Places Where You Can Retire on $200,000 and Feel Rich

[captainmarknc]

Originally Posted by Sojourner

Such an open ended question....depends on what you like, what you can put up with, what negative things for many people you view as positive. Pretty much most third and second world countries you can live richly off a simple social security retirement from the US, esp starting with a little nest egg to set up a cottage somewhere. This is exactly what we are looking for as well down the line, fwiw, sailing around the world now to pick up a little plot of land on a coast somewhere cheap and building on it in a few decades

Anything in SE asia will be cheap as long as you go outside the tourist places at this point. Long ago when I first started spending time in Cambodia, there was no-one around much of the coastline, a squid shack and group of awesome street kids and that's about it...I could have bought half of the beach for a quarter, but I didn't have ten cents to spare. Now I couldn't afford a meter of sand in the same spot (snookyville). But a little more remote, sure. But you gotta love what that means. Highcountry thailand, same deal..... aw hell this is turning into a rant against overtourism and overdevelopment, isn't it. Ok, you can still buy a vineyard for 15,000 USD in a beautiful part of hungary with enough vines for 500 bottles a year, dozens of fruit trees, vegetable garden, a small pretty 3-room house with cellar and well water... I know cause I had one. I bet you can do it in Romania, Bulgaria too. Moldova for sure...I have a friend from the states who sold up and lives like a king in chisinau. Another friend is selling a big piece of land on St John in the USVI for about 200k, perfect for a cottage...I'd do it half underground to be hurricane proof myself.

Here in Sicily, in the beautiful and highly sailed aeolian islands, you can buy a cottage for 200k up in the hills. If you live cheap on a SS income or the like, you could live here year round...but it gets cold and windy in the winter, and the population of the island is 200 and gets around on donkeys. But it sounds kinda great, no? Grow some basil and tomatoes, harvest sea urchins and squid all summer long, read books and watch old movies all winter.

Too many gorgeous places to live with just one life... Near the sea, southeast turkey! South morocco! Rural Portugal or greece. Actually I'd love an apartment in tangier.... ok i'm going off the rails here, time for a swim. Cheers!

Wow! You should write a book!

[Chotu]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I look at it more that it's a measure of whether you have the character to borrow and then pay back on your commitment. It's not the banks fault if they make make money because they took the risk that you had good character. But it is a measure of your character if you don't pay it back.

I agree. But if you are not paying off the debt, you are costing them money in collections. Therefore you are not profitable.

It’s a measure of several ways that you are going to be profitable or not to a bank. Simple as that.

You are looking at it the way they want you to look at it. In actuality, it’s a number to assess what the likelihood is that you will make the bank money.

And credit reports take into account a lot more than just if you will pay the money back. There are several measures that go into a credit report, and when you add those are left, it’s really just a picture of how likely it is that you will make that bank some money.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The fact is, banks take absolutely minimal risk on most loans, yet they reap most of the rewards.

The real fact is that when you don't pay back the loan, that you agreed to, is that you ripped off the investors that put up the money. That's people like me that have money in 401k's etc

[hpeer]

So OK, does ANYONE here think Modern Money Theory makes ANY sense?

I ask because, in my meager understanding, it seems to imply the government NEVER has to pay back.

Yet we think our safest investments are government bonds? I’m sooo confused!

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Ah, but in most cases the banks DON’T take any real risk. Most of the time they allow you to borrow against established assets which are put up as collateral. For large loans they buy insurance (often at the borrower’s cost) to cover any default. And they are first in line for repayment in the case of bankruptcy.

The fact is, banks take absolutely minimal risk on most loans, yet they reap most of the rewards.

And then if the banks do have issues, the public bails them out.
A list of US bailouts here.

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by hpeer

So OK, does ANYONE here think Modern Money Theory makes ANY sense?

it does as long as my accounts increase

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

The real fact is that when you don't pay back the loan, that you agreed to, is that you ripped off the investors that put up the money. That's people like me that have money in 401k's etc

It’s all one big circle .

The point is, banks don’t take any real risk. Yet they reap all the rewards.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Ah, but in most cases the banks DON’T take any real risk. Most of the time they allow you to borrow against established assets which are put up as collateral. For large loans they buy insurance (often at the borrower’s cost) to cover any default. And they are first in line for repayment in the case of bankruptcy.

The fact is, banks take absolutely minimal risk on most loans, yet they reap most of the rewards.

I'd disagree with this Mike. Not only do banks take a risk, they create the risk!

Australia recently had a banking royal commission, its findings were scathing in regards to banking practices that enabled people to get loans that couldn't really afford them. In turn this has driven up housing prices, easy cheap money does this.Many would describe the Australian housing market as a bubble.

Now the consumers are at risk as more and more are finding themselves with negative equity, mortgage stress is very real here, average people are at risk of losing their houses BUT the banks are arguably at risk as well, Australian banks are more exposed to housing mortgages than any other country in the world, your liability (debt )is their asset until the the debt is more than the value of the house.

The risk to both parties has been created by bad lending practices verging on fraud. A housing crisis is a banking crisis.

The US subprime is the classic example, very bad banking practices created risk for all.But if governments bail banks out one could argue they run no risk.

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by daletournier

I'd disagree with this Mike. Not only do banks take a risk, they create the risk!

Australia recently had a banking royal commission, its findings were scathing in regards to banking practices that enabled people to get loans that couldn't really afford them. In turn this has driven up housing prices, easy cheap money does this.Many would describe the Australian housing market as a bubble.

Now the consumers are at risk as more and more are finding themselves with negative equity, mortgage stress is very real here, average people are at risk of losing their houses BUT the banks are arguably at risk as well, Australian banks are more exposed to housing mortgages than any other country in the world, your liability (debt )is their asset until the the debt is more than the value of the house.

The risk to both parties has been created by bad lending practices verging on fraud. A housing crisis is a banking crisis.

The US subprime is the classic example, very bad banking practices created risk for all.But if governments bail banks out one could argue they run no risk.

You're part right, but missing a key piece: banks often sell the loans to investors. The systemic risk is when the government guarantees those loans. That's where the problem gets created.

The system is only as good as the lending standards, and their enforcement.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It’s all one big circle .

The point is, banks don’t take any real risk. Yet they reap all the rewards.

they = us (the investors)

"banks" and "corporations" aren't really "anyone" they are just "things"

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by daletournier

I'd disagree with this Mike. Not only do banks take a risk, they create the risk!

Australia recently had a banking royal commission, its findings were scathing in regards to banking practices that enabled people to get loans that couldn't really afford them. In turn this has driven up housing prices, easy cheap money does this.Many would describe the Australian housing market as a bubble.
…

The risk to both parties has been created by bad lending practices verging on fraud. A housing crisis is a banking crisis.

The US subprime is the classic example, very bad banking practices created risk for all.But if governments bail banks out one could argue they run no risk.

All sounds too familiar doesn’t it. The whole US-led subprime melt down is exactly this case. But of course as Simi just pointed out, even here the banks didn’t face any real risk (most of them anyway). Ultimately we, the citizens, bare the risk. The banks just reap the rewards.

I think your point can’t be over-emphasized: Banks CREATE RISK. But the risk is not theirs. Ultimately, it is ours.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

they = us (the investors)

"banks" and "corporations" aren't really "anyone" they are just "things"

All part of the scam. They unload their risk on us, and the major owners (which ain’t me or you) reap the rewards.

[daletournier]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

You're part right, but missing a key piece: banks often sell the loans to investors. The systemic risk is when the government guarantees those loans. That's where the problem gets created.

The system is only as good as the lending standards, and their enforcement.

The derivatives market takes the whole thing to whole different level, who really knows the size of that monster.
Its lovely that governments make guarantees that they can't pay for, tax payers footed the bill last time, depositors (bail in) will most likely foot the bill next time.

[Chotu]

Anyone want to open a bank? LOL

[sailorboy1]

meanwhile, I bet there are some inexpensive places to live well on a $200k nest egg