How Much Does Tourism Contribute To Thai Gdp?

[ferd54]

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.

Anyone with any common sense will know that homes purchased for Thai wives/families and kids sent to school will not be included in tourism revenues. Yet guys start out as tourists, and for the various reasons we all know, will later move to Thailand with their life savings. Combined, that type of spending is absolutely enormous, and is a direct result of tourism. The knock-on effects of foreigners traveling to, then settling in, Thailand are significant indeed. Combined with whatever the direct contribution of tourist cash to GDP -- whether its 5 percent or 10 percent -- the overall amount is staggering relative to Thailand's overall economy.

[richard10365]

Exports is why the Thai economy is having problems. Tourism is small compared to exports. The global demand for Thai products is less because people are spending less. But it is getting better.

Here is the proof everyone keeps asking about. (Cite your source!) This should keep people busy for a while.

http://www.bot.or.th/Thai/EconomicConditio...ssEng_Nov09.pdf

http://www.bot.or.th/Thai/EconomicConditio...c_Eng_Nov09.pdf

http://www.bot.or.th/Thai/EconomicConditio..._EN_M_Nov09.pdf

http://www.bot.or.th/Thai/EconomicConditio...1_pic_Nov09.pdf

Thailand at a glance (GDP)

http://www.bot.or.th/English/EconomicCondi...and_Glance.aspx

Key Economic Indicators

http://www2.bot.or.th/statistics/BOTWEBSTA...mp;language=ENG

Happy reading!

[samran]

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.

Anyone with any common sense will know that homes purchased for Thai wives/families and kids sent to school will not be included in tourism revenues. Yet guys start out as tourists, and for the various reasons we all know, will later move to Thailand with their life savings. Combined, that type of spending is absolutely enormous, and is a direct result of tourism. The knock-on effects of foreigners traveling to, then settling in, Thailand are significant indeed. Combined with whatever the direct contribution of tourist cash to GDP -- whether its 5 percent or 10 percent -- the overall amount is staggering relative to Thailand's overall economy.

Who cares if it is included in tourism revenues or not?

If it was a major category of expenditure, the BOT would include it as a major category withing the inward remittances to Thailand. But, last I looked 'farang buying house for the wifey' wasn't included as a major foreign currency earner for the country.

[chiang mai]

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.

Anyone with any common sense will know that homes purchased for Thai wives/families and kids sent to school will not be included in tourism revenues. Yet guys start out as tourists, and for the various reasons we all know, will later move to Thailand with their life savings. Combined, that type of spending is absolutely enormous, and is a direct result of tourism. The knock-on effects of foreigners traveling to, then settling in, Thailand are significant indeed. Combined with whatever the direct contribution of tourist cash to GDP -- whether its 5 percent or 10 percent -- the overall amount is staggering relative to Thailand's overall economy.

The amounts you refer to are staggering insignificant when considered as a percentage of either overall GDP or indeed as a percentage of direct Tourism revenue.

[wintermute]

Here's Thailand's GDP in relation to other countries in the world with comparisons made from the IMF, World Bank, and the CIA Worldfactbook.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_GDP_%28PPP%29

Thailand ranks #24, 23, and 24 respectively to all 3 indexes.

Thailand's GDP is in fact much bigger than people think and it's squarely in the upper tier compared with 180 countries. Expats who live in beer bars and hang out with dregs probably don't understand how much business and industry is done in Thailand. If you reject the Thai nationalist tripe about being a "hub" for a second and just look at the figures there is still a lot of truth about the sheer amount of wealth being generated here. Thailand is no asian tiger of the likes of S. Korea or Taiwan but it's respectable for its size.

[Brunus]

I read all the attachments but still I can't find the criteria used to estimate this 6 per cent. As I said before I was joking. I am aware that Thailand has an economy that doesn't depend on tourism.

As for why 'farang buying house for the wifey' is not included, i think it's almost impossible to find the real number, considering the money is on a Thai name. Plus I think that also the assets bought by farangs on their name aren't considered tourism, because these people live here. Plus I think that nobody cares about this. So the impact to Thai economy could be insignificant like it could be not, considering nobody knows what it is. I personally think it doesn't have a big impact in the overall economy of the country. I don't go to bars or discotheques.

Another user posted this in this website. I think that the houses paid with farang money are worth more than the rest of the village. Just an example of how 'farang buying house for the wifey' can have an impact the ecomomy of a remote village.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Vxz_LPVt34...feature=related

[ferd54]

Thailand's GDP is in fact much bigger than people think and it's squarely in the upper tier compared with 180 countries. Expats who live in beer bars and hang out with dregs probably don't understand how much business and industry is done in Thailand. If you reject the Thai nationalist tripe about being a "hub" for a second and just look at the figures there is still a lot of truth about the sheer amount of wealth being generated here. Thailand is no asian tiger of the likes of S. Korea or Taiwan but it's respectable for its size.

Indeed you are right. 24th in the world is respectable and foreigners often do underestimate its day-to-day production, commerce and domestic consumption. If you took a snapshot of an "average" street in Thailand, it would be unlikely that there would be a foreigner in the picture; farangs indeed are a tiny minority.

[chiang mai]

It's clear that we are not going to easily disentangle the farang support element from tourism's contribution to GDP thus I propose that we all leave and come back in one year to see what BOT has reported, agreed? OK, I'll hold the door open and you can all leave and I'll stay and make sure no farangs remains, please!

[Abrak]

Posters quoting Thailand's GDP at US$500bn to US$600bn (US$8500 per capita?) are quoting a Purchasing Power Parity figure which is a purely theoretical number based on revaluing exchange rates (and an assumption of all countries having the same future inflation rate.) Thailands GDP is about US$270bn.

A rough number for tourist GDP contribution is 13m tourists x Bt4000 (ave spend per day) x 9 days (ave stay) = total tourist spending = US$14bn. Usually tourism spend multipliers are between 0.5 - 0.75. Thailand's would be high (unlike say Dubai where tourists go to shopping on for imported goods.) 14 x 0.75 = US$10.5 = 3.9% of GDP. Obviously you have resident expats, Thai wives etc so I guess 5% is a good round figure.

The harsh recession 'feel' in the country is due to the imbalance of internal and external GDP. Over the past year the current account surplus has gone from O% to 9% of GDP. GDP has fallen 3%. So consumption + investment + Government spending + 9 (x-m) = 97. The domestic economy (c+i+g) has basically fallen from 100 to 88.

[Brunus]

Posters quoting Thailand's GDP at US$500bn to US$600bn (US$8500 per capita?) are quoting a Purchasing Power Parity figure which is a purely theoretical number based on revaluing exchange rates (and an assumption of all countries having the same future inflation rate.) Thailands GDP is about US$270bn.

A rough number for tourist GDP contribution is 13m tourists x Bt4000 (ave spend per day) x 9 days (ave stay) = total tourist spending = US$14bn. Usually tourism spend multipliers are between 0.5 - 0.75. Thailand's would be high (unlike say Dubai where tourists go to shopping on for imported goods.) 14 x 0.75 = US$10.5 = 3.9% of GDP. Obviously you have resident expats, Thai wives etc so I guess 5% is a good round figure.

The harsh recession 'feel' in the country is due to the imbalance of internal and external GDP. Over the past year the current account surplus has gone from O% to 9% of GDP. GDP has fallen 3%. So consumption + investment + Government spending + 9 (x-m) = 97. The domestic economy (c+i+g) has basically fallen from 100 to 88.

Judging by he way you write you know what you are talking about. Correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that direct tourism is 3.9 per cent of gpd and in your opinion about 1 per cent comes from expats.

[ferd54]

Is 5 percent of GDP considered significant?

What is the percentage of GDP generated by rice export?

[Abrak]

Judging by he way you write you know what you are talking about. Correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that direct tourism is 3.9 per cent of gpd and in your opinion about 1 per cent comes from expats.

Well I am estimating that direct tourism is 3.9%. I also think there is indirect 'tourism' - the guy who comes here meets a girl and sends her Bt10,000 a month. The person who comes to retire here. People who buy holiday homes. (I wouldnt really count an 'expat' working here as a 'tourism' although it is a grey area (I mean many expats who say own a bar are probably quasi long term tourists). But even say 'Club Med' building a hotel for foreign tourists will have a GDP effect. How much that contributes I dont know so I am guessing US$3bn/per annum.

[chiang mai]

Judging by he way you write you know what you are talking about. Correct me if I am wrong. You are saying that direct tourism is 3.9 per cent of gpd and in your opinion about 1 per cent comes from expats.

Well I am estimating that direct tourism is 3.9%. I also think there is indirect 'tourism' - the guy who comes here meets a girl and sends her Bt10,000 a month. The person who comes to retire here. People who buy holiday homes. (I wouldnt really count an 'expat' working here as a 'tourism' although it is a grey area (I mean many expats who say own a bar are probably quasi long term tourists). But even say 'Club Med' building a hotel for foreign tourists will have a GDP effect. How much that contributes I dont know so I am guessing US$3bn/per annum.

Hmm, can you share your assumptions on this, how many expats living here, how many payments received from overseas etc, because I think 3.9% is very low IF the balance of circa 7%-10% is made up of expat activity within the local population.

[Sherlocke]

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.

Pretty much all nonsense there I'd say.

[carmine]

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.

Pretty much all nonsense there I'd say.

This is a topic that has been talked about extensively. If you find a post by i believe marksamui (not on this thread) you will all see that tourism has a huge effect on the economy and theofficial GDP figure creates rather a mist

[chiang mai]

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.

Pretty much all nonsense there I'd say.

Then you probably didn't read or understand what was written, I think geriatrickkid is pretty accurate with that observation. If what he wrote is not correct, how do you account for the massive influx of poor rural people into places such as Phuket at the start of high season.

[Brunus]

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.

Pretty much all nonsense there I'd say.

This is a topic that has been talked about extensively. If you find a post by i believe marksamui (not on this thread) you will all see that tourism has a huge effect on the economy and theofficial GDP figure creates rather a mist

didn't find it. Can you please post the link?

[wintermute]

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.

Pretty much all nonsense there I'd say.

This is a topic that has been talked about extensively. If you find a post by i believe marksamui (not on this thread) you will all see that tourism has a huge effect on the economy and theofficial GDP figure creates rather a mist

Who is "marksamui" ? Is he an economics expert or an established official who works for the IMF or is he just another expat opinion (amongst hundreds) who serve as the usual uninformed white noise on thaivisa. Seeing as his name is marksamui, which i'm sure has massive credibility amongst some thailand beer bar expats, means precisely jack sh*t in the real world.

[wintermute]

Posters quoting Thailand's GDP at US$500bn to US$600bn (US$8500 per capita?) are quoting a Purchasing Power Parity figure which is a purely theoretical number based on revaluing exchange rates (and an assumption of all countries having the same future inflation rate.) Thailands GDP is about US$270bn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...P_%28nominal%29

Even when you adjust Thailand's GDP per nominal GDP criteria it still comes out looking pretty good in the world. #33,34,35 on the IMF, world bank, and CIA nominal GDP economic index lists.

[chiang mai]

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.

Pretty much all nonsense there I'd say.

This is a topic that has been talked about extensively. If you find a post by i believe marksamui (not on this thread) you will all see that tourism has a huge effect on the economy and theofficial GDP figure creates rather a mist

Who is "marksamui" ? Is he an economics expert or an established official who works for the IMF or is he just another expat opinion (amongst hundreds) who serve as the usual uninformed white noise on thaivisa. Seeing as his name is marksamui, which i'm sure has massive credibility amongst some thailand beer bar expats, means precisely jack sh*t in the real world.

Why the need to be so aggressive and offensive, why not just ignore the question if you don't know the answer.

[airplane]

Most tourism is domestic tourism in Thailand. Other than a handful of farang ghettos, most of the tourists and travellers are Thais themselves.

[geeky]

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.

lol, that sounds good in numbers, but the reality would of course be that losing the 85 would results in a decline of GDP, not an increase, it would hurt the economy, put it in a negative spiral and that's always hard to get around again

so, despite your little calculation being mathematical correct, there's more to it

[carmine]

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.

Pretty much all nonsense there I'd say.

This is a topic that has been talked about extensively. If you find a post by i believe marksamui (not on this thread) you will all see that tourism has a huge effect on the economy and theofficial GDP figure creates rather a mist

Who is "marksamui" ? Is he an economics expert or an established official who works for the IMF or is he just another expat opinion (amongst hundreds) who serve as the usual uninformed white noise on thaivisa. Seeing as his name is marksamui, which i'm sure has massive credibility amongst some thailand beer bar expats, means precisely jack sh*t in the real world.

Why don't you read it first before going ito another one of your ill informed childish rants. Having read your prior posts on this thread it's clear you have'nt the slightest clue what you are talking about. But please keep up with your assumptions, they are hilarious

[Sherlocke]

Many are assuming the "the poor" get a good deal out of tourism - this is not necessarily the case.

It does not alter the fact that the figure is around 6% and the "effects" are all contained within that figure.

As for expats - well the ego-centricity of their "importance" is blatantly obvious.

It would be more useful to compare the effects of "immigrants" - in the widest sense - in other countries - it is the poor immigrant who contribute most to societies they join not people who come and simply spend money.

So the question now is WHO IS MARKSAMUI - and what does he know that has carmine so enthused?

[Brunus]

It would be more useful to compare the effects of "immigrants" - in the widest sense - in other countries - it is the poor immigrant who contribute most to societies they join not people who come and simply spend money.

So the question now is WHO IS MARKSAMUI - and what does he know that has carmine so enthused?

In here we are talking about money from abroad coming into Thailand. The immigrants might have a big impact in some countries, but poor immigrants don't bring money to the country they go to live. They work there, and maybe send money home. So I don't think it is useful to compare.

I am curious about marksamui too

[Sherlocke]

Immigrants WORK and PRODUCE.

Money brought in by expats is dissipated and the effects minimal.

in fact when it comes to medical etc they can end up asa burden....

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sherlocke

[Brunus]

Immigrants WORK and PRODUCE.

No doubt. But you can't say they are tourists. Therefore in my opinion this is not related with the income from tourism. A tourist is somebody who comes to a country and brings money from abroad.

[Sherlocke]

Immigrants WORK and PRODUCE.

No doubt. But you can't say they are tourists. Therefore in my opinion this is not related with the income from tourism. A tourist is somebody who comes to a country and brings money from abroad.

Tourists - no quibble with that - but are expats tourists or immigrants (as said - in the WIDEST sense)

tourism - has a some very unfortunate spin-offs for locals

It dispossesses them of property

Forces them to work for corporate wages.

Increases the price of land out of the range of locals

Increases the cost of living

Does not necessarily give work to locals at all - many use imported labour - at ALL levels from casual labour up to management.

Seldom is any effort made to educate or incorporate local population into the industry through training etc - they are expected to participate only on a very menial level.

Destroys environment

Destabilises societies, cultures and groups that have existed for centuries

Pollutes natural food resources

Strains infrastructures and utilities

etc etc.....

EXPATS - I would not say they are tourists - and of course they fall into different categories - those who work her and bring needed expertise into the country, and those who just live here or retire here.

I would say - set against the downsides of tourism - 6% is a very generous figure.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sherlocke

[carmine]

Many are assuming the "the poor" get a good deal out of tourism - this is not necessarily the case.

It does not alter the fact that the figure is around 6% and the "effects" are all contained within that figure.

As for expats - well the ego-centricity of their "importance" is blatantly obvious.

It would be more useful to compare the effects of "immigrants" - in the widest sense - in other countries - it is the poor immigrant who contribute most to societies they join not people who come and simply spend money.

So the question now is WHO IS MARKSAMUI - and what does he know that has carmine so enthused?

I ofcourse have no idea who that person is. I was merely highlighting his post as an informative one that might shed some light on a subject that many seem to have little or no grasp of.

Anyways i have no wish to continue with this topic and am moving onto pastures new!

[Sherlocke]

every cloud eh?

BTW - did anyone find that post?

Edited December 17, 2009 by Sherlocke