mark45y

Not accustomed to being challenged or loosing arguments are you?? Doesn't seem to set well with you, the mark of a true liberal, anyway carry on..

Bets on who gets the last word? Liberals usually insist on the last word, I think.

Maybe all you guys are teachers with lots of experience and stuff but I wonder.

They get kids from 3 years old. So kindergarten through 5 the grade I don't think many schools teach much about critical thought and questioning the teacher. Anuban 1,2,3 and Prathom 1,2,3,4,5.

8 years of a dumb teacher drilling kids to speak English if the teacher could speak English would do something.

I think all of your talk about critical thinking and thinking outside the box is foolish. We are talking 3 to 11 years old after all.

The fact of the matter is Thai kindergarten and grade school teachers can't pronounce basic English words. Teach the teachers and you might start to see some improvement. One native English speaker for 20 Thai teachers a few nights a week for a couple of years would make a big difference.

Apologies to all the teaching experts who have never set foot inside of a government kindergarten classroom but the kids are sponges. They will absorb anything you feed them. They also understand my bad Thai better than the dumb teachers. I can communicate with kids no problem because they are not conditioned to not understand me nor do they have any funny regional accents yet. Kids can teach you to speak Thai faster than an adult if you haven't tried it.

Man is obviously lying. 33 ladies is not too much in two months. That's probably below average for the average 75 year old Falang in Thailand.

This predictable demonization of Obama is tedious at best. Let the games begin. I know personally I would bet the house Obama wins reelection.

What kind of odds you give me on Hilly?

So many things to change. Some great points about the need to promote thinking and discussion, smaller class sizes, and encouraging good Thai teachers. But there are some underlying deeply entrenched issues. Except for IT and industries that communicate daily with the rest of the world, I think that most Thais don't know why they should speak English. Some strongly resent having to try at all.

Many Thais like the 'box' and see no need to go anywhere else or think outside of it. They don't understand concepts like individualism, personal freedom, human rights, or independence.

Teaching English is as much about western concepts of learning as it is about the words and sentences. As a westerner who am I to prescribe my way of thinking to a population with some exceptions that couldn't give a toss about world issues, because they have no interest in them. Those who do want to learn English should be encouraged, but not coerced.

How would it be if All Americans, Canadians, British, Australians, New Zealanders, were suddenly told to learn Mandarin. (It might happen yet!)

Right now Thailand's fundamental economics are better than Greece - the birthplace of civilisation?, Ireland - the birthplace of Guiness, and the US the birthplace of credit cards,hedge fund managers and virtual debt.

.. So why again do they need English ??

I agree. Why should they change?

A while ago I started a thread about why I didn't teach my girlfriend English. It is the same thing except on a larger scale. I am happy speaking Thai and having her not speak English. She has no idea what I am typing right now although she is looking over my shoulder.

If she wants any information about her father's cancer treatments she asks me and I look it up on line in English and translate for her.

If she wants any information about international banking, I look it up and translate.

Girlfriend #2 (not Thai) writes me and texts me with impunity and I text her back.

My computer is secure because I use Ubuntu instead of Windows. Not many Thais know how to get the Thai instructions for Ubuntu.

My girlfriend is isolated from the rest of the world because she does not speak or read English.

I think most Thais are like my GF and don't care. However there are some Thais who do not want to be isolated from the rest of the world. I think they are silly. Isolation is fine with me. I get along with the ghosts and archaic beliefs and superstitions.

Mark:

You pulled the quote from this this. It's less a psychological profile than some guy's agenda fueled speculation. (And what a source: 68 year old psychiatrist who gets charged with trading illegally prescribed drug to his patients in exchange for sex and charging it to the state. )

Writing rules for posting? No. What I am doing is pointing out what is a dishonest and shoddy means of making an argument . And you didn't "list a persons name before quoting", you lifted a passage of someone else's work and presented it as your own. And so out of conterxt as to twist its original meaning.

I'm not spending much time at all. 1) It was obviously not your own writing 2) I was curious where and when Fenichel commented on Bill Clinton and 3) As you say, it's easy to find this stuff (yeah,a number of references – it's the same source over and over again).

Are you sure youcan't C&P more than 3 sentences at a time? Even if that's the case, one merely has to use quotation marks/and or say something like "According to…" and perhaps provide a link. Or else, actually use your own ideas and your own words.

But presenting something as your own when it's not, and doing it so clumsily (twice in 2 days)…well, you can't complain if it arouses some criticism.

EDIT for typo

Not where I got the quote but not a big issue. This is not the only thread where you are trying to start an argument with me. I don't know why but you have not been on Thai Visa long so I won't go into it. The only way I know how to respond to a personal vendetta is not to respond. Me responding to you would take the thread off topic. Try dealing with what I write instead of how I write it or if you don't like me personally.

If you want to critique my writing style or spelling or some other facet of how I present information I will not respond. If you want to debate the information presented, provided it is on topic fine. If you want to call me dishonest or shoddy I will not respond. If you want to disagree with whatever idea it is that you find dishonest or shoddy feel free to do so. If you want to start a feud pick some one else because I will not take the content of a thread off on a personal defense or attack.

Gennifer Flowers wouldn't let Bill Clinton tie her up in a sex game with Bill playing sadist although he let her tie him up so he could play masochist.

Perhaps the reason he married her was he was a masochist.

Psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel explains. Bill's masochistic impulses are more covert then his sadism in his public sexual life and also in his political life.

Gennifer Flowers felt intimidated and frightened 1992, Gennifer said, "I could have been killed." Bill got the blame for it but I think she was really afraid of Hillary.

Hillary as sadist and Bill as masochist would explain the marriage. Apparently Bill referred to her as the Dragon.

Mark, Mark, Mark... plagiarizing again? And by (dishonestly) taking something out of context, you've made yourself look pretty foolish: Otto Fenichel died a few months before Clinton was even born.

EDITED for Typos

It is nice having a personal fact checker. I pulled the quote from some psychological profile of Bill Clinton. Are you now writing rules for posting? When you list a persons name before a quote is that plagiarism?

Simple to check google "psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel explains. Bill's masochistic impulses are more covert then his sadism in his public sexual life"

You will find a number of references.

In case you didn't know it, on Thai Visa you can't paste whole articles so one must cut and past at most three sentences.

I realize you are checking everything I write for accuracy and spending quite a bit of time to critique me. It is OK with me. Are you one of my ex wives?

The only hang up was Palin but she was the "Vice Presidential candidate" not the Presidential candidate which in this case has proven to be far worse of a choice... Everyone was concerned about McCain's age and possible demise in office which was a reach and obviously to this point false concern.

I would have had Obama ahead of McCain in my dead pool because he was the person standing between Hillary and the Presidency. Expect him to get knocked off late summer before the Dem National Convention and Hillary to save the day and accept the nomination. Remember, there won't be any other candidates like you would normally get in primaries and ol' VP Joe Biden will be too old. That leaves Hillary as the only logical choice.

You mean I might not be the only person afraid of Hillary?

He's a likable fellow and clearly very intelligent. I think he lacks a mysterious ingredient that makes for a great leader (as opposed to a great campaigner/speech giver). I didn't see it in his campaign either, which is why I supported Hillary, who I do believe has the right stuff.

Hmm... there's a fellow American here on board who knows and met her and doesn't agree with you. He was terrified of her. He called her a very dangerous woman...

FWIW

LaoPo

Why do you think Bill's still married to her ??

Gennifer Flowers wouldn't let Bill Clinton tie her up in a sex game with Bill playing sadist although he let her tie him up so he could play masochist.

Perhaps the reason he married her was he was a masochist.

Psychoanalyst Otto Fenichel explains. Bill's masochistic impulses are more covert then his sadism in his public sexual life and also in his political life.

Gennifer Flowers felt intimidated and frightened 1992, Gennifer said, "I could have been killed.” Bill got the blame for it but I think she was really afraid of Hillary.

Hillary as sadist and Bill as masochist would explain the marriage. Apparently Bill referred to her as the Dragon.

Obama made her Secretary of State to bring the Hillary supporters fully on board, at least vote-wise. It worked. This is kind of academic. She isn't running in 2012 and she says she'll never run again. Frankly, sexist as it may sounds, how she looks by 2016 will matter more for her than for a male candidate and that may be a factor on whether she bothers to run in 2016. She doesn't want to lose again, that's for sure.

If she campaigns for him and does not run, then in the absence of other circumstances I am wrong about the woman. It would not fit my characterization of her.

In political marriages love rarely comes into play so eliminating the unlikely reasons the only one remaining is fear.

As for me, if the President of the US is afraid of someone I think that is a good person to be afraid of.

Huh. It isn't love (even though according to you, that is possible though rare). So it must be fear (not, say, other mutually beneficial factors); so you can state as fact that he was and is with Hillary because he is/was afraid of her. Thus you were terrified of her (though apparently not quite sure why, other than that POTUS was scared).

OK, then. Thanks.

If I would have known Bill better I would have asked him. I didn't know him that well. I don't have any inside information. If I did I wouldn't divulge it anyway.

If she runs for President all the old stuff will come out again and we can all look at it again and make a further evaluation.

But all the information has been discussed before and it gets older and less believable with the passage of time. Whitewater, the Downside legacy and the Darkside stuff has all been examined and mostly dismissed.

Maybe some new things will surface, who knows.

I put two and two together and get an answer you may do the same thing and get a different answer. Like you said it is mostly subjective.

Probably a more topical question to ask is why Obama made her Secretary of State. That gave her a platform to launch another Presidential bid and filled in any holes she may have had in foreign policy experience. Is Obama afraid of Hillary? Why did he give her the job? Is Hillary going to go all out and campaign for Obama in the early stages?

It is just a personality thing. Hillary represents most of the things in a person I don't like, Bill exactly the opposite.

Thanks Mark.

Not all that confident in the accuracy of your assessment of Mrs. Clinton, but fair enough (it's largely subjectibe anyway, no?) -- so are you typically terrified of people who represent things in a person you don't like?

And how is that you know Bill is scared of her?

Hillary was never a big hit in Arkansas. When she was introduced using her middle name the Arkansas ladies rolled their eyes. Bill had a lot of other choices and took them frequently. Yet he stayed with her. In political marriages love rarely comes into play so eliminating the unlikely reasons the only one remaining is fear.

As for me, if the President of the US is afraid of someone I think that is a good person to be afraid of.

I was frankly surprised that she didn't beat Obama. The only thing I can think that happened is a lot of other people had the same gut feeling I have about the woman.

Huh, of all people -- good old Mark! You're always forthcoming with answers so I hope you don't mind satisfying my curiosity:

You know her?

Bill told you he was scared of her?

Why did she terrify you?

Knew her a long time ago would be accurate. Arkansas, Bill was Attorney General and she worked for the Rose law firm. Bill was a hunting buddy of a relative of mine and a frequent patron of my club in Little Rock. Later I met the Professor who graded her Senior thesis and he became a friend of mine.

For those who don't know, Arkansas was a very wide open state including horse racing, gambling, ladies, after hours clubs and almost anything else you can think of. Hot Springs where Bill was born boasted vacation homes of many mobsters including Al Capone.

Most of the stuff is a matter of public record.

She is a formidable woman possessed of no great intelligence but drive and great determination.

I would not want her pissed of at me. She never forgets.

Bill is hard not to like in almost any circumstance. Hillary for me is the opposite. How they ever got together is beyond me. If you have met them together they really do seem an odd couple. Bill is a good old boy who happens to be brilliant. Hilly is a Dowdy Chicago feminist liberal who has the persistence of a bull dog. Bill would have been at home in Clinton Square in Bangkok. Hillary Rodham? Hardly.

It is just a personality thing. Hillary represents most of the things in a person I don't like, Bill exactly the opposite.

He's a likable fellow and clearly very intelligent. I think he lacks a mysterious ingredient that makes for a great leader (as opposed to a great campaigner/speech giver). I didn't see it in his campaign either, which is why I supported Hillary, who I do believe has the right stuff.

Hmm... there's a fellow American here on board who knows and met her and doesn't agree with you. He was terrified of her. He called her a very dangerous woman...

FWIW

LaoPo

That would be me. I like Bill. Bill is scared of her too.

If Thailand kicks out ALL foreigners, Thailand will have a problem, that's for sure. Nobody contests that.

No country can ban all foreigners, tourists and businessmen, without suffering economical consequences.

Now are all foreigners equals and should be treated the same way ?

Is a a foreign manager responsible for 100s of job equal to a visa runner who can barely pay for his own expenses ?

I believe the problem rests with the Thai government. it should make more clear the requirements to get a resident visa and kick out the people who don't qualify For the time being honest people and criminals are all treated the same way. Honest people will benefit for more clear rules

I disagree. Samran, one of the posters wrote

“What would happen? Not much probably. Thailand would have lost more as a % of GDP during the Asian financial crisis. Funny with that though, very few people went hungry and life kinda went on.”

There are posters here who feel it would not be a grave hardship if all the foreigners left Thailand. Unless he has changed his mind Samran thinks if all the foreigners left Thailand it would not be a catastrophic event. Correct me if I am wrong.

yeah, but according to some, it is the figurative 'jenga' piece of the Thai economy. Take it away, and it all comes crashing down.

Ignores the fact that economies are dynamic, other sectors take up the slack. Also ignores the fact that Thailand had a larger drop in its GDP back during the Asian financial crisis, and life went on.

Nevertheless they contend that there is a huge multiplier effect, 30% to 40% bandied about in this thread alone. Now, I'm not one to quote wikipedia often (and in my day job my clients would shoot me), but there was a study quoted there (Source: Thai Institute for Development and Administration, 1990) which suggested that there was huge leakage - approx 70% of monies bought in by tourists actually left the country anyway (foreign airlines, tour operators, hotel groups). The number is old, but I suspect you'd get the picture.

All this is academic anyway. The proposition that there would be a Kristallnacht here in Thailand is beyond absurd. Sure, there are plenty of posters who believe it, but they are the same ones who fell for the April Fools joke in the news forum a few days ago. No one likes them, everyone hates them, they better go out back and eat worms......

Thailand's economy is in a much better shape than the economies of many developed nations. Today Japan Steel Corporation, Japan's largest, said they will invest US$300 million in Rayong Province to produce 360,000 metric tons of galvanized steel a year. Thailand is one of the biggest auto producer, 1.64 million vehicles, and is moving to 2.3 million units by 2017 with this investment. Eat that EU.

Max2010

Max2010

There are 767 companies in Thailand with major Japanese shareholders. These firms employ about 471,500 workers. I guess Thailand would be better off if they kicked these foreigners out.

on one thread you quote Thai statistics with authority, and in another thread, you trash them as unreliable. Amazing.

anyway, who is actually proposing kicking the Japanese out?

The OP is "If all foreigners would leave this country." Japanese are foreigners.

tourism makes up about 6% of thailand s gdp

yeah, but according to some, it is the figurative 'jenga' piece of the Thai economy. Take it away, and it all comes crashing down.

Ignores the fact that economies are dynamic, other sectors take up the slack. Also ignores the fact that Thailand had a larger drop in its GDP back during the Asian financial crisis, and life went on.

Nevertheless they contend that there is a huge multiplier effect, 30% to 40% bandied about in this thread alone. Now, I'm not one to quote wikipedia often (and in my day job my clients would shoot me), but there was a study quoted there (Source: Thai Institute for Development and Administration, 1990) which suggested that there was huge leakage - approx 70% of monies bought in by tourists actually left the country anyway (foreign airlines, tour operators, hotel groups). The number is old, but I suspect you'd get the picture.

All this is academic anyway. The proposition that there would be a Kristallnacht here in Thailand is beyond absurd. Sure, there are plenty of posters who believe it, but they are the same ones who fell for the April Fools joke in the news forum a few days ago. No one likes them, everyone hates them, they better go out back and eat worms......

Thailand's economy is in a much better shape than the economies of many developed nations. Today Japan Steel Corporation, Japan's largest, said they will invest US$300 million in Rayong Province to produce 360,000 metric tons of galvanized steel a year. Thailand is one of the biggest auto producer, 1.64 million vehicles, and is moving to 2.3 million units by 2017 with this investment. Eat that EU.

Max2010

Max2010

There are 767 companies in Thailand with major Japanese shareholders. These firms employ about 471,500 workers. I guess Thailand would be better off if they kicked these foreigners out.

The only economic statistics that one can rely on in Thailand are the same as one can rely on in China. For example electricity usage because that is state controlled and the volume of sales and usage is tracked.

What you can't rely on, 1. Income estimates, 2. Bank deposits. 3. Expenses.

To sum up, no one knows how much money people make or spend with any measure of reliability.

Do economists have any magic tools to tell them how much money is in the unofficial banking system? No.

The majority 54% of the Thai economy is untraceable and untaxed.

Economists can give you a rough idea plus or minus 10 or 15% of line items but that although interesting is hardly considered accurate statistical data.

Can an individual start a bank? Sure, thousands do it every day. What do you think has fueled the Thai hotel building boom. If I want a loan to buy some land I don't go to a bank I go to Somchai who runs a “Share” loan system. I won't go into the methodology but these “Share” systems exist all over Thailand in every social strata.

All of these unofficial money systems are linked to Thailand's agrarian roots and tied to the land. As Thailand becomes more industrialized they will shrink in size and the economy will go more on the books (at least that is the theory).

At the end of the month everyone goes to the 7/11 and pays their bills. No one uses a check or credit card. I don't know what the credit card or check usage is but as far as ordinary citizens I would say less than 10% of expenditures are traceable.

I would think that the West is 90% traceable expenses and Thailand is 10%.

Are you really trying to say that the average Thai person has a checking account?

I went to Lotus today and had a cup of coffee and watched the transactions at 6 registers. I watched roughly 100 transactions. I saw 12 credit cards used and no checks. In 6 years I have never seen a bar or restaurant take a check. In all but the more expensive restaurants I have never seen credit card taken.

I think it is fair to say that Thailand is a cash society. I take it you don't.

I got my car fixed the other day. It cost me 11,000 baht. I got it fixed at a reputable repair shop and they used Toyota parts. They didn't give me a receipt and refused my request for one. This is not unusual in Thailand. It would be completely unacceptable in the West.

My contention is that the Thai gray and black market economy is so large that it prevents meaningful statistics being recorded.

My evidence for this is walk out on the street in any Thai town and look around. What you will see is unrecorded inventories and unrecorded sales of almost everything the average Thai buys during the course of an average day.

Income and expenses are impossible to determine at the most basic level. Do most Thais live in apartments that record income? No. Food and shelter are not traceable expenses. That means food and shelter are part of the gray economy.

A tourist brings in $1000. He goes to his GF's house and stays for a week. What part of that $1000 is recorded anywhere? Food, shelter, beverages and miscellaneous services? None. A tourist goes to the West and virtually all of his expenditures are recorded.

• Yeah, everyone goes to 7-11. Well except for the millions(?) who don't. Like me. No one uses a credit card to pay bills -- except the millions who do (like my family).
• In all but the more expensive restaurants you have never seen a credit card taken? I've seen it in hundreds of low to mid-range establishments. I've been her about 4 times longer than 6 years.

• Receipts? Rarely difficult to get from a business. It would be completely unacceptable for me here to have my car serviced (or anything else of high value) at a place that refused to provide me with a receipt.

• Do most Thais live in apartments that record income? Errr...most Thais don't live in apartments. Not sure why that matters. But apartments I've lived in and/or girlfriends lived in (cheap to expensive) "record income".
• Most tourists don't go their "GF's house" to stay for a week. Not sure how much difference your scenario would make.

7/11's make a large part of the cash society possible. It is my contention that the average Thai does not pay bills by mail or credit card. What percent will you admit are living with cash only?

7000 7/11's around the end of the month or beginning of the month or almost any time you are in line someone will be paying a bill there. How many do you think per day? Multiply that by 7000 for each day a bill is paid. How many people are on one electric account? How many people pay cash to top up phone cards instead of a credit by month arrangement?

Restaurants, I think we have a difference in definition. Most Thai people eat at restaurants that don't take credit cards on a daily basis. Maybe on special occasions an MK or something like that but certainly not daily.

The great majority of Thai people don't pay recorded money for shelter. They stay in homes that are payed for. Rent? One person pays rent and the other dwellers in the room pay cash.

A million single men come to Thailand every year. A sizable percent don't pay for hotels. Nor do they get receipts for anything they buy.

Principles of Economics by N. Gregory Mankiw, 2008 estimates Thailand's gray economy at 54% of GDP

Institution Harvard Field Macroeconomics Alma mater MIT (Ph.D., 1984)

Princeton (A.B., 1980)

The US and UK and Japanese economies have a grey economy around or below 10%. You can see how Thailand's 54% makes any attempt at gathering meaningful statistics impossible.

You've just contradicted yourself.

They have estimates of a grey economy, ergo, it the size of the economy can be estimated as an approximation. When people generally refer to a grey economy, it basically means that there are parts of the economy that aren't being taxed, or under taxed. It doesn't mean they can't be estimated in size to a reasonable degree, as Dr Manikow did.

I don't quite get your examples of the cash economy, as they are really bad examples.

The "millions" of desperate men who come to Thailand bring in foreign currency, which gets converted to Thai baht. It is recorded. Done.

At the 7-11, people may pay cash for their services. But 7-11 is a business no? Or are you saying the power company, 7-11 and the phone company aren't being recorded as well for GDP purposes? No, it is recorded.

You pull money out of the ATM? It is being recorded - probably booked as consumption. Done.

You might be partly right that the noodle vendor isn't being directly recorded. But so what? They ultimately buy their inputs from big wholesalers (through a variety of middlemen). At some point, these transactions are being recorded. Done again.

It is thoroughly possible to make approximations therefore based on the economic activity. It isn't rocket science.

You mentioned you 'studied' economics? Did you get your degree in this off the back of a cornflakes packet? Sure sounds like it.

I send $10 dollars by Western Union to Lek. Lek takes the money to the bank and changes it into baht. A tourist bring in $10 in cash and changes that $10 into baht at the local money changer. Somchai sells services to a ship docked in Thailand and they pay $10 he changes it into baht at the bank. What are those transactions logged as? They aren't logged as anything. They are simply money transactions. No one knows what was the source of the $10 dollars. Is it tourist dollars? Is it business, legal or illegal? No one knows.

Noodle income? Yes somewhere along the chain there is a recorded purchase at the wholesale price for noodles. 10%, plus or minue 10% of the eventual retail value. It tells me nothing meaningful.

Mark: As should have been obvious by now, I'm well aware of the famine. I don't need Wiki to tell me. You didn't originally say the presence of Chinese troops didn't help the situation, you said "the Chinese troops invaded Hanoi and a million Vietnamese starved."

And still you don't see that you undermine your own claims. I'll even use your rather superficial sources (believe me there are far better but surely you can't dismiss them since you used them yourself}:

1) Famine : October 1944 to May 1945 -- during Japanese occupation.

2) Chinese occupation begins in mid-September 1945.

Fact is I could write at great length and in some detail on the subject but it's late and this is way off topic. Why not just admit you were wrong rather than repeatedly trying to wriggle out of it? Or else you could just drop it.

I would like to discuss it and know more about the period and what happened. But it is off topic. You seem like the kind of guy who approaches things with an adversarial nature and has to be right and extract an admission from me that I am wrong. OK, I don't have that big an ego. You are right I am wrong.

from post #64 When I was a kid I worked on a horse ranch ... and was there a dock at the ranch for your sailboat?

Michigan and Ontario are a sportsman's paradise. We used to ride the horses on the beach every day.

We ran a couple of hundred head of horses and no it wasn't too far away from the dock.

So glad I came here in my 20's. Would hate to have turned up in my 50's and become all bitter about what the young uns are all enjoying in Thailand, regardless of how they manage to stay here and however they make a living.

That's an interesting take on the situation. Reading this thread I found it was the young guys that were spewing all the venom at the old guys.

Young guys, old guys we both pay for it. I thought this bothered the young bucks who think they should be getting a free ride because of their looks.

The most likely scenario even if the Thais would have surrendered as a result of the British attack would have been the loss of a large part of the rice crop to the Allies and the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Thais.

Actually, that scenario was by no means reliant on any British attack (I'd be curious to see some more info on that): the British tried very hard to set up war reparations that would have meant most of Thailand's rice being taken away. The French weren't averse to that either. It was the essentially the US that saw to it that (rightly or not) Thailand faced very little repercussions for their alliance with Japan.

And the Vietnamese suffered their famine primarily as a result of the (Vichy) French and Japanese policies -- and some natural calamities and general wartime conditions; not because of any Chinese invasion (they didn't so much invade as be assigned to disarm the already supine Japanese and administer that part of the country on behalf of the allies.)

Summer 1945 - Severe famine strikes Hanoi and surrounding areas eventually resulting in two million deaths from starvation out of a population of ten million.

In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.

In North Vietnam, 150,000 Chinese Nationalist soldiers, consisting mainly of poor peasants, arrive in Hanoi after looting Vietnamese villages during their entire march down from China. They then proceed to loot Hanoi. and stay for a year.

Off the top of my head, the Brits were ready to attack but didn't have to because the Japanese surrendered. The Brits then occupied Bangkok for a year and were pulled out because of problems in India.

My thoughts on the rice are purely hypothetical because it didn't happen but one could surmise if the Brits were at war with Thailand and invading the country they would have taken the rice and shipped to the British colonies that were in dire need of rice at the time. As it turned out as you mentioned the US prevented the UK from getting the large rice war reparations that they wanted and the French from getting the Emerald Buddha.

After 12 hours you come back with a copy and paste job? if you are going to use someone else's work you really should cite them. Unfortunately for you -- though you tried taking it out of context to support your earlier claim, you apparently didn't understand what you read: I repeat the causes of the famine were not the Chinese occupation.

I will try to be more careful I didn't know you were concerned about quoting one sentence quotes.

Wiki says, “The Vietnamese Famine of 1945 (Vietnamese: Nạn đói Ất Dậu - Famine of the Ất Dậu Year) was a famine that occurred in northern Vietnam from October 1944 to May 1945, during the Japanese occupation of French Indochina in World War II. Between 400,000 and 2 million people are estimated to have starved to death during this time.”

I can't help but think the presence of an looting Army of 150,000 Chinese with no food sources of their own helped the situation much.

I think you will admit that the Chinese looted a large part of North Vietnam and Hanoi. I don't imagine there was a prohibition against looting food.

from Post #62 "Thai women have routinely chased me with knives and cleavers or sharp tongues." ... You sure can pick 'em.

When I was a kid I worked on a horse ranch and had the same trouble with horses. I don't know why I always picked the high spirited ones. I got bucked off and stamped on more times than I can count. All of my children have been relatively calm and didn't seem to inherit the mothers temperament.

The most likely scenario even if the Thais would have surrendered as a result of the British attack would have been the loss of a large part of the rice crop to the Allies and the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Thais.

Actually, that scenario was by no means reliant on any British attack (I'd be curious to see some more info on that): the British tried very hard to set up war reparations that would have meant most of Thailand's rice being taken away. The French weren't averse to that either. It was the essentially the US that saw to it that (rightly or not) Thailand faced very little repercussions for their alliance with Japan.

And the Vietnamese suffered their famine primarily as a result of the (Vichy) French and Japanese policies -- and some natural calamities and general wartime conditions; not because of any Chinese invasion (they didn't so much invade as be assigned to disarm the already supine Japanese and administer that part of the country on behalf of the allies.)

Summer 1945 - Severe famine strikes Hanoi and surrounding areas eventually resulting in two million deaths from starvation out of a population of ten million.

In order to disarm the Japanese in Vietnam, the Allies divide the country in half at the 16th parallel. Chinese Nationalists will move in and disarm the Japanese north of the parallel while the British will move in and do the same in the south.

In North Vietnam, 150,000 Chinese Nationalist soldiers, consisting mainly of poor peasants, arrive in Hanoi after looting Vietnamese villages during their entire march down from China. They then proceed to loot Hanoi. and stay for a year.

Off the top of my head, the Brits were ready to attack but didn't have to because the Japanese surrendered. The Brits then occupied Bangkok for a year and were pulled out because of problems in India.

My thoughts on the rice are purely hypothetical because it didn't happen but one could surmise if the Brits were at war with Thailand and invading the country they would have taken the rice and shipped to the British colonies that were in dire need of rice at the time. As it turned out as you mentioned the US prevented the UK from getting the large rice war reparations that they wanted and the French from getting the Emerald Buddha.