The World's Debt Crisis Is Leading Thailand To Economic Ruin

[Abrak]

And Midas,

Why dont you start looking closer to home.

I seem to remember Obama promising to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Yet his own forecasts show income tax receipts rising over 80% over the next 5 years while GDP rises 25%. Income tax as a percent of GDP rises 50% and of course the economy grows fantastically. And the US still has a US$700bn deficit.

That's pretty transparent. It is total bullshit.

[midas]

And Midas,

Why dont you start looking closer to home.

I seem to remember Obama promising to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. Yet his own forecasts show income tax receipts rising over 80% over the next 5 years while GDP rises 25%. Income tax as a percent of GDP rises 50% and of course the economy grows fantastically. And the US still has a US$700bn deficit.

That's pretty transparent. It is total bullshit.

But this supports what i have said all along...

It would be easier to find a do do bird than an altruistic, transparent, government

or politican anywhere ......period

[mommysboy]

BTW can anyone think of an economy in the world with better fundamentals than Thailand?

Surely doesnt that depend on how a global slowdown will affect their ability to service debt ?

" Thailand's public debt at end- April, 2010, stood at 4.108 trillion baht (126.945 billion U.S. dollars), or 42.23 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a senior official disclosed on Monday, the Thai News Agency (TNA) reported.

Chakkrit Paraphankul, director general of the Finance Ministry' s Public Debt Management Office (PDMO), said among the total public debt included some 2.773 trillion baht (85.691 billion U.S. dollars), which were directly owed by the government."

Not just their ability to service debt but to provide for their own people in any reasonable way. It's totally inadequate at present and looks set to get worse. If they were out on the streets while GDP was supposedly rising, what about when the brown stuff really hits the blades?

No, I was asking a simple question about which countries fundamentals were doing better than Thailand's

So public debt to GDP was 55% in 2001/2002 but was 38% in 2008/2009.

Now lets see in the EU which countries have brought down their debt to GDP ratio over that period.

Ok so we will just give you the top 5.

1. Slovakia

2. Bulgaria

3.....errr that's it

Then if we list forex reserves....

1. Slovakia US$2bn

2. Bulgaria US$8bn

3. Thailand US$150bn

In short no, but this in a sense is historic, we're talking about the mid term future and about the effects of a global slowdown. As we know, since the riots investment has dwindled. GDP suggests progress but The Thai economy took a knock on a par with the west.

Do you think Thai figures are reliable Abrak? I just have this incredible distrust of them. Just wondering.

[warlord]

Headline, "The World's Debt Crisis is leading Thailand to Economic Ruin"

At the end of the article we read, "Thailand's finances remain largely sound."

Who writes this crap?

Seem's their right hand does not know what their left hand is doing

[midas]

In short no, but this in a sense is historic, we're talking about the mid term future and about the effects of a global slowdown. As we know, since the riots investment has dwindled. GDP suggests progress but The Thai economy took a knock on a par with the west.

Do you think Thai figures are reliable Abrak? I just have this incredible distrust of them. Just wondering.

ha ha ha

This is so funny mommysboy because i have had several debates with Abrak about this issue.

Abrak is the wrong person to ask because he has an enviable ability to trust government statistics

Personally i wouldn't trust any government these days to tell me the right time.

I mean there doesnt seem to be many visible signs of growing prosperity in Isaan.

[Abrak]

In short no, but this in a sense is historic, we're talking about the mid term future and about the effects of a global slowdown. As we know, since the riots investment has dwindled. GDP suggests progress but The Thai economy took a knock on a par with the west.

Do you think Thai figures are reliable Abrak? I just have this incredible distrust of them. Just wondering.

ha ha ha

This is so funny mommysboy because i have had several debates with Abrak about this issue.

Abrak is the wrong person to ask because he has an enviable ability to trust government statistics

Personally i wouldn't trust any government these days to tell me the right time.

I mean there doesnt seem to be many visible signs of growing prosperity in Isaan.

Actually I dont necessarily trust statistics but merely look at enough of them to get a good idea. US employment statistics are always rubbish but there is enough information to adjust them.

The Thai numbers are pretty good. If you have a crap Fin Minister most of the time (not Korn) extra responsibility goes on the Central Bank to maintain credibility. And an important lesson the BoT did learn was that maximum information flow and a high degree of transparency (emphasis on high degree rather than 'total') is productive.

So look if you were the BoT I am sure you wouldnt really like to publish accounts weekly which show you have lost US$8bn shorting the baht to stop it appreciating. Still they do. And even more remarkably you wouldnt want to be publishing figures every week which showed how well the economy and so totally undermined your exchange rate strategy.

But the important thing is this, Thailand's underlying fundamentals are so strong (look at forex) C/A surplus etc that there isnt an enormous incentive to lie. And there is lots of cross checking you can do like looking at sales growth of all listed manufacturers.

That is why I pointed out the CBO budget forecasts. If Obama doesnt increase taxes the numbers would be so horrific they wouldnt add up and if he doesnt assume strong growth with huge tax increases the numbers dont add up. So their forecasts are pure fantasy out of necessity.

And honestly Midas my point about statistics is you simply choose the ones that suit whatever theory you have and discard all others as fraudulent.

And Mommysboy, the reason the current very strong growth numbers dont feel anything special, is that they are largely due to restocking and a 'recovery' in exports. The reality is that the actual 'economy' has basically 'recovered' where it was 2 years ago.

[ding]

I think Ron Paul was right when he said get rid of the fed, only problem is when the real powers that be heard that they froze him out of the race, no more was heard about him the news media didnt report on him after that funny hey?

Ron Paul is a lunatic. He's like the anarchist that doesn't want to follow laws, but would get his butt kicked every way from Sunday if he got what he asked for.

No, the problem is that the money men now run America in its entirety. More regulation, or a return to a sane level of it, is needed. But Obama is far from socialist, he's a corporatist and doing the same crap that the Bush Republicans did to make this mess.

Chickens need to fall out of love with Colonel Sanders!

[thaibeachlovers]

Ron Paul is an advocate of small government, which is an another way of saying de-regulation. The lack of regulation directly led us into this financial crisis. How would less regulation have prevented Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs from creating synthetic sub prime CDO's, that they knew contained the worst of sub prime loans in the US and then telling people to invest in them. This financial catastrophe the bankers have inflicted on us, has proven that markets if left to their own devices will inevitably fall into deception and fraud. Adam smith's invisible hand is invisible because it doesn't exist.

The same principle applies to the gulf oil spill, when you leave oil and gas companies to self regulate that is without central government oversight, they cut corners and take risks to maximise profits. Self regulation is to regulation as self importance is to importance.

Only thing missing is a smiley face because this is a joke, right? It was the government, starting during Carter's administration, that regulated an end to redlining and for lending institutions to allow unemployment and welfare income to be included in qualifying unqualified, mostly minority, home buyers.

"Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit.

"....mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else." (source)

I suppose you blame the government for Howie Hubler, infamously known as the person who lost $9 billion in one trade, the largest single loss in history or Joseph Cassano's of AIG Financial Products, which suffered over $99 billion in losses. Howie and Joe are the guys our financial system rests on , we are told these are super brilliant people and that's why they need such huge salaries. Both very nearly destroyed their companies Morgan Stanley and AIG, yet both walked away from the financial crisis as multi millionaires.

"What does it mean when Boston banks start making many more loans to minorities?" I asked in this space in 1995. "Most likely, that they are knowingly approving risky loans in order to get the feds and the activists off their backs"

Its amazing how people can find the most roundabout way of blaming minorities for all their problems. The mortgage companies were not lending to those unable to pay back because the government was forcing them to, do you really think independent financial institutions would make risky loans because they were under pressure from activists. Mortgage companies could make risky loans because they now had the ability to transfer the risk, package the loans and sell them to someone else wiping their own hands of the crappy loans.

"Financial Deregulation and Unchecked Financial "Innovation." A key reason that mortgages were made available so widely and with such little review of recipients' qualifications was a shift in which institutions hold the mortgages. Traditionally, banks made mortgages and held them. In the new era, banks and non-bank mortgage lenders made loans, but then sold the loans to others. Investment banks packaged lots of mortgage loans into "Collateralized Debt Obligations" (CDOs) and then sold them on Wall Street, with a promise of a steady stream of revenue from interest payments. These operations were pretty much unregulated. Despite the supposed sophistication of the investors involved, no one took account of how shoddy the loans were or -- more fundamentally -- the certainty that huge numbers would go bad if and when the housing bubble popped."

http://www.huffingto...na_b_82639.html

Not so. It was known before the crash that the consequences would be tragic, but the governments ( US and Britain certainly ) involved refused to allow steps to be taken to prevent such happening, as it would have killed the "golden goose".

Small governments and regulation are not incompatible. IMO, the unwarrented growth in numbers of civil servants has been a major factor in the dysfunction of modern society, along with allowing vast numbers of able bodied persons to live for generations on the dole and other benefits, though this has undoubtedly been for political reasons. One of the most succesful societies in the world, Singapore, did not pay unemployment benefits ( at least when I lived there in the 70's ), but provided work for all, even if it was only cutting grass.

[TAWP]

I think Ron Paul was right when he said get rid of the fed, only problem is when the real powers that be heard that they froze him out of the race, no more was heard about him the news media didnt report on him after that funny hey?

Ron Paul is a lunatic. He's like the anarchist that doesn't want to follow laws, but would get his butt kicked every way from Sunday if he got what he asked for.

No, the problem is that the money men now run America in its entirety. More regulation, or a return to a sane level of it, is needed. But Obama is far from socialist, he's a corporatist and doing the same crap that the Bush Republicans did to make this mess.

Chickens need to fall out of love with Colonel Sanders!

You better learn what the difference between an anarchist and a libertarian is...before you make a fool of yourself again.

[Spee]

Ron Paul is an advocate of small government, which is an another way of saying de-regulation. The lack of regulation directly led us into this financial crisis.

Nonsense on both counts. For the US, a return to small central government means a return to the Constitution with few and specific enumerated powers granted to the central government. That is anything but de-regulation.

Corruption and collusion between Wall Street and Congress led directly into this financial crisis. It started 35-something years ago with the CRA and was put into overdrive during the Clinton and Bush-2 presidencies.

Try reading the Rolling Stone article from last year by Matt Taibbi. The fact that no one from Wall Street and no one from Congress has gone to prison is sufficient evidence that each side is protecting the other. Barney Frank, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick .... the whole bunch ... ought to be in prison. Instead, they live a life of luxury.

To make matters worse, the US is now run by a Congress and President who want to do little more than redistribute wealth (read: steal from one to hand out to another) and tear down the very fabric of the country from within.

Things have not yet begun to get bad. The late 2008 - mid 2009 period was nothing compared to what lies ahead. Thailand is in as much trouble as anyone else. Thailand relies on exports. A downturn abroad turns into a downturn on imports.