New Govt To Unveil Populist Policies

[Plus]

I don't know if the govt budget is distributed unfairly or not, but development still continues to pour into Bangkok while the rest of the country is being neglected.

I don't believe it is. I'd love to see numbers on that.

I'm afraid you are confusing private investment with government funds.

[henryalleman]

As long Thailand do not reform his agriculture, education and industry nothing will change for the better.

Simply because an agriculture who employed more than 40% of the workforce and only contribute 12% of the BNP is not productive and therefore not profitable enough. Its depend much too much on rice production. Secondly its have only 2 crops a year and needs too much fertilizers and water.

Low education is a very negative factor to start an high tech industry who pay higher wages and therefore higher income and better tax revenue.

The industrialized western world is reforming his energy production by invest billions of Euro to renewable energy. In Germany there are complete solar energy plants

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=35932

This is an high tech industry with a great future with a unlimited export possibilities.

the same go's for windmill Parks

http://planet.betterplace.com/profiles/blo...-windmill-parks

waste water treatment.

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuww.html

http://www.google.nl/search?q=waste+water+...1B2GGFB_enBE279

Nothing like this is happening in Thailand. Even they have a lot of sun, seashore and wind.

A total new industry of environmental protections and renewable is in full development. They export their products worldwide. Buts it all Hi Tech. In those industries there is no unemployment on the contrary the can't find enough technicians and engineers.

Thailand is missing this boat completely. In a few years it will be too late they will too much backwards.

A good example for to wake them up is the US car producers. While the Europeans and Japanese invest billions in a car industry who make cars who use less fuel and more modern techniques the US car producers still produce big fuel consuming cars that nobody like to buy anymore. And we all see that this is almost bankrupted the complete auto industry in the States.

Toyota replaced GM as number 1 in the US in 2008

As long that Thailand don't produce enough high qualified engineers and technicians not any foreign company will invest in high tech production plants. The techical schools simply don't have HIgh Tech equipment and machinery to teach them.

As long Thailand don't invest in their own R&D nothing will change for the better?

As long that young university students biggest goal is to be Civil Servant nothing will change for the better.

I think the Thai government should study how the Japanese after an war who destroyed their economy became a first class economy in 30 years. A country where poor farmers sold their daughters because of poverty in the first half of the 20th century. Now Japanese farmers are very prosperous.

There is still a great misconception by Thai companies by thinking that cheap labour makes its possible to compete on the world market. Well they are death wrong, there will always some country who is cheaper. Just look to the numerous textile factories who are closed down upcountry.

Cheap labour also mean in most case low productivity. And anybody who is a little bit familiar with Thailand know that the productivity in LOS is much too low.

The future is to modern production systems and high tech industries who produce high quality products with an higher value and therefore higher wages, but also a tenfold of the present productivity. Otherwise how its possible that western countries still export industrial machinery and high tech products to cheap labour countries. Simply because the make Higher quality products with an much higher productivity who even out market local products. Even the salaries in the country of production are sometimes 30 to 50 times higher than in the cheap labour export market.

A good example is the textile industry. Cheap labour countries export a lot of cheap clothes with low profit margins to western countries; While Western country export high tech and high quality textiles with an high profit margin, to cheap labour countries? All of this despite the fact that the difference in salary is compared with China 100 times higher.

So all the plans to throw money in Isan is completely a waste of money, because its only a short therm solution after 3 years the money is gone and we are back a point zero.

So the only solution is education, education, education.

To speed things up the Thai government should send their top students to top foreign universities in industrialized countries. they will come back with new ideas and knowledge.

They should sponsor their scientist to get knowledge abroad.

And first of all re-educate the Thai teachers to become real teachers and not some parrots who still give the same lessons when they are 60 as they where 25. And stop the curse of root learning.

they should better spend money on this than to buy an completeley useless airplane carrier who is just an tourist atraction.

I think the new MP know all of this, but will he will be given the time to perform this huge task of changing the country to a modern economy.

And I hope that the Thai population is aware that the global economy is changing rapidly. Thailand is still in the stage of the first industrial revolution while the world is heading already for the 4th. Maybe this a little exaggeration, but its only to make things more clear.

Sorry thos topic is far too long, but its have to be said.

[henryalleman]

Govt to unveil populist policies

BANGKOK: -- Aims to woo grass-roots support by pushing projects to improve living standards of villagers

The Abhisit government will try to win grassroots support by injecting state funds into rural villages and populist schemes.

"One of the policies should be a redistribution of wealth via tax reform so that more progressive income tax rates and inheritance taxes are adopted.

"These measures will help narrow the gap between rich and poor," he said.

-- The Nation 2008-12-22

God I hate socialism. It NEVER works.

Its works

"One of the policies should be a redistribution of wealth via tax reform so that more progressive income tax rates and inheritance taxes are adopted.

"These measures will help narrow the gap between rich and poor," he said.

This is haw the EU countries are doing it since WW2 and its proved to be very successful. Some counties have even an extra wealth tax.

As Henry says,

nothing unsual about this in most developed countries.

It appears that punishing achievement is not only acceptable, but celebrated. I'm all for the poor becoming wealthy. But to take from those who are successful and to provide to those who have little initiative is flat out wrong. There are many many sources for the solutions that we all wish to see. But taking from the rich to give to the poor is not a successful format. EU countries have not been successful, and the socialistic approach is the reason for the current downfall in the US economy - forcing institutions to lend to those who were not creditworthy based upon the premise that to deny them would be prejudice. Rubbish. I agree, there is nothing unusual about this in most developed countries as well as undeveloped countries, but to call it a successful format is incorrect.

You clearly know nothing about the European social and Tax system, otherwise you will not write such nonsense.

You call the European system socialism, but Americans call Obama a socialist also. Well I can tell you that even the far most right wing party in Europe thinks that his ideas about the social reforms in the US is pure horror.

I also can assure you that it is just impossible to get a loan for a house if you are not credit worthy.

A few weeks ago one American wrote in Thai visa that he buy a car with his credit card. Well not any European will do like that. The American consumer live on borrowed money while an EU citizens save between 8 an 12 % of his income.

And that over borrowing by the American consumer and Government created the world wide financial crisis. Beside the fact that US financial institutes created dodgy financial products;

[toybits]

Ha ha... These kids just had to pry it out of Mr. Taksin's hands didn't they...?

[animatic]

Govt to unveil populist policies

BANGKOK: -- Aims to woo grass-roots support by pushing projects to improve living standards of villagers

The Abhisit government will try to win grassroots support by injecting state funds into rural villages and populist schemes.

"One of the policies should be a redistribution of wealth via tax reform so that more progressive income tax rates and inheritance taxes are adopted.

"These measures will help narrow the gap between rich and poor," he said.

-- The Nation 2008-12-22

God I hate socialism. It NEVER works.

Its works

"One of the policies should be a redistribution of wealth via tax reform so that more progressive income tax rates and inheritance taxes are adopted.

"These measures will help narrow the gap between rich and poor," he said.

This is haw the EU countries are doing it since WW2 and its proved to be very successful. Some counties have even an extra wealth tax.

As Henry says,

nothing unsual about this in most developed countries.

It appears that punishing achievement is not only acceptable, but celebrated. I'm all for the poor becoming wealthy. But to take from those who are successful and to provide to those who have little initiative is flat out wrong. There are many many sources for the solutions that we all wish to see. But taking from the rich to give to the poor is not a successful format. EU countries have not been successful, and the socialistic approach is the reason for the current downfall in the US economy - forcing institutions to lend to those who were not creditworthy based upon the premise that to deny them would be prejudice. Rubbish. I agree, there is nothing unusual about this in most developed countries as well as undeveloped countries, but to call it a successful format is incorrect.

There are those who just don't have the mental facilities to become rich.

There are those who do not have the physical health to be adequately industrious.

There are those who have a debilitating combination of the two.

There are widows with young children to care for.

There are those who's areas have been decimated by capitalist changes in

market structures and are therefor indigent for a time, till they can either afford

to re-educate themselves or move to where there IS work.

Some can not break that cycle.

The sales of mortgages to the less well healed was over-done certainly,

BUT a big but,

it was the re-packaging of those borderline loans as 'derivative investment opportunities'

and MASSIVELY overselling them as 'safe investments' that has been the death nell for the economy.

It created a huge RISK market, a gigantic Ponzi fed market essentially, that has collapsed.

Madoff is just one player. Many more 'industrious and solvent' tax paying schmucks caused this,

not the people with just enough income to buy a house for their families because of

some semi-subsidized/gauruntee'd government housing ideas.

These higher risk home owners were the 1st level of losers in this, not the root cause.

This was brought on less by any socialist led anti-prejudice,

than by purely capitalistic greed , and this was world wide greed not just in the USA.

These risky derivatives have been bought and sold world wide.

Hence so many countries ALL needing to bail out their stupid bankers.

All it took was Bush's oil price quid pro quo to his oil lobby buddies at the end of his 2nd term,

to send the whole house of cards crashing down. Bush's friends caused this tipping-point.

I predicted this '6 month /3 fold oil price increase' the day he won the republican nomination back then.

And it allows his friends to re-patriate their off shore cash at a better exchange rate too.

Quid Pro Quo for his time in office, and dam_n the economic consequences.

I have lived in USA and France,

as inverse a set of 'social values' countries that exist

outside of the Soviet/China blocks.

There are good things to be said for BOTH systems.

I will say I worried about getting sick a LOT less in France.

Funny I paid the EXACT same tax rate in BOTH countries.

The difference is DISTRIBUTION of services.

Though there is high unemployment in France, they poor are better cared for there.

That has been the trade off for obsessive, to excessive, job security.

I ALSO saw the Newt Gingrich led emptying of the mental wards to save money in USA,

and it was sickening to see the streets of NYC fill with hardly functional people

with no where else to go.

A country stands for ALL it's people not just those who are ABLE to be industrious

and earn MORE than they need. Yes a man deserves the fruits of his labors,

but no man is an island, no man can live OUTSIDE of society,

and so society's needs MUST be considered if it is to function properly.

There are many, many reasons, besides laziness, why some can never earn enough

to educate themselves adequately and eat and house themselves properly.

Leaving those helpless segments destitute, causes crime and social upheaval.

It is not to be considered a good thing vs paying slightly lower taxes.

You decry the format as unsuccessful, but don't propigate a working one...

So we continue with something that functions. I'd hate to see Thailand explode

because of greed of the more successful wanting to keep all their scheckles, like Thaksin for example.

One of the MAIN causes of peasant revolutions historically was EXACTLY thinking such as yours.

It's too socialist and unfair to the rich, so let the poor fend for themselves.

Thailand is at a transition in many ways from the 18th century into the 21st in just a few years upcountry.

It has come time to deal with a newly informed and resentful north/northeast. Thaksin again...

Or we risk them rising emasse, a la France 1770s + or -, Russia 1917 + or - and other such social upheavals.

If the very rich want to stay that way they need to think beyond JUST their current bottom lines.

There are times to make a move and times to stand pat. But it needs to be decided on analysis

of the situation not blanket ideological ideas. We must learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

In Paris around '96 I saw a Rhuwandian expat wearing a T-shirt loosely translated:

"Eat the rich,

you'll live longer on the fat

till your next meal."

Edited December 23, 2008 by animatic

[henryalleman]

Govt to unveil populist policies

BANGKOK: -- Aims to woo grass-roots support by pushing projects to improve living standards of villagers

The Abhisit government will try to win grassroots support by injecting state funds into rural villages and populist schemes.

"One of the policies should be a redistribution of wealth via tax reform so that more progressive income tax rates and inheritance taxes are adopted.

"These measures will help narrow the gap between rich and poor," he said.

-- The Nation 2008-12-22

God I hate socialism. It NEVER works.

Its works

"One of the policies should be a redistribution of wealth via tax reform so that more progressive income tax rates and inheritance taxes are adopted.

"These measures will help narrow the gap between rich and poor," he said.

This is haw the EU countries are doing it since WW2 and its proved to be very successful. Some counties have even an extra wealth tax.

As Henry says,

nothing unsual about this in most developed countries.

It appears that punishing achievement is not only acceptable, but celebrated. I'm all for the poor becoming wealthy. But to take from those who are successful and to provide to those who have little initiative is flat out wrong. There are many many sources for the solutions that we all wish to see. But taking from the rich to give to the poor is not a successful format. EU countries have not been successful, and the socialistic approach is the reason for the current downfall in the US economy - forcing institutions to lend to those who were not creditworthy based upon the premise that to deny them would be prejudice. Rubbish. I agree, there is nothing unusual about this in most developed countries as well as undeveloped countries, but to call it a successful format is incorrect.

There are those who just don't have the mental facilities to become rich.

There are those who do not have the physical health to be adequately industrious.

There are those who have a debilitating combination of the two.

There are widows with young children to care for.

There are those who's areas have been decimated by capitalist changes in

market structures and are therefor indigent for a time, till they can either afford

to re-educate themselves or move to where there IS work.

Some can not break that cycle.

The sales of mortgages to the less well healed was over-done certainly,

BUT a big but,

it was the re-packaging of those borderline loans as 'derivative investment opportunities'

and MASSIVELY overselling them as 'safe investments' that has been the death nell for the economy.

It created a huge RISK market, a gigantic Ponzi fed market essentially, that has collapsed.

Madoff is just one player. Many more 'industrious and solvent' tax paying schmucks caused this,

not the people with just enough income to buy a house for their families because of

some semi-subsidized/gauruntee'd government housing ideas.

These higher risk home owners were the 1st level of losers in this, not the root cause.

This was brought on less by any socialist led anti-prejudice,

than by purely capitalistic greed , and this was world wide greed not just in the USA.

These risky derivatives have been bought and sold world wide.

Hence so many countries ALL needing to bail out their stupid bankers.

All it took was Bush's oil price quid pro quo to his oil lobby buddies at the end of his 2nd term,

to send the whole house of cards crashing down. Bush's friends caused this tipping-point.

I predicted this '6 month /3 fold oil price increase' the day he won the republican nomination back then.

And it allows his friends to re-patriate their off shore cash at a better exchange rate too.

Quid Pro Quo for his time in office, and dam_n the economic consequences.

I have lived in USA and France,

as inverse a set of 'social values' countries that exist

outside of the Soviet/China blocks.

There are good things to be said for BOTH systems.

I will say I worried about getting sick a LOT less in France.

Funny I paid the EXACT same tax rate in BOTH countries.

The difference is DISTRIBUTION of services.

Though there is high unemployment in France, they poor are better cared for there.

That has been the trade off for obsessive, to excessive, job security.

I ALSO saw the Newt Gingrich led emptying of the mental wards to save money in USA,

and it was sickening to see the streets of NYC fill with hardly functional people

with no where else to go.

A country stands for ALL it's people not just those who are ABLE to be industrious

and earn MORE than they need. Yes a man deserves the fruits of his labors,

but no man is an island, no man can live OUTSIDE of society,

and so society's needs MUST be considered if it is to function properly.

There are many, many reasons, besides laziness, why some can never earn enough

to educate themselves adequately and eat and house themselves properly.

Leaving those helpless segments destitute, causes crime and social upheaval.

It is not to be considered a good thing vs paying slightly lower taxes.

You decry the format as unsuccessful, but don't propigate a working one...

So we continue with something that functions. I'd hate to see Thailand explode

because of greed of the more successful wanting to keep all their scheckles, like Thaksin for example.

One of the MAIN causes of peasant revolutions historically was EXACTLY thinking such as yours.

It's too socialist and unfair to the rich, so let the poor fend for themselves.

Thailand is at a transition in many ways from the 18th century into the 21st in just a few years upcountry.

It has come time to deal with a newly informed and resentful north/northeast. Thaksin again...

Or we risk them rising emasse, a la France 1770s + or -, Russia 1917 + or - and other such social upheavals.

If the very rich want to stay that way they need to think beyond JUST their current bottom lines.

There are times to make a move and times to stand pat. But it needs to be decided on analysis

of the situation not blanket ideological ideas. We must learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

In Paris around '96 I saw a Rhuwandian expat wearing a T-shirt loosely translated:

"Eat the rich,

you'll live longer on the fat

till your next meal."

You can measure the civilisation of a society, by the way how they take care the less privileged and weak of that society

(unknow source)

[jbowman1993]

Looks like Henry is the next to go on the "ignored users" list, for his annoying propensity to quote massive amounts of text that make me scroll and scroll and scroll...bye bye Henry

[pete_r]

There are those who just don't have the mental facilities to become rich.

There are those who do not have the physical health to be adequately industrious.

There are those who have a debilitating combination of the two.

[snip for brevity]

A country stands for ALL it's people not just those who are ABLE to be industrious

and earn MORE than they need. Yes a man deserves the fruits of his labors,

but no man is an island, no man can live OUTSIDE of society,

and so society's needs MUST be considered if it is to function properly.

[snip for brevity]

Animatic, that's gotta be the first of your posts I find myself in agreement with. It feels a bit freaky.

[pete_r]

You can measure the civilisation of a society, by the way how they take care the less privileged and weak of that society

(unknow source)

That's close enough to a sentence in the preamble to the Swiss constitution:

"We, the Swiss People and Cantons,

[...] know [...] that the strength of a people is measured by the welfare of the weakest of its members;"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_and_...al_Constitution

Wouldn't it be nice if such a sentence was added in the Thai constitution?

[henryalleman]

Looks like Henry is the next to go on the "ignored users" list, for his annoying propensity to quote massive amounts of text that make me scroll and scroll and scroll...bye bye Henry

I promise I will better my life, thanks for the warning

[chrislarsson]

As Henry says,

nothing unsual about this in most developed countries.

It appears that punishing achievement is not only acceptable, but celebrated. I'm all for the poor becoming wealthy. But to take from those who are successful and to provide to those who have little initiative is flat out wrong. There are many many sources for the solutions that we all wish to see. But taking from the rich to give to the poor is not a successful format. EU countries have not been successful, and the socialistic approach is the reason for the current downfall in the US economy - forcing institutions to lend to those who were not creditworthy based upon the premise that to deny them would be prejudice. Rubbish. I agree, there is nothing unusual about this in most developed countries as well as undeveloped countries, but to call it a successful format is incorrect.

You must be joking. If you call pyramid schemes at Wall Street socialism...you can call anything you don't like socialism...and then claim that it doesn't work..

Of course achievements should not be punished, but we can also not have a society where money is concentrated to a few percentages at the top. Don't you believe that all people that are working hard should get a fair piece of the pie?

[chrislarsson]

You can measure the civilisation of a society, by the way how they take care the less privileged and weak of that society

(unknow source)

It's all about finding a healthy balance. Too much inequality and there will be a lot frictions in society. Too much equality and everybody will be poor...like in socialist countries such as Cuba.

Edited December 23, 2008 by chrislarsson

[Samuian]

It's funny...every time a Thai government does something to improve living standards for poor people...it's called populist

It might called populist as usually it does not improve the the living standards much, it is just populist.

Getting a credit to buy a new mobile phone from Thaksin, while never being able to pay it back.

Handing out millions to villages from which the head of village build himself a villa.

Handing out money for starting business, but in fact people buy mobile phones, motorbikes, pick ups and later they are not able to pay it back...

Therefor it is called populist. It is nice on the paper, it sounds nice, in real life it does not help much.

It will be interesting to see if any of the Dem's populist policies will be different from their party platforms in the Dec. 2007 election. At that time, the Dem's platform closely mirrored that of the PPP, but of course then nobody in the northeast was listening. Now that the Dem's don't need to shadow the TRT/PPP/PTP, I imagine their giveaways will be less than what they were offering.

We agree in that the debt issue will be a main focus (or should be). The Dems didn't create this mess, but if they want to endear themselves to the people of the northeast then this is a very good place to start.

If you start with education: the key to wealth in future, it will need a long time.

If you start to hand out money, people will like it, but it isn't different from Thaksin

If you make it half half... there won't be much impact on the education and people will still prefer Thaksin.

So not easy.

Not so sure about it, his fortunes seem to take a different turn, a this article in The Nation by Khanong Khanthong "Taksin may run out of options"

Arabianbusiness.com has recently revealed that the UK froze Thaksin's assets amounting to $4 billion. "The UK froze his reputed $4 billion of assets, forcing him to sell Manchester City to Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Mansour. To add to his troubles, his UK visa was revoked - oh, and his wife divorced him last week," the Arabianbusiness report said.

Strangely enough, nobody followed up on this story to either confirm or deny whether Thaksin's $4 billion has been frozen by the British authorities. That is no small amount. It is almost Bt140 billion, more than the stimulus package that new prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva plans to pump into rural areas during this time of economic hardship.

...........edited....... in the Los Angeles Times of December 11, W Scott Thompson also confirmed that Thaksin's assets had been frozen by the UK authorities. He wrote: "Meantime, the British have frozen Thaksin's assets in Britain and revoked his visa. So Thaksin's other asset - his rural popularity - can only decline."

Thaksin's dubious financial transactions and his two-year jail sentence in Thailand were the two main reasons, in that order, that led the UK authorities to revoke his visa.

With his dwindling assets overseas, Thaksin's wealth now largely lies in Thailand. But his Bt76 billion, about $2 billion, is frozen by the Thai authorities pending corruption charges against him. Thaksin is fighting fiercely to get this money back, which was earned from the sale of Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore. But again the prospect of getting this money back is slim, with his "unusually rich" case going to court.

His wife, Pojaman, has divorced him. She knows all the financial details. They agreed to separate, at least tactically, so she can keep a portion of the wealth for herself and their children. Thaksin will use the rest of the money mainly to finance his political comeback.

Without any family obligations, Thaksin now has nothing to worry about. He can do things his own way. He has repeatedly sent out the signal, "Don't push me into a corner."

Source:

Newin, left his former "Boss", his chances are quite slim, if the current Government manages to make a couple of fast moves they can, with the implementation of the right policies, go on a winning streak.

And reinstatement through January elections of the current government would be of great help, let's see...

[venturalaw]

As Henry says,

nothing unsual about this in most developed countries.

It appears that punishing achievement is not only acceptable, but celebrated. I'm all for the poor becoming wealthy. But to take from those who are successful and to provide to those who have little initiative is flat out wrong. There are many many sources for the solutions that we all wish to see. But taking from the rich to give to the poor is not a successful format. EU countries have not been successful, and the socialistic approach is the reason for the current downfall in the US economy - forcing institutions to lend to those who were not creditworthy based upon the premise that to deny them would be prejudice. Rubbish. I agree, there is nothing unusual about this in most developed countries as well as undeveloped countries, but to call it a successful format is incorrect.

You must be joking. If you call pyramid schemes at Wall Street socialism...you can call anything you don't like socialism...and then claim that it doesn't work..

Of course achievements should not be punished, but we can also not have a society where money is concentrated to a few percentages at the top. Don't you believe that all people that are working hard should get a fair piece of the pie?

What I referred to as socialism was from a previous comment regarding "redistributing the wealth". And I absolutely agree with you that those that work should be able to profit by their efforts, ie - keep what they earn. Regarding the poor who are unable to survive, as I said previously, there are many ways to educate, facilitate, enable them to earn and thereby become productive and realize self-pride. People who receive handouts resent those providing same. The more poor that become successful, the stronger the country will become.

[Pierrot]

The less the government is involved, the better.

If they want make things better, they have to act as enablers.

It can be making sure there are proper roads and train tracks throughout the country, making sure basic education is available for all or making sure the market playing field is leveled. Unfortunately Thailand has a history of doing the opposite. Including under Thaksin.

Well said. I could not agree more.

I couldn't find better answer

[TAWP]

The less the government is involved, the better.

If they want make things better, they have to act as enablers.

It can be making sure there are proper roads and train tracks throughout the country, making sure basic education is available for all or making sure the market playing field is leveled. Unfortunately Thailand has a history of doing the opposite. Including under Thaksin.

Well said. I could not agree more.

I couldn't find better answer

The 700 billion bailout IS socialism and a disgrace. And now the automobile industry - that is too lazy to actually make cars people want to buy - are next in line to beg money from honest tax payers.

That Bush so wholeheartedly supported the idea just shows again that neo-cons are nothing more than religious liberals. Their movement started in the democratic party as the 'religious section' and should return there. Their love for big government and mass spending is just what the US didn't need. And the deficit is just mounting up...

But I digress...

Help people start business, don't bail out old flailing semi-monopolies. That is the governments job.

[animatic]

There are those who just don't have the mental facilities to become rich.

There are those who do not have the physical health to be adequately industrious.

There are those who have a debilitating combination of the two.

[snip for brevity]

A country stands for ALL it's people not just those who are ABLE to be industrious

and earn MORE than they need. Yes a man deserves the fruits of his labors,

but no man is an island, no man can live OUTSIDE of society,

and so society's needs MUST be considered if it is to function properly.

[snip for brevity]

Animatic, that's gotta be the first of your posts I find myself in agreement with. It feels a bit freaky.

Looks like my odds are improving.

Even if jasreeve can't get it through his head I am not a PAD member, nor ever have been.

Edited December 23, 2008 by animatic

[animatic]

As Henry says,

nothing unsual about this in most developed countries.

It appears that punishing achievement is not only acceptable, but celebrated. I'm all for the poor becoming wealthy. But to take from those who are successful and to provide to those who have little initiative is flat out wrong. There are many many sources for the solutions that we all wish to see. But taking from the rich to give to the poor is not a successful format. EU countries have not been successful, and the socialistic approach is the reason for the current downfall in the US economy - forcing institutions to lend to those who were not creditworthy based upon the premise that to deny them would be prejudice. Rubbish. I agree, there is nothing unusual about this in most developed countries as well as undeveloped countries, but to call it a successful format is incorrect.

You must be joking. If you call pyramid schemes at Wall Street socialism...you can call anything you don't like socialism...and then claim that it doesn't work..

Of course achievements should not be punished, but we can also not have a society where money is concentrated to a few percentages at the top. Don't you believe that all people that are working hard should get a fair piece of the pie?

What I referred to as socialism was from a previous comment regarding "redistributing the wealth". And I absolutely agree with you that those that work should be able to profit by their efforts, ie - keep what they earn. Regarding the poor who are unable to survive, as I said previously,

there are many ways to educate, facilitate, enable them to earn and thereby become productive and realize self-pride. P

eople who receive handouts resent those providing same. The more poor that become successful, the stronger the country will become.

Ventura all your ideas emboldened are what I am talking about.

BUT, the big BUT, it all takes money and to do all those things IS "redistribution of wealth".

Noone was saying free handouts to the able bodied lazy. That is idiocy.

But you can do the things on that list without the resources.

And again some people will never be earners, they don't have the abilities intact to do it.

But we can relegate them to distbins till they die.

Suisse Constitution good stuff there.

[animatic]

The less the government is involved, the better.

If they want make things better, they have to act as enablers.

It can be making sure there are proper roads and train tracks throughout the country, making sure basic education is available for all or making sure the market playing field is leveled. Unfortunately Thailand has a history of doing the opposite. Including under Thaksin.

Well said. I could not agree more.

I couldn't find better answer

The 700 billion bailout IS socialism and a disgrace. And now the automobile industry - that is too lazy to actually make cars people want to buy - are next in line to beg money from honest tax payers.

That Bush so wholeheartedly supported the idea just shows again that neo-cons are nothing more than religious liberals. Their movement started in the democratic party as the 'religious section' and should return there. Their love for big government and mass spending is just what the US didn't need. And the deficit is just mounting up...

But I digress...

Help people start business, don't bail out old flailing semi-monopolies. That is the governments job.

TWAP it is a disgrace.

But it is the inverse of socialism IMO.

It is the poor supporting the indolent rich,

not the rich supporting the indolent poor.

It is the Bush Quid Pro Quo for his two elections.

His banking buddies screw the pooch

His oil buddies kill the pooch to make a killing before the new regime comes in

And finally the OIL abusing Automakers pig pile o n because

artificially keep low mileage to keep their Big Oil buddies happy.

Bush was BOUND to be a disaster from day one.

I just never quite thought a wqorld wide depression would be the end product.

A perfect storm of leadership stupidity.

[venturalaw]

The less the government is involved, the better.

If they want make things better, they have to act as enablers.

It can be making sure there are proper roads and train tracks throughout the country, making sure basic education is available for all or making sure the market playing field is leveled. Unfortunately Thailand has a history of doing the opposite. Including under Thaksin.

Well said. I could not agree more.

I couldn't find better answer

The 700 billion bailout IS socialism and a disgrace. And now the automobile industry - that is too lazy to actually make cars people want to buy - are next in line to beg money from honest tax payers.

That Bush so wholeheartedly supported the idea just shows again that neo-cons are nothing more than religious liberals. Their movement started in the democratic party as the 'religious section' and should return there. Their love for big government and mass spending is just what the US didn't need. And the deficit is just mounting up...

But I digress...

Help people start business, don't bail out old flailing semi-monopolies. That is the governments job.

That and protecting the borders. I agree 100%.

[Old Man River]

I don't know if the govt budget is distributed unfairly or not, but development still continues to pour into Bangkok while the rest of the country is being neglected.

I don't believe it is. I'd love to see numbers on that.

I'm afraid you are confusing private investment with government funds.

That is my take on this as well.

No matter how many times it is explained, some continue to miss the fact that there is a hierarchy upcountry that siphons off funds meant to help people at the grassroot level. There is no question that under Thaksin people were able to access easy debt. Outright cash distributions, however, was a completely different issue.

[samgrowth]

If Thaksin is so bad, why is Mark V copying it?

[animatic]

If Thaksin is so bad, why is Mark V copying it?

Taking care of Issan people is a good thing.

Taking money from the national coffers by subterfuge

for your own businesses interests is not.

Thaksin did both.

No one has said every actions of Thaksin was bad...

Just a sufficent number of bad acts to not want a return engagement.

But there are plenty of good things to change a bit but continue using.

Mark is copying the good and trying to eliminate the bad,

or at least trying to cut it back to levels comensurate with

international standards and practices.

I suspect the WAY he will implement continuations of Thaksin's good works,

will be the crux of this effort. How to do it with sufficent oversight and sustainablity

to work LONG TERM and not break the country.

How to bring Issan into the 21st century without breaking the bank

or forcably dragging them kicking and screaming.

Heck, even Hitler gave us the Volkswagon. A good thing,

even thought most of his legacy would need to rise on Sikorsky SkyHooks

just to get up to <deleted> in the gutters.

Most anyone can drive a VW without being pro Hitler....

[TAWP]

If Thaksin is so bad, why is Mark V copying it?

I don't think many (any) people are saying that he did everything bad. Every leader in the world has at one point or another done something someone would appreciate - but that doesn't excuse their overall legacy.

'Giving some to be able to steal big' isn't my ideological ideal for a[ny] leader.

[Thai at Heart]

At least this whole mess has pushed rural issues to the forefront of the political issues of the day and long may it stay there.

I do dislike the fact that anything aimed at the rural areas is classed as populist. It gives the connotation of being ill considered, and wasteful. These issues effect millions and the long term development of Thailand enormously.

I don't disagree that all industry in the country needs effective government policies to allow them to flourish. However, the rural poor are a massive proportion of Thailand potential future and deserve nothing but the best planned, thought out and effective answers for their development and the good of the country.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Thai at Heart

[Plus]

That is true, but, on the other hand, they produce only 10% of GDP.

It is nice to pour money in Isan for political purposes, but with core industries and tourism and exports all facing downturn it sounds like a case of misplaced priorities.

These two angles can be reconciled if the govt helps agricultural sector to absorb laid off workers from the cities, but simply subsidising crop prices is suicidal for the economy.

Basically, the country can't afford any wasteful giveaways.

[samgrowth]

That is true, but, on the other hand, they produce only 10% of GDP.

It is nice to pour money in Isan for political purposes, but with core industries and tourism and exports all facing downturn it sounds like a case of misplaced priorities.

These two angles can be reconciled if the govt helps agricultural sector to absorb laid off workers from the cities, but simply subsidising crop prices is suicidal for the economy.

Basically, the country can't afford any wasteful giveaways.

I take it that your GDP sub-division is correct, or at least close to the actual. It would be shocking that the poor only play a small part in the Thai ecomony. Something should be done, hopfully by Mark V to raise this number.

From my guessing, Thaksin policies is to please the majority of the voters (regardless of their contribution to the GDP), so that they will continume to vote for him (or his destinates). How very smart.

[animatic]

One big problem is that manufacturing refuses to go too far north,

a small part for labor training issues but mostly from increased transport costs.

This will not get better in a bear market...

The question is how to take this large area and make it produce

25-50% of GNP. That would be the ideal situation.

And yes it IS good that rural issues are on the front burner so to speak.

I am not sure where the idea that "Populist' means such a bad thing.

I suspect a few bad politicians used and mis-used that word for bad ends.

Like the utter loss of reasonable meaning to the word Liberal....

For soime this is an insult, while for others they

accept the intended insult as a badge of honor.

NEITHER version matches the original intent of the word.

Popular goes with population, which means the ACTUALLY people in a land.

The mess we're in is because only now the mass of te population is now understanding,

they should have it better and CAN say something about that.

Edited December 24, 2008 by animatic

[Plus]

It would be shocking that the poor only play a small part in the Thai ecomony. Something should be done, hopfully by Mark V to raise this number.

What number do you want to increase? Their contribution to the economy?

Not an easy thing to do - there are no markets for their produce, they want the government to pay them 'cos they can't sell their stuff.

Our Martin might object, but the only realistic option is to bring more of them into cities and engage them in more productive and promising sectors.

In the meantime the remaining farmers should increase their productivity to make up for the shortfall in labour force.

Those are long term solutions, right now we are facing a double whammy of laid off workers and low agricultural prices. In medium term their outlook is better as global demand for their products is going to rise, especially if biofuel industry eventually takes off.

For now Democrats will need to borrow money to pay farmers for stuff they can't sell, and offload govt stockpiles of rice at a huge loss.

Overall they are a drag on the economy with their whimsical poltical and monetary demands coupled with extremely low productivity. They want all the modern amenities without doing an adequate amount of productive work.

That's not going to work, but thanks to Thaksin for teaching them how to blackmail the country on the strength of their numbers.

It's not a politically correct post, but tell me why the majority that contributes only 10% should demand special treatment from the minority that creates the other 90%? It's called biting the hand that feeds you.

[Thai at Heart]

It would be shocking that the poor only play a small part in the Thai ecomony. Something should be done, hopfully by Mark V to raise this number.

What number do you want to increase? Their contribution to the economy?

Not an easy thing to do - there are no markets for their produce, they want the government to pay them 'cos they can't sell their stuff.

Our Martin might object, but the only realistic option is to bring more of them into cities and engage them in more productive and promising sectors.

In the meantime the remaining farmers should increase their productivity to make up for the shortfall in labour force.

Those are long term solutions, right now we are facing a double whammy of laid off workers and low agricultural prices. In medium term their outlook is better as global demand for their products is going to rise, especially if biofuel industry eventually takes off.

For now Democrats will need to borrow money to pay farmers for stuff they can't sell, and offload govt stockpiles of rice at a huge loss.

Overall they are a drag on the economy with their whimsical poltical and monetary demands coupled with extremely low productivity. They want all the modern amenities without doing an adequate amount of productive work.

That's not going to work, but thanks to Thaksin for teaching them how to blackmail the country on the strength of their numbers.

It's not a politically correct post, but tell me why the majority that contributes only 10% should demand special treatment from the minority that creates the other 90%? It's called biting the hand that feeds you.

Having worked in agricultural extension for many years, the bias is so in favour of the agricultural exporters in Thailand it is quite unbelievable that you can say the farmers are holding the country to ransom. Corporate purchasers of agricultural produce have set it up beautifully so that they absorb almost none of the risk and leave the farmers hanging in the wind year after year after year.

This combined with a belief that strengthening co-operatives or more collective style farming will lead in some way to rampant communism in the countryside means that individual farmers are left to combat wealthy companies as individuals. meanwhile every step of the export process is riven with decades of corruption and adds virtually no value.

They are not stealing anything at all from the country. They are as Thai as the next man and the country owes it to them to provide as much help as it can to make them as productive and as wealthy as they can be. Subsidies are not the long term answer, but the country should do it's absolute upmost to provide help, education, and assistance to improve their efficiency and earnings.