nigelforbes

I think it's more about the ability and willingness of those countries to continue to import goods from Thailand, we can get tourists from many places.

Ah, ok. I think unreported income across the entire consumer population probably is very significant. I haven't looked into the value of the black economy for a while but the last time I did, it was massive. Consumer expenditure however is measured based on what is purchased rather than on income received, that makes the numbers more reliable.

One whole month doth not a whole year make.

January is only one month, it's far too soon to get excited about this.

Consumer spending as a percentage of GDP is a mathematical calculation.

The correct answer is large numbers of rural farmers, small holders, contract farmers and large scale agricultural producers, particularly in Shan state and laos.

The AOT report on passenger movements provides all the data on how many passengers arrived, departed, transitted and can be netted out to exclude returning locals, by airport. I'll try and dig it out and post it.

TAT uses sampling to assess tourist expenditure rates. The same hotels, restaurants, tour companies etc, report their numbers every month and these are modelled along with arrivals data from airports that have international flights (7 AOT airports plus 10 under separate management). There are many thousand businesses that report into the TAT model, sampling in this type of scenario is internationally accepted as being statistically sound. The model provides data on total tourist spend along with other analysis such as spend by nationality. The bar girl support question is trickier, obviously its not part of the model but the amounts involved do show up in consumer spending within GDP. Is it common? Statically no, consumer spending is 53 per cent of GDP or around US 270 bill. The relatively small number of girls in that situation means the total amount is statistically irrelevant.

Both.

A good question which requires a lengthy explanation.....I can't do that on my phone, I'll reply to it when I get home later today.

No, day passes are not. The Tat totals reco.ncile to arrivals by air only.

It depends whether you're talking about domestic tourism 8%, international, 12 per cent or the total, 20 percent

My use of the word luxury was sarcasm! That said, n we're both saying the same thing, it might have been better if they had been.

Probably because French was largely superceded by English learned from the Americans in the south, after the French left, unsure. I dunno what's taught on schools there these days.

So many confused readers. Countries that are occupied by another country tend to adopt the language of that country, at least partially. Which is why French is widely spoken in North Vietnam, etc etc

I'm in Bangkok currently, the place is heaving with tourists, especially Russian.

English language proficiency is almost certainly a throw back to earlier occupation by the US, the same is true of Malaysia and Burma and its UK roots. Thailand hasn't had that luxury.

It's complicated! International tourism may not have been important to the exports picture but when gdp is looked at from a different angle, that revenue becomes important to consumer spending within gdp. Its difficult to know what his focus was at the time or whether he really understood. The gdp model is complex and the terminology involved is not well understood by everyone. Exports include international tourism, exports also includes goods and services. The income from international tourism drives consumer spending.

International tourism in GDP terms is nothing more than an extension of exports, albeit it arises in a different part of both the economy and the GDP model. If folks would stop calling it international tourism and simply refer to it as exports, things would be easier to understand. So yes, unfortunately international tourism is every bit as important to GDP, as how many boxes of widgets get exported to Timbuktu.

Maybe, maybe not. The point is that GDP is huge, over 520 bill. US. Half a percent is a big number that government needs to watch closely so they can respond quickly if it does start to fall. Who cares? Everyone should.

There should be a minimum age to procreate, not under 35, please.

Nonsense

Nope, it's mostly all basic Thai economic fact. But if you want try and disprove any of it, have at it....but you'll need to show supportive facts. You're out on a limb on this, best you climb down the tree.. And the part about international tourism being an export, every country does things the same way, that's why it's called an invisible export.

That's not how it works. International tourism is an export, read the baht thread post and you will understand. International tourism is defined as something paid for here, using imported funds and where something is then taken back out of Thailand again. What is taken out is the holiday experience. You must be the only poster on anf who hasn't got this yet

Historically, run of the mill medical care has been adequate in recent years but anything that requires specialist support means a trip to Chiang Mai. Not that many doctors will view a practice in Chiang Rai as career enhancing, many will be returning locals or newly qualified. Tbh, finding experts in some fields in Chiang Mai can be hard at times, which is why I'm now in Bangkok for that very reason, the Rai must be seriously difficult I imagine.