Sufficiency Economics

[wintermute]

Then you took your training in institution(s) that are behind the times.

Current MBA and economics programs in most of the reputable schools in the West now include curricula which discuss these points of responsibility. I have done a recent review of MBA programs in the USA with a prospective student candidate, and have been pleasantly surprised at course descriptions which contain such study units such as: "Balancing Profit with Environmental Responsibility," "Business Ethics," "Employee Morale," etc.

Get with the program, and join us in the 21st century! (In the West, at least).

I thought we were talking about Adam Smith only not what's been taught in MBA schools? Besides I only took a few econ classes to fulfil my humanity course requirements. So I reall didn't bother to look at those MBA classes much as my major was electrical engineering.

If you bothered to read some of his books you'd realize that business ethics and Adam Smith's theory of economics are not mutually exclusive either. In fact he even mentions this several times in his various writings.

[ColPyat]

By the way, I believe that sufficiency economy as meant by our King is for everyone in Thailand. If you wanna drag politics into it, that's another matter entirely though imo.

It is rather funny how everbody believes what he wants to believe.

In reality the main emphasis of sufficiency economy has always been disenfranchised farmers, with minimal land holdings. There are all over the country training courses in sufficiency economy especially for those farmers given by the agricultural universities, and incentitives are given when those farmers adopt that system, such as free ponds dug, free saplings, etc. And that was in place long before the present government has been misconstructing that idea for their own purposes.

Our family has been doing this system of farming since several years very succesfully. But nothing what is now called "sufficiency economy" by the present government, or the urban middle classes, reminds me, or anyone i know who learned about this system, what it always was meant to be.

And still, there is no land reform in sight, which would be necessary to even instill the basics of sufficiency economy. Sad, how an originally good idea is getting perverted by the present government for their own agenda of extreme nationalism, and even more sad how a supposedly educated middle class falls for it.

[ThaiGoon]

It's also a principle that's relatively immune to criticism in Thailand because of its origins. Any economic principle that cannot be evaluated or criticized for its effectiveness is in effect already doomed to failure because of its lack of transparency. In order to argue for morality in capitalism and free market a society has to reform its entire culture of corruption and malfeasance first.

Please try to think it through (if that's possible). You would have realized that if everyone in Thailand can adhere to suficiency economy philosohy, we could substantially reduce the amount of corruption and malfeasance in Thailand. Think, please.

[ThaiGoon]

If you bothered to read some of his books you'd realize that business ethics and Adam Smith's theory of economics are not mutually exclusive either. In fact he even mentions this several times in his various writings.

So why didn't you quote those parts in the first place then, when it's essentailly the main difference between capitalism and sufficiency economy?

[ColPyat]

It's also a principle that's relatively immune to criticism in Thailand because of its origins. Any economic principle that cannot be evaluated or criticized for its effectiveness is in effect already doomed to failure because of its lack of transparency. In order to argue for morality in capitalism and free market a society has to reform its entire culture of corruption and malfeasance first.

Please try to think it through (if that's possible). You would have realized that if everyone in Thailand can adhere to suficiency economy philosohy, we could substantially reduce the amount of corruption and malfeasance in Thailand. Think, please.

That's the same as saying: "If every westerner could adhere to the principles of the serm of the mount, there would be no wars or injustice anymore", etc.

Nice, but there is something called *reality*.

Edited February 24, 2007 by ColPyat

[wintermute]

And still, there is no land reform in sight, which would be necessary to even instill the basics of sufficiency economy. Sad, how an originally good idea is getting perverted by the present government for their own agenda of extreme nationalism, and even more sad how a supposedly educated middle class falls for it.

The recent editorials in the Bangkok Post have been enlightening from a Thai academic perspective in noting how Thai Nationalism and ethnocentrism is what is actually driving a lot of these current policies. They've seen similar actions by previous juntas who know how to milk nationalist sensibilities from the majority of the uneducated population. Very little is done in practical consideration a lot of it is just another form of populism practiced by the regime so they can justify their coup. It's uncertain what future damage this will wreak on Thailand but we're already starting to see the results with projected lower economic growth, lowered Foreign direct investment, and problems with competitive exports.

[wintermute]

If you bothered to read some of his books you'd realize that business ethics and Adam Smith's theory of economics are not mutually exclusive either. In fact he even mentions this several times in his various writings.

So why didn't you quote those parts in the first place then, when it's essentailly the main difference between capitalism and sufficiency economy?

My job isn't to quote entire books online it's to your own benefit that you go to a library sometime and check out some of those evil foreign scribblings.

[ColPyat]

The recent editorials in the Bangkok Post have been enlightening from a Thai academic perspective in noting how Thai Nationalism and ethnocentrism is what is actually driving a lot of these current policies. They've seen similar actions by previous juntas who know how to milk nationalist sensibilities from the majority of the uneducated population. Very little is done in practical consideration a lot of it is just another form of populism practiced by the regime so they can justify their coup. It's uncertain what future damage this will wreak on Thailand but we're already starting to see the results with projected lower economic growth, lowered Foreign direct investment, and problems with competitive exports.

The only positive part is that this jingoism is so far widely rejected by most sectors of the population, for exactly the reasons you have mentioned.

[ThaiGoon]

It is rather funny how everbody believes what he wants to believe.

In reality the main emphasis of sufficiency economy has always been disenfranchised farmers, with minimal land holdings. There are all over the country training courses in sufficiency economy especially for those farmers given by the agricultural universities, and incentitives are given when those farmers adopt that system, such as free ponds dug, free saplings, etc. And that was in place long before the present government has been misconstructing that idea for their own purposes.

Our family has been doing this system of farming since several years very succesfully. But nothing what is now called "sufficiency economy" by the present government, or the urban middle classes, reminds me, or anyone i know who learned about this system, what it always was meant to be.

And still, there is no land reform in sight, which would be necessary to even instill the basics of sufficiency economy. Sad, how an originally good idea is getting perverted by the present government for their own agenda of extreme nationalism, and even more sad how a supposedly educated middle class falls for it.

I thought we were talking about sufficiency economy, the philosophy, not the politics? So the OP wanted to talk about politics, not what sufficiecy economy really means? Interesting.

Maybe if you wanna talk about how it's being implementd or the supposedly hidden agenda behind it, you can create another thread?

[ColPyat]

I thought we were talking about sufficiency economy, the philosophy, not the politics? So the OP wanted to talk about politics, not what sufficiecy economy really means? Interesting.

Maybe if you wanna talk about how it's being implementd or the supposedly hidden agenda behind it, you can create another thread?

In the present times, sufficiency economy and its politics cannot be seperated.

Proof of that are your own posts, which are completely lacking in knowledge of what sufficiency economy really is, how it has been tought since more than a decade by the agricultural universities. You just repeat nationalist propaganda of our present government without understanding its basics, where is came from, and for what reasons it has been created for whom.

[ThaiGoon]

My job isn't to quote entire books online it's to your own benefit that you go to a library sometime and check out some of those evil foreign scribblings.

Yeah, but why did you quote the wrong part then? Why didn't you quote the parts that were supposed to help your argument in the first place? Where in the West did you get educated, may I ask?

[Mobi]

Slightly off topic, but as I started it, maybe I can allow myself a little leeway

There was avery interesting segment on CNN the other day about graduate students in China unable to find jobs. The whole thrust of the piece was that even students with first class degrees were struggling to find jobs because they had no vocational qulaifications. Basically, the major companies couldn't care two hoots about academic degrees, they wanted people with experience, or vocational qualifications.

Some students had decided to go the vocational route after spending years getting their degrees, and yet more were either unemployed, or took jobs as maids or similar menial positions.

I thought what a difference that is to Thailand, where the degree is king, and you can't even get on the first rung of the employment ladder without one. Even for assembly jobs in factories, the employers demand a certain level of education, and without it, you are condemned forever to the most menial of positions.

"What a joke when degrees in Thailand mean virtually nothing in terms of ability or aptitude to do the job. All they mean is that the parents had enough money to buy their kids through university, and, most probably buy the degrees as well.

Maybe that's what the sufficiency economy is all about. Just do sufficient in business to maintain the status quo - through personal connections, nepotism and unfair employment selection.

What I don't get is how some people on here always associate sufficiency economy with general malpractices in Thailand. Sufficiency economy was never as a wide spread philosophy as it is now in Thailand. Yet, on this forum, it can be contributed to everything that's wrong in Thai economy.

If you already have a firm belief of what it is, why did you bother to ask for other opinions?

Well now, who's jumping in without reading things properly now?

Firstly, I didn't ask for opinions, I asked if someone could provide an explanation. Of course opinions are welcome, as always in TV, but it wasn't what I asked for.

Secondly I presaged my second post with the words:

"Slightly off topic, but as I started it, maybe I can allow myself a little leeway "

Now, I ask you, does that sound like I have a firm belief of what it is the sufficiency economy?

And then I used the word "maybe" - does that sound like I have a firm belief?

And if your grasp of Englsih is as good as I think it is, then you know very well that I was simply bringing an additional element to play in the general debate, and that my suggestion on the possible definition of the sufficiency economy was a light hearted one at best.

I do respect your views, but you are being disingenuous in the way you fight your corner against all comers.

As I suggested in another thread, maybe you would do well to take a long hard breath before you decide there is hostility and unjust criticism of Thailand in every opinion that is contradictory to your own.

You have to accept some unpleasant truths if there is to be any intelligent discussion of the facts. If you think objectionable employment practices are irrelevent, then say so.

Don't turn it into a personal attack. It will gain you no friends, nor enhance your argument.

[ThaiGoon]

That's the same as saying: "If every westerner could adhere to the principles of the serm of the mount, there would be no wars or injustice anymore", etc.

Nice, but there is something called *reality*.

And I'm sure no one in the ringt mind would blame the philosophy itself, when the faults lie with the ones who practice it.

Are we still talking about the philosophy itself or the Thai government? I'm a bit confused.

[wintermute]

My job isn't to quote entire books online it's to your own benefit that you go to a library sometime and check out some of those evil foreign scribblings.

Yeah, but why did you quote the wrong part then? Why didn't you quote the parts that were supposed to help your argument in the first place? Where in the West did you get educated, may I ask?

Actually the part was completely relevant but you failed to comprehend what the quote meant. Let me try to condense it in a way so that maybe you can understand..it was stating that capitalism and a free market system naturally seek equilibrium in a society. A well meaning and well intentioned person could craft the most humanitarian policies on earth but they would never defeat basic human consumption habits. The whole principle of it is that people can be self serving and also inrease both the well being AND productivity of their societies.

By the way one of the most fatal flaws of modern day theories (Communism) were based on the novel idea that they could change human consumption and free will to suit a communal ideal.

Edited February 24, 2007 by wintermute

[ColPyat]

That's the same as saying: "If every westerner could adhere to the principles of the serm of the mount, there would be no wars or injustice anymore", etc.

Nice, but there is something called *reality*.

And I'm sure no one in the ringt mind would blame the philosophy itself, when the faults lie with the ones who practice it.

Are we still talking about the philosophy itself or the Thai government? I'm a bit confused.

Presently, and unfortunately, we have to talk about you, and your appearant, and obvious confusion in terms of what sufficiency economy means.

[ThaiGoon]

Well now, who's jumping in without reading things properly now?

Firstly, I didn't ask for opinions, I asked if someone could provide an explanation. Of course opinions are welcome, as always in TV, but it wasn't what I asked for.

Secondly I presaged my second post with the words:

"Slightly off topic, but as I started it, maybe I can allow myself a little leeway "

Now, I ask you, does that sound like I have a firm belief of what it is the sufficiency economy?

And then I used the word "maybe" - does that sound like I have a firm belief?

And if your grasp of Englsih is as good as I think it is, then you know very well that I was simply bringing an additional element to play in the general debate, and that my suggestion on the possible definition of the sufficiency economy was a light hearted one at best.

I do respect your views, but you are being disingenuous in the way you fight your corner against all comers.

As I suggested in another thread, maybe you would do well to take a long hard breath before you decide there is hostility and unjust criticism of Thailand in every opinion that is contradictory to your own.

You have to accept some unpleasant truths if there is to be any intelligent discussion of the facts. If you think objectionable employment practices are irrelevent, then say so.

Don't turn it into a personal attack. It will gain you no friends, nor enhance your argument.

Fair enough.

[ThaiGoon]

Presently, and unfortunately, we have to talk about you, and your appearant, and obvious confusion in terms of what sufficiency economy means.

Yeah you sure know what sufficiency economy really means, when 90% of what you talked was really basically the twisted way it's been implemented.

[wintermute]

Presently, and unfortunately, we have to talk about you, and your appearant, and obvious confusion in terms of what sufficiency economy means.

Yeah you sure know what sufficiency economy really means, when 90% of what you talked was really basically the twisted way it's been implemented.

The whole point of this thread was to debate what it means because thus far noone (including the government espousing it) has been able to provide economic or business rationale for it. You say that its pure ideals have been "twisted" or implemented incorrectly but can you explain to us what the correct ideal is and how "sufficiency economy" will benefit Thailand in practical terms in the long run?

Let's start by addressing manufacturing exports which consist of 60% of Thailand's GDP. How will "sufficiency economy" policies benefit this important sector?

Edited February 24, 2007 by wintermute

[ThaiGoon]

Actually the part was completely relevant but you failed to comprehend what the quote meant. Let me try to condense it in a way so that maybe you can understand..it was stating that capitalism and a free market system naturally seek equilibrium in a society. A well meaning and well intentioned person could craft the most humanitarian policies on earth but they would never defeat basic human consumption habits. The whole principle of it is that people can be self serving and also inrease both the well being AND productivity of their societies.

By the way one of the most fatal flaws of modern day theories (Communism) were based on the novel idea that they could change human consumption and free will to suit a communal ideal.

Oh Buddha...help me help him. The "well being" in terms of capitalism basically only means how much goods/materials you can get and how much "utility" you get out of consuming them. Nothing whatsoever about the environment, the greed, the disenfranchised workers etc. Come on wintermute. Think.

[ColPyat]

Presently, and unfortunately, we have to talk about you, and your appearant, and obvious confusion in terms of what sufficiency economy means.

Yeah you sure know what sufficiency economy really means, when 90% of what you talked was really basically the twisted way it's been implemented.

I know it because i have done it since about six years after learning about it first more than ten years. We have been supported by the Sor Por Kor authorities, by the local branch of the agricultural university, and by the agricultural cooperative bank. And you are trying to tell me that all those years me, and the all institutions of the Thai government, have been doing a "twisted" way of implementing sufficiency ecomony?

[ThaiGoon]

I know it because i have done it since about six years after learning about it first more than ten years. We have been supported by the Sor Por Kor authorities, by the local branch of the agricultural university, and by the agricultural cooperative bank. And you are trying to tell me that all those years me, and the all institutions of the Thai government, have been doing a "twisted" way of implementing sufficiency ecomony?

Actually twisted was an unfortunate wrong choice of word. What I meant was it hasn't been implemented effectively. As for the philosophy itself, I totally believe that it's a great idea. And like I said, if everyone can adhere to it, we will become a better country.

[ColPyat]

The whole point of this thread was to debate what it means because thus far noone (including the government espousing it) has been able to provide economic or business rationale for it.

The problem is, what is has meant until the present government took power, was a clearly defined agricultural system and resulting micro economics for a particular sector of society - the small scale farmers - in order to survive from relatively small plots of land. That was how it was taught since more than a decade in agricultural universities all over the country to farmers interested adopting that system.

What it means now, nobody can explain.

[wintermute]

Actually the part was completely relevant but you failed to comprehend what the quote meant. Let me try to condense it in a way so that maybe you can understand..it was stating that capitalism and a free market system naturally seek equilibrium in a society. A well meaning and well intentioned person could craft the most humanitarian policies on earth but they would never defeat basic human consumption habits. The whole principle of it is that people can be self serving and also inrease both the well being AND productivity of their societies.

By the way one of the most fatal flaws of modern day theories (Communism) were based on the novel idea that they could change human consumption and free will to suit a communal ideal.

Oh Buddha...help me help him. The "well being" in terms of capitalism basically only means how much goods/materials you can get and how much "utility" you get out of consuming them. Nothing whatsoever about the environment, the greed, the disenfranchised workers etc. Come on wintermute. Think.

This only illustrates your failed understanding of capitalism and the benefits it brings to a society. Capitalism and a free market usually progresses into a higher standard of living, more educated people, and as a result society will demand satisfaction in terms of better rule of law. The strength of a country is its middle class. You can't institute environmental welfare laws when the culture is feudalistic with only a few disconnected powerful people controlling the country.

Politics, economy, and social welfare are all entertwined and nowhere in Adam Smith's books does he consider everything separate. This is why he's a brilliant founder of modern economics and has impacted the success of western countries and why Thailand is stuck in 9th century feudalistic agrarian thought.

[ColPyat]

Actually twisted was an unfortunate wrong choice of word. What I meant was it hasn't been implemented effectively. As for the philosophy itself, I totally believe that it's a great idea. And like I said, if everyone can adhere to it, we will become a better country.

And it still is not implemeted.

Sor Por Kor 401 land is still given mostly to the wealthy and not to the poor.

Influental people are still allowed into forest land in which only locals have a permission to live based on ancestral rights. Even our present prime minister has a residence on such land in which he has no right to be in.

What is implemented now is not sufficiency economy, but blatant nationalism.

Edited February 24, 2007 by ColPyat

[ThaiGoon]

The whole point of this thread was to debate what it means because thus far noone (including the government espousing it) has been able to provide economic or business rationale for it. You say that its pure ideals have been "twisted" or implemented incorrectly but can you explain to us what the correct ideal is and how "sufficiency economy" will benefit Thailand in practical terms in the long run?

Let's start by addressing manufacturing exports which consist of 60% of Thailand's GDP. How will "sufficiency economy" policies benefit this important sector?

Please go read what I said in another sufficiency economy thread. Sufficiency economy is not against economic growth. It's about growing it in a smart and cautious way. Ahhh I'm really lazy to type it again. Really. Go read that thread.

[wintermute]

The whole point of this thread was to debate what it means because thus far noone (including the government espousing it) has been able to provide economic or business rationale for it. You say that its pure ideals have been "twisted" or implemented incorrectly but can you explain to us what the correct ideal is and how "sufficiency economy" will benefit Thailand in practical terms in the long run?

Let's start by addressing manufacturing exports which consist of 60% of Thailand's GDP. How will "sufficiency economy" policies benefit this important sector?

Please go read what I said in another sufficiency economy thread. Sufficiency economy is not against economic growth. It's about growing it in a smart and cautious way. Ahhh I'm really lazy to type it again. Really. Go read that thread.

So in otherwords you have nothing to add to this debate except flames and knee jerk defensive reactions to any perceived criticism of Thai culture or policies. Ok, i'm glad we got that out of the way.

[ThaiGoon]

So in otherwords you have nothing to add to this debate except flames and knee jerk defensive reactions to any perceived criticism of Thai culture or policies. Ok, i'm glad we got that out of the way.

Have you tried to read what's been written in the other thread yet? Open your mind, read and then think. These should do the trick.

[ThaiGoon]

So in otherwords you have nothing to add to this debate except flames and knee jerk defensive reactions to any perceived criticism of Thai culture or policies. Ok, i'm glad we got that out of the way.

I'm open to fair criticism really and actually I like nad value it. But I just can't stand blatant ignorance, false information, generalization and general stupidity.

[wintermute]

So in otherwords you have nothing to add to this debate except flames and knee jerk defensive reactions to any perceived criticism of Thai culture or policies. Ok, i'm glad we got that out of the way.

I'm open to fair criticism really and actually I like nad value it. But I just can't stand blatant ignorance, false information, generalization and general stupidity.

You are free to debate in a rational and congent manner anything you find to be false or "stupid" in your point of view. So far you haven't been able to but instead resorted to childish insults and tantrums when asked to explain your position.

[Mobi]

Calm down guys.

I'm sorry if this has all been debated elsewhere, for some strange reason I missed it all.

I'm really fascinated by the fact that the government pushes this 'sufficiency economy' notion, yet no one steps forward to define it .

Then they appoint Somkid, and before he can enlighten us, he resigns, due to political pressure.

One of the reasons I mentioned China, was because in that country, we have another fascinating situation whereby a communist government is pursuing a capitalist economic policy.

There seems little doubt that China is heading for a massive economic boom that will take the world by storm over the coming years, and that India will be not far behind. And one of the things that China has recognised, is the need to hire and promote on merit, and that the patronage system will fast become a thing of the past.

Yet here in Thailand, where the Thai-Chinese still rule the business roost, they seem to be locked in a time warp of patronism and protectionism. To me, this is the reality of Thai economics.

I'm really not sure whether the so-called sufficiency economy is not just some kind of propaganda excersise to justify the status quo.

Unless someone can explain and convince me otherwise?