Most Thais Think Economy Bad, Getting Worse

[thaiguzzi]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

As someone that grew up in a state which saw property values soar, there seemed to be a lot of people that were happy about it.
 

 

Selfish!

If this was not a problem, governments in Europe and especially in NZ and the big cities in Oz would not be worrying about it.

[Brunolem]

12 hours ago, Rarebear said:

Foreign exchange?  Is foreign exchange what you call hot money?  It is worth more than Thai money so I guess you could say hot.  That is why all countries crave tourism and creation of a positive trade balance.  1000 baht in money from rice grown and sold in Thailand is worth 1000 baht to the Thai economy.  1000 baht in money brought in by a Chinese person and spent on a condo is worth 10,000 baht to the Thai economy.  If this seems mysterious to you I suggest going to school and taking a course in economics where the foreign trade multiplier may be explained.  Such influx of money is always a good thing unless you are trying to promote another countries economy at the expense of Thailand say a Burmese trade minister.  Put simply our som tom seller gets 100 baht from the 1000 baht of locally grown and sold rice and 1000 baht from the Chinese 1000 baht investment.  In all cases the som tom seller is better off with sales of 1000 baht instead of 100 baht. 

 

Since very few Issan farmers take economics in college most would not be aware of this so it is understandable they might not appreciate the foreign investment. 

It has been debated at length, in many posts above, that economics is not a science, certainly not a hard science such as physics for example.

 

There are almost as many schools of economics as there are economists...or maybe not, so numerous are these parasites.

 

So which one is right? Keynes? Friedman? Hayek?

 

The multiplier effect is certainly not 10, and is in fact close to zero when the hot money flows into existing real estate, as is the case in Vancouver for example...I don't know where exactly the money flows in Bangkok.

 

Even when the money goes into new constructions, the effect is a temporary boost during the time of the construction, since real estate doesn't generate production and jobs for years and decades, as do factories for example.

 

Thai authorities certainly favour a Japanese car manufacturing opening a new plant over a Chinese buying a luxury condo to park his money.

 

Finally, I would friendly advise you to refrain from belittling your opponent in a debate, or the Isaan population, since you are not the bearer of THE truth, but simply of your personal opinion...

[Brunolem]

13 hours ago, Rarebear said:

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by Brunolem

[Rarebear]

17 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

It has been debated at length, in many posts above, that economics is not a science, certainly not a hard science such as physics for example.

 

There are almost as many schools of economics as there are economists...or maybe not, so numerous are these parasites.

 

So which one is right? Keynes? Friedman? Hayek?

 

The multiplier effect is certainly not 10, and is in fact close to zero when the hot money flows into existing real estate, as is the case in Vancouver for example...I don't know where exactly the money flows in Bangkok.

 

Even when the money goes into new constructions, the effect is a temporary boost during the time of the construction, since real estate doesn't generate production and jobs for years and decades, as do factories for example.

 

Thai authorities certainly favour a Japanese car manufacturing opening a new plant over a Chinese buying a luxury condo to park his money.

 

Finally, I would friendly advise you to refrain from belittling your opponent in a debate, or the Isaan population, since you are not the bearer of THE truth, but simply of your personal opinion...

Bashing the validity of economics as a science is just absurd and I can comment.  Debating the existence of the multiplier effect is also absurd and in contradiction of every economist in every government of any country on this planet.  We would have to agree on the basics of economics and/or monetary policy to have a meaningful debate.  It is like trying to convince someone the world is round.  I'll just block you and save us both some stress.     

[mogandave]

Selfish!
If this was not a problem, governments in Europe and especially in NZ and the big cities in Oz would not be worrying about it.

Not as much as they’re worried about climate change.

They can just subsidize the poor such that they can afford to live the same as the greedy rich.

Time for you rich to step up with more tax revenue!

[KiwiKiwi]

50 minutes ago, Rarebear said:

Bashing the validity of economics as a science is just absurd and I can comment.  Debating the existence of the multiplier effect is also absurd and in contradiction of every economist in every government of any country on this planet.  We would have to agree on the basics of economics and/or monetary policy to have a meaningful debate.  It is like trying to convince someone the world is round.  I'll just block you and save us both some stress.     

 

A consensus appears to be that Economics is not a science, at least, is not one of the 'hard sciences'.

 

It is an attempt to codify changes using scientific methods. That does not make it a science. It resembles applied psycholgy in some respects. But it is not a science, though it is claimed to be by some folk who don't really understand 'hard science'.

 

End of story really. The world outside TV agrees that economics is not a science and that appears to be because it is unreliable. Science is not unreliable. Science works. Economics works sometimes.

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[Brunolem]

1 hour ago, Rarebear said:

Bashing the validity of economics as a science is just absurd and I can comment.  Debating the existence of the multiplier effect is also absurd and in contradiction of every economist in every government of any country on this planet.  We would have to agree on the basics of economics and/or monetary policy to have a meaningful debate.  It is like trying to convince someone the world is round.  I'll just block you and save us both some stress.     

You'd better open your mind, expand your sources of information and behave like a mature adult rather than an offended snowflake.

 

If debating on a forum is a source of stress for you, then you are in for a difficult life, since there are so many more stressful things to deal with.

 

I personally enjoy these duels since they help keeping me alert...

[Brunolem]

1 hour ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

A consensus appears to be that Economics is not a science, at least, is not one of the 'hard sciences'.

Our opponent appears to be some sort of phd economist freshly out from university, still in love with the theories infused in his grey cells.

 

With hard science, one knows precisely what the result will be, given a certain set of initial conditions.

And everybody agrees on the same theories because they have repeatedly been proven right.

 

In the realm of economics, we are dealing with something closer to weather forecasting.

We are in the domain of chaos theory, where a certain set of initial conditions may or may not lead to an expected result.

Everyone disagree with everyone, because no theory has managed to provide constant satisfactory results.

Even better, many economists disagree with themselves!

They support one theory, then another one...

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is a good example: he started as a disciple of Ayn Rand and a gold bug, only to become a Keynesian interventionist, to finally return to his former beliefs once retired.

Edited June 10, 2018 by Brunolem

[KiwiKiwi]

26 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

Our opponent appears to be some sort of phd economist freshly out from university, still in love with the theories infused in his grey cells. 

 

With hard science, one knows precisely what the result will be, given a certain set of initial conditions.

And everybody agrees on the same theories because they have repeatedly been proven right.

 

In the realm of economics, we are dealing with something closer to weather forecasting.

We are in the domain of chaos theory, where a certain set of initial conditions may or may not lead to an expected result.

Everyone disagree with everyone, because no theory has managed to provide constant satisfactory results.

Even better, many economists disagree with themselves!

They support one theory, then another one...

Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is a good example: he started as a disciple of Ayn Rand and a gold bug, only to become a Keynesian interventionist, to finally return to his former beliefs once retired. 

 

Agree with almost all of that.

 

"Our opponent appears to be some sort of phd economist freshly out from university, still in love with the theories infused in his grey cells."

 

Ah yes, youthful exuberance. I remember it well. Steeped in testosterone and ready to preach the beliefs of the moment on an unsuspecting world. I recall it took me rather longer to get the beginnings of wisdom and understanding, so I do have some sympathy.

 

"With hard science, one knows precisely what the result will be, given a certain set of initial conditions. And everybody agrees on the same theories because they have repeatedly been proven right."

 

Yes. I see another poster making some claim or another for Quantum Mechanics (QM). He was wrong but doubtless thought he was right. There's nothing more dangerous than a little knowledge.

 

"In the realm of economics, we are dealing with something closer to weather forecasting. We are in the domain of chaos theory, where a certain set of initial conditions may or may not lead to an expected result. Everyone disagree with everyone, because no theory has managed to provide constant satisfactory results. Even better, many economists disagree with themselves! They support one theory, then another one..."

 

Yes

 

"Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, is a good example: he started as a disciple of Ayn Rand and a gold bug, only to become a Keynesian interventionist, to finally return to his former beliefs once retired. "

 

Thus highlighting the advantage of adopting a convenient belief when dealing with Economics and a boss.

 

Opponent? I doubt the existence of any 'opponent' , though there are always those prepared to argue that black is, after all, white, if only we muppets could come round to their superior way of thinking. Everyone's entitled to the delusions of their preference. Personally I prefer the real world, having sampled the dubious delights of both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2018 by KiwiKiwi

[Rarebear]

1 hour ago, KiwiKiwi said:

 

A consensus appears to be that Economics is not a science, at least, is not one of the 'hard sciences'.

 

It is an attempt to codify changes using scientific methods. That does not make it a science. It resembles applied psycholgy in some respects. But it is not a science, though it is claimed to be by some folk who don't really understand 'hard science'.

 

End of story really. The world outside TV agrees that economics is not a science and that appears to be because it is unreliable. Science is not unreliable. Science works. Economics works sometimes

 

End of story? 

 

The largest single professional grouping of economists in the UK are the more than 1000 members of the Government Economic Service, who work in 30 government departments and agencies.

Analysis of destination surveys for economics graduates from a number of selected top schools shows nearly 80 percent in employment six months after graduation.

 

London school of economics graduates -18 Nobel Prizes in economics, peace and literature. At least 34 past or present prime ministers, presidents and premiers have come from the

London School of ECONOMICS.

 

15,000 non-academic economists in the United States in 2008, with a median salary of roughly $83,000 the top ten percent earning more than $147,040 annually. Nearly 135 colleges and universities grant around 900 new ECONOMICS  Ph.D.s every year.

As of January 2013, PayScale.com showed Ph.D. economists' salary ranges as follows: all Ph.D. economists, $61,000 to $160,000; Ph.D. corporate economists, $71,000 to $207,000; economics full professors, $89,000 to $137,000; economics associate professors, $59,000 to $156,000, and economics assistant professors, $72,000 to $100,000. 

 

Sorry but the world revolves around the words of Economists.  You may not understand economics but the people who run the world do.  For me to continue a conversation with a person who like you would make no sense.   It is like debating the existence of air or water.  I don't want to be rude but please don't expect any more replies. 

 

 

[mogandave]

End of story? 
 
The largest single professional grouping of economists in the UK are the more than 1000 members of the Government Economic Service, who work in 30 government departments and agencies.
Analysis of destination surveys for economics graduates from a number of selected top schools shows nearly 80 percent in employment six months after graduation.
 
London school of economics graduates -18 Nobel Prizes in economics, peace and literature. At least 34 past or present prime ministers, presidents and premiers have come from the
London School of ECONOMICS.
 
15,000 non-academic economists in the United States in 2008, with a median salary of roughly $83,000 the top ten percent earning more than $147,040 annually. Nearly 135 colleges and universities grant around 900 new ECONOMICS  Ph.D.s every year.
As of January 2013, PayScale.com showed Ph.D. economists' salary ranges as follows: all Ph.D. economists, $61,000 to $160,000; Ph.D. corporate economists, $71,000 to $207,000; economics full professors, $89,000 to $137,000; economics associate professors, $59,000 to $156,000, and economics assistant professors, $72,000 to $100,000. 
 
Sorry but the world revolves around the words of Economists.  You may not understand economics but the people who run the world do.  For me to continue a conversation with a person who like you would make no sense.   It is like debating the existence of air or water.  I don't want to be rude but please don't expect any more replies. 
 
 

That people involved in it make good dough does not make it more reliable. (Look at climate change)

I generally trust the data for what it is, but other people’s projections are mostly useless.

[KiwiKiwi]

5 minutes ago, Rarebear said:

End of story? 

 

The largest single professional grouping of economists in the UK are the more than 1000 members of the Government Economic Service, who work in 30 government departments and agencies.

Analysis of destination surveys for economics graduates from a number of selected top schools shows nearly 80 percent in employment six months after graduation.

 

London school of economics graduates -18 Nobel Prizes in economics, peace and literature. At least 34 past or present prime ministers, presidents and premiers have come from the

London School of ECONOMICS.

 

15,000 non-academic economists in the United States in 2008, with a median salary of roughly $83,000 the top ten percent earning more than $147,040 annually. Nearly 135 colleges and universities grant around 900 new ECONOMICS  Ph.D.s every year.

As of January 2013, PayScale.com showed Ph.D. economists' salary ranges as follows: all Ph.D. economists, $61,000 to $160,000; Ph.D. corporate economists, $71,000 to $207,000; economics full professors, $89,000 to $137,000; economics associate professors, $59,000 to $156,000, and economics assistant professors, $72,000 to $100,000. 

 

Sorry but the world revolves around the words of Economists.  You may not understand economics but the people who run the world do.  For me to continue a conversation with a person who like you would make no sense.   It is like debating the existence of air or water.  I don't want to be rude but please don't expect any more replies. 

 

 

 

I wasn't really expecting this one, in fact I would prefer not to have had it at all. Economics is Voodoo, in my opinion. Take it, leave it, do what the hell you like with it, one more denier doesn't make any difference to reality. Come back and see me in 20 years when you've learned something you haven't been taught.

[Rarebear]

56 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

That people involved in it make good dough does not make it more reliable. (Look at climate change)

I generally trust the data for what it is, but other people’s projections are mostly useless.

George Soros is a graduate of London School of Economics.  All the largest banks and institutions that control 99% of the money in the world listen to economists.  If you knew what economists told governments and other holders of wealth it might be an interesting discussion.  Why do you think graduate economists make $200,000 fresh out of college and you made less than $20,000 your first year out of school?

[simoh1490]

The problem is that less than 1% of the population understands and debates theories by the likes of Keynes, Friedman, Stiglitz and similar whilst 90% of the population thinks that economics is the study of things they see around them or even what's happening to them financially (or percentages to that effect). It's really a waste of time having brilliant economist minds in play when most people don't understand what their models actually mean or how to apply them to their thinking - the proof that is true is this thread. 

 

The remainder of the people? I think they're the group who don't adopt the philosophies of Keynes et al but instead look at a broad range of economic factors to try and compile a single picture, ignoring those factors that are clearly not worth evaluating, the earnings of Somchai's noodle stall and how many pairs of nickers Boonsri sold at her market stall. 

 

So perhaps being a 200k a year Phd economist for a large corporate is interesting and useful to society. But I doubt seriously that the majority of such people have any better or more accurate answers about the state and direction of the broader economy than the <10% group does, if they did we wouldn't be sat here arguing about whether it's good, bad or indifferent. The real task is not to make the 10% group adopt one of the 1% groups theories, the real task is to get the 90% group to the same level of understanding as the 90% group......I think.

[chama]

Election issue? Or a reason the election has been so slow in being held as the junta leaders hope for improvement?

[Dumbastheycome]

On 6/10/2018 at 4:26 PM, simoh1490 said:

The problem is that less than 1% of the population understands and debates theories by the likes of Keynes, Friedman, Stiglitz and similar whilst 90% of the population thinks that economics is the study of things they see around them or even what's happening to them financially (or percentages to that effect). It's really a waste of time having brilliant economist minds in play when most people don't understand what their models actually mean or how to apply them to their thinking - the proof that is true is this thread. 

 

The remainder of the people? I think they're the group who don't adopt the philosophies of Keynes et al but instead look at a broad range of economic factors to try and compile a single picture, ignoring those factors that are clearly not worth evaluating, the earnings of Somchai's noodle stall and how many pairs of nickers Boonsri sold at her market stall. 

 

So perhaps being a 200k a year Phd economist for a large corporate is interesting and useful to society. But I doubt seriously that the majority of such people have any better or more accurate answers about the state and direction of the broader economy than the <10% group does, if they did we wouldn't be sat here arguing about whether it's good, bad or indifferent. The real task is not to make the 10% group adopt one of the 1% groups theories, the real task is to get the 90% group to the same level of understanding as the 90% group......I think.

Wow!

Good  luck   in  achieving that !

The  90 %  are deliberately kept  in a  position of dependency which does  not  allow  them even the time  to  contemplate the complexities of  the  crapola promulgated by those   of  high profile to the  10%.

To the  10%  who already  control the  wealth  then yes  the 200k p.a Economist is vital because of that 10%  there remains  99% who also probably  are as dependant to maintain their  situation as  the prior  90%  are in their  own.

The  1 %  who control  the  worlds wealth dictate economies....their understanding  is in that !

For  the rest....it remains  a lottery with   false signals  on which way to bet !

 

[Dumbastheycome]

On 6/10/2018 at 4:09 PM, Rarebear said:

George Soros is a graduate of London School of Economics.  All the largest banks and institutions that control 99% of the money in the world listen to economists.  If you knew what economists told governments and other holders of wealth it might be an interesting discussion.  Why do you think graduate economists make $200,000 fresh out of college and you made less than $20,000 your first year out of school?

My  first  year out of  school  gained  me  $19,000. With  that  I  could  at  that time  live  better than $200,000 can  purchase  now!

Economists  favour  the  gross numbers,  not the  value. Not  so  different  to   estimating  the   viable possible tonnage of a potato  crop  while  ignoring  what  it may be  actually  worth  on the  market.

 

[Sir Dude]

George Soros is an aging dinosaur and will soon be gone and forgotten. There are many like him that have no business influencing anything in a modern world they know nothing of really.

[simoh1490]

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

George Soros is an aging dinosaur and will soon be gone and forgotten. There are many like him that have no business influencing anything in a modern world they know nothing of really.

What a crock! ......"have no business influencing anything in a modern world", do you think only millennials or similar have the right to influence things in this so-called modern world, gawd help us if you do!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 12:47 PM, Rarebear said:

Chinese buyers helped Sansiri sell half of the 77 apartments at 98 Wireless before construction was finished.

Magnolias Ratchadamri Boulevard, some 80 per cent of the units have already been sold, with investors from Hong Kong, Singapore and Taiwan accounting for more than half.

Four Seasons Private Residences, which is being built on the edge of the Chao Phraya river. Some 70 per cent of the 355 units have already been purchased, with half of the buyers coming from outside Thailand.

Chinese tourists made 130 million overseas trips in 2017, with total spending amounting to $115 billion

Thailand rose from #6 to become the third most popular investment destination for Chinese buyers last year.

 

Chinese are trying to get money out of China.  Is this news to anyone?

We all know that rich Chinese are buying property outside China for when it all goes wrong. The average package tour Chinese tourist in LOS following a guide with a flag are not buying property in LOS and only spend, apparently, in shops that are selected for them.

The significance of the $115 billion ( if that is correct ) isn't the amount, but how much of it gets spent to benefit the local economy ie poor/ low end Thais. Spending a great deal to make already rich Thais richer isn't helping the economy of "most Thais". "Most Thais" are not in the 1%.

[ubonjoe]

A off topic post bringing US politics into the discussion and the resultant replies to it have been removed.

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

You wish it was an anomaly...look at the population numbers by age.

People born around 1930 still number in the tens of millions!

 

They are not going to disappear anytime soon, and as of today there are much more silent generation members in positions of high power than there are from generation X.

 

...and as a percentage of the global population, they represent what, no need to go to too many decimal points, you can round at four if it makes things easier. And whilst we all wish we might live forever, the odds are not in our favour, they are definitely not in the boomers favour.

[KiwiKiwi]

On 6/9/2018 at 8:32 PM, mogandave said:

No, without economists, economics are just not possible.

 

It's all nothing but a coin toss.

 

Don't agree - too many contradictions to the general point means it fails.

 

 

[mogandave]

 
Don't agree - too many contradictions to the general point means it fails.
 
 

I don’t either.

So what do you see as the “general point” and what are some of the contradictions you are referring to?

[nong38]

If that is correct why does the Bhat remain so high against other currencies?

[simoh1490]

5 hours ago, nong38 said:

If that is correct why does the Bhat remain so high against other currencies?

Demand, solely demand. Lots of people want to buy THB; exporters want to buy it when their export bills are settled, tourists want to buy when they come here on holiday; investors who buy government bonds want to buy it, and so on.