Foriegners not being able to buy land.........

[khunsanuk]

Hi,

 

"...that is different..."

 

Fantastic argument

Of course, as you pointed out, none of them can tell you *how* it is different.

 

Also none mention the obvious reason that one benefits them, whereas the other does not.

 

Sanuk!

[FIGJAM]

chuckwoww said:

I was just trying to make the same point I've been making all along. Namely TIT. I don't see why the US economic model, which has worked well up to now in the US, should work well everywhere.

 

As the US matures I suspect they will have to look at the way older more established societies handle things like land ownership and immigration.

In any of the "Great 7" countries you can show up on a tourist visa and buy land and, Japan aside (the only non-western country, how funny...), it's, relatively, very easy to get a work permit, become a citizen and be part of the society.

Countries like Italy, Germany, France and the UK (exactly like Thailand) aren't young at all but very old and well matured societies.

 

Look at all the other very old and well matured societies in Europe, they all do the same.

Look at all the "young" societies of European heritage (among which there is the US), they all do the same.

 

The countries which handle things like land ownership the way Thailand does are the economically less developed ones (and among these ones there are countries with exceptional natural resources, much "richer" than many 1st world countries), and the countries which handle things like immigration the way Thailand does are, simply, all the non-western ones (REGARDLESS OF THEIR WEALTH).

 

What does it say to the smart, non PC-handicapped man?

 

 

A dream socio-economic-political experiment would be to substitute the entire population of a typical 3rd world country, say the LOS, with 60 million westerners with their laws, values, principles and ideas and see what happens.

And substitute the entire population of a typical 1st world country, say the UK or Italy which both are comparable in size and population to Thailand, with 60 million Thais with their laws, values, principles and ideas and see what happens.

 

Then come back to tell me that we have nothing to teach them and that their societies, laws, values and principles are not, unlike their economies, UNDER DEVELOPED...

[Guest]

I also asked these Thais, if they thought Ex-pats living in Thailand should be allowed to just own 1 rai, or a smaller lot, in their name, solely for the purpose of having a home, of course the answer was also no.

The doubel standards here are obvious - they own land in the U.S., but they don't even think ex-pats living in Thailand (who, incidentally, pay taxes) should be able to buy a house for themselves. Did you happen to ask why?

 

I have asked that question here, and the answer is usually something along the lines of "Farangs will take over the country" or "Farangs have more money the we have". And the strangest thing is that I will hear this from Thais who are much much wealthier than most of us (or at least me). One of the guys who gave me this answer owns a Porsche (in Thailand), has a house with several rai of land off of Sukhumvit, owns property in the Berkely hills (Northern California) and has some sort of villa somewhere in Tuscany. Oh, and he speculates on property all over Thailand. I have no idea what he is worth, but I know he has nothing to fear from me.

 

An interesting little factoid for any following the news here in Thailand about the PM's "little" share sale. Many years ago, before the financial crisis, the Revenue Department, in an effort to encourage payment of income taxes, released the names of the top 200 taxpayers in Thailand. I guess the idea was that this sort of publicity would encourage people to do their civic duty and pay their taxes.

 

"The Nation" published the list. The most interesting thing about this list was who was NOT on the list. Many wealthy Thais, known to be either US dollar billionaires or multimillionaires, simply failed to make the list. In fact, about 120 of the top taxpayers were ex-pats, and while their salaries were not low (around USD 150,000 to USD 250,000 per annum), they certainly weren't the wealthiest people in Thailand. It was a huge embarrassment and loss of face. To my knowledge, the Revenue Department never did this again.

[Guest]

"I have asked that question here, and the answer is usually something along the lines of "Farangs will take over the country" or "Farangs have more money the we have". And the strangest thing is that I will hear this from Thais who are much much wealthier than most of us (or at least me".

 

It is maybe not a matter of this or that Thai being richer than this and that farang. Fact is that if an extremely attractive land area as Thailand opens up to the world, massive international demand will (according to the Thai view) swallow it and transform big parts of Thailand to a Phuket style enclave.

 

I really don't know how I feel about it. The Thais themselves have wasted so much of its coastal areas so responsible foreign owners

might be better for environment and the local population.

 

I guess its about "Thainess".

[FIGJAM]

carygrant said:Fact is that if an extremely attractive land area as Thailand opens up to the world, massive international demand will (according to the Thai view) swallow it and transform big parts of Thailand to a Phuket style enclave.

I'm puzzled. Hasn't the development of that dump called Phuket been an all-Thai affair in full accordance with normal Thai business practices?

Where has all-Thai development led to anything else than Phuket/Samui/Pattaya type of development?

 

When left to themselves, this is the only type of development you could expect from a 3rd world country with its 3rd world ways. Look at China and its environmental disaster for another bright example.

[Guest]

FIGJAM said:

 

 

When left to themselves, this is the only type of development you could expect from a 3rd world country with its 3rd world ways. Look at China and its environmental disaster for another bright example.

 

Wasn't it something like that I wrote?

 

By Phuket style enclave I mean the foreign millionare style luxury properties, not particulaily the environment. Anyway with these aquisations by foreigners already being possible, why do they have to change the law at all...?

[Old Hippie]

"...The doubel standards here are obvious - they own land in the U.S., but they don't even think ex-pats living in Thailand (who, incidentally, pay taxes) should be able to buy a house for themselves. Did you happen to ask why?..."

 

Yes, I did ask why, as I stated above, the answer was "...the USA is differnt..." ot "...well that is different..." No real logic to it, yet I knew not to expect any. I have had the same argument/question with zillions of Phillipinos that live here, they gave the same answer. So the "logic" seems to not just stop at the Thai border...

[chuckwoww]

It is maybe not a matter of this or that Thai being richer than this and that farang. Fact is that if an extremely attractive land area as Thailand opens up to the world, massive international demand will (according to the Thai view) swallow it and transform big parts of Thailand to a Phuket style enclave.

 

I really don't know how I feel about it. The Thais themselves have wasted so much of its coastal areas so responsible foreign owners

might be better for environment and the local population.

 

I guess its about "Thainess".

 

It's about national pride. And fear. Fear of foreigners. The question is whether the fear is justified or not. They might be wrong to be afraid or they might become second class citizens in their own country. There's really only one way to find out. Come on Thailand....open your legs baby.

[chuckwoww]

In any of the "Great 7" countries you can show up on a tourist visa and buy land and, Japan aside (the only non-western country, how funny...), it's, relatively, very easy to get a work permit, become a citizen and be part of the society.

Countries like Italy, Germany, France and the UK (exactly like Thailand) aren't young at all but very old and well matured societies.

 

Look at all the other very old and well matured societies in Europe, they all do the same.

Look at all the "young" societies of European heritage (among which there is the US), they all do the same.

 

The countries which handle things like land ownership the way Thailand does are the economically less developed ones (and among these ones there are countries with exceptional natural resources, much "richer" than many 1st world countries), and the countries which handle things like immigration the way Thailand does are, simply, all the non-western ones (REGARDLESS OF THEIR WEALTH).

 

What does it say to the smart, non PC-handicapped man?

 

 

A dream socio-economic-political experiment would be to substitute the entire population of a typical 3rd world country, say the LOS, with 60 million westerners with their laws, values, principles and ideas and see what happens.

And substitute the entire population of a typical 1st world country, say the UK or Italy which both are comparable in size and population to Thailand, with 60 million Thais with their laws, values, principles and ideas and see what happens.

 

Then come back to tell me that we have nothing to teach them and that their societies, laws, values and principles are not, unlike their economies, UNDER DEVELOPED...

 

I think you will find that European countries are getting less and less enthusiastic about granting citizenship to anyone that applies. Immigrants aren't as welcome as they used to be. I think the US will gradually get the same way. Getting into the US isn't as easy as it used to be. If the economy turns around, and cheap Mexican labour is no longer needed, it could change even faster.

 

As regards Thailand you're just saying the same thing that's been said a dozen times on this thread already. Thailand is backward and needs to open up. This is basically the argument used by people who want to buy a slice of it. The same people who once tried to take over Asia by force. You'll have a hard time convincing Thais that opening up will be in their best interests.

[FIGJAM]

chuckwoww said:It's about national pride. And fear. Fear of foreigners.

You have just given the literal definition of the term "xenophobia".

 

 

The question is whether the fear is justified or not. They might be wrong to be afraid or they might become second class citizens in their own country.

In the strong Thai class system (typical of Asian societies) the vast majority of the population ALREADY IS "second (or better said third, given the huge difference between the small rich ruling class and all the rest) class citizens".

 

 

There's really only one way to find out. Come on Thailand....open your legs baby.

Oh... she already does it. She sells her pussy to foreigners for money but refuses to marry them because she doesn't love them and because she thinks this way she can extract more money from them and not be "owned" by them.

In other words she is being fucked for pennies and she thinks she is being smart...

 

... and I am laughing all the way to the brothel