Thomas J

You just can't make this stuff up.  Government passes upwards of $5.1 Trillion to "stimulate" the economy, then is considering major tax hike. 

Its like a doctor who gives you CPR and then puts a pillow over your face and presses down. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-plans-major-federal-tax-increase-almost-3-decades-report-2021-3

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

Again, for the upteenth time, please show a source if posting graphs.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Try looking some information up on this one.  

22 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

However, if you can find some good comparisons (which Norway and Finland is to Sweden)

I thought you said 'GEOGRAPHY' was not a factor.  Then why can't you compare Sweden to Spain?  Is it because the Swedes have blue eyes and the Spanish brown?  If geography is not a factor than why is it that you can ONLY compare Sweden to Finland and Norway.  Also where do you get your "facts" that people in Chechia  are more obese than Germans.  

Of course geography plays a part in the distribution of Covid. Here are the countries with the lowest covid rates.  Notice one common theme.  THEY ARE ALL HOT COUNTRIES, WITH LOTS OF SUNSHINE. 

The facts are that some area such as Florida did not have quarantines while areas such as California and New York did and the covid infection rates are virtually identical.  Sweden had no masks, no quarantines and yet its rate is virtually identical to Spain, Portugal, and Belgium.  Chechia, Belgium and Germany all had quarantines but Chechia rate is over 4 times as high.  So the facts at best show inconsistency in whether quarantines had any material effect.  Weather, and average age however do show a correlation.  The hotter the country and the younger the average age the less covid infections.  Laos is the lowest rate with an average age of 24.4 years.  Do you think it is the quarantines rather than age and temperature that causes the fact THAT EVERY ADJACENT COUNTRY Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Myramar has low covid rates of infection.  Do you really try and peddle that their governments and population were more diligent than Belgium, France, Italy, Spain,  and Switzerland.  Quarantines 'MAY" have helped but the facts are at best inconsistent. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?fbclid=IwAR0RYMPhu-J9i5t74sla8KOrJFIhGMs--0YIuvQzoxLeFrvwwr5FLpn42Qw

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

You need to look at recent data, not from the beginning of the pandemic.  California and NY were the first to get hit. 

That is current data on Florida, New York, and California.  Look it up on World O Meters. 

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Multiple factors as you're indicating now is far from the same as the earlier claims that lockdown and masks are ineffective.

I never said they were ineffective .  I was replying to the fact that quarantines were effective and the stats proved it.  They don't.  They are inconclusive.  Some countries even those that border each other have huge variances in their covid infedtion rates.  That does not mean that they were not effective.  But it also does not show they materially impacted the rate either.  

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

t's not right to compare Spain to Sweden.  Just doesn't make sense.  Compare Sweden to Norway and Finland would be better.  More similar.  And if you do, Sweden failed.  As their King admitted, and many other health professionals.

It makes perfect sense.  After all the post said the FACTS are right there in front of you.  Or are you saying that the people in Norway, and Finland are biologically different than those in Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands?  Or that the geography is different, in which case DISAPARITY in covid deaths might be due to factors OTHER THAN LOCKDOWNS.  

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ahh the much vaunted Swedish model. Hasn’t this been done to death already? Didn’t their own king say they failed? 

Again, if lockdowns IN YOUR WORDS were so effective why did Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands have virtually the same infection rate.  The fact that the king opines is irrelevant.  The stats are the stats. As you say, right there in front of you. 

I dont think I will be able to help on this one.  Never found the need for a "heater" in Thailand. 

I can only share my experience.  The only bank that would open an account for me without having a long term visa was Bangkok bank and they mandated that I had to buy an insurance policy from them in order to open it.  I needed the bank account to place the required monies to obtain my Retirement 0 Visa.  I tried several banks including Krungsi, SCB, and Kasikorn.  None would open an account without the Retirement 0 Visa.  So I am not sure how others seem to be able to open accounts prior to getting a visa.  I tried explaining that to both the banks and immigration that this was a catch 22 situation in that I couldn't get the visa without the account and I could not get the account without the visa. 

5 hours ago, Delight said:

The voting methodlogy has to be agreed at the start of the meeting.

Is there anyplace where a person can see the actual law dealing with walled communities?  Also regarding the voting.  How can you vote on which method of voting to agree on, if there isn't a methodology agreed to prior to the vote.  

Finally, do you or anyone else, know how voting works for properties owned by companies.  It would seem "logical" that there would be some form of resolution by each of the companies authorizing who can vote on behalf of the company.  Since the non-thai owner can not own more than 49% of the stock, it would seem that without a resolution or proxy by the other shareholders that the most the non-thai owner could cast would be 49/100 of 1 vote, if allowed to vote at all since the non-thai owner does not control the majority of the shares. 

Having had my own businesses I have had more than a few occasions where vendors I hired failed to live up to their promises.  I can recall one who ran up a $25,000 bill then failed to pay.  I checked with an attorney who said yes we can sue him.  It will cost you about $25,000 and you will get a judgement.  Then you can chase him to see if he still has $25,000 to give you back.  

In your instance even if you sue him, and win a judgement, it is unlikely that he will still have your money to give back and you will be out the legal fees.  The lawyers will be happy to take your money and give you promises that you can recover all the while stretching the process out to make it as expensive as possible.  

If he stole from you then you have a criminal matter.  However breach of contract is a civil matter and I am afraid you have not much recourse.  Lesson learned.  Never pay in advance.  With construction the least to do is performance draws where the builder gets a portion of his money as the job is being completed.  

1 hour ago, Peterw42 said:

Think about it logically

I know but then again if I always thought logically in trying to understand government policies, I would always be wrong. 

6 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

One vote per property

Are you certain?  One person at the land office stated it was one vote for each party listed on the Chanote

On 3/6/2021 at 5:57 AM, rooster59 said:

U.S. labor market roars back; full recovery still years away

Not sure I would use the term "roaring back"  The USA uses a strange methodology when calling people unemployed.  If the person stops looking because they are discouraged, they are not unemployed.  If they accept a part time job because they cant find a full time job, they are not unemployed.  If they use to earn a much higher salary but accept a low paying position to tide them over, they are not unemployed.    The truer number of unemployed is called the U-6 unemployment rate which includes those who have dropped out of looking,  those working part time that want a full time job.  That is currently 11.1% in the USA 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

While this is a move in the right direction, it hardly is going to create a huge surge in true "tourism"  People come to Thailand to see a variety of areas and attractions.  Not just be confined to their resort.  I suppose if the resort included a golf course and you were allowed to golf that it "may" be attractive to those who wish to come to Thailand to golf.  

This seems to me to be a case where the government is essentially guilty of  perpetrating Munchausen by Proxy on the economy.  Munchausen syndrome is where a person perpetrates harm on a "loved one" and then rushes in to help and save the person.  

On 3/6/2021 at 2:01 PM, rooster59 said:

 

On 3/6/2021 at 2:01 PM, rooster59 said:

Overall, Costa Rica (1st), Panama (2nd) and Mexico (3rd) made up the top three. 

I have personally been to Costa Rica, Panama and several regions in Mexico.  

Costa Rica seems nice though less developed that areas like Bangkok, Pattaya or Chaing Mai.  Panama City is much like Bangkok.  Sprawling and it certainly has become a major financial center.  Mexico, I can't think of anyplace in Mexico where I would feel safe.  Los Cabos is probably the safest of the areas but even that haven has had drug gangs infiltrate it.  There was a very popular Expat area called lake Chapala.  Higher elevation so cooler and very pleasant surroundings.  Close to Guadalajara and not terribly distant from Mexico City.  I ran into a couple from Mexico who were native Mexican now living in the USA.  I asked them about Lake Chapala.  They said that it use to be very nice but now not nearly as safe.  I said well where in Mexico is safe.  They said, no place, that is why they moved out of the country. 

In terms of Thailand biggest drawbacks are the hurdles to stay here and the distance to travel back to North America.  For those who think the cost of living is cheap here it is not.  In many areas of the USA you can purchase comparable housing for the same or less money.  Some things like insurance, taxi service, taxes, electricity, water, trash pickup, common labor are notably cheaper.  Others like most food products particularly beef, pork, many fresh vegetables, coffee, tea, soup and particularly dairy products are far far more expensive here.  So costs are a tradeoff. Some expensive, others cheap. 

I am looking for someone knowledgeable on this subject.  We recently had a "vote" for whether to form a Juristic Entity in the single family housing complex.  I noticed that one person who has a company that owns two homes voted 2 times and his Thai live in ( who I presume is one of the shareholders) also voted two times.  Other homes with only a single person listed on the Chanote were allowed to cast only one vote.  

Since every home pays the identical dues it would seem "reasonable" that each parcel would get a single vote but I am told that is not the case.  That each person on the Chanote gets to cast a vote.  That seems blatantly unfair.  Also what exactly is the rule with company owned properties. As mentioned I say company owned properties casting multiple votes.  Again a company is a "single entity"  there is only one name on the Chanote, the name of the company.  Using the same logic if only one persons name is on the Chanote, wouldn't there be only one vote.  

The idea that a home with husband, wife, and two children on the home should be able to cast 4 votes, and one with only a single man or single woman on the Chanote seems blatantly unfair. 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

As has been pointed out. Voting is a right. Can you show anything?

I can show you the bill of rights.  Voting is not in them.  However the right to bear arms is number 2 and yet there is no objection to requiring people be a minimum age, not be a criminal, show id upon purchase,  for some purchases requiring a waiting period.  None of those requirements are in the second amendment, but they are all considered "reasonable".  What is the objection to the "reasonable" showing of identification.  The only reason for a person to object is if they are attempting to fraudulently vote.  And just like the ID to purchase the gun, that is an action to prevent a gun from fraudulently being purchases.  

When the constitution was enacted the right to bear arms was included for everyone but voting was restricted to landowners so voting laws and regulations have changed for centuries.  To beat a dead horse, if there is nothing to hide or attempt to fraudulently pursue, no one should object to a "reasonable" identification system.  Certainly the system in Illinois where if I know the persons name, and precinct, I can vote for them without showing ID is not a reasonable method

Just now, Sujo said:

Trump even set up a taskforce, nothing. There is nothing to prevent.

So why the objection to showing id?  Banks set up cameras to prevent robberies, airlines screen baggage to prevent unauthorized objects from entering the plane, brokerage firms require ID to prove identity of those opening accounts.  So what is your specific objection to having to show id.  Whether there is fraud or not, is not the issue.  Why protest so vehemently if there is nothing to hide. 

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You are giving an assumption which has no legal standing because it lack evidence. Homeland Security under Trump said the election was the most secured in history and DOJ also under Trump said there were no traces of evidence of election fraud. Best you keep your assumption between your like minded mates. 

Again lets assume you are correct?  What is the objection to having and showing ID which is reasonably expected for unlimited number of less critical things. 

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Familiarize yourself with hand recounts.

Hand recounts count the votes, it does not determine if 1. the voter actually received the ballot 2. The voter actually was the person who turned in the ballot, 3. The ballot was not altered. 

Just now, Sujo said:

 

Show us.

It can't be done because there is no way of ascertaining if the person who turned in the ballot is "REALLY 'the person who is the registered voter.  So by default voter fraud can't be proved because the system as it currently stands does not guarantee the voter on the front end, and since the actual vote is anonymous, no way of determining if it had been altered.  

Consider, the following countries have "biometric" to their voting systems.  What is wrong with a system that guarantees voter integrity.  Fraud or No Fraud.  Just like airport security.  You don't do it because there is a problem.  You do it to prevent a problem.  If these nations many of them third world can employ a system to guarantee their voters integrity in their elections, certainly the US citizens deserve nothing less. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_voter_registration#:~:text=Countries which have used Biometric,%2C Iraq%2C Kenya%2C Lesotho%2C

Countries which have used Biometric voting registration include Armenia,^[10][11] Angola,^[12][13] Bangladesh,^[14][15] Bhutan,^[16] Bolivia,^[17][18] Brazil,^[19][20] Burkina Faso,^[21] Cambodia,^[22][23] Cameroon,^[24] Chad,^[25][26] Colombia,^[27][28] Comoros,^[29][30] Congo (Democratic Republic of),^[31][32] Costa Rica,^{[citation needed]} Cote d'Ivoire,^[33] Dominican Republic,^[34] Fiji, Gambia,^[35] Ghana,^[36] Guatemala, India,^[37][38] Iraq, Kenya,^[39][40] Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico,^[9][41] Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia,^[42] Nepal,^[43] Nicaragua, Nigeria,^[44][45] Panama, Peru,^[9] The Philippines,^[46][47] Senegal, Sierra Leone,^[48][49] Solomon Islands, Somaliland,^[50] Swaziland, Tanzania,^[51] Uganda,^[52][53] Uruguay, Venezuela,^[9] Yemen,^[54] Zambia,^[55] and Zimbabwe.^[5