Will Thailand Always Be A Poor Country Because

[Jingthing]

OK, I find this link very interesting. It talks about a theory that some countries are fated to never be wealthy countries not because of economic policies but because their cultures are not conducive to wealth creation. When you consider the Puritan work ethic of Americans versus mai bpen rai in Thailand, I wonder whether Thailand fits into the class of the never will be rich countries, or not?

Please discuss.

Global Poverty Trap, Washington Post

much of the world's remaining poverty is semi-permanent. Modern technology and management are widely available, but many societies can't take advantage because their values and social organization are antagonistic. Prescribing economically sensible policies (open markets, secure property rights, sound money) can't overcome this bedrock resistance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

Edited October 31, 2007 by Jingthing

[Edonista]

Thailand will always be poor (meaning most of Thai people will stay poor) because is ruled by an oustandingly greedy and selfish "elite".

Just look at the way they are restricting visa for foreigneirs in order to avoid their money helps the poor.

Thai elite motto could be the one attributed to Gengis Khan in the Superman3 movie :"Me winning is not enough, all others must lose"

[pampal]

It's a matter of debt.

Most Americans/Westerners are under so much debt that they cannot afford to have the Mai Pen Rai mentality or else they will be sleeping on the streets.

[mellow1]

It's a matter of debt.

Most Americans/Westerners are under so much debt that they cannot afford to have the Mai Pen Rai mentality or else they will be sleeping on the streets.

And you think most Thais don't have debts?

[pampal]

It's a matter of debt.

Most Americans/Westerners are under so much debt that they cannot afford to have the Mai Pen Rai mentality or else they will be sleeping on the streets.

And you think most Thais don't have debts?

I am sure many Thais have debts, but nothing near the debt level of westerners.

[TokyoT]

Could not get your link to work – something about signing up for access to the post to get access to the link– no thanks.

In any case there is a book about this:

"The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor"

By David Landes

He basically says it all hinges on industrialization and then tosses all the arguments about geography, climate, and natural recourses aside and places the key mainly on the shoulders of a countries culture. Basically says that countries/ cultures that have not successfully industrialized will never successfully industrialize until they accept some key cultural characteristics work, thrift, honesty, etc.

To me the key is education of the masses, and this is something that Thailand does not do a very good job of.

[garro]

OK, I find this link very interesting. It talks about a theory that some countries are fated to never be wealthy countries not because of economic policies but because their cultures are not conducive to wealth creation. When you consider the Puritan work ethic of Americans versus mai bpen rai in Thailand, I wonder whether Thailand fits into the class of the never will be rich countries, or not?

Please discuss.

Global Poverty Trap, Washington Post

much of the world's remaining poverty is semi-permanent. Modern technology and management are widely available, but many societies can't take advantage because their values and social organization are antagonistic. Prescribing economically sensible policies (open markets, secure property rights, sound money) can't overcome this bedrock resistance.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1</a>

Countries like America have become so rich, not due to any superior culture, but through their willingness to exploit and steal from other cultures. Whether this be native Americans, African slaves or other group unlucky enough to have something they want. They have also benefited from having a very liquid sense of morality which can be moulded to suit whatever crusade they happen to be on. When people talk about the puritan work ethic they forget that it was often slaves doing the actual labor.

Edited October 31, 2007 by garro

[mark henry]

Maybe i'll get slated for this..but it does seem to me that Thai's are generally a lazy lot, sure they work long hours and pays none to good but maybe it's just an attitude of mind if i'm working in a shop and theres no customers i'd go and sought some thing out, clean anything to relieve the boredom, Thai's always seem to be standing around doing sod-all! They seem to lack any initiative, maybe it's the heat or more likely an education sytem that does'nt encourage using your brains too much.

[sibeymai]

Afraid I have to say the answer is yes. But of all the reasons given so far I think the most suitable is the control over the economy by the elite.

Thailand is a wealthy country, just look at the abundant infrastructure, factories, condos, good capital and cash inflow etc.

It's just that the vast majority of Thais aren't sharing in it and therefore aren't wealthy.

[Theyreallrubbish]

Paul Kruggman wrote about this in the mid 90's.

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html

This is the article that is hailed as predicting the Asian Economic Crisis, which it doesn't, but its still a fascinating read.

The crux of it is that increases in economic output in Asia, with the exception of Japan, are entirely due to increased investment and that improvements in productivity beyond those as a result of the increased investment are essentially nil.

This also leads to the conclusion that these economies will be hit by the law of diminishing returns and will never catch up to the west.

Reading between the lines and bringing it back on topic, countries have a certain level of potential productivity in their workforce that can be achieved by investing but then no more.

Thailand, as we all know, probably has a fairly low level of productivity from its individual workers and thus is always going to be a middle income nation no matter how many factories or roads are built.

[sbk]

OK, I find this link very interesting. It talks about a theory that some countries are fated to never be wealthy countries not because of economic policies but because their cultures are not conducive to wealth creation. When you consider the Puritan work ethic of Americans versus mai bpen rai in Thailand, I wonder whether Thailand fits into the class of the never will be rich countries, or not?

Please discuss.

Global Poverty Trap, Washington Post

much of the world's remaining poverty is semi-permanent. Modern technology and management are widely available, but many societies can't take advantage because their values and social organization are antagonistic. Prescribing economically sensible policies (open markets, secure property rights, sound money) can't overcome this bedrock resistance.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1</a>

Countries like America have become so rich, not due to any superior culture, but through their willingness to exploit and steal from other cultures. Whether this be native Americans, African slaves or other group unlucky enough to have something they want. They have also benefited from having a very liquid sense of morality which can be moulded to suit whatever crusade they happen to be on. When people talk about the puritan work ethic they forget that it was often slaves doing the actual labor.

Not that I disagree with you garro, look at the British Empire, look at the French and Belgian exploitation of Africa, the Dutch in Indonesia.

But, you do realize that the Puritans were in New England and the African slave system was in the South? Generally, the Puritans only exploited the native Americans And just to remind you, back then, they were still British

But anyway, back to the topic Certainly the culture of corruption and its influence and acceptance at every level has to also have an effect on the economy and its movement.

[elkangorito]

If you ask the PM of Amstralia, John Howard, if the people of Amstralia are happy, he will immediately launch into a rant about how much money aussies now have, all thanks to him. He never mentions anything about any other type of happiness (like having the time to "do your own thing"). His version of happiness is welded to money & its' creation.

I hope Thailand never changes into the western "work camps", which have been created to supply corporate fodder to the "profit machine", via a "good" education system.

Who'd want to work their freckle off as opposed to lounging around a bit?

[garro]

OK, I find this link very interesting. It talks about a theory that some countries are fated to never be wealthy countries not because of economic policies but because their cultures are not conducive to wealth creation. When you consider the Puritan work ethic of Americans versus mai bpen rai in Thailand, I wonder whether Thailand fits into the class of the never will be rich countries, or not?

Please discuss.

Global Poverty Trap, Washington Post

much of the world's remaining poverty is semi-permanent. Modern technology and management are widely available, but many societies can't take advantage because their values and social organization are antagonistic. Prescribing economically sensible policies (open markets, secure property rights, sound money) can't overcome this bedrock resistance.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1</a>

Countries like America have become so rich, not due to any superior culture, but through their willingness to exploit and steal from other cultures. Whether this be native Americans, African slaves or other group unlucky enough to have something they want. They have also benefited from having a very liquid sense of morality which can be moulded to suit whatever crusade they happen to be on. When people talk about the puritan work ethic they forget that it was often slaves doing the actual labor.

Not that I disagree with you garro, look at the British Empire, look at the French and Belgian exploitation of Africa, the Dutch in Indonesia.

But, you do realize that the Puritans were in New England and the African slave system was in the South? Generally, the Puritans only exploited the native Americans And just to remind you, back then, they were still British

But anyway, back to the topic Certainly the culture of corruption and its influence and acceptance at every level has to also have an effect on the economy and its movement.

I hate it when people try and defeat my arguments with facts

[Jingthing]

As you have to login to view, here it is:

The Global Poverty Trap

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, October 31, 2007; Page A19

It's nature vs. nurture. One of the big debates of our time involves the causes of economic growth. Why is North America richer than South America? Why is Africa poor and Europe wealthy? Is it possible to eliminate global poverty? The World Bank estimates that 2.5 billion people still live on $2 a day or less. On one side are economists who argue that societies can nurture economic growth by adopting sound policies. Not so, say other scholars such as Lawrence Harrison of Tufts University. Culture (a.k.a. "nature") predisposes some societies to rapid growth and others to poverty or meager growth.

Comes now Gregory Clark, an economist who interestingly takes the side of culture. In an important new book, " A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World," Clark suggests that much of the world's remaining poverty is semi-permanent. Modern technology and management are widely available, but many societies can't take advantage because their values and social organization are antagonistic. Prescribing economically sensible policies (open markets, secure property rights, sound money) can't overcome this bedrock resistance.

"There is no simple economic medicine that will guarantee growth, and even complicated economic surgery offers no clear prospect of relief for societies afflicted with poverty," he writes. Various forms of foreign assistance "may disappear into the pockets of Western consultants and the corrupt rulers of these societies." Because some societies encourage growth and some don't, the gap between the richest nations and the poorest is actually greater today (50 to 1) than in 1800 (4 to 1), Clark estimates.

All this disputes the notion that relentless globalization will inevitably defeat global poverty. To Clark, who teaches at the University of California at Davis, history's most important event was the Industrial Revolution -- more important than the emergence of monotheism, which produced Judaism, Christianity and Islam; or the invention of the printing press around 1450, which spread knowledge; or the American Revolution, which promoted democracy.

Before 1800, says Clark, most societies were stagnant. With some exceptions, people lived no better than their ancestors in the Stone Age. Economic growth was virtually nonexistent. Then England broke the pattern, as textile, iron and food production increased dramatically. Since 1800, English income per person has risen by a factor of 10. Much of Europe and the United States followed.

Almost everything that differentiates the modern era from the preceding millennia dates from this point: the virtual end of hunger in advanced societies; the expectation that living standards will constantly rise; the creation of the welfare state to redistribute income; the destructiveness of contemporary warfare; industry's environmental spoilage. But why did the Industrial Revolution start in England?

It's Clark's answer that convinces him of the supremacy of culture in explaining economic growth. Traditional theories have emphasized the importance of the Scientific Revolution and England's favorable climate: political stability, low taxes, open markets. Clark retorts that both China and Japan around 1800 were about as technically advanced as Europe, had stable societies, open markets and low taxes. But their industrial revolutions came later.

What distinguished England, he says, was the widespread emergence of middle-class values of "patience, hard work, ingenuity, innovativeness, education" that favored economic growth. After examining birth and death records, he concludes that in England -- unlike many other societies -- the most successful men had more surviving children than the less fortunate. Slowly, the attributes of success that children learned from parents became part of the common culture. Biology drove economics. He rejects the well-known theory of German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) that Protestantism fostered these values.

Clark's theory is controversial and, at best, needs to be qualified. Scholars do not universally accept his explanation of the Industrial Revolution. More important, China's recent, astonishing expansion (a fact that he barely mentions) demonstrates that economic policies and institutions matter. Bad policies and institutions can suppress growth in a willing population; better policies can release it. All poverty is not preordained. Still, Clark's broader point seems incontestable: Culture counts.

Capitalism in its many variants has been shown, he notes, to be a prodigious generator of wealth. But it will not spring forth magically from a few big industrial projects or cookie-cutter policies imposed by outside experts. It's culture that nourishes productive policies and behavior.

By and large, nations have either lifted themselves or have stayed down. Societies dominated by tribal, religious, ideological or political values that disparage the qualities needed for broad-based growth will not get growth. Economic success requires a tolerance for change and inequality, some minimum level of trust -- an essential for much commerce -- and risk-taking. There are many plausible combinations of government and market power; but without the proper cultural catalysts, all face long odds.

Edited October 31, 2007 by Jingthing

[kmart]

The majority of Thai people will always be poor because they have never had the inclination or been so poor; hungry; or downtrodden that they threw down their yokes and stopped licking the boot thats kicking them.

The freedoms gained by Europeans (and no masses of people has ever gained freedoms lightly) were based on a history of survival; war; famine; pestilence; disease; extremely cold Winters; crop rotation; etc. People have to endure incredible hardship to rise up and overcome.

I don't think anyone has ever starved in Thailand?

The US became a superpower directly after WW2, when its geographic and cultural isolation from a damaged Europe and huge resources led a massive surge of productivity and standard of living. By and large it earned it, too. The US became mega-rich for leaving behind the dysfunctional cultural deficiencies of old Europe and its ridiculous class and ethnic structures. - And getting along and working hard together.

By and large the problems of the rest of the world are all self-made. - Look at Africa and the ethnic hatred, social strife, blatant greed, corruption, etc?

Btw; any slaves sold aboard Western ships were done so by African slave traders. Slavery is still rife in Africa even now.

One man's "culture" is another man's slavery.

[dumspero]

Here's what I don't get. Why has Thailand boomed so much in the last 20 years while the Philippines has not? Both are riddled with corruption. Both have lax work ethics. Both value face over truth. Both have poor education systems. (And let's face it--sanuk may be superior in many ways or even overall, but it takes facts and truth to get a rocket ship on the moon.)

The PI has better overall natural resources and better English, but is an island nation somewhat more isolated.

So why one and not the other? The point on this thread being that one can't use one of the above factors to say Thailand will always be poor, or at least that's not totally satisfactory, because even with such baggage, Thailand is pulling away from the PI.

[garro]

The majority of Thai people will always be poor because they have never had the inclination or been so poor; hungry; or downtrodden that they threw down their yokes and stopped licking the boot thats kicking them.

The freedoms gained by Europeans (and no masses of people has ever gained freedoms lightly) were based on a history of survival; war; famine; pestilence; disease; extremely cold Winters; crop rotation; etc. People have to endure incredible hardship to rise up and overcome.

I don't think anyone has ever starved in Thailand?

The US became a superpower directly after WW2, when its geographic and cultural isolation from a damaged Europe and huge resources led a massive surge of productivity and standard of living. By and large it earned it, too. The US became mega-rich for leaving behind the dysfunctional cultural deficiencies of old Europe and its ridiculous class and ethnic structures. - And getting along and working hard together.

By and large the problems of the rest of the world are all self-made. - Look at Africa and the ethnic hatred, social strife, blatant greed, corruption, etc?

Btw; any slaves sold aboard Western ships were done so by African slave traders. Slavery is still rife in Africa even now.

One man's "culture" is another man's slavery.

Kmart, you wouldn't happen to work for fox news by any chance?

[soundman]

It's a matter of debt.

Most Americans/Westerners are under so much debt that they cannot afford to have the Mai Pen Rai mentality or else they will be sleeping on the streets.

And you think most Thais don't have debts?

I am sure many Thais have debts, but nothing near the debt level of westerners.

I think you might find that repayments, as a percentage of total income, many Thai's debts are greater than than Western averages.

Personally I know four or five Thai's whose monthly repayments are considerably higher than their current income.

[ThaidleHands]

Here's what I don't get. Why has Thailand boomed so much in the last 20 years while the Philippines has not? Both are riddled with corruption. Both have lax work ethics. Both value face over truth. Both have poor education systems. (And let's face it--sanuk may be superior in many ways or even overall, but it takes facts and truth to get a rocket ship on the moon.)

The stunning incompetence of the post-People Power governments should take most of the blame.

Geography accounts for most of the rest.

[WaiWai]

It's just that the vast majority of Thais aren't sharing in it and therefore aren't wealthy.

Mustn't this derive from culture ?

India, a close relative culturally speaking, seems to be doing well on the whole, though clearly there's still much poverty and inequity. China took a different path entirely and is also now doing well on the whole.

If poorer countries manage to preserve their natural environments, though, they will one day hold a unique advantage.

[TokyoT]

Here's what I don't get. Why has Thailand boomed so much in the last 20 years while the Philippines has not? Both are riddled with corruption. Both have lax work ethics. Both value face over truth. Both have poor education systems. (And let's face it--sanuk may be superior in many ways or even overall, but it takes facts and truth to get a rocket ship on the moon.)

The PI has better overall natural resources and better English, but is an island nation somewhat more isolated.

So why one and not the other? The point on this thread being that one can't use one of the above factors to say Thailand will always be poor, or at least that's not totally satisfactory, because even with such baggage, Thailand is pulling away from the PI.

I think much of this relates to safety and stability.

Thailand has it’s issues but generally speaking it provides a safer environment for the people as well as for businesses. I have yet to see a shop/business that allows you to check your guns at the door in LOS.

Thailand has provided a much more stable environment from an investment point of view historically as well. Lots of TALK recently about changes to foreign business laws but so far mostly just TALK.

And pulling away from PI is a far cry from gaining on the prosperity of the west.

[kmart]

It's just that the vast majority of Thais aren't sharing in it and therefore aren't wealthy.

Mustn't this derive from culture ?

India, a close relative culturally speaking, seems to be doing well on the whole, though clearly there's still much poverty and inequity. China took a different path entirely and is also now doing well on the whole.

If poorer countries manage to preserve their natural environments, though, they will one day hold a unique advantage.

Economic disparity personified in those two countries. Their success is based on limitless human resources, ie; cheap labour. Plus low safety standards; and similar environmental concern. Three biggest overheads of any production facility.

[prakhonchai nick]

Are we discussing whether Thailand is a poor country, or its inhabitants are poor?

I have lived in Isaan for 7 years, and what I write below is based on my own observations from my village and many neighbouring villages

Thailand as a country is not poor. there are many natural resources, exports are good, but all the money earned is mismanaged either at a national level or a local level.

Sadly the majority of the people are destined to always be poor. The people of Isaan ,some 18 million strong, are nearly all poor, often of their own making. Most have little education, and what education they are given is not the best since teachers in the main realise the kids will either end up in farming or the sex industry, with just a few able to get work in Bangkok, shortly thereafter moving themselves to the more lucrative sex industry. Basic wages are low, those in the "entertainment" industry generally fritter away their large earnings, leaving their families back home just as poor as ever.

Those that do work in labouring jobs, whether near home or in the bigger cities, and they number many millions, not only earn around 200bt a day, but travel back to their homes regularly for every village wedding, death, lucky home party or similar, most of which last 3/4 days. Once home they are reluctant to return to work, so it is no surprise they rarely have any money. They often ask me why farangs have more money, but won't give up their work ethic and culture and work continuously 5/6 days a week as we have all done, foregoing all the parties during working hours. Western funerals last an hour or 2, whilst Thai ones require everyone to attend for 4/5 days. Most western weddings are on Saturdays and are just 1 day events compared to 2/3 days in Thailand. There is money there for making, but they need to change their thinking and move into the 21st century.

Debt is rampant out here in the Isaan villages. Many work just to pay off the interest on their loans which can run at 10% a month or more. Even the rice farmers borrow to buy fertiliser, and pay the workers to harvest the rice. They pay their interest in bags of rice, and frequently have only a couple of bags left for their own use.

Compared to workers in the west, the majority are lazy - work for a few days - drink for a further few days - borrow money to return to their work, and commence the cycle again.

So yes I believe they are destined to always be poor, and their children's outlook is no brighter, since they are not encouraged by their parents to better themselves.

Despite all the obvious poverty, they seem a happy and contented lot, which is more than can be said of most people on good salaries back in the west.

[TheEmperorOfTheNorth]

some countries are fated to never be wealthy countries not because of economic policies but because their cultures are not conducive to wealth creation.

Am I really the first to just call this 'Racist claptrap!' ?

Guess I am.

[WaiWai]

Economic disparity personified in those two countries. Their success is based on limitless human resources, ie; cheap labour. Plus low safety standards; and similar environmental concern. Three biggest overheads of any production facility.

I am no economist, but casual observation suggests more flow-on of wealth in India and China.

Also, both seem to be moving forward to more inclusive political systems and generally more "civilized" attitudes then Thailand, which does seem to be largely stuck some place a few centuries in the past.

[WaiWai]

QUOTE (Jingthing @ 2007-10-31 14:44:45)

some countries are fated to never be wealthy countries not because of economic policies but because their cultures are not conducive to wealth creation.

Am I really the first to just call this 'Racist claptrap!' ?

Guess I am.

Only racist if you believe that wealth is the sole measure of a culture's worth.

[torrenova]

Thailand will always be poor (meaning most of Thai people will stay poor) because is ruled by an oustandingly greedy and selfish "elite".

Just look at the way they are restricting visa for foreigneirs in order to avoid their money helps the poor.

Thai elite motto could be the one attributed to Gengis Khan in the Superman3 movie :"Me winning is not enough, all others must lose"

This is unfortunately true and the sad fact is that the gap is widening despite the emergence of a middle class.

Could not get your link to work – something about signing up for access to the post to get access to the link– no thanks.

In any case there is a book about this:

"The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor"

By David Landes

He basically says it all hinges on industrialization and then tosses all the arguments about geography, climate, and natural recourses aside and places the key mainly on the shoulders of a countries culture. Basically says that countries/ cultures that have not successfully industrialized will never successfully industrialize until they accept some key cultural characteristics work, thrift, honesty, etc.

To me the key is education of the masses, and this is something that Thailand does not do a very good job of.

I have argued this point for years. It is a fact that Thailand and the people have bypassed the age of invention and the industrial revolution when people developed along with the ideas of the times. They are almost time warped in the age of subsistance farming and to be honest, many want nothing more that to grow food and eat it.

For sure, they now want to watch a plasma TV but not because it is a better picture, only because it costs more. They want mobile phones but have no concept of how they work. They want a Mercedes but still have a hole in the house roof.

I often question why many are or appear to be lazy, wanting money for nothing, drinking too much, being irresponsible, not wanting to take responsibility etc. but when on a motorbike, they will literally risk their life to gain a 5 second advantage. Why ? they have no reason to get there fast as they are never in a rush to do anything.

Do you think you could take a kid from an uneducated Issan farmer's family and with unlimited resources, turn that child into a nuclear physicist or a NASA astronaught ? Are the building blocks there or is there a missing stage of development ? My gut feelings are that there is something missing.

[Naam]

It's just that the vast majority of Thais aren't sharing in it and therefore aren't wealthy.

Mustn't this derive from culture ?

India, a close relative culturally speaking, seems to be doing well on the whole, though clearly there's still much poverty and inequity. China took a different path entirely and is also now doing well on the whole.

i humbly beg to differ Wai-Wai. the majority of Indians and Chinese lives in rural areas and is as dirt poor as any poor Thai.

[TheDon]

Yes I believe in time Thailand will become rich, they have come along way in 20 years. You cant expect them to become a rich nation overnight.

[IMA_FARANG]

OK, I find this link very interesting. It talks about a theory that some countries are fated to never be wealthy countries not because of economic policies but because their cultures are not conducive to wealth creation. When you consider the Puritan work ethic of Americans versus mai bpen rai in Thailand, I wonder whether Thailand fits into the class of the never will be rich countries, or not?

Please discuss.

Global Poverty Trap, Washington Post

much of the world's remaining poverty is semi-permanent. Modern technology and management are widely available, but many societies can't take advantage because their values and social organization are antagonistic. Prescribing economically sensible policies (open markets, secure property rights, sound money) can't overcome this bedrock resistance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

Capitalist Bull-Crap. There are many reasons Thailand is not developed as much as other countries which would probably make a good size book, but that the Thais don't work as hard as others is simply not true. In fact, other circumstances, (i.e. official corruption) often make it necessary for a lower class Thai to work harder to make a decent living than a Euopean or American. Certainly there are cultural and political problems with Thai society as it is structured that tend to hold Thais down.

Here's a true story. A few years ago some Thais I knew tried to open a laundry in BKK. It was to be done Thai style, with low costs, so that the people of the area (mainly students) could afford the laundry service. They opened a shop, and at first it went well. They were making some money, but most of the customers weren't wealthy. Once they started to show a good business, however, the landlord started to raise the rent for the building they were using. He raised the rent to a point where they could no longer afford the rent. He then took over the laundry shop. He installed coin operated washing machines which most of the customers couldn't afford to use. Of course, the laundry quickly failed.

What was wrong was not that the Thais who originally opened the laundry didn't use modern technology, but that the customer base couldn't afford to handle the extra expense of the expensive washer/dryers. Had the laundry stayed a low cost operation, the customer base they had could have kept it profitable given the low operatiing cost. It's like the old saying, horses for courses.

P.S. Someone really ought to do a study on what Singapore did. Starting in the 1950's the government made every Singapore citizen who was employed open a government savings account. Each worker had to deposit a small percentage of his salary into that account. The Singapore government gaurenteed a reular interest rate. The government then borrowed from those funds to build infrastructure in Singapore, and returned the loans to the fund with interest. One prime reason for the government savings was to make sure that all workrs would have money to use for a governemnt built flat/apartment/house that they would own on their retirement.

It worked. Look at the difference between Singapore and Thailand in living standards today. The one major difference was that the Singaporian government was a model of honest and responsible government.