I'm starting to think more seriously about expatriating from the United States... and I would really like to relocate to the Caribbean or to Central America (or Mexico). That said, do you know of any countries in this region that are on the rise? Which countries in this region do you think might be best to expatriate to? (Some considerations: Safety, Economy, Cost of living, Taxes).
The woods seem to be pretty popular.
Try Iceland, but good luck with the language!
Why Iceland?
Beautiful country, and seems to be moving toward freedom - unlike everywhere else in the West.
Do you have any specifics you'd like to share...or is our new friend here just supposed to pack up and move across an ocean to a remote island country (with one of the most difficult languages in the world, as you point out) based on "seems to be moving toward freedom"?
(This, after it's near total collapse only recently.)
Iceland refused to bail out (most of) its banks, unlike every other Western nation, thus allowing debt liquidation, which caused the "near-total collapse" you mention - but this is just the needful bust following a boom brought about by artificial credit expansion. Iceland is now growing healthily. Unlike in every other Western nation, the people of Iceland managed to oust their previous government, which was (like all governments everywhere) in the pocket of the banks. Not perfect by a long shot, but at least they are moving in the right direction.
A quick google search yielded this article, which summarizes the case of Iceland:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/opinion/19tue2.html
Thank you for the info... though I am primarily looking for countries located in the Caribbean or Central America.
Doug Casey lives in Argentina. Apparently the state there is so weak that they can't effectively regulate trade, at least where he lives.
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
I hear Costa Rica is nice, very cheap, relatively peaceful - i.e. no running drug-wars in the streets.
Yup, the 3rd world looks pretty liberty-hostile on paper, but in reality the governments aren't very capable of carrying out their dastardly plans.
Thank you... though I heard Costa Rica is no longer cheap due to the fact that so many expats have now moved there. Is anyone able to confirm (or refute) this?
Iceland totally had the most logical response to the financial crisis. They arrested some bankers, they threw out politicians, they banned Goldman Sachs, they told London they didn't care about what repudiation would to to London finance, and they told the IMF to go **** themselves...
Iceland should be a prime example of what is to be done to throw off the bankers and world government types. Their protests were coordinated, non violent, and effective. They had clear demands.
Sure, their interest rates are probably like 15% still, but they are on their way to recovery.
In my last poly sci class (ideology) the idiots that did their presentation on the topic, "The future of libertarianism" said that 'not regulating the environment will lead to complete corporate control, depletion of the resources, global warming, riots, then dictators.'
I knew that they had wanted to say that they whole time and also knew that they had no F****** idea what they were talking about and asked about the relationship of bailouts to libertarianism to no avail.
I then asked how they saw Iceland repudiating their ill gotten debts and after a long awkward silence one of them was like, "Well, they're gonna have a hard time getting more loans, aren't they?"
HA (I thought). (I love democracy.)
Aristophanes:Their protests were coordinated, non violent, and effective.
Um. What fantasy world are you living in, exactly? Sounds awesome.
You are such a woman about things. You just googled something. You did not click or read anything. You know nothing about context. The news reported a very biased report of what happened. Seriously...
"On 21 January 2009, the protests continued in Reykjavík, where the Prime Minister's car was pelted with snowballs, eggs, and cans by demonstrators demanding his resignation"
"Government buildings were surrounded by a crowd of at least 3,000 people, pelting them with paint and eggs, and the crowd then moved towards the Althing where one demonstrator climbed the walls and put up a sign that read "Treason due to recklessness is still treason."[14][16] No arrests were reported."
"On 22 January 2009, police used tear gas to disperse people on Austurvöllur (the square in front of the Althing), the first such use since the 1949 anti-NATO protest.[17][18] Around 2,000 protesters had surrounded the building since the day before and they hurled fireworks, shoes, toilet paper, rocks, and paving stones at the building and its police guard. Reykjavik police chief Stefán Eiríksson said that they tried to disperse a "hard core" of a "few hundred" with pepper spray before using the tear gas.[4] Eiríksson also commented that the protests were expected to continue, and that this represented a new situation for Iceland.[4]"
Point being, "violent" is a relative term and this is ghardly "violent." Throwing rocks, sure that is violent, throwing shoes and toilet paper? Not so much.
"Tensions in Reykjavik peaked on Thursday night when police used tear gas to control rioters for the first time since 1949. Demonstrators say the ruling Independence Party have brought financial ruin to a once wealthy island. In recent days, crowds of 2,000 -- from a population of 320,000 -- have gathered in front of the parliament to rail against the government.
Polls suggest a new election would likely spell a swing to the left with the Left-green party profiting from the tide of anti-capitalist sentiment."
Two things, you can see how the article you "linked" to goes into no detail about the "protests" and only uses the word "violent" in the headline and summary.
Everyone here should know the media manipulates perception, not just on Ron Paul, but on everything.
My second point, was that even though the paper (as well as the people I'm sure) are railing against "capitalism" they did exactly what a capitalists market would have done...
Aristophanes:You just googled something.
Yes. I'm pretty good with resources, but I have to admit I don't know the exact URLs for every news story and every photo for every subject one might spout nonsense about, off the top of my head. Nobody's perfect, I guess.
You did not click or read anything.
False.
You know nothing about context.
False. (Besides, I don't see how "context" is relevant here. You made a declarative statement. I don't see how "context" would turn something from "violence" into "not-violence", but I'd be happy to watch you try to explain.)
"On 21 January 2009, the protests continued in Reykjavík, where the Prime Minister's car was pelted with snowballs, eggs, and cans by demonstrators demanding his resignation" "Government buildings were surrounded by a crowd of at least 3,000 people, pelting them with paint and eggs,
Oh I see. It's the particular items hurled at a person that determines whether the act of aggresively hurling things at someone or something with the intent of hitting them and causing discomfort or disarray that determines whether "violence" has occurred. Silly me. I thought "non-violent" meant the absence of physical aggression. Boy is my face red.
You are such a woman about things.
You stay classy.
Last I heard Iceland had applied for EU membership.
"Oh I see. It's the particular items hurled at a person that determines whether the act of aggresively hurling things at someone or something with the intent of hitting them and causing discomfort or disarray that determines whether "violence" has occurred. Silly me. I thought "non-violent" meant the absence of physical aggression. Boy is my face red."
I knew you'd nitpick. Are you really such a splitter that you'd consider throwing toilet paper, a serious form of political aggression? I conceded that they should not have been throwing rocks and, to be fair, the videos of Icelandic protesting, to which I was originally referring, was coordinated banging on oil drums while their PM was trying to give speech. They did it several times.
"False. (Besides, I don't see how "context" is relevant here. You made a declarative statement. I don't see how "context" would turn something from "violence" into "not-violence", but I'd be happy to watch you try to explain.)"
The context was your ignorance of all of the other developments in Iceland, vs. googling "violent protest + Iceland" to try and prove your point...
If you ever converse with people that disagree with you in "real life" instead of arrogant internet rhetoric, you'll see that there are "loggers" and "splitters"; "cymini sectores."
"You stay classy."
hah. You have no class, kid. Stop frontin.
"
Last I heard Iceland had applied for EU membership."
Ironic isn't it?
I could barely follow any of that mess of a post, and I really don't feel like trying to decode it and dig around for any assemblance of logic or coherent thought, so I'll just assume you agree with me.
What are you talking about?
"I'll just assume you agree with me."
This is the kind of attitude that tells me you do not interact with people in the real world. People would just hate you.
Meanwhile, you are trying to bully people in a different thread...Get a life.
What was it that you said before something like,
??
Mitte ambos nudos ad ignotos et videbis.
iceland had its economy implode from the top of the first world standard do a lower tier south-european level developed country. funny destination if you have any financial incentives regarding your move
This thread has been utterly ruined.
Move to Mongolia!
I hear it's awesome there.
Nicaragua is becoming popular. Or Belize.
I recommend just staying in the US. But that's just me.