jas007

I've just re-read this entire thread and I 'm not at all sure everyone is on the same page. Five pages of gibberish. Backpackers, Cheap Charlies, phonies, posers. What's the issue? I think Thailand still has something for everyone. It's no longer "once upon a time" any more. It's today. The world is in a state of constant change. "Same Same, but different," as the saying goes. It's all good. No one is stopping a low budget traveler from exploring Thailand. Ditto for the people with a higher budget. Some location adjustment may be necessary for some people, but so what? That's life. And for the people with unlimited funds, no one is stopping them from staying wherever they want. I'm almost 74 and I still have a backpack for short trips. I'd post a picture, but I'm sure everyone knows what a backpack looks like. And I would have no problem whatsoever staying in a budget accommodation off the beaten path. Some of the best times of my life were back in the days when I was a "starving student' trying to get through school on a shoestring. It was an adventure. And it all seems like yesterday. I could do it again tomorrow.

You're twisting my words. I did not say that 100 billion dollars vanished. You said that. I said that it was Zelenskyy himself who said that half the aid was never received. There's a difference. I'm not the one with the flawed premise. And yes, there are various explanations. In any event, the entire discussion occurred within the larger context of a discussion about corruption and fraud on the part of some Ukrainians, including Zelenskyy and his buddies. Is it your contention that no grifting occurred?

For Thailand, I have two "budgets." What I have to spend, and what I actually spend. The "have to spend" budget isn't much. The actually spend budget is whatever. People should ideally have access to both amounts, I think.

I'm thinking about moving, and I'm still considering Bangkok, although I should probably have my head examined. I have no reason to be there. Anyway, from what I see, and depending on what kind of budget a person has, condos can be had in just about every price range. 3000 baht and up. Obviously, you don't get much at the lower end of the price scale, but those places exist and aren't entirely junk. At what point would you be paying too much? For example, I'm from the US. Spending $2000 a month there for rent would be not crazy. That's 70,000 baht. Actually, in Manhattan NY, isn't the average rent something like $4300? Probably about the same in nice areas of the West coast. By those metrics, Bangkok is a steal and probably more fun, all things considered. Thailand has excellent housing deals.

In other words, they'll make a deal and move on. Neither party will be thrilled, but the current situation cannot be sustained. It'll be interesting to see what kind of deal results.

One more thing, although it should go without saying. In your mind and with your mindset, there are only two kinds of people. "Putin lovers" or people who think Ukraine should continue to have Carte Blanche to fund a war that a rational observe might conclude would be an exercise in futility. Am I correct? Two kinds of people with no room for an alternate reality? And yet calling someone a "Putin lover" or a "Russian supporter" is no way to win an argument, without more. And for what it's worth, I don't know Putin. I don't even know any Russians, other than the ones I see around my condo complex who to me seem to be regular people. Like you and me. And I'm sure that, among Russians, even they cannot agree about the war. But, like it or not, the war is happening. What's the answer? And for what it's worth, I know people from Ukraine. One of my great great aunts was from Ukraine. My father had a friend whose wife was from Ukraine. She was nice. So, in my mind, two groups of nice people. Russians and Ukrainians. And whatever is going on between those people, it's nothing new. It's been going on for hundreds of years. Drawing some lines on a map to form a new nation state and thinking that should end all discussion about the war is delusional. The Neocons would like everyone to believe that, I'm sure. Ditto for the warmongers. So far, it's an argument that is losing badly.

Well, if you're trying t save $250 and that makes sense to you, why not? I've never flown on Philippine Airlines, though, so I can't comment on that angle. As for a seven hour layover? A long time, but not too bad. I've had much worse one time when I didn't have much choice.

Did I say Zelenskyy stole $100 billion dollars? No, I did not. But I'm pretty sure he doesn't have clean hands. I'm pretty sure he's not just a good investor, and I'm pretty sure neither are members of his entourage. But we should just ignore that and allow the grift to continue? My point was that certain people want a state of continual war for one reason and one reason only: to make money. Zelenskyy included. Do you understand that much? The system needs more and more money. And one way they get that money is through the war machine. And US taxpayers and the poor people of the world foot the bill. It's called inflation. It's a matter of economics as much as anything. I didn't dream it up. I'm just an observer trying to stay out of the way of the ensuing mess. Trump was elected, in part, based on a promise to end the war. And yet that's not in the cards, apparently. A bad move on his part, but that's the reality.

And why is it ridiculous? Because it doesn't comport with the narrative you want to be true? You should probably spend some time listening to seasoned military people, people with years of foreign policy experience, and to former CIA analysts. You might learn a thing or two. The war is a mess and there's no easy fix, at least for the USA. Of course, if the only objective is to enrich the military complex and the corrupt people who profit from more war, then by all means, let's have more war. It's all a great game except for the thousands of kids will be killed for no good reason.

Wasn't it Zelenskyy himself who said that half the aid supposedly furnished by the US was never received? To be sure, there was some question as to where the money went, but if Ukraine didn't receive it, where did it go? Who is lying? What is Zelenskyy's salary? And if a full and complete audit were conducted of his bank accounts, how much do you think they would uncover? What about the accounts of his entourage? And if the money uncovered wasn't stolen, where did it come from? The tooth fairy? As for your other assertions. I refer you to my earlier posts. Apparently, you have a reading comprehension problem and you don't even understand why you think the way you do.

I've never been to the airport there, but how much do you really save? For me, it has always been a change of planes in Japan, although I've also been through Seoul and Shanghai. Unfortunately, the non-stop flights between BKK and LAX or BKK and JFK were discontinued years ago.

I'm in Thailand now because that's where I am. I like to stay mobile and I could move tomorrow, but there are factors to consider, not the least of which which would be, for me, the ability to stay long term without too much trouble. I really don't like aggravation. For me, Thailand works right now, so I'm here. As for Vietnam? If they really want more visitors in the country spending money, you'd think they would come up with a solution for retirees and others to stay long term. Why wouldn't they want that? What's the downside for them? I'd be in the country, not working, but spending my money. I have health insurance. Why not? Of course, it's not just about the visa. I think about things like the climate, language difficulties, political stability, and so on. Things can and often do change. Take Argentina, for example. A few years ago, the US dollar went a long way there and expats with US dollars had it made. Today, not so much.

As for your "reminder from before"? I explained my position. You either can't read or you simply don't want to understand. Ii think that's called "denial." To accept reality would conflict with your belief system. You're in denial. As for arguing in "bad faith"? Where is the bad faith? Why would it be unreasonable for the USA to act in its own best interest? That's an OK way to proceed for Ukraine, but if the USA acts in a similar fashion, that's not acceptable? Sounds to me like narcissism. Gaslighting others is a common technique. A typical way of manipulating others to get what you want. And here, Ukraine wants money, weapons, and material or whatever. And they want the USA to ignore the fact that half the aid previously furnished was stolen. They want the USA to ignore the fact that Ukraine has already lost the war. And with Trump's latest move, perhaps Zelenskyy succeed in his scam. Sad, but apparently true, unless Trump has some secret plan. Apparently, the Neocon warmongers now control Trump. As I've pointed out more than once. It's not a matter of being a "Russian supporter." It's not an either/or proposition. I'm sure in your mind you would like that to be the case, but only because you're in denial and can't see the big picture.

Let's assume it's only natural for Zelenskyy to ask for help. More money weapons, and supplies. That's totally understandable. Scam money out of whoever you can. That seems to be the game in that part of the world. But, just because Zelenskyy asks for help doesn't mean the USA should be stupid enough to give it to him. Why waste money on a war that that can't be won? What's the end game? Let Ukraine deal with Russia however they want. But the USA and its money and war materials need not be involved. The USA can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.

Even if we assume that things will get "ugly" long term because tariffs are not the way to establish a level playing field, that's a discussion for another day. The issue here is what happens with the trade negotiations. What agreement will be reached and how soon? Some people think Trump is living in a world that no longer exists and that the world's financial and economic center of gravity, so to speak, has shifted, that the US is no longer the dominant player it once was, and that this factor, alone, is determinative of an outcome where China wins and the US has no choice but to fold. At least that seems to be the theory. Other people think that, despite a changing world, things don't happen quite so quickly. The US dollar is the world reserve currency and will remain so for the near term, at least. The dollar's importance may eventually fade, but that process will happen over decades, not weeks. And so? It's a so-called "race to the bottom" in the currency markets. Trump wants lower interest rates and a weaker dollar. And the Fed will have no choice but to eventually comply. Moreover, most central banks around the world are playing the same game. They may not all act in unison, but eventually, they won't have much choice but to play the game so long as the US Fed keeps printing. As I've said, that's not a long term solution for the Fed and there is a breaking point, but before that breaking point is reached, there will be a trade deal. After that? Who knows? For now, they've kicked the can down the road. That's usually how it works, right? Take a look at Trump's financial advisors. They're all from the financial sector. The path forward shouldn't surprise anyone. As usual, the people of the world will end up the losers.

The time I'm thinking of was the mid 90s. And I'm pretty sure that San Francisco was a much safer place back then than it is today. Obviously it had its problems. Ditto every big city in America.

Traditionally, China may move "slowly," as you say, but right now, they may not have that luxury. As for Trump and the midterms? This thing will be over long before the midterms. Trump's big focus is on China, and he thinks tariffs are the way to go. I'm not so sure he's going to flip flop quite so soon.

To be sure, China has enough manufacturing capacity to supply Planet Earth with capacity to spare. As for plenty of "money"? They have a central bank and can print money, as can the US Federal Reserve. Just yesterday they lowered rates and decided to print more. They also have US bonds as part of their reserve, but weaponizing those would be counterproductive. A well educated and generally happy workforce? Perhaps. I'm afraid, however, that you don't understand the importance of the US market and why its importance isn't strictly a matter of the number of consumers in the USA vs the number of consumers in the world. Things aren't so simple. In any event, politics and economics are intertwined. They always are. And in this case, the importance of the US dollar as the world reserve currency cannot be emphasized enough. It's a political weapon and it works. The stage is set. The actors are Xi and Trump. One is on shaky political grounds and has little time to spare before the wheels to his economy start falling off. Without the US market, it all comes to a halt, sooner rather than later. Trump, on the other hand, has the US Federal Reserve backing him up, not necessarily because that's what they want to do, but because it's what they will do to protect the credit markets. And the Fed can print all the money it wants with much of the resulting inflation exported abroad. One of the benefits of having the world reserve currency. Is there a limit to that strategy? Sure, but that limit will not be reached before China has to fold. Whether or not the US is being "driven into the ground" because Trump wants to "suck up to Putin" is irrelevant to the more immediate outcome. The upshot: Trump will get at least some that he wants. Neither side may be entirely happy, but that's usually how deals work, right? Time will tell. I think I'm right, but I could be wrong.

Let me guess. You think I'm the one that doesn't understand economics? Why don't you enlighten everyone? We'll wait.

How do they measure inflation in Thailand, and how accurate is that measure in reflecting real consumer prices for essentials like food and energy?

I don't think so. Why would that be the case? Trump's tariffs may well result in more inflation and higher prices, but the Fed can and will print whatever money is necessary to keep the credit markets alive. That's a given. That's policy. Inflation will result, but that effect is not instantaneous. Will store shelves soon be empty? Of junk from China, perhaps, but so what? I think that food will still be available. People can wait to buy new junk. No one is going to riot because they can't buy new Barbie Dolls or new appliances. Anyway, the people forecasting trouble don't see trouble happening for six weeks or so. By then, China will be in big trouble, politically. So long as Trump stays the course, he wins.

Sooner or later, "the people" reach a breaking point. That seems to be a point many here fail to acknowledge.

This problem is hardly unique to Thailand. Consumers don't like higher prices and they want the government to "do something." But the government is in a bind. They could raise interest rates and slow the economy and perhaps dampen inflation that way, or, they could lower rates to stimulate an already faltering economy while in the process creating even more inflation. The usual choice is to protect "the economy" with the hope that people will adapt to the higher prices that result from lower rates. Just this morning or yesterday, China lowered its rates to protect the "economy." Guess who pays? In the USA, Trump wants the Fed to lower rates to help "the economy.." Again, guess who pays.

Once again, you miss the point. You're not seeing the big picture. It's not a matter of dead kids lying "at the feet of" Russia, as if the resolution of the issue of fault settles anything. Even if you're right about the fault issue, so what? No one ever said the world is a fair place. It's not. And in this case, being "right" and continuing a losing battle is simply asking for more grief. "I'm right and it's all Russia's fault" does not justify killing more kids and endangering the world. I guess if Zelenskyy wants to take that position and gets away with selling that nonsense to the Ukrainian people, that's what will happen, but why should the USA be involved? Trump should know better.

For sure. But sometimes, I can find exactly what I want without having to fool around too much, so I may pay a little extra. But, as another poster has said, a lot of the stuff is probably made in China, so until this tariff thing is settled, ordering products made in China from the USA Amazon might not be such a good idea.