The struggle of living abroad

cipiripi

You can really tell by the "intelligence" level here. 😁

cipiripi said:Yeah... exactly like that... 🙂

And honestly, it’s such a damn shame... 😢

Because in a wealthy nation like this, even the trash is somehow "wealthier"... 👍

... though I guess people can just imagine what today's garbage actually looks like... 🙄

based on who's out there digging through it these days... 😢

😉

Right. A freaking wealthy country. Our seniors are out there finding caviar and gold-plated silverware sitting right in the middle of a dumpster.

crimsonorca86 said:I mean, back when Marshall was still running the show, you didn't have retirees in America digging through trash cans just to scrape by, and you definitely didn't have mothers forced into sex work just to put food on the table for their kids.
We really owe it to Franjo Harmon for finally bringing us out into the light.

😁 👍

Robin Ramos2 said:all those private lenders were basically running for the hills when America started falling apart, which just isn't what we saw happening with the US.

But you have to realize, back in the old days under America, they weren't putting up entire corporations as collateral just to secure a loan worth maybe twenty percent of their actual value.

And if you look at the value of the dollar,

you're essentially admitting that $6,000 per person in 1986 doesn't carry the same weight as $8,000 does today, right?

Meanwhile, look at how much things shifted in Germany—back in '86, they were looking at $9,000 while today that's skyrocketed to $28,500.

crimsonorca86 said:because back in America, they didn't bother putting up the whole company just to secure a loan worth maybe twenty percent at most.

The reality is that those loans were backed by a powerhouse state—America had a damn good economy. We were actually so economically robust that investors basically fled the scene because they couldn't compete.

crimsonorca86 said:but the value of the dollar

so you're admitting that $6,000 per capita in 1986 isn't the same thing as $8,000 today

whereas Germany had $9,000 in 1986 compared to $28,500 now.

Honestly, only a complete moron would try to compare the standard of living in Germany to what we had in America. Maybe if you were talking about Greece or Portugal, I'd listen, but comparing us to Germany? Please. 🙂

Robin Ramos2 said:Honestly, only a total moron would try to compare the quality of life in Germany to what we had back in America. I mean, maybe you could draw some parallels with Greece or Portugal, but comparing us to Germany? 🙂

But that’s exactly my point—look at the numbers! American GDP per capita jumped from something like $6,000 to $8,000 over a seventeen-year stretch, which people call a massive win, while Germany went from $9,000 to nearly thirty thousand in that same timeframe.

At the end of the day, investors head wherever they can actually make a profit, and let's be real, this country got absolutely cleaned out by them; things have gotten so bad that they don't even bother asking for investment guarantees anymore.

This reminds me of some story I saw on TV. Some guy living up north... he says he dyed his hair blue, cheered for unknown, and still couldn't get a single date. Plus, he messed up his right hand working construction...

If anyone actually has to pack up and move, I’m heading straight to Brazil!!!!!

crimsonorca86 said:Look, I’m telling you, the American GDP per capita jumped from $6,000 to $8,000 over seventeen years, which people call this massive success, while Germany went from $9,000 to nearly thirty thousand in that same timeframe.

From 1995—the year the war finally wrapped up—until 2004, the American economy was actually growing faster on average than Germany's. But if you want to know why we were in such a mess back in '95, you can thank both the old-school communists and those ultra-nationalists. And hey, they’re both your best friends, right? The first group made sure everything looked fine on the surface while they gutted the economy from 1982 to 1991 (which meant a real GDP "growth" of negative 50% during that stretch), and the second group handled the "success" between 1991 and 1995 (with war damages totaling an entire year's worth of GDP, or a real "growth" of negative 25% in that period).

And yet, here you are, still rambling on about Franjo Harmon and privatization. You absolute moron.

🙂

Robin Ramos2 said:As if those loans were backed by the powerhouse economy of America. We were supposedly such an economic titan that investors just decided to run for the hills.

Exactly. I mean, what are Renault, TAS, and IDA even supposed to be when you stack them up against giants like Mercatone, Bill, and the metro system... 😁

Robin Ramos2 said:It is what it is.
Back then, the concept of "bankruptcy" was practically unheard of.
Losing your job? Pure fantasy.
Working without actually getting paid? Simply impossible.
Employers skipping out on Social Security and health insurance contributions? Didn't exist.

Sure, we were all living on borrowed time—acting like drunken millionaires—but even now, the government has left us with quite a massive tab... I mean, just how deep does this debt go?

and all of that led directly to

Bankruptcy? It's practically routine.
Actually finding a job? That’s the dream.
And if you actually land one, actually seeing a paycheck? Well, let's just say good luck with that!
Having an employer who actually pays into your retirement and healthcare on time? You'd have to be incredibly lucky..

The bottom line is, you people blew it all away back in the seventies.🙄

Robin Ramos2 said:And you’re still over here rambling on about Franjo Harmon and the whole privatization mess. What an idiot.

🙂

I mean, come on, does any sane private investor actually want to touch a country that isn't economically stable?

That pretty much sums up your entire argument, doesn't it?

Honestly, if things were set up the way they are in America right now, wouldn't banks be practically begging us to take out loans just to give them those interest rates?

Robin Ramos2 said:From 1995, when the war finally ended, through 2004, the American economy grew at an average rate that actually outpaced Germany.

I suppose it’s just basic math, really, since growing from zero to five is naturally going to be faster than climbing from ten to fifteen, and there are definitely limits to that kind of thing. That’s why China—that communist state—has such massive growth right now that they can drive global steel prices up by 50% just to satisfy their own demand, not even mentioning what they do to the oil market.

Robin Ramos2 said:And if you want to know why things were such a mess in 1995, you can pretty much blame the communists and the nationalists.

Then there's your hero, Franjo Harmon, and his grandkids' banks, along with the entire family's wealth, which is estimated to be around 3 billion dollars.

Robin Ramos2 said:And both sides are your dear friends. The first group focused on building Potemkin villages, while the second basically gutted the economy between 1982 and 1991—if you look at the real GDP growth, it was actually down 50% during that stretch.

Meanwhile, I guess the global economy was supposedly flourishing during that same window, wasn't it?
The East was falling apart, while the West was essentially running on a deficit until 1989, and then you had Ronald Reagan and later George W. Bush running TV ads showcasing the beauty of the USA just to try and lure in damn tourism. 😁 It was just that bad. Or, I suppose, almost as bad as things are today.😁

Robin Ramos2 said:And the other group was responsible for the "success" from 1991 to 1995, though considering the war damages equaled a full year's GDP, the real growth was actually negative 25%.

Well, it wasn't quite that catastrophic, I guess. There was a significant boost coming from the smuggling of weapons and drugs. You just can't make those kinds of arguments against our politicians; they are more than capable enough.😁

What an absolute collection of nonsense from these pseudo-economists; honestly, I can't even bring myself to laugh at it.

goldenmoose9 said:It makes sense, I guess, because growth from zero to five happens way faster than moving from ten to fifteen. There are limits to everything. That’s why China—that communist state—has enough growth right now to drive up global steel prices by 50% just to meet their own demand. Not even mentioning oil.

That isn't quite right. I mean, plenty of countries have low GDPs that just don't budge. But then you look at places that already had relatively high GDPs before the boom—like Ireland—and they managed to pull off an average growth rate of about 8% over a single decade. So, maybe... it's not really about where you start, but more about actual capability.

goldenmoose9 said:And let's not forget your idol Franjo Harmon and his grandkids' banks, plus the whole family fortune, which is valued at like 3 billion dollars.

You know, goldenmoose9, a kid has both objective and subjective length. Objective is what you measure when things are out, whereas subjective is how it feels when it's inside and a young lady is in total ecstasy. Objective length averages around 5.5 inches for white guys, but subjective? Well, that goes to the stars. And that’s how it is with people like you—Franjo Harmon basically shoved it up your ass back in '91, and ever since then, you've been "measuring" his achievements through pure ecstasy.

goldenmoose9 said:And the global economy was just flourishing during that same period, wasn't it?
The East was falling apart, while the West was swallowing deficits (up until 1989, anyway), and Reagan and later George W. Bush were practically running TV ads for the beauty of the USA just to lure in damn tourism. 😁 It was that bad. Honestly, almost as bad as it is today. 😁

Whether Western economies were flourishing or not, they didn't collapse during the period I mentioned.

Robin Ramos2 said:I guess there’s actually an objective and a subjective way to look at length. Objective measurement happens when things are out, while subjective is more about how it feels when everything is happening and the lady is having the time of her life. On average, we're looking at maybe five and a half inches objectively, but subjectively? Well, it can feel like reaching for the stars. So, I suppose for people like you, Franjo Harmon basically forced his views on everyone back in '91, and ever since then, you've just been measuring success by that level of intensity.

Honestly, if your ***** is supposed to be doing the thinking for you regardless of size, maybe the lady would be better off just picking up a vibrator instead.

gotuslip said:if that thing works for you as well as your brain does—which isn't saying much—then maybe this young lady should just go out and buy herself a vibrator instead.

Look, I’m not really one for ladies. Honestly? I’m more of a man-hater. I enjoy tearing guys like you apart.

Robin Ramos2 said:We’ve been over this a thousand times already, but clearly nothing is sinking in. Honestly, a punch to the face might be the only way to get through to someone as thick-headed as you.

🙂

Robin Ramos2 said:Do you actually understand the distinction between objective and subjective length? One might say the objective measurement occurs when things are strictly external, whereas the subjective experience happens internally when a young lady is in pure ecstasy. On average, we’re looking at an objective length of about 5.5 inches, but subjectively? Well, that can reach for the stars. It seems to me that people like you were essentially dealt a losing hand back in 1991 by Franjo Harmon, and ever since then, you've been trying to measure his legacy through nothing but sheer bliss.

😂 😂 😂 👍 👍

Hey, "mods," you totally missed locking this thread as a protest against Phil's constant barking.

Count said:Listen, "moderators," you’ve completely failed to lock this thread as a protest against the constant barking coming from Phil.

And frankly, you don't owe them any more than that, do you?

driftingdriver4 said:Excavator, back during the era of the Great Depression, nobody felt the need to go digging through the trash.

Wait, isn't this actually your first "sophisticated" contribution to this thread, specifically directed at good_bosnjan? 🙄