Long weekend: TAT upbeat as "lively" weekend sees 3.1 million Thai tourists splash out 12 billion baht

[joecoolfrog]

6 hours ago, BigStar said:

You've miserably failed to get it straight again. TAT said nothing about how much each Thai tourist will spend.

 

It's referring to "revenue generated," as it always does. Our ace TVF Economists always confuse the two and get out their calculators to voilà! arrive at a shrewd debunking of TAT.????

 

Yet TAT's figure of 40 million international tourists per year is now totally accepted by TAT: TVF to point out that domestic tourism can't possibly make up for the loss of the 40 million. One of our little convenient contradictions here. 

 

Before the usual straw man nonsense chants start, you may at least get this straight:

 

TAT in no way said, suggested, or implied--at any time--that

• domestic tourism will make up for the loss of international tourism
• domestic tourism will "save" Thailand
• Thailand no longer needs or wants international tourism
• Thailand isn't strongly considering how to revive international tourism at earliest opportunity.

In fact, no one has ever thought any such thing, esp TVF posters of course.

 

The helpful economic effects of domestic tourism are accepted without reservation when it comes to our (farang) home countries, for example, in Brighton or Blackpool. It's amusing how the same economics are denied when it comes to Thailand. The usual bigotry, I assume.

Ok and the ' revenue generated ' , TAT know this in advance how ?

[SupermarineS6B]

Ha ha..... It's a strange fact but i lost interest in TVF ages ago after reading so many two week experts spouting verbal you know what all over its pages. 

I now find that i read TVF to brighten my days up with the never ending round of pure comedy that i read on here....  

Next it'll be " Thailand set to become the worlds super power and plans to send Somchai to the moon "... Ching ching.......    Oh dear........   Keep it up boys, it better than the tele......   

[joecoolfrog]

6 hours ago, BigStar said:

Very good. Where do you see the word "spend" in that sentence?????

Do you not comprehend ' splash out ' ?

[AlfHuy]

Wow, they are quick.

20% of this figures please straight, wrapped nicely in some brown Christmas envelopes.

 

Maybe they have the next months lottery numbers available as well.

[AlfHuy]

"lively" weekend sees 3.1 million Thai tourists splash out 12 billion baht

 

 

I would make this now "LAW".

Each month 4 lively long weekends.

4x12 billion baht, that is a whopping 48 Billion a month.

Who needs foreign tourists?

[AlfHuy]

3,1 Million?

 

They wait outside 7/11 and count.

You go in and out, that's 2 times they saw you, hence 2 tourists.

You go 5 times a day to 7/11, you count for 10 tourists.

 

Easy mathematics.

[Boedog]

Amazing Thailand, they just keep pulling ridiculous figures out of there <deleted> on every single thing, never ceases to astound, Covid should have been a wake up call but NO corruption,  stupidity and denial still reigns supreme

[Sametboy2019]

From what im seeing this is the quietist weekend ive seen since lockdown

[joecoolfrog]

2 hours ago, BigStar said:

Only to the ignorant. If you studied up on it, you'd find that one baht spent by a domestic tourist might generate 10 baht in revenue. Hence TAT's figures are conservative enough.

Spend = income .

Income - costs is net revenue.

So please explain how 1 baht spent generates 10 baht in revenue.

[grobec]

7 hours ago, meechai said:

Now lemme get this straight.........

 

Each one million Thai Tourist will spend 4 Billion Baht?

 

Ummm ok then

You put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em bot' up
Put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em bot' up

Well 1 million spending 4000 baht. 3 nights @ b800 = 3200.

food and drinks 3 days b1500.

even if families they could hit that. 

[ikke1959]

In Hua Hin???? it was due to normal... I was there

[mikeymike100]

7 hours ago, BigStar said:

Very good. Where do you see the word "spend" in that sentence?????

The meaning of splash out is to spend money!!

splash out (sth) definition: 1. to spend a lot of money on buying things.

If you look at any dictionary definition they all say the same!

Its not rocket science!

[shackleton]

Well if the domestic Thai tourist is spending this on a 4 day weekend

Then they the  Thai Tourist board are obviously  not worried about the international tourist arriving back

Problem resolved more 4 day national holidays are needed 

[peter zwart]

You think he knows that Thailand is bigger the only the South?

[kuzmabruk]

8 hours ago, meechai said:

Now lemme get this straight.........

 

Each one million Thai Tourist will spend 4 Billion Baht?

 

Ummm ok then

You put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em bot' up
Put the lime in the coconut, you drank 'em bot' up

4,000 Baht per person over 4 days, or 1,000 Baht per day is not much spending in comparison to foreigners on holiday, but it sure is a shot in the arm for the tourism industry.

[Susco]

8 hours ago, BigStar said:

Very good. Where do you see the word "spend" in that sentence?????

 

Only a right out pedant would insist that splash out doesn't mean  exactly the same as spend.

[KhaoYai]

8 hours ago, BigStar said:

The helpful economic effects of domestic tourism are accepted without reservation when it comes to our (farang) home countries, for example, in Brighton or Blackpool. It's amusing how the same economics are denied when it comes to Thailand. The usual bigotry, I assume.

No bigotry here - just plain facts. The average Thai tourist (not relatively rich Bangkokians) will spend 500 baht or less on a room, buy their food on the soi and their drinks at 7/11. Do you seriously think that domestic tourism can get anywhere near the figures generated by foreigners?

 

Also, the foreign tourist market is well developed, employs hundreds of thousands and is now relied upon as a vital part of the economy. Thai's have always travelled but their habits are not the same as comparitively 'rich' foreigners.  A few special holiday weekends ain't going to fix the tourist trade's woes - the hotels and resorts will be dead again next week.

[tomauasia]

I don't believe one word.

[billd766]

5 hours ago, BigStar said:

Only to the ignorant. If you studied up on it, you'd find that one baht spent by a domestic tourist might generate 10 baht in revenue. Hence TAT's figures are conservative enough.

Please explain, in simple terms, how 1 baht spent equals 10 baht in revenue?

[Fairynuff]

Having been to Prachuab, Pranburi and Hua Hin this long weekend I can tell you not many of the 3.1m are around here.

[Tonypandy]

9 hours ago, BigStar said:

You've miserably failed to get it straight again. TAT said nothing about how much each Thai tourist will spend.

 

It's referring to "revenue generated," as it always does. Our ace TVF Economists always confuse the two and get out their calculators to voilà! arrive at a shrewd debunking of TAT.????

 

Yet TAT's figure of 40 million international tourists per year is now totally accepted by TAT: TVF to point out that domestic tourism can't possibly make up for the loss of the 40 million. One of our little convenient contradictions here. 

 

Before the usual straw man nonsense chants start, you may at least get this straight:

 

TAT in no way said, suggested, or implied--at any time--that

• domestic tourism will make up for the loss of international tourism
• domestic tourism will "save" Thailand
• Thailand no longer needs or wants international tourism
• Thailand isn't strongly considering how to revive international tourism at earliest opportunity.

In fact, no one has ever thought any such thing, esp TVF posters of course.

 

The helpful economic effects of domestic tourism are accepted without reservation when it comes to our (farang) home countries, for example, in Brighton or Blackpool. It's amusing how the same economics are denied when it comes to Thailand. The usual bigotry, I assume.

But TAT have given BS figures after just a couple of days into the holiday. How can they have any idea of how many tourists and what the economy will recieve, they can't. Just all made up. 

[kickstart]

11 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Occupancy in Lopburi was 65%, Chainat 60% and Singburi 55%. 

 

I live 40 km from Lopburi,in the middle  of the sunflower fields , and the Passak Dam ,one of the late Kings projects  ,been out and about just like a normal weekend, and we get a lot of tourists this time of year , not that busy ,will see if it picks up tomorrow.

As for Singburi up 55% ,they not a lot to do they ,no major tourist attractions ,a lot of rice fields.

I would say TOT are thinking of a number and doubling it for they figure's .  

[lee68]

Busy up here in Chiang mai, out in mae on in mae kampong its very busy, but that is usual for this time of year, as many Thais from the south come up to the mountains for the cool season.

 

[ThailandRyan]

Bangkoks been dead.  Hit up the Bird and Mangrove Sanctuary yesterday in Samut Prakan and there were about 10 other folks there.  Last time I went last month it was packed.  Guess I helped by spending a nice chunk shopping for Xmas gifts at Robinsons on the way home.

[BigStar]

9 hours ago, sambum said:

 

You should get a job with TAT (Unless, of course you already have):-

 

"Yet TAT's figure of 40 million international tourists per year is now totally accepted by TAT"

 

Well it would be, wouldn't it?

Rather, you merely take a remedial reading course. Not what I said, so you've totally, miserably misunderstood and distorted the point. Here is it again for you:

 

15 hours ago, BigStar said:

Yet TAT's figure of 40 million international tourists per year is now totally accepted by TAT: TVF to point out that domestic tourism can't possibly make up for the loss of the 40 million. One of our little convenient contradictions here. 

TVF has its own parallel truth-telling and fact-checking (with no facts) organizations that mirror the Thai organizations. For example, we have CSI: TVF to determine that anytime a farang jumps off a balcony, he's been pushed by a wife, girlfriend, ladyboy, or bargirl.

 

So we have TAT: TVF to determine REAL true tourist numbers, spending, revenue etc. Which is always zero--tourists don't like Thailand, 'cause it treats them so badly and the environment is so vile.

 

Now after decades of sneering at any figure advanced by TAT, now suddenly the figure of 40 million for last year is totally accepted as correct! WOT? Why's that?

 

Well, that's merely so that our TAT: TVF members can sneer at the idea that the number of domestic tourists will ever reach that 40 million! Not that anybody said, thought, or implied it would, but we like to pretend that TAT and The Authorities believe that, 'cause, you know, they're all stupid, unlike ourselves. We know it's impossible! Only international tourism can save Thailand. (By that we mean farang tourists only, the Golden Egg Layers, the fabled Big Spenders.) Why can't The Authorities see the obvious?????

 

But then if you now claim TAT was correct about the 40 million, then you need to accept that TAT's correct, or might well be, about the 3.1 million and 12 billion in revenue generated (not money spent by the tourists). Now we don't want to do that, a further contradiction of just the sort I had pointed out. 

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by BigStar

[joecoolfrog]

1 hour ago, BigStar said:

Rather, you merely take a remedial reading course. Not what I said, so you've totally, miserably misunderstood and distorted the point. Here is it again for you:

 

TVF has its own parallel truth-telling and fact-checking (with no facts) organizations that mirror the Thai organizations. For example, we have CSI: TVF to determine that anytime a farang jumps off a balcony, he's been pushed by a wife, girlfriend, ladyboy, or bargirl.

 

So we have TAT: TVF to determine REAL true tourist numbers, spending, revenue etc. Which is always zero--tourists don't like Thailand, 'cause it treats them so badly and the environment is so vile.

 

Now after decades of sneering at any figure advanced by TAT, now suddenly the figure of 40 million for last year is totally accepted as correct! WOT? Why's that?

 

Well, that's merely so that our TAT: TVF members can sneer at the idea that the number of domestic tourists will ever reach that 40 million! Not that anybody said, thought, or implied it would, but we like to pretend that TAT and The Authorities believe that, 'cause, you know, they're all stupid, unlike ourselves. We know it's impossible! Only international tourism can save Thailand. (By that we mean farang tourists only, the Golden Egg Layers, the fabled Big Spenders.) Why can't The Authorities see the obvious?????

 

But then if you now claim TAT was correct about the 40 million, then you need to accept that TAT's correct, or might well be, about the 3.1 million and 12 billion in revenue generated (not money spent by the tourists). Now we don't want to do that, a further contradiction of just the sort I had pointed out. 

 

Still waiting for you to tell us how TAT know precise figures in advance or how revenue can be ten times spend.

[Soikhaonoiken]

There quick with those figures, but but more Thais getting into debt.... As if house hold debt isn't high enough... 

[Trip Hop]

13 hours ago, BigStar said:

Only to the ignorant. If you studied up on it, you'd find that one baht spent by a domestic tourist might generate 10 baht in revenue. Hence TAT's figures are conservative enough.

Tourism multiplers only work in a tourism economy that is growing, not one that has fallen flat on its ar*e! If we were to accept that everything has now been reset to where tourism revenue was say 30 or so years ago, then you could justify your statement. In any other context, you’re just being pedantic and a smart ar*e for the sake of wanting to sound superior?

Edited December 12, 2020 by Trip Hop

[nkg]

17 hours ago, BigStar said:

You've miserably failed to get it straight again. TAT said nothing about how much each Thai tourist will spend.

 

It's referring to "revenue generated," as it always does. Our ace TVF Economists always confuse the two and get out their calculators to voilà! arrive at a shrewd debunking of TAT.????

 

Yet TAT's figure of 40 million international tourists per year is now totally accepted by TAT: TVF to point out that domestic tourism can't possibly make up for the loss of the 40 million. One of our little convenient contradictions here. 

 

Before the usual straw man nonsense chants start, you may at least get this straight:

 

TAT in no way said, suggested, or implied--at any time--that

• domestic tourism will make up for the loss of international tourism
• domestic tourism will "save" Thailand
• Thailand no longer needs or wants international tourism
• Thailand isn't strongly considering how to revive international tourism at earliest opportunity.

In fact, no one has ever thought any such thing, esp TVF posters of course.

 

The helpful economic effects of domestic tourism are accepted without reservation when it comes to our (farang) home countries, for example, in Brighton or Blackpool. It's amusing how the same economics are denied when it comes to Thailand. The usual bigotry, I assume.

 

 

Another long, boring post that nobody can be bothered reading. Well done ????

 

[mikebell]

Can't understand people getting frothed up by TAT figures.  They are always optimistic, perpetually wearing rose-coloured spectacles.  Like house agents they are never going to say prices are plummeting, the markets in free fall.