You never know when you'll need to take down a Russian UAV. Icemage can tell you all about that, he sees Russians around every corner.



That's because you live in some backwater state and probably never been outside the US for a meaningful amount of time. Take it from a foreigner who grew up abroad and frequently travels back. This is one of the best places to live in the world. There's only a handful of countries that are better and all of them are much smaller so they wouldn't scale to accommodate 350 million people.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 10 2020 12:23pm

Hold on - is this about America being great or being a great place to live in? They are two different things.

I've been around the world and I'd argue there are lots of better places to live, but do they compare to the US in their military, political or cultural influence? Obviously not.

Remember you saying a while back you were from Romania or Bulgaria. This is relevant because they're ex-satellite states where the standard of living isn't great, compared to countries like Ireland, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia that are better to live in than the US based on quality of life metrics.

From my experience of being in the US it's got some of the nicest suburbs I've ever seen and also some of the most poverty stricken that you just don't see in the aforementioned countries.

This post was edited by dro94 on May 10 2020 12:38pm

Switzerland is the best country on this planet, end of discussion.

Yeah i'm from eastern Europe but i'v been to central Europe and honestly i'd rather live in the US 10/10 times excluding a few places.

I think there are obvious better places but once again it matters to how many people you could provide that better lifestyle. My list of better would include countries like:

Switzerland
Norway
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Australia

I don't see how any of those countries would be able to scale and provide that same fairly good lifestyle if their population was 340 million.

I was listing the countries I've been to that are better.



Central Europe is a bit shit though, I would also prefer the US.

The scale doesn't matter, that is irrelevant.

It depends. I would probably prefer living in the Czech Republic or Slovenia over living in a state like Mississippi or North Dakota.



Western Europe has a population of around 350-400m, and a very comparable living standard, all things included. Western Europe's average wages and GDP/capita are a bit lower, but they have better healthcare, welfare states, less expensive schools and universities, and work less.

How is it irrelevant, when there are obvious resource limitations. A country like Norway with a tiny population but massive amounts of natural resources results in per capita wealth much higher than a country like India. It's not that one country is much smarter or better at managing resources, has a lot to do with how many people that wonderful system can support.



No thanks on western Europe. I like the space the US has to offer. Those are decent perks, but for people that like to strive for more in life getting raped by 40% taxes in Europe isn't fun.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 10 2020 01:42pm

Management is a huge part if Norways success though. They nationalized the profits and used it to build infrastructure and develop long term investments for the good of the country.

Management will make or break a country no matter how resource rich or poor they are. History is littered with states that failed because they allowed the profits from the exploitation of their natural resources to be exported

This post was edited by Thor123422 on May 10 2020 01:44pm

Slovenia and Mississippi have a pretty similar gdp per capita. North Dakota on the other hand is doing fine. Maybe the lifestyle isn't for you, though.

I think we need to be fair when we compare the United States to Europe. The poorest states in the United States often compare favorably to the poorest states in Europe, although on the whole the United States is less egalitarian.

Life in New England, on the other hand, compares favorably against even the wealthiest states in Europe. The United States is a continent unto itself, it's unreasonable to expect that there shouldn't be regional disparities, anymore than one can compare Germany or Belgium to Portugal and Spain.

Management is a luxury when your population is small enough to not consume the resource over a long period of time. If they had 100 million people then obviously those GDP/capita and resource/capita breakdowns would be no where near were they are now.