100 Expats!

It's not that easy. Nothing works here (in Panama) like that and you will quickly learn a whole new way of trying to do business.

Your best bet is to continue doing something online, where your place of residence is only limited to your ability to have an decent internet connection.

The rest of the lifestyle, needs, climate, taxes, etc is personal.

I understand your emotion, but I think the reality is that at this point universities are run by academics who don't understand, or believe in, a free market; and couldn't succeed in a situation where they were not protected by tenure and tax funding. They are the ones that teach the teachers, and then those teachers submit their students to a lifetime of education which derides and attacks any notion of the reality of free markets, while espousing government control and the "delights" of socialistic policy. There is no attempt made at all to teach what the free market means, how it works, and what it achieves.

People have become products of this educational system and, being ignorant of even the most basic realities of how economies work, or don't work, in the real world, they end up like this. It is not their fault, and it's certainly not a question of intelligence.

It's a terrible shame, and unfortunately, by the time most people wake up to the reality of what economic control really means, it is too late, and the only people with any power are the political elite.



.

There's some truth in this, but it's not quite that lopsided.

Adam Smith's invisible hand libertarians are as deluded as the believers in strict central / top down control.

Economics is not a hard science. It is a dynamic phenomenon subject to all sorts of factors and the balance point is somewhere near the middle of these extremes.

What would it require to open a strip club for instance? Paying off the local authorities (that's the way it is here in the U.S. already)? I'm still thinking it would be a million times easier to do in Panama.

If I wanted to open a club here in Vegas for example...I would need several million dollars and then have to go jump through so many govt. hoops. And then once it's open it's an ongoing hassle with the gaming commission, liquor authorities, city, county, state...headache after expensive headache....and all the while they send the undercover cops in every night trying to shut you down. :(

Has to be easier there, right?

Fair enough. Then what were your thoughts regarding my original post?

I totally agree. I would add to this...

"created by the people that are smart enough, creative enough, work hard enough, and are willing to take enough risks, and fortunate"

I say that because there are lots of people who are smart, work hard, take risks and fail, and there are the not so smart and lazy that are rather fortunate (lucky).

BTW, I understand you have something going on down here??

Hit me up when your in town and let's get together. :drinkup

Send me an email with your latest contact info when you get a chance.



.:pimp

Done. :)

I have the weirdest boner...

The rich will do anything for the poor except get off their backs.

Karl Marx

You become rich by employing people who make you $2000 a month and paying them $1000 a month.


After a revolution where the rich leave the economy normally improves within 5 years and the majority will be a lot better off.

First, there are gringos that do biz here and I'm sure it takes a certain talent, so I'm not saying doing a brick and mortar biz here can't be a lucrative venture.

I don't have any first hand experience. I can only offer what I've heard from friends and acquaintances that have done it (and not specifically strip clubs).

Other than the upfront cost, I'd say it's similar stuff to what you listed but harder to contend with plus much stricter labor requirements / laws, and for a strip club you can count on immigration and customs. And when there is something that requires courts, it gets worse. Napoleonic law here, not English Common law.

This is my take having listened to the stories.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

good luck with life.
you've wasted a lot of time reading the wrong books

I'm glad I have Cherry7 on Ignore...but since you guys quoted him:
What economy has EVER had no rich people after a "revolution"?

The ONLY thing that happens after a revolution is different people steal the original rich folks wealth and then THEY become the new rich people.

As The Who said: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"

and I'd add to cherry7
"the new boss will never be you"

aside from online businesses, those who made their money did so by being in america. the idea that they would of had the same success in some kind of second/third world economy is laughable.

What do you mean?
You know I toured Peru in 1984 with my band. And we stayed in mansions in the mountains just outside of Lima with armed guards, private nightclubs, etc.

The majority of that "third world country" is dirt poor...they literally live in the mud. There is no middle class. But you better bet your ass that there is a wealthy class and they are multi-millionaires.

Smart people can make money anywhere. And if you got the balls...and the guts....you can probably make MORE money in a third world country (not in technology obviously)

I think he means Americans leaving the USA...

you are distorting my argument, and using straw man rhetoric, by saying I have advocated "pushing" producers out of the country.

at no point do I make that suggestion, and you can't point to a sentence where I have.

what I said was, if "they" (the wealthy) want to go, based on such offers, we are just as well off to let them go, and good riddance.

anybody who would take such an offer was already on their way out anyway.

and you haven't demonstrated that the economy is not a zero sum game, which opens up an entirely new line of argument. asserting that is not is not an argument.

BUT, following up on your line of argument - you asserted that the economy is not a zero-sum game, THEN you contradicted yourself by implying that the wealthy, and their money and productivity, is a FIXED resource, one in which we lose (the very definition of zero-sum) if we lose any of that fixed resource.

so, your whole argument is based an an assertion that you immediately self-contradict.

so what is it - are the wealthy a fixed resource, such that the american economy loses if some one wealthy person leaves, and therefore a zero sum game? or is the economy not a zero-sum game, such that if one rich person takes some offer from some shithole country and emigrates, they are no loss, because they can be instantly replaced, and the local money stream remains equivalent?

and by the way, your argument, as I just demonstrated, was silly and self-contradictory, and based on distortions of my argument (straw man) for the purposes of forwarding your political and moral agenda. Your agenda does NOT respond to how we should feel about other countries offering lures to rich americans to emigrate.

As the world gets smaller and more globalized, countries will compete more for quality labor and skills, and economic impact.

There is of course a reason for this. Depending on the country, one might develop ways of keeping their skilled earners or acquiring skilled earners or both.

This is patently untrue. People act in their own self interests... EVEN YOU. If I set up a scenario whereby it is better for you and your family to move rather than stay, you will move. Unless of course you are self-destructive and a masochist. For example if you were Jewish and it was 1939, you would probably want to leave Germany.


I could just ask that you simply read more, but let me put this line of logic to you. If wealth is a zero-sum game, then all of the wealth in the world would have existed from the beginning of time. The fact is that "wealth", or "value" is derived anytime a new product or service is created. An empty field is worth very little. If you cultivate it and produce food with it, you have created "wealth", you haven't taken it from anybody. If you sell your goods at market, then you are increasing the wealth of the community. If you find coal and iron on your land, and you use your skills and labor to create products from that, you are creating new wealth, NOT taking if from someone else.


Apparently you aren't able to tell the difference between two very different concepts.
"Wealth" and "value" are attached to things that people want or need. They are relative values, not absolutes. As I pointed out above, more wealth is created simply by more products and services entering the flow of an economy, NOT by taking if from one person and giving it to another.

People, on the other hand, are absolute objects. There are a certain number of people within an economy who will tend to rise to great wealth because of their abilities and their inclination to take the risks and do the work inherent in creating new wealth within that economy. People that want to take that kind of risk do so, they don't suddenly get the urge just because the rich guy down the street is no longer there.

There is no contradiction here. The concept of "wealth and value" in an economy is an abstract. People are real things. If you kill a person and bury them, they are gone forever. If you take all the money and bury it, wealth will still exist in the form of new goods and services, even if you have to resort to the barter system.


.

now you are evading my arguments, and retreating into murky philosophy in a classic attempt to red herring, as a cover for your earlier straw man.

are the wealthy a fixed resource, or not?

how should we feel about other countries offering lures for emigration?

USA is still a good deal for rich people right now, but we're a couple decades away from the shit hitting the fan as far as national debt. as soon as China develops a strong enough domestic market and they don't need us to buy their shit, they will call in their loans and laugh as our economy collapses, for real collapses not this recession bullshit, overnight.

but jumping ship is a bit premature at this point.

So you really don't understand the difference between "Wealth" itself and "The Wealthy" (i.e. people who have and create wealth)? REALLY??

You find that difference "murky"?

I answered your post pretty directly. Sorry if it didn't consist of only one 7 word sentence. As with my first post, the economy is not some comic-book concept, it's a complex set of human interactions, on par with any ecosystem.

I guess I'm going to have to simply refer you to doing some research on your own, since it seems by your answers that you don't have the comprehension skills needed to continue the discussion. I don't mean this as a personal insult, I just am flabbergasted that you would find anything I have posted in this thread "murky"

Good luck with all that.



.:)




.

Dude, you're the one getting all "murky"

Let me make it simple:
Smart and ambitious people create wealth. When they all leave...you have a country full of lazy dumbasses.

Nothing "philosophical" there. :)

By "call in their loans" you mean sell their treasury holdings on the open market, right?

I mean, they don't have put options on the bonds they hold, so your use of terms seems misleading if not wrong.

more evasion.

the questions are simple. you could always just answer them.

I did.


I figure at this point that you are simply trolling. No one can be that dense.





.

so, your model is that individuals are a fixed resource, that there is a limited number of smart and therefore wealthy individuals, and that other countries offering inducements to get wealthy individuals to leave is - what exactly?

you are mis-stating the problem.

but at least you are honestly saying you feel it's a zero-sum game.

here's how you mis-state:

"When they all leave..."

the OP, and my response to the OP, said nothing about them ALL leaving.

Nobody is talking about all the wealthy leaving, altho, I can make a good argument that in fact the richest americans have already abandoned the american economy, invested all their capital in the multinational marketplace, which is why job growth in this country is in deep fucking shit.

the OP said "I've heard some countries are going to be running ads in the US to get wealthy Americans to completely move, even offering deals like instant citizenship, no taxes, and interest free loans for their business."

I said: "I hope they fuckin leave.

they ain't doing anything useful here, and if they are gone, it just opens up space for somebody less useless."

my argument is, anybody who would take such an offer is already useless to the country, and we are better off without them, because their absence creates an economic space which can be filled by more locally ambitious persons.

Workers make wealth by creating it, by farming, mining, transportation and distribution. UK company TESCO makes £93,000 per employee, they work 6 hours to earn their wage and the rest 34 hours for the company.

Most control of wealth is passed from father to son, and very little class mobility, if you born poor the chances are you will die poor. While capitalism was in competition with the Soviets wages rose, we had free Health Care and education, now after 30 years of technological development, we "can't afford it" . Wealth is moving from the poor to the rich again. Neo liberalism.....


The American fairy story of making it rich is mostly myth.

The Soviet Union industrialised without any rich people.

you are evading. your attempt to red herring with "wealth" and "value" have nothing to do with how we should feel about other countries offering lures for the wealthy to emigrate.

you did not even attempt to answer my questions or respond to my main points.

i am not trolling, everyone here by now knows who I am and roughly how I argue.

you ran out of bullets and tried to throw your gun at me, and now you are running away from your own argument, because even you can see the errors you made, and that you have let your agenda trap you in an undefendable position.

there is an easy way out - say, "okay, maybe I misunderstood your argument and reacted from my agenda, but we both have agendas, let me get back to the issue".

and argue the issue without straw man or red herring.

no body like my fatfoo impersonation? :(

This is definitely a GideonGallery fake nic :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Speak plainly man. It's this simple...(trying again):
Some people are WINNERS (smart, ambitious, leaders, and work-a-holics)
Some people are LOSERS (lazy, no ambition or drive, followers)

IF ALL the people who are winners leave a certain area: you have nothing left but LOSERS.

How hard is that to understand? It's not a "zero-sum game" Quit using dumbass terminology that doesn't fit here. I'm sure that some more "smart" people will be born, grow up, and kick some ass...but in the meantime you would be left with a country full of Followers and "worker bees".

Damn dude. Can't you understand that there is a REASON some people are successful? There is a reason some people are Generals and some people are grunt soldiers?

If we both start a football team...and all of you talented players leave your team and join mine...I will win everytime. Stop with the gideongallery "let's use big words that don't apply and try to sound smart" arguments.

If all the wealthy people in the U.S. left right now...they would also take their best people with them. And we'd be left with a bunch of dumbasses.

Think about China...remember your history? Mao "purged" all the wealthy and intellectuals (killed them). And China is just NOW becoming powerful again. He crippled that country for generations.

Bill8, do you even understand the meaning of zero-sum game? Wealth is not a zero sum game because of the fact that just because one person becomes wealthy, it does not mean that someone else must have less. Wealthy people, on the other hand, have nothing to do with that term. You seem to be swimming in semantic waters that are way over your head here. BTW. Your point about the UK does not apply in the US. Only a very very small percentage of millionaires in US inherited their wealth. I suggest you look it up

As for your assertions regarding the soviet union becoming industrialized, you should try talking to some of the people that escaped from there.


Actually, if you are quoting the soviet union as a success story then it shows that our world view is SO far apart that this is a hopeless discussion. All I can hope for you is that you live in a place that matches your philosophy... They do exist out there you know. I advise you to go for it!

And good luck...

Bitches ain't shit in Chinese money.

Well...
These so called rich people do not seem to be investing in shit so what does it matter?

On a lighter note I watched 60 Minutes and there was a bit about how the financial collapse placed billions and billions of dollars into other peoples hands that did nothing but bet against the industry.


The Effect?
An enormous transfer of wealth occured and those people that got all the wealth are basically doing nothing with it.

So it is like all the hamburger workers got the wealth from the fall out.
They are not reinvesting, they are not opening business, they are basically just sitting on it.

Walls streeters and investment bankers are now getting shit tons of money but what they are doing with the shit ton they got is next to nothing though some are beginning to invest offshore in China, India Korea, South and Central America etc...

In short they are taking money else where. That much is obvious and confirms why Other countries are pressuring up incentives to relocate.

Bill8, as regards to your TESCO example. This is the kind of silliness that socialized like to quote all the time. What they forget is that, by the same token, since the average business make 10% profit and THEN has to pay taxes on that, then by the same reckoning the owners are spending 37 hours covering costs and 4 hours working for themselves.

It's just propaganda. Seriously. You must not own your own company if you can't understand this.
If you do happen to own a company then how did you do it? Did someone leave so that you could start it? Obviously, by your reasoning, you couldn't have started a company unless some other evil company owner got out of the way first... :-P

On the point of corporations paying tax.... thats why they have offshore accounts, accountants, lobbists so that they don't pay tax....

If 6,000 inviduals have more than a billion dollars each they did not do that by paying fair tax, they did it by not paying tax. Tax havens.

The Soviet Union industrialised at terrible cost 1925 - 1940 without rich people, without a capitalist class, faster than the west, and then beat Germany in WW2. They went from the most backward country to one with space rockets in a generation.

The owners of TESCO have to do nothing, just keep their shares safe.

wow, you really believe the shit you type??? :winkwink:

Most American Women are worste of the worste. Go to Eastern Europe if you want a real Woman. A guy with no children who isn't a drunk in his late 20's 30' 40's is like catnip to them over there. And they can actually cook. Oh my! Most stupid American skanks can't even boil water. They just go out to eat constantly and turn into fat asses.

Why would the Chinese destroy a foreign market. They aren't calling in any loans, the interest is good enough.

theyve been doing this for a loooong time, i have a teacher in my family moved his family from california to germany due to school systems so bad here.