New Govt To Unveil Populist Policies

[Plus]

Yes, but do you see them asking for any help with education or efficiency? They block the roads if they can't get good prices, that's all.

None of the "populist" policies addressed education/efficiency issues either, that's why they are called populist, I suppose, not because they are aimed at farmers per se.

True, they are usually screwed up by the middlemen, but those middlemen are their local creatures, yet they put all the blame squarely on Bangkokians and central government, and they always demand money, not a change in the distribution system.

I'm not saying they are stealing from the country, but when the large chunk of government budget goes directly on subsidising farm goods, it's hard to look at it in any other way, even if there's a difference between those who need this assistance and those who actually get most of it.

[Thai at Heart]

Yes, but do you see them asking for any help with education or efficiency? They block the roads if they can't get good prices, that's all.

None of the "populist" policies addressed education/efficiency issues either, that's why they are called populist, I suppose, not because they are aimed at farmers per se.

True, they are usually screwed up by the middlemen, but those middlemen are their local creatures, yet they put all the blame squarely on Bangkokians and central government, and they always demand money, not a change in the distribution system.

I'm not saying they are stealing from the country, but when the large chunk of government budget goes directly on subsidising farm goods, it's hard to look at it in any other way, even if there's a difference between those who need this assistance and those who actually get most of it.

And the system of subsidy is so massively corrupted that a year later, exporters are grabbing product at knock down prices for export. Middlemen are part of a long chain that feed all the way to the export gate, some locally based others not.

It would however, be interesting to see for example however, the value of agricultural subsidy versus investment in schools, or the army for example. There are a myriad of trade offs and priorities that governments have to decide and many decide to subsidise farming. If spending 100bn on farmer subsidies is required, so be it no more or less than people should be exploiting the pricing loophole to run their Mercedes on lpg or the trucking lobby has managed to depress diesel prices forever, meanwhile governments have been reluctant to invest in rail.

[samgrowth]

Yes, but do you see them asking for any help with education or efficiency? They block the roads if they can't get good prices, that's all.

None of the "populist" policies addressed education/efficiency issues either, that's why they are called populist, I suppose, not because they are aimed at farmers per se.

True, they are usually screwed up by the middlemen, but those middlemen are their local creatures, yet they put all the blame squarely on Bangkokians and central government, and they always demand money, not a change in the distribution system.

I'm not saying they are stealing from the country, but when the large chunk of government budget goes directly on subsidising farm goods, it's hard to look at it in any other way, even if there's a difference between those who need this assistance and those who actually get most of it.

And the system of subsidy is so massively corrupted that a year later, exporters are grabbing product at knock down prices for export. Middlemen are part of a long chain that feed all the way to the export gate, some locally based others not.

It would however, be interesting to see for example however, the value of agricultural subsidy versus investment in schools, or the army for example. There are a myriad of trade offs and priorities that governments have to decide and many decide to subsidise farming. If spending 100bn on farmer subsidies is required, so be it no more or less than people should be exploiting the pricing loophole to run their Mercedes on lpg or the trucking lobby has managed to depress diesel prices forever, meanwhile governments have been reluctant to invest in rail.

I am just wondering why the western world heavily subsidise their farmers. EU, US for an example. Surely their govts are not stupid, they do it for a good reason. They do it because it is good for their countries. I suppose if Thailand were to keep up with the West, we should also follow their footsteps and do the same.

[TAWP]

I am just wondering why the western world heavily subsidise their farmers. EU, US for an example. Surely their govts are not stupid, they do it for a good reason. They do it because it is good for their countries. I suppose if Thailand were to keep up with the West, we should also follow their footsteps and do the same.

No, the western governments shouldn't be doing it. By doing it they are artificially inflating the prices [real cost] on the commodities by making sure non-profitable farms both get subsidies for growing as well as not growing linked together with the organized destruction of hundreds of tons of food per year and the farm-allocation of EUs budget being the single biggest expense it has (therefor making customers paying a high price twice) while putting up high walls around EU against import from other countries. Which in effect is hurting poorer countries that cannot sell as much as they should be able to and not being able to compete as their prices have huge markups via import-taxes and having to fight against artificial price-levels of local products.

It's a shame and goes against any form of free and open market.

[Plus]

Farmers make less than 5% of the population in the West, they can afford subsidising them.

Thailand is not in a position to subsidise 40% of its people when the money making industries are in the red themselves.

Abhisit would have to borrow, he has little options.

[LevelHead]

I think its all "media talk" - they will say they are going to do this and that, but actually they will do nothing, why should they ?

In the North and North East its easy to see (talk to people and you find out) they hate the Democrats. They were kicked out of office last time for corruption, they are seen as the party of the South only, they are seen as PAD supporters and they are seen as assisting in taking away the democratically elected government.

They have no chance of winning over the majority, they should know that too, so why should they even bother ? Which is why I think they will not, they will talk the talk but not walk the walk.

They will likely have only one mandate, that will be the imposition of the PAD demands for a non elected government, if not implement in full, then at least to start the changes such that peoples votes in future will have less impact on who is in government, and allowing more appointed positions and less elected positions.

From first hand viewing I can say that in the past 8 years the North and North East has grown considerably, new roads, new infrastructure, lots of new factories, lots of new jobs and lots of new wealth. This is why the people love the TRT/PPP and Thaksin, the old rubbish about vote buying is a total red herring, its been done by all parties for the last 4 decades.

The Democrats, being seen as part of the PAD, have no chance of changing anything in regards to their ability to get votes, and so, coming back to where we started, I cannot see them actually even bothering to try. Its far better for them to spoil the South and Bangkok, and shore up their support.

[henryalleman]

I am just wondering why the western world heavily subsidise their farmers. EU, US for an example. Surely their govts are not stupid, they do it for a good reason. They do it because it is good for their countries. I suppose if Thailand were to keep up with the West, we should also follow their footsteps and do the same.

For many years the EU subsidized the farmers, at a certain moment the cost was almost 50% of the EU budget. With the result there have been butter an meat mountains. Know they change tactics and give farmers maximum quota on the production of milk. If they produce more the farmers have to pays fines. Till recently the farmers has been paid to had no crops on some fields.

Now he EU cut back subsidizing because it became far to expensive and but a to great burden on the budget. Moreover its where only the big farmers and the aggro industry who profited and the small farmers did not profit at all. All of this created a great unrest, therefore there are many demonstrations of farmers who blockade Highways and fisherman block harbours.

The EU is planning to stop subsidizing agriculture completely the next 5 years, due to fact that's its a too great burden on the budget. Only subsidizing of export will be continued.

But what is most unfair is that the EU largely subsidize the export , and have high import taxes on agriculture products. This has the effect that farmers in development countries can not even compete with western agriculture products on there home market.

http://europa.eu/pol/agr/overview_en.htm

This politics has also an effect on agriculture in Thailand, Till 10 years ago Thailand exported millions of ton's tapioca to the EU where its was used as food for cattle, than the EU decided to subsidize wheat and the same time put high import taxes on Tapioca, result, the import of Tapioca from Thailand was stopped. This had no doubt an dramatic effect on the income of those farmers.

The EU and the US are protecting and blocking there markets for foreign agriculture products 'there us even an trade war between the EU and the US about it). The same time Brazil and Argentine become world players .

I wrote an topic on 23/12 with number 23 what are IMHO better ways to support the econmy upcountry and for Thailand as a whole.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Govt-Unveil-....html&st=25

[TAWP]

Farmers make less than 5% of the population in the West, they can afford subsidising them.

Thailand is not in a position to subsidise 40% of its people when the money making industries are in the red themselves.

Abhisit would have to borrow, he has little options.

No, we cannot support that almost 50% of the budget for EU goes towards 5%(your number) of the population.

The twenty-seven member state EU had an agreed budget of €120.7 billion for the year 2007 and €864.3 billion for the period 2007-2013

In the 2006 budget, the largest single expenditure item was agriculture with around 46.7% of the total budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU_Budge...expenditure.svg

[blaze]

I think its all "media talk" - they will say they are going to do this and that, but actually they will do nothing, why should they ?

In the North and North East its easy to see (talk to people and you find out) they hate the Democrats. They were kicked out of office last time for corruption, they are seen as the party of the South only, they are seen as PAD supporters and they are seen as assisting in taking away the democratically elected government.

They have no chance of winning over the majority, they should know that too, so why should they even bother ? Which is why I think they will not, they will talk the talk but not walk the walk.

They will likely have only one mandate, that will be the imposition of the PAD demands for a non elected government, if not implement in full, then at least to start the changes such that peoples votes in future will have less impact on who is in government, and allowing more appointed positions and less elected positions.

From first hand viewing I can say that in the past 8 years the North and North East has grown considerably, new roads, new infrastructure, lots of new factories, lots of new jobs and lots of new wealth. This is why the people love the TRT/PPP and Thaksin, the old rubbish about vote buying is a total red herring, its been done by all parties for the last 4 decades.

The Democrats, being seen as part of the PAD, have no chance of changing anything in regards to their ability to get votes, and so, coming back to where we started, I cannot see them actually even bothering to try. Its far better for them to spoil the South and Bangkok, and shore up their support.

Correct. In his interview with Al Jazeera yesterday- Abhisit said that a constitution rewrite might be in the cards- to- and I believe these were his exact words- "make it more democratic'- not to enhance the perogatives of the legislature- not to remove the political parties from the vulnerability to dissolution that the current Constitution provides- but to be more 'democratic'.

Given that the PAD apparantly sincerely believes that devising a system that minimizes the legislative power of elected representatives equates to "more Democratic"- don't be surprised if the Dems do end up rewriting the constitution in such a way as to ensure their tenure in office.

[samgrowth]

Correct. In his interview with Al Jazeera yesterday- Abhisit said that a constitution rewrite might be in the cards- to- and I believe these were his exact words- "make it more democratic'- not to enhance the perogatives of the legislature- not to remove the political parties from the vulnerability to dissolution that the current Constitution provides- but to be more 'democratic'.

Given that the PAD apparantly sincerely believes that devising a system that minimizes the legislative power of elected representatives equates to "more Democratic"- don't be surprised if the Dems do end up rewriting the constitution in such a way as to ensure their tenure in office.

Every government will want to amend the constitution so that they can shield themselves from wrong, financially gain themselves as much as possible, and stay as government as long as possible. That's why constitution amendment is the first thing all governments wants to do when they are in power. The worst is that some govt just burn a perfectly old one and start fresh (usually, not always, by the military). That's why Thailand has lots and lots of contitutions. I wonder why the citizens are not sick and tired of the government rewriting their own rules.

PAD has always accusing PPP for wanting to do that (amend the constitution) to save Thaksin A55, and PPP. In fact that is part of the excuse they close down the airports. Now the Democrats (I believe it is proxy of PAD) wants to do exactly the same. Shield themselves (& PAD) from wrong, financially gain themselves as much as possible, and stay as government as long as possible. IRONIC ISN'T IT?

I am sure the RED will use the same argument, and campaign of NO change in the constitution (just like PAD did before Mark V came to power).

[henryalleman]

.

From first hand viewing I can say that in the past 8 years the North and North East has grown considerably, new roads, new infrastructure, lots of new factories, lots of new jobs and lots of new wealth. This is why the people love the TRT/PPP and Thaksin, the old rubbish about vote buying is a total red herring, its been done by all parties for the last 4 decades.

Indeed AT FIRST VIEW HAND VIEWING , but the new build secondary roads are an a deplorable state, many new factories are closed down. On my last holiday (3 months)I drove 12K in Isan and North so I know what I talking about.

I have friends who have an company who build that roads and they had to pay large sums of money to get the contract. Because of this its was impossible to deliver a good job.

You know this story,

A few months ago GWB wanted to re-paint the white house, so Obama could have a nice re-painted white house when he moved in, so he asked prices all over the world.

A German company asked 2 million $ for the job

A Dutch company asked 1 million $

A small self employed painter from Isan asked 5 million $

GWB surprised about by the differences in price invited the 3 company to ask why there was such big difference

The German company said

well M;President you know we Germans use only the best quality paint and we put on the paint in 3 layers, so it will last at least 25 years

The Dutch company said

Well Mr. President we are famous to work economical we use a little bit less quality and we only put 1 layer and very thin

When the self employed Isan painter came in, GWB asked , well sir I don't understand it. The German company asked 2 million; the Dutch company 1 million and you are just self employed, have no staff and therefore a low overhead but you still ask 5 million $. How is this possible

The Isan painter answered with a smile

Well Mr; president, 2million$ for you, 2 million$ for me, and we let the Dutchman do the job, and when next year the paint peels off, its not your problem anymore because you will be out of office already.

[henryalleman]

In his interview with Al Jazeera yesterday- Abhisit said that a constitution rewrite might be in the cards- to- and I believe these were his exact words- "make it more democratic'- not to enhance the perogatives of the legislature- not to remove the political parties from the vulnerability to dissolution that the current Constitution provides- but to be more 'democratic'.

The constitution in Thailand is a joke, its not an constitution its like an newspaper its changes almost daily.

When the government in Belgium like to review some articles in the constitution, they present this articles to the parliament, and they must put on a vote on witch articles can be reviewed with a 75% majority. The discussions are taking a lot of time, because there is a great respect for the constitution and a great prudence to change it.

And its only after an next election that the new parliament can vote about this articles with again an 75% majority. So changing some articles of the constitution take about 4 years and 2 different parliaments. All of this to prevent that a government regard the constitution as an newspaper.

[Johpa]

God I hate socialism. It NEVER works.

Crikey, and I feel the exact same way about capitalism. But have you noticed that most people are avid capitalists on the way up and then turn into avid socialists on the way down. Or in other words, as we see throughout the western world, the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses.

But I do like all of you who seem to think that money sent to the lower economic half for cell phones is somehow inferior to tax breaks to corporations, the savings of which are used to purchase imported cars into the streets of Bangkok.

[Johpa]

But to take from those who are successful and to provide to those who have little initiative is flat out wrong.

Well, how Protestant of you in your views of the poor. They are poor because of lack of initiative and not due to circumstances such as geography, access to education, or access to credit. And of course your perceived success is completely due to your personal god-given initiative.

I can't believe how many of you neo-sahib ex-pats believe this nonsense. Onwards Christian Soldiers and a Merry Christmas to you all as you relish in your wealth and comfort. Baby Jesus would be so freakin proud.

[animatic]

God I hate socialism. It NEVER works.

Crikey, and I feel the exact same way about capitalism. But have you noticed that

most people are avid capitalists on the way up and then turn into avid socialists on the way down.

Or in other words, as we see throughout the western world, the privatization of profits and the socialization of losses.

But I do like all of you who seem to think that money sent to the lower economic half for cell phones is somehow inferior to tax breaks to corporations, the savings of which are used to purchase imported cars into the streets of Bangkok.

I spent a week a year back in Shanghai and Guanchow (Canton) China.

They may call it a communist country, but sure as hel_l the PEOPLE were RAVING capitalists.

Spread the pain amongst many, and let the industrious profit from their endevours.

But with something set aside for times such as we are entering now.

[LevelHead]

Henry, I think you are missing the point by trying to swipe it all away in a single sentance. Yes there is corruption, there always is, all over the world, however, if we target just roads, the construction of them in the north and north east created jobs, created work in the home area's and therefore "spread some wealth" around. This is what the TRT did, not concentrating everything on Bangkok so the "small circle of Elite" there take everything, but spreading it around.

Even though the roads may have now fallen into disrepair, this is as much down to the Thai problem of never planning for maintenance as the initial construction.

Thai's do have problems when budget planning is done, and maintenance is often missed out of all projects as its a "later" thing.........so the roads maintenance is probably done on some tin pot budget of 10,000 baht, whereas construction is done with a massive multi billion baht budget. Some of that is down to the payouts yes, but its also the poor lack of forward planning that effects most things.

Back to the changes, I still see when I travel around new factories going up, I see new housing built everywhere, new airports that have been opened a few years, lots of new cars, lots of new small businesses.

You can see why TRT and then PPP was/is/still is, so popular. Their policy of spreading the wealth worked........its a policy that China did and was successful with, even though the top communist party leaders creamed loads of money off the top, the idealism of spreading the wealth outwards to bring the poor upwards worked well, an Elitist system of retaining all the wealth in a small area and under the influence of just a few is now seen by all to be wrong.

Indeed AT FIRST VIEW HAND VIEWING , but the new build secondary roads are an a deplorable state, many new factories are closed down. On my last holiday (3 months)I drove 12K in Isan and North so I know what I talking about.

I have friends who have an company who build that roads and they had to pay large sums of money to get the contract. Because of this its was impossible to deliver a good job..............

[LaoPo]

You know this story,

A few months ago GWB wanted to re-paint the white house, so Obama could have a nice re-painted white house when he moved in, so he asked prices all over the world.

A German company asked 2 million $ for the job

A Dutch company asked 1 million $

A small self employed painter from Isan asked 5 million $

GWB surprised about by the differences in price invited the 3 company to ask why there was such big difference

The German company said

well M;President you know we Germans use only the best quality paint and we put on the paint in 3 layers, so it will last at least 25 years

The Dutch company said

Well Mr. President we are famous to work economical we use a little bit less quality and we only put 1 layer and very thin

When the self employed Isan painter came in, GWB asked , well sir I don't understand it. The German company asked 2 million; the Dutch company 1 million and you are just self employed, have no staff and therefore a low overhead but you still ask 5 million $. How is this possible

The Isan painter answered with a smile

Well Mr; president, 2million$ for you, 2 million$ for me, and we let the Dutchman do the job, and when next year the paint peels off, its not your problem anymore because you will be out of office already.

You made one mistake Henry....It wasn't a Dutch company........but Belgian.

The rest is correct

LaoPo

[Plus]

The statement "Thaksin has spread the wealth around" is not exactly correct.

He didn't comply with 1997 constitution demand that 35% of govt budget should be allocated to provincial governments, for example.

I don't know the numbers, but perhaps his "special fund" covered the shortfalls. The fund that was spent entirely at his discretion on anything he wanted without any public scrutiny. The fund has reached gigantic proportions under his government.

So there was a situation where budget that was constitutionally theirs became a special gift from Thaksin, a gift that was given to provincial governors in exchange for political loyalty. He bribed them with their own money and they loved him for that.

So much for their political maturity and Thaksin's "care".

[animatic]

The statement "Thaksin has spread the wealth around" is not exactly correct.

He didn't comply with 1997 constitution demand that

35% of govt budget should be allocated to provincial governments, for example.

I don't know the numbers, but perhaps his "special fund" covered the shortfalls.

The fund that was spent entirely at his discretion on anything he wanted without any public scrutiny.

The fund has reached gigantic proportions under his government.

So there was a situation where budget that was constitutionally theirs became a special gift from Thaksin,

a gift that was given to provincial governors in exchange for political loyalty.

He bribed them with their own money and they loved him for that.

So much for their political maturity and Thaksin's "care".

Lets not forget that any provincial governor that didn't deliver his area to Thaksin & TRT in 2005

lost much of his budget and the local TRT loser often came in personally to deliver that message and GLOAT.

Edited December 25, 2008 by animatic

[LevelHead]

That is one way of looking at it, and describing as such to make them seem guilty as tarred by the PAD/Dark Influences.

Question would be, did they ? Do you have proof ?

Can you sustain the "withheld for personal gain" comment when asking if it was withheld to prevent it being spent incorrectly by a corrupt "old school" ?

Was there not a decision made not to make it "easy" for known corrupt governers ?

Do you not reward successful people ? If someone spent their budget wisely and generated employment and wealth, should they not be given more ? If someone does a bad job then should they not have funds held back ?

You see to portray Thaksin as "bad everything" but provincial governers (known to be highly corrupt in many places) as "good guys".

This is typical "media spin" of the PAD and thier ilk, they try to simplify things into black and white and anti-Thaksin, when in fact there are many shades of grey, and good and bad to both sides.

The simple fact of the matter is that, and the PAD and their ilk hate to acknowledge it, that the North and North East grew substantially in terms of developement during the TRT/PPP time.

The people there love Thaksin and the TRT/PPP as they did something for them, they developed the area, they cleaned considerably up the massive drugs problem left over from Democrat rule, they created wealth and jobs.

So going back to your statement of withholding for political reasons, do you have the proof ? or was it withheld for the reasons that the incumbent governer was a corrupt idiot and giving them the money would be akin to flushing it down the toilet ?

Many shades or grey, there is no black and white.

The statement "Thaksin has spread the wealth around" is not exactly correct.

He didn't comply with 1997 constitution demand that 35% of govt budget should be allocated to provincial governments, for example.

I don't know the numbers, but perhaps his "special fund" covered the shortfalls. The fund that was spent entirely at his discretion on anything he wanted without any public scrutiny. The fund has reached gigantic proportions under his government.

So there was a situation where budget that was constitutionally theirs became a special gift from Thaksin, a gift that was given to provincial governors in exchange for political loyalty. He bribed them with their own money and they loved him for that.

So much for their political maturity and Thaksin's "care".

[Plus]

In not so many words - you think that giving money as a reward for political loyalty is a right and just thing to do.

Well, I got a news for you - the money belongs to ALL people of Thailand, not just those who vote a certain way.

What is this nonsense "If someone does a bad job then should they not have funds held back ?" The money doesn't belong to the PM or the governor to hold it back, if the governor does a bad job it's governor's problem, not people's.

[henryalleman]

I spent a week a year back in Shanghai and Guanchow (Canton) China.

They may call it a communist country, but sure as hel_l the PEOPLE were RAVING capitalists.

Spread the pain amongst many, and let the industrious profit from their endevours.

But with something set aside for times such as we are entering now.

China is the ultimate wet dream for the believers of the free unregulated economy . Its capitalism and free economy in all his ugliness at his worst. Unions are forbidden, minimum salaries don't exists, the workers are packed in sleeping dorms, work 7/7 and have only 1 week of during Chinese new year visiting their families a few 1000 Km upcountry. Now that 1000's of factories are closing down due the recession in the economy they trow out the workers with out even pay one Rhimimbin of compensation. Is this what the believers of statements like this 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. It is like all the common people who work in factories and offices show no initiative and lazy.

They prefer a system where only a few get stinking rich while 100 of millions work as slaves without any legal rights.

Its nonsense to make statements like The more poor that become successful, the stronger the country will become. If the system like the Chinese free economy capitalisme do everything to keep them poor.

An uncontroled free economy system is oppressing the common man and woman. Thank God we have an regulated economy and a re-distribution of wealth system in Europe.

The best for Thailand is an regulated economy EU style, because an free economly only create a few rich and millions of poor.

And this an opinion of somebody who is not even a socialist.

[henryalleman]

its a policy that China did and was successful with, even though the top communist party leaders creamed loads of money off the top, the idealism of spreading the wealth outwards to bring the poor upwards worked well, an Elitist system of retaining all the wealth in a small area and under the influence of just a few is now seen by all to be wrong.

That's exactly what the Chinese are doing, massive abuse of human rights, massive corruption, exploitations of the poor, and the rural provinces are in a state of unbelievable poverty. They only create new a new cast of the super rich who in there gain for profit endanger the health of the people (melanin scandal) and an total destruction of the environment and exploit there workers in such extend that it remind us of the early 19'Th century situation in the first years of industrialisation.

[henryalleman]

Levelhead, I know what I was writing about. I have family as Ne Chan he is clean, many times he refused presents and refused to approve roads who where bad constructed.but because he was clean, they accused him of corruption, because he was living in nice big house that he could not effort from his salary. but it was build by his mothers money. She even have to prove where her money came from. It was a very hard case to prove that he was innocent.

I have friends who have a company in road construction, (700KM away from that family) I know what they have to do, to get a contract. Girls, food and whisky, and a weekly trip to Nong Kai tax free shop, and on top of that some chocolate or coffee money.

But you are correct about construction plans, sometimes I think a 4 year old child from kindergarten could do it better.

[henryalleman]

You made one mistake Henry....It wasn't a Dutch company........but Belgian.

The rest is correct

LaoPo

I think you are Dutch

[LevelHead]

No, you are saying that not me.

I said that if someone is a blatent idiot, is corrupt and the effect will be the same as flushing money down the toilet, should you give them all the money ? or hold some back and ask them to prove themselves, and then, when they fail, give the money to a better person who replaces him.

Politcal loyalty ???????

Ask yourself why people give to churches ? For a reward when they get to heaven ? Why people give money to monks ? for rewards of good luck ?

The whole structure of human life is payment of money to make you better than others, the more you give the more you get kind of total nonsense. Whats wrong with money for political loyalty then based on all the precedents that people CHOOSE TO IGNORE in life regarding RELIGION and many other "mind control systems", like politics as well.

In not so many words - you think that giving money as a reward for political loyalty is a right and just thing to do.

Well, I got a news for you - the money belongs to ALL people of Thailand, not just those who vote a certain way.

What is this nonsense "If someone does a bad job then should they not have funds held back ?" The money doesn't belong to the PM or the governor to hold it back, if the governor does a bad job it's governor's problem, not people's.

[Plus]

First thing first - government budget is not Prime Minister's to give or not. It's not his money.

Second - money for political loyalty is downright vote buying and bribery.

Most politicians at least use their own funds to bribe voters or state officials, Thaksin used government budget, the money that belongs to them in the first place. Ingenious?

What has it got to do with good/bad governors? We are talking about their political affiliations, not performance.

[animatic]

The whole structure of life is

'Exchange of value',

some times for mutual benefit and codified into law.

Sometimes for love, sometimes for expedience.

The WHOLE basis of TAXATION is re-distribution of wealth for the common good.

Almost as old a thing as prostitution. Not quite.

It came in at the times of tribal villages, needing to pool resources or suffer

the raids and depredations of the next village over.

Death and Taxes; and mutual support structures for survival.

Old as it gets, and tried in myriad different variations over time immemorial.

Edited December 26, 2008 by animatic

[venturalaw]

I spent a week a year back in Shanghai and Guanchow (Canton) China.

They may call it a communist country, but sure as hel_l the PEOPLE were RAVING capitalists.

Spread the pain amongst many, and let the industrious profit from their endevours.

But with something set aside for times such as we are entering now.

China is the ultimate wet dream for the believers of the free unregulated economy . Its capitalism and free economy in all his ugliness at his worst. Unions are forbidden, minimum salaries don't exists, the workers are packed in sleeping dorms, work 7/7 and have only 1 week of during Chinese new year visiting their families a few 1000 Km upcountry. Now that 1000's of factories are closing down due the recession in the economy they trow out the workers with out even pay one Rhimimbin of compensation. Is this what the believers of statements like this 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. It is like all the common people who work in factories and offices show no initiative and lazy.

They prefer a system where only a few get stinking rich while 100 of millions work as slaves without any legal rights.

Its nonsense to make statements like The more poor that become successful, the stronger the country will become. If the system like the Chinese free economy capitalisme do everything to keep them poor.

An uncontroled free economy system is oppressing the common man and woman. Thank God we have an regulated economy and a re-distribution of wealth system in Europe.

The best for Thailand is an regulated economy EU style, because an free economly only create a few rich and millions of poor.

And this an opinion of somebody who is not even a socialist.

It often appears that those who are for fairness are labeled as being absent feelings, or a conscious, or even worse, considered as people who hate the poor. Actually, it is those who promote class envy are the people who often hate. Hate the wealthy for thier success rather than attemting to learn from it and prosper. As I have said before, those who are unable to survive should access resources that are available - starting with thier own families, charitable organizations, then their local communities, before turning to the central government.

For those who choose to insult rather than attempt to understand, I leave you with the following senario presented by an economist describing the US tax situation. I believe even the most challenge will be able to grasp the concept.:

Economics in Beer Terms:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce

the cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could

they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner

suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.

They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[henryalleman]

Ask yourself why people give to churches ? For a reward when they get to heaven ? Why people give money to monks ? for rewards of good luck ?

Giving money to churches and monks is even so a rip off and corruption.

I don't understand that people who believe in some God or Lord Buddha can believe that they can buy there place in to Heaven of Nirvana.

Its even against all the teachings of Jesus or Lord Buddha, the receivers of such money are cheaters who will burn in hel_l or come back in next live as rat's.

If I see how some monks on television praising people who donate, and the money maniac Television preachers in America I always have an urgent upcoming vomit.