Benzene May Hit 45 Baht Per Liter & Diesel Could Hit 38 Baht Per Liter In The Next Few Days

[Heng]

Heng,

You have to admit that the cars in Thailand (MADE IN THAILAND!!!) are exceptionally expensive. My car would cost 42K$ to 43K$ in the US...

I note that there is indeed a price difference, as we also own some of the same cars both here and in the US, but there are plenty of things that aren't priced the same.

[Heng]

Cars are cheap, taxes are high.

That's like saying it's the smoke, not the cigarettes that aren't good for you.

[Heng]

My comment about Thais mimicing Americans with a love affair for bigger cars was not aimed at 6-liter V8s. Many of my cars in the USA had 0.75 to 2.5 liter engines (my last one was 2.4 liters, 150 hp). But come to think of it, living on ThaiVisa has plunged me into a world where even Fortuners are considered lower-level SUV's, and my old 1.6 Nissan is considered tiny.

We are talking all over the landscape, from BKK to Chiang Rai, from 100cc Dreams made 15 years ago, to 5-series BMW's and big Mercedes. From rich to poor, from non-air public buses to chauffer driven saloons.

I'd love to have a 'like a rock, I was strong as I could be..." 6 liter V-8 Chevy Silverado (or even one of the Suburban's that Wattana Auto brings in now and then) not to mimic anyone, but just so I can annoy people on the roads as much as I do on this forum... but I have this thing about being able to turn into shopping centers, malls, etc. without scraping up the sides of my vehicle. Even with a driver, there are too many places to go, people to do, etc. where there is not enough road space to pass or even park safely.

[Plus]

Cars are cheap, taxes are high.

That's like saying it's the smoke, not the cigarettes that aren't good for you.

Smoke is the essential property of tobacco, taxes are essential propery of dimwits in the government, not the cars themselves, though I think the government did a reasonable job so far, missing only on a few non-essentials like imported hybrids, CNG conversions, or low taxes on imported new techonology to encourage local production.

They correctly think that Accord/Camry is an overkill for an average Thai and should be taxed higher to encourage people to buy Jazz instead. At the lower end price difference is insignificant, they demand only 20%, just because they'd feel bad if they miss the opportunity.

[Heng]

Cars are cheap, taxes are high.

That's like saying it's the smoke, not the cigarettes that aren't good for you.

Smoke is the essential property of tobacco, taxes are essential propery of dimwits in the government, not the cars themselves, though I think the government did a reasonable job so far, missing only on a few non-essentials like imported hybrids, CNG conversions, or low taxes on imported new techonology to encourage local production.

They correctly think that Accord/Camry is an overkill for an average Thai and should be taxed higher to encourage people to buy Jazz instead. At the lower end price difference is insignificant, they demand only 20%, just because they'd feel bad if they miss the opportunity.

At what point are these vehicles being taxed? Surely at/after registration, yes? I was under the impression that cars (that aren't sold through import dealerships) are simply higher priced here than in many other countries, because the dealers are taking a higher margin, hence my comment.

Myself, I'd more readily support a higher vehicle tax for all vehicle brackets, including smaller vehicles and motorcycles to reduce total # of vehicles... with the taxes proportionately getting higher and higher as engine displacement and total vehicle price goes up. Of course you could probably guess why that is.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Heng

[Dario]

Another day... another price hike....

BREAKING NEWS:

Shell to Increase Pump Prices by 80 Satang/Liter Tomorrow

Shell, one of Thailand's largest oil conglomerates, will raise retail pump prices by 80 satang tomorrow. Benzene 95 will cost 38.39 baht per liter, while diesel will sell for 34.24 baht per liter.

- Thailand Outlook (today)

I saw on THai TV about an hour ago that Gasohol 95 will cost 34,59 from tomorrow on, that is an increase of 1 Baht (the first ever such drastic increase), I dunno which oil company, but who cares anyway. I don't worry so much about this, but for the fact, that all food prices will increase also, but unproportionally... like butter price doubled in a matter of months, sugar just went from 16 Baht to 23.50.

I can pay all that - no problem - but it's for the average Thai people I worry.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Dario

[Plus]

At what point are these vehicles being taxed? Surely at/after registration, yes? I was under the impression that cars (that aren't sold through import dealerships) are simply higher priced here than in many other countries, because the dealers are taking a higher margin, hence my comment.

I have no idea when the taxes are applied. There's a factory price, I know, and dealers have little to no control over the price on the floor. They can only negotiate the amount of extras they install themselves.

Myself, I'd more readily support a higher vehicle tax for all vehicle brackets, including smaller vehicles and motorcycles to reduce total # of vehicles... with the taxes proportionately getting higher and higher as engine displacement and total vehicle price goes up. Of course you could probably guess why that is.

It's not fare to Thai people, car ownership here is still five times lower than in the West. Bad traffic is not because there are to many cars but because there are too few roads, about three times less than necessary for the smooth traffic flow.

People who build the roads here are probably the most corrupt bunch of all. I think they do the shoddy job on purpose so they can milk the government for resurfacing for decades to come. On highways there's also a question of overloading.

[Heng]

At what point are these vehicles being taxed? Surely at/after registration, yes? I was under the impression that cars (that aren't sold through import dealerships) are simply higher priced here than in many other countries, because the dealers are taking a higher margin, hence my comment.

I have no idea when the taxes are applied. There's a factory price, I know, and dealers have little to no control over the price on the floor. They can only negotiate the amount of extras they install themselves.

Myself, I'd more readily support a higher vehicle tax for all vehicle brackets, including smaller vehicles and motorcycles to reduce total # of vehicles... with the taxes proportionately getting higher and higher as engine displacement and total vehicle price goes up. Of course you could probably guess why that is.

It's not fare to Thai people, car ownership here is still five times lower than in the West. Bad traffic is not because there are to many cars but because there are too few roads, about three times less than necessary for the smooth traffic flow.

People who build the roads here are probably the most corrupt bunch of all. I think they do the shoddy job on purpose so they can milk the government for resurfacing for decades to come. On highways there's also a question of overloading.

I meant dealer as in the Honda Thailand + dealer network setting the prices with uniform margins. I don't think taxes are why common automobiles are more expensive than in many other countries.

How is a progressive broad spectrum tax not fair? The roads aren't ready for the number of vehicles they have to carry. Reducing the number of vehicles and at the same time continuing to develop the roads seems to be the best way forward. Curiously, why do you think increasing taxes on vehicles would decrease the number of cars (presuming that's what you mean by "not fair") on the road but fuel increases will not?

[Plus]

About eight in ten men in the West drive cars, while in Thailand it's still two in ten. Thais want to live like Americans but someone comes and tells them to cut back when they are not even close, and when they can clearly afford it. Same logic Chinese use to defend themselves from accusations of polluiting the planet. That's what I meant by not "fair" (right, we already switched from fare to fair).

Tax on Jazz is 20%, tax on Accord is 35%, tax on 3.5l V6 Accord is probably over 100%. Dealers margins are irrelevant by comparison.

People in the west pay less taxes but get more roads. Thai road contractors probably steal more than they build.

[Heng]

About eight in ten men in the West drive cars, while in Thailand it's still two in ten. Thais want to live like Americans but someone comes and tells them to cut back when they are not even close, and when they can clearly afford it. Same logic Chinese use to defend themselves from accusations of polluiting the planet. That's what I meant by not "fair" (right, we already switched from fare to fair).

Tax on Jazz is 20%, tax on Accord is 35%, tax on 3.5l V6 Accord is probably over 100%. Dealers margins are irrelevant by comparison.

People in the west pay less taxes but get more roads. Thai road contractors probably steal more than they build.

Well, again this is a difference between what people want and what they can afford. Many people can "afford" all kinds of things that society cannot afford, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so. If the roads were ready and waiting, I'd agree. Like a lot of problems, I think it's better to work at it from both ends, by bettering the roads and lowering the number of vehicles. Emulating the Singapore or Japan approach to private auto use, not the American way (it's arguable whether that's who they are emulating to begin with... as most plain jane Thais IMO emulate anyone who is better to do before any specific country or group). I also happen to think that all people worldwide should have more heavily taxed access to cars. It'd be better for all if only 2 in 10 Americans were car owners. I don't think that hoping that a corrupt system will somehow become less corrupt is not the answer.

Are you talking about what you think they should be taxed or yearly road taxes? The only progressive tax in place that I know of is what they charge per year : and the 3.0L Camry or Accord is only like 5,800 Baht and that goes down after the 3rd or 4th year; and obviously has nothing to do with the original/showroom price of the car.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Heng

[Plus]

Well, again this is a difference between what people want and what they can afford. Many people can "afford" all kinds of things that society cannot afford, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so.

What a fine example of social engineering! Only super rich should be allowed to enjoy comforts of modern cars in Thailand, the rest of the country must perpetually live in the third world lifestyle, spending hours a day on non-aircon buses in 40 degree heat.

Malaysians, Koreans, Taiwanese - they all can aspire to modernity, but not Thais. If they all were allowed to live like they wanted, superrich would suffer traffic jams, or, as you said it, "the society can't afford it".

If the roads were ready and waiting, I'd agree....hoping that a corrupt system will somehow become less corrupt is not the answer.

Super rich construction companies get richer by building roads for themselves, and who pays for all that? The same taxpayers that should not be allowed to use them.

Yeah, they are not building enough, that's how they get superrich in the first place, and it's not going to change, but at least the country should acknowledge the problem, not perpetuate the current sad state of affairs.

Emulating the Singapore or Japan approach to private auto use, not the American way (it's arguable whether that's who they are emulating to begin with... as most plain jane Thais IMO emulate anyone who is better to do before any specific country or group).

Afaik, you can buy a car in Japan from your average monthy salary, and cars are disposable like rasors. After five years you have to ditch it and buy a new one.

Thais have less cars per capita than any developed country or Thailand's better off neighbours. They are not on that stage of developement where decreasing the number of cars is plausible.

Cars, like any other goods, have a market price. If people can afford them, there's nothing you can do, not in the market economy. Even with Thai taxes low end vehicles are kept affordable, the bureaucrats obviously care about the people, but if YOU were in the government, you'd go communist on them.

I'm trying very hard not to put "typical Thai Chinese" label on this attitude.

[Heng]

Well, again this is a difference between what people want and what they can afford. Many people can "afford" all kinds of things that society cannot afford, it doesn't mean they should be allowed to do so.

What a fine example of social engineering! Only super rich should be allowed to enjoy comforts of modern cars in Thailand, the rest of the country must perpetually live in the third world lifestyle, spending hours a day on non-aircon buses in 40 degree heat.

Malaysians, Koreans, Taiwanese - they all can aspire to modernity, but not Thais. If they all were allowed to live like they wanted, superrich would suffer traffic jams, or, as you said it, "the society can't afford it".

If the roads were ready and waiting, I'd agree....hoping that a corrupt system will somehow become less corrupt is not the answer.

Super rich construction companies get richer by building roads for themselves, and who pays for all that? The same taxpayers that should not be allowed to use them.

Yeah, they are not building enough, that's how they get superrich in the first place, and it's not going to change, but at least the country should acknowledge the problem, not perpetuate the current sad state of affairs.

Emulating the Singapore or Japan approach to private auto use, not the American way (it's arguable whether that's who they are emulating to begin with... as most plain jane Thais IMO emulate anyone who is better to do before any specific country or group).

Afaik, you can buy a car in Japan from your average monthy salary, and cars are disposable like rasors. After five years you have to ditch it and buy a new one.

Thais have less cars per capita than any developed country or Thailand's better off neighbours. They are not on that stage of developement where decreasing the number of cars is plausible.

Cars, like any other goods, have a market price. If people can afford them, there's nothing you can do, not in the market economy. Even with Thai taxes low end vehicles are kept affordable, the bureaucrats obviously care about the people, but if YOU were in the government, you'd go communist on them.

I'm trying very hard not to put "typical Thai Chinese" label on this attitude.

Whoa, you're all over the place on that one, Plus. It's understandable, you live aways out of the center of the city, you like your car ALOT, and you don't want to be on the bus. Either that, or you feel some kind of *really* intense need to save people from the 'plight' of bus riding.

Let's see here... okay, let's start with the super rich comment. Again, taxes would be raised across the board. Entry level cars would still be entry level cars. Making an 8 million Baht car 12 million and at the same time an 800k car becomes 1.2 million (or whatever appropriate tax level that was found to keep traffic AND the economy flowing). It's all relative. There would still be PLENTY of poor/less well off people on the road, and in fact the majority of them would be those same people.... just with fewer total cars from ALL groups (unless you think there is a reserve force of super rich people just waiting for the poor people to be swept off the roads).

The economy (and everyone from the piss poor to the super rich) lose out when folks are stuck in traffic.

Where are these private super rich only roads you say the super rich construction companies are building? Are you drunk tonight?

And where am I not acknowledging the problem? I'm saying it should be worked on from both angles... bettering roads and civil engineering AND reducing the # of cars on the road. Nevermind that it'd be good for the environment and the health of the people.

You lost me there on the disposable razor thing. Are you talking about people in general? Or you mean people in Japan in general? They are forced by law to dispose of their cars after 5 years? And if so, what's your point?

And finally, regarding market price: uh yeah, and I'm suggesting raising the market price (through taxes) for the greater good. As mentioned, I don't spend much time in traffic as it is. This *theoretical tax* would be for all the people who currently have to suffer from the current state of affairs of the roads today.

Feel free to label away (not that being Thai Chinese has anything to do with what we're discussing), you know I'm teflon coated.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Heng

[cclub75]

What a fine example of social engineering! Only super rich should be allowed to enjoy comforts of modern cars in Thailand, the rest of the country must perpetually live in the third world lifestyle, spending hours a day on non-aircon buses in 40 degree heat.

I like this idea !

Malaysians, Koreans, Taiwanese - they all can aspire to modernity, but not Thais.

I'm not sure it's wise to put on the same level... Malaysia with South Korea and Taiwan. Malaysa has had an easy life with... the oil money, Opec style. Now the party is about to stop.

Korea and Taiwan went on the path of modernity by work. Work and talents. Not by "buying it" on the shelves, with checks from oil.

Thais have less cars per capita than any developed country or Thailand's better off neighbours. They are not on that stage of developement where decreasing the number of cars is plausible.

Not plausible, by common and historical criterias... But the criterias are currently changing, right in front of our eyes.

Plausible ? Surely not. But compulsory, yes. A one point, they will have to stop.

Cars, like any other goods, have a market price. If people can afford them, there's nothing you can do, not in the market economy.

It makes no sense to speak about the prices of cars. Renault and an indian company are going to market a car at... 2500 USD. So ? And probably the chinese would be able to make it for free.

The real issue is... gasoline.

And here, the rule you state is true : people can afford (for now), therefore we can't do nothing about it.

For now.

[realmadrid25]

^^ technology is spinning... in 10-15 years they will have moderately priced vehicles that don't run on gasoline.

Heng is basically saying "Too many people on the road means driving sucks for everyone. Lets make it more expensive to drive and whoever can't afford it (not me) will have to take the bus".

Plus is saying "Why should I have to take the bus. Driving does suck now but its still better than me having to take the bus".

Honestly, I don't think that their is a basis to say that either is correct. Both are looking out for their own self interest. Maybe Heng can find out how much Plus makes, then they can agree to set the bar right below it.

Edited May 15, 2008 by realmadrid25

[Plus]

..you feel some kind of *really* intense need to save people from the 'plight' of bus riding.

That's it, I'm speaking for the people. I'm not sure I have "really" intense need, I'm sure that "plight" is real, though - I won't wish riding a bus for a hours a day on anyone and "plight" is an appropriate word for it.

The economy (and everyone from the piss poor to the super rich) lose out when folks are stuck in traffic.

The economy would be better if we had more roads so that people don't get stuck. Don't forget that a person arrving at the office after one hour standing on a bus is already tired, while a person who spent that hour in the car arrives in the top condition. That has an effect on economy, too.

Where are these private super rich only roads you say the super rich construction companies are building? Are you drunk tonight?

They are not private roads, they are public roads that the public is not allowed to use - reserved for superrich cars only.

I'm saying it should be worked on from both angles... bettering roads and civil engineering AND reducing the # of cars on the road.

The problem is poor value for money when it comes to road building. It could be due to corruption, could be due to lack of competition, whatever - that's the weakest link, not the number of cars on the road that is still way below average for a modern country.

You lost me there on the disposable razor thing. Are you talking about people in general? Or you mean people in Japan in general? They are forced by law to dispose of their cars after 5 years? And if so, what's your point?

After a few years it becomes cheaper to buy a new car in Japan than pay taxes on the old one, or they won't even register it for the road use, and yes, a middle class Japanese can theoretically buy a car on his one month salary. You mentioned Japan (and Singapore) first, I'm saying that Japanese are not prevented by law/taxes from car ownership, it's rather the opposite. Singapore's traffic model is absolutely inapplicable to Thailand, there's no point in discussing it.

And finally, regarding market price: uh yeah, and I'm suggesting raising the market price (through taxes) for the greater good.

You realise that it's an oximoron - raising market price through taxes. And for whose greater good? Certainly not for people who will suffer heat and fumes and stress of Thai buses.

Bad traffic is due to the lack of roads. Ideally price of road construction should be calculated in price of cars, via road taxes, not excise taxes on so called "luxury" items that have become absolutely essential in any modern society.

There aren't any viable alternatives to inner city-suburbs commuting. People buy houses farther and farther away from the city all around the world, not just in Thailand.

We might talk about reforming Bangkok so that there's less need for driving - like moving offices close to suburbs, and they are doing that already. I was surprised to find that Tesco HQ are not somewhere on Sathorn but out in the sticks - on Sukhaphiban 3. Before that it was on Srinakarin.

>>>

-What a fine example of social engineering! Only super rich should be allowed to enjoy comforts of modern cars in Thailand, the rest of the country must perpetually live in the third world lifestyle, spending hours a day on non-aircon buses in 40 degree heat.

- I like this idea !

Can I quote you on that, Cclub?

[Plus]

^^ technology is spinning... in 10-15 years they will have moderately priced vehicles that don't run on gasoline.

I read that BMW recently got the Engine of the Year award for its turbo diesel. It uses about four times less fuel and gives the same performance as a ten year old 5 series Bimmer. That means people can still spend the same as they did ten years ago even with the current prices.

Thai eco car project demands same fuel economy, btw - 20km/l, though not the same 0-100 speed, of course.

[Plus]

Just talked to a woman who pays 300 baht per week for gas after converting to LPG. Her house is about fifteen kilometers from the office and she has a kid in high school somewhere on the way.

Before that she paid 700 baht a week for petrol.

Driving is cheap.

[Heng]

^^ technology is spinning... in 10-15 years they will have moderately priced vehicles that don't run on gasoline.

Heng is basically saying "Too many people on the road means driving sucks for everyone. Lets make it more expensive to drive and whoever can't afford it (not me) will have to take the bus".

Plus is saying "Why should I have to take the bus. Driving does suck now but its still better than me having to take the bus".

Honestly, I don't think that their is a basis to say that either is correct. Both are looking out for their own self interest. Maybe Heng can find out how much Plus makes, then they can agree to set the bar right below it.

I'm actually saying build more roads, improve the current roads, add more public transport AND get a lot of these cars off the roads by making private car ownership more expensive. And as mentioned, I don't think that driving under the current conditions is that bad. There are plenty of times during the day and night when you can enjoy a good drive, even in Bangkok.

[Heng]

That's it, I'm speaking for the people. I'm not sure I have "really" intense need, I'm sure that "plight" is real, though - I won't wish riding a bus for a hours a day on anyone and "plight" is an appropriate word for it.

Seems like you're losing some of your objectivity, Plus.

It's not a plight of any kind once you get used to it. It's also likely not a "plight" to those who haven't known anything more comfortable. I see shiny-happy-smiling people on buses (through the extra large bus windows) all the time. Given, some of that 'shine' might just be sweat. Just to make it clear, I'm not just trying to sweep the poor onto the buses, I'm also trying to speed up their commute AND increase their comfort during said commute; I'm the last person who would want tired and sweaty people in the office or on the assembly line.

The economy would be better if we had more roads so that people don't get stuck. Don't forget that a person arrving at the office after one hour standing on a bus is already tired, while a person who spent that hour in the car arrives in the top condition. That has an effect on economy, too.

Agreed. As to how that stacks up against lost productivity because of people spending such a significant time stuck in traffic, as compared to lost productivity from just being tired from the commute, I think the former probably costs more. Hopefully fewer cars on the road would allow for better and more comfortable public transport, in addition to faster commute times.

They are not private roads, they are public roads that the public is not allowed to use - reserved for superrich cars only.

^That's another one for the 'loss of objectivity' column.

The problem is poor value for money when it comes to road building. It could be due to corruption, could be due to lack of competition, whatever - that's the weakest link, not the number of cars on the road that is still way below average for a modern country.

They are both weak links. I suppose you don't think there is any corruption in automobile manufacturing and distribution? There are just as many interests that want to keep as many cars on the road as possible, nevermind the condition or number of roads and whether said roads can handle the # of cars churned out.

After a few years it becomes cheaper to buy a new car in Japan than pay taxes on the old one, or they won't even register it for the road use, and yes, a middle class Japanese can theoretically buy a car on his one month salary. You mentioned Japan (and Singapore) first, I'm saying that Japanese are not prevented by law/taxes from car ownership, it's rather the opposite. Singapore's traffic model is absolutely inapplicable to Thailand, there's no point in discussing it.

I'm not saying one system or the other is better. I'm not saying we should just emulate and attempt to reproduce any particular system. And I'm certainly not saying let's just stop talking about a particular system because it might keep me from using my car as much as I want. "There's no point in discussing it?" Sounds like something Duangchalerm's dad or lawyer would say. The Singapore model with it's tax + public transport aspects could be applied to any of our metro areas here, and less so for less densely populated areas (which could possibly be allowed less of a tax burden).

You realise that it's an oximoron - raising market price through taxes. And for whose greater good? Certainly not for people who will suffer heat and fumes and stress of Thai buses.

Call it what you like. The goal here is to raise the price to reduce the numbers of cars (not people) on the roads, for the entire market, no special preference for the poor or super rich or anyone in between. And as mentioned, I'd be open to a progressive heavier tax on larger and more expensive autos. And again, I'm talking about the greater good: as in everyone.

Bad traffic is due to the lack of roads. Ideally price of road construction should be calculated in price of cars, via road taxes, not excise taxes on so called "luxury" items that have become absolutely essential in any modern society.

Yeah, the number of cars has nothing to do with bad traffic? There's that loss of objectivity again. And ideally, there isn't going to be much road improvement at all when there's nothing to stop or reduce the supply of cars coming onto the roads daily. The "more roads" solution wouldn't work even if you paved every single square inch of the country in a perfect grid IF you don't limit the # of cars on said grid.

There aren't any viable alternatives to inner city-suburbs commuting. People buy houses farther and farther away from the city all around the world, not just in Thailand.

Except for public transport, especially an improved system with fewer cars for such transport to rub up against.

We might talk about reforming Bangkok so that there's less need for driving - like moving offices close to suburbs, and they are doing that already. I was surprised to find that Tesco HQ are not somewhere on Sathorn but out in the sticks - on Sukhaphiban 3. Before that it was on Srinakarin.

An excellent idea, although IMO Bangkok has long been reshaping itself. People (particularly those who take the time to give it some thought) have also been long been finding work closer to home and saving themselves the commute, whether by public or private transport. I think the gov't as well as mentors, teachers, and parents all across the country could do more to promote and reward said behaviour.

[sriracha john]

Confidence down as prices soar

Outlook grim as cost of oil likely to continue to skyrocket

Thailand's Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) dropped in April for the first time in six months, with spiralling oil prices pushing up the cost of living. The index dropped from 80.7 points in March to 79.9 points last month.

The University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce survey showed that tumbling confidence was blamed on skyrocketing oil prices and the rising cost of living, while the conflict over constitutional amendments and political-party dismemberment have led to an unstable political situation.

As a result of lower confidence, consumers still believe this is not a suitable time for purchasing new houses or cars or expanding or starting new investment.

Thai consumer confidence increased for five consecutive months from last October, due to the welcome good news of the general election and the easing of political tension.

Thanawat Polvichai, Director of the university's Economic and Business Forecasting Centre, predicted a further decline in consumer confidence in the next few months, as oil prices may reach US$135 (Bt4,400) per barrel in the second quarter.

The domestic oil price will remain high at Bt38 to Bt43 a litre, which will directly lead to higher living costs, he said.

In the survey based on 2,242 respondents, consumers were pessimistic about the economic outlook, facing higher expenses on fixed incomes.

Other indexes related to consumer confidence also dropped for the first time in six months.

The index on the overall economy decreased from 73.8 points to 73 points last month, while confidence in employment opportunities fell from 73.5 points to 72.7 points and confidence in future income decreased slightly, from 94.6 points to 94 points.

To boost consumer confidence, Thanawat suggested the government raise people's income, closely monitor energy and consumer-goods prices, stimulate mega-projects, and inject money into small communities.

Higher oil prices have pushed up the cost of living. Last month, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 6.2 per cent year on year, the highest increase in two years. In the first four months, the CPI was up 5.3 per cent.

- The Nation (today)

[Plus]

It's not a plight of any kind once you get used to it.

Billions of people are used to living on a dollar a day and dying before the age of forty, before that they were used to being slaves. It's still a plight.

As to how that stacks up against lost productivity because of people spending such a significant time stuck in traffic, as compared to lost productivity from just being tired from the commute

Car will always beat the bus, at least in the foreseeable future.

They are not private roads, they are public roads that the public is not allowed to use - reserved for superrich cars only.

^That's another one for the 'loss of objectivity' column.

On the contrary, I think I'm being VERY objective here - you want to ban the majority of population from driving on the roads build with their taxes.

There are just as many interests that want to keep as many cars on the road as possible,

The main, and practically the only reason, is that with society's progress more and more people can afford them. You can't change that. It's not a super difficult, super expensive product anymore. Next in line for mass adoption are personal airplanes, if only for pleasure.

After a few years it becomes cheaper to buy a new car in Japan than pay taxes on the old one, or they won't even register it for the road use, and yes, a middle class Japanese can theoretically buy a car on his one month salary. You mentioned Japan (and Singapore) first, I'm saying that Japanese are not prevented by law/taxes from car ownership, it's rather the opposite. Singapore's traffic model is absolutely inapplicable to Thailand, there's no point in discussing it.

The Singapore model with it's tax + public transport aspects could be applied to any of our metro areas here

I know what you mean but it's not a Singapore model, it's more like London model. In London they tax people for driving in the inner city, not for buying cars in Newcastle. Singapore can tax buying cars because geographically it's nothing but one big metro area.

There's nothing Dunagchalermish about saying that managing traffic in Thailand is nothing like managing traffic in Singapore.

The goal here is to raise the price to reduce the numbers of cars (not people) on the roads, for the entire market, no special preference for the poor or super rich or anyone in between.

The goal is to go against the market forces, and it will ultimately fail. If Thailand tries it, it will look like Burma, not Sweden. You might say "no special preference" but your plan will put millions of people at the lower end in misery, or "plight", as I called it.

Yeah, the number of cars has nothing to do with bad traffic?

It's all relative, of course, but if you look at successful examples, Thailand still has relatively very few cars, so no, it has little to do with bad traffic. Thailand can increase the number of cars two-three fold and still manage the traffic better than it does now - like the UK, for example. All it's successful neighbours can manage traffic with far more cars and a lot less space.

[simcity]

Just talked to a woman who pays 300 baht per week for gas after converting to LPG. Her house is about fifteen kilometers from the office and she has a kid in high school somewhere on the way.

Before that she paid 700 baht a week for petrol.

Driving is cheap.

You right, it is why the gas are the next thing to increase and follow path of the oil !

[Plus]

Actually the oil is the underlying currency stardard in today's world, like gold was the currency a hundred years ago. You can easily count everything in terms of how much oil it would cost to produce. When oil goes up, everything goes up, albeit slowly, but in a couple of years time it will be balanced out again.

Relative price of drving and riding a bus will always stay more or less the same.

Thailand's public transport should be a lot more efficient than now to catch up with cars in terms of both price and convenience.

Bangkok is spreading out very fast and but can't cover even the inner city with BTS/MRT. It takes five years to open alone 10km Rapid Bus route, and it's still not working.

Most of us won't live long enough to see public transport become a preferred choice of middle classes in this country.

[Ijustwannateach]

Not to be overly provocative, but from my point of view it would be best to ban ALL cars from the road and set up a superfast network of scheduled buses, trains, and bicycles.

[Heng]

Billions of people are used to living on a dollar a day and dying before the age of forty, before that they were used to being slaves. It's still a plight.

Afternoon, Plus. I hope you're not suggesting that all of those people deserve to be driving as well. That'd be quite a mess. Whether or not something is a plight is all in one's mind. I would think that *not owning/driving your own car* is hardly something that most of those billions would consider a plight.

"As to how that stacks up against lost productivity because of people spending such a significant time stuck in traffic, as compared to lost productivity from just being tired from the commute"

Car will always beat the bus, at least in the foreseeable future.

Uh yeah, in a drag race maybe. But again, society has to suffer higher losses in productivity from people stuck in traffic as compared to people arriving to work a little tired. And again, they'll be less tired once we get those commute times shortened.

On the contrary, I think I'm being VERY objective here - you want to ban the majority of population from driving on the roads build with their taxes.

Again, the majority of folks on the road will STILL be those from the middle, lower middle, and lower economic classes. These increases don't have to be shock the market type jumps. It's wouldn't be difficult to make slight but definite increases in the price of both cars and fuel to lower the number of cars on the road.

The main, and practically the only reason, is that with society's progress more and more people can afford them. You can't change that. It's not a super difficult, super expensive product anymore. Next in line for mass adoption are personal airplanes, if only for pleasure.

Affordability is hardly a reason why any particular habit should be considered a right. There are plenty of affordable habits out there that are self destructive and destructive for society as a whole.

I know what you mean but it's not a Singapore model, it's more like London model. In London they tax people for driving in the inner city, not for buying cars in Newcastle. Singapore can tax buying cars because geographically it's nothing but one big metro area.

There's nothing Dunagchalermish about saying that managing traffic in Thailand is nothing like managing traffic in Singapore.

My comment was addressing your "there's no need to discuss it at all" statement. You've elaborated and are now talking, so all is well. I'd actually welcome considering a London type inner city type toll as well. The mechanism is already in place to try it out on the expressways. It wouldn't be too difficult to set up toll gates for all major metro areas with traffic issues. They could be used in conjunction with raised Singapore type taxes for vehicles, with non metro vehicles obviously subject to lower taxes than metro area vehicles... but with the former having to pay when venturing into metro areas: either in advance or with pass type fees for those with inter province type lifestyles. In other words we wouldn't be depriving people of their cars, we'd just be depriving them from the pleasure of traffic bottlenecks.

The goal is to go against the market forces, and it will ultimately fail. If Thailand tries it, it will look like Burma, not Sweden. You might say "no special preference" but your plan will put millions of people at the lower end in misery, or "plight", as I called it.

A bit melodramatic there. The goal is speed up traffic by limiting the number of cars on the road, improving public transport, and increasing the number of quality roads, etc.

It's all relative, of course, but if you look at successful examples, Thailand still has relatively very few cars, so no, it has little to do with bad traffic. Thailand can increase the number of cars two-three fold and still manage the traffic better than it does now - like the UK, for example. All it's successful neighbours can manage traffic with far more cars and a lot less space.

That's funny, because when I'm out driving and there are relatively fewer cars on the road, I consider that "good traffic." By avoiding times when most people are either going to or coming home from work, going on their lunch breaks, going on their vacations or coming home from the provinces, not going out during peak times on Friday/Saturday nights, avoiding days when most people get paid, etc., it's rather easy to avoid "bad traffic." And I don't think it's because the number of roads are increasing or are somehow improved for me personally during those times. It's because there are fewer cars.

[Heng]

Not to be overly provocative, but from my point of view it would be best to ban ALL cars from the road and set up a superfast network of scheduled buses, trains, and bicycles.

The first step towards such a ban would be raising automobile prices. We can talk later about first and business class buses and train compartments.

[Plus]

Driving to work is faster than taking a bus, being stuck on the bus for two hours in the morning is both tiring AND a waste of time.

If you ban cars, people would still be on the road, packed like sardines on the buses, but it aint the same as being on the road in your own car, that right will be reserved only for superrich (nore more 1-2% of the population).

Biggest traffic jams are not in the inner Bangkok, btw, not the same as in Singapore.

The idea that driving should be grouped together with other destructive habits (I assume drinking and smoking) is so radical that I feel the need to search for my handbook on fascism, or Khmer Rouge style of social engineering.

"superfast network of scheduled buses, trains, and bicycles" - both "superfast" and "scheduled" are alien terms in Thai society. Why don't you try proposing that in better organised societies - like the UK or Germany, if anyone would take you seriously.

[Heng]

Driving to work is faster than taking a bus, being stuck on the bus for two hours in the morning is both tiring AND a waste of time.

At the moment, and certainly not for all drivers. There are parking issues (which one might argue is an incredible waste of precious space in many high value areas of town) that public transport users don't have to deal with. Travelling by bus would be a lot faster with fewer cars on the road.

If you ban cars, people would still be on the road, packed like sardines on the buses, but it aint the same as being on the road in your own car, that right will be reserved only for superrich (nore more 1-2% of the population).

That would be the case if you banned all cars except for those owned by the super rich or if taxes were raised for the least expensive vehicles to a level that none but the super rich could afford. No one is suggesting that here. I think the only reason why you keep arguing against an issue that no one is calling for is that you are indeed scratching your head and cannot think of a better argument.

Biggest traffic jams are not in the inner Bangkok, btw, not the same as in Singapore.

The new rules and tolls could be applied wherever they are needed.

The idea that driving should be grouped together with other destructive habits (I assume drinking and smoking) is so radical that I feel the need to search for my handbook on fascism, or Khmer Rouge style of social engineering.

It's not just driving, but also the waste of human, financial, and natural resources that goes with it.

"superfast network of scheduled buses, trains, and bicycles" - both "superfast" and "scheduled" are alien terms in Thai society. Why don't you try proposing that in better organised societies - like the UK or Germany, if anyone would take you seriously.

Wouldn't hurt to try. There was a time when electricity and running water were alien terms as well (it's still an alien term in many parts of the country as well as the world as well... doesn't mean people should stop working to acquire such services though). What you're saying is that it's better not to try because you really like your car.

[Plus]

There are parking issues (which one might argue is an incredible waste of precious space in many high value areas of town) that public transport users don't have to deal with. Travelling by bus would be a lot faster with fewer cars on the road.

There must be A LOT FEWER cars to make buses get from A to B at the same speed as a car. They need to make bus stops and they don't take shortcuts. Some popular stops take five minutes to clear because of the long bus lines waiting for their turn to pull in and drop off passengers.

That would be the case if you banned all cars except for those owned by the super rich or if taxes were raised for the least expensive vehicles to a level that none but the super rich could afford. No one is suggesting that here.

That was your own suggestion, in fact your whole plan rests on rasing taxes so that people can't afford buying cars. Have you read your own posts?

Right now top ten percent can afford driving, after raising taxes it would be what - top five? That's "superrich" territory.

Biggest traffic jams are not in inner Bangkok

- The new rules and tolls could be applied wherever they are needed.

Excuse me, but that is an idiotic suggestion. If you force cars to drive around one particular tight spot, they'll create even bigger jams on their detour routes, and some tolls have minimum effect on the traffic already - exressways in peak hours, even Don Muang tollway where people can choose to drive underneath for free.

Wouldn't hurt to try. There was a time when electricity and running water were alien terms as well

Go ahead, when the superfast network is ready people will use it without raising taxes. That's what the government plans anyway. You are proposing raising taxes first, building networks later. How much later?

There isn't a country in the world that replaced cars with public transport, and for a multitude of reasons. Take off peak hours - the buses run empty and lose money big time and passengers have to wait for up to an hour on less popular routes. And there will be extra hundreds of less popular routes if you extend bus network coverage.

If a bus carries only five passengers, it would be cheaper for them to drive five cars instead, in all respects. There's a minimum required number of passengers on a bus that makes it operation economically worthwile, and Bangkok average is below that level, even with fully packed buses in the mornings and evenenings.

Bangkok bus companies are perpetually in the red and so is BTS and MRT.

There's a way to reduce empty runs - force everyone to go to work and back at the same time and make no public transport available outside peak hours. Freedom to move anytime you want or need is reserved only for top five percent of the population. I bet you'd like it.

[Heng]

I like it the way it is now. Will respond in a bit, Plus. It's time for a siesta.