Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

694 Excellent

About ChidlomDweller

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,189 profile views
  1. At that point it's arguing about values so we'll have to disagree. I'm not a believer in a completely unfettered free market, and believe that to be its own slippery slope with long-term tragedy of commons traps and 1%ers gradually entrenching themselves and corrupting government. The latter is a slippery too and we're already on it. So I prefer pragmatism over ideological purity. Strictly speaking you're correct what I'm arguing is "income redistribution", but then so is putting a cap on what surgeons and pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge, or having laws against price discrimination, which most civilized countries have.
  2. True, in the end money will decide this. But I'm speaking the case of the downtrodden here. Eric Bahrt is unavailable today.
  3. Agreed that as a tourist it can be great value. But spare a thought for the university graduate on 30k a month who can't afford to buy a small condo because of house price inflation, the office worker facing a longer commute because rents in central areas are way too expensive or all the good supply gets immediately taken off the market by AirBnB entrepreneurs, or the regular residents who suffer the side effect from the place being turned into a hotel.
  4. Good luck stopping a determined government with transparent dodges like this. I wouldn't place a 5-10M Baht bet on it. Thailand has plenty of good and cheap hotels already, so it's not like AirBnB is relieving an obstacle to tourism growth like in some countries. I get it, probably lots of apartment owners on this thread who own a holiday apartment and AirBnB is an easy way to make revenue from it when not in Thailand. Also pure investors and AirBnB entrepreneurs / superhosts. Would be nice if you all at least specify upfront what's your financial stake in it. Mine: none whatsoever, except perhaps that I'm moving to a city (outside Thailand) where rents for regular folks are being pushed up because monthly revenue on AirBnB is easily double. Even long before this, I've believed government policy should be first and foremost to allow the average citizen to afford a roof over his head, not to look after the interests of already well-off property investors, many of which aren't even locals. I've seen this bad film before in London and Singapore, so that's where I'm coming from.
  5. ChidlomDweller

    Serious question about umbrellas (don't mock)

    Golf umbrellas all the way. The only way to stay mostly dry in a tropical downpour.
  6. Here's another example. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-03/singapore-court-imposes-hefty-fines-for-airbnb-rentals Scores of examples around the world. People thinking they'll get away long-term with loopholes are deluding themselves.
  7. Some really ignorant posts here. Restrictions being placed on AirBNB is a global phenomenon. Placing this just on the shoulders of greedy rich Thais and the inept junta is hitting the ball just way wrong. Also, I'm always more than suspicious of those posters who fight like a devil in a baptism font in favor of AirBnB. I've used it myself, and as a tourist enjoy greater options and price pressure on hotels, but cut the crap and admit that AirBnB has downsides for society too. Also cut the crap and admit they and the increasing number of owner-investors on the platform are in the hotel business in each country, and not just a internet company. Same as there has been rulings against Uber. About time people wake up and realize this power shift to a handful of amoral internet monopolies is one of the biggest threats of our time. https://www.politico.eu/article/uber-ecj-ruling/
  8. That's BS. I'm a luggage hauler too. Typically takes me a bit under an hour from the airport to my condo, which I'll take over 45-90 minutes in a taxi with a roof so low I have to sit at a 60-degree angle.
  9. If she has any sense she prefers him to shoot his wad elsewhere. It's the humiliation of it though.
  10. It's possible, but in this case there's a good chance condo managements will enforce it rather than face the ire of actual tenants.
  11. I had something similar with an apartment a floor down from me in Singapore when I lived there. Some dick making hour-long loud Skype calls on the terrace, another chainsmoking literally 12 hours a day on the terrace (he used a metal foil basket like you put roasted chicken in for an ash tray), dumping their trash, and other nuisances. Another thing is I read recently (regarding a recent law in Japan) is that the majority of offerings in Tokyo are Chinese investors. It's one thing for owners to make some money renting out a spare room or while on holiday, but another when the thing becomes a business model driving up rents and housing prices in prime locations.
  12. I'm eagerly awaiting Prayuth's wise pronouncements on this.
  13. It's a grey zone but it's a bit different when you get to using advertising for things like preventing black people from turning up to vote. I used to work in marketing consulting for a global conulting firm and we could refuse to work on projects that we found morally objectionable. I once refused a project for the clothing line of a cigarette company. I know another case about a guy stepping off a pharmaceutical case when he found out his drug was both less effective and with worse side effects.
  14. I'm anti-Trump because I consider him a threat to democracy, think it matters that leaders aren't immoral shitbags, despise him for the way he pushed the birther and climate-change denial nonsense, (fairly) exoriated Clinton for her ties to Wall Street and then rushed to roll back most provisions of Dodd-Frank once elected, and many other things. That said, I think it's a stretch to classify this as a campaign finance issue. He'd have paid this hush money too just to keep it from his wife. Legally speaking, it may go against him in a court. My first thought is campaign finance should be about proactively communicating with the masses, and this is the exact opposite. But if I were a lawyer arguing this, I'd make the comparison with Corporate Communications departments, where keeping negatives out of the news definitely falls under their remit and budget. In other words, campaign finance isn't just about buying ads but there's a tradition for corporate communications to be about dealing with negative news too.