buddy

No wonder many of you Brits look down on us Americans. When people insult us, we get offended. However, you lot actually revel in it!

Stiff upper lip old chap.

Get another tv,side by side,neck swivels, good exercise

: : :DDD

Agreed...air-con set to 28 or 29 during the day is fine for me...at nite, start in "sleep" mode at 29 and goes to 31 while I sleep. Cost to cool my 3 BR home at these temps 24/7 last month B 3000. During "winter" months (Nov.-Feb) B 300-400 and during shoulder seasons about B 1000.

Why would you have your aircon on these temperatures, you might aswell just switch them off and save even more money

Because I am COMFORTABLE at those temperatures...as I mentioned, much below that and I start getting the chills. However I know many of my farang friends who NEED to keep their hotel rooms and/or houses at 25 or below...to each his own...but I like my way as it's cheaper.

Isnt 30C equal to 90F in old money? Thats a heatwave in UK and very uncomfortable!

I seem to remember 68F was supposed to be an ideal sleeping temp .Thats less than 22C I believe (but could be wrong!)

All this talk about air-conditioning temperature setpoints and not one has mentioned a "comfort envelope"

This is the temperature range that most human beings will feel comfortable at at a given humidity, that is the reason why you dont have one standard temperature setpoint say set at 25 Degrees Centigrade on your A/C Controller for all Air-conditioners installed the World over.

Human beings metabolism differ from one another and it also changes depending on our age, sex, if your sick, skinny, overwieght etc etc

Try it in a class of 20 students, Jack at the front is OK but Jill at the back is Baltic...No temperature setting is the correct temperature for all, you will all differ!

Capital Adequacy Ratios/leverage. Injecting $1 into a bank's capital is worth many multiples of increasing a bank's assets by $1

Administratively much easier to make payments to a few hundred banks than millions of homeowners

Paying off mortgages = Risk it encourages people to default to claim the handout further aggravating the situation

On the face of it treats all members of the population equally (ignoring tax). In your scenario people who had their debt wiped out would be delighted. Honest hardworking people still trying to pay their mortgages would be disgusted. To compensate others as well would ramp up costs even more

Loans to banks from governments would eventually be repaid. Giving money to mortgagees on the other hand is an expense to the government. Adding a billions to the government balance sheet is much better than writing off billions as expenses

"Investments" or shares taken in banks can be sold at a later date to allow governments to get their money back

Governments injected liquidity into the system, and can withdraw when they think the time is right. Paying mortgages doesn't allow them to withdraw the money again and loses control on timing later

etc

Thank you fletchsmile for your contribution.

My take on some of your expalanations -

"Paying off mortgages = Risk it encourages people to default to claim the handout further aggravating the situation"- Pay part of the Mortagage off, compensate people with out mortgages, dont wish to go into the finite detail but if theres the will it can be done.

"Loans to banks from governments would eventually be repaid" - Banks repay to the Government probably within a couple of years, but Mr Joe soap avarage tax payer has to pay for the rest of his life and the generations to come (without his consent).

"Giving money to mortgagees on the other hand is an expense to the government" - OK, but the Government would have had a greatly stimulated economy where the Tax take increased by Billions to compensate.

"Investments" or shares taken in banks can be sold at a later date to allow governments to get their money back" - See the sense in this from the Governments perspective, however

Mr Joe soap avarage tax payer wont be able to directly profit from this, the other purchasing Banks will.

"Governments injected liquidity into the system, and can withdraw when they think the time is right. Paying mortgages doesn't allow them to withdraw the money again and loses control on timing later" - You hit it right on the head, They would lose control (Liquidity = printing more money).

Still for all the financial terminology it doesnt get away from the fact that the Banks get paid twice and the tax payer has to pay for the Governments irresponsible spending and borrowing for generations to come...Right?

Buddhism is n o t a belief system. Ignorant people believe. They have the right to stay ignorant. Dukkha follows.

In my ignorant state can I ask what you consider Buddhism is?

...or a Tuk Tuk

^but the retail banks also borrow from the central banks so if the retail banks go under the central banks do not get their money back.

It's just a giant house of cards.

Nope - They just write it off as they have always done with bad debt, creative accounting, cooking the books, call it what you want.

Sounds like you believe the Banks?

Isn't that the same as not getting their money back?

But there is no "real" money from the Central Banks, its all created out of thin air, free money that only has value when you get a loan and go into debt, where the Bank then multiplies the ratio say 9:1, there was never any money there in the first place..its all based on fiat.

^but the retail banks also borrow from the central banks so if the retail banks go under the central banks do not get their money back.

It's just a giant house of cards.

Nope - They just write it off as they have always done with bad debt, creative accounting, cooking the books, call it what you want.

Sounds like you believe the Banks?

And just to let you know as it might slip past you if you hadn't noticed...

Another Bank bail out is taking place at this very moment under a different name with a 650 Billion pound bail out of the Euro currency.

Like a dying Wasps last sting, Alistair Darling the Labour Chancellor, denies the 650 Billion pound EU bailout exposes the UK taxpayer?

Go figure.

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Ohh, but they did have an option and chose not to use it. It's called the free market. Let it do the job it was designed for.

As for heading off a possible depression.....coming to a European living room very close to you, real soon. Worse still, Government default. Try 'frozen personal accounts', retirement accounts taken over, banks closed, pensions slashed, 30% Gov. jobs gone. Rioting, looting......Overly dramatic? We'll see.

My little Baan in Issan won't even notice. Oil @ $220 per barrel. Not to worry, just put more coconut oil in the mix.

Regards.

But then all of the banks would have collapsed, plus all the companies and especially governments that are reliant on the money from the banks to avoid going under themselves.

When I mention Banks I mean Central Banks, 20 trillion is nothing to them, they will not collapse.

The Banks you refer to as collapsing I class as retail Banks...let the market weed them out, why should they above any other industrial sector get preferential treatment?

The Governments borrow from the Central Banks (Federal Reserve, Bank of England etc), If the retail Banks would have gone under, so what some thing would have taken there place.

Its similar to a developed retail system whereby the Money manufacturer & Distribution Centre combined (Central Bank), distributes the products (money) to the retail shop (Bank) on the high street...the Government does not borrow from the high street Banks but the Combined distribution Centre (Central Bank).

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Ohh, but they did have an option and chose not to use it. It's called the free market. Let it do the job it was designed for.

As for heading off a possible depression.....coming to a European living room very close to you, real soon. Worse still, Government default. Try 'frozen personal accounts', retirement accounts taken over, banks closed, pensions slashed, 30% Gov. jobs gone. Rioting, looting......Overly dramatic? We'll see.

My little Baan in Issan won't even notice. Oil @ $220 per barrel. Not to worry, just put more coconut oil in the mix.

Regards.

teletiger, Exactly, There were several choices the Governments could have made and the free market being one of them,

However they chose the worst possibly choice for there own populations but the best option for the Banks...the Banks get paid twice.

Why should Mr Greek and his family who have been working hard all his life have to suffer at the hands of these Bankers and there middle men (the Governments) anymore.

Just yesterday like a sting from a dying Wasp the Labour Chancellor of the UK committed 15 Billion pounds of money that is not his to prop up a Euro currency that the UK is not even a member of, why doesn't he give away a few Billion pounds to the Tongan Pa'anga currency while he is at it, as he is not accountable and nobody in the electorate can prevent this if the Banks instruct him to.

Will it take blood on the streets of Europe and the USA for change to happen?

This system has to be peacefully changed, if not what teletiger has prophesied will start to come true.

More of Celente's forecasts from a couple of days ago

Join the fledgling TEA Party... against big Government and high taxes, just at grass roots level in the UK now!

For the Brits:

AVERAGE UK household income (after tax) is circa £24,000 per year or £2,000 per month, that's approx. Baht 100,000 per month in Thailand. Using those number, in which country do you think you would have the better standard of living, a rhetorical question.

You need to quote the "Median" UK household income (after tax) to get a grip on it, not the average which inflates the figure.

Which is....how much per month?

Only the bribed being Labour strongholds of the ones on Welfare, immigrants and public sector/state workers who are sucking the milk of the State tit...

Couldn't agree more.

Unlike the multinationals and wealthy individuals who relocate their profits overseas to avoid paying taxes. And of course London's financial district denizens would not have had any culpability in the now very sad state of affairs of Mother England.

Oh well, glad to see that some pommies wear the same blinders as their Tory brethren in my own country who wage political warfare under the Republican banner.

Political warfare?...The Banks controlling Governments are the problem, so it affects both sides of the political divide, Ponder this -

The British Labour Government has borrowed enourmous amounts from the Bankers that the majority of Labour voters (public/state sector workers) have to pay back the Bankers interest through higher taxation for generations to come...of course the majority cant fathom this because they are too busy glued to the TV watching Britains got talent or X Factor

This er borrowing of taxpayers money to bribe this sector of the electorate is a corruption of the democratic process for the Labour Parties own gain.

They will keep spending, borrowing, spending borrowing, importing Labour voters (immigrants) as this is a clear project to continue in power, however is this project the Labour parties first consideration whats the best for the UK?

Similar to the Red shirt supporters (and other plummage) being paid to attend the Bangkok demonstrations whith there own money just being recirculated as it was stolen off of them in the first place.

Main reason IMO why the Banks were bailed out rather than give freebies to back to customers:

The World Banking system is like an intertwined spiders web/pack of cards,all heavily trading with, and loaning money

to each other,pull one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapses,which will have a knock on effect around the Worldwide Banking system.

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Thailands Banks had very little exposure to so called "Toxic loans" so came through the financial crisis reletively unscathed.

But my point is the Banks would have still been paid back, so pulling one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapsing would not have happened?

Peoples mortgages get paid off so a win win situation for them and a win win situation for the Banks?...and a win win situation for a stimulated World economy.

Winners all round, however it still doesn't explain why Governments didn't do it?

Because this way the banks get paid twice, once by the government bail-out and once by the people with the mortgages. If the money went straight to the people who then paid the bank, the bank would have only got one lot of money.

I was hoping for an answer what the Government/s gave the reason for not paying the mortagages off?

Found the shop in Soi Photisarn, unfortunately they didn't have any in stock and not getting anymore in.

So the questions still open...can anybody assist?

Non violent Tax revolts are what are needed to send a message to these same same Governments that we have had enough of the Bankers enslaving generations and corrupting Democracy through your high taxes and unaccountable spend spend, borrow, borrow policies that the ordinary citizen has to pay back.

If some one borrowed money in your name and you didn't know about it, it would be a Criminal offense called theft and deception!

Main reason IMO why the Banks were bailed out rather than give freebies to back to customers:

The World Banking system is like an intertwined spiders web/pack of cards,all heavily trading with, and loaning money

to each other,pull one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapses,which will have a knock on effect around the Worldwide Banking system.

So World Banks and their Governments had no options but to bail them out,and head off a possible Depression on top of the already arrived Recession.

Thailands Banks had very little exposure to so called "Toxic loans" so came through the financial crisis reletively unscathed.

But my point is the Banks would have still been paid back, so pulling one piece out of the pack and the whole lot collapsing would not have happened?

Peoples mortgages get paid off so a win win situation for them and a win win situation for the Banks?...and a win win situation for a stimulated World economy.

Winners all round, however it still doesn't explain why Governments didn't do it?

Can anyone please provide me any number of reasons why the Governments involved in bailing out the Banks recently to the tune of Billions/Trillions of Pounds/Dollars did not completely pay off peoples Mortgages?

Instead of the money being paid directly by the Government to the Banks, the mortgage money would have recirculated through the household mortgage account and back to the Banks anyway, thereby still paying the Banks Billions/Trillions but would have had the benefit of releasing huge amounts of disposable income for a large portion of the population that in turn would stimulate a Country's economy.

Some reasons I have heard against this idea are -

1) House prices would go up??...How?

2) European Union wouldnt allow it and no reason given?

3) The Central Bankers who are in real control of the Government/s would lose out on high interest on long term income streams (debt slavery) and would not approve it?

4) Rioting on the streets by the those renting and other dissaffected groups without mortgages?...but you could compensate?

5) Administrative nightmare?

Before anybody states what has this got to do with Thailand consider this, if the mortgages had been paid off all the released disposable income that would otherwise have been spent on these Mortagages would pay inevitably for holidays to, and for purchases in Thailand and therefore would stimulate the Thai economy.

Im sure there is more than the one place that sells them but I purchased mine from a little shop in Soi Photisarn off Naklua road.

Thanks for the reply Spoonman.

Where is the exact location of the shop in Soi Photisarn?

[.the rub is this, that not ONE person in the UK voted to join the European Union?

Referendum in 1975? My first ever vote. And the overwhelming result was to stay in the EEC as it was called then.

Exactly my point,

The referendum in 1975 was for joining an economic trading block called the European ECONOMIC Community (EEC).

The politicians have without the British electorates consent morphed the EEC into the monster called the European Union that we have today.

The EU is an unaccountable, undemocratic, money squandering, Socialist experiment failed politicians retirement club...and that is being kind!

REPEAT - "NOT ONE PERSON IN THE UK VOTED TO JOIN THE EUROPEAN UNION"

Pfff,Lucky that I have Euro's.

Have you heard of this little place called Greece? The Euro's day of reckoning is none too far in the offing. Same same for the USD.

Brown didn't create the UK mess but he sure exacerbated it, just like that subversive lying buffoon across the pond.

When there are more people suckling at the government teat than there are providing the "nourishment" required to produce "milk," disaster of one form or another is usually not far behind (inflation, layoffs, revolt, riot, war).

Agree with your other points but beg to differ about Brown, Brown and the Labour Government did create the mess the UK is in.

Selling the UK's Gold reserves, all 400 tons of it at rock bottom prices, bailing the banks out, spend, spend spend till there is nothing left so its borrow, borrow, borrow so future generations not yet concieved will be born into debt slavery...he/Labour have bankrupted the UK.

If he/the Labour Government had kept the Countrys finances in order we would have been in a better position to weather a rainy day from which ever quarter is came from, simple!

Wait to see the crash if Cash Gordon makes a deal and is still the British Prime Minister...he got the UK in this cr+p in the first place, God help the Brits!

Nick Clegg already said he wouldn't do a deal with Gordon and about an hour ago said that he thought that the Cons should be the first to try and form a government, the Pound reversed almost imediatley and went from a low of 1.44 back up to almost 1.47. Does nobody like Gordon.

Only the bribed being Labour strongholds of the ones on Welfare, immigrants and public sector/state workers who are sucking the milk of the State tit...

Wait to see the crash if Cash Gordon makes a deal and is still the British Prime Minister...he got the UK in this cr+p in the first place, God help the Brits!

...or Bangkok area?