Thailand To Limit Foreign Stake In Firms To 50 Per Cent

[jumnien]

It has been said that desire is the root cause of all suffering. Many farangs have the desire to own land and businesses in Thailand. Thank Buddha that there are restrictions as if foreigners were allowed to buy up everything they would and that would cause great suffering to us farang that enjoy life here under predominantly Thai ownership. As a "guest" this is a wonderful and fascinating land to explore and even settle in. The more "entitled" one gets here, the more frustration takes hold. If owning and controlling and litigating are your primary concerns, I'd try California for starters.

[ThaiGoon]

The office of the US Trade Representative publishes an annual report on foreign trade barriers by country. The new 2007 report covering 2006 should be released soon. I wonder what they will say about Thailand this year?

Many Thais labor under the illusion that the US and other developed countries cannot survive without Thailand. In the case of the US, the substantial Thai trade deficit with Japan is paid for by the trade surplus with the US. This concept that the US and ther developed countries cannot survive without Thailand is apparently taught in at least some of the grade schools here. My wife who is educated though not in business or economics was surprised to find out that the US is net rice exporter. When she was a student in high school in the 1980s she was taught that the US is dependent on Thai food exports. Without them she was told Amercans would starve. The fact that most people outside Asia don't eat rice daily was also a surprise to her. If ordinary Thais were taught economic facts rather than a nationalistic fantasy perhaps they would be more willing to act in a reasonable and equitable manner when it comes to foreign investors in their country.

I went to high school in the 1990's and was never taught that the whole world ate rice and thier lives depended on Thai rice. Although mine's a different era and a different high school from your wife's, I doubt very much that the concept was taught or is being taugh anywhere in Thai schools. In fact, the concept "the US and other developed countries cannot survive without Thailand" never crossed my mind, and honestly this is the first time I even heard of it.

Edited January 13, 2007 by ThaiGoon

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Not having my investment stolen is my primary concern. Thailand has no enforcable laws to protect minority investors in a small scale company. I learned that the hard way when I first came here years ago. If the majority Thai owner decides to use your money to enrich his family and provide perks for himself you are SOL. If Thailand wants foreign small business investors investors out of the country OK. They need to say so. Thais labor under the misconception that big business is responsible for most of the world's jobs. Again, a proper education would help eliminate that misconception. If they want us to leave I will close my business, go back to my country and lobby for legislation that restricts Thai access to our market. Elimination of extraordinary privileges for Thai investors and elimination of GSP would be a good place to start. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Edited January 13, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[somtaamgaiyang]

The office of the US Trade Representative publishes an annual report on foreign trade barriers by country. The new 2007 report covering 2006 should be released soon. I wonder what they will say about Thailand this year?

Many Thais labor under the illusion that the US and other developed countries cannot survive without Thailand. In the case of the US, the substantial Thai trade deficit with Japan is paid for by the trade surplus with the US. This concept that the US and ther developed countries cannot survive without Thailand is apparently taught in at least some of the grade schools here. My wife who is educated though not in business or economics was surprised to find out that the US is net rice exporter. When she was a student in high school in the 1980s she was taught that the US is dependent on Thai food exports. Without them she was told Amercans would starve. The fact that most people outside Asia don't eat rice daily was also a surprise to her. If ordinary Thais were taught economic facts rather than a nationalistic fantasy perhaps they would be more willing to act in a reasonable and equitable manner when it comes to foreign investors in their country.

I went to high school in the 1990's and was never taught that the whole world ate rice and thier lives depended on Thai rice. Although mine's a different era and a different high school from your wife's, I doubt very much that the concept was taught or is being taugh anywhere in Thai schools. In fact, the concept "the US and other developed countries cannot survive without Thailand" never crossed my mind, and honestly this is the first time I even heard of it.

<More worryingly is the fact that it appears that there is a section of Thai society that believes that Thailand can survive without the rest of the world. Countries overseas won't bother to restrict Thai investment overseas because it is a pittance. However, with restrictions on and increasing cost of doing business in Thailand due to capital controls, growth in Thai GDP is very likely to be restricted.

[jumnien]

Not having my investment stolen is my primary concern. Thailand has no enforcable laws to protect minority investors in a small scale company. I learned that the hard way when I first came here years ago. If the majority Thai owner decides to use your money to enrich his family and provide perks for himself you are SOL. If Thailand wants foreign small business investors investors out of the country OK. They need to say so. Thais labor under the misconception that big business is responsible for most of the world's jobs. Again, a proper education would help eliminate that misconception. If they want us to leave I will close my business, go back to my country and lobby for legislation that restricts Thai access to our market. Elimination of extraordinary privileges for Thai investors and elimination of GSP would be a good place to start. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sounds like your "proper education" left you bitter, resentful, angry and vengeful. Why not return to the country you seem to love most? Do yourself a favor!

[pantarei]

Opinions of people who play with billions of US$:

“S&P Says Increasing Chance for Thai Debt Outlook Cut”, 9 January 2007

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=acAgvkdadccU

“ING, Aberdeen Stop Buying Thai Debt, Lifting Yields”, 13 January 2007

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=a41Er4FAFX4Q

[ThaiGoon]

The amended act is intended to clarify and more effectively enforce the old laws and it targets industries that could impact Thai national security, resources and culture. I know it's a bit vague. But I'm sure any foreign investors can find and get more details on this. Anyway, my point is I don't see any crying or whining from Americans when the US government (or congress in this case) blocked the takeover of the US port authority from UAE....or when it blocked China from purchasing one of its oil companies. It's just a common sense to protect your national security first and foremost. And this amended act is intended to do just that....not to prevent regular farang folks who wanna have their own small busniesses like bars or whatever in Thailand. It's a gross misconception if you wanna believe that this amended act wanna rid Thailand of foreign investors.

[ThaiGoon]

<More worryingly is the fact that it appears that there is a section of Thai society that believes that Thailand can survive without the rest of the world. Countries overseas won't bother to restrict Thai investment overseas because it is a pittance. However, with restrictions on and increasing cost of doing business in Thailand due to capital controls, growth in Thai GDP is very likely to be restricted.

I thought it was well established by the Thai minister of finance (whose name I can't type in English) that Thailand does need foreign investment to grow. We are not gonna close our country and become Burma Mk II. The minister knows and realizes this full well. That's why the other day he held a meeting with representative from 28 countires to clarify this act. We are not xenophobic. We just want to run things more effectively and also protect our national interests which any country in the world also would do.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Not having my investment stolen is my primary concern. Thailand has no enforcable laws to protect minority investors in a small scale company. I learned that the hard way when I first came here years ago. If the majority Thai owner decides to use your money to enrich his family and provide perks for himself you are SOL. If Thailand wants foreign small business investors investors out of the country OK. They need to say so. Thais labor under the misconception that big business is responsible for most of the world's jobs. Again, a proper education would help eliminate that misconception. If they want us to leave I will close my business, go back to my country and lobby for legislation that restricts Thai access to our market. Elimination of extraordinary privileges for Thai investors and elimination of GSP would be a good place to start. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sounds like your "proper education" left you bitter, resentful, angry and vengeful. Why not return to the country you seem to love most? Do yourself a favor!

When someone steals my money or tries to expropriate my investment yes I do become angry, resentful and vengeful.

Am I supposed to say thank you? How would Thai react if the same happened to them when they invested in other countries? I doubt they would go quietly. At least in most developed countries the law would remedy the situation and their interest would be protected.

Edited January 13, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[ThaiGoon]

When someone steals my money or tries to expropriate my investment yes I do become angry, resentful and vengeful.

Am I supposed to say thank you? How would Thai react if the same happened to them when they invested in other countries? I doubt they would go quietly. At least in most developed countries the law would remedy the situation and their interest would be protected.

So why don't you just tell us what really happened instead of just putting it vaguely so we can tell if it had anything to do with Thai law or just a few individuals? Cheats are everywhere in the world. They aren't exclusively Thais.

[Plus]

Opinions of people who play with billions of US$:

“S&P Says Increasing Chance for Thai Debt Outlook Cut”, 9 January 2007

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=acAgvkdadccU

“ING, Aberdeen Stop Buying Thai Debt, Lifting Yields”, 13 January 2007

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=a41Er4FAFX4Q

The first link shows that they are talking about "perception", not the actual changes in FBA. Perception after reading this thread, for example, would be that immediate withdrawal of all investment, economy collapse, and mass exodus of foreigners is imminent, but all the talk so far has been groundless. Perception is important but can be easily manipulated if one wants to and serious investors and fund managers are not easily swayed by perceptions, they just play on them to their advantage.

Nowhere in that article they mention the impact of new changes in Foreign Business Act, btw.

The second article is the same - it talks about bonds and market reaction to last year capital control measures. That was a screw up alright, but it's not related to this thread, which is also somewhat misleading - Thailand is not limiting foreign stakes any further, it's limiting the use of nominees to avoid the law.

Let's see if on Monday our real pundits return and clarify the issue, so far we all are mostly speculating on matters beyond our comprehension.

[jumnien]

"becoming" angry, resentful and vengeful in the moment seems perfectly human; staying that way is bad for the heart... Be kind to yourself and let go.

[ThaiGoon]

The first link shows that they are talking about "perception", not the actual changes in FBA. Perception after reading this thread, for example, would be that immediate withdrawal of all investment, economy collapse, and mass exodus of foreigners is imminent, but all the talk so far has been groundless. Perception is important but can be easily manipulated if one wants to and serious investors and fund managers are not easily swayed by perceptions, they just play on them to their advantage.

Nowhere in that article they mention the impact of new changes in Foreign Business Act, btw.

The second article is the same - it talks about bonds and market reaction to last year capital control measures. That was a screw up alright, but it's not related to this thread, which is also somewhat misleading - Thailand is not limiting foreign stakes any further, it's limiting the use of nominees to avoid the law.

Let's see if on Monday our real pundits return and clarify the issue, so far we all are mostly speculating on matters beyond our comprehension.

[Bruce1]

No one objects to countries protecting their national interest. Every country does that.

What people are concerned about is that the changed laws appear to affect a lot of other businesses which don't have any obvious connection with national interest eg running a small business. If you don't believe me, ask yourself this simple question: Can I start a business which does ( insert name of business) and control that business, or do I have to have a majority Thai partner? If the answer is "Yes" then there's no problem; if the answer is "No", then there's a big problem and most people wouldn't do it.

If countries like the US, UK and Australia applied the same laws to Thais wanting to work and live in those countries as Thailand applies to foreigners wanting to work and live in Thailand, those Thais would be screaming and kicking. For instance, many of the very popular Thai restaurants would have to close or get majority Aussie partners. And thousands of Thais would not qualify to become citizens of those countries, as they now do. Nor would they be able to buy land.

Maybe the reason so many farangs on this thread are unhappy about these changes is because they love living in Thailand and think the changes are bad for Thailand.

For me, it keeps coming back to a simple statement: people won't invest unless they can control what happens to their money. Thats just as true of Thais as it is of foreigners.

[Plus]

What people are concerned about is that the changed laws appear to affect a lot of other businesses which don't have any obvious connection with national interest eg running a small business.

I agree, that's what worries people here, apparently, but so far the government said that this is not the case and only few companies will be affected. No one has been able to show otherwise, not the media, not out local gurus.

I'm not saying that people can sit back and relax now, but spreading out panic is not reasonable, is it?

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

When someone steals my money or tries to expropriate my investment yes I do become angry, resentful and vengeful.

Am I supposed to say thank you? How would Thai react if the same happened to them when they invested in other countries? I doubt they would go quietly. At least in most developed countries the law would remedy the situation and their interest would be protected.

So why don't you just tell us what really happened instead of just putting it vaguely so we can tell if it had anything to do with Thai law or just a few individuals? Cheats are everywhere in the world. They aren't exclusively Thais.

I will tell you after the incident I consulted a well respected Thai international law firm. I was told there I had no recourse because Thai law does not protect minority investors in small businesses. I also consulted a competent international law firm in the US. Their advice was to take the loss. The cost of litigating was high and the likelihood of success in the Thai legal system was remote. I was told the legal system here does not protect investors in the same manner it does in the US and other developed countries. I was advised to take the loss and only operate here if I had control of my investment. If you doubt that advice was sound look a what happened to William L. Monson. He is still in court. He was allegedly cheated in the 1980s. His legal costs are considerable. He has won every step of the civil litigation but has yet to collect even one baht.

Edited January 13, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[jumnien]

Good point, plus. But do you think after 21 pages of unreasonable panic people are going to stop now? TIF (this is farang)

[longway]

When someone steals my money or tries to expropriate my investment yes I do become angry, resentful and vengeful.

Am I supposed to say thank you? How would Thai react if the same happened to them when they invested in other countries? I doubt they would go quietly. At least in most developed countries the law would remedy the situation and their interest would be protected.

So why don't you just tell us what really happened instead of just putting it vaguely so we can tell if it had anything to do with Thai law or just a few individuals? Cheats are everywhere in the world. They aren't exclusively Thais.

I will tell you after the incident I consulted a well respected Thai international law firm. I was told there I had no recourse because Thai law does not protect minority investors in small businesses. I also consulted a competent international law firm in the US. Their advice was to take the loss. The cost of litigating was high and the likelihood of success in the Thai legal system was remote. I was told the legal system here does not protect investors in the same manner it does in the US and other developed countries. I was advised to take the loss and only operate here if I had control of my investment. If you doubt that advice was sound look a what happened to William L. Monson. He is still in court. He was allegedly cheated in the 1980s. His legal costs are considerable. He has won every step of the civil litigation but has yet to collect even one baht.

if u set up a partnership in thailand with a thai national u have to bear in mind that u will always need him, but he will not need u once the start up capital has been realised and the business has become profitable. and as the the minoriity shareholder u are espcially vunerable there are very few circumstnces under which most people would invest under these conditions.

as for the fairnes or unfairness vis thais in the usa 9or anywhere else), u have to remember that developed countries have so much leverage and power that they could eat up thailand without careful regualtion to ensure that thailand protected its national interests. i am not sure that what the thais have done right now is the way to go, but i dont know differently either. its the perceived instability that is damaging.

if the usa felt it had to take steps to limit foreign interests for its own protection then it would so and has done so many times.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

as for the fairnes or unfairness vis thais in the usa 9or anywhere else), u have to remember that developed countries have so much leverage and power that they could eat up thailand without careful regualtion to ensure that thailand protected its national interests. i am not sure that what the thais have done right now is the way to go, but i dont know differently either. its the perceived instability that is damaging.

if the usa felt it had to take steps to limit foreign interests for its own protection then it would so and has done so many times.

And the US may do so again if behavor such as is seen in Thailand continues. In the US I argued against restricting foreign participation in our economy despite the fact ordinary Americans lost jobs and income as a result. I believed there were other opportunites available for ordinary Americans in the globization process. My decision to open a business in Thailand was a result of that belief. Now I am not so certain my belief was correct. Thailand appears to want to take without giving in return. Thais have been encouraged to open busiesses abroad and in fact assisted by the government in the recent past. Citizerns in the countries where Thais and other foreign nationals have opened busiesses are expected to endure the loss of employment and financial security that sometimes comes with increased competition in the local market.

With the more recent changes in the new and improved foreign business act it appears small foreign investors have become the primary target. The " Other categories of service business except that prescribed in the ministerial regulations" in list three basically makes any service business not specificaly exempted fall under the act. In the past at least one policitican of the former government have stirred the pot by telling Thais that foreign small business investment should be unwelcome in Thailand. This politician claimed that foreign owned small businesses do not provide employment for Thai citizens or contrible in a meaningful way to the local economy. He used the success of foreign small businesses to encourage the Thai people to resent these investors. To my knowledge, the foremer government never repudiated his claims.

I continue to hope that a more reasonable policy develops here. If it does not I will be among the growing number in the US calling for restricting trading rights and business privileges for those countries that do not reciprocate our current market openness. Part of the recent change in the US Congress occured because ordinary Americans are getting fed up with the status quo. If the law in Thailand changes further and I do end up closing my business and returning to the US I will speak out for change and again travel to Washington to meet with Senators and Congressmen as I have in the past when I saw opening the US market and integrating with other economies as a good thing. As long as there is reciprocity it is a good thing. But reciprocity is fast becoming no longer the case at least in Thailand. If further restrictions occur and errosion of the rights of foreign investors continues I will no longer see foreign participation in our market as fair and equitable. Unlike most of those currently calling for change in the US, I will be able to speak from experience of one who tried to embrace the concept of opportunity in the process of globalization for ordinary Americans and found the promise rings hollow.

Edited January 13, 2007 by ChiangMaiAmerican

[wintermute]

<More worryingly is the fact that it appears that there is a section of Thai society that believes that Thailand can survive without the rest of the world. Countries overseas won't bother to restrict Thai investment overseas because it is a pittance. However, with restrictions on and increasing cost of doing business in Thailand due to capital controls, growth in Thai GDP is very likely to be restricted.

This is where Thais trot out the whole "self-sufficiency" economic model as the end all be all of economics. Basically the majority of the thai population is completely ignorant as to what HM said when he talked about self-sufficiency. I really doubt that he intended it to be a model for every sector of Thai society but rather the rural areas with little to no other livelihood other than what they subsist off of agriculuturally. Some of the ignorant nationalistic peasants took the entire speech on self-sufficiency out of context by interpreting it as not needing anyone else in the world. While this type of isolationism/xenophobia may have been fine before the 1300s it sure as hel_l won't work in 2006. In the era of globalisation this is not only ignorant thinking but dangerous for the country. Once Thailand can't compete economically or technologically with its neighbors it will stagnate and become locked into a cycle of poverty. This means that Thailand will NEVER become anything more than a country that relies on mostly agriculture and low end manufacturing to trade with much more developed nations who have infinitely more leverage. Also, when Vietnam starts taking off things will get really interesting in SE Asia.

Edited January 13, 2007 by wintermute

[jumnien]

Thailand was a wonderful place to live in 1960 when it was undeveloped. It was wonderful as it developed. And it is wonderful now that it has developed. And I'm sure it will be wonderful to live in the future. Inner peace and happiness, now that is another matter and most likely won't stem from mindless argument about this and that...

[gdhm]

It has been said that desire is the root cause of all suffering. Many farangs have the desire to own land and businesses in Thailand. Thank Buddha that there are restrictions as if foreigners were allowed to buy up everything they would and that would cause great suffering to us farang that enjoy life here under predominantly Thai ownership. As a "guest" this is a wonderful and fascinating land to explore and even settle in. The more "entitled" one gets here, the more frustration takes hold. If owning and controlling and litigating are your primary concerns, I'd try California for starters.

Mdeland, I appreciate you were probably addressing a particular message(s) however, I feel the generalisation is too wide. I have seen other messages you have posted and I address ONLY this ONE message.

My opinion differs from yours on certain aspects of what you say (but not all). I am not Thai however I do NOT consider myself a "guest". I have married and Thai Lady, I have happily taken the mantle of father to her (now my) son. I am in the process of selling everything (import duties high and on 100% of ALL possessions for retirees - I am 54) I own in Spain, where I last lived (I am English) so I can give my wife and son a life in Thailand where they wish to be.

We are asked and expected by the Thai people REASONABLY and CORRECTLY to accept, respect and integrate into Thai Culture if we live here. This I am doing my best to do.

I expect to stay here with my wife and child for the rest of my life. Why should I consider myself a "guest". A tourist is a guest - I am not a tourist - soon I will pay taxes on my pension to Thailand.

In the EU I would be regarded as a Resident with minimal paperwork and 4 year automatic renewals and ability to buy and own land and CERTAINLY the land my home stands on.

I agree with the concerns and caution of all countries worried about losing their National identity by Foreigners swallowing up huge expanses of their land and businesses (especially by Foreigners that never will live in or settle in their countries) BUT all countries need some Foreign investment to prosper.

However, PLEASE do not try a blanket group generalisation about Foreigners wanting to own land in Thailand. I feel it perfectly reasonable that a Foreigner would wish to be permitted the right to own (or joint own with his wife) the small bit of land their HOME stands on, and this would not "cause great suffering to us farang that enjoy life here under predominantly Thai ownership " as you put it. Its just not realistic. I also find it interesting your analysis only referred to suffering of Farangs and not Thais as well.

Your use of Buddha makes me somewhat uncomfortable, as I doubt Buddhism selects between peoples due to Nationality and I would have thought very few Buddhists would not be very happy about the use on Buddha's name in the context you have used it.

I appreciate the points you are trying to make but I often cringe when a writer uses "us farang(s)". Farangs, Foreigners and Thais come in all varieties, cultures, opinions, politics, religions, priorities, moralities and perspectives of "right and wrong" therefore I find it always presumptive to use the phrase "us ....." be it Thai, Farang or whatever. Some WILL agree 100%, some partially and some will not recognise themselves within the "us" group. I AM a Farang (personally dislike the phrase from those who KNOW I am English yet STILL refer to me openly as a Farang instead of English or British. I always use a person's country of origin as a description (if known) and I do not refer to Thais as "Asians". I give Thai people the respect and identity of calling them Thai when I KNOW they are Thai). I speak for myself ONLY in my message here and elsewhere and I never use "us Farang(s)" or "us ....". I do not know what many Farangs think or feel about given subjects, but I do know there is often NO common view about anything.

Regards, Dave

[longway]

Thailand appears to want to take without giving in return.

chinagmai while i symphasise with the money u lost, i have invested in thailand and other countries too, so i understand what it means to put your money where ur mouth is. if u put money into this country without being aware that the law will not protect you well, then it is nobody´s fault but ur own.

thailand allows us citizens special priveliges denied to citiznes of other countries. as for equal reciporicy, that cannot be expected. the usa has a gnp of $10 trillion, it controls or has substantial influence over the imf and world bank and the un, its military power is unrivalled. thailand cannot compete with the usa on the same terms, it has to regulate entry into its markets.

the usa can do what it likes, but dont think that the usa doesnt already do everything in its power to do whats good for the usa. its not handing out free lunches to anybody whatever u may think.

[Mid]

I expect to stay here with my wife and child for the rest of my life. Why should I consider myself a "guest". A tourist is a guest - I am not a tourist - soon I will pay taxes on my pension to Thailand.

many thanxs dave ,

a point I tried to convey earlier in another thread , abet with far less eloquence ...............

best wishes

mid

[mark lamai]

the department would set up a system to carry out random checks of 44,000 companies, in order to establish whether voting rights exceeded the new restriction.

-- man they will be busy..

the government plans to open more services under Annex 3, in order to help Thai companies develop and improve their competitiveness.

-- brilliant! reduce competition to make a business more competitive.......

Most Japanese businesses have more than 49 per cent of company shares and voting rights. Keisuke said the government should allow more time for groups to restructure their companies.

Japanese investors are the largest foreign investors in the Kingdom. More than 7,000 Japanese companies operate here, while 1,276 are members of the Japanese chamber.

-- 7000 japanese companies, you can bet they wont lose control of their investments.

[LPCustom69]

The office of the US Trade Representative publishes an annual report on foreign trade barriers by country. The new 2007 report covering 2006 should be released soon. I wonder what they will say about Thailand this year?

Many Thais labor under the illusion that the US and other developed countries cannot survive without Thailand. In the case of the US, the substantial Thai trade deficit with Japan is paid for by the trade surplus with the US. This concept that the US and ther developed countries cannot survive without Thailand is apparently taught in at least some of the grade schools here. My wife who is educated though not in business or economics was surprised to find out that the US is net rice exporter. When she was a student in high school in the 1980s she was taught that the US is dependent on Thai food exports. Without them she was told Amercans would starve. The fact that most people outside Asia don't eat rice daily was also a surprise to her. If ordinary Thais were taught economic facts rather than a nationalistic fantasy perhaps they would be more willing to act in a reasonable and equitable manner when it comes to foreign investors in their country.

That would be a good start, the whole education system needs to be reworked to bring the average Thais into the 21st century, and I hope they start it soon.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

<br />

Thailand appears to want to take without giving in return.

<br /><br />chinagmai while i symphasise with the money u lost, i have invested in thailand and other countries too, so i understand what it means to put your money where ur mouth is. if u put money into this country without being aware that the law will not protect you well, then it is nobody´s fault but ur own.<br /><br />thailand allows us citizens special priveliges denied to citiznes of other countries. as for equal reciporicy, that cannot be expected. the usa has a gnp of $10 trillion, it controls or has substantial influence over the imf and world bank and the un, its military power is unrivalled. thailand cannot compete with the usa on the same terms, it has to regulate entry into its markets.<br /><br />the usa can do what it likes, but dont think that the usa doesnt already do everything in its power to do whats good for the usa. its not handing out free lunches to anybody whatever u may think.<br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

Try reading some of the BS the US Commercial Service has in the past put on their website before passing judgment on my investigating the business climate in Thailand. Even now they continue to paint a rosy picture. I have also discovered it is nearly impossible to find an attorney that can with certainty tell you what government regulations require. I have yet to find an attorney that will give me a written guarantee regarding their advice that promises to accept full responsibility if the advice is flawed. If legal advice is flawed the foreigner is on his own. Bad legal advice is not a mitigating circumstance in Thailand.

As to the US acting in the best interest of the country a reality check is needed. Was Iraq in the best interest of the US? How about the ever increasing trade deficits? The US government runs in political cycles. The current president could care less about the needs of ordinary Americans despite his rhetoric. He even joked about it at a fund raiser sponsored by the corporate interests one time. He was put in power by corporate interests and the religious right. Even today corporate interests and the leaders of the religious right still swear their loyalty to him. But in the past 5 years the ordinary people have seen their jobs disappear overseas, their incomes decline and their children's future clouded with uncertainty. Many of the ordinary citizens who were members of what is called the religious right are no longer willing to blindly follow the leadership. The President's golden image is now tarnished likely forever. History will likely not treat him kindly. The results of the last election were an expression of that disillusionment with the president and his party's behavior toward ordinary citizens. He talked a nice game but his actions and motives are entirely different. The president intends to continue the current course including his war and economic policies though he will now face Congressional inquiries that before would not have occurred because his party controlled both houses of the US Congress. Just before last November’s election even members of his party suddenly saw the light. They started distancing themselves from the president and his policies including his economic policies in an attempt to preserve their power. The renewal of GSP was in doubt largely due to certain developing countries, including Thailand, refusing to reciprocally open their markets and allow ordinary Americans to directly benefit from increased trade and opportunity. Had they been re-elected it is likely little would change. Even now the president will veto legislation that conflicts with his master plan. Watch for more change in 2008.

A lot of people in the US are angry. They are angry about the ever increasing deficits. they are angry about the loss of jobs and opportunity for them and thier children. They are angry that other countries and their citizens are given market access without reciprocating. If market openness is reciprocated the anger will largely abate. If not it the anger will only increase resulting in further change in America's leadership and the imposition of protectionist rules that are at least in the proportion to those that have been applied to Americans.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

Among the changed attitudes in Washington with the change in Congress.

New Congress Must Revitalize U.S. Trade Policy, Senator Baucus Says

Finance committee head urges fast-track renewal, global services accord

The following commentary by U.S. Senator Max Baucus appeared January 4 in The Wall Street Journal and is in the public domain. There are no republication restrictions:

(begin byliner)

A Democratic Trade Agenda

By Max Baucus

Forty-five years ago, President Kennedy challenged America to confront competitive challenges in Europe and Asia with a new, expansive trade policy. In response, Congress passed a landmark bill creating the forerunner of the U.S. Trade Representative and trade adjustment assistance for workers hurt by international trade. Today we face another crossroads.

news230();

At a time when our country's competitive strength depends increasingly on an aggressive trade policy, Americans are far less willing to embrace one. Many equate trade and globalization with ballooning deficits, stagnating wages and layoffs. Meanwhile, even as China and India have continued their economic reawakening, America has lacked the leadership to tackle the associated challenges through trade. U.S. policy has lurched frantically from one trade agreement to the next, eking out just enough votes to push each one through Congress.

Some think that the new Democratic congressional majority will be bad for trade policy. While it is true that some candidates criticized trade in their campaigns, I believe that the new Congress will have both the desire and opportunity to renew U.S. trade policy, with a unifying purpose that Americans can understand and support. Through trade, we must bolster the nation's innovative economy in an increasingly global marketplace. At the same time, we must tackle with equal vigor the negative domestic consequences of globalization, from trade deficits to job losses.

Congress should begin by renewing the administration's fast-track negotiating authority for trade agreements. The current grant expires in June, and trading partners will not negotiate trade agreements with us unless Congress gives the president the ability to bring these agreements to fruition. The success of America's ranches and farms, as well as the success of businesses big and small, requires that the president have this ability. Exports account for 10 percent of GDP [gross domestic product]; our $62.4 billion in agriculture exports alone generated an additional $92 billion in additional economic activity last year. My home state of Montana exports fully 60 percent of the wheat grown there.

Fast-track authority should be improved as it is renewed, with better trade enforcement capability and better environmental and labor provisions. By making those changes, we can protect American interests, project America's values, and help to create consumer classes capable of purchasing more U.S.-made goods. And as we address expiring fast-track authority, we must take on -- head-on -- globalization's downsides, especially worker displacement and the unsustainable trade deficit.

The trade deficit requires action on several fronts, which include beefing up U.S. export promotion programs and dedicating more time and resources to trade enforcement. We must also recognize that the trade deficit has causes closer to home, especially Americans' negative savings rate.

When it comes to helping workers, we must make the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, which expires in September, more reflective of today's innovative economy.

TAA is our commitment that America will provide wage and health benefits while trade-displaced workers retool, retrain, and find better jobs. And a renewed TAA must do what today's program does not. TAA must be available to the eight out of 10 American workers who make their money in services professions; and it must apply to all workers displaced by trade, not just those affected by free-trade agreements. In fact, we should seriously examine the idea of expanding TAA into "GAA" -- Globalization Adjustment Assistance that would offer benefits not only to workers displaced by trade, but to those displaced by all aspects of globalization.

In addition to these new priorities, we must refocus current trade efforts. The Doha round is of obvious importance, but the world's economies do not appear ready to make the hard choices necessary to bring the round to an ambitious conclusion. Doha may yet progress in time, as the Uruguay round did after 1990. But until then, America should move forward on commercially significant initiatives with our largest trading partners. We should lay the foundations for a future free-trade agreement with the European Union and Japan by concluding a first ever free-trade agreement in services. We should stitch our current patchwork quilt of free-trade agreements into a seamless, coherent network that we can later open to other countries. Even more immediately, we must enforce China's trade and investment commitments. Doing that will help to boost the U.S. gross domestic product by $86.5 billion over the next three years.

President Kennedy's free-trade challenge helped to cement the nation's role as a global economic leader, and engaging with the world has helped Americans prosper at home. Twelve million American jobs depend on trade today -- and the right trade policy improvements will create more jobs and better opportunities for American workers and businesses in the future.

(The writer is a Democratic senator from Montana and the incoming chairman of the Finance Committee.)

(end byliner)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

[gdhm]

I expect to stay here with my wife and child for the rest of my life. Why should I consider myself a "guest". A tourist is a guest - I am not a tourist - soon I will pay taxes on my pension to Thailand.

many thanxs dave ,

a point I tried to convey earlier in another thread , abet with far less eloquence ...............

best wishes

mid

You are too kind Mid ,

To be honest I am very poor at summarising what I am trying to say (and I sympathise with others). In a word I am afraid I "waffle" more than I wish to and have a tendency to repeat or put in 100 words what others can say in 30 .

Bottom line; I can tell you care about Thailand as you home as I do. Cannot deny I sometimes whinge, but I usually make constructive (or try) comments around the whinge coz at the end of the day I wish to integrate not offend or turn Thailand into Little England and some areas of the Costa Blanca, Spain (where I last lived for 4 years have become Little Britain or little Ireland.

Regretfully getting to grips with the Thai language and script is a whole new and very different ball game to learning Spanish which I was not quick at making headway (awful at learning languages). Big Problem for my wife who thankfully can speak some English is that I have always been a fast speaker (even in Spanish with what I learnt) - NOT not helpful to my wife or to others trying to accommodate my English to help me.

Back on subject: I see the stock market is rebounding. Good. The Baht seems essentially unaffected at present.

The last thing Thailand needs is any more bad publicity or uncertainty as it undermines Tourism, investment and the Thai people themselves. Luckily where I live in Khon Kaen, North East Thailand the people seem to have taken all the news in their stride and remarkably well - The Thai people seem to be very resilient.

Kind regards, Dave

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

And from an OpEd piece in the Washington Post last December by Democratic Senators Byron Dorgan and Sherrod Brown

"Trade agreements must also be reciprocal. The American market is the most desirable in the world. Every country wants access to it. That gives us a great deal of leverage, if only we'd use it. Barriers to U.S. products overseas should not be tolerated."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6122201020.html