Why Don'T Rural Thai People Follow Sufficiency Economic Theory?

[StreetCowboy]

I think that self-sufficiency is a significant contributor to discontentment in Thailand.

In the rural areas, people live in relatively cheap housing, close to their village market, school, neighbours, family, farm, work etc.

Space is cheap, and land is cheap, And labour is cheap. A lot is done quid pro quo - the barter economy thrives. But that doesn't work for some things - specifically, those few things that you need that are produced outside the village - cars, clothes, computers, televisions... the trappings of affluence.

Now, poor people, who are forced to live without such trappings, can live for a fraction in the rural community than they can in the urban community - where rent can't be paid with labour or mangos, and cash is king. So the urban poor earn many times what the rural poor earn, and yet are no better off - but the rural poor don;t appreciate that,... and feel hard done-by.

We have two economic visions -

Self sufficiency: I will grow my own food, knit my own clothes, build my own house, develop my own car, represent myself in court, and send my own son to the moon: and if I cannot do it, I will swap mangos with my neighbour for his knitted coat, and his apollo rocket...

Global Economy: I will sell my labour to the highest cash bidder, and use that to buy goods wherever they may be produced.

The former could perhaps make us all wealthy poor people, but only poor people. And if we relied upon it, the economy would be crippled by an influx of urban poor who had no skills other than those related to a prosperous knowledge economy.

SUMMARY: Rural Thailand HAS a sufficiency economy, and the populace of rural Thailand wants more - same as the rest of us.

SC

in my humble and ignorant opinion

[MrsExpat2B]

Easier said than done. How can you tell people who don't really have enough even to meet their basic daily needs to live sufficiently?

[JohnLeech]

...... How can you tell people who don't really have enough even to meet their basic daily needs to live sufficiently?

Quite easily, apparently - particularly if you have "sufficient" not to have ever worried about anything so tedious as basic daily needs.

[kpmsprtd]

The King worked very hard to write this guideline for the Thai people I wish they would use it. :jap:

I don't believe, Mr. Chunky, that he limited it to Thai people. Might I suggest that in order to better understand this sufficiency theory that you move to Isan for at least a year and give it a go. I am interested in hearing your report on why the rural Thai people do or do not follow the theory.

Your wish that "they would use it" can come true. Start by being the change you seek. I would imagine the rural Thai people will be quite impressed by the example you set. (in your new, self-sufficient life)

[Heng]

It can be applied at all levels. Why build a building to 150% overload when 110% overload is still pretty darn safe (and adds XX million to the profit)?

[slapout]

It can be applied at all levels. Why build a building to 150% overload when 110% overload is still pretty darn safe (and adds XX million to the profit)?

This works in theory, but there always seems to be another bright light or two who decide they can cut another corner or two and then your 110% design has been cobbled down to 80 to 90%. The falures are normally a result of a multiple of actions/inaction vs a single failure/weak point.

[gregb]

Because of television and advertising. Both of these are completely at odds with the sufficiency economy, and it is doomed to failure until both are outlawed.

Study after study shows that happiness is not the result of wealth, and that after basic needs are met increasing wealth is completely uncorrelated with increasing happiness. People are happy when they are relatively better off than their peers, or when they feel they are gaining on their peers, whether they actually are or not. Absolute wealth has nothing to do with it. The sufficiency economy relies on the fundamental assumption that people are happy living within their means. This could actually work, but it is only possible if the scope of what people are exposed to is limited to their immediate peers who they can actually compete with. If they start considering their relative wealth based on what television shows them and what advertisers tell them they must have, then by necessity they will feel inadequate, and they will go into debt in order to acquire more things. The sad fact is, advertisers spend millions of baht to convince people they are inadequate, and if they only bought this product or that service then the world is their oyster.

The sufficiency economy is truly the only way forward during the coming economic collapse, but sadly human psychology is too well understood by corporations and ad agencies in this day and age. Such a noble gesture as the sufficiency economy can not succeed, because there will always be one more skin whitening cream company telling people that they are inadequate. Don't compare yourself to your peers in the village. Compare yourself to this actress who has 10 times the money you do.

How does anyone honestly expect the sufficiency economy to take root, when advertisers and television are allowed to continue? Much good came from the invention of TV. It also provided the means for our enslavement. On whole, it is an addictive device which should be outlawed the same way illicit drugs are outlawed. Sadly, it will continue to poison the culture until the electric grid fails.

The rural Thais don't stand a chance against wealthy companies who understand marketing. The sufficiency economy, beautiful as it is in theory, is dead on arrival as a practical matter. Capitalism will make sure of that.

[Heng]

It can be applied at all levels. Why build a building to 150% overload when 110% overload is still pretty darn safe (and adds XX million to the profit)?

This works in theory, but there always seems to be another bright light or two who decide they can cut another corner or two and then your 110% design has been cobbled down to 80 to 90%. The failures are normally a result of a multiple of actions/inaction vs a single failure/weak point.

Oh, there are some mishaps, but I'd say it works in more than just 'theory.'

[Heng]

The rural Thais don't stand a chance against wealthy companies who understand marketing.

Just the undisciplined ones. Those with winai (those who will continue to choose a Nokia 1202 over a Blackberry Curve, who will go for the 'kaeha' home or shophouse instead of the local version of a McMansion, those who put that 100 Baht lottery play into a jar instead of to the local bookie, etc.) will rise to the top, the same as anywhere else.

[Spee]

SUMMARY: Rural Thailand HAS a sufficiency economy, and the populace of rural Thailand wants more - same as the rest of us.

SC

in my humble and ignorant opinion

Humble? Yes, perhaps.

Ignortant? Hardly, more like spot on.

Sufficiency economics could possibly work well for many people most of the time. But life is full of minor, moderate and major catastrophes and a home sufficiency economy doesn't make it for any of these. It could be a blown tire in the middle of nowhere with nothing but a few baht in the pocket. It could be a minor illness that turns for the worse because there is no money to go see the doctor. It could be a tree getting struck by lightning and destroying the roof of one's residence. Of there could be a season long drought which destroys one's crops that are used for income and barter.

Barter some produce for some meat? Sure, any day of the week around the home turf. Barter some produce for a new roof or a new used car or a one week hospital bill? Doubtful. Those things require money and sometimes a big chunk of it all at once. Sufficiency economics makes it awful hard to stock away a few baht for the proverbial "rainy day."

[trogers]

The King worked very hard to write this guideline for the Thai people I wish they would use it. :jap:

I don't believe, Mr. Chunky, that he limited it to Thai people. Might I suggest that in order to better understand this sufficiency theory that you move to Isan for at least a year and give it a go. I am interested in hearing your report on why the rural Thai people do or do not follow the theory.

Your wish that "they would use it" can come true. Start by being the change you seek. I would imagine the rural Thai people will be quite impressed by the example you set. (in your new, self-sufficient life)

Mighty hard to follow a sufficiency theory when your children constantly surprise you with another child and throw him or her onto your lap and disappear again.

Edited October 16, 2010 by trogers

[slapout]

The various theories of economic, social structure, government, family, etc which have been proposed by seemly astute individuals seem to have a common fault. Man's propensity toward selfishness and self gratification. There are a lot of terms/theories to explain why good ideas get derailed. I feel the big problem is that the people proposing these ideas are just a little less knowledgeable/inventive than those who have already decided that the self substance avenue/work for a living road, is not quick/substantial enough for them.

[Crushdepth]

Why don't people in your country follow sufficiency theory?

[somtampet]

No matter how many come on here and use posh words or analys poverty,the bottom line is that the Poor people want more,right or wrong and until the government start looking after their people more instead of the few elite raping the country,there will always be problems.I hope no more blood shed but when a region feels they have no hope,crazy things happen,like anywhere in the world.

[IanForbes]

Because of television and advertising. Both of these are completely at odds with the sufficiency economy, and it is doomed to failure until both are outlawed.

Study after study shows that happiness is not the result of wealth, and that after basic needs are met increasing wealth is completely uncorrelated with increasing happiness. People are happy when they are relatively better off than their peers, or when they feel they are gaining on their peers, whether they actually are or not. Absolute wealth has nothing to do with it. The sufficiency economy relies on the fundamental assumption that people are happy living within their means. This could actually work, but it is only possible if the scope of what people are exposed to is limited to their immediate peers who they can actually compete with. If they start considering their relative wealth based on what television shows them and what advertisers tell them they must have, then by necessity they will feel inadequate, and they will go into debt in order to acquire more things. The sad fact is, advertisers spend millions of baht to convince people they are inadequate, and if they only bought this product or that service then the world is their oyster.

The sufficiency economy is truly the only way forward during the coming economic collapse, but sadly human psychology is too well understood by corporations and ad agencies in this day and age. Such a noble gesture as the sufficiency economy can not succeed, because there will always be one more skin whitening cream company telling people that they are inadequate. Don't compare yourself to your peers in the village. Compare yourself to this actress who has 10 times the money you do.

How does anyone honestly expect the sufficiency economy to take root, when advertisers and television are allowed to continue? Much good came from the invention of TV. It also provided the means for our enslavement. On whole, it is an addictive device which should be outlawed the same way illicit drugs are outlawed. Sadly, it will continue to poison the culture until the electric grid fails.

The rural Thais don't stand a chance against wealthy companies who understand marketing. The sufficiency economy, beautiful as it is in theory, is dead on arrival as a practical matter. Capitalism will make sure of that.

Very well thought out post, Gregb. You encapsulated it perfectly. Idealism doesn't work because humans will always want more than they can realistically obtain.

[travelmann]

I had a long discussion of SET with a Thai friend of mine a few years back. The way he explained it has always made sense to me.....and I seem to recall the King weighing in on the controversy with the same sort of comments:

In effect: If you've got the bucks to buy a Merc/BMW, then by all means go out and do it. If, on the other hand, you're finding it difficult to pay for bus fare, then forget buying a vehicle. In short, if you can't afford it, don't go out and borrow money to buy it.

I live in a small village and see plenty of people who are living within their means. They're not living in anything fancy, but they seem to be perfectly happy. When a few baht comes along, they'll upgrade a portion of the house, buy another cow, or break down and buy a fridge to keep water cold. There are also plenty of folk who trash 20,000 baht on a computer for their school kid who doesn't know the first thing about using a computer. Within a few months (if that) it's trash....and of course, the family borrowed money to buy such a luxury.

Hardly a day goes by that my wife and I don't hear a sob story about how this villager or that owes a lone shark a chunk of change.....some villagers will escape for a few months/years (depending on the size of the debt) to try and avoid paying it off. It just seems to me that those who live within their means are going to be living a much happier life.

Is life any different in the US....with people living in debt, off of their credit cards? I often wonder.

Why dont folk in the west live by the same means. I dont buy what I cant afford, I usually end up saving for years to get it, current project is "our house" started saving last year it will take 3 years to save the required amount, in the meantime I toil away in the UK the wife in Thailand, its not ideal but I wont borrow any money and neither will she.

[somtampet]

I had a long discussion of SET with a Thai friend of mine a few years back. The way he explained it has always made sense to me.....and I seem to recall the King weighing in on the controversy with the same sort of comments:

In effect: If you've got the bucks to buy a Merc/BMW, then by all means go out and do it. If, on the other hand, you're finding it difficult to pay for bus fare, then forget buying a vehicle. In short, if you can't afford it, don't go out and borrow money to buy it.

I live in a small village and see plenty of people who are living within their means. They're not living in anything fancy, but they seem to be perfectly happy. When a few baht comes along, they'll upgrade a portion of the house, buy another cow, or break down and buy a fridge to keep water cold. There are also plenty of folk who trash 20,000 baht on a computer for their school kid who doesn't know the first thing about using a computer. Within a few months (if that) it's trash....and of course, the family borrowed money to buy such a luxury.

Hardly a day goes by that my wife and I don't hear a sob story about how this villager or that owes a lone shark a chunk of change.....some villagers will escape for a few months/years (depending on the size of the debt) to try and avoid paying it off. It just seems to me that those who live within their means are going to be living a much happier life.

Is life any different in the US....with people living in debt, off of their credit cards? I often wonder.

Why dont folk in the west live by the same means. I dont buy what I cant afford, I usually end up saving for years to get it, current project is "our house" started saving last year it will take 3 years to save the required amount, in the meantime I toil away in the UK the wife in Thailand, its not ideal but I wont borrow any money and neither will she.

Makes perfect sense,i dont owe money to nobody,got house,car,2 bikes and paid cash.If i cant afford i dont buy,perfect life.My gf house is right in the middl;e of some of the family and they are up at 4am loading the trucks up for the markets,and emply a few neighbours too.The rest have business of rice,shop,cafe,restaraunts and are all bloody hard workers.Thats why i get so mad when the farty tarty farangs from Bangkok come on here and knock the Issan folk,and most have never set foot out of surburbia

[geriatrickid]

There would be sufficiency if the sale of body parts was legalized. Imagine the improved lives the poor would have if they could sell off a kidney.

No need to worry about the extra kids as they could be raised for spare parts.

These rural villagers are very important cogs in the national machinery. Unfortunately, cogs wear out, so that;s why it's important to allow a free economy when it comes to body parts. No need to travel to China or India for that cornea. Thailand could become the hub of organ replacements.

[Chunky1]

Why don't people in your country follow sufficiency theory?

Sadly, my home country does not have a Royal Family that has dedicated themselves to improving the lives of the populous as the Thai Royal family has so selflessly done.

Edited October 16, 2010 by Chunky1

[Spee]

Why don't people in your country follow sufficiency theory?

Many do in the US. It's called welfare (aka on the dole). There are families who have been on welfare for 4 and 5 generations dating back to the 60's and 70's. Babies out of wedlock equals a paycheck. Need a raise? Get knocked up and pop out another shortie. It's even grown beyond sufficiency. Now the government sends a debit card which has become a growth industry of fraud in and of itself.

The biggest issue with sufficiency economics is that it tends to keep people in the same income group for generation after generation. Compare that with the western economies where movement among class groups, be it up or down, is commonplace. The rich can become poor. The poor can become rich. Sufficiency economics tends to be equalizing or normalizing and it tends to make it difficult for the individual to rise above and make a better life for oneself.

[inmysights]

the short answer, my chunky friend, is that some do.

I met a very intelligent 18yo bar girl several years back who brought this subject up, and she mocked thos e who believe folk like her and her family should live like this, whilst these hypocritical philosophers live off the fat of the land.

That is some pretty treacherous ground you tread given the theory's key proponent.

Many have asked the same question though.

This was started by Wiiliam Morris in England long ago, not any 'key proponent' here. Although some of you might find this link My link interesting. Note the references to Burma, not Thailand per se.

Edited October 16, 2010 by inmysights

[inmysights]

Because of television and advertising. Both of these are completely at odds with the sufficiency economy, and it is doomed to failure until both are outlawed.

Study after study shows that happiness is not the result of wealth, and that after basic needs are met increasing wealth is completely uncorrelated with increasing happiness. People are happy when they are relatively better off than their peers, or when they feel they are gaining on their peers, whether they actually are or not. Absolute wealth has nothing to do with it. The sufficiency economy relies on the fundamental assumption that people are happy living within their means. This could actually work, but it is only possible if the scope of what people are exposed to is limited to their immediate peers who they can actually compete with. If they start considering their relative wealth based on what television shows them and what advertisers tell them they must have, then by necessity they will feel inadequate, and they will go into debt in order to acquire more things. The sad fact is, advertisers spend millions of baht to convince people they are inadequate, and if they only bought this product or that service then the world is their oyster.

The sufficiency economy is truly the only way forward during the coming economic collapse, but sadly human psychology is too well understood by corporations and ad agencies in this day and age. Such a noble gesture as the sufficiency economy can not succeed, because there will always be one more skin whitening cream company telling people that they are inadequate. Don't compare yourself to your peers in the village. Compare yourself to this actress who has 10 times the money you do.

How does anyone honestly expect the sufficiency economy to take root, when advertisers and television are allowed to continue? Much good came from the invention of TV. It also provided the means for our enslavement. On whole, it is an addictive device which should be outlawed the same way illicit drugs are outlawed. Sadly, it will continue to poison the culture until the electric grid fails.

The rural Thais don't stand a chance against wealthy companies who understand marketing. The sufficiency economy, beautiful as it is in theory, is dead on arrival as a practical matter. Capitalism will make sure of that.

Are you really suggesting that the wealthy don't watch tv advertising and that their spending choices are revealed to them by some covert organisation such as the local Masonic Lodge for instance? They most certainly do, but are the only ones who can buy the goods on offer. Unless the ad is for a pack of Mama noodles.What a patronising post.

Edited October 16, 2010 by inmysights

[CaptHaddock]

Did those who proposed it follow it themselves?  Maybe guaranteed poverty is not that appealing?

[Heng]

It's all relative. One person's excess might very well be frugal living to someone else.

[Chunky1]

That is true. What some call rich I just dropped on a watch.

[Chunky1]

Did those who proposed it follow it themselves?

Of course they do. I really don't like what you are implying.

[Heng]

That is true. What some call rich I just dropped on a watch.

"Water's so clear you can see to the bottom

Hundred thousand dollar cars, every body got em..."

[trogers]

First principle of a Sufficiency Economic Theory - don't get a pet dog when you cannot afford dog food.

Don't make babies when you cannot even support yourself.

[travelmann]

First principle of a Sufficiency Economic Theory - don't get a pet dog when you cannot afford dog food.

Don't make babies when you cannot even support yourself.

I was rather dissapointed to watch a UK breakfast tv program where they interviewed a woman and partner with 7 kids who whilst BOTH on benefits said they didnt think it was wrong to have more kids that it was their right and her Husband would be happy to work "if" he coul find a job "he liked".................. kin unbelievable and it makes you realise what you are up against worldwide!

[CaptHaddock]

Did those who proposed it follow it themselves?

Of course they do. I really don't like what you are implying.  

What you don't like are the facts.