I never said that. Of course, there are special circumstances, but those don't apply to me.
I was speaking in a general sense, as were you, and now you're saying I'm at fault for not looking only at your specific case, wants, and desires? Cuckoo...
But there's a broader context here that you're either ignoring or dismissing: The person I replied to wants to move to Europe because he thinks America doesn't give him enough and he wants more just given to him from some non-specific social program. You then come in and say:
Easy. They generally cannot afford to move.
My reply to you is and has been that money is never a true barrier to the move itself, and that if where you are is really that bad, you CAN leave it even if you have no money. There will be a cost, there's always a cost to move, but never one that you can't afford.
So then you go on about the cost of living after you move, followed by a bunch of tangents. In fact, you're basically arguing that the reason he can't move is because what he wants to be there, won't actually be there, negating the entire point of moving. Besides, he literally said in another post that he spends four months out of the year there, so obviously getting there and affording to stay for a while isn't a problem in his case.
You didn't even correctly comprehend what I said. Of course I would take the small stuff. My desk, bed, dressers, and kitchen stuff would not come with, but I would need new versions of those. And I'd by lucky to get 50% of what I paid for those things. Thus, overall, I'd be in a negative position.
I very much did correctly comprehend it. You're sitting there making broad, sweeping statements, and now you're saying I'm at fault because I didn't guess what was actually in your head. Indeed, you're obviously not comprehending what I'm saying. In fact, if you're in America, you're going to struggle to find anybody willing to sell new versions of these kind of items at these prices. You don't even know exactly what it is that I have, yet you're speaking as though you already know exactly how long it will last despite that there's no possible way you even can know that. Let me quote you:
You're examples do not fall into that category. They're cheaper, but not the cheapest, shittiest quality available, and still won't outlive the more expensive, higher-quality items available under normal usage.
Unless you're just trying to say that some people just buy shittier, crappier items, even if they pay more for them? In which case, the answer I can give you is even easier: Be more selective, or smarter, about what you're buying. And again, this is tangential to the cost of moving. And this already has outlived more expensive, theoretically "higher quality" ones I've had before after they broke. Besides, odds are pretty good overall that I spend less on my everyday items than you do. I still remember DamnOregonian a while back commenting on how I live like I'm poor, my reply was something like "yeah, I pretty much grew up that way."
No, you didn't. None of that stuff will outlive you (outside of a sudden and unexpected death).
Obviously you're not aware of this, but even inexpensive materials like wood, metal, and plastic will generally outlast a person's lifetime. Your furniture won't biodegrade, if that's what you're worried about. And the latter two materials keep getting better and better, the former as well when you consider composites.
Even if it did manage to outlive you, it's not of a quality that anyone else (like kids, if applicable) is going to want to keep. If you die and still have any of that stuff you mentioned, it's getting thrown away.
I didn't say anybody else is surely going to want it. That was never the argument. It wasn't even the point you were trying to make -- you were literally arguing about durability, specifically calling out wear and tear. In fact, right now you're literally shifting your position into the argument I just made as if I never made it, specifically, simply getting rid of old items that are no longer wanted, not because it is worn or damaged beyond the point of still being useful. And yet again, this is tangential to moving costs.
The only reason you're even bringing this up is because you want to make moving look more expensive and otherwise insurmountable than it is by insisting that people need to buy items that are more expensive than they have an actual necessity for, which I have to say, is a pretty dumb argument. In fact, the whole premise of "moving is too expensive because when I get there I want nicer shit that I won't want to get rid of earlier thus spending more later even though it's still useful" is a load of crap. I got it, you don't like the Zinus furniture because you think it won't survive next decade's fashion trends causing you to spend more later. Regardless, that is a want, not a necessity.
And nobody, at any point, said that just any person can afford to live any place in the world. I already know you can't even afford to live in some places within the US -- that was never the debate. We're talking about moving.
Not relevant or relatable.
It's very relevant to the tangent you've already brought up -- What I'm trying to explain to you is that your absolutist thinking that cheap means inferior quality is flat wrong. It sounds like you're at least beginning to understand that now, though I'm not certain.
Also, wrong. Falcon 9 has the cheapest per-kilogram operating cost to LEO. It is not the cheapest ever made and is not the cheapest option for non-LEO launches.
Fair point, so let me qualify my words (unlike you I'm not going to pretend I said something different): For its capabilities, the cost is basically rock bottom, even without reuse. While you can get lower cost in absolute terms, you get heavy diminishing returns. In its expendable configuration, it can carry a 22 ton payload at roughly a $43 million cost for the vehicle. Compare that to say India's PSLV, which will set you back no less than $15 million cost for the vehicle for a 3-4 ton payload capacity, and can't even claim the same reliability as Falcon 9.
So yes, that is what I meant to say.
Because I literally do not have resources. I don't have a car. I don't own a home.
You have resources, in fact you've already stated as such. The problem is you simply won't leverage them wisely. Whether you don't want to or don't know how, I'm uncertain, but it doesn't matter. I've been in a similar situation -- literally owned nothing and had I think $100 to my name when I was around 28. No income or college degree either, just EBT and medicaid. I easily had less in the way of resources than you currently do. But I still had resources.
The fact that you think your experience can be replicated to every other person is extremely naive and egocentric, not to mention completely wrong.
That's nice, but I didn't say or imply that. Are you familiar with Paul Alexander? If not, google him. That's what resourcefulness looks like.
So, basically not disabled. But damaged enough that the Army no longer wanted you.
Defective is not damaged. Though the Army did do a bit of damage that I've already alluded to and I'm in the process of getting a VA rating for. Legally disabled as well, though I don't receive SSDI.
aaaand *not* on a fixed income.
Never said I was.
Cool. So, you're arrogant AND stupid. And when you do finally have an accident because of it, I take solace in the fact that it will be deemed your fault because you refuse to listen to the advice of people smarter than you.
The advice of which people?
Ah yes. Konstantin Samoilov. A Russian in exile. First of all, he qualified for asylum, so he already had a helping hand.
Which would fall within what I was already talking about. But actually no, he's not an asylee. I don't know where you're getting that from because he has said that he isn't. Moreover, he wouldn't qualify that quickly, nor does that provide a helping hand for somebody in his position beyond free board at a crowded ONA shelter, which he is definitely not residing in.
On top of that he has a YouTube channel that is partially monetized, a Patreon, and receives donations from viewers via Paypal, BuyMeACoffee, Bitcoin, and USDT.
I already know this. I mean I should, because I am one of those donors, after all. Not a huge amount, but I've given. I've been watching his channel for a few years now.
So, while he may have left most or all of his physical belongings behind, he's never been short on help or money.
This is false, he actively struggles with paying his living expenses. While I don't know his specific financial details, others have corroborated this.
So the only thing "trooper" about him is the fact that he is a Russian that actually has enough of a backbone to call Putin out on his bullshit. So, no, I do not have more that Samoilov had.
Unlike you, he does not have a reliable source of income. I don't always have time to watch his latest videos as he's broadcasting them, sometimes I can't until a bit later, but in the most recent video he broadcast, he mentioned he is living in a hotel and isn't certain where he's going to permanently live yet within Luxembourg. In addition to the fact that he has no reliable income. You, as you are right now, have something far more valuable than he does: Stability. And you don't even have to lift a finger to get it. The rest of us need to work for a living. That also means you have more than ample access to yet another resource that he, like I do, tends to be in very short supply of: Time.
But...America just doesn't treat you well enough. Poor you.
It is stupid, but there are several that do it.
Like who? The list of billionaires in the entire world isn't that long, and the list of American ones specifically is a bit shorter.
Some hide their money in companies but can still access it and spend it as their own personal money (Warren Buffet).
You can't "hide" your money in companies at that scale. In fact, this is an even worse idea because you're literally exposing yourself to all of your company's liabilities, and I don't even know what the hell you intend to get out of it. Either way, at this scale it would never fly. The second an auditor looks at your books they're going to start asking some tough questions. And that's just a private accounting firm reporting to your investors that whatever it is you're doing, it can't be good for the company. Doesn't matter if you're public or a privately traded company. And the IRS really won't like it. As I mentioned earlier, you're quite naive on these matters, so I'll help fill in a blank for you:
A person like him, and anybody else really, can take out loans against his own shares, but there are pros and cons to this. I personally am looking at doing something similar in order to buy a house in an all-cash deal. Rather than me spending time going into details myself, just read this: https://www.fidelity.com/learn...
That is the brokerage I'm doing this through, by the way, if I do this as I may already have all of the cash I need. If you're confident that your shares will increase in value at a rate greater than the bond rate, then loans like this are a no-brainer because you still own the shares, and can still cash out later at a higher amount that beats whatever the interest is. You'll pay more taxes on those higher gains too, so you have to factor that into it.
The major downside here is the dreaded margin call. Bottom line though: You're far out of your element on this.
You have experience bias written all over you making you incapable of fully understanding anything that you have not personally experienced. You have a "if I can do it, anyone can do it" mindset, but falsely equate 'anyone' with 'everyone' in your mind.
I don't normally pick at grammar, but this is such a sloppily structured sentence that I have no choice but to loosely interpret it: Falsely equating 'anyone' with 'everyone' is exactly what you've been doing this entire time. I was literally responding to somebody else in a general sense, then you literally just shifted it to your own experience as if it was the only one that mattered. There's a word for that by the way: Projection. Though I will give you one thing: I'm obviously far more capable of distinguishing between want and need than you are, and that experience does give me a few biases. While I've been typing this, I've had this playing in another tab:
https://youtu.be/6ZN2tm1JymM?t...
While that guy is talking about how the loan is predatory, the only thing on my mind is: Why the FUCK would somebody even sign such a contract? My amygdala would be in overdrive just seeing those numbers. I've been through that before when I was looking at buying a new car once, and the thought I had when I saw the numbers was something to the effect of "do people actually fall for this crap? surely some must, otherwise they wouldn't hand me this crap with a straight face". None of those cars are a 'need', they're pure 'want'. Somebody has to do one of two (or likely both) things to end up in this situation: 1) Be incredibly stupid 2) Tell themselves that they really need that car.
Though, and obviously in contrast to you, I trust data and numbers far more than I trust my own experience for the simple fact that one's own memories can be quite deceiving.
You think you have answers for things you've haven't researched
No, I very much don't, for exactly the reason I just described. By the way, where did you get the idea that Konstantin is an asylee again?
and think you know more than someone who has been actively researching possible countries to move to, all their various legal requirements, and my personal situation/limitations/needs.
Again, no. However, I highly doubt you've actually done much research on this. If you have, then you clearly have spent much more time working on perfecting your grammar.
You lack basic critical reading and thinking skills, back up by the fact you joined the Army. You're basic and uninteresting.
Rather than just vague attempts at insults, I'll give you very specific, and very real feedback: You literally can't even follow the conversation correctly, let alone maintain a consistent position on anything, and your writing style betrays that you never completed the 5th grade.
So, politely take your fist and ram it up your own asshole.
And here's your experience bias: Unlike you, I have normal sized adult male hands and a normal sized asshole. Unlike your case of girlish hands and a ruthlessly overstretched asshole, I simply can't do this at all.