one another so it probably will be for a sizeable amount of time (over 100 years). It would take another empire creating country to go round the world and make everyone speak their language.

How are you arguing that the UK being at the centre of time is an historical accident? We created the first railways, which required the first consistently accurate times across the country and the world, which meant that we got to set the times for the entire world from Greenwich. Of course the fact that we were responsible for 72% of shipping worldwide also made us a prime candidate. Even if it was an historical accident (which I think we can say it wasn't) it is still a pretty big bonus for the UK.

Stuffy?