Jump to content
Thai Visa Forum

French woman deported for Phuket overstay, banned for five years


webfact

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

I quoted from it didn't I? You are confusing someone's legal status with their economic contribution. There is no relationship between the two

I'm sure you can give some examples of affluent people who have been expelled and/or banned because of overstay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 168
  • Created
  • Last Reply
18 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

When your assertion that funds begged, borrowed or stolen from within an economy assists that economy by being spent there, you leave little room to believe anything else.

Your version of logic is well divorced from mine.

My argument is the economic one. The source of funds is entirely divorced from their expenditure. Money is fungible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I'm sure you can give some examples of affluent people who have been expelled and/or banned because of overstay.

Really? Why? Indeed, the whole point of my posts is that I don't care whether they're here legally or illegally, nor whether the source of their funds is legal or illegal. The fact that they're spending money here is the only salient fact. Old Croc on the other hand believes that their legal status here or the legality of the source of their funds somehow invests their money with a moral character. I dont. It's just money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

My argument is the economic one. The source of funds is entirely divorced from their expenditure. Money is fungible.

I remember you have used that word before on Thaivisa.

I think you may be afflicted with a case of grandiloquence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

Really? Why? Indeed, the whole point of my posts is that I don't care whether they're here legally or illegally, nor whether the source of their funds is legal or illegal. The fact that they're spending money here is the only salient fact. Old Croc on the other hand believes that their legal status here or the legality of the source of their funds somehow invests their money with a moral character. I dont. It's just money.

Of course some do support the local economy. But there is more than just money to life.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintLouisBlues said:

That is not the point of this discussion, however

Maybe not the point of the discussion you are looking for here.

The point of discussion though is easy: a French lady has been caught with overstay while working illegally and has now been banned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Why? Indeed, the whole point of my posts is that I don't care whether they're here legally or illegally, nor whether the source of their funds is legal or illegal. The fact that they're spending money here is the only salient fact. Old Croc on the other hand believes that their legal status here or the legality of the source of their funds somehow invests their money with a moral character. I dont. It's just money.

The failure of your logic is that if the funds are illeagal, begged, borrowed or stolen by an overstayer it is NOT new money being spent but money which was in the economy anyway. Your logic is severely flawed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Maybe not the point of the discussion you are looking for here.

I was reponding to Old Croc's rant about the moral inferiority of overstayers and other "illegals" and in particular their failure, according to him, to contribute to the local economy

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mikebike said:

The failure of your logic is that if the funds are illeagal, begged, borrowed or stolen by an overstayer it is NOT new money being spent but money which was in the economy anyway. Your logic is severely flawed.

You're saying that the source of money gives that money a moral dimension? I realise that's a popular perspective but it's not a logical one. All money is in the economy; the only newly created money is by the central bank, hence the phrase "the circulation of money"

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're saying that the source of money gives that money a moral dimension? I realise that's a popular perspective but it's not a logical one. All money is in the economy; the only newly created money is by the central bank, hence the phrase "the circulation of money"

No. The failure in logic is the money is already in the economy. The overstayer is just a superfluous middleman adding nothing to the economy. Where is the moral component to this?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You're saying that the source of money gives that money a moral dimension? I realise that's a popular perspective but it's not a logical one. All money is in the economy; the only newly created money is by the central bank, hence the phrase "the circulation of money"

Not all money is in the Thai economy. National economies rely on new money from other national economies.
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mikebike said:

No. The failure in logic is the money is already in the economy. The overstayer is just a superfluous middleman adding nothing to the economy. Where is the moral component to this?

My argument is not about the source of their income nor how they gained it. They are spending it locally. That is all that matters. There is no moral dimension to the money they spend, just as there is no moral dimension to the money you spend. Claiming that a legal worker's money somehow contributes more to the economy when he spends it than when an illegal worker or an over-stayer spends exactly the same amount of money on exactly the same goods and services - how does that work?

Link to post
Share on other sites
My argument is not about the source of their income nor how they gained it. They are spending it locally. That is all that matters. There is no moral dimension to the money they spend, just as there is no moral dimension to the money you spend. Claiming that a legal worker's money somehow contributes more to the economy when he spends it than when an illegal worker or an over-stayer spends exactly the same amount of money on exactly the same goods and services - how does that work?

Again. They are a superfluous middleman spending baht already in the Thai economy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Again. They are a superfluous middleman spending baht already in the Thai economy.

Who cares - they're spending money. That's all that matters. "Superfluous middleman" is a moral judgment in which I for one have zero interest

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2016 at 3:31 PM, kannot said:

Blatant discrimination.............good "guys" in bad "guys" out, shes isnt a "guy"

 

      Have you never used the word "guys" for people of either sex? 

informal A man:

‘he's a nice guy’

1guys = People of either sex:

‘You guys want some coffee?’
 
    
Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears that some, and fortunately only a few, who post here care only that a person/overstayer/criminal contributes to the economy??  That a person is committing a crime is not relevant in their eyes.

 

So, using that logic, I suppose that we should just forget the guy who killed his former business associate and popped him in the freezer, because the killer continues to spend money, I.e., contributes to the economy??

 

ALL laws are man made constructs, be they a law forbidding overstaying, or one of taking another's life.

 

Why should one be waived because one who violates it contributes to the economy, yet another not?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who cares - they're spending money. That's all that matters. "Superfluous middleman" is a moral judgment in which I for one have zero interest

Superfluous middleman is not a moral judgement. It is the logical conclusion of the idea that if they are spending money which is already circulating in the Thai economy they are adding nothing to it. Out.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Superfluous middleman is not a moral judgement. It is the logical conclusion of the idea that if they are spending money which is already circulating in the Thai economy they are adding nothing to it. Out.

"Superfluous" in this context is a pejorative use. Almost every Thai is spending money already in circulation in the Thai economy so your argument is that none of them are adding to the Thai economy - all are in fact middlemen

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

That a person is committing a crime is not relevant in their eyes.

Absolutely correct. Very very few "crimes" are in fact absolutely wrong and crimes in every society, murder being one of the very few. Counterfeiting could be another one, although when done by governments it's called debasing the currency, and not a crime at all. Hiring hookers is another crime in Thailand, although not in many First World countries. Obeying the law is only one option, and those who wish to ignore it have often made a risk assessment about the chance of getting caught and, if caught, how unpleasant the punishment will turn out to be

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

My argument is the economic one. The source of funds is entirely divorced from their expenditure. Money is fungible.

 

Well.....if it's an economic argument you want.

Money made and spent within a country does not add to that country's balance of payment. The money just circulates within a closed system.

 

Those of us who stay long term and are financially OK, bring money in from abroad. This DOES add to the country's books and is essentially an export that earns hard currency. It adds to the country's pot of wealth rather than just stirring it.

 

Do you see the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KarenBravo said:

 

Well.....if it's an economic argument you want.

Money made and spent within a country does not add to that country's balance of payment. The money just circulates within a closed system.

 

Those of us who stay long term and are financially OK, bring money in from abroad. This DOES add to the country's books and is essentially an export that earns hard currency. It adds to the country's pot of wealth rather than just stirring it.

 

Do you see the difference?

I do see the difference. As an ex-pat bring new money into the country and spending it you see yourself as morally superior to the Thai shop assistant in a 7-Eleven who spends their wages because you are injecting fresh funds whereas they are merely circulating money that's already in the system. There's no difference between a Thai 7-Eleven worker, an over-stayer, or someone working illegally as far as their contribution to the local economy when they spend their money

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

I do see the difference. As an ex-pat bring new money into the country and spending it you see yourself as morally superior to the Thai shop assistant in a 7-Eleven who spends their wages because you are injecting fresh funds whereas they are merely circulating money that's already in the system. There's no difference between a Thai 7-Eleven worker, an over-stayer, or someone working illegally as far as their contribution to the local economy when they spend their money

 

Oh dear....thanks for the best laugh I've had this year, so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 9:00 AM, GOLDBUGGY said:

That is the first believable thing you have said to me here. 

On ‎12‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 2:05 AM, IslandLover said:

 

Gossip Column?  I got it straight from the horse's mouth :tongue:

-------------------------------------------------------

The humour of my "horse's mouth" comment was obviously lost on you then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overstay Vs pi--ed of Lady

We all know that overstay is not to be contemplated here, but sometimes it happens and there is a reason?

Then if you owe someone money and they are a bit of a rebel then you may cop it in a few ways

I am just glad that lady is not one of my friends as she even tells Obama what he should do

A real David Bowie on FB

Guys we are all equal in life why not try to work it out like adults instead of wasting Thai polices valuable time and taxpayers money?

That Word Money again

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎01‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 0:10 PM, SaintLouisBlues said:

Who cares - they're spending money. That's all that matters. "Superfluous middleman" is a moral judgment in which I for one have zero interest

They should pay tax to support the country

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...