Jump to content

Samui Bodoh

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    3,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Samui Bodoh

  1. 1 hour ago, webfact said:

    Korntip said the public should not worry that the collaboration would let military officials off the hook. “We will definitely investigate corruption complaints even if they are related to the military,” he said. 

    Having stayed in Thailand a while, I have learned that when State employees make a point of saying that something won't happen, it almost guarantees that it will.

     

    I interpret the comment above as "We will definitely NOT investigate corruption complaints if they are related  to the military."

     

    Anyone disagree?

     

  2. 43 minutes ago, webfact said:

    "The details really matter here," said Stephen Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

     

    "The real question is going to be if the president is serious about this, what kind of legal arguments do we get out of the White House and the Pentagon for such a deployment."

     

    A senior Republican aide in the U.S. House of Representatives said key lawmakers had not been briefed on the White House plan. The aide said there was no indication that a specific plan had even been formulated yet.

    One has to assume, at least for the moment, that this is another case where there is no point taking the word of the US President seriously; that is a sad commentary, but if there are no plans then this is simply more noise.

     

    Is the US going to militarize the US-Mexico border? I doubt it as I doubt whether there is support for this in Congress or the military.

     

    The US really needs to be careful here. Yes, the US is a much bigger, much more powerful nation than Mexico, but to date things have been quite easy as the Mexican President has been quite accommodating to the US.  If Obrador wins the election and rallies the Mexican people behind a policy of standing up to Trump, then the US is going to have MANY MANY problems. What happens if Mexico lets it be known that it won't try to stop anyone from crossing its territory to get to the US? Think 'surge'! Mexico, even though it is the weaker of the two countries, can cause a great deal of grief to the US, and based on how Trump has treated Mexico to date, I suspect that there would be a lot of support for a Mexican leader who says" Up Yours, Yankee!"

     

    • Like 2
    • Confused 1
    • Sad 2
  3. "...“It’s not about old or new generation, it’s about whether they can really work. The future relies on actual work, and the country is not a place for an internship,” Mallika Boonmeetrakool of the Democrat Party told reporters late last month. “An unblemished history comes with a lack of competence in resolving crises.,,”

     

    The first comment that comes to mind is in the last bit of the quoted piece above, "...lack of competence in resolving crises...". Judging by the success rate of the Democrat party in solving crises, then I don't think this is a valid argument; they couldn't really do worse, could they?

     

    This party is interesting, but there are several institutional hurdles that it'll have to overcome, the first being the old adage from Poly Sci people, "the Country Side Proposes and the Capital Disposes". The party has all the characteristics of a great party/movement designed to overthrow a dug-in, unpopular regime (like the Junta); think back to the Egyptian protesters in Tahrir square, Cairo of a few years past. Then remember how well those same people did in the subsequent election...

     

    However, the current faces of the party don't seem to me to be attractive to a more conservative, rural vote, and it is rural votes that decide elections. Can it get the rural vote? Yes, but it will be very difficult and will also require that the traditional parties falter a bit; the easiest way to get a vote is when another party loses it. It is speculation on my part, but it is very possible that in this up-coming election the traditional parties will falter a bit.

     

    It is too early to tell if this party is anything more than a flash in the pan, but it certainly bears watching; the slogan, in whichever particular form it takes, of "It is time for a change!" is always powerful.

     

    • Like 2
  4. Economic projections require one to make certain assumptions, and if the assumptions are not correct then the projections will not be correct. This is also known as the GIGO principle; Garbage in, Garbage out.

     

    I assume that one of the underlying assumptions is that Thailand has political stability. If the Junta does not keep its promise and allow fair elections in a timely manner, all of these projections are worth nothing.

     

    A large element of economics is confidence. If there is no political stability and democratic progress, then confidence will do a swan dive out the window.

     

    Hey Junta! Something to think about...

     

  5. 59 minutes ago, webfact said:

    Dr Phanphimon Wipulakorn a spokeswoman of the Department of Public Health said that obsessive and prolonged phone usage can lead to a sedentary lifestyle resulting in obesity.

     

    Dr Phanphimon said that some people were addicted to their phones and can't bear to be separated from them even for a minute.

    Did she really go to medical school in order to get this insight?

     

    Go to any shop and see people sit all day fiddling with their poxey phones and not moving. And getting fatter and fatter.

     

    By the way, Doc; the sun turns your skin brown and/or red. There, I just did your next research paper for you...

     

  6. 37 minutes ago, candide said:

    That's quite an interesting and relevant remark.

     

    One can only formulate assumptions. If they are rational, they should invest more where the return on investment is higher and more predictable. It may well be that it is better to invest in the non-elected components of the political system than in the elected ones. The non-elected part of the system is wider and more powerfull (it includes the army, the judiciary and independent organisations, the protest-makers, the high-level bureaucrats, not to mention another component). It is also more stable, as it does not depend on changes in voters' preferences, so the return on investment would be more predictable.

    "Great minds think alike... but fools seldom differ..."

     

    I have wondered the same thing; rich people usually have the 'businessman' gene which focus' on Return on Investment (RoI). The stability of the 'appointed' must be seen as quite attractive in terms of a conservative investment, far more so than a fickle politician. Assuming that is the case, it is worth a thought or two on how to enhance the direct role of the elected over the appointed... Hmm... 

     

    I wonder why the proverbial (and actual) power of the purse hasn't evolved the right of appointment to a larger extent? There is an obvious reason, but there should have been, in the course of normal development, a slow but steady shift in that direction; if you control the budget, you have influence and people are policy. I wonder if in past governments there was a sense of what might develop and so that particular power was guarded jealously? Or did it happen by chance in a society/culture that wasn't colonized and so did not have certain principles/institutions forced on them? Or just a case of T.I.T?

     

    The rain just started; time to give this more thought...

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...