rethaired

Visa fees, low air rates, <<< have you SEEN some of the deals to Vegas? There are travel deals everywhere right now.

My mom won't come with us to Thailand and my oldest daughter won't let me take my grandaughter, either, even though it would be FREE for them.

They have this strange notion that there is political unrest, riots, bombings, and airport closures, plus increased crime against tourists. What can I tell them?

Maybe the Thai Minister should do something about the little * on the Official Canadian Government Travel advisory site!?>>>

Travel Reports offer information on safety and security, local laws and customs, entry requirements, health conditions and other important travel issues. Countries with an asterisk (*) currently contain a Travel Warning, indicating that Canadians should either avoid non-essential travel to the country or to specific region(s) of the country, or avoid all travel to the country or to specific region(s) of the country.

I KNOW, some of the coutries with NO * probably have more dangerous areas than most of Thailand; but a few years of political stability would do more for tourism than some 'travel deals.'

Thailand * Exercise high degree of cautionAvoid non-essential travelAvoid all travel

During the fall of 2008 mass demonstrations in Bangkok caused many casualties and injuries as a result of violent clashes and the use of explosive devices. Demonstrators also forced the temporary closure of Suvarnabhumi International Airport and Don Mueang International Airport in Bangkok, while political conflict and protests on a smaller scale in other areas of the country also resulted in casualties and temporarily closed some provincial airports. Political uncertainty remains and further demonstrations could occur at any time. Canadians are advised to avoid any areas that appear to or are affected by protest activity. Canadians in Bangkok should exercise caution, follow advice of local authorities, and monitor local media.

I suspect the idea is that countries like Canada do not want Canadians to go abroad to spend their money or is it about scaring everyone so you can control them a little bit more? Considering past events I am getting to be more and more skeptical about the ethics of anyone or any reports. Maybe I should change my name to "Cynical"!

I got swift service at 23:00 on a Friday night for an infection of the throat (brought upon I think by a fishbone). It helped it was late and there were no flies anywhere. Yet, quick service by the doctor there. In retrospective, I think they overcharged me for an Xray and of course, the antibiotics, since I am sure the infection was noticeable. The specialist came in 20 min. later from his home and gave me an antibiotic which, after I ate it, burst the infection, which makes me think that the 2 docs could have pierce the infection themselves! But, then, I am not a doctor and they are banking on that, especially when you are tired and hurt.

So, my opinion, unless otherwise questioned, is MIXED.

Agree about the changes of mid-month leave with no refund on the part is not acceptable, but is it the norm in Thailand or not?

While living there, I took pictures with digital date attached to record the state of the apartment as the initial inspection was not thorough. As it turned out, when I left, they started to speak about past damages, but shut their face very quickly when I showed them the dated pictures. I urge anyone to do this everywhere!

On the other hand, I think I was not ripped-off there as I demanded to see electricity meters before and after, but who knows if they tamper with it, right? BTW, the rates are pretty high, but then you live close by the mall.

I guess it is a good place for a newcomer who is trying to find his or her bearing, but you are right about security being a joke!

I would like to know more about the incinerator bit. I guess it must be located West of the building. Am I right?

Thanks.

Re: cashing RSPs in smaller amounts... my source is me. I've done it many times, most recently a year ago.

With regard to renting the house - if you maintain CDN residence you are allowed to rent your house, just declare the income but as I said beat it down with expenses.

Renting isn't free money but you can minimize risk: leave nothing valuable in the house and take a serious security deposit to filter out marginals. If you rent through an agency I believe they are obliged to withhold taxes plus they charge quite hefty fees, maybe 20%. Get a neighbour to keep an eye open for you so little problems don't become big ones. Buy an open return air ticket so you can come back quickly if there's a problem.

As long as it is your principal residence there are no capital gain taxes.

Why sell it now anyway? The market is in the toilet.

So why not keep perm res, don't become a perm res of anywhere else and you are fine.

Thanks, Johnny!

Your source is you! Hope the taxman accepts that!

He does, its his rule not mine. Go to the gov. canada website and check for yourself or ask your RSP advisor. If you have more income during the year then you will pay tax of course but to access RSP money immediately at the minimum withholding rate this is the way.

http://www.rbcroyalbank.com/products/rrsp/rrsp-rules.html

I have reviewed the RRSP deal and it does not make sense to me! I will be taxed at 22% on he top part of my income this year, yet, when I will withdraw it from Thailand, I will be taxed on it at 25%. 3% loss does not make sense to me! I prefer to invest this money outside a registered vehicle, even though I am going to be taxed on it! The good part is that I will work part-time next year and for the next 3 years, making my income quite low and in effect reducing the tax hit on the interest generated!

I am a bit confused! Are you saying that even though you rent a residence, it is deemed still your principal residence, which means you won't be hit with capital gains! I prefer to sell my condo now before it goes from the toilet bowl to ... down the drain, if you get the .... drift! Beside, the strata fees and a vacant condo (which I cannot rent --amazing but true)

But you didn't say you could not rent it out. This changes all your numbers then.

True! But, I was going to sell and buy, if renting was the best option.

for 6 months do not make sense! I understand your point of view of renting it, but 200,000 CAD (invested at 4.5%) can provide about the same income (if not more) than if I were to rent a condo and get the 1000 CAD/month income, especially if the interest is not taxed,

The interest if paid in Canada will be subject to tax depending on how much other yearly income you have.

But Kudroz stated that the new 2008 law specifies that interest in Canada from a bank account is NOT taxed, if one is deemed to be a non-resident.

in which case it seems a better investment, assuming that the condo's price does not go higher (which it did, but there is no garantee it will either)! Beside, if I rent a place in Canada, I will have to rent in LOS or buy in LOS. The problem with renting is that even though it is cheap now, there is no garantee that prices will not go to the roof in LOS.

Rents don't usually go nuts in Thailand and there are many rentals available so I would not worry too much about that.

I agree that rental prices should remain relatively stable, but less so on condos since they are the prefered and safest way to buy a home. Baby-boomers are going to look for greener pastures , especially the ones who lost a lot of dough recently in retirement income. They might be looking for cheaper pastures to make their depreciated retirement nest-egg go further. But, then not all of them want to retire in LOS since they will be away from family and their comfort zone, of course. Hard to say how things are going to be playing out at the end.

At the rate the US print's money, there is a high likelyhood of inflation (at least in the N.- A.). Who knows what will it be like in LOS, but I assume les so. In any case, assuming 30 years of life after 50, buying is the best deal, I think, considering the price of houses/condos here. And I don't think it is realistic to think that the Thais will kick the foreigners out. Tourism and expats money are not exactly pocket change (and so would be the repercussions of unemployement should they kick us out). I think putting money and having someone else make money with it (with the leverage the banks have) is much more problem-free! But, as I said earlier, there are many exceptions, but I am a pretty conservative guy (and considering how bad the stock market fiascos of the 2000 and the 2008 have been, I am not doing too badly, I think!)

I just recently made my first 2 wire transfers from Canada to Thailand and ran into some surprises. I wonder if anyone else is encountering these same scenarios with other Banks.

Transfer #1 from Canada, sent C$ to Kasikornbank savings account. C$50 fee in Canada, 500 baht reception fee in Thailand. Balance incremented correctly and funds were available immediately for withdrawal.

Transfer #2 from Canada, sent USD to Kasikornbank savings account. C$50 fee in Canada, 500 baht reception fee in Thailand. Balance was US$35 short. I made an inquiry and apparently an intermediary bank was involved, Citibank, who took US$35. Now both the first and second transfer show up in the balance but neither are available for withdrawal. The main contact centre said to phone the branch, and the branch said to phone the head office. Then the branch assistant manager said that I have to come into the branch and sign some papers before the funds will be released for withdrawal.

Is there another bank in Thailand, when accepting USD from TD Canadatrust that does not use an intermediary bank?

Is it normal to not allow funds to be withdrawn until the customer returns to his branch, to sign papers telling the bank the purpose of the funds? The wire transfers did specifically state the purpose "condominium purchase". Are there banks that do not have this requirement?

Considering that the Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS) has acquired 49% of Thanachart afew years ago, I am going to inquire (and have it in writing) if fees would be better than what I was charged last time by way of my credit union (which according to the statement actually used BNS (which took 10 CAD) for the trouble!!!!!! I guess nothing is free and why should it, but my credit union should have advised me of this. It turns out that I might actually move my money to BNS IF they give the incentive to, although banks are notorious for their fees, so give me a month or two to read the fine print! Or should I say "fines" print!

Re: cashing RSPs in smaller amounts... my source is me. I've done it many times, most recently a year ago.

With regard to renting the house - if you maintain CDN residence you are allowed to rent your house, just declare the income but as I said beat it down with expenses.

Renting isn't free money but you can minimize risk: leave nothing valuable in the house and take a serious security deposit to filter out marginals. If you rent through an agency I believe they are obliged to withhold taxes plus they charge quite hefty fees, maybe 20%. Get a neighbour to keep an eye open for you so little problems don't become big ones. Buy an open return air ticket so you can come back quickly if there's a problem.

As long as it is your principal residence there are no capital gain taxes.

Why sell it now anyway? The market is in the toilet.

So why not keep perm res, don't become a perm res of anywhere else and you are fine.

Thanks, Johnny!

Your source is you! Hope the taxman accepts that!

I have reviewed the RRSP deal and it does not make sense to me! I will be taxed at 22% on he top part of my income this year, yet, when I will withdraw it from Thailand, I will be taxed on it at 25%. 3% loss does not make sense to me! I prefer to invest this money outside a registered vehicle, even though I am going to be taxed on it! The good part is that I will work part-time next year and for the next 3 years, making my income quite low and in effect reducing the tax hit on the interest generated!

I am a bit confused! Are you saying that even though you rent a residence, it is deemed still your principal residence, which means you won't be hit with capital gains! I prefer to sell my condo now before it goes from the toilet bowl to ... down the drain, if you get the .... drift! Beside, the strata fees and a vacant condo (which I cannot rent --amazing but true) for 6 months do not make sense! I understand your point of view of renting it, but 200,000 CAD (invested at 4.5%) can provide about the same income (if not more) than if I were to rent a condo and get the 1000 CAD/month income, especially if the interest is not taxed, in which case it seems a better investment, assuming that the condo's price does not go higher (which it did, but there is no garantee it will either)! Beside, if I rent a place in Canada, I will have to rent in LOS or buy in LOS. The problem with renting is that even though it is cheap now, there is no garantee that prices will not go to the roof in LOS. At the rate the US print's money, there is a high likelyhood of inflation (at least in the N.- A.). Who knows what will it be like in LOS, but I assume les so. In any case, assuming 30 years of life after 50, buying is the best deal, I think, considering the price of houses/condos here. And I don't think it is realistic to think that the Thais will kick the foreigners out. Tourism and expats money are not exactly pocket change (and so would be the repercussions of unemployement should they kick us out). I think putting money and having someone else make money with it (with the leverage the banks have) is much more problem-free! But, as I said earlier, there are many exceptions, but I am a pretty conservative guy (and considering how bad the stock market fiascos of the 2000 and the 2008 have been, I am not doing too badly, I think!)

After talking with an accountant, I found out that, yes, rent received is not a bad idea, but one has to factor in management fees and, according to him, a hefty tax when a non-resident sells the property (and at this rate, who knows where prices will be at)! I CANNOT recall the tax rate, but this made the idea of renting a property in Canada not a good idea, especially considering the difficulty to garantee a rental income (if your renters leave, who are you going to get, when, for how long, and what kinds of fees the management companies is going to charge you?), prices are relatively high, and what about the security of the investment. What will the condo look like after it has been rented out? Cat or dog damage? What is the insurance going to cost you if nothing worong happens? What will it cost you if something bad happens? And suppose something bad happens, would it not mean that I would have to get there to talk with the insurance? It seems to me that the gains (if any, compare to other forms of investment income) seem to be small for the risk.

HOwever, if I understand Kudroz well, it is better for me to stick my money in long-term deposits like GICs (or other non-redeemable products) at 4% + for 3 to 5 years (the best rates I seem to find here), since all interests will not be taxed, but might be in Thailand (if the amount is high enough), which I have no problem with, since I am "using" their country's infrastructrure! I might play the stock market when things have been a bit more regulated and stocks go up, not down!

If interest (outside an RRSP) is not taxed in Canada, is the interest inside an RRSP taxed? Is the full amount taxed or just the capital that was put into it? I understand the idea of being taxed on income that should have been taxed in the first place. I have no problem with paying taxes (like everyone else, for service rendered), but this seems to be contradictory.

An important point Kudroz made was "if remitted to Thailand in the same year". So, if not remitted in the same year, it would NOT be taxable in Canada and Thailand?

JohnnyK makes an interesting point with regards to RRSPs, when pulling out a smaller amounts, but I have not been able to read anything on the subject. Can Johnnyk (or anyone for that matter) provide an official source for this situation? Thanks.

(Disregard the last post!)

Thanks, Johnny K!

I think that the latter option might be best, although, if one rents a property and declares the income, etc. isn't the property going to be hit with capital gains if sold?

Of course, when one speaks about avoiding taxes, one also has to factor in the taxes that were not paid when putting money into a RRSP: in my case, about 15,000 CAD + the 50,000 CAD (I am allowed to do this as I have not contributed yet) put in the RRSP growing at 4% or more.

I think I need to talk to an accountant for him or her to crush those numbers and tell me which is the most effective way to go.

Thanks, Johnny K, I thinki that the latter option might be best. If one rents a property and declares the income, etc. isn't the property going to be hit with cappital gains if sold.

Interest paid to a non-resident of Canada, from January 2008 onwards, is tax free.

I received a PM about this, so just to clarify and to provide more information to anyone who might be interested; the Paragraph 212( 1 )( b ) of the Part XIII tax was amended and revised for non-resident withholding tax. You are now only subject to 25% tax withholding if you are not dealing at arm's length.

Interest income received from banks or any other third party with whom you are dealing at arm's length, is free of withholding taxes in Canada. Although, if the interest income is remitted to Thailand in the same year it is earned, this income is subject to taxation in Thailand if you are deemed resident of Thailand for tax purposes.

Thank you.

Regarding a Canadian Registered Retirement Saving plan (which is non-taxable until withdrawn), if I were to sever all ties from Canada and, if the amount being withdrawn would be less than the basic personal exemption of $9600 in Canada, am I right in assuming that I will not be taxed by Canada, but in the NEW country of residence? Or will I? There is a tax treaty between Canada and Thailand: http://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties/Thailand_e.html, but it is not clear to me what it is going to happen.

It is not clear to me also in this document, whether or not I would be better off taking out some of the interest earned after investing the money resulting from the sale of my property in Canada (less than $250,000) while being a non-resident of Canada, if this amount was not to exceed the basic personal amount stated earlier, or would I be better off to not be selling my property in Canada and rent it out, using the rent as income to be used in Thailand, which I would declare, I suppose, in Canada? Would it be wise to not declare that income? But, if I did, which country would tax me and by how much? Also, if I were to receive a professional pension in the future(which would be, incidentally, higher than $9600/y.) and/or withdraw more money from my RRSP at that time, who would tax me, if any state and by how much?

What would you recommend I do in my situation?

Transferred less than 10,000 CAD to Kasikorn in Chiang Mai from a credit union in Canada.

10 CAD disappeared and is unaccounted from at this date!

BANK in Thailand

inward commission: 400 B.

domestic fee transfer: 170 B.

lease line charges (fax/telex, I suppose): 20 B.

Credit Union in Canada

28 CAD

TOTAL:

about $60 CAD

Disgusting!

I have been trying to find out which is the best way of transferring Canadian Dollars in a Canadian Financial institution to a bank in Thailand on a regular basis. Most of the Big 5 Banks have exhorbitant fees for wiring the money, and do allow you to take out a maximum of $500 per day with an approximate $5.00 foreign ATM charge which is charged to my Canadian Bank, in addition to the ATM charges. I looked at HSBC, and they can link me up to my Canadian Bank for a $200 charge, plus at CDN.$3.00 ATM charge for a maximum daily limit (which they refuse to tell me what it is).

I was wondering what other Canadians are doing to transfer funds economically and efficiently to Thailand on a regular basis.

I think if you can, use credit unions: mine charges 2.50 CAD for a maximum of $400 CAD on a per 24-hour basis.

My honda civic 2.0 (k20A3 engine) has a timing chain (to my surprise when I have the 100K service). I think they sell for 500-650K now. Look on www.one2car.com.

Thank you! Great website!

I am confused. Is it a timing chain or a timing belt, because the former does not need to be replaced, but sometimes adjusted? A timing chain saves you a replacement every 100,000 km. In my case my car stated 150,000 km/84 km, which ever comes first. I did not want to take a chance. It cost me about $300 for the work and part here in Canada.

Yes, you are right Farma. Hyundais are way overpriced here. Funny that here in the West, they are underpriced!

I will look into the Kias. Bonus if they can be gas savers/saviours!

Thanks!

BUT, for instance, "Saudi Arabia produced about 3.2 billion barrels (510×10⁶ m³) of oil in 2006, this would give it over 80 years of reserves at current rates of production", according to British Petroleum and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

WOW! 80 years! This is not exactly tomorrow, is it?

If you want to believe some stupid (stupid because only political) figures of "reserves", given by the producers themselves... fair enough.

But it's a big mistake.

I'm not sure, are you aware of the Big Hike of 1985 When some Opec members, overnight, doubled the figures of their reserves ? Because they could then increase their quotas of production... ?

Convenient, isn'it ? Reserves figures are bullshit. They are merely a propaganda tool.

In 2006, demand was 84.9 versus supply 85.4. Did anyone see a drop in the price of oil? NO! Surprising, isn't it? In 2007, more demand by.5. Okay! Maybe there was some reason for an increase in price there. So, if in one year there was a drop in demand and the next year more demand, wouldn't one think that the price should not go up, but be the same as it was in 2006? 1 Q of 2008, more supply by .2. Did you see a drop of price? NO!

There is no point to argue over a few hundred thousands barrels (other issue : nobody has counted really all those barrels). What is important is the trend. The trend is : we are touching the dangerous zone where supply = demand.

Oil is needed everyday, all the time, oil is too vital.

With no security net, anything, any event can send the price higher.

First we pay the fact that the safety net is decreasing. Then we will pay the fact that... production is declining.

The marginal increase in demand does not justify a 700% increase in the price of oil (from $20 to $140 a barrel). Saudi Arabia can increase production and has. There is a lot more oil coming out of the tar sands now.

The rise of price of crude is MOSTLY speculative. Many people (in the know) are saying it.

[...]

"Three separate internal confidential memos from Mobil, Chevron and Texaco have been obtained by The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

These memos outline a deliberate agenda to gouge prices and create artificial scarcity by limiting capacities of and outright closing oil refineries. This was a nationwide lobbying effort led by the American Petroleum Institute to encourage refineries to do this.

An internal Chevron memo states; "A senior energy analyst at the recent API convention warned that if the US petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins."

The Memos make clear that blockages in refining capacity and opening new refineries did not come from environmental organizations, as the oil industry claimed, but via a deliberate policy of limitation and price gouging at the behest of the oil industry itself."

[...]

"A Wall Street Journal article by Peter Huber and Mark Mills describes how the price of oil remains high because the cost of oil remains so low. We are not dependent on the middle east for oil because the world's supplies are diminishing, it is because it is more profitable to tap middle east supplies. Thus the myth of peak oil is needed in order to silence the call for tapping the planet's other plentiful reserves.

Richard Branson has even stated his intention to set up his own refinery because the price of oil is artificially being kept high whilst new sources are not being explored and new refineries not being built.

"Opec is effectively an illegal cartel that can meet happily, nobody takes them to court," Branson has said. "They collude to keep prices high."

[...]

"We have previously scientifically exposed the scam behind peak oil. Here is a 1 hour+ audio clip featuring Alex Jones' comments on peak oil and then the analysis of respected scientific commentator Dr. Nick Begich who presents evidence to suggest the idea of Peak oil is artificial."

(http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm)

AND,... here is a letter that I would like to share with you.

"Dear Mom

My job at the Commodities Exchange here in America is going wonderfully. I have made lots of money here for Uncle Fred. I have learned much from these speculators here in America. They taught me how to make tons of money. You see my friends here in America want to buy all of Uncle Fred's crude oil. They only pay 35 dollars for a barrel of oil. You know It cost Uncle Fred 10 dollars to ship it to them and he wants that new house in Bedrock so I will do everything I can to help him out of course. I found out that I can buy 100 barrels for 5% of cost. That's less than 2 dollars a barrel on the commodities exchange. He doesn’t even have to pump it out of the ground or ship it. They buy it with guaranteed pension and insurance funds so uncle Fred’s money is not in danger. There is no risk at all. And when I buy it's so easy to hide. You see they are without transparency so I can buy and sell barrels of oil raising the price each time and know one knows its me. It gets better Mom, you see these purchases are called contracts and I get paid for each one of these contracts . This is such a great scheme.. Sometimes I buy and sell barrels as many as 50 times before Uncle Fred ever gives one barrel to the oil company. I have to go now. I will write later Mom.

Buy now!

Junior"

Apparently, it has great mileage specs!

... about 4.7 L/100 km. (Review)

Thanks!

I am perplexed by these rises in demand of oil (and other commodities) as economies around the world are slowing down as the result of these increases in the price of oil (and other commodities), which have reduced consumption of goods and oil. Do you or don't you agree that speculators are manipulating or speculating with commodities, and namely future stocks? If not, why not?

Some charts : demand

http://omrpublic.iea.org/

http://omrpublic.iea.org/world/wb_wodem.pdf

Yes right now, demand decreases (a little bit) in the US for instance (people drove less in may).

But, 2 counter factors :

-people use more... elsewhere (china, india etc.)

-and supply, like IEA said, starts to be tight

I mean... figures are available everywhere. North sea supply is going down, Mexico (with the giant field Cantarell, a big supplier of the US) is declining, fast, etc...

The light sweet crude is becoming scare, more than the heavy and sour etc.

If you want the datas, go to http://www.theoildrum.com/

BUT, for instance, "Saudi Arabia produced about 3.2 billion barrels (510×10⁶ m³) of oil in 2006, this would give it over 80 years of reserves at current rates of production", according to British Petroleum and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

WOW! 80 years! This is not exactly tomorrow, is it? Is there anyone here who is willing to prove that China's or India's economy have tripled in 2 years, reducing by a factor of 3 these reserves? That would be astounding as it would be impossible. AND let us remind people that because of many fiascos (bank,...) many economies are slowing down and consumption of oil is too. Find the data to prove me wrong. I urge you.

According to wikipedia , as of 2007, even Mexico, which you claim is fast running out of oil, had 10 years of reserves. Again, this is not tomorrow. And, we know that exploration is going to find and is going to be able to extract more oil. At $150, why wouldn't Saudi Arabia build more infrastructure to fill the demand? If we need more oil, the price of the barrel would certainly provide all the incentives to day to allow more investment in producing more barrels, increasing infrastructure, and so and so forth. I do not believe the doom and gloom. I believe that a lot of this has a lot more to do with speculation than demand. Has demand increased by 7 times (when the barrel was at $20) what it was 5 years ago? That is absolutely UNTRUE and IMPOSSIBLE.

In 2006, demand was 84.9 versus supply 85.4. Did anyone see a drop in the price of oil? NO! Surprising, isn't it? In 2007, more demand by.5. Okay! Maybe there was some reason for an increase in price there. So, if in one year there was a drop in demand and the next year more demand, wouldn't one think that the price should not go up, but be the same as it was in 2006? 1 Q of 2008, more supply by .2. Did you see a drop of price? NO! Further proof that most of this, as many people (more knowledgeable than you and me, is speculative. (http://omrpublic.iea.org/balances.asp)

Sorry! I don't buy it!

These rises are NOT supported by fundamentals.

The reality is the earth has always changed! Look at the last 100,000 years for proof of that.

Sure. But at that time, we weren't there.

I agree, that has a major influence on the situation. Speculator bastard turning a minor problem into a major one!

It seems a little bit... more complicated than that.

Crude Oil Rises a Second Day as IEA Predicts `Tight' Supplies Through 2013 (Bloomberg)

I am perplexed by these rises in demand of oil (and other commodities) as economies around the world are slowing down as the result of these increases in the price of oil (and other commodities), which have reduced consumption of goods and oil. Do you or don't you agree that speculators are manipulating or speculating with commodities, and namely future stocks? If not, why not?

I am considering buying a car, but it would likely be more parked than drived, hence the consideration of choosing a timing chain. My Acura in Canada is the most reliable car I know (other than normal maintenance, 1 light bulb after 100,000 km ), but it had/has a timing belt, which I chose to replace after 10 years/100,000 km). I never knew that time (and not just km) was a factor for replacement. Looking at the old belt, it probably could have done much more than that, but who wants to take a chance. Right?

In any case, I would prefer to buy a car with a timing chain. I know there are sites where you can find that out (I have lost the link though), but I also have heard that in Thailand sometimes they use different parts, although I would be surprised that Toyota would be using a different timing system for one particular NEW model in Thailand than, say, Canada. And for a 2nd car, I doubt Thai people could use one for the other, although Thai people can be VERY ingenious I am sure .

BTW, what is the reliability of water pumps (as they are usually replaced with the timing belt/chain)? (The one in my Acura did not need to be replaced.) What are the factors that would help deteriorate a water pump?

Please, enlighten me with your knowledge and/or indicate to me a car that does have a timing chain (price below 500,000 Bahts > 2nd hand (or not)). A 2 door or 4 door, 4 cl. engine is what I am looking for.

Thank you very much for your help!

What a pile of bulls**t.

Many people disagree (read below)

Why should America have the "right" to restrict the ability of people outside the US to trade in oil.

... (short answer) because for 75 years this had been regulated to prevent manipulation and speculation (see below).

Their definition of "dark" seems to be "not traded in the US." Market prices on the IPE in London are readily accessible, so what's "dark" about it.

1) "New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, former chairman and CEO of Wall Street investment firm Goldman Sachs, during a conference call with reporters. Corzine said the volatility in the price of oil "is absolutely indicative of speculation in the markets." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25318274/)

2) "The lack of regulation is due to what's actually called the "Enron Loophole." Enron Chairman Ken Lay and his market-manipulating buddies persuaded Congress and federal regulators in 2000 that electronic trading markets would be more "efficient" if they didn't suffer the weight of regulation. An attempt by a hedge fund in 2005 to corner the market in natural gas finally forced federal commodity regulators to quit denying the truth: speculation, not market conditions, was driving prices. Unregulated markets are not efficient, they're an invitation to gaming by big money and Big Oil. " (http://www.oilwatchdog.org/articles/?storyId=18735)

3) Excerpts from the whole story (this is by far the best article explaining the history that led to the use of the Enron loophole):

"For almost 75 years, the CFTC has imposed limits on how much of certain agricultural commodities, including wheat, cotton, soybean, soybean meal, corn, and oats, can be traded by non-commercial players — that is, investors who are not part of the food industry. So-called "commercial hedgers," like farmers or food processors, can trade unlimited amounts in order to manage their risk. The limits were designed to prevent manipulation and distortion in what are relatively small markets, and at the same time to allow for a small amount of speculative activity, in order to provide liquidity for trading."

[...]

"In the early 1990s, Mr. West held a seat as a commissioner on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the U.S. regulator charged with overseeing trading in hundreds of staple items, from corn and wheat to oil and cotton. Mr. West was a lifelong Democrat; his boss, CFTC chair Wendy Gramm, was a devout Republican and a believer in the laissez-faire, free-market philosophy espoused by president Ronald Reagan, who once described her as his "favourite economist."

In the fall of 1990, the two clashed over the CFTC's response to a New York court decision involving a little-known Bermuda energy company called Transnor Ltd.

Long forgotten by most, Transnor paved the way for wide-ranging deregulation of commodities trading, an effort that helped to spur the rise of Enron Corp. and which has enabled the stampede of large fund speculators into food markets.

In the winter of 1986, Transnor filed suit against some of the world's largest oil companies, alleging that they manipulated prices on the Brent market, an informal oil trading system that at the time determined the daily price of oil.

At first, few paid attention to the lawsuit. That all changed on April 18, 1990, when Judge William Conner delivered a stunning ruling midway through the trial.

The case hinged on drawing a key distinction: Were the 15-day oil contracts that traded on the Brent market "forward contracts" or "futures contracts"?

In a forward contract, the buyer and seller agree to the price of a commodity and a fixed date for delivery. A farmer enters into a forward contract with a food company by promising to deliver a certain amount of grain on a certain date at a certain price. Lawmakers have shied away from regulating forward contracts under commodity trading laws because they are a fundamental part of how farmers and food companies do business — and each agreement is unique.

A futures contract is the same basic agreement, but it trades on an exchange, and the buyer rarely — if ever — takes delivery of the commodities. Instead, futures contracts are used mainly by farmers for hedging and by investors for speculating. These contracts have historically been regulated.

In the Brent case, the difference was crucial, since the Brent market contracts did not trade on any exchange and, in the U.S., were not regulated by the CFTC.

The oil companies, hoping to protect their cozy market, and avoid the red tape and transparency requirements of regulation, argued they were forward contracts.

Judge Conner ruled against the companies, effectively rendering all Brent trading in the U.S. illegal.

Within days, international oil companies stopped trading with U.S. companies and the entire Brent market was verging on collapse.

In Washington, oil industry lobbyists descended on the CFTC, seeking to get the regulator to mitigate Judge Conner's ruling. They found a receptive ear in Ms. Gramm, the commission chair. Ms. Gramm served as a director at the Office of Management and Budget, spearheading a variety of industry deregulation efforts before President Reagan placed her in charge of the CFTC in 1988.

She arrived with other political credentials: her husband, Phil, who is now a senior economic adviser to presidential candidate John McCain, was a Republican senator from Texas.

Even before the Transnor case, Ms. Gramm had started pursuing a deregulation agenda at the CFTC. A year earlier, in 1989, the commission quietly issued a policy statement on swap transactions, deals in which a buyer of commodities such as a pension fund acts through a middleman or a swap dealer — usually a bank. The CFTC declared that it wouldn't regulate swap dealers.

The Transnor case represented another crucial win for financial speculators such as swap dealers. When the court decision was handed down, Ms. Gramm moved quickly to soften the blow to the energy sector, and turned the Transnor decision from an obscure footnote in the history of oil trading into a critical launching pad for a wide-ranging redrawing of the rules of commodities markets.

On Sept. 25, 1990, a policy confirming that the Brent contracts were forward contracts — and therefore, outside the scope of CFTC regulation — was put to a vote among CFTC commissioners.

It passed 3 to 1."

[...]

4) Excerpt from page 22 from testimony from Mr. Greenberger before the U.S. Senate June 3: "if you were to add all of the West Texas Intermediate [oil] trading on NYMEX, ICE, and the Dubai exchange [the latter two unregulated by CFTC], speculation might very well approach 80-90 per cent of the WTI trades executed by U.S. owned exchanges. By any objective assessment, the crude oil market is now overwhelmingly dominated by speculation, most of which is not subject to the age old controls imposed upon speculators in these markets"

5) "Saudi Arabia produced about 3.2 billion barrels (510×10⁶ m³) of oil in 2006, this would give it over 80 years of reserves at current rates of production", according to British Petroleum and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

WOW! 80 years! This is not exactly tomorrow, is it? Is there anyone here who is willing to prove that China's or India's economy have tripled in 2 years, reducing by a factor of 3 these reserves? That would be astounding as it would be impossible. AND let us remind people that because of many fiascos (bank,...) many economies are slowing down and consumption of oil is too. Find the data to prove me wrong. I urge you.

Anyway, I am not too sure if it is evidence that is needed here.

I doubt that speculators would openly admit that there are doing something wrong.

Would a thief phone the police and ask to be sent to jail?

I am helping .. am currently working on investing to operate a palm oil mill in southern Thailand. My plant will be bio mass/biogas or conventional steam turbine for electricity generation. problem is everybody claims to be better and every consultant gives their own point of view. The denmark embassy rep (in Malaysia) offers help but with certain conditions attached. As this is a huge investment, any input from forum members on biogas will help me understand more on the impact of the individual system.

Engineers guarentees they can do the job but they don't care about commercials (asked the danish biogas consultant about ROI and they tell me that all i care about is $$$$$) . consultants wants money first before they can give any Feasibility Study. I have to pay ofcourse but there are so many of them... whom do I choose?

Interesting! Thank you!

But, are you using new or recycled palm oil to generate electricity?

Isn't that oil used for something in the food industry, say, for frying certain types of food? If everyone like you, uses food to generate electricity, isn't the price of some food going to increase because there will be much more of a demand for it (for food production AND for an energy source)?

If the material you (or any industrialist) were to use good for nothing (or little), then IMHO it would be okay, maybe (provided the emissions are minimal and the level of energy is acceptable).

I am confused.

I find this rather odd as Gulf Air tells me there are no seats available in July,

High Season is the reason they give................

I think TAT is telling porky pies............

Many carriers are cutting down on the number of flights to accommodate lower demand. Air Canada has. Many employees have been laid off. I am sure others will. I hear some carriers are on the brink of bankrupcies.

Seeing how the price of food (and other commodities) is going, pork pies will not be affordable for many! Heck! Judging how things are going, you might have to bag a sandwich (or pie) for your next flight home!

Dunno just bought a ticket, same price its been for years. Perhaps it might dip for some, but those who can afford it will carry on, and those that won't will stay at home. Pretty simple.

I have seen general increases in the prices of flights here and to Thailand. You just might have lucked out. I know I did, but, by and large, they have increased. Soon, there will be fewer tourists coming from Europe or America, for sure, or retirees, staking out places in Thailand. Tourism in Thailand will suffer, but price of everything will keep climbing. Even though competion will increase and keep prices somewhat lower, speculative rises in the price of food and gas will affect everyone at the end. Companies have to make a profit. And if they cannot sustain losses, they will shutdown, increasing unemployment, unrest, robberies, crime,... And, as I predict, if a global recesssion occurs, everyone is going to be affected, even retirees with pension plans, walking in an alley or resting in their houses, unless of course they buy the services of guards and/or place mines and gates around their houses. Airplance companies are laying off employees, left, right, and center. It will affect many people. The multiplier effect in the economy is going to be great. How much fun will it be to drive in the streets? BKK or Chiang Mai will not be as much fun as they used to be, except perhaps for the ones who can take the hit. But there will be consequences for all. How much will it cost you to go abroad when many of the players have closd their shops? How much will it cost you to drive or take that one tuk-tul that could weather the storm?

Oil speculation needs to be controlled.

Until then, everyone will suffer. Even you!

I believe that it is time we close the Enron loophole which is allowing rampant speculation on future stocks affecting to a great degree (some analysts say up to 60%) the price of many commodities like oil and rice.

Who is paying for these usurious gains? ALL of us and, of course, the poorest of us are paying the hardest. At this time, we have no options and the big car companies are pushing hybrids (NOT electric cars). Is there anyone who believes that they could not produce an electric car? Of course they can. It is true that a lot of investments has been put into manufacturing cars using the internal combustion engine. I think this is of the main reason why the big car companies are pushing the hybrid cars since it is still using the internal combustion engine, manufacting plans, and oil. Of course, the big car companies are happy because there is a smooth transition for them towards an electric car and the oil companies (or producing countries) are happy too as the price of oil keeps climbing (or remains high) are making huge profits. But, is it good for us and the environment?

At $150 a barrel, oil is giving many of the players (producers and traders, including those big pension funds belonging to the baby boomers now starting to retire) returns on their investment that will NOT result in the cut of the use of oil and the use of the internal combustion engine. Tar sands, for instance, can be produced at a profit at around $50. $100 profit on a barrel is outrageous and gives every incentive for oil companies to continue to extract this oil at a huge cost, a huge environmental cost. I urge all environmentalists (and reasonable people) to help bring down the price of oil to give the chance for electric cars to become viable. I think prices need to drop and regulations on trading needs to occur.

The Canadian economy is strong thanks to all of this and so is my pension fund. On the other hand, food prices and oil price have been increasing. Flight prices have been increasing. Many people are losing their jobs. I think soon the huge gains are going to create a recession and then all of those gains will be for nothing.

Nuclear energy is --by far-- the most efficient energy source and, given proper and safe disposal of waste products, for many countries in the word (from the Northern hemisphere) the best energy source. Of course, for Thailand (and other countries from the Southern hemisphere, for instance), other energy sources might be more suitable. Of course, lowering consumption and waste of energy should be taking place. Do we need to live in palaces? Do we need to drive big SUVs? BTW, I think hydrogen technology is just as bad as oil since energy is needed to make hydrogen. I also think (like Chris) that hybrid diesel engines are (AT THIS TIME) the best solution, but it is still running on oil. A plug-in version would be best BTW. A car running purely on stored electricity is best I think, even though battery effiency/disposal and waste will need to be solved. Of course, gas station can be replaced by hydrogen stations. Guess who is going to be happy about that? Of course nuclear energy is dangerous, but is it anymore than a climate that is gong to create cataclysmic changes at the level of the planet?*

A lot of people are hurting and will be hurting as the price of commodities, such as oil, is increasing or remaining that high, except OF COURSE the big players.

* This is simplified due to time and space contraints.