CaptHaddock

How clueless can you be? The ECB doesn't set the value of the euro any more than the Fed sets the value of the dollar. Free floating currencies like the dollar and the euro are valued minute by minute in the currency markets. The value that the markets place on currencies depends on the relative demand for them which depends on factors like trade flows, cross-border mergers and acquisitions, FDI, etc. The currencies of countries with persistent trade surpluses like Germany and Japan tend to float upward over time driven by the demand of their trading partners to settle trade transactions while those with persistent trade deficits tend to lose value. Thailand, for example, has almost always run a trade surplus which has kept the baht relatively high to the dismay and consternation of many of the expats here with assets in other currencies. The more recent weakness of the baht is directly attributable to declining exports.

The reason the Greeks haven't left the euro so far is that the Germans threaten to drive the Greek banks into bankruptcy by depriving them of cash inflows that they need which would result in a deeper depression in Greece than the depression they are currently experiencing. The Germans made the same threat to the Irish government during the crisis: if you don't assume responsibility for the Irish banks' losses (of the money of the stupid German bankers) we will destroy your banking system and therefore, the Irish economy. If the Fed had refused to provide liquidity by ramping up its balance sheet and creating new transfer mechanisms, the same would have happened to the US banks and the US economy. Of course, it is unthinkable that the Fed would sit by and let that happen, but not at all unthinkable that the Germans would.

But in the end the Greeks will never be able to pay the debts owed to the incompetent German banks. After some huffing and puffing the Germans will accept a writedown of the debt which will be publicly described as something else. If they don't, the Greeks will convert the debt to cheap, new drachmas having walked out of the euro having basically nothing left to lose at that point.

I notice that the article provides no data at all to support the claim that the rich are actually moving their assets offshore. That claim is only plausible to the extent that those assets are movable. In low-income countries like Thailand most wealth is held in physical assets, i.e. land and buildings. It is only in high-income countries that wealth is concentrated in financial assets that can be relocated offshore. For this reason an inheritance tax is particularly appropriate for Thailand.

Inheritance taxes are inherently progressive, although the current Thai version is not especially so. Naturally, the financial planner spokesman favors the inherently regressive VAT tax instead.

The Euro problem is that Germany gets most of the benefits and the Southern tier pays the price, which is particularly evident in the ongoing recessionary environment. The case of Greece was worsened by the profligate spending that the prior governments concealed, but Spain and Ireland have the same problem even though they were running budget surpluses before the crash in 2008. The problem is that because Germany has higher productivity it benefits from the currency union because the euro is cheaper than the Deutschmark would be if the euro zone broke up. A new peseta or new drachma would be cheaper than the euro and much cheaper than a new Deutschmark. So, Germany is playing the same game as China, although by different means: it keeps its currency cheap to make its exports cheap, hollowing out the manufacturing sectors of their trade partners. And indeed Germany is the leading exporter in Europe. The other euro countries cannot devalue their currency to price their labor competitively with Germany. That was the UK's big advantage after 2008, that it could and did devalue the pound leading to an early recovery (which Cameron then sabotaged for ideological reasons pushing the UK into a double-dip recession.) Add to this the fact that the housing bubbles in Spain and Ireland, for instance, were fueled by the trade surpluses larding up Germany banks.

For Germany then to turn around preach prudence to their trading partners is the height of hypocrisy. The Greeks should stick it to the Germans who will pay in the end because they know that the Euro gives them an unfair advantage that is too good to lose even if they have to pay through the nose from time to time.

American universities have more or less abdicated teaching foreign languages. They still offer courses and majors, of course, but they no longer generally require that all liberal arts students take at least two years of a foreign langugage. Two years is woefully inadequate and does not get the student near a fluent or even functional level. When I was an undergraduate at a brand-name university in the 60's they still had that requirement, but later simply dropped it as did most other universities. At the time PhD students commonly had to demonstrate reading ability in two foreign languages. That was generally dropped afterwards, also.

So, I doubt very much that Americans as a group have improved the teaching of foreign languages over the past 50 years. Quite the opposite. During this same period by contrast, the Dutch have raised their requirement that all students study English to 12 years before university. Of course, there remain substantial numbers of American immigrants whose household language is not English, but these are hardly a testament to any success in language education in American schools. Other than the children of immigrants the Americans who self-report that they speak a second language are mostly giving themselves the benefit of the doubt.

Like the Japanese, but for different reasons, the US education system doesn't know how to teach foreign languages either.

I was being kind. In fact, your comment is moronic. English easy to learn? For whom? For native speakers of a closely-related language like Dutch equally with speakers of a language remote from all the Indo-European languages like Thai? Really?

But the topic is the poor performance of Thai students at learning English, which is obviously the product of the inadequate Thai education system and not the result of supposed personal character defects on which the bar room philosophers of ThaiVisa so like to insist. We know this from independent measures of the Thai education system such as the PISA results from 2013 in which Thailand ranked number 47 out of 62 countries. So, Thai students' poor performance in English is not a special case, but consistent with overall poor educational performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_student_performance

But I know these concepts are hard to grasp for those who know too little to understand just how little they know.

I myself read, write, and speak several languages including Thai, thank you very much.

If the poor english skills of thai students really was because of overall poor educational performance how come countries like Japan have very high score in PISA yet they suck just as much in english as your average Somchai in Thailand? Is the japanese education system also "inadequate" because of this fact?

I know for a fact that if someone studies any language for 3-5 hours each day they will be quite fluent in that language after just 6 months. I have now forgot a lot as i never use it but i was semi-fluent in japanese after just 4 months and that was learning japanese in Sweden. For instance "all" of the thai women who move to Sweden get free swedish education called "SFI" (swedish for foreigners). And basicly none of the thai women who come to Sweden have university degrees with them and usually haven't been in school for decades but still they learn swedish enough to have casual conversations in swedish about things they know about.

And your last sentence... i'm fluent in swedish, finnish and english, can i have a cookie or atleast a gold star?

The data tell the story with the Japanese. High PISA scores and the second lowest TOEFL scores in Asia mean they don't know how to teach languages. The fact that English is linguistically remote from Japanese is a factor, but the other Asian languages are similarly remote. So, that doesn't explain the performance gap. Why they should fail so conspicuously in the one area is a question for those who know more of the defects of their language teaching system.

What you believe you know for a fact is nonsense. Those uneducated Thai women are not fluent in Swedish after six months of a basic language skills class from the government. They will have reached a functional level at best, i.e. can perform some basic transactions like buying groceries. They will not be able to read and negotiate an apartment rental lease. You weren't "semi-fluent" in Japanese if you didn't know the 1800 basic kanji, which you didn't know after four months. "Semi-fluent' means you just impressed yourself.

So, my guess is you're a Swede who probably had eight to twelve years of English classes before university. You underestimate the difficulty of learning English because you have forgotten how much work it took. That's like the average (monolingual) American whose attitude is, "What so hard about English?"

tell all the students to put google translate on their iPhone

you can type in an English word and it will speak the word in American English ( not sure if it has British etc)

it will also translate so input : house and translates to Ban , with accent over the "a"

one other problem is using past - present - future tense......

and how do they get to "my mother me"

English is a hard language to learn , I am glad my parents grew up this side of the border !

I would say that english is very easy to learn. I would go as far as to say that any language (even truely hard languages such as finnish and hungarian) in the world is easy to learn if you get to speak, read, write and listen it each day. But then again when are you good in a language? When you can order food at the restaurant or have an academic discussion about the current political situation in say... ****land?

A particularly vacuous comment even by the standards of ThaiVisa.

If you can't learn a language then you are either lazy, "challenged" or uninterested in learning the language. Don't know which of those three you place in but from your "vacuous" reply i assume first or third as obviously second is not an option as you know "fancy" words such as "vacuous".

With that said, what's up with your hate?

I was being kind. In fact, your comment is moronic. English easy to learn? For whom? For native speakers of a closely-related language like Dutch equally with speakers of a language remote from all the Indo-European languages like Thai? Really?

But the topic is the poor performance of Thai students at learning English, which is obviously the product of the inadequate Thai education system and not the result of supposed personal character defects on which the bar room philosophers of ThaiVisa so like to insist. We know this from independent measures of the Thai education system such as the PISA results from 2013 in which Thailand ranked number 47 out of 62 countries. So, Thai students' poor performance in English is not a special case, but consistent with overall poor educational performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_student_performance

But I know these concepts are hard to grasp for those who know too little to understand just how little they know.

I myself read, write, and speak several languages including Thai, thank you very much.

tell all the students to put google translate on their iPhone

you can type in an English word and it will speak the word in American English ( not sure if it has British etc)

it will also translate so input : house and translates to Ban , with accent over the "a"

one other problem is using past - present - future tense......

and how do they get to "my mother me"

English is a hard language to learn , I am glad my parents grew up this side of the border !

I would say that english is very easy to learn. I would go as far as to say that any language (even truely hard languages such as finnish and hungarian) in the world is easy to learn if you get to speak, read, write and listen it each day. But then again when are you good in a language? When you can order food at the restaurant or have an academic discussion about the current political situation in say... ****land?

A particularly vacuous comment even by the standards of ThaiVisa.

What gets me are laws created to go after certain folks which causes extreme hardship for the rest of us. For example, this whole FATCA business. Filthy rich dudes in the US are hiding money overseas and the rest of us get caught up in the mess.

If that were not the case, then why would anyone want to strive to become a filthy rich dude?

Yes, I'm sure that's the motivation, to become filthy rich enough to have to hide your money overseas. I wonder if Bill and Warren do that?

Rich Americans certainly do commit tax evasion by hiding assets abroad. UBS Bank in Switzerland agreed to pay $780 million in penalties for aiding American clients to evade taxes on $20 billion of assets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS_tax_evasion_controversy

And that is just one bank in just one jurisdiction. Doesn't include Luxembourg, Singapore, the Cayman Islands or all of the other favorite hidey holes of the rich.

And these opportunities to evade taxes are only available to the rich. It's too bad that we are inconvenienced in the process, but I fully support collecting all the taxes due from the rich.

The products in question are not "counterfeits", but merely unauthorized copies. No one buys a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag in the belief that it is genuine unlike say, accepting a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill for which the recipient must be deceived. The fashion business has no copyright or patent protection worldwide so the manufacturers like LV stamp their logo all over their products and claim trademark protection. Sounds reasonable on the face of it, but isn't really reasonable at all. Louis Vuitton suffers no loss when a tourist buys a knock-off on the streets of Bangkok since that tourist would never pay the price of a genuine LV bag. So, no harm, no foul.

Extending the concept of ownership to things like designs, drug formulations, or genomes like jasmine or basmati rice (both of which western agribusinesses claimed to own) is a kind of colonialist land grab carried out by fully-developed economies against those that are still developing. In the 19th century when the US was still developing it charged high tariffs and refused to recognize copyrights, including the famous cases of people like Charles Dickens and Richard Wagner. Similarly for countries still developing like Thailand and India, so-called intellectual property rights are an attempt to extort monopoly payments.

I have no doubt that Thai studen'ts English language skills are poor, but the article cites only one exam of one student. So, it's just an anecdote and tells us nothing about the system overall.

The article is pretty superficial. The US treatment of expats is a mixed bag. So, we can vote and we get the Social Security COLAs, but then we continue to be taxed on our worldwide earnings forever. The tax policy is particularly unfair in view of the fact that US corporations, who are also "persons" under the law, do not have to pay tax on their overseas earnings until the money is repatriated, and sometimes, not even then. So, Google pays tax at a net 2.5% rate by (falsely) attributing most of its income to overseas activity headquartered in a post box in Dublin. But then, the US system has always favored rich corporations over the rest of us.

Yes, I agree that the article is superficial.

But I posted it to get this party started, and again, this thread is really only for Americans.

These issues are really specifically about U.S. laws. and also less importantly American specific cultural attitudes of non-appreciation of the expat option.

Anyway ... here is something with a lot more RED MEAT for you. Please read the entire article ... can't post that, this is only a snippet.

Most people don’t understand the government’s war on U.S. expats and dual nationals, so they buy the official spin that it is just “cracking down” on “rich tax cheats.” It is doing no such thing, and it knows that it is doing no such thing.

Indeed some of its most onerous financial rules, while “cracking down” on overseas grandmas with a $30,000 retirement account, specifically and deliberately exempt billionaires with money in hedge funds and private-equity funds.

http://cuencahighlife.com/rich-tax-cheats-escape-but-expat-grannies-with-modest-retirement-accounts-are-in-the-crosshairs-of-u-s-financial-reporting-requirements/

That's not a good article either. Very vehement, but does not make the case that the government is deliberately targeting expats. It's not surprising that the rich get better treatment, but that's not particular to expats. The hedge fund industry has written the rules for its own benefit in a number of ways including the "carried interest" provision in the tax code that allows their income to be taxed at the lower capital gains rate of 15%. Boris Johnson is hardly a typical American expat. And while the number of Americans renouncing citizenship has increased, it remains insignificant.

The article is pretty superficial. The US treatment of expats is a mixed bag. So, we can vote and we get the Social Security COLAs, but then we continue to be taxed on our worldwide earnings forever. The tax policy is particularly unfair in view of the fact that US corporations, who are also "persons" under the law, do not have to pay tax on their overseas earnings until the money is repatriated, and sometimes, not even then. So, Google pays tax at a net 2.5% rate by (falsely) attributing most of its income to overseas activity headquartered in a post box in Dublin. But then, the US system has always favored rich corporations over the rest of us.

What local companies would be qualified to build a bullet train in view of the fact that none of them ever have?

OP,

What's your plan for bringing your foreign wife to the US. Are you going to file an I-130 while in Thailand and apply for a K3 spouse visa? If so, you need to factor processing times into your schedule, for which I see estimates of up to 8 months. Will she apply for a green card after arriving in the US? If so, she will need a work permit if she plans to work while waiting for the green card to be approved.

You state that your wife will not be eligible for your pension when you die and that you yourself are eligible for Social Security benefits. That being the case, she could be eligible on your record for SS spousal benefits at her Full Retirement Age and, later if she survives you, for SS widow's benefits. In order to receive those benefits she would have to live with you in the US on a green card for five years or become a US citizen herself. That benefit would be jeopardized if you were to leave the US after being there a year. She would lose her green card if not residing continually in the US for a year. She can apply for US citizenship as the wife of a citizen after holding the green card for three years.

In addition, if you were to delay receiving your SS benefits until age 70 you would accrue Delayed Retirement Credits month by month to the point that your SS benefit at age 70 would be 132% of your benefit at your Full Retirement Age of 66 or almost double your benefit at age 62. And she would inherit that benefit amount for life when you die along with COLA adjustments, even if she were to return to Thailand.

Living on your military pension while accruing DRCs on your SS to provide might be an effective way to provide for your wife after your death, depending on how much you are entitled to in SS benefits.

Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig.

Wrong again. Repeat suggestion to get competent instruction.

I thought you automatically got Part A with no action on your part?

I recall getting a letter/notification from them when I became eligible (sent to me in Thailand), and (maybe??) an ID card, announcing the joyous occasion when I was covered by Part A as long as I was in the US. Since I have no intention of returning there and I have US based insurance that covers me in Thailand,I didn't file the notice in a safe place. Probably went into the circular file.

I am receiving Social Security and they have my address in Thailand and I file my 1040 using my Thai address, so I would hesitate to consider using a US address for Medicare, even if I thought I might use it in future ... which I don't.

I think if you are already receiving SS benefits on your 65th birthday they will sign you up for

Medicare Part A automatically, but not otherwise.

-------------------

I retired in 2010 a age 64with 75 % benefits

When I hit 65 I was automatically signed up for medicare/medicade coverage.

I currently have 104 dollars deducted from my Social Security benefits each month for the Part B coverage I can't and won't use.

Then you should cancel Part B.

https://www.caring.com/questions/medicare-part-b-removal

Medicare makes it difficult to cancel, or withdraw from, Medicare Part B, and part of this intentional difficulty is not having a simple online form for it through the Medicare.gov See also:

Is my disabled sister eligible for Medicare parts A&B? Web site. Because

Medicare Part B provides important coverage for most people 65 and older, and because there's a penalty if someone cancels Medicare but then later wants to enroll again, Medicare enrolls everyone automatically at age 65 and wants to make sure no one cancels their coverage without fully understanding the consequences.

So, in order to cancel your Medicare Part B coverage, you have to fill out a form (CMS-1763) with the Social Security Administration, which handles initial Medicare enrollment. In order to do so, you must call your local Social Security office and speak on the phone with a Social Security adviser who can help you fill out this form. Or, you can make an appointment to see a Social Security adviser in person, at your local Social Security office. Once you have filled out the form and submitted it to Social Security, they will send you a letter explaining the consequences of withdrawing from Medicare Part B. Your withdrawal will be effective at the end of the month when you file your request form. To learn more about this process, you can visit the Social Security Administration's Web site page Withdrawing from Medicare Part B.Medicare makes it difficult to cancel, or withdraw from, Medicare Part B, and part of this intentional difficulty is not having a simple online form for it through the Medicare.gov See also:

Is my disabled sister eligible for Medicare parts A&B? Web site. Because

Medicare Part B provides important coverage for most people 65 and older, and because there's a penalty if someone cancels Medicare but then later wants to enroll again, Medicare enrolls everyone automatically at age 65 and wants to make sure no one cancels their coverage without fully understanding the consequences.

So, in order to cancel your Medicare Part B coverage, you have to fill out a form (CMS-1763) with the Social Security Administration, which handles initial Medicare enrollment. In order to do so, you must call your local Social Security office and speak on the phone with a Social Security adviser who can help you fill out this form. Or, you can make an appointment to see a Social Security adviser in person, at your local Social Security office. Once you have filled out the form and submitted it to Social Security, they will send you a letter explaining the consequences of withdrawing from Medicare Part B. Your withdrawal will be effective at the end of the month when you file your request form. To learn more about this process, you can visit the Social Security Administration's Web site page Withdrawing from Medicare Part B.

linkk fo form CMS-1763

http://www.pdffiller.com/1323594-CMS1763-CMS-1763-Other-forms-photos-state

The OP should get another teacher, a competent one.

It's not fraudulent. As I said, this discussion is directed at expats. You are not an expat. It would have been useful if you had pointed that out in your post.

I've read through most all the posts here, and think I have a pretty good understanding of it all.

But one thing that surprises me, and maybe I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that if you go for the Medigap or the Medicare Advantage thing, through a private insurance co. or hospital, that (I think) you can get the payment for Plan B down to zero!!!

By using some deductibles and different options they can give you.

Now, I'm not sure if this is true but I think you HAVE to set up an appointment in the US with one or a few of these people (my USA PO box is supposedly stuffed full of offers every week, from what I hear).

Has anyone done this? And got their payment for Plan B (and drugs maybe) down to zero with some deductibles?

This discussion is about Medicare for expats. An expat is not eligible to enroll in Medigap or Medicare Advantage. An expat could, of course, fraudulently claim to reside in the US, but, apart from possibly incurring liability for state income tax by doing so, he would be paying rather a lot for services that he could not use without flying back to the US. Considering that medical costs in Thailand are vastly less than in the US, that insurance premium money would buy a lot of healthcare here. In addition, fraudulently claiming eligibility for an insurance policy of any kind would enable the insurer to rescind the policy just at the point when the expat is making a claim, if the insurance company were to become aware of the fraud.

So, expensive, dangerous, and possibly ineffective when you need it most. Why would you consider such a course of action?

The OP has it all backwards. The merchant should charge the 3% surcharge for credit card use. That's the only fair way. Otherwise cash payers are subsidizing the credit card users. And that's the reason that the banks in the US originally got a law against the surcharge for credit card use, because eliminating the surcharge gave them a big, and grossly unfair, advantage.

The TPP is not much of a trade agreement. Instead its chief goal is to extend intellectual property protections for which the chief beneficiaries will be the US drug companies, although I am sure that Bill Gates will also be pleased. Thailand and other developing countries are wise not to sign on since it will prevent them from producing or selling low-cost drugs.

Death penalty is an abomination wherever it exists. But as punishment for drug offenses it's very stupid. It has never stopped illegal drug distribution. Why would it? Increasing the risks of the drug business just raises the price of the drugs to the point that someone else is willing to take the risks. But the people who love punishment continue to love it no matter how little it accomplishes.

Well it would help a lot if they shot all the drug dealers at the back of the cop shop every day after their arrest instead of just a couple every so many years,people would think about that before they start or keep on dealing,,, there would be thousands of dealer less on the planet every day,,,

Do you spend a lot of time imagining in detail the ferocious punishments that should be meted out to drug dealers?

Fact: more deaths and suffering are caused by Pharma drugs than all illegal drugs combined.

The cumulative suffering and deaths from alcohol are probably greater than the suffering and death caused by Pharma drugs.

Yet, all recreational drugs other than alcohol are criminalized, and Pharma drugs are dispensed like there's no tomorrow.

There's big money in Pharma, in alcohol and in illegal drugs. But one of those three can get you executed, if caught one time with a package.

Conclusions: Pharma and alcohol have great lobbyists and have friends in high places, and don't want any competition from pot or opiates.

Addendum: One of the founders of the cruel anti-pot and anti-opiates drug laws, (US's Mr. Anslinger, in the 1930's), was himself an opiate junkie (he mainlined every morning). The laws from that era, including criminalizing pot, have become the laws of most countries worldwide ever since. A big reason the US's DEA has such a large influence ww, is its willingness to spend billions of dollars annually to force its policy on other countries.

Ironically, the US is starting to change its drug laws - toward being less draconian. A recent meeting of the most conservative right-wing lawmakers in the US concluded that America's laws against recreational drugs were cruel and its 'War on Drugs' has been a dismal failure. SE Asia will follow, but will always be decades behind trends set by the US.

Do you have a reference to an opiate addiction for Anslinger? I do see accounts that Anslinger supplied Tail-gunner Joe McCarthy with morphine, which I had never known before.

Death penalty is an abomination wherever it exists. But as punishment for drug offenses it's very stupid. It has never stopped illegal drug distribution. Why would it? Increasing the risks of the drug business just raises the price of the drugs to the point that someone else is willing to take the risks. But the people who love punishment continue to love it no matter how little it accomplishes.

So please explain why there are not more drug dealers? Since punishment does not stop them.

Have you ever read about economics? Distribution expands to meet the demand. Why are there not more car dealerships? Because the car market is pretty much saturated. Demand is being met. Same with drugs, despite the fond hopes of the punishment lovers, there are always going to be enough drug dealers to service the demand. Demand for illegal drugs has not diminished during 40 years of Nixon's "war on drugs" in the US. All it achieved was make the US the world leader in incarceration rates.