sbaker8688

Please tell me what causes the need to have to have a root canal, so that I can try like hel1 to never be in that situation.

Also, what causes abcess and infection? I want to prevent all of these ailments. Please assist.

Thanks.

Will be coming to Chaingmai soon, from America. Should I go ahead and get my eyes checked here, and new glasses and contacts, etc. or wait until I get to Chaingmai? Can I get good service for cheap there?

Can anyone recommend a good clinic, and give me prices?

Thanks.

we kind of knew all along that China's ascension would cause some nervousness among the first world, in particular america the lone superpower.  but no one really thought that america would be in such a vulnerable situation as they are now, just when it needs to assert its dominance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You should understand that China's "ascension" is a direct result of America lifting China into "ascension." In this way, America created it's own "vulnerable situation."

What's a good price? When it gets 40 bahts to the USD, or above? What's been a good price the last few years?

Thanks.

This happens to be my field of expertise. My good friend Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan, has multiple Ph.D.s in various disciplines such as economics, has written many books, currently writes in newspapers ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Times, and is a member of several think tanks. I help him do research on economic matters and can offer my own perpsective, as well as his.

<<Designs for Intel Pentium chips,>>

Designs for chips perhaps, but the manufacturing has moved offshore.

<< Cisco Routers>>

Read the papers. Cisco is becoming a chinese company. I mean literally. They aren't just moving their manufacturing there - their goal is to literally *be* chinese. They're working on the process now.

<<and support/updates for Microsoft and MacIntosh software.>>

Microsoft is in the process of moving all software engineering and programming jobs to India. What remains of this work in the U.S. will be done by H1-B's imported from India and perhaps China. I can't comment on Mac, but it would be hard to believe that they wouldn't offshore, if they aren't already doing it.

<<Heart pacemakers, stents, catheters from Medtronic, Guidant, and several others.>>

That's nice and all. But I'd be surprised if these manufactures aren't in the process of being moved offshore, if they haven't moved already.

<<Harley Davidson motorcycles.>>

Not too long ago they were in the process of relocating their transmission manufacturing facilities overseas. You can expect the rest to follow suit at some point in the future.

<<Cray Supercomputers.>>

It will be hard to close our trade deficit or employ our people if the only manufacture we have left are Cray Supercomputers. They don't make them by the thousands. And they don't employ people by the thousands.

<<The manufacturing might of America is almost too large to grasp. >>

You're living in the past. America is a hollowed-out manufacturing paper tiger. There is no more manufacturing left in America, to speak of.

<<There is no doubt that the low skill high volume mass production of items like toasters and cell phones have gone to places like china but in the end there is very little money in commodities operating in mature markets.>>

There was plenty of money in it. That's why China took the manufactures without blinking an eye. The jobs were moved because of one thing and one thing only - cheap labor. We aren't talking about "free trade" like everyone likes to think (in fact - the whole idea is a myth). We are talking about labor arbitrage. We are systematically substituting expensive first world labor for cheap third world labor. Why? Because the corporations keep the prices the same, but lower costs of labor, and therefore increase profits. China and India benefit - they get millions upon million of good jobs. Corporate fat cats in America benefit - they get stock options and raises. America as a whole loses - especially American workers, and the American middle class.

<<Manufacturing in america has just moved to electron microscopes and satellites, airplanes and pace makers. >>

Again, you're living in the past. Whatever remains of what you just mentioned is being offshored as rapidly as it can possibly be offshored. China and India are now going "high-tech." By that I mean they are taking the American high-tech industry.

<<Anyone who says that america doesnt manufacture doesnt have a clue about industrial output.>>

America doesn't manufacture. And I think I have a clue. It's all I work on every day, 7 days a week. Looking at the latest BLS statistics. Reading the latest job reports. Preparing talking points or rough drafts for articles. Etc.

<< I would agree that they are losing low skilled manufacturing but its just a stage of growth and development. >>

Again, you are living in the past. You're reciting old propaganda. First we were told that "low skilled manufacturing" was moving offshore, but not to worry - technology jobs would follow. Then, technology jobs were offshored more quickly than "low skilled manufacturing." Then we were told that we were going to become a "service economy." Well, just the other day, the Chinese economic minister published a paper - I have it sitting right here. He says that China has now sucked about as many manufacturing and technology jobs out of the U.S. as it can possibly suck - and now they need to start moving towards capturing our service industry. By the way, I used to be a "high skilled" computer engineer. My job was outsourced several years ago.

Bottom line is - anything in America that can possibly be outsourced or offshored *WILL* be outsourced or offshored. Period. The only jobs that will be left will be in nontradable services (Wal-mart cashiers, burger flippers, pizza delivery boys, lawyers, etc). The American economy has taken on a third world complexion. Our biggest export is now empty shipping containers to China, which come back full of merchandise. Meanwhile, "third world" countries like China have economies which have taken on a first world complexion. What has happend is unprecedented. Under the guise of "free trade," we have moved the entire manufacturing base for our own home economy overseas, and also moved the incomes associated with those jobs overseas. Again, this is unprecedented in world history. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The piper will be paid.

<<Japan and Germany are having the exact same problem, the bad news is their governments work to prop up their failing industries to keep their people working instead of moving with market. >>

Japan is a different story. I just met with an expert from Japan on this issue the other day. He wrote the book "Blindsided," which deals with what the Japs have done to America regarding trade, and how they did it. He tells me that Japan does not outsource jobs and move manufacturing overseas the way America does. Their corporate and governmental policy is full, 100% employment. No net jobs are ever moved. If one is moved, it has to be replaced with one of equal pay, caliber, etc. Basically, they will only move manufacturing that is intended for another country, which saves on shipping costs and what not. And they will only move those jobs if there are already replacement jobs ready to be done. They never move manufacturing intended for their home market. Japan has not suffered the massive loss in jobs, incomes, and upward mobility for their middle class. When their kids graduate from college, they have good jobs waiting. Our kids don't.

<<Having worked all over the world, I can tell you that no other country comes even close to the size and strength of the American industrial base. >>

Again, you're out of touch. You're living in the days of yester year. Wake up.

<<In the United States, we've got a Social Security crisis, to use President Bush's word, because the ratio of workers paying into Social Security to the retirees receiving benefits has fallen to 3.4 workers to one retiree in 2000, from 16.5 workers to one retiree in 1950.>>

To be a little more specific - the reason the ration of workers matters at all is because Social Security is a ponzi scheme. You have no account with your money in it. It was stolen, spent, or just never there to begin with. The reason banks don't have to adjust your account balance due to "number of people paying into the bank" is because it is illegal to run a ponzi scheme in the private sector. You have an account at the bank, that account has your name on it, and your money in it. Of course, someone could get highly technical here and retort that the money is really "not there" in the bank either. But that misses the point that, either way, the bank is not running a ponzi scheme.

Social Security is a fraud. That's why we have a crisis.

(Not disputing anything you say above - merely adding to it is all.)

I understand that a foreigner can own a condo. Any limits to the number of condos a foreigner can own?

Thanks.

Can someone explain this to me? I'm an American, currently in America, and I've just applied for my 3 entry, 60 day tourist visa before I make my trip over. Are you saying that I can get re-entries by going to "immigration" instead of having to cross the border? Can someone shed some light on this for me? How does it work?

Also, is there an "immigration" in Chiangmai, or only in Bangkok?

Thanks!

What would you guys consider to be a good monthly rate for a hotel? All I want is for the room to be clean, with a shower/toilet, air conditioner, and cable TV so I can catch the news. Last time I was in Chiangmai (several months ago), I got a monthly rate of 300 baht a day, which I suppose works out to 9000 baht a month. It was just a small room with 2 small beds, and no phone. But it was clean and worked out just fine, which is all I ask. Can I do better?

Thanks.

I use them whenever I see that the assumptions "positive HIV test is a proof of HIV infection" and "HIV infection leads to AIDS" are taken as proven facts. They are very clearly not. They are an unproven theory. And a big business.

And it makes me feel very very sad to see that people are poisoned with expensive and deadly chemotherapies because these unproven theories are sold as facts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bow to your references. You have apparently done some reading, research, and have some knowlege in this area.

But either there is an "infection" that we call "HIV/AIDS" or there is not. There is either a girl lying here on the table infected and dying with it, or there isn't. Either you will, on a dare or a bet, have unprotected sex with her, claiming that it's all just a myth, or you won't. I bet that you won't. It is a known fact that this disease can be spread from person to person, is it not? If you don't believe it, I'm sure someone could hook you up with an infected needle to stick yourself with.

Do these drugs not have success in treating this "infection" (whatever you'd like to call it)? If they do, then surely there is an infection? If they do not, then there is a lot of propaganda and B.S. out there.

You make points about the scientific method, standards of proof, etc. That's fine. But your points seem to be largely academic. Are they not? Are you saying that this infection (whatever you want to call it), does not exist, does not kill people, and is not spreadable through blood and/or other bodily fluids? Is that your point? Or is your point simply that more research needs to be done, and that the virus needs to be isolated and identified and photographed, etc? If your point is #2, I think we'd all agree. If your point is #1, well, ....

This is not a flame or an impeachment of anything you have said. You seem to be an intelligent enough guy. I'm just asking questions and trying to clarify is all.

Thanks.

This is truly terrifying. I suppose I'm like every other healthy red-blooded male who has had a fair number of women attracted to him over the years - I've had lots of unprotected sex (although protected as well). I've never used drugs of any type though, and never will.

My question is - does one usually acquire any symptoms shortly after acquiring HIV/AIDS? And if so, what are they?

If you said "yes you usually get symptoms within a few months or a year, and these are the symptoms" I'd be less concerned, because I seem to be just fine. If you said "many go without symptoms for years and years" I suppose that would be cause for alarm and concern.

Thanks.

Will be coming to Thailand soon. Everytime I come, I seem to contract this "stomach thing" to some degree.

My question is: what causes it? Is it the water? Is it the ice cubes in your drink at a restaurant? Is it the food, and if so which food? Fish or seafood perhaps?

I'd like to be able to avoid it as much as possible, so if anyone knows what causes it, please let me know.

Thanks.

I've heard a falong cannot own land, a house, etc. If you are an American with Treaty of Amity status, can you own it through your corporation?

Thanks.

Again it is up to the customer to shop around and believe me the best way is when possible use the branches of the same bank for any international transfer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that if I live in the U.S., and if I open an account and move my funds to the Bangkok Bank branch in New York, then when I want to wire myself funds in Bangkok, it will be cheaper because I am dealing with two branches of the same bank, one in America and one in Bangkok?

I'd like to know this answer, because I am in the U.S. and am moving to Thailand very soon.

Another question - who do you believe has the best rates for wiring money, and also exchange?

Thanks.

Hmmmm, you say Western women are 'frequently bisexual', eh ?....interesting....that's something new for me....to be honest, I don't buy it that Western women tend to be 'frequently bisexual'. Where did you get that piece of info anyway ? Actually, someone please correct me if I am wrong but bisexuality is more common in men than in women, so I could claim that Western guys are 'frequently bisexual' !

Cheers,

Jem

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Jem,

Not sure what country you are from. But I can assure you that female bisexuality is rampant in America. I haven't met a girl in years that isn't bisexual. Of course, not all of them call it bisexual. Some of them will say "I'm bi-curious." Some, strangely enough, will say "I'm not bisexual... but sometimes I like to kiss girls, feel them up, have sex with them, blah blah" Some will say "No, I'm not bisexual. I've been with girls before, but I'm not bisexual." But what all that means is - they're bisexual.

I haven't gone out in years without seeing girls crawling all over each other in public, whether it be on the dance floor, in the band room, sitting at the bar - whatever. I really can't turn on the TV anymore without seeing girls kissing each other or doing other things.

In all fairness, some of the blame should be laid at western men. It seems a lot of guys are turned on by it, and encourage it. I'm not one of those guys, but I certainly see a lot of them with their tongues hanging out panting whenever they see two girls together. In fact, it seems to be the majority of men - go figure. But American girls have nevertheless embraced their newfound lesbianism and bisexuality with arms wide open.

Surely I'm not the only one to notice this. Surely the majority on this thread will back me up on this one, if nothing else. If SBK, Kat, Boo and the gang rip me a new one on this, I can only assume that they haven't been to America in years, or if they have, their "married life" keeps them from going out a whole lot.

1 - Do you have to form the company as an American company (incorporated in America)? And this company then can obtain the right to do business in Thailand according to the treaty? Or do you form the company as a Thai company? I suppose the question is, does the treaty give you, an American, the right to own 100% of a Thai company, or does it give the right of your American company (which you may own 100%) to do business in Thailand? Which is it?

2 - Can you own 100% of a piece of real estate through your company? Or are there the typical restrictions on foreigners owning land?

Thanks.

<<I think the whole issue here is his perception of women's hostility to men, but his hostility to western women is almost palpable.>>

I would refer to it as "dislike" or "nonpreference". And it's not palpable. You only think so because I am posting my opinions (which you do not like) in a public forum. If we had met somewhere in person, you would never hear me discuss it or bring it up. You'd also consider me to be one of the more polite chaps you'd ever met. In fact, I've never been hostile to anyone. At least not without reason.

The difference between my "hostility" and theirs is, 1) Mine isn't personal, it's general (I am not hostile to any western woman in particular that I happen to meet - in fact I am quite polite and pleasant), and 2) Mine is reactive to theirs. I see their hostility, and want out.

<<Men have always had hositility to women, >>

Of course you think like this. You are a woman with hostility to men. You hate men. You view them as the "enemy," and you view yourself as some sort of "victim." You prove my point. You are why I want out, and why I am getting out. Every western woman I have ever met, to one degree or another, has the same sentiment. I want no part of it. You are no doubt western and feminist... correct?

<<hence all the worst things that men can call people, even each other, are the derogatory terms used for female genitalia.>>

Oh, I can think of many derogatory terms for men - dick, as.sho!e, etc. No need to justify your hostility to men with such silliness. Just say "I hate men" and be done with it.

<<You don't think, Mr Baker, that your overt hositility to women may just encourage people to be hostile to you. >>

No. Because I have no overt (or even covert) hostility to women. I have a general and reactionary nonpreference for western women. More to the point - no nonwestern woman has ever been hostile to me. Which means that, according to your logic above, I must not be hostile to them, thus I must not be encouraging them to be hostile to me in return. Yet I treat them the same as everyone else. I'd say this defeats your attempt at a point rather soundly.

You ignore the fact that I have never detected any hostility towards men in nonwestern women. Ever. Period. Put me in a room full of western and nonwestern women, blindfold me so that I can't see any racial or cultural differences, put some high-tech earmuffs over my ears which magically filters out any accents in speech, and I can easily tell you which women are western and which are not by talking with them. So could many other men I know. Can you explain that?

You ignore the experience of millions of other men who experience the same things that I describe. One by one, all of my friends have figured it out and have gone to eastern europe and russia to find women. One by one, they find a world of tremendous difference between how they are treated by non-western women, and western women. One by one, they prefer and take foreign (nonwestern) women to be their brides over western women. Some have found it so good overseas, that they have remained there, never to return home. Simply because of the women.

It's rather funny. We all detect western women's hostiity to men easily enough. Yet you all deny it. Yet, in your very denials, you all exude hostility in your posts, and even defend and rationalize it (yours above with the "men have always had hostility to women," SBK's with her sexual harassment spiel on this page, an earlier post about how men have always run and controlled society, etc).

Instead of denying your hostilty, I think it would be far more believable, credible, and constructive to simply admit your hostility, and give your feminist "rationale" for it. Be proud of it. Say that you are "correct" in your hostility to men. Say we "deserve" it. Cite all the "injustices" that men have "perpetrated" against women. But just admit it and be done with it.

It's no big secret that the feminist agenda is one born out of hostility to men. Why you people feel the need to deny the obvious is... interesting.

I've read several times that you have to have proof that the money came from outside the country to buy property. I assume this means any property, whether it's a condo, house, or vacant land.

My question - does this only apply to real estate, or does it also apply to buying a business or shares in a corporation?

Thanks

The other point that resurfaces again and again is this idea that women not -needing- a man or men not -needing- a woman is offensive. I always believed that mature, independent people, men and women, are self-reliant, and that this was something to strive for. What is so important about -needing- someone? Is this an endorsement of co-dependency? Can anyone clarify this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, I can clarify it. You've missed the point entirely.

The problem isn't women not needing men. The problem is women perpetually puffing out their chests, and braying loudly and incessantly about the fact that they don't need men. Over and over and over again, 24/7.

When it comes right down to it, there are lots of things in life I don't "need." I don't need women. I don't need friends. I don't need my family. I don't need my dog, who is laying at the foot of my bed as I'm writing this. But I don't feel the need to bray constantly, loudly, and incessantly about the fact that I don't need any of these people (or pets), 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. I don't feel the need to sit at the dinner table with my parents, and beat upon my chest, defiantly bragging that "I don't need family for anything!"

Like me, there must be many things in life you don't need. I'm sure it's not just men, right? So ask yourself what other things you constantly bray about that you don't need. Do you bray loudly and arrogantly to your friends that you don't need them? Do you tell you co-workers, or your cat this information? Ever? If not, why?

The question is - do you only feel the need to bray about this fact when it's men you are referring to? The obvious answer is - yes. I never hear women bleating "I don't need friends for anything!"

So the second question is "Why only men?" The obvious answer, again, is hostility. That's the point that you missed. We don't care that you don't need us. To each his own. What we care about is that you don't ever shut up about it.

What's wrong with accepting people as individuals, regardless of race and gender?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nothing's wrong with it. The problem is, it has never happened, and it never will. See my post on page 13 regarding this.

Come now... do you *really* think you want to "treat people as individuals, blah blah," or is this just a bunch of nice-sounding mish-mash that really doesn't mean anything when it comes right down to it? Do you want to end affirmative-action, for instance? I doubt it, but you are welcome to correct the record if I'm wrong.

If true, many of your sisters-in-arms would be against you on this (See Kat's post, page 13, responding to my post). Oh, of course they *say* the same thing you say above. "Treat people as individuals, blah blah." But they don't mean it.

By the way, a person can't be of a "gender." The proper term is "sex." The term "gender" refers to a noun - language. It's a word that's so incredibly misused nowadays (especially by the liberal/PC crowd) that I'm sure they'll end up going ahead and changing dictionaries to reflect the new usage. Anyway, sorry to nitpick such an insignificant issue, but surely you can allow me just one tiny irrational ideosyncratic pet-peeve? :-)

No need to even delve deeply into this because NOW is the wrong time to lay out cash for RE.  Wait for one  year and you'll see why. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? What's going on?

ob, BTW sbaker, forgot to point out, that it is 2005,  not 1970. In case you hadn't noticed. We are in the 21st century now 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd love to know what your point is, either of them, if you actually have one. If your point is that you have the skill and aptitude to enable you to actually read a calendar - that's fascinating. Really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My point being that you seem to have your attitudes stuck in the 70's . It's time you faced up to the reality that the world has moved on, and seems to have left you behind. For someone who isn't hostile, you certainly come across so, did you know that?

It's interesting that the traditional roles espoused by many men on this forum are, if one paid attention to their history, strictly late 19th to 20th century middle class values. Certainly the working poor in the US/UK/Europe never had the luxury of the wife staying at home and raising the kids. And, until fairly late in the 19th century/early 20th, the entire family worked; mom dad and kids.

And as far as the idea that the 'traditional' sexual roles apply in Thailand, again I say it is luxury confined to the emerging middle class and the upper classes. My in-laws (who started out quite poor) certainly don't follow those "traditional" values. I would say my in-laws are far more 'traditional' than any middle class townsperson. They have lived a rural life their entire lives (they are middle 60's). When they first started my father-in-law went fishing while my mother-in-law stayed home growing rice, husking coconuts and doing other hard gardening labor. After they earned enough money to buy land (for coconuts) they both stayed, he got the coconuts down from the trees while she gathered them up (not so easy, I have done it, each coconut weighs up to 4k and they were doing hundreds every day). They both cleared the land, carried the coconuts. My husband has an incredible story of his mother carrying 40k bags of dried coconuts balanced on her head down the mountain. Hardly the "feminine thai" image that is espoused here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a nice post, expressed reasonably articulately enough, and you certainly have a right to your opinion. But the post largely has nothing to do with anything I have ever said.

You speak of traditional 19th and 20th century values, whether the whole family worked or just the male, blah blah. Interesting. But I have spoken of none of these things. In fact, you can find a post on here somewhere where I've said that I hope my future wife makes as much money for the family as she possibly can.

You speak of whether or not the traditional sex roles still apply in Thailand. You have told stories of women harvesting coconuts. But I have said nothing regarding traditional sex roles, much less whether or not they still apply in Thailand.

What I have said is that western women have an inner hostility to men. Period. Paragraph. And I have said that this inner hostility was/is caused by feminism. Period. Paragraph. And I have said that, in places where the feminist movement did not take place, or where it did not take place near to the degree that it did in the west, you can still find women that do not have this inner hostility towards men. PERIOD. PARAGRAPH. That is essentially all that I have said. Any other points I have made here or there were "gravy" and were mere responses to the odd post here or there.

I have not discussed whether or not women should be allowed to have an opinion, or to express it. I have not discussed whether or not women should be allowed to work. I have not discussed the FEMININITY of women at all (rather the FEMINISM of women). My points have largely been these three: 1) western women have an inner hostility to men, 2) this hostility was/is caused by the feminist movement, and 3) you can go where the feminist movement never occured, or where it occured much more mildly, and still find desirable women who do not have the inner hostility towards men. That's what I have said. Period. Paragraph.

Another thing I keep running into is posts like "well if you'd just be honest and say you have a natural preference for Thai women, instead of making up excuses that western women are bad so that you can then pursue your Thai fetish unmolested, we wouldn't have a problem." The problem is, that's not the problem. In fact, truth be known, my "natural preference," all other things being equal, is for a "white" woman. Now, are asian women attractive? Sure - very. Would I be wanting for anyone or anything else were you to "give" me an attractive asian woman (again - all things being equal)? No, of course not. I'd be quite happy. But again, if truth be known, if I have a "natural tendancy" at all, then all things being equal that natural tendancy is for a "white" or "caucasian" woman. In fact, I "corrected the record" more than one time above by saying that an eastern (NOT western) European, or Russian woman would be fine too. They are not feminist to the degree that their western counterparts are, and do not have the inner hostility towards men. But I don't know eastern Europe and Russia. Never been there. I know Thailand (at least better than those other places). So that's where I'm headed. I only bring this up because people keep addressing it in their posts, and again attributing words, actions, deeds, or sentiments to me that I do not possess.

You state that my attitudes are from the 70's, and I need to face the fact that the world has "moved on." I do not find this statement very useful. Personally, I don't care what era my attitudes are from (only that they are correct and that they are mine), and I already know that the (western) world has "moved on." That's why we are having this discussion. And that's why I'm coming to Thailand. The world has "moved on" and so I myself am "moving on."

Have a nice day.

Maybe I am lucky, but to me a person is a person. Male, female, black, white, christian, animist, it doesn’t matter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You certainly don't live in the west. And you especially don't live in America. Because there's no such thing as "a person is a person" in America.

Haven't you ever heard of affirmative-action?

What about the movement for reparations for slavery for blacks?

What about the Congressional Black Caucus - ever heard of that? It's a group within Congress - the government itself - specifically organized on race. Now, a Congressional White Caucus would be racist and heresy. But a Congressional Black Caucus has never caused anyone to even bat so much as an eye.

What about the NAACP? Ever heard of that? What about Rainbow/PUSH? What about NOW - the National Organization for Women? Ever heard of that one?

What about any of a thousand different Jewish organizations that seek to promote the interests of Jews in America? Or any of a thousand different Latino organizations?

Still think "a person is a person, male, female, black, white?" What planet did you say you live on again? Can you give me directions on how to get there? Perhaps I could join you?

Does anyone have information, or experience with building condos in Thailand?

I am not talking something big - I am talking small. Maybe a two story building, with two units per floor, for a total of four units. Now, of course I understand that everything "depends" so to speak. If you want gold-plated fixtures, 5000 sq. ft per unit, blah blah, then of course you can send even a small project into the millions of USD. And if you choose to buy the most expensive real-estate in the middle of Bangkok, well....

But I'm not interested in something big-time. I'm interested in something small-time. My question is whether my partners and I even have enough dough to possibly contemplate the idea any further. I know that in the United States, even a small project like I just described will cost a minimum of a million USD. That's on an average lot in an average location.

I suppose my question is: On average, what would an average-sized small condominium project like I just described cost to build, on an average-sized, average-priced lot in an average district in Thailand? Many will still not get the point of my question and will tell me "it depends on a million factors - be more specific." But that answer doesn't help me. I can't be more specific right now, and there is no point in my going to hire an architect, price land, or do anything else at this juncture in order to be able to get more specific when I don't even have a rough idea of what's possible and what's impossible.

I don't want a specific price or cost from anyone. I just want possibilities and general price ranges. Lets say I could put my hands on a couple hundred grand USD. I just want to know something on the order of "Stop, do not pass go, do not collect $200 - you cannot even begin to contemplate even the most cheapest of projects with 200 grand USD." Or "Well, depending on many factors, including the price of land you buy, the size of the units you choose to build, etc. 200 grand could possibly at least put you in the ballpark for looking at the idea further."

Thanks.

ob, BTW sbaker, forgot to point out, that it is 2005,  not 1970. In case you hadn't noticed. We are in the 21st century now 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd love to know what your point is, either of them, if you actually have one. If your point is that you have the skill and aptitude to enable you to actually read a calendar - that's fascinating. Really.