Banks raise interest rates

As reported by thaivisa.com all banks have now raised interest rates on 12 month savings from 0.25% to 3.25%. Loan interests junp from 0.25 to 7.25 for MLR and 7.75% MOR and MRR. Good for deposits but bad for those paying ineteest on loans. Not a good sign for the long haul.

Surely a rise of some 1000% suggest banking problems... Thailand is in trouble! Big trouble. Watch out for devaluation. Baht at 80 to the ┬г by 2007 - not the baht in your pocket, of course.

[ikarus]

re

[cottmann]

Thailand is in no trouble. Interest rates are going up in all countries of the region, including Korea and Japan (in near future). This is a natural way to fight inflation in the envoronment of growing economy.

As The Bank of Japan has decided to end its zero percent interest rate policy today (hooray - 1 yen per month per 1.5 million yen in a Citibank account is laughable!), a lot of the money that has moved out of Japan will come back if the interest rate rises significantly. This will make money more expensive elsewhere - including the US and the UK - and probably alter the value of the yen versus other currencies, and hopefully make my trips to LOS cheaper.

Are a pretty good indicator of the overall economy. As someone pointed out, interest rate hikes on the Prime Rate (what the gov't charges banks) rise to curb inflation and lower to fend off recession.

The "Fed" (Federal Reserve) is constantly monitoring the economy and will raise and lower the rate in small increments - usually a quarter point at a time. New loan offerings, ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages), Bond and Savings interest will rise and fall as well.

With such an extreme change in the Thai rates, it appears to me that the interest rates haven't been keeping up with the economy, so an extreme adjustment was necessary.

As in all things, I could be blowing smoke out my ass as a result of my ignorance.

Are you sure there has been this extreme hike in interest rates or did someone type "from" when he should have typed "by"?

[TrongpaiExpat]

I don't think Thailand has a Federal Reserve Bank with an independent chairman. I think it's more controlled by a ministry under Thai Rak Thai.

Economist are split on how much effect rising and lowering prime rates has on either inflation or the strength of the currency.

The banks in Thailand were paying .08 just before the the 97 currency crash.

So, is Thailand in trouble, who knows?

The Bank of Thailand (BOT) set the prime rate ( UK call base rate). But I don't know whether the BOT must obtain an approval from the Finance Minister when they want to increase/cut the prime rate or not. Unlike in the west, most Thai banks do not always increase/cut their interest rates to comply with the BOT's prime rate's change. Often, the BOT have got very annoyed by them.

I wish the interest rate would go up high again. I used to enjoy 8% - 10% interest and now it's just about 2% - 3%.

Talking about trouble: surely UK pound is in big trouble due to the country's double deficit and visible slowdown in economy. Yes, UK pound can go up versus US dollar but the direction is clearly down versus Thai baht in near future.

But the UK can handle that sort of problem, with reserves.

[cottmann]

Talking about trouble: surely UK pound is in big trouble due to the country's double deficit and visible slowdown in economy. Yes, UK pound can go up versus US dollar but the direction is clearly down versus Thai baht in near future.

But the UK can handle that sort of problem, with reserves.

The IMF at http://www.imf.org/external/np/sta/ir/colist.htm has information on official foreign and other reserves by country. The Thai reserves are not insignificant, the UK reserves not as much as such a first-world country could expect, the US reserves positively piddling - presumably because they bank (no pun intended) on the US$ as the world default currency - and the Japanese way, way too much.

Reserves are part of the picture, but there is a lot more into it that make currencies fluctuate. Fundamentally, the UK economy is in a stable and consistent position, therefore, the "problems" are not on this side of the water, the same with the US, their economy is fundamentally sound, even though there are "China" problems in the long term. However, it will take 30 years for China to filter through ultimately, it will also take probably 30 years for the WTO to sort China out with regard to piracy, cheap goods, unpegging the yuan etc, but eventually they will be sorted and more in line with "economics".

Now Thailand has different problems altogether, the first being an unstable government, can anyone tell me more about the fundamental problems (if any) of the economy that would cause problems with the currency ????

On another note the recent slide in the UK pound to the bht is mainly linked to the increased value of the US dollar - now that the US economy is well on course, its currency is strengthening, probably back to pre 2000 levels (to the UK pound). Although a lot may disagree, but the bht, although "said" linked to asian basket of currencies, is somehow linked to the US dollar. If the US dollar increases or decreases in value then the bht seems to follow suit.

I don't know how much the dollar can increase much more to the UK pound, at the moment it is about 1.73, a lot of difference to the 1.90 it was a year or so ago.

I think the bht will increase in value over the next few months or certainly stay static. In essence, this is probably what some western countries want, as it will make their imports much cheaper. Lets face it, whilst good for Thailand, UK producers would love cheaper goods from Thailand and other asian countries (if the same is happening to the relevant currencies of course).

can anyone tell me more about the fundamental problems (if any) of the economy that would cause problems with the currency

...the exchange rate for the smile is a steepening curve...

[cottmann]

Reserves are part of the picture, but there is a lot more into it that make currencies fluctuate.

True. Best performing economes in real growth rate of GDP? 1. Iraq at 52.3%; 2. Chad at 38%. 3. Liberia at 21.8%. These countries all have very strong currencies, of course!

Lies, damn lies and statistics :downtown:

Reserves are part of the picture, but there is a lot more into it that make currencies fluctuate.

True. Best performing economes in real growth rate of GDP? 1. Iraq at 52.3%; 2. Chad at 38%. 3. Liberia at 21.8%. These countries all have very strong currencies, of course!

Lies, damn lies and statistics :downtown:

Now your'e talking about countries that are as corrupt as they come, even Iraq, however, I do appreciate that their is corruption in most countries, but all in context please. I bet there is one winner who makes millions in these countries, as opposed to dozens and dozens that who don't. And whilst growth may be in high figures, they aint got much to show for it. And their reserves, well need I say more.

[cottmann]

White Desire,

The point I was trying to make, which I obviously did not make clearly, is that statistics, such as the claim that the UK and US economies are stable, consistent, sound, etc., can disguise a different picture. The figures on US job growth, for example, disguise the fact that the growth is in lower-paid jobs because the higher-paid ones have moved overseas. The recent US job growth statistics are very good - but the unemployment rate has not fallen.
Political instability need not affect the economy. For example, for years Italy had revolving door governments but it still managed to be the fifth-best economy in the world. Many countries with stable governments are not performing particularly well in economic terms - such as Japan and North Korea!
And if Iraq is now one of the most corrupt countries on the globe, we have to remember how it got that way!

[Bob]

The US unemployment rate has been steadily dropping for 3 years so I'm not sure where you get your information,Cottman.
January rate was 4.7 and February had a slight uptick and ended at 4.8. But those rates historically are low (the rate has fluctuated between 4% and 10% since 1960) and actually the best rates since about 1990. With all the other bad stuff happening, sorta difficult to hear the good news. The US rate is similar to the estimate for 2005 for the UK and about one-half (yep, you read that right) of the unemployment rate of France and Germany.

[Smiles]

The US national debt now sits at 8.3 trillion dollars ( http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ ) is the unstable fly in the ointment.

Although the US economy in total dwarfs all others, there will/may come a time when the interest on this vast amount burdens the country so badly that a crash of the dollar might be in the cards: For instance, a mini crash has already taken place viv-a-vis the US $ and the Canadian $: 3 years ago one Canadian dollar could purchase only 63 cents American. Today one CA$ will purchase almost 87 cents American. And still going up)

http://upload3.postimage.org/75185/usdollar.jpg (http://upload3.postimage.org/75185/photo_hosting.html)

If this experience with one country is translated into the world as a whole, the tank in the US economy may well bring everyone down.
I'm no economist by any stretch of the imagination, but I well know the financial pain of too much credit card debt . . . exactly same same for countries.
The astronomical size of the US debt is a much-neglected (possible) disaster for the near future.

Cheers ...

[ikarus]

re

Now UK pound is grossly overpriced. Each time I am in UK I equate 1 US dollar to 1 UK pound to make any sense of pricing in UK. Every Britt should feel kind of eiforia leaving the country by getting suddenly tremendous purchasing power. Of course, it is artificial and will come to end sooner or later

You are absolutely right Ikarus. I know the euforia, even those days when I travel to countries like Switzerland and Sweden which I used to regard as high priced. Now, what should my strategy be to reduce the exposure of my portfolio to over-valued sterling. El Colonel has persuaded me that bricks and mortar in Jomtien or Silom is a poor investment but I'm not so sure. Kampong Golf requires that Medical Insurance and I know that will become impossibly expensive as I get older. Property in Florida is likely to be blown away in a hurricane...

Property in Florida is likely to be blown away in a hurricane...

Not if you tie it to a leash like your other movable assets.

[ikarus]

re

[ikarus]

re

[Smiles]

" ... So -called crash of US dollar versus looney is partially a cyclical condition due to the high commodity prices. This cycle most probably coming to an end. So, Smiles, dear, be ready for looney dive just in time for your retirement..."
You are correct about fluctuating commodity prices, but that only means "they go up & down" . . . a happening phenomenon since the beginning of human economic activity, whether it's oil, gold, or #21 at Throb.

But the fact remains that the commodities themselves remain (in the ground, in the air, in the glaciers etc etc), which in the long run generally bodes well for countries which have 'em in abundance.

I really don't care that much about our fluctating dollar (don't really like going to the States anyway ... rather fly over it ~ no offence meant). What I do rather like to see is that I can purchase quite a few more baht for one Canadian dollar than I could when I started coming to Thailand. If that dynamic keeps up ( always understanding that "things fluctate" ), great. If it goes in the opposite direction ( which it will, as "things do fluctate"), too bad. It's not the end of the world for me.


By the way Ikarus, as you seem to be quite the financial dude (which I am not ~ it being dreary) . . . do you have any thoughts on the point I posted about above?
What do you think ~ in general ~ about the humungous US national debt? Do you think of it as a looming disaster, or do you think it "controllable", that is to say, not the Big Problem it has the appearance of being.
I'd like to read your thoughts on this.

Cheers ...

Thanks for your views, Ikarus. This is the time of year when I get focussed on how to avoid some UK tax. I have more than a few friends whose retirement activity became moving the assets around. I don't really have time for that while my employer insists on not bribing me into early retirement so currently I'm looking for medium term safe havens. Meanwhile my Japanese Banker friend in the city tells me he has seen head and shoulders twice recently.

[Bob]

Smiles, I'm not an economist either (like you said....boring!) but I too have worried about the US National Debt mainly from the currency point of view. About 60% of our national debt is "financed" by foreign countries, i.e., they are stashing (historically, because of rate of return and safety) their reserves in US Treasury Notes. If currencies don't fluctuate, then they have their money stored in about the safest place in the world and are receiving a 4-5% return. However, when the US dollar drops relative to the foreign currency, the principal of their money is dropping proportionately (presuming they cash them in). So,
take China for example, why would they want to earn 4-5% when their principal is dropping over 10% per year? Beats the hell out of me but that seems to be the backdrop for a major run against the US dollar (oh, what the hell, we'll just print some more). Yet, it hasn't been happening (there must be another reason they won't do that).
As concerns the US debt, there's the school of thought that says we're simply fueling the drop in the US dollar and harming the US economy by restricting growth (because borrowing is restricted). Yet, the dollar is dropping and, relative to other old line economies, the US economy is doing just fine. Then there is the school of thought that suggests that the US is benefitted by the world giving us a huge percentage of their goods in exchange for pieces of paper (dollars). Hell if I know.
The US national debt is about 8.2 trillion.....yet the gross national product for the US is about 11.5 trillion (Canada's gnp is about 800 billion). If we can compare that to a typical family, their debt (mortgages, credit card debt, etc.) is often 5-6 times their gross annual income (we never seem to worry about somebody owing a 300,000.00 mortgage when their annual income is $75,000.00). Given the US is borrowing at a rate a percentage point or two better than the average borrower, maybe having debt of about 70% of one year's income isn't really so bad. Hell if I know.
One poster suggested we need Clinton back to straighten out the debt situation. I doubt if the Clinton administration (or any administration) really controls the economy that much (although they claim they did it if things are going well). But, what the hell, reading about blowjobs in the oval office was much more fun than IED's in Iraq! :cheers:

[ikarus]

re

Anyone remember St. Ronald Reagan? Patron Saint of "Trickle Down" where the more money the people at the top earn, the more they will be able to put back into the economy (for jets and yachts and undocmented nannies) and thereby the more money in the pockets of the unwashed masses.

The economy boomed - but the boom had a mushroom cloud attached. The market crashed and even blowing the crap out of Iraq - and not hanging around for years afterwards - couldn't win papa Bush a second term. "Its the economy, stupid" was the catch phrase that put Clinton in office.

However, george the first can't b ebtirely blamed for the troubled economy - because it was truly a result of the overindulgence during the Reagan years - much the same that Clinton couldn't be completely credited with the recovery. However, during his eight years, the economy did grow, government spending was moderated and taxes were higher. When you have higher taxes from more wage-earners, that eman more money in the government coffers - and we were actually forecasting budget surpluses, plus substantial national debt reductions in the coming years.

Then came the kerfuffle...
As much as I despise our current president I do not blame him for 9/11 or Enron, Tyco, Worldcom etc. The abuses that brought these companies down had been going on for years - they simply came to a head at a really lousy time for this country.

I do blame him for the free money giveaway that sucked out every penny of the budget surplus. I blame him for waging a "War on Terror" and then losing interest in actually finding bin Laden - like a child with ADD - immeditaly starting a vendetta against Iraq and supporting it wth lies and lives and money we do not have. I blame him for growing our goverment (in a move that is completely contradictory to the traditional conservative value of "smaller government") and for creating unfunded mandates for states - and underfunding national mandates (like No Child Left Behind)

I blame him for never having used his veto power despite the staggering amounts of pork tacked onto each and every bill that passes congress. I blame him for cutting taxes, and then continuing to seek ways of cutting further taxes for those best able to pay.

Can the US survuve its current national debt? Yes, if...

The republican party, as long as it wields the power, will return to the ideals of fiscal conservativism and stop throwing good money after bad - or -

If the democrats can take control of congress, moderate the reckless tax cuts, shrink the hideously disproportionate military budget, reappropriate the budget in responsible ways and shed the image of "tax and spend" to the saner "tax and save"

Part of Bush's problem was somehow believeing that, like the great depression, the country's economic woes could be salvaged by warfare. It is true that WWII - plus the public works initiatives taht Roosevelt put in place, helped bring the country back to strength - but what is conveniently forgotten in this day and age is that all of this was coupled with a considerable belt-tightening on the part of the American people - rationing for many commodities being first and foremost.

Any president today, in the environment of over-indulgence that has become equal to a civil right in this country, who might suggest that a way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be to simply use less of it, would be run out of town on the rails.

The single advantage to so much of our debt being held by foreign countries is that it is now in the vested interest of the world to make sure the dollar doesn't collapse. It will get weaker still - but as the pendulum swings back our economy will grow and thrive - and it will leave a wake of euphoria that will once again find us Americans stark, bollocks naked with our thumbs up our collective anuses the next time it reverses.

Can one of you wise men please tell me when is the best time to buy a house, anywhere in the world? I will be a first time buyer, but do I wait for interest rates to go down or do I deplete my capital? What do people do.
It could take years for the conditions to be just so right. But when do you commit? I remember all the negative equity problems from the UK and Asia in the last while so am very nervous.

The best time to buy a house is when you can afford it. The last people you listen to about fluctuations in real-estate are agents. Last time I bought in the UK market I "lost" ┬г20,000 in six months within six years my property had double in "ticket" price.

Most mortagaes in the UK are variable rate so waithing for interest rates to go down won't help much. Those holding negative equity in the UK are mostly folk who bought at the time when regulaions on how much people could borrow were relaxed. HongKong has been a helter-skelter on the run-up to '97 and took a massive correction a couple of years after the handover but many of mypartner's class mates are in negative equity and earning less than pre-1997. The reason I don't put money in real estate in HK si that I couldn't live in th amount of space I can afford to buy there, except maybe on some remote Island.

Hmm yes I hear you northstar except every-one buys a second flat in HK not to live in but as a form of investment. The prices are very very high and you get fook all for your money.Last I saw a pathetic 2 bdr duplex free standing with a tiny concrete patio for 30 000 000.

But so you still got to buy. Since I have been listening people have had problems with property bubbles negative equity collapsing prices blah blah blah so when to enter the market? Now they say prices are too high again and interest rates will keep going up. Then they said no because prices were going to plumet.
If I keep listening it seems the time is never right. I can afford but I dont want to loose, so Im not getting something about all this advice in the papers.

I get worried about money lying in the bank doing bugger all for years on end.

People who get their timing exactly right to the best possible investments are very rich and probably time travellers. People who start investing regularly while their mates are clubing and swilling may have a better retirement than their mates and less ikelihood of a heart attack. Invest some, spend some, live like every day may be your last but then again may not be.


Diversity?

Yep thats me, I only spend other peoples money. I mean that in a nice way of course. I am a very nervous spender still.

I still think that there are a series of threats to the Thai economy which go deeper than interest rates, which are manipulated anyway. First there is the dodgy democracy which always has the ghost of the military in the background. I doubt there will be a coup whilst present HM is with us, but... and then there is oil. Weather, the unstable Middle East, nuclear attitudes of Iran, Nigeria, Korea, terrorism in Thailand and global, the definate link with the $ which is vulnerable to EVERYTHING (check the baht graph against the ┬г and the $ graph against the ┬г for the last couple of years - see the link)... all are set to throw the baht all over the place... in short the Thai economy is false and propped. It might go down to 59 or so, and quite soon... but I have hung my wallet on the mast of the baht being 80 to the ┬г comes March 2007.

If I am wrong I shall come and seek ruination by offing the entire staff of... I'll have to do some research first.

Here's a great website for historical FX history, all free and can be easily pasted into Excel.

http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory

I just hope White Desire doesn't cum in his pants. :cheers: Seriously, I think you'll apreciate it.

Great FX website (http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory)

[cottmann]

The US unemployment rate has been steadily dropping for 3 years so I'm not sure where you get your information,Cottman.
January rate was 4.7 and February had a slight uptick and ended at 4.8. But those rates historically are low (the rate has fluctuated between 4% and 10% since 1960) and actually the best rates since about 1990. With all the other bad stuff happening, sorta difficult to hear the good news. The US rate is similar to the estimate for 2005 for the UK and about one-half (yep, you read that right) of the unemployment rate of France and Germany.

It is well-known among economists - if not among journalists - that the US figures are meaningless as they exclude about half the relevant population - discouraged workers; long-term unemployed; independent contractors; part-time workers, commuters from nearby states who lose jobs and are counted only where they live, not where they work; and residents who simply give up and move away.

The US BLS maintains six unemployment figures, U-1 through U-6, but the media only reports U-3. The most inclusive figure, U-6, the BLS defines as "Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers" where the following definitions applies: Marginally attached workers are persons who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the recent past. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for a job. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.

In February 2006, the U-6 number was 8.5% - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm.

That is where I get my figures.

An economist named John Williams notes that in fact, there are seven or eight different employment statistics, with U-3 the official one and U-6 the broadest one. As he explains, however, the one that's the most historically consistent is running around 12%.

The standardized unemployment rate in the Euro zone in January 2005 was 8.3% and in Japan it was 4.5%.



Cottman also wrong in another aspect: there are currently plenty of high paid jobs available in US which require high qualifications: starting from those required University degree and up to Ph D in various areas of Engineering, for example. Those people who does not have skills are in effect those who suffer.

I am sure that you may be right, ikarus. Given the recently-publicized findings about the quality of US college education, however, I am not sure that is a very comfortable situation - http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/ ... asks_x.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-01-19-college-tasks_x.htm)

"Study: most college students lack skills
WASHINGTON (AP) тАФ Nearing a diploma, most college students cannot handle many complex but common tasks, from understanding credit card offers to comparing the cost per ounce of food.
Those are the sobering findings of a study of literacy on college campuses, the first to target the skills of students as they approach the start of their careers.
More than 50% of students at four-year schools and more than 75% at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks.
That means they could not interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school......"

PHD = Pizza Hut Delivery?

Your comments on job availability in the US contradict those of people like Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. In terms of architecture and engineering jobs, he recently wrote:
"In five years the US economy only created 70,000 jobs in architecture and engineering, many of which are clerical. Little wonder engineering enrollments are shrinking. There are no jobs for graduates. The talk about engineering shortages is absolute ignorance. There are several hundred thousand American engineers who are unemployed and have been for years. No student wants a degree that is nothing but a ticket to a soup line. Many engineers have written to me that they cannot even get Wal-Mart jobs because their education makes them over-qualified."

The rest of this interesting article is at http://www.rense.com/general69/nucon.htm

However, White desire is absolutely wrong when he is talking about solid foundation of US economy. Thai baht is not connected to US dollar and , in fact, appreciated quite a bit during couple of last monthes . So-called political instability in Thailand is something which does not exist. Barring military coup Thai Rak will stay in power. It is clear to everybody except for may be shallow, pompous jerks like Hedda.
W.D. you are absolutely wrong on all counts. And why some people just love to talk about something they have no clue about

A couple of points here - I wouldn't exactly say I was wrong with regard to a solid foundation in the US economy. To a certain degree the US economy IS fairly solid. If you look at the past 20 years of the economy in the US, even during recessions, deficits, high unemployment, the US economy has'nt exactly been at the bread queue, even during the last recession in 2000 ish, I would hardly say the US is in the doldrums. When it comes to economics, you generally have to work in cycles, the current economic cycle is doing very well in the US, very well indeed. Perhaps you can give me your definition of a "solid economy".

With regard to "so called political instability in Thailand is something which does not exist" - I take it you're joking here - politically anything is possible in Thailand, its really amazing how a build up to cause disruptions within a government can be, one minute a small anti government rally in a side street and before you know it major rallies take place. Look what happened only recently when cartoons of Mohammed were in the press, and even Al Quada to a certain degree, from little acorns, easy as pie.

With regard to Hedda being a jerk - I can't comment, but not a very nice comment to say the least, and can't comment on "some people like to talk about something they have no clue about" - except for the fact that it does not include me "for sure" but it does include you Ikarus.

Overall, this is a receipt for a huge disaster. Of course, what I am saying is well-known and even trivial which makes me wonder what kind of qualifications White Desire has. Obviously, he propagates his BS about curencies hear for ages but BS is just BS. Now UK pound is grossly overpriced. Each time I am in UK I equate 1 US dollar to 1 UK pound to make any sense of pricing in UK. Every Britt should feel kind of eiforia leaving the country by getting suddenly tremendous purchasing power. Of course, it is artificial and will come to end sooner or later.
Thai baht is not connected to US dollar and , in fact, appreciated quite a bit during couple of last monthes

With regard to these points:

Don't assume Ikarus, believe me I am qualified and that's all you need to know.

With regard to equating 1 US dollar to 1 UK pound - derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! What planet are you on. You are quite obviously a patriotic US citizen and jealous stiff of the UK position in econmics or to put it more precisely "getting more bht for our UK pound than you do for your US dollar". Since the 1997 Asian crisis, this has been been the case, that is in economic terms "long-term". Whilst it has recently dropped about 7 bht in the past 6 or seven months (74 odd bht as opposed to 67 odd bht to the UK pound today), that is due to the US dollar getting stronger, to spell it out for you Ikkarus, the US dollar has got stronger against the UK pound over the past 6 or 7 months. I never said the bht is linked to the US dollar because it isn't, its linked to a basket of currencies in Asia, but "indirectly" the bht seems to fluctuate either way when the US dollar decreases or increases in value as in this case. When the US dollar was fairly weak a few years back the bht was strong as it was against the UK pound.

Finally, are you qualified to discuss such subjects or is it is BS also. I failed my BS degree - it just did'nt suit me, but I bet you got a 1:1

" By the way Ikarus, as you seem to be quite the financial dude (which I am not ...

I wouldn't want Ikarus as my financial adviser for sure!!!!

all are set to throw the baht all over the place... in short the Thai economy is false and propped. It might go down to 59 or so, and quite soon... but I have hung my wallet on the mast of the baht being 80 to the ┬г comes March 2007So the baht will devalue by 20% against the British pound. Have you factored in Gordon Brown becoming PM by then or not?

I failed my BS degree - it just did'nt suit me, but I bet you got a 1:1Is that buying or selling?

[ikarus]

Cottman,
I am University professor and can tell you that all our PH D students who graduated last year are doing just fine: mathematics, physics, engineering... Of course, not everybody can lauch an academic career but industrial jobs are plentyful. Many people have multiple offers. It is generally reflects very good market conditions for qualified workers. Your views about educational system in US are stereotypical to put it mildly and do not reflect the reality. The bulshit of White Desire does not deserve any response. He apparently did not bother to read what I wrote and generally a man with very low IQ.

[ikarus]

re

[cottmann]

Cottman,
I am University professor and can tell you that all our PH D students who graduated last year are doing just fine: mathematics, physics, engineering... Of course, not everybody can lauch an academic career but industrial jobs are plentyful. Many people have multiple offers. It is generally reflects very good market conditions for qualified workers. Your views about educational system in US are stereotypical to put it mildly and do not reflect the reality. The bulshit of White Desire does not deserve any response. He apparently did not bother to read what I wrote and generally a man with very low IQ.

As a University professor, you should know the fallacy of anecdotal evidence - that "all our PH D (should not that be Ph.D.?) students who graduated last year are doing just fine: mathematics, physics, engineering.." is simply anecdotal evidence and not fact. Moreover, it is surely a form of the fallacy of division, e.g., "1) Things are not that bad. 2) We're the United States, for heaven's sake. 3) We are the world's largest exporting nation, (4) we produce 25% of the world's total output with 5% of the world's population, and (5) the share of the working age population with jobs during my administration has averaged 62.2%, the highest in U.S. history. (6) So things for every individual American must be pretty good."
And I wonder if citing your position was an appeal ad verecundiam?
Your views based simply on anecdotal evidence have no more claim to reflect reality than mine - but at least I based mine on evidence. Ikarus, if you had read my post, you would have noted that in fact the views there were not mine in the first place. The comments on the quality of US education was a direct quote from a recent survey on the qualifications of US students - a study conducted by American Institutes for Research, a behavioral and social science research organization. The comments on the job vacancies, etc., of engineers were from someone who had experience in the Reagan Administration Treasury.

[ikarus]

re

Cottman,
I am University professor and can tell you that all our PH D students who graduated last year are doing just fine: mathematics, physics, engineering... Of course, not everybody can lauch an academic career but industrial jobs are plentyful. Many people have multiple offers. It is generally reflects very good market conditions for qualified workers. Your views about educational system in US are stereotypical to put it mildly and do not reflect the reality. The bulshit of White Desire does not deserve any response. He apparently did not bother to read what I wrote and generally a man with very low IQ.

Ikarus, these are quite typical comments from the older generation (as I said earlier on, didn't take much to work out you were a US citizen and even probably someone "getting on in years" (and no offence there)), especially a "so called" professor, and lets be specific here, you have your own ideas and opinions and won't "budge", you seem to think your opinions are right and final and won't listen to other people's opinions, very stubborn indeed and almost certain, as I said before, to a certain degree very patronising indeed. Name calling, telling people they have low IQ, and telling them they are blurting out BS - well - that speaks for itself - I don't have any time for that sort of person in any shape, way or form. And more importantly other people, I'm absolutely sure, have no respect whatsoever for that type of person. Can one imagine being "taught" by you at a university or wherever you teach, I wouldn't want to think about it! You might be a professor Ikarus, but the fundamentals of being arrogant, self opinionated and narrow minded are definately there.

To conclude my little essay, just a little advice to you "the world is changing" "change with it". Oh and by the way Ikarus, for your reference, I am not writing this thread to try and "get one over you" or anything like that, it is seriously how you come across. I certainly don't expect you to respond, as you said you wouldn't in your thread, and that doesn't bother me, typical arrogance there. Furthermore, I won't be even rude to you. Even at my age, I won't stoop so low.

[cottmann]

Cottman,
Your so-called study referes to community college students. I refer to University graduates and new Ph Ds. Do you understand the difference? Your second reference is , in fact, an anectodal evidence taken from obsured website. Engineering jobs are created in telecommunication, biotechnology and not necessarily in manufacturing. Please, do not tell me how bad American educational system is. I am a part of it and know quite well its weak and strong sides as well as what is a current situation in employment. By the way, I frequently visit Japan, know many colleagues over there and have Japanese coauthors. I could say a thing or two about the situation in Japan but will not. I would suggest to you to compare the number of Nobel prize winners in US and Japan. You can google it but, please,do not be ridiculuous.
You although need to ask the simple question: why so many students from all over the world come to study to US and then stay thre for the rest of their lives: do they really find jobs in Pizza delivery?

Ikarus, the American Institutes of Research study referred to graduates of two and four-year colleges, not simply community colleges - quote "The survey examined college and university students nearing the end of their degree programs. The students did the worst on matters involving math, according to the study."

I do know the distinction between university graduates and new PhDs - but I assume you intended to refer to the differences between graduates from two-year colleges and those from other programs? I do know the differences there, too.

The US BLS statistics show that overall, 2004 saw 220,000 fewer employed U.S. electrical engineers than in 2000, despite falling unemployment, according to the IEEE in September 2005. I could cite quote after quote from the IEEE that differs from your perception of the situation, e.g., "Between 2003 and the first quarter of this year (2005), unemployment fell along with total employment, which declined from 363,000 in 2003 to 335,000 in March of 2005, almost 8 percent. The only way the number of unemployed engineers and the number of employed engineers can both fall at the same time is if a large number of engineers are simply leaving the profession," and "The number of U.S. technical workers fell 221,000 in six major engineering and computer job classifications from 2000 to 2004, says the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Meanwhile, the IEEE reports the first drop in median income for U.S. IEEE members in 31 years. Industries reporting the largest income drop also reported the highest percentage of unemployment because of offshoring. And, the IEEE data shows a 2.5% drop in income in electrical/electronics manufacturing versus a 16.2% increase in offshore manufacturing in 2004. The report is based on the results of the 2004 IEEE-USA Salary & Fringe Benefits Survey. Computer programmers faced the largest job losses, the BLS reports, followed by electrical and electronics engineers, then computer scientists and systems analysts. These declines were partially offset by substantial employment increases for computer and information systems managers, computer hardware engineers, and computer software engineers."

I do accept, however, that you may be referring to specific sub-groups of engineers, however, for whom the picture may have been different, but which groups are they? After all, PhDs are not representative of the population, are they?

Your reference to Japan is irrelevant and gratuitous as the discussion is not about the Japanese education system, nor is it about the number of Nobel prize winners that either country has, nor about whether or not you have Japanese co-authors.

Your question about the number of foreign students entering US schools is also irrelevant - it is driven in part by increases in demand for education in developing countries, in part by the lack of appropriate educational facilities in those countries, in part by the availability of scholarships, etc., to gifted students, and so on. All western countries experience the same phenomenon and the reasons for the growth are more complex than your posting implies.

I decline to engage in the ad hominem arguments that you seem to deem necessary for a rational discussion.

Ikarus - it seems someone else "totally" disagrees with some of your statements - reiterates my statement of you being arrogant and narrow minded - let alone you have the nerve to say I talk BS and that I have a low IQ - I tell you, how did you get your professorship - I seriously would be asking for that back if I were the university giving it you - mind you having said that - are you sure you are a professor - erm!

[cottmann]

Cottman, I would suggest to you to compare the number of Nobel prize winners in US and Japan. You can google it but, please,do not be ridiculuous.

I did exactly what you suggested, ikarus, and found this interesting site - http://www.immigrationline.org/commenta ... pedid=1217 (http://www.immigrationline.org/commentary.asp?opedid=1217) - though I am sure you will refer to it as another obscure website as it does not support your fantasies. It says, in part:
# The United States is indeed one of the top countries producing Nobel Prize winners, but looking only at native-born winners per capita, it ranks below the UK, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, and Norway.
# International migration of scientists places the United States above Austria, Norway, and the UK in number of winners per 100 million inhabitants, but Sweden and, surprisingly, Switzerland still had more winners per capita working there.
# While 25 winners per 100 million inhabitants (70 people in all) migrated into the United States, not a single U.S.-born scientist won a Nobel Prize working overseas. (The other countries that received immigrants all also sent emigrants.)

Read the whole artice - and weep!

... is trying to save face ... he can't face the FACT that he is wrong. I read that internet site thoroughly also Cottman - however, a little tricky documentation.

[cottmann]

I read that internet site thoroughly also Cottman - however, a little tricky documentation.

Then maybe the site that says that Iceland has more Nobel Prizes per capita than the USA might be more meaningful. Or perhaps this one?

"Switzerland is a good place for scientists. It is the origin of special relativity (1905) and the World Wide Web (1990), is associated with 105 Nobel laureates, boasts by far the most Nobel prizes per capita (350% more than the US), the world's highest number of publications per capita, the highest number of patents per capita, the highest citation impact factor, etc." http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/postdoc2006.html

Or the one that claims that the country which has given birth to the most Nobel prize winners as a fraction of its population is the Caribbean island nation of St. Lucia. Two Nobel laureates have been born in St. Lucia, which has a population of 144,000. Sir Arthur Lewis (b. 1915┬нd. 1991) won the Nobel prize in Economics in 1979, and the poet Derek Walcott (b. 1930) won the Literature prize in 1992. Roughly estimated, if the United States had that per capita rate, there would have to be more than three times the total number of Nobel laureates and everyone would have to be an American!

.... Cottman, Im still awaiting for Ikarus' reply to this .......