JCauto

Vientiane's status as a capital city and at the same time a ghost town is part of its charm of course. I didn't get the impression though that this fellow was out in the clubs until late in the evening, so they might find the laid back lifestyle there perfect when raising a family of small kids. Tax- and bureaucracy-wise, you'll find it easy to deal with since you can simply pay an agent or company to do all the necessary things for you. Taxes aren't particularly high, and they have zero ability to deal with your income outside of Laos, so you won't be bothered unless you actually open a business here, in which case you will be bothered, but not unduly as in Cambodia for example. There are decent international schools and lots of available teachers for tutoring, nannies, etc. Mozzies? Yeah, they exist pretty much everywhere, the countries that do mosquito abatement also still have dengue outbreaks. I've been living in Southeast Asia for over 30 years without dengue, wear socks, pants and a long-sleeve shirt towards the end of afternoon until around 7pm and you're good to go. I should think Laos would be a quite pleasant place to retire to and raise your kids, good crowd of expat folks here without a lot of the sexpat crowd, and the lack of the bargirl scene will likely keep them away indefinitely. Don't find a lot of scammers and other lowlife who are trying to maintain their sad existences at the expense of other expat suckers.

There was another thread about just this topic the other day.

Mentally, probably about right. Peter Pan syndrome. Treating women as commodities for pleasure not humans for companionship. Let's try to guess where his political proclivities lie, no prizes unfortunately.

That's it! Disqualify him from future elections. For...I dunno, find something.

Having lived and worked in all countries mentioned other than the Philippines, I'd say this is a reasonable take for older Thai-based expats. Cambodia is basically coming on like gangbusters and Phnom Penh is starting to resemble a "mini-Bangkok" but will obviously have quite a ways to go to get to the level of the "Big Mango" if that is your ideal. On the other hand, the food there is becoming good and diverse and there's tons of high-end spots to party at to go along with the usual low-end dive and girly bars. It is definitely more expensive than Thailand on a day-to-day basis, and always has been. No 800K issue or likelihood of someone deciding to turn the screws on the expats. Health care getting better, but the best plan is to get on a plane to Bangkok if seriously ill or in an accident. Siem Reap is becoming a nice little enclave a la Chiang Mai, but has a ways to go to get there. The other towns like Battambang and Kampong Cham would be similar to living in Isaan. The beach is there for the modern age hippies in Kampot and the Chinese in Sihanoukville, but it's second-rate compared to Thailand. Laos is like living in Isaan when I arrived there over 30 years ago. There's quite a bit of charm to that, but I understand this is mostly not what the older and better-heeled expat crowd are looking for. There's great food also in Vientiane; it's the cheapest and best place for high quality European food in the region in my opinion. Rent is cheap, living can be cheap, beer is less expensive than soda and the people are laid back and pleasant. Countryside is spectacularly beautiful so hikers, bikers and nature lovers will enjoy it immensely. Working here is a source of frustration for most due to the lack of industriousness prevalent in Lao society. This again can be more of a positive than a negative depending on your perspective. Health care is located in Thailand, if you are in peril here you're in trouble. So probably not the best place for most older people (I'm over 60 and I love it, but not the norm). Also no girly bar and other action sufficient for the many sexpats on TV considering a move. Lao currency is volatile and not convertible and the government has put themselves in rather a bit of bother financially, so there are concerns it could all blow up at some point. But probably not, this is after all Laos. They just float on by. Vietnam is a place I've worked a number of times and always enjoyed the work - but I wouldn't want to live there. There's a fundamental difference between the Theravada Buddhist countries and the Confucian ones, and the former are quite a lot warmer than the latter in terms of human interaction and general attitude. Vietnam is also a more insular place and one where there's a longstanding tension between actual communist bureaucrats and the private sector and between the North and the South. Can't really comment on the costs or pros/cons of living there since I haven't spent long periods. Food is okay, but overrated in my opinion. Provincial food gets pretty similar and pretty old pretty quickly. Love the vibe of Hanoi, but again, not a place I'm keen to live especially given its awful weather. Saigon just doesn't do much for me. Myanmar was a fascinating place, but until they get rid of the Junta, it's going to be one for development aid workers and adventurous travelers, not expats. China...no. Philippines has little interest for me due to terrible food and an ersatz culture with disaster management being the default government mode. I'm also happily married so have no interest in the bar scene other than non-girly bars. Malaysia is probably the most similar to and likeliest bolthole for the better-off expats, they offer a lot better deals for long-term residence and have all the modern conveniences in KL and Georgetown. Their government is pretty stable and unlikely to collapse or suddenly take away the privileges of the expat community. There's no problem drinking and the food is good and can be great. Singvegas is like someone dropped a Western city into the tropics. Better have a lot of dough and if that's your style, why did you move here anyway?

That's considerate of you to let us know you have no actual intention to debate and that you've no actual basis in your arguments but that was actually already understood and obvious. However, whenever one of you shows some consideration, it should be acknowledged. Not that it will become a regular feature or anything, but I will keep it in mind for the future.

Sure, TIT. I was looking at costs in the USA, so makes sense that they'd be about 40% of that.

Some people are unable to understand that issues are highly complex and open fora tend towards wide-ranging discussions that expand the original thought based on points raised. At some point, "impulse" posted that he'd never seen a gas station in a condo/apartment complex, hence we posted reasons why. So this response was pertinent to the discussion. I find it amusing that you believe one can dictate the scope of a discussion on an open forum and that it should somehow naturally be restricted to those responding. Can you show me an example of such an Eden of fora that isn't at the same time so highly restricted that it has managed to achieve popularity? This is a problem worldwide since moderation requires so much effort and no websites seem profitable enough or interested in paying for said tasks.

Can you think of a reason why? C'mon, you can do it! Why would one not put a reservoir full of fuel within a condo/apartment building complex? Any ideas? Did you know that you could install a charging station for as little as $500 for a single car in your own garage? How much do you reckon your own personal gas station would cost? Oh, and that cost comes with hardly any long-term environmental costs, no risk of leakage into groundwater or other contamination, no remediation costs once you close the site.

Good news then! https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/lithium-deposit-found-us-may-be-among-worlds-largest-study-finds

My interlocutor requested evidence of affordable, acceptable interventions from Government that worked. That they are affordable is self-evident - I suspect even you would scoff at anyone attempting to blame US Government debt on carbon credits. That it is acceptable is similarly self-evident - the markets have now risen to the point where carbon is viable, meaning that the corporate world has accepted them as a worthwhile investment in the future. The question is whether the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere will work. Given that the models that were used to make the case for the carbon markets appear to have significantly UNDER-ESTIMATED the impacts of anthropogenic global warming and severe weather impacts are upon us already, there really isn't a case for "laissez faire" or "status quo" economics.

Really? What could be easier? Have you observed how renewable energy has taken over that market for example? That's basically the result of government intervention funding the research and startups and putting priority on development of alternative non-fossil fuel energy. Have you observed the carbon markets? For the first time they're now becoming economically viable in terms of the market price providing sufficient incentive and funding. That's again the result of government intervention then the markets realizing that this is a worthwhile investment and taking it on.

If we're going to go down the path of "find the farthest Left/Right example and put that up as an exemplar" then there's not really much point in discussion. Do you think it likely I could find the opposite example in some podunk county or state? Of course I could, but it doesn't advance the discussions. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3815311-wyoming-lawmakers-propose-ban-on-electric-vehicle-sales/ I have addressed your points, howsabout you address mine? This is always the way debate goes in TV, someone on the Right makes a point, we on the Left rebut it and ask a pertinent question, the person on the Right ignores that and pursues the next line of "whataboutism" or some other deflection. Proper debate proceeds more like a tennis match, whereas the posters on the Right proceed as if it is golf, where two different players are at the same place but playing on different holes without reference to each other.

So no rebuttal to the factual points made about Republican Party policy? The Democrats are not trying to "ban" gas cars, they're offering incentives for people to switch to more climate-friendly alternatives. You know, like the way Western Government policies offer companies massive incentives to continue to produce fossil fuels. Notice the difference? The Right try to prop up fossil fuels despite the obvious damage they cause to society (first observed accurately in the studies of those same fossil fuel companies in the 70's) and their method to provide incentives is to provide free money to companies. How much free money is being provided to prop up the fossil fuel industry? Oh, a MERE 7 TRILLION DOLLARS OR 7% OF GLOBAL GDP IN 2022!!!!!!!!!!! How's that square with your ideas? https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies As to "ban gas appliances", let's stick to the facts, shall we? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/13/war-gas-stoves-house-gop-ban/70297193007/

Because it's a core principle of conservative economics to try to overcome market forces with legislation! Because businesses need intervention from the government to function efficiently and correctly! LOL. Sad how lost the Right has become. There is no more "policy", just slavish devotion to a Cult of Personality.

Par for the course. Remember those Saudi jewels?

This is an integral part of "rule of law". There are appeals processes for those convicted or otherwise on the losing end of a court case. I see you lack even the basic understanding of the legal process.

I thought surely there was someone other than I on this forum who can speak Thai! Let me translate. "Cabinet seats are now up for sale, one week only! Gentlemen, please submit your bids."

Perhaps it was another poster. These are rolling discussions. I asked the question, you're on the other side of the rolling discussion, figured you could probably answer it too.

Look past this particular case and you will observe the face of another very real problem in this country - anyone can easily sue anyone else for defamation and the courts will just let it proceed. This has been used as a means of suppression of opinion over and over and over again, almost inevitably by the wealthy and powerful against anyone criticizing they or their business, whether that criticism is absolutely warranted or not, and with consequences heavily weighed against the criticizer. This is another manifestation of the sorts of legal basis for the powerful to maintain their power indefinitely and extends so far that one cannot safely post a valid review of a hotel or restaurant without risking actual jail and damages. This is why a certain political party who won elections are not sitting in power while those who clearly lost are and their stated reason for doing so.

No, I support rule of law. It's pretty unambiguous. I see that you're once again projecting your own opinions onto those of your political opponents. Yes, I understand this, pretty much every Republican policy is projected from the basis of "I know what we are doing/would do, therefore it's reasonable to assume our opponents are doing the same thing and therefore we're justified in getting out in front of it." Except that, with the evidence that there is no longer any realistic policy base for what passes as leadership other than "winning" or "against woke-ism" or "abortion bad" or "dog-whistling past the (electoral) graveyard", there's no coherence in any of it. Do I think that Kyle Rittenhouse should have been guilty? I do think so based on what he did, but I understand that the current laws of the USA as stuffed into the ballot box by the Gun Lobby make it that he was not. I have faith that in the vast majority of cases the Judge and Jury will rule according to their understanding of the law. That we dislike that law is self-evident and that we would rather change that law than come up with a basis to circumvent it or ignore it in favor of achieving our desired result is exactly what my post was about. The current divide between Republican and Democrat is as much about process versus results. Republicans believe in achieving outcomes that they desire in any way possible; illegal, immoral or unethical means are just towards that end so are acceptable. Democrats do not. I actually think poor young Kyle is not that bad a kid, just one who's been manipulated his entire life, first by his gun-nut moron parents and then by becoming the face of the Right. He's just a kid. So no, I don't believe in rule of law only when it suits me. But of course, I asked that question of you, and you have declined to answer it as is generally the case with my Right-Wing interlocutors. (Edit: changed "then" to "than")

He also knows whether we're happy or not. He can't understand why we don't fly "Biden" flags and wear his name on our shirts. We don't believe in personalities, we believe in social democracy, systematic justice and rule of law. That means taking care of the poor and the planet while keeping things moving economically. Check into the "Doughnut Economy" model for example.

It is hard to find articles that actually achieve making the reader stupider than they were prior to reading it. This is one of those rare cases. What a bunch of <deleted>!

First sentence - you're correct, he would absolutely weaponize the Justice Department and go after his enemies. Second sentence - "most" will support it. Surprisingly, you're correct again! I don't know anyone on the Left who would for example support not prosecuting Biden should it come out that he actually was involved in Hunter Biden's...whatever thing it is he was involved in. I think we'd be all for prosecuting anyone who tried to break the law and don't care who it is, even if it's AOC (whom I quite like politically). Third sentence - if there were laws broken, then those who did it or organized it should be in jail. That's the position of the Left, we believe in this "rule of law" thing. What "election denialism" are you referring to and what law did that break? What evidence is there that the Biden administration "encouraged the surge" and what law was broken that you can identify? Do you think people who break the law should go to jail even if you support their politics? Could you give us an example of who would fall into that category for you? That's the fundamental difference; you actually understand that Trump both lost the election and tried to overturn it (sedition), supports dictators over democracies, and have no doubt he tried to sexually assault the various women (rape, libel). Despite wanting to throw any poor person who jaywalks into jail, you'd completely be okay with tossing out all of the charges and voting a seditious felon into office despite his killing over a million Americans with his botched COVID response and running up a massive deficit in a giveaway to already wealthy people. The so-called "party of law and order" now wants to dispose of the FBI and arrest judges who rule in ways different to what their popular opinion is.

It's not really much of a point. First off, what you're actually saying IS that people don't really love Biden. That was known to be the case during the election, and yes, absolutely, the election was more about "Anyone But Trump" than it was "I like Biden". I don't recall a single soul on the Left claiming that they "love Biden", and it's hard to find one even now that he's in power. What that tells you is the majority of American voters would rather have a wax figure from Mme. Tussaud's than a lying cheating conman who has no respect for the law. That's a valid point of view. Imagine how lopsided the election would have been had the Democrats offered up someone inspiring? Now the wax figure has 4 more years of wear and tear - and everyone would STILL rather vote for an animatronic tall White robot than they would Donald Trump. You take that to mean that people don't love Biden. Newsflash - they never did! But do they want instead four more years of unending soap opera and giveaways to the Rich while continuing to stoke the divisions within American society? More pretending that climate change is a "Chinese hoax" as their Red states burn and their power grids give out? More broadcasting Russian propaganda and stabbing democratic allies in the back so you can personally profit? Don't think so. But let's both hope that ol' Joe, Mitch, Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the dinosaurs get medically compromised to the point where they finally start retiring and getting out of the way of progress. We want a REAL lefty in there, boy will you ever be surprised when you discover what that's all about. Y'all still think Obama was one (he was Center-Right).