DogNo1

Definately the worst airport in the world

for a small fee you can be picked up in one of the small electric carts and taken through fast-track immigration.

Where can one arrange the small fee to be picked up by one of these carts and then utilize the fast-track immigration line? Last time I went through, I enquired about buying a fast-track pass but people around immigration, including the immigration agents didn't seem to know anything about it. I would gladly pay for a ride to immigration and fast-track status if it's not too expensive.

Pronunciation of Name?

Can anyone say how his name is pronounced? Is it perhaps "Wegajiwa?"

Once again, complete and utter stereotyping and over-generalizing. Christianity is a broad religion with many different beliefs and ways of preaching the gospel. You can't lump all Christian missionaries together and say they all try to convert the same way. Some may be disrespectful to the culture they are in, yes, but that doesn't mean all are so.

It's severe folly to lump any sort of group together, ethnic, religious, etc. and condemn the whole group for the actions of a few. This is how terrorists think.

If you all understood Christianity, you would know that Jesus said to "Go into all the world" to convert others to his message. So, yeah, to say Christians should stay in their own countries would mean they are not following what their savior said.

And are all missionaries rich and drive Toyota Fortuners? Hardly. I've seen many missionaries who live on 9000 baht a month. Once again, I think some need to get a grip on reality. I think many of you don't understand Christianity.

Of course Jesus said he came to preach the gospel to the poor. The intent being to not only make available a relationship with God, but to allow God to get involved in every aspect of their lives, and turn them into people who are not poor, but abundantly supplied. The Bible, from Old Testament to New Testament brings a relationship with God, which leads to prosperity, spirit, soul, body, financially, and socially. "Beloved, I desire above all things that you may prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers."

Unlike many religions, poverty is not exalted as being some great thing in the Bible. Poverty is an enemy of all mankind. Would the girls of Thailand be flocking to the cities to be hookers if they made plenty of money otherwise? Not to anywhere near the same extent. What prevents American women from flocking to cities to be hookers, other than that it is largely illegal? It sure isn't their morals, I guarantee you that. No, it is that they have far easier access to money. Would millions around the world be starving if they were prosperous? No. Poverty is from the devil, is no mark of spiritual quality, and is a tool that Satan uses to oppress billions and make them bow to his will.

Poverty, sickness, premature death, immorality are all enemies of man, and not things sent by God to discipline people or such nonsense. If sickness or poverty was God's will, then Jesus would have gone arond casting IN devils, making the well sick, and stealing people's money.

Prosperity is not a mark of a lack of spiritual quality. To say that it is a good thing if any missionaries are poor, or a bad thing if they have nice cars and houses is ridiculous.

God is love. He wants to prosper people. And not just so they go out and spread the gospel. He prospers the people he can because he loves them. He expects Christians to use some of their prosperity to do what they can to bring his message of love to the world.

To think poverty is anything but a curse is mentally ill.

But don't many Catholic orders require a vow of poverty? Who said "Sell all that you have and give it to the poor?" Also, who said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?"

Everyone can believe what they want. The Bible clearly delineates the results of those choices.

To say that it is unfair that "nice" people don't make it to heaven because they have not accepted Jesus is not valid. God gave one way to get there: Jesus Christ. No matter how "nice" someone looks to us, we are not almighty, and don't know every single thought and deed of the entire person's life to the day they died.

This is a cop out.

In my youth, I was around born again Christians all of the time. What a bunch of smug, sinful, lying, sanctimonius phoneys.

Now, I'm surrounded by Buddhists that I have known well for long periods of time and I can assure you that many of them are much better people in every regard.

Are they all going to burn in he11 forever for accepting the religion of their fathers just like the Christians did?

A loving God would never sink to this.

As I said. Believe what you want. It makes little difference to me. Use any and all Christians that have ever existed for your excuse, if you wish. Other religions lower the standard so low anyone can make it in. God set the standard at perfect so anyone could make it, as long as they had accepted Jesus. Then sent his Son to die and take the penalty for everyone so it was available. If you prefer religions that tie whatever benefits accrued therefrom to how "nice" you are, which is on a sliding scale on a person-by-person basis, with no moral absolutes, you are free to do so.

I don't get mad at anyone for spreading any belief system. Everyone is really only subscribing to what they want to believe anyway. The thousands of religions of the world that have been invented by men are just different wrappers for the same poison: going to hel_l and helping others get there. If "niceness" was the criteria for entering heaven, then where would that leave people who aren't that "nice" but do good for the world in other ways? What if a guy beats his wife, but saves children from burning buildings? How about if he slapped her once, but saved ten children? Where is the ratio acceptable enough so he slides in under the rapidly closing gate of heaven? One slap to ten lives saved? Ten slaps to one life saved? Ten slaps and a mild rebuke okay if he saves ten kids and four puppies?

No, moral absolutes are given by God, just like physical laws, and are absolute, not open to negotiation. But, as I said, you are free to choose whichever path you want to take to get wherever it is you want to get. There is only one way to know God, and that's through Jesus Christ. You don't have to believe it, subscribe to it, or like anyone who ever moved a small toe in the direction of entering a church.

As I said, if I was a doorman at a dance club, and no one was allowed to enter but those who had membership cards, and I was passing out stacks of free cards at the door, there would be people who would protest that it was discriminatory to limit access to only those who had membership cards, though I had gone to the expense of having them designed, printed, and distributed to everyone I possibly could. "But, I have met other people with membership cards, and they are creeps, so I don't want to get one. But I still want to get in."

"Sorry, only people who can get in are people who have a card. Here's a free one."

"No! I REJECT membership cards! I hate cards! My mom was raped by some guy who had a membership card!"

"While I regret that that happened, you still need one to get in."

"This is religious persecution! You are trying to ram your dance club down my throat!"

"No, you don't have to come in. You are free to do what you please. But you can't get in unless you have one."

"I don't accept that! You are prejudiced! A bigot! A loving doorman wouldn't refuse me entrance just because I refused to take a free membership card!"

"While I do love you, as that is how the Bible states we should live, it does not mean I can do anything for you, unless you have a card. Here. Have one. They are free."

"No! My grandparents were WAY nicer than all the membership card holding people I choose to remember! And they belonged to that monastery over there! So, I can get in without one!"

"No, you can't. It is impossible. Here, have a free card!"

"No! I reject your cards, your club, and YOU!"

Hmmmm... Let's see if I understand this one ... It really doesn't matter what I do so long as I accept your membership card?

[We, as Christians, are not responsible to give everything to everyone everywhere, as doing this will quickly result in having nothing and getting nowhere. We are called to do what we can to make the love of God evident to whoever God has called us to. It is no more prejudice or discriminatory to give more to and do more for the ones in the village who are indicating some interest in what they have to say, because the central message is the love God has for whoever wants to accept it.

Ever wonder why you aren't paying for another guy's wife's lifestyle? You are not responsible for another man's wife. God does what he can for who he can, but he can't just kick down the door and do stuff for you without prior consent from you. So he does what he can for whomever he can using whomever he can get to go wherever the people are.

Let's see if I follow your logic ... The Good Samaritan in the Bible chose to help the stranger because he knew that the stranger would be receptive to God's word... ? That's what Christian people naturally do - seek out those who are most receptive to the word of God to be beneficiaries of their kindness? My understanding of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was that good should be done regardless of the supposed worthiness of the person who benefitted. I'm not aware that Christ ever selected people to whom he was kind based an estimation of their willingness to acknowledge Him as God. I believe that the edict to proselytize was formulated later by St Thomas Aquinas, wasn't it. I'll forgo inserting the patronizing bowing head in favor of this one.

Just a thought, but 2% reinvested per year wouldn't keep pace with inflation. I think that pretty secure exchange-traded funds are availale that would pay 7% or more. Also, if inheritance isn't an issue, then annuities can be bought that will pay 7-8% for life. In the case of $1,200,000 for example, an annuity can be bought that will pay $7,000 per month for life. That's 252K Baht per month. Think you could live on that? The trick would be to reinvest some of that to cover unexpected events. Of course, if you want to leave some of your money for heirs, the payout amount would drop. Not bad for a TEFL teacher -- 1.2 mil. Who would have thought?

Just to add my two cents to the discussion....

I sometimes have gotten a variety of the fungus being discussed which is called Tinea Versicolor on my arms and my back. I kept getting recurrences until I was advised to apply the Travogen cream prescribed for two weeks after symptoms had dissapeared. That seemed to kill it pretty well and it hasn't recurred in a while. I do get stubborn cases of athlete's foot though which sometimes require antifungal tablets in addition to the Lamisil or Tinactin spray that I use. I get Fungazol tablets from a pharmacy in Pratuu Naam. I think that it is important to isolate whether crotch rashes are caused by imporper rinsing of underwear or by a fungal infection. The treatment for each would be somewhat different. If rinsing underwear after it returns from the laundry doesn't cure the problem, then it's probably a fungus. I don't know how somebody who sweats a lot in Bangkok could keep dry but if there's no chafing from clothing, and no allergic reaction, a fungus seems the likely problem.

Travogen and Fungazol are both available at pharmacies all over Bangkok.

The only difficulty I have is with medicines that are 'controlled drugs' the pharmacies I have spoken to near where I live (near Phom Phrong) don't stock these - even if you have a prescription. Does anyone know where I can get these from a pharmacy instead of having to pay the inflated hospital prices. I've heard that places near siriraj hospital might but that's a long way from where I live and it is difficult for me to get there due to my medical condition. Does anyone know anywhere more central that might help? I can provide a prescription from my doctor.

You can ask the pharmacist of your local pharmacy to get the drugs for you. The pharmacy that I usually use across the street from the Indra Regent Hotel will order any drug that is available from his supplier. You should be able to get even the most expensive prescription drugs for 50% less than at Bumrungrad or Samitivej. Good luck!

I'm thinking of retiring in about three years when I turn 67. I plan to spend half the time in Tokyo where I have permanent residence and the rest of the time somewhere it's warm in the winter - probably Thailand. I've been visiting Thailand for about 40 years now and have seem it become more crowded and expensive but also more sophisticated and interesting. I spent a year in Chiang Mai back in 1983 and was quite bored. It seems to be a more interesting place now. I'm not sure what I'll do when I retire but I really want it to be optional so that I can not do things when I don't want to. For those calculating how long their investments will last if they withdraw more than they're earning on their investments per year, there are lots of retirement calculators on the Internet. One I use is on the Motley Fool's Rule Your Retirement website. There are lots of free ones too. I have about 50% of my savings in rock-solid investments drawing 5% or a little more and the rest I have in a diversified portfolio of ETFs. Some financial gurus recommend having all of your money in stocks to make it last, but I went through losing 70% on some of my funds in 2000-2001 so I just can't accept too much risk. You never know what will happen in the world situation. If the Straits of Hormuz were to be blockaded for any reason, oil would go through the roof and the price of stocks would fall. How dramatically depends on how bad the situation might be.

Anyway, I think I will be in good shape financially when I retire. Then my objective will be staying healthy to enjoy it. Despite Thailand's recent financial success and its society becoming more money-driven, I still find the country attractive.

Thanks for all of the interesting observations about retirement.

I would like to clarify my statement regarding the "tough love" approach. I am not advocating it alone. When I was living in San Francisco, I observed some Synanon meetings in both San Francisco and Oakland. Synanon, a drug-addict treatment organization, seemed to me to be similar to AA in the respect that it emphasized responsibility and accountability and encouraged a tough attitude toward addiction. For example, there was no apologizing for mistakes at group meetings and the women sometimes shaved their heads for infractions. This contrasted with the approach I had experienced while working as an aide in a southern California psychiatric hospital. The general feeling there seemed to be that mental illness was not voluntary, even for alcholic and drug-addicted patients. My own viewpoint is somewhere in between the two. I believe that much mental illness is involuntary but that people can sometimes benefit from a greater sense of responsibility for themselves and their conditions. Karen Horney wrote about "neurotic claims" which are demands for special attention, consideration and love. Sriracha John obviously has rich experience in the psychiatric field and can judge much better than I the appropriateness of psychiatric treatments. There is a huge range of personalities and psychiatric conditions, and each warrants an appropriate approach in my opinion. I don't think that is ever useful, though, to tell someone that their problems are a figment of their imagination.

Just another two cents.

Hi,

In reference to my previous comments:

While it is true that reality is social in nature ( there is actually a book by that name-"The Social Nature of Reality), the scientific community attempts to reach as objective an approximation of truth as possible. For example, tests of medicines are conducted using the "double blind" method and the results must be must have a 98% possiblity of being right statistically before a medicine can be accepted by the FDA. All professional journals are refereed, that is, a board of experts reviews any submission for publication to ensure its accuracy, correctness and relevancy. Only when an article passes their examination may it be published. This not only includes JAMA, Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, but journals in other fields. By reading journals, we discover the results of the best current research. Science invites argument and disagreement in order to better approximate the truth and we can find these both in the relevant magazines and online. I guess that you are correct in saying that the truth is a matter of opinion but it's how the truth is put to the test that matters.

What I meant by saying that although medicine is science-based, it is an art, is because a number of factors are invoved in whether a treatment succeeds or fails. What is effective medicine for one person may not suit another due to social, psychological and physical factors. Apparently medicines work best when they are accepted in the community and people believe that they will work. Around 1946, there was a smallpox epidemic in Japan. Attempts by the occupation medical corps to administer smallpox immunization injections were thwarted by Japanese doctors who claimed that medicine that worked on Americans wouldn't work on Japanese. It took quite a lot of reasurring and providing evidence that the immunization shots were effective before the medical community in Japan cooperated. When the Japanese people got the injections, the epidemic was halted.

I do have personal experience with depression. Although I am not suffering from it presently, I have in the past. I am treating my depression with medication, exercise, diet and cognitive therapy. I've felt pretty good for quite a while now, but didn't do well when I stopped my medication a couple of years ago. For me, the multi-pronged approach seems to be effective.

BTW, Freud was a pioneer in the understanding of psychology. There are books such as "Freud 2000" in which modern psychiatrists discuss the relevance of Freud's theories in light of present-day knowledge. Some of the most exciting work these days, in my opinion, is being done in examining the physical nature of the brain and what areas are used in certain circumstances. That's what led to the discovery of the "gate theory" regarding area 25. It appears that in people who don't suffer depression, area 25 serves to quiet thoughts. When area 25 doesn't work correctly, obsessive negative thinking occurs. When area 25 is electrically stimulated, the thoughts decrease for a significant number of patients. As I mentioned, area 25 was covered by CBS News and Time Magazine.

I am quoting from an earlier post by markwhite: "Hormones are indicators of moods, not the other way round." Do you mean that hormones don't affect moods? I wonder what your evidence is. Would you be willing to say this to a woman in menopause? Don't estrogen and testosterone levels have a strong influence on mood?

we suffered..... a lot

We had to learn how to deal with our suffering without reaching for a prescription pad everytime something caused us pain.

Just some suggestions for reference: Dr. Thomas Szasz wrote a number of books about psychiatry including "The Myth of Mental Illness." You can read excerpts from his books on Amazon.com. Regarding depression, CBS News recently did a piece on the deep electrical stimulation of Area 25 in the brain to help severly depressed people. Here's the link:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/29/60minutes/main2053537.shtml

Time magazine also published an article about Area 25 just a few months ago.

I think that reading studies of various techniques for treating depression helps to make our opinions objective and not too personalized. If it were possible for us humans to understand our own mental processes well, we could probably help ourselves a lot, but Sigmund Freud pretty well established that part of our minds are not directly accessible. From what I have read, depression is quite variable and while exercise, drugs and talk therapy, alone or in combination, help many people, for some it's not enough. For these poeple, deep brain stimulation and newer drugs may hold the key.

While Western Medicine is conducted accoring to the scientific standard, I personally think that medicine is also an art. We must find the cures that are right for the individual. I do believe that for many people, depression is very painful. I admire people who are able to cure themselves through exercise, diet and right thinking but it seems that many people can't do this. Maybe AA veterans might interpret this as they "won't" cure themselves. Their "tough love" approach is admirable, but not effective sometimes.

In regard to the abuse of medication, it certainly exists but I have heard doctors say that patients are not content to leave the office without a prescription, so they end up prescribing more than they feel is necessary. Perhaps some doctors make money from overprescribing indirectly through freebies from drug companies, but certainly patients' demands for medicine make it easy to do. Sometimes it's a tough call: does the patient really need the medicine....or not?

Just my two cents.

Where Oh Where is the Winston Churchill of the 21st Century? We need some leaders to step up and make themselves useful. Former President Khatami of Iran spoke out aginst terror and violence when he visited the USA. That was helpful. The Roman Catholic Pope Benedict XVI actually posed a challenge to the Islamics during a speech in Germany by quoting a 14th century Pope's observations about the violence embodied in Mohammed's teachings. Are there leaders in the Islamic world besides President Khatami who are willing to stand up and proclaim that Islam is a peaceful religion and that people who commit acts of violence are not true Muslims? Let them be heard!

Are there any Desmond Tutus who can reconcile the animosity between Muslims and non-Muslims? Let's hope so because it will take a long time to eliminate criminals who are acting in the name of Islam. In the meantime, we need someone to calm the anger and hostility and change the common perception of Muslims as being intemperate and hostile.

Of course, the media seize on anything sensational to sell their product, which doesn't help.

Gary A:

I checked out your funds and they look pretty good. I may move from TIPs into one of them. Technically, PHT is a mixed bond and preferred stock fund. It's management fees are a little high at .99% but it looks like a great fund. Its four year average return is 15.75%. Thanks for the tip.

Hi q,

Let me take your last question first. The 11.1% is the figure returned by the portfolio feature of MSN Money that I use to keep track of my portfolio. I enter each new purchase and dividend reinvestment into it and it keeps track of the amount of gain of each stock over the purchase price and brokerage commission. It has a number of different views you can set up. One is performance which lets you see how much each holding has made in total, during the last month, during the last year, etc. It also calculates the average yearly gain of each holding. The 11.1 % is the average yearly gain of my entire portfolio including the bonds. You are correct in observing that having a percentage in bonds (in my case 30%) lowers your overall return. It also lowers your beta (portfolio volatility) and lets you sleep better at night although, theoretically, you should be able to protect a portfolio of all stocks successfully with stop-loss orders. I may move to all stocks at some point.

A stop-loss order is actually an order that you place with your brokerage to sell a stock when it reaches a certain price. If the stock doesn't fall to the price that you set, it doesn't sell. When it does sell, though, it may sell a bit below the price that you set. The stop you put on a stock should depend on what you consider reasonable volatility. Here's the reason I set many of my stops at 30%. About two years ago, I bought MFLX at $19. It promptly dropped to around $13 but because I believed in the ccompany and was in communication with the CEO, I didn't sell it. It then fluctuated for more than a year and finally went up to $22 around June of last year. I put a stop-loss sell order on it for $20. The price dropped to $19 and my stock was sold at $19.85. Two weeks later, the stock was at $38.00. Now it's at $60. Fortunately, I bought it back and am $23,000 ahead on it now. A stop-loss sell order of 30% (at $16) or even 20% (at $18) would have kept me in the stock and I would now be $41,000 ahead. I have seen many stocks and ETFs fluctuate up and down 20% each way. If you believe in the stock, you should be willing to ride this amount of fluctuation out, since as I pointed out, a 30% loss is recoverable in a couple of years. If you sell and buy every time a stock fluctuates 10%, your trading fees tend to eat up your capital gains and you will be very busy monitoring your portfolio. In the past, I lost money on selling stocks and then buying them back after they had gone up past the sell price. That happend to me pretty often a few years ago and I decided to ride out a fair amount of volatility. Some active traders do buy and sell based on small fluctuations in stock prices, but it's a pretty miserable existence, in my opinion and not worth the money you save sometimes.

Right now, most of my money is distributed in various Exchange Traded Funds and just a few stocks. There are index and closed-end funds that you can check out on etfconnect.com. One of my largest holdings is VTI, the Vanguard Total Market Index Fund. Its volatility is low but it still has made me 15.4% annually.

Regarding TIPs, they are treasury bonds that pay a certain return plus inflation. Besides the interest each year, the government also puts in an extra percentage that corresponds to the inflation rate for that year. My TIPs fund has not done too well, only earning an average of 3.8% per year. I expect it to do better as long-term bond rates catch up to short-term bond rates in the future. As you point out, I am paying 15% interest on the dividends each year. I may move my money into somethng else later, but basically I am holding the TIPs to cut down on portfolio volatility. The TIPs had done pretty well until about six months ago. BTW, you can view all of the details of any ETF just by typing in the fund symbol (TIP, VTI, etc.) at the top of the page in etfconnect.com and pressing "Enter." You will find that practically no ETF has a yearly maintenance fee of over 1%. Most are around .5% or so.

One final point is that I would only want to sell my stocks and stock ETFs in a real bear market where I needed to limit my losses to 30% or less. Schiller and Brokamp point out that you will come out ahead in the long run if you can ride out market volatility but I am not willing to lose more than 30% because of my age and because I can not wait 10 or 20 years for my portfolio to recover. Even if you are stopped out in a bear market, you can probably find a sector of the market that will be doing OK such as real estate investment trusts (REITs), gold or silver funds, overseas funds, or others. You should then be able to make enough within a few years to overcome your losses and yield an average yearly return of 10% to 12%.

I subscribe to The Motley Fool's "Rule Your Retirement" newsletter. An article by Robert Brokamp about the advisability of having most of your money in stocks just appeared yesterday. I can email it to you if you like. Of course there is risk in investing, but I believe that if you manage your portfolio correctly you can achieve gross yearly returns of 10% to 12%. It's worked for me so far.

BTW, I just checked the average annual return on my portfolio that I've held for 7 years now and it is 11.1% It includes TIPs which are US Treasury inflation-protected bonds.

Quadricorrelator:

First, let me respond to another poster who claims that you should have all of your money in bonds because stocks are risky. That's right. Stocks are risky and I believe that part of my portfolio should be in bonds (it is - TIPS). The question is how to protect the rest of your portfolio. The answer is through stop-loss sell orders that limit your loss on any holding to 25% to 30%. If you're out into cash at that point you can probably recover when the market turns. If there is a terrible bear market like in 1929, the proper stop-loss sale of your holdings would limit your losses to around $300,000 of your $1 million. The point Schiller is making, though, is that even someone who didn't act to preserve his capital would have come out owning a portfolio worth $9 to $16 million at the end of 50 years. What he doesn't mention is that the value of that person's portfolio would have fallen by as much as half in the short term, so that the 3.8% withdrawal from the portfolio would have dropped from $38,000 per year to $19,000 per year, but then increased as the investor's portfolio recovered and moved ahead. At least an investor who is in the red won't be paying any taxes, since capital gains losses can be subtracted from capital gains profits for a lifetime or until the investor is in the black.

The answer to how a $1 million dollar portfolio can grow over the years despite a 4% withdrawal rate is simply that over time, on average, you will be withdrawing less than your portfolio earns. Let's suppose that in a so-so year for the market, your portfolio only earns 6%, although the historic average for the market is 10% to 12%. Your portfolio earns $60,000. You withdraw $40,000. Your portfolio at the end of that year will be worth $1,020,000. Inflation works behind the scenes, eroding the value of the dollar, but you won't see it except in the cost of living. Regarding taxes, let's say that you sell 1,000 shares of XYZ stock that cost you $20,000 for $40,000. Since your capital gains are only $20,000, you will only pay taxes of 15% on the $20,000. That's only $3,000, leaving you with a net income of $37,000. Usually your capital gains will be lower, I think, so you would have a larger net income. Although at the end of a year inflation will have decreased the true value of your money, you would still have $1,020,000 in your portfolio. Your portfolio would have needed to grow $40,000 to $1,040,000 to keep up with inflation, so in this particular year, you will be 2% behind inflation. Schiller claims, though, that over time, averaging the good years with the bad, your portfolio will grow at the rate of around 10% to 12% per year so that, on average, even after your 4% withdrawal, you will be 2% to 4% ahead of inflation. (10% to 12% minus 4% withdrawal minus the 4% hidden erosion of inflation still leaves you with a gain of 2% to 4% in the real value of your money, although on paper, your portfolio will show a gain of 6% to 8%)

Although bonds are less risky than stocks, Schiller's point is that they do not earn enough to keep pace with inflation. If your portfolio is 100% bonds that earn 4.5% (a fantastically good rate right now) and you withdraw even the 2% that you propose, you will be 1.5% behind inflation since it averages 4% per year. (4.5% minus 2% withdrawal minus the 4% hidden erosion of inflation equals a negative 1.5%). In actual terms, your portfolio would grow by half a percent to $1,005,000 but would have needed to grow to $1,040,000 to keep pace with inflation.

I hope that I've been clear. Anyway, my personal strategy will be to keep my portfolio about 70% in stocks protected by stop-loss sell orders. I lost my shirt in the bear market of 2000 and learned my lesson.

I wish all of us, including myself, good luck. I'm looking forward to retiring in 3-4 years.

To quadricorrelator:

I think you misunderstand Schiller's observations on the principal of "safe withdrawal rate." If you withdraw 4% of your portfolio and it is optimally invested in well-diversified equities (which is his main point) rather than heavily weighted in bonds, then your portfolio will actually grow ahead of inflation. As a result of your portfolio growing, the 4% you withdraw actually increases each year as the value of your portfolio increases. Schiller found that even an investor who retired before the great crash of 1929 could safely withdraw 3.8% per year. So to use your example (which is exactly what I hope to do when I retire in a few years), if you retire with a portfolio of $1 million optimally invested in equities, the portfolio will make an average of 10% to 12% per year while you withdraw 4%. You are left with a net gain to your portfolio of 6% to 8%. Assuming that present tax law remains in effect, you will only pay 15% on the amount that represents capital gains. Even if you have made 100% on the equities you sell to withdraw the $40,000, you will be liable only for 15% tax on the basis cost of $20,000, or $3,000. This means that if you begin a retirement with $1 million, you should have $37,000 net your first year after US taxes. The next year, your portfolio should be worth, on average, 1,040,000 and you would again withdraw 4% of that, or $41,600. Of course, there will be up years and down years of the market, but it assumed that over time your portfolio will grow significantly. I am pasting below a quote from the page you referenced:

"Limiting your annual withdrawals in retirement to the "100% safe" level results in a significant portfolio at the end of all pay out periods. For a retiree starting with $1 million and a 50 year pay out period, there is a 50/50 chance of winding up with a portfolio of more than $16 million. That's $16 million after making annual inflation adjusted withdrawals for 50 years. Indeed, there is a 90% chance our retiree will have more than $9 million after 50 years. "

Nice to contemplate. Now if I can only maintain a good diversification in equities!

I hope this information will ease someone's mind about how far their savings can go.

The US Secretary of the Treasury remains Mr. John Snow. The new face is Ben S. Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board which just raised the US prime interest rate 25 basis points. This strengthens the dollar because it makes US bonds more desirable to foreign investors. Actually, if the Thai baht is floating against the dollar, US dollars should start to buy more than 38 baht. Perhaps the exchange rate to the dollar is controlled somewhere.

The former chairman, Alan Greenspan is predicting a fall in the value of the dollar because he predicts that foreign governments will move out of US treasury bonds in the future.

So who can tell what will happen? I sure can't.

I've sent a few of my patients to this doctor. Each patient is very happy with him. Card toting members of his fan club now.

drbones - Do I understand that you send patients to Dr. Niyom? Are there really many happy patients of his. Forgive me for being incredulous.

For anyone who is interested:

Bumrungrad does not seem to be much cheaper for some kinds of surgery than the University of Tokyo Hospital. I need to have a tumor removed from my right vocal cord and received estimates for the job. The tumor was doscovered by Dr. Thana at Bumrungrad using small mirrors to inspect my throat. I have had the laryngoscopy done here in Japan at the University of Tokyo Hospital. I have some very nice photos of my tumor now. The 95,000 to 120,000 Baht price ($2,500 - $3,157) I was quoted to have the operation done at Bumrungrad seems a bit expensive since the University of Tokyo Hospital will do the operation for 400,000 yen ($3,390). I'm not certain that the Bumrungrad costs would come in at the upper end, but if they did, they would only be $233 lower than at University of Tokyo Hospital here. The only problem here is that you have to wait for a few months. I haven't checked at hospitals in various countries, but Bumrungrad isn't appearing too competitive right now. Do you think Bumrungrad's prices are competitive with other hospitals in Asia?

Sheryl,

If facial hair can be removed in five laser treatments, how long does it stay gone? How much does a course of five treatments cost at Apex and those other places? At S-Spa, I paid a lot of money to have the hair removed from my back. Now, five weeks later, it's growing back. It seems as though there should be a more cost-effective way to have hair removed from your back. Do you have any suggestions? I'm now in Tokyo but hope to be back in LOS later this month.

Hey, thanks for the tip about Lactacid. Does the box or bottle say where it's made? I'm going to get some and try it.

Zowie! Japan is not a place to get reasonably-priced dental work within a reasonable period of time! The dental work I had done in Bangkok was of better quality and the number of times I had to visit the dentists' office were fewer. I actually had a new $3,000 single crown with poor occulsion which I had done in Japan last year replaced by one with much better occulsion done in Bangkok for $1,000. The new tooth feels good and I have a good "bite." If you're going to have work done in Asia, the most cost-effective results may be in Bangkok. Of course, I have no experience with having work done in Malaysia, Singapore, etc.

Hi,

As to the doctor who gave you the unsatisfactory Botox treatment - Could it possible have been Dr. Niyom at Bumrungrad? I went there a few weeks ago to have what were called "externalized fat cells" burned off of my face by CO2 laser. I had an 11:30 appointment with Dr. Niyom. He and his nurse quickly put some numbing cream on the places to be burned off and took me to a secluded waiting room. At 12:30, the nurse took me up to sit outside of the laser room. While I was sitting there, Dr. Niyom gave two other patients laser treatments and went up and downstairs two times. He finally came to do my treatment at 2:20 - after I had been waiting for a total of two hours and forty minutes. The cream only needed to be on for 45 minutes to be effective. He offfered no explanation- just did the procedure and left. Afterward, the nurse just showed me the chart on which she had scheduled the laser room for me at 12:30. I wasn't about to show any anger toward a man who would be burning my face with a laser and I had to pay in advance of the procedure, but I wasn't happy. It seemed irresponsible to make me wait for so long without explanation or apology. I didn't complain to anyone, but I certainly won't be going back to see Dr. Niyom. I wonder if he is in fact the doctor who handled the Botox treatment poorly or if somebody else has experience with him.

I doubt if I'll be going to Bumrungrad Dermatology in the future, though I would like to have facial hair removed from around my lips because of periodic bouts of herpes which make shaving uncomfortable. Does laser facial hair removal really work? My one try at S-Spa near the Nai Lert Park Hotel was completely unsuccessful. I'd appreciat e any suggestions.