Freudian Slip or Sour Grapes

[ilostmypassword]

Canada, Norway, and Singapore Governments all invest their sovereign wealth in markets. The Left won't have anything to do with it in the US, same goes for Medicare vouchers.

You're right. It was all those socialistic Republicans. Remember this?

"I have political capital. I intend to spend it"

That was from George Bush after the 2004 election. This was in reference to privatizing social security. He got just about zero support from his own party. But what's even more interesting about this sentiment is that, in effect, it calls for subsidizing the markets. The same conservatives who howl about quantitative easing jacking up stock prices, have no problem with the huge amount of cash the US govt. would inject into the markets if it were to follow the course that you think is sound. An interesting case of doublethink.

[NancyL]

As was the case with Richard Nixon, the cover-up led to his demise; not the actual crime. It was obvious that certain members of the CEC were doing their utmost to sweep the financial swindle under the rug, including keeping almost all mentions of it off of this forum. That led many of us to simply use google to get the details, including a report of a board member also being a moderator for this site. Is that still the case, Nancy? If so, I would say that is absolutely a conflict of interest.

I am not aware of any member of the Board having been a moderator of ThaiVisa now or in the past, for that matter. This is news to me.

And let's remember that CEC never swindled money from anyone. No CEC funds were lost. The former president, who has been out of the country since around October 2013 sold investments of inappropriate risk to fellow expats. One of his most egregious products was an Australian fund, LM which numerous "independent financial advisors" sold to thousands of investors around the globe. I know expats here in Chiang Mai who lost money with LM but not thru the former CEC president, but thru other IFAs.

CEC has moved on since the former president left the country. As for CEC sponsoring the Marc Faber talk -- yes the Board discussed if it was appropriate for us to sponsor his talk, given the club's history. But we realized he wasn't going to appeal to people to invest with him during the talk. And he didn't. As I said earlier, it was economics as entertainment with the funds raised going to charity. That's all it was.

[fcgprg]

No IFA appeals to anyone to invest through them ,it is a slow process of getting peoples confidence over a period of time .That makes it a lot easier to suggest products to people rather than the hard sell .

Mr Faber would have had no interest in selling investments at his talk it was simply a evening where people could listen to him explain in general his thoughts on various aspects of economics and to raise money for a deserving cause.

[bangmai]

Canada, Norway, and Singapore Governments all invest their sovereign wealth in markets. The Left won't have anything to do with it in the US, same goes for Medicare vouchers.

You're right. It was all those socialistic Republicans. Remember this?

"I have political capital. I intend to spend it"

That was from George Bush after the 2004 election. This was in reference to privatizing social security. He got just about zero support from his own party. But what's even more interesting about this sentiment is that, in effect, it calls for subsidizing the markets. The same conservatives who howl about quantitative easing jacking up stock prices, have no problem with the huge amount of cash the US govt. would inject into the markets if it were to follow the course that you think is sound. An interesting case of doublethink.

So only public employees get the benefit of having their retirement money invested in the markets? Ever hear of CALPERS? Owns about 1% of Apple. The term "political capital" was/is frequently used and has little to do with investing capital. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2004/11/americas_new_political_capital.html

[ilostmypassword]

Canada, Norway, and Singapore Governments all invest their sovereign wealth in markets. The Left won't have anything to do with it in the US, same goes for Medicare vouchers.

You're right. It was all those socialistic Republicans. Remember this?

"I have political capital. I intend to spend it"

That was from George Bush after the 2004 election. This was in reference to privatizing social security. He got just about zero support from his own party. But what's even more interesting about this sentiment is that, in effect, it calls for subsidizing the markets. The same conservatives who howl about quantitative easing jacking up stock prices, have no problem with the huge amount of cash the US govt. would inject into the markets if it were to follow the course that you think is sound. An interesting case of doublethink.

So only public employees get the benefit of having their retirement money invested in the markets? Ever hear of CALPERS? Owns about 1% of Apple. The term "political capital" was/is frequently used and has little to do with investing capital. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2004/11/americas_new_political_capital.html

You know there's something called the internet which acually allows you to look stuff up rather than shooting from the hip.

"Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results," Bush said at a news conference. But his win with a majority, he said, means "I earned...political capital, and now I intend to spend it. You've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-04-bush-newsconference_x.htm

And as for Calpers, how much money does it have to invest compared to the funds that there are in Social Security and such? I'll leave it to you to look it up. Looks like you need the practice.

Edited January 10, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[mesquite]

It's a typo. BTW it's Dr. Doom, not Mr. Doom.

[mesquite]

By the way in case of doubt, just wanted to clarify that the second part of my posting no.13 doesnt refer in any way to Mr. Faber. Regular readers and members of the expat club know to whom I m referring!

As the current president of the CM Expat Club and as someone who was at Mr. Faber's lecture, I'd like to comment on Postman Pat's two posts.

First, Dr. Faber doesn't make his living in asking "ordinary people" to invest with him, nor does he offer advice that is especially "actionable" for ordinary people -- except maybe for his advice, in response to a question -- not to invest in the economy of any one country or in any one industry. i.e. don't put your eggs in one basket. You won't see Dr. Faber working the expat hangouts in Chiang Mai asking retirees to invest their life savings with him. He makes his money from his newsletter, speaking fees and managing his own wealth. He's not a Bernie Madoff or like the guys who ran LMI; neither scandal was mentioned in his talk.

Now, for Postman Pat's comment that the "members of the expat club know to whom I'm referring", I'd suggest that many don't. Over 350 people have joined the club since the former president left the country. If you haven't been to a CEC meeting in over two years, then you're in for a surprise. The organization has been transformed. Now the Board is elected by the members. Any excess in operating revenue is used for charity. Actually, that provision was in the old constitution but at best 5000 or maybe 7500 baht a year was given to charity and it was unclear what happened to the rest of the excess. In 2014 -- the year of the "transition", 60,000 baht was given to charity, in 2015 over 164,000 baht was given for charity. The club has been able to increase its charitable activity as the membership grows and more business sponsors have joined.

CEC added an important new category of sponsors -- Community Service Sponsors -- so that groups like churches, charities, Rotary, RBL, LCN and others have partnered with us to utilize the CEC website, Facebook and e-newsletter to promote their activities and opportunities for community service. Now, CEC is about helping newcomer expats to get settled in Chiang Mai, build a good social network and provide opportunities for all expats to expand their friendships through social activities. The Outside Group Activities (OGAs) are key to this. These clubs-within-a-club operate independently of CEC, but like the Community Sponsors, they benefit from being able to tap into the communication resources of CEC. Some of the old-line OGAs, like Bridge Club and Computer Club, continue to operate quite successfully and we've added some exciting new ones in the past couple years -- Lawn Bowls and Expat Singers are two that come to mind right now.

So, if you haven't been to a CEC meeting in a couple years, I urge you to come back. The old "Coffee Mornings" have morphed into twice a month "Breakfast Club" extravaganzas, on the first and third Friday mornings at River Market, 9:30 am - 11:30 am, with a full breakfast buffet. Now over 100 people come, just to chat. Since the group has grown so large, for 2016 they've added cooked-to-order eggs and waffles and several buffet lines.

The monthly General Meetings at Le Meridien Hotel on the fourth Saturday morning. Arrive at 10 am for 10:30 am start. This month's program, Jan 23, will be courtesy of our Community Service Sponsors. The topic is "Community Service for and by Expats in Chiang Mai"

Dr. Faber also manages accounts for high net worth individuals. My guess is this does not include how to buy a < one million baht condo in Chiang Mai.

[mesquite]

As was the case with Richard Nixon, the cover-up led to his demise; not the actual crime. It was obvious that certain members of the CEC were doing their utmost to sweep the financial swindle under the rug, including keeping almost all mentions of it off of this forum. That led many of us to simply use google to get the details, including a report of a board member also being a moderator for this site. Is that still the case, Nancy? If so, I would say that is absolutely a conflict of interest.

I am not aware of any member of the Board having been a moderator of ThaiVisa now or in the past, for that matter. This is news to me.

And let's remember that CEC never swindled money from anyone. No CEC funds were lost. The former president, who has been out of the country since around October 2013 sold investments of inappropriate risk to fellow expats. One of his most egregious products was an Australian fund, LM which numerous "independent financial advisors" sold to thousands of investors around the globe. I know expats here in Chiang Mai who lost money with LM but not thru the former CEC president, but thru other IFAs.

CEC has moved on since the former president left the country. As for CEC sponsoring the Marc Faber talk -- yes the Board discussed if it was appropriate for us to sponsor his talk, given the club's history. But we realized he wasn't going to appeal to people to invest with him during the talk. And he didn't. As I said earlier, it was economics as entertainment with the funds raised going to charity. That's all it was.

The CEC and Dr. Faber himself probably guessed that there would be no high net worth individuals in the audience.

[mesquite]

Its funny in a way but rather tragic how many people are fascinated by people who they think can get them something for nothing. These people, the bankers and financiers that is, usually end up being the only people with massive fortunes and massive houses, whilst the "ordinary joes" of this world invariably end up crashing and burning and losing their hard earned savings.

Pay to hear this Faber person? Not a snowballs chance in hell! Having made his fortune, probably in part at the expense of ordinary people he now has the audacity to charge people to hear him speak. So too does Nick Leeson, the trader who brought down Berings Bank single handed!

Enough said. Rant over!

1000 THB ($28 US) to hear Marc Faber speak is a bargain and I'm sorry I missed it. Do you have any evidence that Faber made some of his fortune at the expense of "ordinary" people?

[bangmai]

If LM hadn't been paying people, like the former CEC President, a 9% up front commission on new monies, I doubt it would have seemed attractive to him either. While Mr. Faber is a respected member of the investment community, be weary of those who try to make you feel like you're part of a select group by being allowed to invest with individuals, who market themselves that way. That's how Madoff marketed himself, and I believe the old CEC did the same thing, as it wasn't really open to anyone, and of course, the board was not elected. So membership was just the start of the grooming process for future bilking.

[ilostmypassword]

Its funny in a way but rather tragic how many people are fascinated by people who they think can get them something for nothing. These people, the bankers and financiers that is, usually end up being the only people with massive fortunes and massive houses, whilst the "ordinary joes" of this world invariably end up crashing and burning and losing their hard earned savings.

Pay to hear this Faber person? Not a snowballs chance in hell! Having made his fortune, probably in part at the expense of ordinary people he now has the audacity to charge people to hear him speak. So too does Nick Leeson, the trader who brought down Berings Bank single handed!

Enough said. Rant over!

1000 THB ($28 US) to hear Marc Faber speak is a bargain and I'm sorry I missed it. Do you have any evidence that Faber made some of his fortune at the expense of "ordinary" people?

Why would it be a bargain apart from the entertainment value? His predictions about hyperinflation have been massively wrong? People who followed his advice over the last 4 years have lost a lot of money.

[bangmai]

Canada, Norway, and Singapore Governments all invest their sovereign wealth in markets. The Left won't have anything to do with it in the US, same goes for Medicare vouchers.

You're right. It was all those socialistic Republicans. Remember this?

"I have political capital. I intend to spend it"

That was from George Bush after the 2004 election. This was in reference to privatizing social security. He got just about zero support from his own party. But what's even more interesting about this sentiment is that, in effect, it calls for subsidizing the markets. The same conservatives who howl about quantitative easing jacking up stock prices, have no problem with the huge amount of cash the US govt. would inject into the markets if it were to follow the course that you think is sound. An interesting case of doublethink.

So only public employees get the benefit of having their retirement money invested in the markets? Ever hear of CALPERS? Owns about 1% of Apple. The term "political capital" was/is frequently used and has little to do with investing capital. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2004/11/americas_new_political_capital.html

You know there's something called the internet which acually allows you to look stuff up rather than shooting from the hip.

"Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results," Bush said at a news conference. But his win with a majority, he said, means "I earned...political capital, and now I intend to spend it. You've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-04-bush-newsconference_x.htm

And as for Calpers, how much money does it have to invest compared to the funds that there are in Social Security and such? I'll leave it to you to look it up. Looks like you need the practice.

His "political capital" was his 90% approval rating in 2002, and a solid win in his re-election. SS is 25,000,000,000,000+ underfunded....something must be done...http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/04/social-security-is-broken-commentary.html

[NancyL]

If LM hadn't been paying people, like the former CEC President, a 9% up front commission on new monies, I doubt it would have seemed attractive to him either. While Mr. Faber is a respected member of the investment community, be weary of those who try to make you feel like you're part of a select group by being allowed to invest with individuals, who market themselves that way. That's how Madoff marketed himself, and I believe the old CEC did the same thing, as it wasn't really open to anyone, and of course, the board was not elected. So membership was just the start of the grooming process for future bilking.

Bangmai -- I suspect you've never been to a CEC meeting, either under the old leadership or the new. CEC membership has always been open to anyone who could pay the lifetime member fee, which currently is 1000 baht and has been ever since I can remember.

As for the Board not being elected -- yes, this was an "interesting feature" of the old Constitution. You can download all the CEC Constitutions here: http://www.chiangmaiexpatsclub.com/constitution/ In the first Constitution there was provision for the Board to conduct an election, but no requirement, so the previous leadership "invited" people to join the Board. This was a small group and they were selected mainly for their abilities to organize and run the meetings for the members, not to enrich the president.

This "interesting feature" was corrected in the current Constitution so that now the Board members are elected annually.

[mesquite]

Its funny in a way but rather tragic how many people are fascinated by people who they think can get them something for nothing. These people, the bankers and financiers that is, usually end up being the only people with massive fortunes and massive houses, whilst the "ordinary joes" of this world invariably end up crashing and burning and losing their hard earned savings.

Pay to hear this Faber person? Not a snowballs chance in hell! Having made his fortune, probably in part at the expense of ordinary people he now has the audacity to charge people to hear him speak. So too does Nick Leeson, the trader who brought down Berings Bank single handed!

Enough said. Rant over!

1000 THB ($28 US) to hear Marc Faber speak is a bargain and I'm sorry I missed it. Do you have any evidence that Faber made some of his fortune at the expense of "ordinary" people?

Why would it be a bargain apart from the entertainment value? His predictions about hyperinflation have been massively wrong? People who followed his advice over the last 4 years have lost a lot of money.

He has interesting opinions and yes an entertaining style. I doubt if anyone can predict markets with 100% accuracy. I would not go to something like that expecting some kind of financial prediction that would make me millions. Jeesh, $30 buys you a hamburger in LA, a few cups of fancy coffee at Starbucks.

[ilostmypassword]

You know there's something called the internet which acually allows you to look stuff up rather than shooting from the hip.

"Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results," Bush said at a news conference. But his win with a majority, he said, means "I earned...political capital, and now I intend to spend it. You've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-11-04-bush-newsconference_x.htm

And as for Calpers, how much money does it have to invest compared to the funds that there are in Social Security and such? I'll leave it to you to look it up. Looks like you need the practice.

His "political capital" was his 90% approval rating in 2002, and a solid win in his re-election. SS is 25,000,000,000,000+ underfunded....something must be done...http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/04/social-security-is-broken-commentary.html

First off, I noticed you abandoned your claim that Bush wasn't referring to privatizing social security when he invoked his political capital. Now you claim that he was referring to 2002? Right after an election when's he's being asked what he plans to do next, he's referring to 2002? This makes no sense. Actually, in 2005 Bush's approval ratings began at slightly above 50% and pretty steadily fell to about 40% by the end of the year. I guess that's why you didn't cite those numbers but reverted back to sky high numbers in the wake of 9/11. You're not fooling anybody.

As for social security's future. The numbers you cite would be equivalent to saying you have to come up with, say $200,000 right now to pay for your infant's college tuition 18 years hence. Here's a better summary than I could do:

"According to the Social Security Trustees' report, relying too heavily on a 75-year projection "can lead to incorrect perceptions and policies that fail to address financial sustainability for the more distant future." To address this shortcoming, the Trustees Report calculates how much money must be placed in the Social Security Trust Fund right now in order to finance projected deficits for the infinite horizon. This amounts to $24.9 trillion, which is comprised of $10.6 trillion to cover the shortfalls from 2014-2088 (as explained above) and another $14.3 trillion to cover the shortfalls for 2089 and beyond.[125]"

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

Actually, if Federal taxes were to be raised a total of 3%, Social Security and Medicare could both be paid for into the infinite horizon.