ericjt

As a lot of other people have said, it's not so much individual americans that bring out anti-American sentiment, it's more the government. That having been said, most people who have lived their lives for the most part only in America don't have a clue about what's going on in the rest of the world, yet they tend to come across as kind of all knowing and self satisfied.

One small example:

In most american movies, asian street scenes are shown as dirty, crowded (romantic?) slums, with everybody driving around on small motorcycles or traveling in rickshaws pulled by coolies. When I first came here, I was shocked at how different the real asia is from the asia that had always been shown to me on the TV and movies in America. Modern airports that humbled most airports in the US, airlines that humbled most American airlines, huge modern cities, skyscrapers, malls and superhighways that were as good or better than their counterparts in the US.

And US foreign policy? Don't even get me started.

Want to know what US foreign policy looks like to many people outside of the US? Read one or two books by a guy named John Perkins. There are lots of other good reads, too, but Perkins is a good place to start. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and "Secret History of the American Empire" and your question will be answered. After that, if you want to learn more, just keep reading. Once you get outside the velvet glove censorship of Big Media in the US, the answers will become very clear.

Good question, and I hope you find some good answers.

What kinds of "electronic devices"?

Cameras? Hidden microphones? What?

Has anyone seen any more detail about what kinds of devices they'll be using?

Has any report stated clearly how much interest these alleged "sharks" were charging -- the actual rate per year?

Paying back 2,000,000 Baht on an 870,000 Baht loan is no big deal if the loan was long term. In the US, it's standard to pay back over $300,000 on a $100,000 mortgage with single digit annual interest rates, if it's a long term 30 year mortgage. And nobody complains about that, or arrests the lenders.

Credit card lenders are even worse. They make 50% or more per annum (year) on the money they lend. And nobody is hauling them in to jail, or accusing them of loan sharking. (Maybe they should, but they aren't.)

Here's the credit card math: Most banks charge card holders 18%-30%/year per year on all amounts owed, after a 20-30 day free grace period; PLUS the bank collects another 2-3% for each purchase from each vendor. (The vendor pays a 2%-3% discount to the credit card company on each purchase, right?) And since credit cards run on a theoretical 30 day cycle, the lender is making 2%-3% from each vendor for loans of around 30 days each. That's an annual rate of 24% to 36% on the payments from the vendors.

Add the interest from the vendors to the interest and other charges paid by the card holders, and it's easy to get up to 50%-60% per year as the amount the bank is earning on the money it lends to its credit card holders. That's around 4%-5% per month.

Were these "loan sharks" charging more than that? If they were, then maybe they're right where they belong, but until the OPs clarify the actual interest rates involved, I'd suggest we withhold judgment on whether these perps are "sharks" or not.

The credit card companies have set the bar pretty high to make it into "shark" territory.

There are many resources for people who are willing to take a do-it-yourself approach to euthanasia -- and ending their own lives on their own terms. One of the best and most popular is "Final Exit".

It's is a widely available book that lays out several options and strategies, including getting small prescriptions now for the meds you will need at the time and stockpiling them until you have enough to do the job. It also discusses legalities in the US, and how to keep friends and family members clear of legal problems.

I think the book also covers breathing a common, widely available gas, with instructions about where to obtain it and the necessary components, assembly, and instructions about what to do and when.

CM4me has also already given a number of links, above. And I'd suggest you do some searches on google about "euthanasia" if you are seriously interested in ending your own life with dignity when the time comes. You'll find there are several societies or groups organized to help each other and provide information and emotional support re euthansia.

One last thought: If it is illegal for anyone to help you here in Thailand, then either move to a more legally friendly jurisdiction, or do some planning in advance. That planning should involve making as sure as possible that you will still be strong enough to do what you need to do by yourself, without any help from anyone else, when the time comes. In that way, you will be protecting your friends and family from legal problems later on. Good luck.

If he's charging 20% a year, that's less than most credit cards. If it's 20% per month, or per week, that's a little different. It would be nice if the OP article were a little clearer about the actual rate being charged. "20%" is only half the story. We need to know the period (year, month, week), too.

On the flip side, people who have already accumulated some wealth, are turning in their US passports and citizenship in record numbers. It's true the numbers are only in the thousands, but in percentage terms, the numbers are double or triple previous years growing exponentially. (That means faster and faster.) Since US citizenship used to be the most prized citizenship in the world, what does the fact that thousands of people each year are now renouncing it mean? What is it a reflection of?

I'm not smart enough to know the answer. Only smart enough to ask the question.

I am smart enough to know the answer,

If you were born a US citizen, and manage to hand in your US passport and citizenship (usually to avoid tax).

Later if you change your mind, you can just ask for it back, and they return it.

So ZERO risk (except they might ask for the tax you avoided).

That's the rules for most countries in the world (except China).

You raise an interesting and, I think, valid point. If most people turn in their US citizenship to avoid taxes, what is it about the US tax system that provokes them to do that? Perhaps that the US charges its citizens tax on any and all income, from any and all sources, and from anywhere it might have been sourced from, anywhere in the world? No other country does that. If you make money in a country, you have to pay tax to that country. If you make money outside a country, you don't. You only have to pay taxes, maybe, to the country in which you made the money. So if the US tax system is, perhaps, a bit over-reaching, that might be a good reason for some people who turn in their passports. But that's a separate question from whether they can get their citizenship back. That could change at any time, and I'm sure most people who turn in their citizenship know that. But they still do it. What does that say about the US govt, its policies and direction?

Then why ever morning at the American Embassy their are long lines of people who want to come to this country. Answer that. We must be doing something right.

The fact that people from other countries think (for now) that they might be able to make more money in the US does not equal an endorsement of the US government, taxes, Iraq/Afghanistan wars, the Patriot Act, or the erosion of civil liberties spelled out in the US Constitution. It only means that, for now, salaries for entry level workers are higher in the US than elsewhere.

On the flip side, people who have already accumulated some wealth, are turning in their US passports and citizenship in record numbers. It's true the numbers are only in the thousands, but in percentage terms, the numbers are double or triple previous years growing exponentially. (That means faster and faster.) Since US citizenship used to be the most prized citizenship in the world, what does the fact that thousands of people each year are now renouncing it mean? What is it a reflection of?

I'm not smart enough to know the answer. Only smart enough to ask the question.

There's just something about some places that are neat. LP is one of them. All the nice things said about it are true, IMO. Wife and I spent 10 days there 10 years ago and still want to go back. Wonderful scenery, wonderful restaurants, friendly people, the Mekong River flows right through town, good prices, no price gouging that we saw. Just a neat place in the mountains with friendly, gracious people. Try it, you'll like it. And maybe take a boat ride back to Thailand on the Mekong River. It's an overnight trip and you get to sleep on an island in the middle of nowhere. They serve a wonderful candlelit dinner.

"Who? What? When? Where? How?" Didn't that used to describe what good newspaper journalism was about? I sure wouldn't know it from this article.

So many words and so little hard content. Where are the facts? And the particulars? The charges might be true, but I can't tell from what the author has written here.

Shame on the author for writing it and shame on the Guardian for printing it. (And maybe Thaivisa for reprinting it.) Doesn't the Guardian have editorial standards any more?

And what about Thaivisa? Does anybody check what you pick up and highlight from other media? And make sure you're not wasting your members' time?

He should have the best lawyers he can find. Remember, this kind of asset freeze "ahead of any claim against him" means his assets and/or bank accounts are frozen before he even gets to hear any claims or charges against him, before there is any discovery, and before there is any trial. In other words, no Due Process of any kind.

It's an extra-ordinary remedy. Just barely legal. It should only be applied, IMHO, in the most extreme cases, and anybody in Kim's position should be represented by the best legal counsel he can find or afford.

Think of how you would feel if someday a team of lawyers convinced a judge to freeze your bank accounts before they even filed any charges or claims against you. It would kind of smart, no?

Seems to be working for me. Around 7PM outside Chiang Mai. I was able to log on with no problems. Visit other peoples' pages, too.

Anybody know why the stored rice is not being sold on the world market for whatever Thailand can get for it? And the money used to pay at least part of what's owed?

I heard today that under the rules of the WTO (World Trade Organization), subsidized crops and/or subsidized manf goods cannot be sold internationally, as it represents unfair competition. I also heard that the US and other large members of the G8 or G20 were putting a great deal of pressure on Thailand not to sell its warehoused rice on the international market -- or face sanctions if they try.

Has anyone else heard anything about this?

The WTO prohibits the dump of products below cost price on the international markets, as that would bring other countries in problem.

I think it might be more than that, Jesse. If Thai farmers are paid 15 Baht/kilo by the govt for the rice they grow, and farmers in other countries have to sell for only market price (say, 9 Baht/kilo), then Thai farmers will grow lots of rice no matter how low the price might be in world markets. Then Thailand will end up dumping lots of rice onto world markets and drive down the price for everyone, because the Thai farmers are insulated from free market forces. That's the unfair competition, and that's why the international community, AFAIK, is refusing to let Thailand sell it's subsidized rice -- at any price.

It's not a matter of the price they're willing to sell it at. It's the problem that Thai rice farmers have been insulated from market forces by the rice buying scheme. Therefore, they'll probably continue to grow as much as they can, no matter how low international prices might fall. And, over time, that will drive other, non-subsidized farmers in other countries, out of business.

That's how it was explained to me, anyhow.

Anyone know more about this than I do?

I think that is exactly what I said. If the Thai government pays 15.000 Bht to the farmers, then that is the cost price for the WTO, so Thailand isn't allowed to sell below 15.000 Bht on the world markets.

OK, yes, I understand now. I think we're on the same page.

So what can Thailand do with all that rice? Burn it? Give it away to the UN or other charities? Give it away to Thai people? Sell it locally?

From what I understand, it has been treated with several chemicals to keep it from spoiling or being eaten by rats, insects, etc. And that makes it questionable, whether it's really safe for human consumption now. Also, some of it is years old.

So what's going to happen to it? With people starving around the world, it seems criminal to just dump it. But I'm also not sure I'd want to find it showing up at the market where we shop.

What do you think?

After many negative things said about Thailand and Thai people in this Forum, this post shows how wonderful this country and some of the people here can be -- especially K. Yupin. If James had left that bag in most any other country I know of, he could have kissed it goodbye.

But Thai people can be wonderful and honest, especially helping each other out when things get lost. A friend of mine had her passport returned at one of the large airports here after it was dropped in the bathroom. Where else would that have happened?

But about that reward, James -- 10,000 Baht to K. Yupin is the best you could do? What a cheapskate! You should be ashamed of yourself!

You could have lost it all, you know. Probably would have if I had found your bag. Don't you think what K. Yupin did is worth at least 10%?? A minimum tip in the US, where you come from?

And what about the police? Not every pile of cash delivered to a police station ever finds it way out again, you know? After foolishly losing your bag, you were lucky enough to run into a saintly honest woman and similarly honest cops. And all you can pop for is a smile, thank you, and 10,000 Baht?

Come on, cheapskate, spread a little more of that money around. How about 100,000 Baht for K. Yupin and 100,000 Baht for one of the police charities or funds?

Anybody know why the stored rice is not being sold on the world market for whatever Thailand can get for it? And the money used to pay at least part of what's owed?

I heard today that under the rules of the WTO (World Trade Organization), subsidized crops and/or subsidized manf goods cannot be sold internationally, as it represents unfair competition. I also heard that the US and other large members of the G8 or G20 were putting a great deal of pressure on Thailand not to sell its warehoused rice on the international market -- or face sanctions if they try.

Has anyone else heard anything about this?

The WTO prohibits the dump of products below cost price on the international markets, as that would bring other countries in problem.

I think it might be more than that, Jesse. If Thai farmers are paid 15 Baht/kilo by the govt for the rice they grow, and farmers in other countries have to sell for only market price (say, 9 Baht/kilo), then Thai farmers will grow lots of rice no matter how low the price might be in world markets. Then Thailand will end up dumping lots of rice onto world markets and drive down the price for everyone, because the Thai farmers are insulated from free market forces. That's the unfair competition, and that's why the international community, AFAIK, is refusing to let Thailand sell it's subsidized rice -- at any price.

It's not a matter of the price they're willing to sell it at. It's the problem that Thai rice farmers have been insulated from market forces by the rice buying scheme. Therefore, they'll probably continue to grow as much as they can, no matter how low international prices might fall. And, over time, that will drive other, non-subsidized farmers in other countries, out of business.

That's how it was explained to me, anyhow.

Anyone know more about this than I do?

Anybody know why the stored rice is not being sold on the world market for whatever Thailand can get for it? And the money used to pay at least part of what's owed?

I heard today that under the rules of the WTO (World Trade Organization), subsidized crops and/or subsidized manf goods cannot be sold internationally, as it represents unfair competition. I also heard that the US and other large members of the G8 or G20 were putting a great deal of pressure on Thailand not to sell its warehoused rice on the international market -- or face sanctions if they try.

Has anyone else heard anything about this?

yes....we can all thank the exploitive foreigners who have come to thailand to exploit the poor thai land owners.  I recently chatted with a "real estate agent" who is proud of the fact that he has made billions acting as a middle-man and selling land owned by poor thai people.  He markets the land to foreigners only!  He is a pompous 'f' and represent exactly why land prices have gotten so out of control....G R E E D.  It seems that no matter what country I choose to live in....GREED is always there.

Uhh -- a broker sells land for as much as he can and that's bad? 

"GREED"?  "... so out of control..."? 

When you sell something what are you going to do?  Sell it for less than you could get?   

I think you're confusing "market price" with something bad.
 

Have you looked at Uruguay? The Sovereign Society has been plugging Uruguay and it sounds pretty good. Low prices, good economy, good banking, good climate, low taxes, affordable health care plans, plus relatively easy to get residency and citizenship, etc. If you haven't checked out Uruguay, you might want to.

I'm with Chelseaboy. Why does this article talk about a "self imposed exile"? I thought there was a criminal conviction with a 2 year jail sentence if he stepped foot into the Kingdom. That's what the Amnesty Bill was about, wasn't it? This "authoritative and well thought through" monograph seems to leave that part out. Or do I have my facts wrong?

If they'd drop the BS about doing it for "safety" and just say they're banning cel phones so as to not disturb the other passengers who prefer a little peace and quiet, I think the ban would go down a lot more easily.

They could also help the passengers (like me) who prefer a little peace and quiet by not yapping so much themselves over the PA.

I really don't need them to tell me about the weather where we're going, or the pilot to welcome me on board and yammer on about how much they appreciate me flying XXXX airline, or the advertisements for food, frequent passenger miles, etc.

I'd prefer that they can it and let us fly in peace.

"Anydvd" from Slysoft will also do the job. It's not free, though. It's a very neat little utility program which loads (if you want) and stays in the background. Then you can copy, paste, edit, etc any CD or DVD without worrying about DRM. Anydvd defeats it in the background, and you can treat the CD or DVD as though it was unprotected. Anydvd will also strip out ads, announcements, and clips you would otherwise be forced to let play. Anyhow, it sounds like you've got your problem solved. Good luck.

Sorry about the Adwords/Adsense mixup. My bad. Reading too fast. Thanks for pointing it out.

I did visit your site, though, Darkside, and there are a lot of references to alcoholism, sex, orgies, lust, drugs, mysogyny, etc. My guess is that, taken all together, it's a bit strong for Google.

Keep digging on the relevant Google sites, though. If it's like Adwords, you'll eventually find a help or contact link, where you can write to or call a live person and get back a reasonably intelligent answer. I don't think the problem is your Amazon link, but I might be wrong.

If you find out, maybe post the answer here? It might be helpful for some of the other people on this site. And me, too.

Good luck.

Hi Darkside --

No easy answers to your question, but Google has gotten better about giving more specific advice re fixing websites, landing pages, ads, or whatever else is triggering problems for you.

Unlike one of the other people who replied, I do think Adwords is worth the hassle. Google has come off their original idea of almost totally automating Adwords, and, when it works, IMO, it's probably one of the most cost effective ways to advertise. Think about it. Even though Google is a bit heavy handed about it, you end up only paying for clicks from people who are (at least theoretically) actually interested in what you're selling. No other conventional advertising offers that kind of value.

Dealing with Adwords can sometimes by *very* frustrating, but I've been helping a doctor friend of mine in the US fight this fight for almost 5 years, and we've gotten to the point where we can usually get things fixed in a couple of days. There is help from Google available. It's just not easy to find.

If you'd like more specific assistance, please send me a PM.

Good luck --

Paypal, Western Union, Bitcoin, Moneybookers/Skrill, XE.com website, etc. Most of these transfer services can work when banks won't. But "personal and business expenses" as the reason for sending the money should be OK for amounts under 200,000 THB. Non-bank services have their own share of headaches with their various security protocols, but they can be a good alternative to bank transfers. Setting up your own bank account overseas isn't always easy, and probably not worth it for a one time transaction, but if you're going to be sending money out of Thailand regularly, it's probably the best way. Setting up a foreign currency account inside Thailand to make transfers out easier also sounds like a good idea. Haven't tried it, but if you're not sending Baht out of the country, I'd guess there would be less scrutiny and questions. Hope all the suggestions above, and this summary, are helpful.

Try www.xe.com. They specialize in sending currencies from country to country.

Western Union is also pretty good these days, I think. They've gotten more competitive.

PayPal and similar companies can be expensive.

Telegraphic Transfer bank to bank is good for larger amounts. It usually costs around $40 depending on the bank.

Hope this helps.

Check it out a little more closely, Anugoon. I don't think children get nearsighted or farsighted from looking at small things close up. I think it has to do more with changes in the elasticity of the lens in our eyeballs as we get older.

Computer games and/or small tablets might do some harm, but I don't think we can hang the need for glasses on them. Eyestrain and headaches maybe, but not the need for glasses. When I was a kid, we used to read comic books for hours under the covers at night using flashlights. That was certainly just as bad as playing computer games on small tablets, but somehow we (and our eyes) all survived.

If anyone knows more about eyes and damage to eyes than I do, please feel free to join in.