Govt. To Launch Sufficiency Economic Project On Mar 26

[Jai Dee]

Govt. to launch Sufficiency Economic Project on Mar 26

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva will preside over the opening ceremony of the Sufficiency Economic Project for Community on March 26th at Thammasart University (Rangsit Campus).

Deputy Prime Minister Korbsak Sabhavasu chaired a meeting between a subcommittee responsible for the Sufficiency Economic Project. The meeting approved 705 projects from 675 communities across the country which follow His Majesty the King’s Sufficiency Economy concept in a concrete manner. The meeting also reviewed projects by more than 4,000 communities.

The opening ceremony of the project will be attended by around 500 representatives of communities, government units, academic institutions, and the press and independent organizations. Highlights of the event include exhibitions demonstrating Sufficiency Economic Communities in order to educate the participants about the project.

Source: National News Bureau of Thailand - 24 March 2009

[chrislarsson]

Can somebody explain what this "sufficiency economy" concept really means?

[henryalleman]

IMHO this means that the government is preparing for an economical disaster. because due the coming economical collapse millions will return to the rural areas.

The only way to bring prosperity to a country is international trade and foreign investments

Do they really still think that farming can bring wealth. This program only shows that Thailand is still a 3th world country and they are happy to be like that.

What a shame.

[h90]

IMHO this means that the government is preparing for an economical disaster. because due the coming economical collapse millions will return to the rural areas.

The only way to bring prosperity to a country is international trade and foreign investments

Do they really still think that farming can bring wealth. This program only shows that Thailand is still a 3th world country and they are happy to be like that.

What a shame.

I think you don't understand the Sufficiency Economic....We changed approx. 2 years ago to Sufficiency Economic in our company.

My wife as manager did so, as she thought that a crisis will come.

Now our staff, who always had big dept have mostly 10-50.000 Baht on their bank accounts and there is a plan in the worst case we can downsize the company to 10 % of the turnover without laying people off.

With a farm and an income of 2000 Baht per month, but all food comes from the farm you are much better off than with 10.000 Baht in Bangkok in a rented room as low class labour instead of landowner.

Many farm owners are for both nature and society better than 4 big food producer own all the land.

That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, or? And I don't see how that damage international trade or foreign investments.

[sabaijai]

IMHO this means that the government is preparing for an economical disaster. because due the coming economical collapse millions will return to the rural areas.

The only way to bring prosperity to a country is international trade and foreign investments

Do they really still think that farming can bring wealth. This program only shows that Thailand is still a 3th world country and they are happy to be like that.

What a shame.

I didn't see anything in the announcement about 'wealth.' Once could argue that in a global economic collapse, sufficiency is a realistic goal in the short term. Few economies are going to generate 'wealth' in the coming year or two. However debt will be plentiful

[Thai at Heart]

Whilst the government is debating borrowing 70bn baht from overseas.

Hmmm.........

[stumonster]

Do they really still think that farming can bring wealth.

I think it can if they value add to the produce and sell it to the Chinese - quality and transport infrastructure need to be addressed though.

good farming will be very important in the future

[cmsally]

Isn't it just making a big deal out of common sense? Living within your means is common sense but as soon as you need committees and subcommittees and reviewers and the like presumably there is a budget involved - for what is basically common sense.

Incidentally sufficient is probably not a great choice of language, sustainable would grate somewhat less. You can be sustainable at any level of the economic sector but sufficient is rather an unfortunate choice of words.

Incidentally where are the concepts and theory outlined. Do we know this refers specifically to agriculture, where does it say this?

[Thai at Heart]

Do they really still think that farming can bring wealth.

I think it can if they value add to the produce and sell it to the Chinese - quality and transport infrastructure need to be addressed though.

good farming will be very important in the future

What produce would they sell to the Chinese? Fruit possibly, but not in big volume. I heard yesterday that mangosteens are being exported from Oz to Europe because they are handpacked and not adulterated.

But let us not forget who is brokering this business. You think they want to sell mangosteens in China for 10 baht a kilo and 10 satang profit. The street price is extortionately expensive in comparison with domestic Chinese produce.

All following the ancient business philosophy of selling one for a million involves a hel_l of a lot less running around than selling a million for one.

[Junglejumbo]

Sufficiency economy is about saving money. I think the rough definition used is "not spending above ones means". This includes not borrowing money from banks. Oh dear banks!!

It's mainly associated with farming because I suspect the system was originally designed for the poor who live in farms. Basically don't go out buying TVs or installing electricity when things are find as they are.

However, a weakness of sufficiency economy is that it ignores the ups and downs of an open market. For example, commodity prices went up dramatically in 2006 to early 2008 and many farmers were better off and able to buy more things, obtain loans and raise their living standards but its now difficult to go back to the way it was before now that prices have collapsed. Thaksin also encouraged farmers to borrow with special loan incentives many of which have since turned sour and land deeds are held by govt. farm banks or worse, loan sharks. Therefore, many farmers are relying on income from kids and relatives in Bangkok but if they lose their jobs what will happen this time? Social Unrest.

I am practicing sufficiency economy not because of Abhisit or the King, just because its the common sense thing to do right now when the future is uncertain. I would do it if I lived anywhere. However, growing vegetables in the garden, etc. wouldn't make economic sense to me as I could never beat the price of what I pay for a tomato in the Soi.

A more interesting part of the theory is the communes and once under a royal project, Thailand experimented with the Kabutz bringing over Israeli specialists but I don't know what happened to them. Basically, each farm grows one type of vegetable to achieve economies of scale, and then barters it with neighbors a bit like in the middle ages. I think its somewhat of an exciting system in a perfect world but reality its likely riddled with problems regarding the value of each item relative to others and what we must eat in order to keep healthy i.e. could a grower of basil grow and swap enough with vegetables and meats to maintain a healthy diet? If not, then that implies charity or social support. Moreover, if the system did ever really take off, the value of the Thai baht would be destroyed which would weaken the currency, make imported things more expensive such as fertilizer and equipment and cause huge inflation which would eventually fail the system. Over farming would also destroy soil and lead to famines like in China.

SO overall self sufficiency is fine for a common sense approach to day to day living, like saving more when our future is less certain, but as an alternative economic model it will fail and stop economic growth, and inhibit banking.

[Rtwo]

An explanation of the term "Sufficiency Economy" can be found here.

http://www.chaipat.or.th/chaipat/journal/d.../e_economy.html

[Old Man River]

An explanation of the term "Sufficiency Economy" can be found here.

http://www.chaipat.or.th/chaipat/journal/d.../e_economy.html

A few years ago I found an English translation of HM the King's clarification of what sufficiency economy means and posted it on TV (I have since seen it again on TV), but true to form now I can't find it. Anyway, let me add to your link another description of sufficiency economy by Anand Panyarachun.

http://www.info.tdri.or.th/library/quarterly/text/m00_1.htm

[caf]

Whilst the government is debating borrowing 70bn baht from overseas.

Hmmm.........

The signed communique from Abhisit and Brown after they met in Downing Street confirmed there would be no significant trade barriers in attempts to kickstart the world economies. I didnt think it was a realistic commitment at the time and sadly it appears it was just talk.

But I'm sure they'll take the 70bn B

[Oberkommando]

Whilst the government is debating borrowing 70bn baht from overseas.

Hmmm.........

It shows who is still pulling the strings in terms of controlling the country and calling the shots though, although it has been crystal clear since the 2006 coup for some.

Today the Post ran a story that conservative estimates show the country's economy to shrink this year by more than 3%. First time since 1961.

Sufficiency economy is localism and it is a very inward looking policy. Personally, I can only see disaster ahead when the Thai economy is reliant on tourism, manufacturing and exports but is adopting a policy not conducive to these. As an investor in Thailand I have been expecting tougher conditions with the global recession but dreading an announcement to this effect. I will now go to plan 'b' and look more carefully at Vietnam for our new projects, on hold since September 2006.

People with investments here really need to start really looking at what is going on in this country and making alternative plans.

The future looks bleak and uncertain here.

[Pierrot]

IMHO this means that the government is preparing for an economical disaster. because due the coming economical collapse millions will return to the rural areas.

The only way to bring prosperity to a country is international trade and foreign investments

Do they really still think that farming can bring wealth. This program only shows that Thailand is still a 3th world country and they are happy to be like that.

What a shame.

I think you don't understand the Sufficiency Economic....We changed approx. 2 years ago to Sufficiency Economic in our company.

My wife as manager did so, as she thought that a crisis will come.

Now our staff, who always had big dept have mostly 10-50.000 Baht on their bank accounts and there is a plan in the worst case we can downsize the company to 10 % of the turnover without laying people off.

With a farm and an income of 2000 Baht per month, but all food comes from the farm you are much better off than with 10.000 Baht in Bangkok in a rented room as low class labour instead of landowner.

Many farm owners are for both nature and society better than 4 big food producer own all the land.

That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, or? And I don't see how that damage international trade or foreign investments.

You're running a kolkhoze ?

Seriously, I'm very curious to know what is a "Sufficiency Economic" company. You're absolutely right, most of us have absolutely no idea what it means, please explain.

[Journalist]

I think you don't understand the Sufficiency Economic....We changed approx. 2 years ago to Sufficiency Economic in our company.

My wife as manager did so, as she thought that a crisis will come.

Now our staff, who always had big debt have mostly 10-50.000 Baht on their bank accounts and there is a plan in the worst case we can downsize the company to 10 % of the turnover without laying people off.

With a farm and an income of 2000 Baht per month, but all food comes from the farm you are much better off than with 10.000 Baht in Bangkok in a rented room as low class labour instead of landowner.

Many farm owners are for both nature and society better than 4 big food producer own all the land.

That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, or? And I don't see how that damage international trade or foreign investments.

This is interesting as you're a live practitioner.

Can you explain more. Especially about how you can downsize without layoffs if there is a collapse in turnover. (Can you still break even?)

[kartman]

Whilst the government is debating borrowing 70bn baht from overseas.

Hmmm.........

To pay farmers more than their crops are worth.

[DaleBlue]

Short term is OK. For long term, it is going to turn Thailand into something like Myanmar where trade stop, people only need to have low income as they don't buy much, banks need not to be function as there is not much loans nor savings. However people still can survive, and live by the very basic. So much so that even fridge, resturant, electricity, running water, transportation and petrol etc are all deemed a luxury.

Myanmar is similar in size and population to Thailand.

Thailand import 80% of its energy needs.

Myanmar is only producing half as much as Thailand, but have enough to export 80% of their energy production (because they don't consume much).

Do we want to only dine at home mostly with vegatable that we grow? Do we want our children to walk a couple of miles to school? Do we want to limit our health care to the very basic? Can we live without mobile phone, and limit land line to 2 per village? Do we want to have only 4 hours of electricity per day?

IMHO Thailand have gone done too far the capitalism road.

[cmsally]

The "theories" linked above at best describe a rather blurred description of the Middle Path in Buddhism.

How on earth is this to be transcribed on to economics, there is no explanation.

You can downsize companies and adjust to a spell of economic contraction, but for how long can this go on?

Very simply if the economic downtrend was sustained for a long period and you drop to a drastic level in production of income.

Even if you are following this blurry theory, what would be applicable would be then cause and effect - cutting back staff and consumption of materials/services (depending on your business).

Sooner or later you get to a point where businesses is not viable, the basic structure cannot be supported.

The crux is which companies will still stand when that period of points is reached. Large businesses, well placed economically and the right connections only stand to gain, their competition will effectively have been wiped out for them.

This scenario could see the increase of the Thai wage slave and the demise of the ubiquitous small Thai capitalist.

[Pierrot]

One reason people don't understand how this system works is because they believe it applies to the entire society. It doesn't.

"The meeting approved 705 projects from 675 communities" Please check carefully who these communities are …

[dumball]

As soon as "Honesty and integrity at all levels " entered the equation , I gave a huge sigh and chuckled to myself "The poor will remain poor and ______" .

[h90]

I think you don't understand the Sufficiency Economic....We changed approx. 2 years ago to Sufficiency Economic in our company.

My wife as manager did so, as she thought that a crisis will come.

Now our staff, who always had big debt have mostly 10-50.000 Baht on their bank accounts and there is a plan in the worst case we can downsize the company to 10 % of the turnover without laying people off.

With a farm and an income of 2000 Baht per month, but all food comes from the farm you are much better off than with 10.000 Baht in Bangkok in a rented room as low class labour instead of landowner.

Many farm owners are for both nature and society better than 4 big food producer own all the land.

That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, or? And I don't see how that damage international trade or foreign investments.

This is interesting as you're a live practitioner.

Can you explain more. Especially about how you can downsize without layoffs if there is a collapse in turnover. (Can you still break even?)

Hard to explain!

Some real common sense (not all the kings ideas, instead the basic idea adapted the situation here), in this case it is a 10 people company:

Don't invest if you don't have the money on hand. The company without depts, does not have payments to the bank every month.

Instead of new production machines, second hand ones.

Instead of a new mercedes for the boss and a pickup for delivery, one 12 year old Volvo for both purposes.

Instead of a nice office building, just something basic one.

Instead of turning on Aircon, installing foam boards, and plants inside and outside office.

Instead of having many staff, keeping it at the absolute minimum without hierarchy.

That might cause a bit slower grow but much more safety.

Speaking with the staff: beside their tasks, everybody is responsible for everything. Saving money is good for everyone. For example all agreed that they don't need a cleaning woman instead they share the money.

It developed (and that is a bit dangerous) that families work here together, but also controlling each other.

Paper, cans, glass will be separated and sold by the staff together and the money shared together.

Installing a kitchen with fridge and deep fridge, if possible the staff cooks their food themself and buy the things for cooking locally on the market. That safes a lot money over the year. A small garden for fruits and vegetables was made as well.

With the neighbor they found an agreement: Sometimes they cook for them as well and sometimes they get food from them (half the work).

The office computers can be used for private things instead of buying a new one for at home.

Many small ideas to safe money.

In case of a total economic collapse, which I don't expect. We'll have chicken in the companies garden and produce eggs, install a shower and change half the office in a rooms for sleeping. So reducing all not necessary costs.

With that reduced costs and all the staff (but on lower salary) we can gain market shares in bad times and still make some money to survive.

So in good time the additional profit will be shared or invested.

Of course it is much easier in a farm than in a company which produce hydraulic seals.

In a farm:

Instead of produce with fertilizer and chemicals in a mono-culture you produce without them, keep fishes in the rice field, keep ducks which eat the insects (but shi*t into the water as fertilizer).

From the remainings from your food you raise chicken (or the community together a pig). The diesel you produce yourself from Palm Oil (they teach that in Chumphon). Some farmers invest together in a small rice mill and sell the rice direct or exchange it.

At the end of course they have less output. But they have their own house, hot and cold water. They have all their food in good quality, but a relative small amount of money. But they have zero spending, so everything keeps on hand.

I know some of the Chamlong groups and they make a lot money, because the price for organic food is much better than selling the rice to the rice-mill.

[animatic]

Short term is OK. For long term, it is going to turn Thailand into something like Myanmar where trade stop, people only need to have low income as they don't buy much, banks need not to be function as there is not much loans nor savings. However people still can survive, and live by the very basic. So much so that even fridge, resturant, electricity, running water, transportation and petrol etc are all deemed a luxury.

Myanmar is similar in size and population to Thailand.

Thailand import 80% of its energy needs.

Myanmar is only producing half as much as Thailand, but have enough to export 80% of their energy production (because they don't consume much).

Do we want to only dine at home mostly with vegatable that we grow? Do we want our children to walk a couple of miles to school? Do we want to limit our health care to the very basic? Can we live without mobile phone, and limit land line to 2 per village? Do we want to have only 4 hours of electricity per day?

IMHO Thailand have gone done too far the capitalism road.

I just did 2 weeks across much of Myanmar.

The 'system' there is so bad that electricity in all sections is either

gas powered generators or foot powered generators.

The place is wired up, but the generals can NOT, or WILL NOT, keep it running.

Likely too busy selling their energy to Thailand, then pocketing the cash for themselves.

I have never been a country so dark at night ever....

This is not sufficiency economy at work,

it is necessity economy at work.

There is NO government function except to take,

and so the people deal with what they must on their own.

So I see this step by the govt. here as positive, it is pushing self sufficiency

in areas which may well need greatly increased self sufficiency shortly.

Now this does NOT say that all other types of economics methods are being dropped,

it just puts in stronger place something to help take up the slack when things go bad.

I am installing more garden preped area around my place this week too,

just to be safe.

[henryalleman]

Do they really still think that farming can bring wealth.

I think it can if they value add to the produce and sell it to the Chinese - quality and transport infrastructure need to be addressed though.

good farming will be very important in the future

What produce would they sell to the Chinese? Fruit possibly, but not in big volume. I heard yesterday that mangosteens are being exported from Oz to Europe because they are handpacked and not adulterated.

Correct Mangosteens and Kiwi's are very popular in Europe, you can find them in every supermarket and fruitshop. And indeed Kiwi's are always handpacked and mangosteens individualy handpacked in a small woven bag.

But let us not forget who is brokering this business. You think they want to sell mangosteens in China for 10 baht a kilo and 10 satang profit. The street price is extortionately expensive in comparison with domestic Chinese produce.

All following the ancient business philosophy of selling one for a million involves a hel_l of a lot less running around than selling a million for one.

[henryalleman]

IMHO this means that the government is preparing for an economical disaster. because due the coming economical collapse millions will return to the rural areas.

The only way to bring prosperity to a country is international trade and foreign investments

Do they really still think that farming can bring wealth. This program only shows that Thailand is still a 3th world country and they are happy to be like that.

What a shame.

I think you don't understand the Sufficiency Economic....We changed approx. 2 years ago to Sufficiency Economic in our company.

My wife as manager did so, as she thought that a crisis will come.

Now our staff, who always had big dept have mostly 10-50.000 Baht on their bank accounts and there is a plan in the worst case we can downsize the company to 10 % of the turnover without laying people off.

With a farm and an income of 2000 Baht per month, but all food comes from the farm you are much better off than with 10.000 Baht in Bangkok in a rented room as low class labour instead of landowner.

Many farm owners are for both nature and society better than 4 big food producer own all the land.

That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, or? And I don't see how that damage international trade or foreign investments.

Sorry I made an mistake I thought they mean self-sufficient. economy

Should have know, I practise sufficient economy almost 60 years.

[DaleBlue]

I think you don't understand the Sufficiency Economic....We changed approx. 2 years ago to Sufficiency Economic in our company.

My wife as manager did so, as she thought that a crisis will come.

Now our staff, who always had big debt have mostly 10-50.000 Baht on their bank accounts and there is a plan in the worst case we can downsize the company to 10 % of the turnover without laying people off.

With a farm and an income of 2000 Baht per month, but all food comes from the farm you are much better off than with 10.000 Baht in Bangkok in a rented room as low class labour instead of landowner.

Many farm owners are for both nature and society better than 4 big food producer own all the land.

That shouldn't be so difficult to understand, or? And I don't see how that damage international trade or foreign investments.

This is interesting as you're a live practitioner.

Can you explain more. Especially about how you can downsize without layoffs if there is a collapse in turnover. (Can you still break even?)

Hard to explain!

Some real common sense (not all the kings ideas, instead the basic idea adapted the situation here), in this case it is a 10 people company:

Don't invest if you don't have the money on hand. The company without depts, does not have payments to the bank every month.

Instead of new production machines, second hand ones.

Instead of a new mercedes for the boss and a pickup for delivery, one 12 year old Volvo for both purposes.

Instead of a nice office building, just something basic one.

Instead of turning on Aircon, installing foam boards, and plants inside and outside office.

Instead of having many staff, keeping it at the absolute minimum without hierarchy.

That might cause a bit slower grow but much more safety.

Speaking with the staff: beside their tasks, everybody is responsible for everything. Saving money is good for everyone. For example all agreed that they don't need a cleaning woman instead they share the money.

It developed (and that is a bit dangerous) that families work here together, but also controlling each other.

Paper, cans, glass will be separated and sold by the staff together and the money shared together.

Installing a kitchen with fridge and deep fridge, if possible the staff cooks their food themself and buy the things for cooking locally on the market. That safes a lot money over the year. A small garden for fruits and vegetables was made as well.

With the neighbor they found an agreement: Sometimes they cook for them as well and sometimes they get food from them (half the work).

The office computers can be used for private things instead of buying a new one for at home.

Many small ideas to safe money.

In case of a total economic collapse, which I don't expect. We'll have chicken in the companies garden and produce eggs, install a shower and change half the office in a rooms for sleeping. So reducing all not necessary costs.

With that reduced costs and all the staff (but on lower salary) we can gain market shares in bad times and still make some money to survive.

So in good time the additional profit will be shared or invested.

Of course it is much easier in a farm than in a company which produce hydraulic seals.

In a farm:

Instead of produce with fertilizer and chemicals in a mono-culture you produce without them, keep fishes in the rice field, keep ducks which eat the insects (but shi*t into the water as fertilizer).

From the remainings from your food you raise chicken (or the community together a pig). The diesel you produce yourself from Palm Oil (they teach that in Chumphon). Some farmers invest together in a small rice mill and sell the rice direct or exchange it.

At the end of course they have less output. But they have their own house, hot and cold water. They have all their food in good quality, but a relative small amount of money. But they have zero spending, so everything keeps on hand.

I know some of the Chamlong groups and they make a lot money, because the price for organic food is much better than selling the rice to the rice-mill.

This is exactly the road map toward turning Thailand to become a second Myanmar.

[cmsally]

If the situation becomes as dire as in the post above, where for example you are eating home grown bananas and have staff camped in the office; I would advise running a parallel business to the one you have running. Instead of making do, run another business which uses some of the same resources you have and maximise your profits.

Although cost cutting is admirable (and whether it is the model of sufficiency we don't know as it is not clearly outlined in terms of economic theory), I very much disagree with the stance of making do and thinking you are lucky to have money for the next meal. It stifles any ambitions for economic success and advancement.

This is one of the major problems with the bottom end of the Thai economy, there is no forward thinking about planning for the future. Enough money for today but when a major bill or unexpected cost comes along they are thrown into debt. Those at the top end of the economy are very much aware of this and use it to their advantage. At the moment you will see those at the top of the economy placing themselves for a turn around in a couple of years or maybe less. Whilst they also cut costs and know their budget are we to use them as an example of sufficiency?

In my view it is being targeted at the lower echelons for reasons that can be deduced from above.

[Rtwo]

This is exactly the road map toward turning Thailand to become a second Myanmar.

And what's wrong with that? The Chinese and their cronies are doing very well there, thank you very much. The Burmese model of self sufficiency is almost perfect, you simply ignore humanity. Methinks that the plebs and peasants are getting above themselves, here, that's one of the problems with Democracy, of which I've never been in favour. A good whipping by some guys in coloured shirts will soon get them back in line.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Jai Dee
Multiple nested quotes deleted for better legibility

[Journalist]

The danger is that 'Sufficiency' is just a cod-philosophy that tries to hoodwink the poor into believing its okay to stay poor. Same same as mediaeval peasants were told by their Priest they'd go to heaven at the end of a lousy life.

Having said that, i'm impressed with what h90 has accomplished.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Journalist

[Plus]

The danger is that 'Sufficiency' is just a cod-philosophy that tries to hoodwink the poor into believing its okay to stay poor.

I think this "danger" is overrated.

The main thrust is not to borrow beyond your means to repay and manage available resourses instead.

The one obvious alternative is the US style consumption bubble where everybody borrows to become rich. See how that played out, and it's not the end yet.