UN Human Development Report Thailand 2007

[ColPyat]

anyone seen the economist article :rebranding thaksinomics" ?

the link here..... http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displa...tory_id=8521976

no kind words for the UN HDR report. I was suppose to be at the launch, but since i was away didnt get to go. would have been interesting to hear what retired Gen Surayud had to say. oh well

I just saw Gen. Surayudh's adress to the foreign Chambers of Commerce here shown on Channel 11. He is a great speaker, full of good intentions, very different than the rash Thaksin.

Nevertheless, it was full of good intentions without any clear way how to get there, still no clear definition what sufficiency economy is. And i fear the discrepancy between his speach, his friendly demeanor, and what the others in the present power clique are is getting more and more evident.

In some way he appeared to me also desperate to ask the foreign businessmen to understand and give them time. The problem though is that rethorics alone won't persuade anyone to ignore the increasingly destabilsed situation here.

Oh, my...

[ColPyat]

Though the report is written by Baker there are some heavy weights on advisory panel. I'd trust their judgement over hacks at the Economist any day.

The whole approach IS religion based and non-buddhists won't like it, as Johnpa rightly said. It comes from a totally different world view.

That's a bit weak, Plus.

Are you trying to tell us that you are convinced 'Sufficiency Economy' will work because there are some 'heavyweights' on the advisory panel, even though clear facts do speak against it working, but because you don't really understand what it is all about, and therefore you just trust their judgement?

Your second comment leaves me baffled, to be honest. What has a religious based economic system without the usual necessities for an economic systhem to do in a country that is so dependent on a global economy which Thailand clearly is, and mostly connected to "non-Buddhist" countries?

Where ever in the modern world was an ideologic or religious based ecnomic system succesfull? So far, all attempts have resulted in a catastrophy.

[younghusband]

Though the report is written by Baker there are some heavy weights on advisory panel. I'd trust their judgement over hacks at the Economist any day.

The whole approach IS religion based and non-buddhists won't like it, as Johnpa rightly said. It comes from a totally different world view.

The advisory panel to the UNDP report is not "heavyweight" by international standards.It's mostly a collection of nondescript Thai civil servants and bankers who would scarcely be doing their careers any good if they failed to be involved and follow the party line.There's also the expected locally based UNDP,ILO and UNDP expat functionaries who don't have the Thais' excuse for endorsing these vague vaporings.Forgive me if I fail to be impressed.The Economist is probably the leading international journal of record for economics, politics and current affairs.You rather childishly call its writers "hacks" and that is your right.As far as I know there is no possibility of a jail sentence if one criticises the Economist's views.

[Jai Dee]

Please keep the personal attacks out of this thread.

Thank you.

[hammered]

Though the report is written by Baker there are some heavy weights on advisory panel. I'd trust their judgement over hacks at the Economist any day.

The whole approach IS religion based and non-buddhists won't like it, as Johnpa rightly said. It comes from a totally different world view.

The advisory panel to the UNDP report is not "heavyweight" by international standards.It's mostly a collection of nondescript Thai civil servants and bankers who would scarcely be doing their careers any good if they failed to be involved and follow the party line.There's also the expected locally based UNDP,ILO and UNDP expat functionaries who don't have the Thais' excuse for endorsing these vague vaporings.Forgive me if I fail to be impressed.The Economist is probably the leading international journal of record for economics, politics and current affairs.You rather childishly call its writers "hacks" and that is your right.As far as I know there is no possibility of a jail sentence if one criticises the Economist's views.

The Economist may be the most read by business and politcal leaders (I think) but like most forms of advocacy media it does have its own slant. It strongly argues in favor of free trade and economic liberalism among other things. It has been criticised by some in Europe for its line on economic liberalism that flies in the face of the more protected economies of a lot of Europe that many Europeans would argue are better suited to society than pure economic liberalism. Obviously anti-free trade and anti-globalisation groups are also critical.

Obviously an organ as well known and well read as the Economist is worth reading, but I do feel the reader should be aware of its angle and that it is not universally agreed with.

[younghusband]

Though the report is written by Baker there are some heavy weights on advisory panel. I'd trust their judgement over hacks at the Economist any day.

The whole approach IS religion based and non-buddhists won't like it, as Johnpa rightly said. It comes from a totally different world view.

The advisory panel to the UNDP report is not "heavyweight" by international standards.It's mostly a collection of nondescript Thai civil servants and bankers who would scarcely be doing their careers any good if they failed to be involved and follow the party line.There's also the expected locally based UNDP,ILO and UNDP expat functionaries who don't have the Thais' excuse for endorsing these vague vaporings.Forgive me if I fail to be impressed.The Economist is probably the leading international journal of record for economics, politics and current affairs.You rather childishly call its writers "hacks" and that is your right.As far as I know there is no possibility of a jail sentence if one criticises the Economist's views.

The Economist may be the most read by business and politcal leaders (I think) but like most forms of advocacy media it does have its own slant. It strongly argues in favor of free trade and economic liberalism among other things. It has been criticised by some in Europe for its line on economic liberalism that flies in the face of the more protected economies of a lot of Europe that many Europeans would argue are better suited to society than pure economic liberalism. Obviously anti-free trade and anti-globalisation groups are also critical.

Obviously an organ as well known and well read as the Economist is worth reading, but I do feel the reader should be aware of its angle and that it is not universally agreed with.

This is very fair comment.My point was really to object to the dismissal of those who write for the Economist as "hacks" which is just plain silly.But you are quite right, the Economist does have a clear line on free trade and markets and it is perfectly reasonable to argue with this on occasions.It also as I mentioned in a previous post tends sometime to a didactic or preachy tone which I don't always feel comfortable with.