Walker88

For fun, watch this: Especially when Cheryl Grice is playing....she is quite talented....but when Julian Bream chimes in, he displays genius. Also, his guitar has a much warmer sound. Grice's guitar sounds good until Bream plays the same notes on his..... The other folks play the pieces; Bream is the piece. Bream, the guitar and the music are inseparable. Astonishing display of brilliance and artistry.

Just a few.......Brahms 1st Symphony (sometimes jokingly called Beethoven's Tenth), Liszt's Piano Sonata in B Minor, compositions for lute by S L Weiss (and transcribed for guitar), Isaac Albéniz 'Sevilla' on classical guitar (preferably by Julian Bream), or any of a dozen Bach pieces for guitar, played by Bream, John Williams or Christopher Parkening. Perhaps not surprisingly, listen to all of these wonderful pieces, then periodically play Beethoven's 9th, and one realizes why the 9th is so well known....it is like the Pieta for sculpture: everyone is just hoping for Second Place.

Come on, you don't really believe this is happening. Of the 875,000 people who have died from Covid in the US, MAYBE you could find 1 or 2 that meet your claim. So 874,998...to be generous. If you have definitive proof that it is different, post it; otherwise, it's just more conspiracy drivel. Covid killed all those people.

I'm not sure if the crypto bubble has burst, but we do have some insight into how it eventually ends. Major holders have manufactured enough paper wealth that they can continue the manipulation they have been engaging in for the last few years. They can trade amongst themselves at ever-higher prices again to get the level back up, then hammer the bid side again when it fills in. Rinse and repeat. (If anyone thinks these upside surges are natural, I would submit you have little market experience and don't recognize manipulation. An entity that produces NOTHING, so is incapable of an upside earnings surprise, only trades like these cryptos because of manipulation. Downside sharp moves ARE natural, because when everyone is on the same side of the boat, and many are leveraged, panic ensues as folks try to exit. Look at any famous market chart and this is abundantly clear....1929, 1987, April 2000, Japan 1990, Gold and Silver 1980). Of course with each rise and tumble, fewer people remain enamored of crypto---or else remain enamored but lose all their capital and cannot play anymore---so the market will need more hype, more gurus and more marketing. That manipulative behavior will provide opportunity to trade and make money off crypto, but woe to those who marry the trade and fall prey to the hype. Against that backdrop, there will be more and more bits of interference, such as Russia banning 'mining' or Imams in Indonesia declaring crypto 'haram', or sovereigns placing restrictions or demands on crypto users. All are nicks in the Potemkin edifice of the crypto fantasy. Anyway, good luck to those members of the Crypto Cult. May your digital messiah deliver you from the evil of us heretics, blasphemers and infidels. As the late TV shlockster Robin Leach used to say, "Here's to champagne wishes and caviar dreams !"

That some institutions and major 'gurus' moved into crypto doesn't do anything for me. I recall many many major institutions and gurus were all on board Synthetic CDO Squareds with CDS Yield Enhancement-kickers in 2008. Those instruments took down Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, and would have taken down Morgan Stanley, AIG, Merrill Lynch and perhaps even Goldman Sachs, if not for the bailout and 'quantitative easing'. In 1987 it was 'portfolio insurance'.....major institutions did not seem to consider that in a market decline, not everyone could hedge by shorting S&P futures, since there must be another side to the trade. In April 2000, many supposedly savvy investors were disabused of the notion that 'it isn't about profits anymore; it's about eyeballs'. In the last year came the emergence of 'leveraged bets' in crypto, which has the same effect as a crypto being less than finite (think about it). That exacerbates declines, almost as if a crypto had a much higher float than structured. Of course such tales are all old hat, having been put to fiction centuries before in the tale "The Emperor's New Clothes".

One elicits a lesser reaction drawing cartoons of a famous guy who died in 632AD than thinking that maybe cryptos are not the greatest thing since sliced bread. Personally, as one who was a hedge fund manager and was successful lucky enough to be able to retire before the age of 40, I might trade cryptos, but I have zero interest in putting a substantial portion of even discretionary capital into an instrument controlled by an anonymous few. As I noted in an earlier post, these coins trade just like penny stocks, manipulated by the major holders (who have made enough off late arrivals so that they can throw around a bit of dosh to paint the tape). In the equity market, there are entities that can monitor manipulation and clamp down; in cryptos, there is no oversight, so the major holders can work together painting the tape, then hammer the bid side when it fills in. Since I am not in their clique, they aren't going to tell me when they are going to hammer the bid and cash out. Crypto has joined that mix of speculative 'investments' that stand in contrast to the usual microeconomics, where higher prices usually lead to lesser demand. In Bubbles, higher prices DRAW IN more buyers, as 'the train is leaving the station, so better get on board'. As far as being an inflation hedge, that is laughable. At the first sign of inflation (and central bank barking about handling the inflation), major cryptos tumbled 50%. While I've been away from my trading desk for a while, the definition I recall of an inflation hedge was NOT one that fell 50% when the years of easy money finally caught up to every day prices. Also, an entity that is wildly energy intensive actually helps cause price inflation, as the mining and transaction energy costs for crypto have already had impact on the price of fossil fuels. The cost-benefit to society of crypto is incredibly poor. How can the relatively tiny # of transactions using crypto justify the fact that just one single coin---btc---uses more energy than the combined energy of Google, Apple, Netflix and Amazon, which are entities that add a lot more value (and employment) to society than crypto? Crypto 'investors' ought to be ashamed. Swedes try to 'flight shame' people who take vacations to faraway lands, yet mining crypto uses much more energy than all the aircraft which take to the sky daily. Shameful! Heck, I would feel less guilty filling the 1000 gallon tanks of this monster, with it's 3000 hp fuel-sucking engines, cruising the blue waters off Miami, then driving back to my 45,000 sq ft house in my Bugatti Chiron, than I would buying into the most energy wasteful 'store of value' in human history. https://skaterpowerboats.com/60-2/

What? It doesn't make sense to NOT 'invest' in a wildly volatile entity that is heavily owned by precious few people? I think it makes quite good sense to be skeptical of folks nobody knows. I find the evangelical zeal with which so many have come to believe in these things rather astonishing, especially when considering nobody knows who the major holders are. These coins trade like penny stocks, and there's a good reason why. Just like penny stocks, the vast majority of the float is in the hands of a few people. .1% of btc owners, for example, own more than 25% of existing coins. No thanks. They play by their rules, and they don't share their plans. When btc takes a tumble, what generally happens is it suddenly ramps up on what seems to be fake volume, as in major players trade with each other to juice the price level, like shills at an auction. Small players and wannabe day-trading geniuses see the move, think it means it's a rocket ship to the moon, and jump in. As the bid fills in, the major holders then come in and slam through a series of price levels, thereby cashing out to retail. That is exactly how folks manipulate penny stocks. The trading patterns of penny stocks and cryptos are identical. Frankly, the very volatility that draws in the amateur players is what makes these coins useless. Hedging vehicles are meager at best, so anyone thinking about accepting coins for a major purpose, or lending/borrowing, has major risk. The only thing left as a function for these coins is thus as a speculative vehicle in a game of musical chairs that is controlled by a few major holders. There's virtually no transparency. Retail came late to the game, and entered aggressively in the last few months. The last two days have hammered these latecomers, besides evaporating the paper gains of longer term holders. Burn me once, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me. Retail is likely to walk away with its tail between its legs, having been hammered once too often. Perhaps they'll go back to AMC or Gamestop. (That some big 'names' have jumped on the crypto bandwagon means nothing. That Kevin O'Leary guy built a company, sold it, but isn't anything special in terms of investing prowess, so his interest in btc is hardly a worthy testimonial.) The other thing working against the first movers like btc is that the public is fickle. Each coin might be finite, but since cryptos are conjured from thin air, cryptos collectively are infinite. Because they make nothing and are based on notrhing except an algo, there is zero barrier to entry.There are nearly 17,000 different cryptos now, though a few thousand of those have seen volume all but dry up. btc might turn out to be what Lycos was to search engines or MySpace was to social media. Along came Google and Facebook, and goodbye Lycos and MySpace. Another coin will come along, get hyped and marketed by a 'guru', and retail will flock there just as they did to btc. In the meantime, the major holders will continue to manipulate and cash out into any frenzy. Trade it...okay. Marry btc or any other coin...a definite no. I also find it somewhat ironic that some folks say they're in coins because they cannot trust sovereign governments (the folks who issue fiat AND have taxing authority). So governments run by elected officials everyone knows cannot be trusted, but folks nobody knows can be trusted 100% ? That seems rather odd.

He spent his last 25 years or so in Saudi Arabia. He used to go to the same restaurant for lunch every day. I often went to the same spot and sat near him. I could never get out of my mind the fact he admitted to being a cannibal. The good news was the chicken on his plate looked liked chicken. I wasn't so sure about the grilled meat kababs.

If you have to ask...... I suggest getting your testosterone checked. You might be down a quart. (Just kidding....allow the site owners a little fun and click baiting. It sure beats Covid, road deaths, national politics, etc.) Anyway, as they say, 'beauty is in the eyes of the bedazzled', or something like that.

I used to enjoy Muang Kaew before they 'fixed' it. It was quirky and had a lovable character to it, particularly since it was quite different from all the other Cookie Cutter Courses in Thailand. I went once after the changes, then never again. It had lost its charm. The same abomination was done to another unique course in Pattaya...Siam Country Club. It was fun to play before the 'upgrade'. There was one hole with a water hazard about 250 yards out. One could lay up and leave a mid iron second, or blast it from the tee and carry the stream, leaving a chip and putt. Neither course was broken, but sadly, the owners decided to fix it, and both became indistinguishable from any other Thai course.

Such a dichotomy for TAT...at 42 million baht, he kind of qualifies as a "Quality Tourist", but the excessive overstay means he will likely be banned until Hell freezes over + 1 day.

That bearded guy trying to work off the belly fat must think he died and went to Valhalla.

What's that you say, Mrs Robinson....... By the way, this is a goose and gander thing. If Expat males can partner with a Thai women 40 years their junior, this should be equally acceptable. Not my cup of kratom, but what the heck. Up to them.

Perhaps he failed to pass his "Quality Tourist" Test?

I think the way they decide who can stay open after 9 or not is this: If they have a genuine kitchen and an actual restaurant license, they can stay open until late so long as they clear the tables of booze at 2100. If they have just a Sterno and a bag of Mama Noodles, they're likely not a genuine restaurant and must completely close at 2100.

I see the same thing on Lower Sukh....it's primarily the recently arrived tourists, who have decided Thai rules don't apply to them. (You know they're new in a few ways, not the least of which is that after two years of largely closed borders, one pretty much knows every face of every expat.) Soon, however, it will be slightly more difficult to behave that way, as some busy areas in BKK are installing testing desks. As of tomorrow, according to the police, just to enter Soi 8 one will have to be tested on the corner of Sukh & Soi 8. One would assume the medical staff will also suggest folks also keep their masks on unless eating or drinking. As for drinking alcohol, as of 9 Jan it must stop at 2100 hours. Police came right at that time today to check if any alcohol was still on the table. At 2059, it's "eeki eeki" to use the Japanese term for guzzle it all down right now.

A new crypto comes to market every hour or so now. Just as I was writing my post, WearBear was issued. It's finite, so must be quite valuable. It also has such a cute emoji! A cute little bear. What's not to like, right? It's current price is hovering around zero, but if it goes to the moon, look out! It'll be biscuits and gravy every night for those of us clever enough to see the opportunity.

I think you don't understand this new Digital Age of Virtual Miracles. NOBODY has to work ever again. Instead, we let someone create a hypothetical pot of gold out of think air, based on nothing but an algorithm, and then we all just day trade it and become gazillionaires. It doesn't matter that it is based on nothing, nor does it matter what price you pay. It can only go up over time, because, you know, it's a finite piece of nothing. Get it? It might be absolutely nothing, but it's finite. That makes it special. 21 million coins and it's done. Get'em while they last. Grab your own piece of Finite Nothing. It's simple, really. I buy from you, then you buy from me, then I buy from you again, you from me....etc., until we get it up to the GDP of, say, Burkina Faso, then we both retire in Monaco or Pebble Beach or Marbella. And if eventually folks wake up and see the Pyramid Scheme for what it is, just move to VIRTUAL Pebble Beach, since life is now just virtual anyway. Now if you're really feeling it and you're a Virtual Entrepreneur, conjure your own crypto. Get yourself a cutesy emoji, choose a clever name, send a couple free coins to Cathie Wood, and go ahead and book your seat on Jeff Bezos' space ship, because you'll have all the dosh you need to be a Space Cadet. Join the dozens of new Crypto Entrepreneurs who issue a dozen new coins DAILY. Do you know there are now over 10,000 different cryptos? Why not? The barrier to entry is ZERO, and it isn't as if you need a product or service or business plan or anything. Heck, fiat makers are slackers, as there are less than 200 forms of fiat in the world today. Let's be frank: crypto really is just all marketing anyway. I mean, some crypto conjurers just aren't clever enough to make their alchemy a MUST HAVE item. Why does btc have a market cap almost a $trillion, while something like snt is barely a couple hundred million? MARKETING! btc has a market cap higher than the GDP of the Netherlands, and it has achieved that by creating NOTHING! No tulips, no windmills, no Heineken, no prostitutes....just wishful thinking And you know why this all works like a charm? Individual cryptos might be finite, but Greater Fools are infinite.

I wonder what ethnicity your friend is, who finds Thai women 'dog ugly'? I'm Caucasian, and I do not find Caucasian women attractive, as I like something that looks quite different than me. Maybe your friend is ethnically Asian? I doubt I can go two minutes walking in Bangkok or on the BTS without seeing a woman I find attractive. In most Western countries I can go days without seeing a woman whose appearance tickles my fancy, so to speak (unless I see Blacks, Asians or Hispanics). Caucasian women's looks bore me (and no doubt my Brad Pitt looks bore them....Ha!). I have visited upwards of 50 countries and had the pleasure of being resident in 9. Each residence had a predominant ethnicity, and only the ones with mostly Caucasian faces produced indifference on my part. In the others, I was thankful for the gift of sight. While most nations do have their beauties, my opinion is that Thailand is blessed with the highest percentage of lookers and offers a feast for the eyes.

Measured against their stated goals (numbers and types of tourists), it is probably fair to say it's a failure. Obviously every country is playing this by ear, as none had experience addressing pandemics, but official statements should be measured and not geared toward creating an attractive but unrealistic expectation. Better to state something like, "We're going to try this, but if infections get out of hand, we will have to re-impose mitigation measures". Instead, even the PM has made statements he was forced to retract later, such as, "We're not closing down again", "We're just going to have to live with Covid", or "Bars will re-open 1 December". Measured statements, while creating some uncertainty in potential tourists, at least allow tourists the opportunity to weigh the likelihood of reimposed mitigation measures. The flip-flops just add to uncertainty and destroy trust. As for 'quality' tourists, as has been the common refrain, a casual observer such as myself would guesstimate 95% of arrivals have been single males with particular needs and desires. I am not sure that connotes 'quality' as officials would define it.

Until the High Season ends. Times are tough, you know.

First, the drive to dally with a female is 100% about gene propagation, even if we don't think of that. We think someone is sexy or desirable BECAUSE that will motivate us to spread our genes. The purpose of life is more life. Nothing more. We dress it up and pretend there's a lot more to it, but that is just filler. Second, there are women here who actually like the man they are with. Some of the men are young, some old. Granted a man in good shape is a lot more appealing, but while the primary draw for men is physical attraction, the primary drive for women is security. I might not understand when I see a young Thai woman with a fat old foreigner, but it is entirely possible she really is smitten with him. Not up to me to say one way or the other. I do think---personal opinion here---that if an older gent is intent on dallying with young women, he should take some pride of ownership in his body, hit the gym, lose the belly, dress nicely, and be properly groomed. That might increase his chance of being with a woman who really is attracted to him. Third, for women who dally without being attracted to the partner, that is up to her. She engages in a personal calculus where she weighs the gain (money, perhaps friendship) against the cost (if she is not attracted to him). The fact she does it gives the answer to her personal calculus. The man benefits because he exercises the biological imperative, and the woman benefits because she gets something she needs. So long as they are consenting adults, no harm done. What makes or doesn't make a "man" is not up to you or me to decide. We merely have opinions. Why is someone less of a man because he still has desires and exercises those desires? There is no rule book, and when we're dead, not a damn thing matters. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that. If some guy wants to dally with beautiful young women half his age, none of my business. I make decisions for me, not anyone else.

I'm on the side of evolutionary biology, too. Instinct and the biological imperative are difficult to overcome. Yes, part of being human is trying to overcome base desires, and most often that is socially useful. Not killing others (killing competitors might maximize the likelihood my own gene pool gets propagated) has obvious social benefits in civilized society, but men refraining from pursuing their desire for young, fertile women has less obvious societal benefit. Sure, it might 'look' bad, and to many it would be a bit embarrassing if a 60 year old guy was walking hand-in-hand with a heavily tattooed, silicon-enhanced, 20-year old woman, but in the overall scheme of things, what difference does it make? Does the 60 year old who refrains from pursuing the 20 year old woman feel extra good about himself when death comes calling? Does he gets bonus points in the hereafter for not giving in to temptation? There will always be some men who simply do not care what others think, know full well they would regret not pursuing their desires when it becomes no longer possible, and just follow their instincts whether they are 40, 50, 60 or even older. I see 60+ guys walking with young Thai women, and the men don't seem to be self-conscious at all. Outsiders might look askance at it, but the men simply do not care. Thailand seems to offer that possibility, which is a good part of what makes it an attractive destination, like it or not. Some folks don't like to hear it, but not everyone comes for the temples and food, though they can also appreciate those. Once they're put in the box, nothing is going to matter one wit, but just before they take in their last breath, they might have carnal memories that give them succor. Such March-December relationships and assignations are more accepted in Thailand than most anywhere else, even if the acceptance level isn't unanimous. These trysts have benefits, as both sides of the deal get what they want or need. Societal acceptance (even if only a plurality, not a majority) is one part of it, while the beauty and appeal of Thai women is another----likely major---part. Beauty may well be in the eye of the beholder, but I would guess if an international poll were taken as to female appeal, Thai women would score quite well, if not at the very top. Personally, I would add in a Top 5: Myanmar, Indian, Somali (with a little Colonial Italian mix) and Italian, but Thai women have the kind of appeal that is wired into my genes. (I almost think there is an element of evolutionary biology---spreading my gene pool far and wide---in the fact women of my own ethnic persuasion do not appeal to me so much physically....they all look like they could be my 'sister', so I'm not interested at all. I can be good friends, but have zero interest in anything between the sheets. "Globalization" has been a boon.)

Be realistic. EVERYTHING is a cost-benefit analysis. For example, we could mandate that any vehicle be limited to 5kph. If we did, it is unlikely anybody would die in road accidents. Worldwide that might save a million people a year and millions more serious injuries. We don't do that, however, because it would make road travel or goods delivery almost impossible. For Covid, there are things that have no or minimal cost, such as mask wearing, temp checks, even vaccines (no, they do not cause autism). I might prefer not to wear a mask, and certainly enjoy seeing people's faces (women, at least), but I accept the current requirement. I appreciate that it saves lives, and since the cost to me is next to nothing, I am happy to follow the rules. Where it becomes more difficult is determining just how open society should be to find the middle ground between virus spread and economic need. That is an almost impossible calculus, and no matter what is decided, a good many people are not going to be happy. Add to this the fact that this is the first worldwide pandemic in the modern era, so there is no blueprint. It's learn as we go. Yes, there are some inconsistencies and things that seem, or are, not logical, but again, the right answer is not easy to determine. The practice so far, at least in most places, has been to impose mitigation measures aimed at not over-stressing the healthcare system. That would seem the right move, but occasionally requirements are imposed in a hamfisted way. All of our patience is running thin after 2 years, but we still need to make wise decisions that consider the cost-benefit of everything we do.

No. Wrong. Even if fully vaxxed and boosted, one can still carry the virus. The viral load may be less than in an unvaxxed person, and the immune system might clear the virus faster, but even a fully vaxxed person can pass on the virus. Masks are not perfect by any means, but some virus---carried primarily through water droplets that dwarf the size of the virus itself---is stopped. If that results in even one vulnerable person not catching Covid and suffering or dying, it seems worth it. If one is incredibly selfish or thinks masks infringe on their 'free dumb', then they should stay home and avoid Thailand. Too many foreigners insist on imposing their own belief system on other countries. Obviously these same foreigners would be outraged if a visitor to their country ignored local laws, requirements and customs, and just did as they pleased. Thailand has established some rules, such as wearing masks in crowded places, shops, convenience stores, etc. It is both polite and respectful for visitors to obey those requirements---even if some Thais do not. If someone doesn't like that, stay out of Thailand. Some foreigners are such prima donnas.