Thai Pm Officially Launches Government Project To Stimulate Economy

[SHYTALK]

Its allright abisit playing PM with his stimulas package, not that a stimulas package isn't necessary.

But as usual the unanswered question is "who is going to pay?".

Can you see it being the lords and ladies?

How about the elite and businessmen?

Perhaps the armed forces and associates?

Surely not the poor uneducated reds?

More likely the good old walking ATM, the farang!

And quite right to, democracy in action.

[SHYTALK]

Tawp, I'm not even going to read a libertarian article about virtues of the free market.

There's worldwide consensus that this current crisis was the result of trust in markets being able to monitor and correct themselves, and there's worldwide consensus that this idea needs to be buried and never touched anytime soon.

Ofcourse you will not, because reading [an opponents views and forming your response to them] might make you enlightened and that is a risk you cannot take.

I'm with proper regulation on this, and stricter fsa controls, far to many big bonus gambling risks taken by the banks and investment houses.

Banks gambling?

Privatised profits and socialised losses.

Also the behind the scenes manipulation of the markets and especially derivative trades, yuk

Let the pension fund members and small invester at em I say.

And after all the crap caused, what do you see, can you believe it, more big bank bonuses.

Full circle, never learn.

[Plus]

Tawp, I'm not even going to read a libertarian article about virtues of the free market.

There's worldwide consensus that this current crisis was the result of trust in markets being able to monitor and correct themselves, and there's worldwide consensus that this idea needs to be buried and never touched anytime soon.

Ofcourse you will not, because reading [an opponents views and forming your response to them] might make you enlightened and that is a risk you cannot take.

It's for the same reason I don't read mormon literature or UFO magazines. Do I risk losing my chance at enlightenment in those areas too?

I tried to listen to that "libertarian" dude on youtube thrashing Keynesian economics. His uncompromising, one sided stand and offer of simple explanations to complex problems argued by thousands of economists world over immediately reminded me of some Christian missionary.

No, thank you, I don't want to be enlightened.

I also won't dare comment on economic details. I trust professional opinions on this, and so far there's consensus that era of free marketism is over, at least for the foreseeable future. Eventually it will come back but it will always be back and forth struggle - too much regulation, too little regulation, and so on.

[animatic]

My late uncle was an international level economist. He knew John Maynard Keynes.

His comment:

John is not 100% right nor 100% wrong.

His ideas are useful in several situations, but likely not right in others.

So we must choose when they are applicable, such as stopping economic freefall

and potential long term excessive joblessness.

But not use them over the long term exclusively.

[Plus]

But not use them over the long term exclusively.

Or excludively, if it can be a word.

Liberal marketeers do not give it any credit, just like any aggressive Christian sect, and they believe theirs is the only correct way.

I'm not excluding liberalism towards the markets as an idea, don't get me wrong, it's just at this point majority of professionals think it's inappropriate strategy to deal with the crisis.

They might be all wrong.

[sokal]

Tawp, I'm not even going to read a libertarian article about virtues of the free market.

There's worldwide consensus that this current crisis was the result of trust in markets being able to monitor and correct themselves, and there's worldwide consensus that this idea needs to be buried and never touched anytime soon.

Ofcourse you will not, because reading [an opponents views and forming your response to them] might make you enlightened and that is a risk you cannot take.

It's for the same reason I don't read mormon literature or UFO magazines. Do I risk losing my chance at enlightenment in those areas too?

I tried to listen to that "libertarian" dude on youtube thrashing Keynesian economics. His uncompromising, one sided stand and offer of simple explanations to complex problems argued by thousands of economists world over immediately reminded me of some Christian missionary.

No, thank you, I don't want to be enlightened.

I also won't dare comment on economic details. I trust professional opinions on this, and so far there's consensus that era of free marketism is over, at least for the foreseeable future. Eventually it will come back but it will always be back and forth struggle - too much regulation, too little regulation, and so on.

It is sad that people like you and Micheal Moore are giving capitalism a bad name when rampant fraud and Keynes is clearly to blame.

I am sure you have never heard of these professionals. www.Zerohedge.com www.24hgold.com www.maxkeiser.com

[TAWP]

But not use them over the long term exclusively.

Or excludively, if it can be a word.

Liberal marketeers do not give it any credit, just like any aggressive Christian sect, and they believe theirs is the only correct way.

I'm not excluding liberalism towards the markets as an idea, don't get me wrong, it's just at this point majority of professionals think it's inappropriate strategy to deal with the crisis.

They might be all wrong.

You are talking about belief while being a proponent for the only repeated solution that is proven to not work.

That is usually the sign of a person with strong belief. Discard facts if they conflict with the belief, 'we are doing this anyway'.

A true free market solution has never been adopted as a way out of any crisis and hence the 'rescue attempts' always falls short or distorts the nations until the fall into the next crisis.

The current market crisis is in many regards built upon two things, a government forcing banks and institutes to handle loans that will fail at any sign of trouble, and a banking system that knows the government will revert to socialist tendencies when the problems rise and bail them out.

Much like the car-companies should have been allowed to die (if you cannot make environmentally sound cars with decent mileage that the customers want, maybe you shouldn't be making cars at all) the broken banking institutes should have been cleared out once and for all.

Instead of getting a clean start for a better future they will bandage the broken system and hope to postpone the next crash a little bit more...

[LawnGnome]

Of course there is rampant fraud, when you have the fox guarding the hen house (i.e. let the market dictate the policy) you end up with the mess we are in.

[Plus]

You are talking about belief while being a proponent for the only repeated solution that is proven to not work.

That is usually the sign of a person with strong belief. Discard facts if they conflict with the belief, 'we are doing this anyway'.

I didn't invent the current reaction to the crisis. Don't pin it on me - there's a worldwide consensus, at least among people with real responsibilities, among policymakers.

It is absurd to call them all wrong because some dude on youtube says so.

[stumonster]

Thailand repaid all of its loans to IMF by 2003, four years ahead of schedule.

so who does Thailand owe money to now ?

They export market cannot pick up until other consumers can take the place of the US consumer. How else is the Govt supposed to stop its economy from nosediving if it doesn't spend money on projects.

Wise projects and transparent implementation to avoid corrupt practices is the best and only route.

[LawnGnome]

Thailand repaid all of its loans to IMF by 2003, four years ahead of schedule.

so who does Thailand owe money to now ?

They export market cannot pick up until other consumers can take the place of the US consumer. How else is the Govt supposed to stop its economy from nosediving if it doesn't spend money on projects.

Wise projects and transparent implementation to avoid corrupt practices is the best and only route.

You see Stu, when you insert logic and common sense into a forum thread, it throws the whole universe off kilter...

[chrislarsson]

All governments make the same mistake.

Stimulus packages are BS and will never be a healthy solution.

That must be why China is doing so badly...

China had real money to spend, they did not borrow it. They still don't make any sense and never will. Keynesian economics is BS

Does 30 years of annual 10% growth make sense to you?

[SHYTALK]

This isn't pre-school nor University, you can do your own research.

This isn't news, this is history, available in the internet.

Just think 5 words :

'Mega Projects' and 'Thailand Government Savings'.

Well try this one from history...

Taksin 3 Abisit 0

Just think hat trick hero .

[chrislarsson]

This isn't pre-school nor University, you can do your own research.

This isn't news, this is history, available in the internet.

Just think 5 words :

'Mega Projects' and 'Thailand Government Savings'.

as expected. bold statements, unable to back it up. blabber, big mouth, drivel.

Thailand repaid all of its loans to IMF by 2003, four years ahead of schedule.

Then consider the longer term, lower interst loans Thaksin took from Singapore

to pay off the IMF early. And thus end the strong medicin attached to IMF loans.

Singapore makes more money in the end, thatkisn gets a less encumber playing field,

and no more prying eyes on his deals. And Thaksin makes a better trade friend for

his interests, and political fodder for local consumption.

More slight of hand.

Slag off the big bad IMF...

of which Thailand IS a founding member by the way,

and then quietly refinance the loan.

Then later he quietly prepares the Shin Sale to... who, WHY SINGAPORE,

and then jigers the tax laws just before hand...

Something impossible with IMF constraints of fiscal probity in effect.

UN is the founder of IMF, and well Thailand happens to be a member...

Thailand's debt was going down every year from 1999 to 2007. At the same time large savings in foreign currency was accumulated.

SCB, owned by the crown property, prepared the sale of Shin Corp. And it was sold after a lot of pressure to sell it due to conflict of interest corruption.

Can you tell me what the jiggering of the tax law was? I have asked many, but never been able to get an answer.

[chrislarsson]

All governments make the same mistake.

Stimulus packages are BS and will never be a healthy solution.

That must be why China is doing so badly...

China had real money to spend, they did not borrow it. They still don't make any sense and never will. Keynesian economics is BS

China had real money to spend, because they were saving during the good times, which governments are supposed to do to be able to handle inevitable bad times to come.

[chrislarsson]

I

t's a very good article, but I don't really agree with it. Arguing that government is always bad, and the private sector good, is too simplistic. Reality is more complex that that.

I don't really think stimulus packages are the best option either. But what to do when an economy is in negative feedback loop, and no other tools are helping? Do you think the private sector can bring a country out of this?

Look at America. 70% of GDP comes from consumer spending. The times of keeping this spending up by easy loans is finished. In the next 5 years (at least), consumption will be mainly based on income, not increasing their debt. That means that people will either have to earn more money, or there need to be more consumers (i.e. lower unemployment), if there is going to be any growth.

At the moment, unemployment is going up every month (less consumers), and incomes are increasing very moderately, or not at all. This leads to less consumers, which in turn leads to higher unemployment, which in turns leads to....

So the question regarding getting out of this spiral is not about efficiency. It's about where demand is going to come from to break the spiral. There is where the role of government comes in.

But, of course, governments are supposed to save in good times, to be prepared for the inevitable bad times, so that they have the resources to give the economy the boost it needs to get back on its feet again. Unfortunately America has not done this.

The reason the US has 70% of its economy in consumer spending is because it has huge trade deficiets. All the US ever exports is debt. Every time the Chinese economy is mentioned on TV they show people working hard in huge factories, every time the American economy is mentioned on TV they show fat Americans in huge shopping centers.

This video simply proves that Keynes makes things worse

What are you talking about? There is no relation between the consumer spending rate and the trade deficit.

[Thai at Heart]

All governments make the same mistake.

Stimulus packages are BS and will never be a healthy solution.

That must be why China is doing so badly...

China had real money to spend, they did not borrow it. They still don't make any sense and never will. Keynesian economics is BS

China had real money to spend, because they were saving during the good times, which governments are supposed to do to be able to handle inevitable bad times to come.

And all the savings have been flowing back to the US with alacrity to stop the Yuan appreciating.

Lest we forget, the Dubya faced a predicted government surplus when he took office, the level of government spending and tax reductions that were put in place during his time were reckless to say the least.

He had to spend on the war, but balancing the books is a much better long term plan than believing that deficits don't matter.

[chrislarsson]

Tawp, I'm not even going to read a libertarian article about virtues of the free market.

There's worldwide consensus that this current crisis was the result of trust in markets being able to monitor and correct themselves, and there's worldwide consensus that this idea needs to be buried and never touched anytime soon.

You have it 100% wrong. The reason the whole crisis happend was from moral hazard that the government created. Fannie May and Freddie mac were government institutions that were co-signing peoples mortgages for them. Also the federal reserve is CONTROLLING interest rates and keeping them too low.

Would you sign co-sign anyones mortgage ?

would you lend your own money out at .05% interest ?

Niether would anyone else except government of course. The government created the problem.

The federal reserve is independent from the government.

I didn't hear much complains of Greenspan's low-interest policies during his time. Especially not from the ones that are now whining about how it was the low-interest rates that caused the crisis.

[Plus]

SCB, owned by the crown property, prepared the sale of Shin Corp. And it was sold after a lot of pressure to sell it due to conflict of interest corruption.

Can you tell me what the jiggering of the tax law was? I have asked many, but never been able to get an answer.

I think there was a reshuffle of executives at SCB after that deal.

Tax was due on transactions that led to the sale, when the family consolidated all their shares in one account, two or three days prior to the sale itself.

Those transactions were done off market and had to be taxed.

[chrislarsson]

Tawp, I'm not even going to read a libertarian article about virtues of the free market.

There's worldwide consensus that this current crisis was the result of trust in markets being able to monitor and correct themselves, and there's worldwide consensus that this idea needs to be buried and never touched anytime soon.

Ofcourse you will not, because reading [an opponents views and forming your response to them] might make you enlightened and that is a risk you cannot take.

It's for the same reason I don't read mormon literature or UFO magazines. Do I risk losing my chance at enlightenment in those areas too?

I tried to listen to that "libertarian" dude on youtube thrashing Keynesian economics. His uncompromising, one sided stand and offer of simple explanations to complex problems argued by thousands of economists world over immediately reminded me of some Christian missionary.

No, thank you, I don't want to be enlightened.

I also won't dare comment on economic details. I trust professional opinions on this, and so far there's consensus that era of free marketism is over, at least for the foreseeable future. Eventually it will come back but it will always be back and forth struggle - too much regulation, too little regulation, and so on.

With this crisis market fundamentalism has probably died in the same sense as communism and socialism died with the fall of the Wall in Berlin.

But of course there will still be plenty of people arguing for both.

[chrislarsson]

Tawp, I'm not even going to read a libertarian article about virtues of the free market.

There's worldwide consensus that this current crisis was the result of trust in markets being able to monitor and correct themselves, and there's worldwide consensus that this idea needs to be buried and never touched anytime soon.

Of course you will not, because reading [an opponents views and forming your response to them] might make you enlightened and that is a risk you cannot take.

I did read your article. Most things he write makes sense. But this is written after the crisis. To gain my respect I would like to see his articles from pre-1997 criticizing Bush's deficit, Greenspan's low interest rates, and his prediction of this crisis.

Just out of interest, what economists of opposing views are you reading?

[chrislarsson]

But not use them over the long term exclusively.

Or excludively, if it can be a word.

Liberal marketeers do not give it any credit, just like any aggressive Christian sect, and they believe theirs is the only correct way.

I'm not excluding liberalism towards the markets as an idea, don't get me wrong, it's just at this point majority of professionals think it's inappropriate strategy to deal with the crisis.

They might be all wrong.

You are talking about belief while being a proponent for the only repeated solution that is proven to not work.

That is usually the sign of a person with strong belief. Discard facts if they conflict with the belief, 'we are doing this anyway'.

A true free market solution has never been adopted as a way out of any crisis and hence the 'rescue attempts' always falls short or distorts the nations until the fall into the next crisis.

The current market crisis is in many regards built upon two things, a government forcing banks and institutes to handle loans that will fail at any sign of trouble, and a banking system that knows the government will revert to socialist tendencies when the problems rise and bail them out.

Much like the car-companies should have been allowed to die (if you cannot make environmentally sound cars with decent mileage that the customers want, maybe you shouldn't be making cars at all) the broken banking institutes should have been cleared out once and for all.

Instead of getting a clean start for a better future they will bandage the broken system and hope to postpone the next crash a little bit more...

Without the bailout of the banks, you would have an economic meltdown. Without a functioning financial system asociety can not work.

Secondly it would mean the immediate end of America as an economic super-power, as they would pretty much not have any financial institutions left.

This is, of course, is how the market is supposed to work. The bailout of the banks in America is nothing less than protectionism. With the failure of America's banks, banks in Canada, Europe and China that have been properly managed would quickly be there to replace America's.

[chrislarsson]

My late uncle was an international level economist. He knew John Maynard Keynes.

His comment:

John is not 100% right nor 100% wrong.

His ideas are useful in several situations, but likely not right in others.

So we must choose when they are applicable, such as stopping economic freefall

and potential long term excessive joblessness.

But not use them over the long term exclusively.

Did Keynes argue for government stimulus during good times?

[chrislarsson]

Just a final point to the ones arguing that government intervention is always being BS.

Can you please explain how Canada, a country with a bigger government and more heavily regulated economy, is pretty much walking through this financial crisis completely untouched?

Not one Canadian bank has asked for money from the government.

Edited September 9, 2009 by chrislarsson

[hammered]

All governments make the same mistake.

Stimulus packages are BS and will never be a healthy solution.

That must be why China is doing so badly...

China had real money to spend, they did not borrow it. They still don't make any sense and never will. Keynesian economics is BS

China had real money to spend, because they were saving during the good times, which governments are supposed to do to be able to handle inevitable bad times to come.

China's command economy has one big advantage over the west there, they dont have to worry about elections and keeping poeple happy with tax cuts and/or spending plans to win the next vote.

Not a comment on it being right but just an observation of competetive advantage

[HYENA]

All governments make the same mistake.

Stimulus packages are BS and will never be a healthy solution.

real infrastructure projects are better than subsidsing purchases or tax reductions.

the world trading landscape is changing and Thailand is in a geographical position to benefit.

They are looking at Rail through to China , if they linked it to a port on the Indian ocean and added oil/gas pipelines they could become a very important link in China's rise as an economic giant.

China IS an economic giant. THe US gave them eminent domain for the massive money they're lending. THey're bailing out the world and are getting some serious interest in return.

[HYENA]

Just a final point to the ones arguing that government intervention is always being BS.

Can you please explain how Canada, a country with a bigger government and more heavily regulated economy, is pretty much walking through this financial crisis completely untouched?

Not one Canadian bank has asked for money from the government.

that's why Canada is a better country in some respects...far lower prison for profit scheme, too

[animatic]

World Bank names Kingdom 12th-best economy for doing business

By ANOMA SRISUKKASEM

THE NATION

Published on September 10, 2009

Among 183 economies, Thailand's 2010 ranking is 12th in terms of ease of doing business,

one place up from before, the World Bank said yesterday.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/09/10...ss_30111912.php

[animatic]

My late uncle was an international level economist. He knew John Maynard Keynes.

His comment:

John is not 100% right nor 100% wrong.

His ideas are useful in several situations, but likely not right in others.

So we must choose when they are applicable, such as stopping economic freefall

and potential long term excessive joblessness.

But not use them over the long term exclusively.

Did Keynes argue for government stimulus during good times?

He argued for stimulus when normal functions are not doing the job, but not 24/7/365

As was noted in my last line by the way.

My uncle helped pull Indonesia out of a 3rd world hole, and more able to sustain itself,

and it's HUGE population, back in Sukarno's time. And in the 50's helped connect Afaganistan

to ANY form of international commerce that didn't involve opium, donkeys and horses.

One has been a longer term success, the other, external factors have run it

into the ground over and over again.

Edited September 10, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

Just a final point to the ones arguing that government intervention is always being BS.

Can you please explain how Canada, a country with a bigger government and more heavily regulated economy, is pretty much walking through this financial crisis completely untouched?

Not one Canadian bank has asked for money from the government.

Bigger government per capita maybe,

but doubltfully bigger in size and economy managed.

I would hazard that the greater regulation is the reason that Canada's banking sector

was less caught with it's pants down. Were these repackaged and WAY over leveraged debt derivatives

available as freely to Canadian banks and brokers?

Some argue that government regulation is BS. like USA Republican zealots,

but this may likely have been Canada's saving grace.