Thailand Divided Between Urban Elite And A Permanent Rural Underclass

[axom_boy]

Perhaps a Thailand divided into a well-heeled urban elite and a permanent rural underclass is the "middle way" the generals have had in mind all along. from MSNBC/Newsweek Article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16609279/site/newsweek/

Any comments??

[cclub75]

Perhaps a Thailand divided into a well-heeled urban elite and a permanent rural underclass is the "middle way" the generals have had in mind all along. from MSNBC/Newsweek Article http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16609279/site/newsweek/

Any comments??

Why "middle way" ? It has been the "thai way" for... a loooong time.

Nothing new. What was "abnormal" was indeed the Thaksin's era.

Anyway, I think it's an extremely good paper. That goes beyond some common ideas, breaking some taboos here in Thailand... Exposed in a certain book.

19/09 was indeed a conservative revolution. That could explain that the "public reasons" given for the coup (corruption of Thaksin and restore the democracy)... are leading nowhere. Because .... well.... that's not the point...

This sentence, linked to the meeting between foreign businesses and the Finance Minister... is enlightning I believe : "There's a fundamental philosophical gap," said the source. "It became obvious we were getting nowhere."

[PhilHarries]

Unable to access the article will try again later we are having some problems with the server.

However I would say that Thailand was, is and always will be divided between an urban elite and a rural underclass. Because the politcal figures invariably come from the elite they aren't going to sh1t in their own nest by pushing for more even wealth distribution. If the money were more eveny spread the elite would have to give up hugely on their benefits and the money thus released would have minimal impact on the rural poor because there are so many of them. The emerging middle class are unlikely to rock the boat as they aspire to join the elite.

But this is pretty well the same the world over and only really changes with industrialisation and even then not to a massive degree. In every country the majority of the wealth is held by the minority of the population the only thing that varies is the percentage figures.

If the wealth were better redistributed the rich would get less rich and the poor would get slightly less poor. The rich will still be able, to a lesser extent, to afford the goods and services they use but the poor would be no better off as prices would increase to pay for the higher wages. This sounds like a rabid capitalist's excuse for maintaining the status quo but this is how it works. I know, I have had pay rises wiped out overnight by rising costs and interest rates. The alternative is to tax the rich to help the poor but this only creates a booming business in tax avoidance and people like me working tax protected overseas. High taxes lead to increased tax avoidance purely because it becomes worth it to do so. Thaksin tried a version of this tax scheme which is why he's popular in the rural north, unpopular in urban Bangkok and got ousted in a coup.