How Much Does Tourism Contribute To Thai Gdp?

[simon43]

The effect of the downturn in tourist numbers next year will obviously have a serious effect in the major tourist destinations. So take Phuket for example..

Thinking off the top of my head:

Fewer tourists means lower room occupancy levels = fewer hotel staff required = staff layoffs.

It also means lower hotel gross incomes which will no doubt send some businesses to the wall.

Lower demand for hotel rooms, purchase of condos and houses means fewer building projects = unemployment for the many Issan and Burmese construction workers

Businesses that supply food and equipments to hotels will suffer

Restaurant and entertainment businesses will also suffer

I could go on and on, but the effects in Phuket could be pretty bad

The only silver lining to this cloud is that the jetski mafia, tuk-tuk and taxi mafia will see a major downturn in their revenues

Simon

[12DrinkMore]

The only silver lining to this cloud is that the jetski mafia, tuk-tuk and taxi mafia will see a major downturn in their revenues

No they won't, they'll put UP the prices to compensate for fewer tourists. :D

[Sherlocke]

Some of you people who hang out in Pattaya, Suhkumwit, etc are vastly overestimating your, and other tourists, importance to the economy.

very common to see a "centric" approach on such figures by expats - especially Westerners who seem to think that without the West Thailand wouldn't exist.

[wintermute]

The actual tourism sector is much smaller than people realize and it barely has any trickle down economic benefits to most Thais. The primary beneficiaries are big developers and hotel chains, next down the line are smaller hotel/bungalow operations who are still owned by fairly rich Thai people, the last people to benefit are the various "service" personnel such as tuk tuk, taxi, boat guys, food stall ladies, etc.. whose business doesn't depend solely on expats or tourists.

So, the people who get hurt the "worst" during a tourist drought are actually the wealthy owners of businesses.

Also, a lot of hotels use burmese people to staff so in many cases the thai employment pool is completely unaffected.

[carmine]

The actual tourism sector is much smaller than people realize and it barely has any trickle down economic benefits to most Thais. The primary beneficiaries are big developers and hotel chains, next down the line are smaller hotel/bungalow operations who are still owned by fairly rich Thai people, the last people to benefit are the various "service" personnel such as tuk tuk, taxi, boat guys, food stall ladies, etc.. whose business doesn't depend solely on expats or tourists.

So, the people who get hurt the "worst" during a tourist drought are actually the wealthy owners of businesses.

Also, a lot of hotels use burmese people to staff so in many cases the thai employment pool is completely unaffected.

Sorry Wintermute, that is a ridiculous simplification, and the last line laughable

[Sherlocke]

Certainly the poorer sections of society benefit least in most cases and are frequently are deprived of land ownership their own business etc as a result and have to work for wages and hours set to benefit only the hotel and big-time owners.

[wintermute]

The actual tourism sector is much smaller than people realize and it barely has any trickle down economic benefits to most Thais. The primary beneficiaries are big developers and hotel chains, next down the line are smaller hotel/bungalow operations who are still owned by fairly rich Thai people, the last people to benefit are the various "service" personnel such as tuk tuk, taxi, boat guys, food stall ladies, etc.. whose business doesn't depend solely on expats or tourists.

So, the people who get hurt the "worst" during a tourist drought are actually the wealthy owners of businesses.

Also, a lot of hotels use burmese people to staff so in many cases the thai employment pool is completely unaffected.

Sorry Wintermute, that is a ridiculous simplification, and the last line laughable

You don't have the slightest clue as to how the developers work here. A lot of those "mom and pop" bungalow operations you see in popular beach areas like Koh Samet are actually owned by the same people who own resorts on other islands. Also, that lady selling som tam probably pays a hefty squatter fee to management of said property. Get a clue before you open your trap.

The concept of home grown island businesses died off a long time ago when ignorant fishermen sold off enormous plots of their land to wealthy bangkok developers who proceeded to build a generic tourist empire. In some cases the locals are used to run the place for cheap wages and free liquor but they receive little to no real economic benefit.

Edited December 8, 2009 by wintermute

[chiang mai]

The actual tourism sector is much smaller than people realize and it barely has any trickle down economic benefits to most Thais. The primary beneficiaries are big developers and hotel chains, next down the line are smaller hotel/bungalow operations who are still owned by fairly rich Thai people, the last people to benefit are the various "service" personnel such as tuk tuk, taxi, boat guys, food stall ladies, etc.. whose business doesn't depend solely on expats or tourists.

So, the people who get hurt the "worst" during a tourist drought are actually the wealthy owners of businesses.

Also, a lot of hotels use burmese people to staff so in many cases the thai employment pool is completely unaffected.

Sorry Wintermute, that is a ridiculous simplification, and the last line laughable

There is an awfully large number of Burmese and Vietnamese employed in Phuket, legally and otherwise - I don't see evidence of them being employed in the hotel industry so much but many are definitely are employed in tourist related roles. There again, most people (me included) wouldn't know the difference between a Thai, a Burmese and a Vietnamese person just by looking at them.

[wintermute]

There is an awfully large number of Burmese and Vietnamese employed in Phuket, legally and otherwise - I don't see evidence of them being employed in the hotel industry so much but many are definitely are employed in tourist related roles. There again, most people (me included) wouldn't know the difference between a Thai, a Burmese and a Vietnamese person just by looking at them.

The entire construction industry for tourism is sustained off the backs of Burmese workers. The cleaning, ditch digging, sh*t carting, gulley cleaning, etc.. you see being done away from the prying eyes of tourists is all done by Burmese. The maids etc.. who aren't usually in contact with customers are also often Burmese. I haven't had a peek in the kitchens of most hotel chains but aside from the head chef and a few privileged positions i'd bet a large portion of the staff are probably also Burmese.

The people who generally aren't Burmese are people like the food sellers, bar personnel, etc.. basically the ones who have direct contact with farang are usually Thai.

[britadders28]

Officially its around 8% which this year maybe not a huge amount

Also we pay tax every time we buy beer, cigarrettes, food etc...

[chiang mai]

There is an awfully large number of Burmese and Vietnamese employed in Phuket, legally and otherwise - I don't see evidence of them being employed in the hotel industry so much but many are definitely are employed in tourist related roles. There again, most people (me included) wouldn't know the difference between a Thai, a Burmese and a Vietnamese person just by looking at them.

The entire construction industry for tourism is sustained off the backs of Burmese workers. The cleaning, ditch digging, sh*t carting, gulley cleaning, etc.. you see being done away from the prying eyes of tourists is all done by Burmese. The maids etc.. who aren't usually in contact with customers are also often Burmese. I haven't had a peek in the kitchens of most hotel chains but aside from the head chef and a few privileged positions i'd bet a large portion of the staff are probably also Burmese.

The people who generally aren't Burmese are people like the food sellers, bar personnel, etc.. basically the ones who have direct contact with farang are usually Thai.

Yes agreed, but also the majority of shops on Bangla and Beach roads in Patong are owned/operated by Burmese whilst about a third of the food stalls in the basement of Junceylon are operated by Vietnamese - at the hotel where Mrs CM used to work there were two Burmese working in a service capacity so they are out there and many of them are facing tourists daily, having said those things, the early poster's statement was an exageration.

[Sherlocke]

"Officially its around 8%" do you have a source for that?....admittedly I'm splitting hairs here butI've read it's between 6 and 7%

[uhuh]

The actual tourism sector is much smaller than people realize and it barely has any trickle down economic benefits to most Thais. The primary beneficiaries are big developers and hotel chains, next down the line are smaller hotel/bungalow operations who are still owned by fairly rich Thai people, the last people to benefit are the various "service" personnel such as tuk tuk, taxi, boat guys, food stall ladies, etc.. whose business doesn't depend solely on expats or tourists.

So, the people who get hurt the "worst" during a tourist drought are actually the wealthy owners of businesses.

Also, a lot of hotels use burmese people to staff so in many cases the thai employment pool is completely unaffected.

Sorry Wintermute, that is a ridiculous simplification, and the last line laughable

There is an awfully large number of Burmese and Vietnamese employed in Phuket, legally and otherwise - I don't see evidence of them being employed in the hotel industry so much but many are definitely are employed in tourist related roles. There again, most people (me included) wouldn't know the difference between a Thai, a Burmese and a Vietnamese person just by looking at them.

yes, but its easy if you try speaking to them in Thai and you have to switch to English because they are Burmese.

In Koh Tao, for example, it is sometimes not easy to find a Thai speaking person. You do much better with English as the visible humans on this island are mostly farang and Burmese. Most of the staff in restaurants, hotels etc is Burmese.

[uhuh]

There is an awfully large number of Burmese and

The entire construction industry for tourism is sustained off the backs of Burmese workers. The cleaning, ditch digging, sh*t carting, gulley cleaning, etc.. you see being done away from the prying eyes of tourists is all done by Burmese. The maids etc.. who aren't usually in contact with customers are also often Burmese. I haven't had a peek in the kitchens of most hotel chains but aside from the head chef and a few privileged positions i'd bet a large portion of the staff are probably also Burmese.

The people who generally aren't Burmese are people like the food sellers, bar personnel, etc.. basically the ones who have direct contact with farang are usually Thai.

in Koh Tao and Koh Chang the staff who have direct contact with customers is usually Burmese, too, as Burmese can speak English.

BTW construction workers, restaurant staff and waitresses are up to 95% Burmese in Bangkok too.

Wanna learn Burmese? Work in a noodle shop at Siam square!

2000 B/month, free lodging (on the 2nd floor of the restaurant), free food (the left-overs). Enough to build a house in Burma.

[ableguy]

I mentioned it in another thread, I thought it was around 8% (but wasn't sure it is 8% of the GDP or GNP).

That's why I was shaking my head at all the people who seem to think this is the (economic) end for Thailand, just because Suvarnabhumi was closed, as though all of Thailand's economy revolved around one airport, some air-cargo, and some stranded tourists.

Granted, 8% is a huge chunk of money in it's own right, and it were to totally disappear today, never to be seen again, it would cause some hardships for the country.

However, some peace and stability in the country, and an upswing in the global economy, and in a couple years time, that 8% won't even be noticed. Think about it. If the country (and the rest of the world) settled down, and were to enjoy a low to moderate 3% per year growth rate, in less than 3 years they would be right back.

OK, without the tourist income (of any kind) it may take a little longer. Hmm, calculator on, numbers to crunch.......

(Just as examples)

100 billion - Gross National Product (GNP)

8 billion - tourism (8%) totally erased off the books.

92 billion - New GNP (say - 1 Jan 09)

2.75 billion (3% of new GNP)

94.75 total (end of year 1, 31 Dec 09)

2.84 billion (3% of 09 GNP)

97.59 billion (end of year 2, 31 Dec 10)

2.93 billion (3% of '10 GNP)

100.5 billion (end of year 3, 31 Dec 11)

Now there are a lot of factors that could change the numbers (up or down), but, based on only a 3% growth rate and NO tourism revenue AT ALL, it would only take about 3 years for the economy to make up that lost revenue.

I highly doubt the tourism industry would never come back. In fact, within a few months of this crisis being resolved we'll probably be seeing threads whining about long lines at immigration again.

And if the global economy picks up (which would no doubt mean a rise in tourism as well) ? Higher annual growth rate and more tourism $$ ?

These are just quick example figures, but for anyone who thinks this current crisis and the shutting down of Swampy is going to cripple Thailand's economy, you may want to think again.

Of course, if this all ends up into a major civil war, North against South, Red against Yellow, Light-skinned vs Dark-skinned, then all bets are off.

mmm yawn zzzzzzzzzzzz

[Brunus]

I am sure that if you include the money that farangs spend for their Thai wives or girlfriends the percentage will be far more than 6 per cent

[livinthailandos]

I'm going to try to keep this simple as it does regard tourism matters though

1. About the mom and pop bungalows / resorts. Here's what I can tell you based on what I know and have learned over time. 3 options came about especially in regards to land and tourism for most thai's

a. they had land. at some point they sold it off for various reasons.

b. They had land and decided to rent out the land over a period of time

c. They had land and decided to build on their land and make a business

Also on that note, It takes a lot of different things in opening a hotel and then running it. First of all the issue is land and in some areas land is extremely expensive. by the time you get land done then the hotel. I do know of some hotels that build up and the cost was over 1 million dollars easy just to implement, build etc

2. in regards \ hotels go by 2 things

a. ADR / Average Daily Rates

b. RevPAR / revenue per available room

3. On tourist matters

a. Exchange Rates - fluctuations cause shifts in purchasing power as well as a move towards destinations with better value for currency

b. When people lack confidence in their employment prospects & financial situations they tend to leave bookings to last moments

c. Leisure Travel - will continue to be constrained by job losses and weak consumer confidence generated by the ongoing economic mess

what does all this have to do tourism, depending on what part of tourism you end, its hard to actually nail down any GDP figures as things in thailand change all the time. Not everyone does well. There is one thing I know so far, its that just because some places are doing bad doesn't mean everyone else is. Unless you actually talk with these people and know exact details of their situation which is unlikely, only outcome you can go with is simply to guess and assume.

As far as tourism industry goes. Thailand in a way does not have much other way to generate income other than simple exporting, it really doesn't have a real domestic spending economy like other nations due to the gap between poor and rich is extremely high. From what I know exporting accounts for more than 60% GDP

[ferd54]

That 6% is only accumulative of what goes through LEGALLY but think about the millions that are not accounted for from street vendors, bar girls, massage parlors, taxis, passage vans, etc ... I would guess tourism GDP up to 20%.

Yes, I don't know how they arrive at the the figure and what they say it is, but tourism certainly provides widespread, low-barrier employment and the startup of small businesses. As well tourism is usually a high-profit (cost vs revenue) sector (except of course if people keep building hotels when the market is already saturated). It also generates crucial foreign exchange. Big-time cash cow.

[samran]

I am sure that if you include the money that farangs spend for their Thai wives or girlfriends the percentage will be far more than 6 per cent

haha, another 'if it wasn't for me Thailand would fall in a heap' post.

The Thai economy is $600 billion odd in size. To increase that by 1% you are talking about $6 billion dollars...

So $6 billion per year is spent on Thai wives and GF's? You'd need 100,000 'husbands and boyfriends' spending $60,000 each per annum exclusively on their wives and girlfirends, excluding other expenses.

'far more than 6%' implies that you are talking about these 100,000 husbands and boyfriends spending $120-180K each p.a just to bump GDP up a couple of percentage points, and each of these super farangs to have pension nest eggs of a few million each to earn this type of interest income. \

Um, yeah, and pigs fly.

[Matan]

I am sure that if you include the money that farangs spend for their Thai wives or girlfriends the percentage will be far more than 6 per cent

haha, another 'if it wasn't for me Thailand would fall in a heap' post.

The Thai economy is $600 billion odd in size. To increase that by 1% you are talking about $6 billion dollars...

So $6 billion per year is spent on Thai wives and GF's? You'd need 100,000 'husbands and boyfriends' spending $60,000 each per annum exclusively on their wives and girlfirends, excluding other expenses.

'far more than 6%' implies that you are talking about these 100,000 husbands and boyfriends spending $120-180K each p.a just to bump GDP up a couple of percentage points, and each of these super farangs to have pension nest eggs of a few million each to earn this type of interest income. \

Um, yeah, and pigs fly.

I refuse to believe that I'm wrong in thinking that if I left the country, the economy would collapse. I'm an important man, worth 1,000 Thais, and my contribution needs to be recognised.

[dumball]

'samran' date='2009-12-12 18:46:33' post='3198482']

'Brunus' post='3198361' date='2009-12-12 10:32:17']I am sure that if you include the money that farangs spend for their Thai wives or girlfriends the percentage will be far more than 6 per cent

haha, another 'if it wasn't for me Thailand would fall in a heap' post.

The Thai economy is $600 billion odd in size. To increase that by 1% you are talking about $6 billion dollars...

So $6 billion per year is spent on Thai wives and GF's? You'd need 100,000 'husbands and boyfriends' spending $60,000 each per annum exclusively on their wives and girlfirends, excluding other expenses.

'far more than 6%' implies that you are talking about these 100,000 husbands and boyfriends spending $120-180K each p.a just to bump GDP up a couple of percentage points, and each of these super farangs to have pension nest eggs of a few million each to earn this type of interest income. \

Um, yeah, and pigs fly.

I think your over simplification of why expats living or not living in Thailand do not contribute to the GPD is in fact somewhere close to actuality of what helps keep a multitude of Thai afloat and helps them in turn keep a multitude of others afloat .

The dollars you float , are spent by expats on a yearly basis , supporting lady friends and their extended families out in the villages , which in turn results in an improved standard of living for many others when these dollars are spent localy . These 'Contributions' will not be accessed by government as tourism earnings , and no , removing tourism would not lead to the collapse of Thailand per-se , but should these contributions by expats suddenly cease , you would have another huge discrepancy in what supports the multitude of people who need it most .

Foreigners in one way or another , contribute more to Thailand than they are given credit for , much , much more .

[geriatrickid]

Whatever the official GDP is, the activity provides a lifeline for tens of thousands of Thais that would otherwise go without an income. Many of the activities associated with the tourist trade are filled by illiterate people from impoverished areas that are blocked out of other opportunities.

I am not justifying working conditions, just making the observation that without the tourism, these people would be further marginalized and suffer greater hardship. As such, the contribution is magnified because these people would become a burden or a source of conflict. Thailand's population is skewed to youth. Unemployed youth cause problems no matter the country.

[samran]

I am sure that if you include the money that farangs spend for their Thai wives or girlfriends the percentage will be far more than 6 per cent

haha, another 'if it wasn't for me Thailand would fall in a heap' post.

The Thai economy is $600 billion odd in size. To increase that by 1% you are talking about $6 billion dollars...

So $6 billion per year is spent on Thai wives and GF's? You'd need 100,000 'husbands and boyfriends' spending $60,000 each per annum exclusively on their wives and girlfirends, excluding other expenses.

'far more than 6%' implies that you are talking about these 100,000 husbands and boyfriends spending $120-180K each p.a just to bump GDP up a couple of percentage points, and each of these super farangs to have pension nest eggs of a few million each to earn this type of interest income. \

Um, yeah, and pigs fly.

I think your over simplification of why expats living or not living in Thailand do not contribute to the GPD is in fact somewhere close to actuality of what helps keep a multitude of Thai afloat and helps them in turn keep a multitude of others afloat .

The dollars you float , are spent by expats on a yearly basis , supporting lady friends and their extended families out in the villages , which in turn results in an improved standard of living for many others when these dollars are spent localy . These 'Contributions' will not be accessed by government as tourism earnings , and no , removing tourism would not lead to the collapse of Thailand per-se , but should these contributions by expats suddenly cease , you would have another huge discrepancy in what supports the multitude of people who need it most .

Foreigners in one way or another , contribute more to Thailand than they are given credit for , much , much more .

Oversimplification is often a good starting point to checking whether something makes intuative sense. Then you can go and make things as complex as you like. To me, the 'helping girlfriend and family' argument is overstated, since it assumes they'd be doing nothing if it weren't for the white knight super farang coming in and saving the day. This of course, is crap. There is always the 'next best' option for people. They'd always be doing something else. Who knows, they might have been doing something ultimately more productive (eg starting a business) instead of relying on the 'foriegn dole'.

You have the floor.

[dumball]

'samran' ='3198482' date='2009-12-12 18:46:33']='Brunus' '3198361' date='2009-12-12 10:32:17']I am sure that if you include the money that farangs spend for their Thai wives or girlfriends the percentage will be far more than 6 per cent

haha, another 'if it wasn't for me Thailand would fall in a heap' post.

The Thai economy is $600 billion odd in size. To increase that by 1% you are talking about $6 billion dollars...

So $6 billion per year is spent on Thai wives and GF's? You'd need 100,000 'husbands and boyfriends' spending $60,000 each per annum exclusively on their wives and girlfirends, excluding other expenses.

'far more than 6%' implies that you are talking about these 100,000 husbands and boyfriends spending $120-180K each p.a just to bump GDP up a couple of percentage points, and each of these super farangs to have pension nest eggs of a few million each to earn this type of interest income. \

Um, yeah, and pigs fly.

I think your over simplification of why expats living or not living in Thailand do not contribute to the GPD is in fact somewhere close to actuality of what helps keep a multitude of Thai afloat and helps them in turn keep a multitude of others afloat .

The dollars you float , are spent by expats on a yearly basis , supporting lady friends and their extended families out in the villages , which in turn results in an improved standard of living for many others when these dollars are spent localy . These 'Contributions' will not be accessed by government as tourism earnings , and no , removing tourism would not lead to the collapse of Thailand per-se , but should these contributions by expats suddenly cease , you would have another huge discrepancy in what supports the multitude of people who need it most .

Foreigners in one way or another , contribute more to Thailand than they are given credit for , much , much more .

Oversimplification is often a good starting point to checking whether something makes intuative sense. Then you can go and make things as complex as you like. To me, the 'helping girlfriend and family' argument is overstated, since it assumes they'd be doing nothing if it weren't for the white knight super farang coming in and saving the day. This of course, is crap. There is always the 'next best' option for people. They'd always be doing something else. Who knows, they might have been doing something ultimately more productive (eg starting a business) instead of relying on the 'foriegn dole'.

You have the floor.

You have now taken simplification to the heights of magnification in the role of humble Farang , "Here he comes galloping over the horizon on his steaming white charger , a-la Don Quixote , flailing at imaginary windmills , the saviour of the winsome lass , enslaved in the degrading environs of her tumble-down village "

Were there the 'Next best option" to "set up shop ' as you propose , so-be-it , but alas , so many shops and so few people to sustain their exsistance , but "Wait a moment" says mama raising her telescope to her one good eye not afflikted by cataracts ,"I see a golden future over the horizon , just waiting for my beloved daughter to go hence and secure our whole families future in which we will suffer no more "

Fast forward .

"I love you hansum man , we have a sick buffalo in our village "

Fast forward .

Do you think that house is big enough to suit your family ?

And so the saviors have arrived in a most undeniable manner in which no one can deny , they are giving what no other means available could have given these poor impoverished people to the heights it has been given , and will continue to give if the goverment allows them to .

Yes sir , Don Quixote has arrived to save the winsom lass , but not as you surmised , he has saved her from the depths of depravation in her windmill , where she was forced(co-ersed) to become grist for the mill .

[britadders28]

Some of you people who hang out in Pattaya, Suhkumwit, etc are vastly overestimating your, and other tourists, importance to the economy.

very common to see a "centric" approach on such figures by expats - especially Westerners who seem to think that without the West Thailand wouldn't exist.

It wouldnt it would be japanese or more likely German!

[wintermute]

Oversimplification is often a good starting point to checking whether something makes intuative sense. Then you can go and make things as complex as you like. To me, the 'helping girlfriend and family' argument is overstated, since it assumes they'd be doing nothing if it weren't for the white knight super farang coming in and saving the day. This of course, is crap. There is always the 'next best' option for people. They'd always be doing something else. Who knows, they might have been doing something ultimately more productive (eg starting a business) instead of relying on the 'foriegn dole'.

You have the floor.

You could say the farang dole is in fact unhealthy and counterproductive in the long run to Thai country people. It exacerbates the image of the lower class people as "chattle" to be sold or married off to the highest bidding foreigner thus unmistakably keeping Thailand in the sex degradation spotlight. It also prevents the country people themselves from trying to conceive of a reality outside what is presented to them. In otherwords there's no reason to learn new trade skills, reduce village alcoholism, or anything else if the young women can be more or less trafficked ensuring the family's subservient hand to mouth existence with what equates to social welfare.

A lot of it is the fault of Thai society though. This is still a feudal agrarian society at heart with tiered estates not dissimilar from pre-revolutionary France. You have the first estate consisting of the monk priesthood, the second estate consisting of rich moneyed bangkok aristocrats and the "other" people we can't mention, as well as the third estate which is the commoners who are the overwhelmingly poor and middle class who toil for the scraps.

Until the mindset changes nothing will change. It took France over a hundred years from enlightenment.

[waza]

Hmmmm those saying that tourism is 6% of Thailands GDP are wrong. Latest statistics show it is now around 5%.

Tourism revenues are on the rise. With the instability surrounding the recent coup and the military rule, however, the GDP growth of Thailand has settled at around 4-5% from previous highs of 5-7% under the previous civilian administration, as investor and consumer confidence has been degraded somewhat due to political uncertainty. From Wikipedia<H3 id=siteSub>

</H3>

[Brunus]

I am sure that if you include the money that farangs spend for their Thai wives or girlfriends the percentage will be far more than 6 per cent

haha, another 'if it wasn't for me Thailand would fall in a heap' post.

The Thai economy is $600 billion odd in size. To increase that by 1% you are talking about $6 billion dollars...

So $6 billion per year is spent on Thai wives and GF's? You'd need 100,000 'husbands and boyfriends' spending $60,000 each per annum exclusively on their wives and girlfirends, excluding other expenses.

'far more than 6%' implies that you are talking about these 100,000 husbands and boyfriends spending $120-180K each p.a just to bump GDP up a couple of percentage points, and each of these super farangs to have pension nest eggs of a few million each to earn this type of interest income. \

Um, yeah, and pigs fly.

You don't know me, so please don't try to guess what my thoughts are.

I have never given any money to my Thai wife or her family. Actually they are richer then I am. I am not a rich man and I can't afford to spend a lot of money. So my contribution to Thai economy is very low.

I was joking, I just forgot to add a smiley

Maybe not a funny joke but I will try to explain it to you. Considering how many farangs support their Thai wives or girlfriends and their families, this could have a huge impact on Thai economy. I know it is not true. It is called irony.

It's like saying: There would be no beer industry in Thailand if there was no farang here.

I try to explain. Farang usually drink a lot of beer. So the beer industry would collapse if no farang was here. I know it is not true. It's called irony.

Anyway if I leave Thailand Archa beer will be bankrupted (let's see if you understand this one without an explanation)

I am not an economist and I don't understand much about it.

I would like to know who did this statistic and what criteria have been followed to determine this 6 per cent.

Anyway I am pretty sure that in this percentage it's not included all the "undirected income" that comes from tourists, like all the money farangs give to Thai wives, gf, their families. All the houses, apartments, cars, businesses, etc. which are in a Thai name bur are paid with farang money.

Let's make an example. Kong Kaen (don't know how to spell it). I don't think there is much tourism there (never been there). But let's say that "official tourism" (the one that the statistics consider) brings less than 6 per cent of the incomes (maybe 1 per cent?). But if you include also all the farang money that goes to the city via its girls, then the percentage will raise.

It would be interesting to know the impact to the economy of this "undirected tourism"

[wintermute]

Anyway I am pretty sure that in this percentage it's not included all the "undirected income" that comes from tourists, like all the money farangs give to Thai wives, gf, their families. All the houses, apartments, cars, businesses, etc. which are in a Thai name bur are paid with farang money.

So basically you admit you don't know anything, not the least bit educated, and are ignorant as a pig in sh*t but you can guess by gut feeling that the tourism GDP figure isn't correct. OK.

[Brunus]

Anyway I am pretty sure that in this percentage it's not included all the "undirected income" that comes from tourists, like all the money farangs give to Thai wives, gf, their families. All the houses, apartments, cars, businesses, etc. which are in a Thai name bur are paid with farang money.

So basically you admit you don't know anything, not the least bit educated, and are ignorant as a pig in sh*t but you can guess by gut feeling that the tourism GDP figure isn't correct. OK.

Maybe you are this.

This is not money officially coming from tourism. If it's on Thai name. How can anybody include this in the statistic? It doesn't make sense. It's just my guess. I said it would be interesting to know who calculated this percentage, what criteria has been used, and that this "undirected tourism" could affect some remote and non touristic areas in some percentage.

The way you speak you are obviously a genius with a doctorate in economy, so please explain me. You are obviously a very polite person. Can you please teach me good manners?