Mixed Views On Abhisit's First Year In Office

[Davidusaf99]

Despite the problems and trouble (courtesy of the UDD), the democrat coalition has succeeded in providing a stable governance platform to the country, and that, more than anything else, is what the country has, and continues to need. Abhisit looks far better in the leadership chair than anyone the UDD would toss up there, and had made huge progress in controlling the volitile coalition. He has had some setbacks, but overall, he has provided a nice firm hand on what had been a rudderless ship. I hope he stays another year, and allows some of the effective ministers (Jurin, Korn, etc) more chance to effect changes. The creating of a land tax would be absolutely huge in the development of local areas, and scares the bejesus out of the PPP/BJT land barons.

[caf]

So you figure the CIA is now a fountain of public accuracy.

Baiting post for sure.

I doubt if he will bite.

This could be an interesting debate if we kept to the facts.

I have just re-read Laopo's post and have to agree with the points he makes on Publicus' comments.

Where are the facts and sources from which Publicus makes his comments? Most of what Publicus says are merely his own personal views.

And Animatic, there was no baiting in that post. If you post, post something that can be debated

You and Publicus may be right , you may be wrong. We all accept that. But debate the issues not bring up red herrings of baiting which do not exist.

caf

[animatic]

We are debating it. I questioned the veracity of one of his sources,

from my own home country no less. Since he insisted on questioning the

numbers given in a clearly rhetorical comment of Pub's.

Pub's basic statement was clearly not about precision of numbers.

....Many were rounded off, 150 mill off in one case, but give it 5 years

and it will likely be over that amount. Neither here nor there.

.... It's skewed population of now 1.5 bn makes it a meaningless model of economic development

to even the poorest countries. For the same reasons, so too is India no one's model of development....

The PRC would serve as a model only to the worst dictators and tyrants who

want the greatest control possible over their populations and the minds of their populations....

....India and the PRC are struggling only to establish some reasonable Standard of Living, with Quality of Life issues remaining well into the future, if QoL issues ever are to be attained to any extent....

Thais do not look to either the PRC or India as any kind of development model.....

......The problems of Thailand are only magnified in the PRC and in India....

..... an increasing number of the population experiencing some economic gains in certain developing metro centers

while the rural countryside remains at best a problematic segment of the population....

.....Neither Thaksin nor Abhisit can resolve such problems,

but Thailand is better positioned to devise some effective measures

because its population is of a realistic and workable number....

Unlike the PRC or India, Thailand over time and sincere effort can raise the Standard of Living of its general population...

NOTE USE OF ELIPSES to denote quotes broken into sections for commenting,

and removal of extraneous data. This is the moderator approved method

point 1 )

the numbers of scale for India and China are so far removed from all other nations,

as to make their population 'control mechanisms' irrelevant as comparisons.

Point 2 )

Except for the worst type of control freak leaderships who see these mega countries control mechanisms

as a model for their own control, and not for the reasons why they are still implemented; Excessive scale.

Just seen as a reason or excuse to use the same for their own profiteering, controlling ends.

Point 3 )

Scale differences sometimes calls for completely different methods,

in this case i of China and India it's is scale and distance and communications combined.

Point 4 )

As in Thailand certain coastal developed urban centers have a greater general uplift in living standard,

but in the greater part of the each country the rural life is as desolate as it was 50 years back,

it's just that communications has now made it easier to let people KNOW how bad things remain.

I give Thaksin points for raising communications, even as he GREATLY profited from that endeavor.

Point 5 )

No individual leader alone can fix the endemic problems in a short time frame, the resources don't exist to do it.

Political time frames are often judged by generations and not by fiscal quarters, or years.

5 year plans are poften used as a basic as a starting point... or the sitting term of a legislature or government.

One reason Thailand lags behind is because it hqas essentially a super-greedy political class grown from an avaricious

business class and can't here to for be left in office too long because it takes advantage. And seems to do so the long in office. It is assumed to be so, and this point is used against ALL governments regardless of their inter-generational changes for the positive.

But because some segments of society have improved siginificantly this allows some more resources to be

spread around for general uplift. Some TVF members slag "the elite" for this and that, but they are the ones

that created most of the development and thus jobs that created the middle class and raised numbers of the

lower classes to start moving up. Without this investment in growth by those that CAN DO SO, there would be

little or no, and thus little or none for the government to use to improve the whole. Have they done this perfectly no,

but improvement is being seen slowly... as humans typically do it. Gross fast changes are typically harmfull to all,

gradual chgange gets the job done with less disruption for all.

Point 6 )

In Thailand this increase in resources is a new and somewhat under utilized thing, 20-30 years maybe,

they are just coming to grips with this new potential. Thaksin did a major leap in this direction, but not for

the altruistic reasons some atribute, but for the raw power he discerned might be bought with it. T

his equation of power and support for the bulk of the population is now changing gradually for the positive;

less for power and more for general uplift. It takes time for minds and attitudes to change.

'Great Leaps Forward', as can be seen are dangerous out of control beasts.

Thailand because of it's greatly smaller scale is more likely than the PRC or India

to raise it's over all SoL much farther in a much shorter time frame.

My point on Pub's point )

It's not about precision of numbers, the differences are far too great for that to really matter,

but the basic concepts in the argument.

Edited January 17, 2010 by animatic

[Ricardo]

So you figure the CIA is now a fountain of public accuracy.

I used, many years ago, to work professionally in sales/marketing information, and the CIA were indeed regarded as a source of fairly-accurate & objective country-information, I guess they used/do to study them to understand economic/social-pressures in countries of interest, like the USSR or PRC ?

Would you say that abisit is the song and dance frontman of the most corrupt dem government never to be elected.

Erm ... no. But I do sense you may have some agenda here, going by your recent posts, am I wrong ?

[Dustybin]

The only view that matters is that of the guy holding the gun.

The gun that is, not the pea-shooter.

[LaoPo]

We are debating it. I questioned the veracity of one of his sources,

from my own home country no less. Since he insisted on questioning the

numbers given in a clearly rhetorical comment of Pub's.

Pub's basic statement was clearly not about precision of numbers.

....Many were rounded off, 150 mill off in one case, but give it 5 years

and it will likely be over that amount. Neither here nor there.

There were 2 major points in Publicus' post:

1, The exaggerating number of the population in China; a PLUS of ca. 18%; we're talking here about exaggerating so much that 150 million people is a number of 2,3 x the Thai population.

Not exactly "clearly rhetorical" and "rounded off" a PLUS of 18%. That would be same as giving Thailand 78 million people instead the 65/66 there are now.

2. and the -again- strongly exaggerating number of 800 million people in China living below the poverty line, to which I supplied the CIA facts, proving him wrong.

To which you replied: "So you figure the CIA is now a fountain of public accuracy."

If you are able to supply us with better public numbers with more accuracy, please provide them, but I think you can't, the same as Publicus can't.

LaoPo

[animatic]

But as noted, and ignored, the numbers are not the issue.

Changing the discussion to only debating the precision of the numbers

doesn't change the disparity of the situation.

Nor illogic of the comparison because of that disparity.

Looking at the tree and missing the forest.

Edited January 19, 2010 by animatic

[LaoPo]

But as noted, and ignored, the numbers are not the issue.

Changing the discussion to only debating the precision of the numbers

doesn't change the disparity of the situation.

Nor illogic of the comparison because of that disparity.

Looking at the tree and missing the forest.

Not the issue...changing the discussion? WHO?

Publicus started changing the subject by giving absurd numbers which I proved to be wrong. If a member writes things which are incorrect I am not allowed to prove he's wrong?

And, stop writing in the name of someone else, if you please. You act like his secretary, without his signature.

LaoPo