PM Abhisit Should Look Again At New Year 'Gifts'

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

PM should look again at New Year 'gifts'

By Avudh Panananda

The Nation

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has drawn flak after unveiling the government's package of nine New Year gifts. Despite the fanfare about fancy packaging, many just cast a cursory glance at the gifts without proposing a vote of thanks.

Abhisit should look again at the gifts if he wants to know why his efforts went unappreciated.

The government may have given what it sees as generous handouts, but people expect to receive tangible gifts from their prime minister and not blanket promises which may or may not materialise.

One gift is the social security benefits for workers in the non-formal economy, like night workers, taxi drivers, independent day labourers and street hawkers.

Successive governments tried and failed to boost the number of workers covered by the social security system. The membership has stayed constant at around 10 million for decades.

The Democrats aim to double the membership to 20 million workers. It remains doubtful if they can succeed. Generous benefits were offered in the past but a large number of non-formal workers appeared uninterested. Social security is being perceived as part of universal health care, which non-formal workers can already access.

Unless the social security coverage is expanded to offer compensation payments for the unemployed, it is unrealistic to expect a jump in membership.

The other gift is the credit access to the underprivileged. Abhisit targets taxi drivers for his Bt1/6 billion lending scheme to enable them to own their vehicles.

Unfortunately, the prime minister and his policy drafters have travelled in government limousines for too long and lost touch with taxi drivers.

Fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinwaratra spearheaded a similar scheme.

Although taxi lending was a complete flop, taxi drivers still viewed Thaksin as their iconic figure because he was the first prime minister to reach out to them.

A vast majority of taxi drivers learned a painful lesson that the instalment plans were designed to boost car sales while leaving them with a debt burden and an outdated vehicle. Thaksin won their hearts, however, because of his gutsy ploy to draw a lucky number every year in power to hand out a brand-new vehicle as a New Year gift to a lucky taxi driver.

In contrast, Abhisit made a lengthy speech that no taxi drivers care to remember.

Next on the list of gifts, include the legalisation of motorcycle taxi services and the zoning for Bangkok street hawkers. The schemes are nothing new but a repackaging of ideas spearheaded by the late prime minister Samak Sundaravej.

The gift on the price subsidy on liquefied petroleum gas has backfired to trigger strong opposition from the industrialists.

At present the government provides a blanket subsidy for the LPG price. Under the proposed revamp, the subsidy would continue for the household use of cooking gas.

The manufacturing sector will either have to shoulder a higher price or switch from LPG to fuel oil.

The Federation of Thai Industry is not happy with the partial lifting of the LPG subsidy and many taxi drivers are concerned whether they can still avail themselves of the subsidised price. Critics are sceptical on how the government can effectively enforce the price differential in the differing markets.

The gift on an electricity price subsidy is just to turn a stopgap measure into a permanent one.

The final three gifts are action plans to regulate the price of livestock feed, measures to ease the rise of food prices and the projection to cut the crime rate in the capital by 20 per cent in six months.

For more than five years, Bangkok residents are concerned about inconvenience caused by political rallies. The government has opted to address the crime rate in the face of persisting street protests.

Friends and foes of the government keep their fingers crossed since prices of feed and food have been regulated for years- but keep on rising.

-- The Nation 2011-01-11

[Emptyset]

Pracha wiwat social programmes = 2 billion baht a year. New calvary division = 70 billion. Priorities?

[rreddin]

Pracha wiwat social programmes = 2 billion baht a year. New calvary division = 70 billion. Priorities?

He knows on which side his bread is buttered.

[OzMick]

If you want social security, you have to contribute. I have tried telling Thais that I am living comfortably because I saved a small portion of my salary every month, but it doesn't work. The general response is "I might die tomorrow.................."

[hammered]

One problem any government faces, not that any of any persuasion will care, is that all the benefits need to be linked to social security in terms of there must be contributions by all involved, or there must be a specific tax or part of taxation levied to pay for it. To date we have the actual social security scheme whihc works quite well and has a nice amount of funds which ot date havent been raped by any politician. The problem is that there are also lots and lots of the populist benefits and giveways that every government since Thaksin days has introduced without ever working out the cost or how to pay. These are multiplying all the time and cant just be taken away. However, there is now a big precedent that the poor get things for free and never contribute or pay for them. Of course in any system there will be those who are exempt form tax etc because they are so poor but the problem is at what point do they start paying tax for their benefits?

[rubl]

Pracha wiwat social programmes = 2 billion baht a year. New calvary division = 70 billion. Priorities?

To pick two items and compare them without any background information can be very misleading, even if unintentional. Check the government website for budget details, maybe start here

http://thailand.prd.go.th/view_inside.php?id=5058

[rubl]

From the OP:

Friends and foes of the government keep their fingers crossed since prices of feed and food have been regulated for years- but keep on rising.

Maybe time to deregulate like has been done in lots of free-market countries? Protecting a weaker portion of the population makes sense short-term, but measures should be put in place to make state regulation no longer necessary. 'bread and games' is no long-term solution.

[SICHONSTEVE]

If you want social security, you have to contribute. I have tried telling Thais that I am living comfortably because I saved a small portion of my salary every month, but it doesn't work. The general response is "I might die tomorrow.................."

OK, you may appreciate the sensibleness of social security but I think you will find that many low wage earners in England are of the same opinion as the Thai's on this ie: maybe tomorrow will never come. Perhaps they've genuinely got a point but I do agree wholeheartedly with you about the value/benefit of having something to fall back on in difficult times.

[yellow1red1]

One problem any government faces, not that any of any persuasion will care, is that all the benefits need to be linked to social security in terms of there must be contributions by all involved, or there must be a specific tax or part of taxation levied to pay for it. To date we have the actual social security scheme whihc works quite well and has a nice amount of funds which ot date havent been raped by any politician. The problem is that there are also lots and lots of the populist benefits and giveways that every government since Thaksin days has introduced without ever working out the cost or how to pay. These are multiplying all the time and cant just be taken away. However, there is now a big precedent that the poor get things for free and never contribute or pay for them. Of course in any system there will be those who are exempt form tax etc because they are so poor but the problem is at what point do they start paying tax for their benefits?

wish I saved the essay by a Canadian Prof that showed Govt largesse wins votes but never builds economies. It was about Globalization; how it only worked, in the long run, when the people were partners, not drones, and got meaningful jobs and could build communities.

The biggest world economy is legalised usury. 18, 20 30% interest rates.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

This is the kind of article which really frustrates me from anti-Abhisit journalists like The Nation's Avudh.

Everything he suggests is unproductive. It's not an intelligent article about the nation's economic future. It's a detrimental article which seems to run along a very similar line to propaganda. The tone suggests an agenda, and one that is not pro-Thailand's future. I'll explain why, but I imagine Avudh doesn't much care that his Op-Eds aren't in the best interests of Thailand's poor.

The government may have given what it sees as generous handouts, but people expect to receive tangible gifts from their prime minister and not blanket promises which may or may not materialise.

Of course that is what they expect, and desire. They want goodies now! Giving them gifts which make them smile now is populism. Giving them a long-term solution is what will really help them (and more importantly, help their children - the ones so many appear not to care about).

Responsible solutions are always long-term ones. Irresponsible solutions are always "tangible gifts". The people only expect instant gratification because Thaksin's populism was not responsible. If Avudh was a responsible journalist, he would be educating the people on that fact, and forcing them to think about their children when he does it.

The membership has stayed constant at around 10 million for decades. The Democrats aim to double the membership to 20 million workers. It remains doubtful if they can succeed. Generous benefits were offered in the past but a large number of non-formal workers appeared uninterested.

We're talking about alleviating abject poverty and breaking the cycle for the next generation; aren't we, Avudh? If workers are uninterested in welfare, something is very wrong. Either they don't need it, or they were surviving on sheer handouts (which are unsustainable, and more importantly are unproductive). Handouts ("giving a man lots of fish") without targeted goals designed to assist their recipients in becoming self-sufficient ("teaching a man to fish") simply ensure the cycle of debt and poverty and reliance continues indefinitely - the welfare of my country's indigenous population, to wit. The amount of cash thrown at the victims of Australia's secret shame over the last few decades has been colossal, and the Aboriginal communities in which they live are borderline ghettos. Alcoholism is rampant, domestic violence is out of control, children live in squalor and many prefer sniffing glue to school. It's a complete and utter debacle, and it's tragic and infuriating. Mostly because it was so easily avoidable.

But Australia had a lot of Avudh's who weren't interested in using logic. Or who merely hijacked their plight for other agendas, at the expense of the poor.

In my country, Aborigines largely live in appalling conditions despite decades of being gifted huge cash fortnightly payments. It's gotten so bad now, their huge cash gifts are handed over willingly to leech loan-sharks, who take control of their bank accounts and 'lend' their own money back to them at 50 cents on the dollar. It's so sick. It's an educational and cultural disaster of mammoth proportions. Use your brain, Avudh...what the poor want is not nearly as important as what is good for them, and for their children.

Speaking of children, would you treat your children this way? Simply give them anything they want, when what they want is the worst possible thing for their long-term happiness?

Stop talking about what they want as if the government should give it to them. That's what propaganda-writers do. Responsible journalists explain to them why they should want something else. When something else will be a great deal more beneficial for them...and for their children (assuming they even care about that line of argument).

The other gift is the credit access to the underprivileged. Abhisit targets taxi drivers for his Bt1/6 billion lending scheme to enable them to own their vehicles. Unfortunately, the prime minister and his policy drafters have travelled in government limousines for too long and lost touch with taxi drivers. Fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinwaratra spearheaded a similar scheme. Although taxi lending was a complete flop, taxi drivers still viewed Thaksin as their iconic figure because he was the first prime minister to reach out to them.

A vast majority of taxi drivers learned a painful lesson that the instalment plans were designed to boost car sales while leaving them with a debt burden and an outdated vehicle. Thaksin won their hearts, however, because of his gutsy ploy to draw a lucky number every year in power to hand out a brand-new vehicle as a New Year gift to a lucky taxi driver.

In contrast, Abhisit made a lengthy speech that no taxi drivers care to remember.

This is where I have to bite my tongue as he gives his little agenda away. Avudh admits Thaksin started the dodgy scheme which was designed only to boost car sales and leave the poor with a debt burden. Now, rightly or wrongly, Abhisit has continued it. And yet, it's Abhisit who's limousine transport makes him out of touch with taxi-drivers? And Thaksin (the richest or second-richest man in Thailand who actually launched the scheme)? He won hearts with an idiotic lottery giveaway of a "brand-new vehicle to one lucky driver!!"

That's shameful stuff, Avudh. Actually, it's despicable, if we're being direct. And I say this not from a political standpoint, but from the standpoint of actually caring about the taxi-drivers (or, if I'm being honest, mostly it's their children I care about). Every article that's written like this hurts Thailand's disadvantaged. In ridiculously obvious ways, as I've just shown.

Avudh should be ashamed of himself, and if he's shameless, his colleagues in the media who care about the welfare of Thailand's poor...should shame him into cease-and-desisting this nonsense. It hurts the disadvantaged of Thailand.

In contrast, Abhisit made a lengthy speech that no taxi drivers care to remember.

Guess what Avudh. Macro-economics and responsible structured welfare expenditure isn't as simple as mindless catchphrases that Thaksin loved to whip out. How irresponsible of you to spin "brand-new vehicle to one lucky driver!!" as anything but what it clearly is; a ploy to take advantage of their ignorance and their love of gambling.

If you actually cared about the taxi-drivers' welfare, why don't you explain Abhisit's speech to them. You clearly understood it, and it must have been delivered in very simple terms by Abhisit because you carefully phrased their response as them not "caring to remember" rather than "couldn't understand". You're shameless.

If you care about them, when it's clearly they aren't in the position to care intelligently about themselves and their children, why don't you repeat the key points in Abhisit's speech to them, remind them of it and explain why they should remember it. But then, that's what someone who cared about taxi-drivers would do. And you most certainly care about something else, at their expense.

Next on the list of gifts...

The gift on...

The gift on...

The final three gifts are...

This is where you're disadvantaging the disadvantaged. What Thaksin did was not in their long-term interests. Someone who cares about them, someone who cares about their children, would stop hammering home the idea that they should be given gifts as if it were Xmas. Social welfare to assist an entire class of people is never comprised of GIFTS. It's comprised of intelligent, transparent, targeted, long-term programs that "teach men (and women) to fish" whilst their children are being educated so that they have more options than farming or motherhood or prostitutes or menial labour or petty crime.

Avudh wants that future for Thailand's disadvantaged. Abhisit wants something better. Journalists who refuse to censure their colleagues should be ashamed. Nothing about this is complex. Stand up and speak for Thailand's future, you cowards. Please.

---------

An entire Op-Ed.

Zero (not even one) productive sentence that will assist the long-term welfare of Thailand's disadvantaged and their children's future. Not one single mention of any productive long-term plan, not one positive suggestion, not one mention of the children or their education.

Merely an entire article of propaganda designed to exploit the ignorance of the poor, when they need to bed educated so that they can make better decisions for themselves and their children. Avudh (and every journalist who shamelessly exploits the poor like this) should be held to account by their responsible and intelligent and ethical colleagues who actually care about the disadvantaged classes Avudh is trying to manipulate and exploit.

Assuming such a colleague exists in the Thai media industry, of course.

Sorry that this is merely a "lengthy speech that no unethical journalist would care to remember". It's hard to care intelligently about an issue and exposing frauds in punchline-format. But I'll give it an attempt, and this is the irrefutable truth regardless of intent. All that matters is whether or not suffering of children born into poverty is perpetuated. Articles like this ensure their suffering will continue. Either Avudh is unable to understand simple concepts, or....

Avudh hates poor people.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

This is the kind of article which really frustrates me from anti-Abhisit journalists like The Nation's Avudh.

Everything he suggests is unproductive. It's not an intelligent article about the nation's economic future. It's a detrimental article which seems to run along a very similar line to propaganda. The tone suggests an agenda, and one that is not pro-Thailand's future. I'll explain why, but I imagine Avudh doesn't much care that his Op-Eds aren't in the best interests of Thailand's poor.

It's hard exposing frauds in punchline-format. But I'll give it an attempt...Either Avudh is unable to understand simple concepts, or....

Avudh hates poor people.

One wonders how Avudh could possibly have missed all of these other gifts below, when they were in his own newspaper's article outlining the PM's 9 Gifts yesterday. Seems peculiar, perhaps even embarrassing. Journalists should finish articles they start, especially when they're in the newspaper they're writing for.

But we all make 'mistakes', here are the gifts Avudh 'overlooked':

POPULIST POLICY?

Nine New Year Gifts for People

By The Nation

{{ 9 gifts snipped }}

More gifts to come…They include

- Welfare for pregnant women and children from birth till the age of two

- Free milk for pregnant women to improve their health conditions

- Food supplements for pregnant but unhealthy women

- Gifts and counselling for breastfeeding mothers

- 24-hour hotline on the hygiene of mothers and their babies

- Welfare for children aged between three and five years old

- Setting up a centre to encourage private businesses to provide nursery centres in exchange for tax incentives

- Requiring all tambon administrative organisations to operate nursery centres

- Free care for pre-school children of construction workers/employees

- Solving problems facing landless people

- Establishing special economic zones for agricultural sectors

- Boosting educational opportunities among children outside schools

- Giving cash awards of Bt10,000 each to outstanding teachers

- Special grants worth Bt500,000 each to outstanding teachers in remote areas

- Overhauling the judicial and political system to reduce social injustices

-- The Nation 2011-01-10

I've highlighted in green all the long-term investments in breaking cycles of poverty...they're for the children of the disadvantaged, teaching them how to fish so they aren't reliant of the good moods of those who have fish on any given day.

Not that Avudh can be expected to care, I suppose.

In any case, he has a appropriate excuse for the oversight. It was National Children's Day yesterday, after all.

Burning issue, indeed. I daresay my prose masks my emotions...Thailand cannot be expected to move forward, when 'journalists' like this are so intent on holding the nation back.

[monkfish]

Why does he call them New Year Gifts in the place? like is he paying out of his own pocket?

Call em "New Year Promises" or something also get a new PR!

[MJP]

From the OP:

Friends and foes of the government keep their fingers crossed since prices of feed and food have been regulated for years- but keep on rising.

Maybe time to deregulate like has been done in lots of free-market countries? Protecting a weaker portion of the population makes sense short-term, but measures should be put in place to make state regulation no longer necessary. 'bread and games' is no long-term solution.

Yup.

It's why Sir John Cowperwaite is virtually worshiped in HK/China. Bronze busts of Cowperthwaite are very popular. He is regarded as the father of modern life there.

Obligatory Wikipedia link

They shouldn't give more, they should take less. Government doesn't have any of its own money and therefore 'gifts' are an illusion. This government is fast heading down the same route as many western countries and it will not work.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

They shouldn't give more, they should take less. Government doesn't have any of its own money and therefore 'gifts' are an illusion.

Actually they should take more and give even more. But giving is not the right word. Keynesian economic stimulation theory is bullet-proof, on paper. It's almost flawless in practice when done correctly, but no one does Keynesian stimulation correctly because we're humans and humans are what they are. They either completely butcher the simple theory, or they siphon a massive amount to inefficiencies where it's hoarded or the worst of all inefficiencies (corruption, vested interests), or they shoot their own chances of success in the foot by screwing up various measures which should all be pointed in one direction with the intelligent Keynesian stimulus spending...

...generate circulation, total circulation, the faster the better. If we were all just frantically spending...whoa! Amazing things would happen.

And government actually has ALL of the money. Everything else is an illusion. We spend tender in the form of promissory notes we call cash. Pieces of paper that only value if the government continues to accept them as payment for taxes, fees, charges and whatnot. If a government decides to revalue a currency or hesitates or refuses to accept the pieces of paper at the value printed on them (as all happened in Argentina not long ago)...you'll be in for a rude shock if you think you have any recourse. Paper is valueless. You take what you can get for it, when government goes corrupt or troppo with insane inflationary measures.

Try telling Mugabe his government has none of it's own money and that he's living in an illusion. I fear he will have a good chuckle. As you buy a bottle of water for 200 million

At independence in 1980, the Zimbabwe dollar(ZWD) was worth about USD 1.25

-----------

Governments cutting taxes / downsizing government or discontinuing services serves....will serve to contract the economy.

Governments raising taxes and injecting that revenue smack bang into the economy in a way that is guaranteed to trigger repetitive circulation...that's stimulative and will expand the economy (if done correctly with minimal corruption and zero graft).

-----------

But I assure you that some of the world's largest nations have governments which cannot understand this stuff, so don't feel bad if it's all a bit confusing.

I'm pretty sure not even Abhisit could pull off Keynesian stimulus injections into this nation's economy without some serious 'inefficiencies'.

[MJP]

They shouldn't give more, they should take less. Government doesn't have any of its own money and therefore 'gifts' are an illusion.

Actually they should take more and give even more. But giving is not the right word. Keynesian economic stimulation theory is bullet-proof, on paper. It's almost flawless in practice when done correctly, but no one does Keynesian stimulation correctly because we're humans and humans are what they are. They either completely butcher the simple theory, or they siphon a massive amount to inefficiencies where it's hoarded or the worst of all inefficiencies (corruption, vested interests), or they shoot their own chances of success in the foot by screwing up various measures which should all be pointed in one direction with the intelligent Keynesian stimulus spending...

...generate circulation, total circulation, the faster the better. If we were all just frantically spending...whoa! Amazing things would happen.

And government actually has ALL of the money. Everything else is an illusion. We spend tender in the form of promissory notes we call cash. Pieces of paper that only value if the government continues to accept them as payment for taxes, fees, charges and whatnot. If a government decides to revalue a currency or hesitates or refuses to accept the pieces of paper at the value printed on them (as all happened in Argentina not long ago)...you'll be in for a rude shock if you think you have any recourse. Paper is valueless. You take what you can get for it, when government goes corrupt or troppo with insane inflationary measures.

Try telling Mugabe his government has none of it's own money and that he's living in an illusion. I fear he will have a good chuckle. As you buy a bottle of water for 200 million

At independence in 1980, the Zimbabwe dollar(ZWD) was worth about USD 1.25

-----------

Governments cutting taxes / downsizing government or discontinuing services serves....will serve to contract the economy.

Governments raising taxes and injecting that revenue smack bang into the economy in a way that is guaranteed to trigger repetitive circulation...that's stimulative and will expand the economy (if done correctly with minimal corruption and zero graft).

-----------

But I assure you that some of the world's largest nations have governments which cannot understand this stuff, so don't feel bad if it's all a bit confusing.

I'm pretty sure not even Abhisit could pull off Keynesian stimulus injections into this nation's economy without some serious 'inefficiencies'.

Sure. Government has bits of paper. It's all they are. We've forgotten that money is simply the accounting system for human ingenuity, production and resource. It's the 'money as the accounting system' which has been corrupted.

Government doesn't do any of this kind of stuff, the ingenuity and production bit. It takes from Jim and gives to Tim . . . then it borrows on top of that. Take the UK for example.

I very much enjoyed the recent UK Channel 4 documentary about the mess the UK's in. The conclusion was government should stay out of it. (But for externalities which do require a wee bit of legislation).

It's on Youtube but my connection is savagely slow so I'm struggling to find the link. Was good.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Government doesn't do any of this kind of stuff, the ingenuity and production bit. It takes from Jim and gives to Tim . . . then it borrows on top of that. Take the UK for example.

I very much enjoyed the recent UK Channel 4 documentary about the mess the UK's in. The conclusion was government should stay out of it.

Well the UK has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, but that would be getting a bit OT. But anyone intrigued by my claim might want to do some preliminary objective assessing of the FSA and their idea of 'regulation'. John le Carre (the world's greatest living novelist) just released his latest effort which takes a long hard look at the UK and that genius author knows more than he would ever let on, I imagine.

So yes, the UK government should probably stay out of everything. But only corrupted governments or corrupted processes can negatively impact an economy. Most corrupted governments even get away with measured success (macroeconomics is just that simple - look at Thaksin's government, economic boom - if somewhat unsustainable levels of populism which weren't really effective Keynesian stimulating in intent at all). But anyway, brilliant, ethical governments perform miracles and are really rather required otherwise the free market runs rampant like in the US and holds the nation hostage on a freeroll otherwise.

Argentina's corrupt governments ferreted out billions, sending the nation into total economic collapse, defaulting on their IMF loans and the sheer chaos was imminent. They were gone. A failed state - marking time at least. Democracy had failed because the people weren't intelligent enough to vote in candidates with probity. Democracy didn't save Argentina either. What saved Argentina from disaster wasn't the electorate's (justified) distrust of politicians and (unjustified, the electorate was to blame for electing corrupt politicians over and over in the first place) anger at the results of corruption and incompetence. They distrusted politicians and were angry at the corruption / incompetence sure, but that's not what saved the nation. If they weren't so stupid, they would have elected competent politicians who campaigned on anti-corruption platforms. They certainly did not do that.

What saved Argentina was taking elections away from people too stupid to elect competent representatives to manage what really is simple economic theory and simple policies, which are only very difficult to implement because corruption is one hell of an opponent and those with probity are inevitably hampered by an electorate too stupid to elect politicians who understand that governing > scoring cheap, unproductive points, i.e. politicians who would make the job a lot easier from the opposition benches (current US example). Or coalition and opposition benches (current Thai example).

Saving Argentina was, on paper, a ludicrously simple task. Impossibly hard to sell to that stupid populace, of course, but a genius pulled it off. But simple it was in theory, Argentina and it's population simply were not worth what they believed. They could recover, with uncomfortably tough measures - which were enacted amid riots and screaming and petulance. Argentina was saved by a genius named Lavagna. He was SELECTED to save Argentina, by a President who was not elected President by Argentina.

And once the genius Lavagna saved the nation (he told FT it was only possible by endlessly saying No! to the vested interests), this is how the democratic electorate thanked him. They elected Kirchner and his cronies, corrupt of course.

FT.com: "Mr Lavagna said there had been over-pricing in a number of public contracts to build roads. That was taken as a direct attack on Julio De Vido, the planning minister and a confidante of the president.""

Outrage from the electorate of a nation he saved from unimaginable chaos? Don't be silly. Why would they care. They're off spending and living and laughing. Such is democracy.

There are lessons in there for Thailand. Really, really obvious lessons.

Which I'm sure won't be learned.

[MJP]

Government doesn't do any of this kind of stuff, the ingenuity and production bit. It takes from Jim and gives to Tim . . . then it borrows on top of that. Take the UK for example.

I very much enjoyed the recent UK Channel 4 documentary about the mess the UK's in. The conclusion was government should stay out of it.

Well the UK has one of the most corrupt governments in the world, but that would be getting a bit OT. But anyone intrigued by my claim might want to do some preliminary objective assessing of the FSA and their idea of 'regulation'. John le Carre (the world's greatest living novelist) just released his latest effort which takes a long hard look at the UK and that genius author knows more than he would ever let on, I imagine.

So yes, the UK government should probably stay out of everything. But only corrupted governments or corrupted processes can negatively impact an economy. Most corrupted governments even get away with measured success (macroeconomics is just that simple - look at Thaksin's government, economic boom - if somewhat unsustainable levels of populism which weren't really effective Keynesian stimulating in intent at all). But anyway, brilliant, ethical governments perform miracles and are really rather required otherwise the free market runs rampant like in the US and holds the nation hostage on a freeroll otherwise.

Argentina's corrupt governments ferreted out billions, sending the nation into total economic collapse, defaulting on their IMF loans and the sheer chaos was imminent. They were gone. A failed state - marking time at least. Democracy had failed because the people weren't intelligent enough to vote in candidates with probity. Democracy didn't save Argentina either. What saved Argentina from disaster wasn't the electorate's (justified) distrust of politicians and (unjustified, the electorate was to blame for electing corrupt politicians over and over in the first place) anger at the results of corruption and incompetence. They distrusted politicians and were angry at the corruption / incompetence sure, but that's not what saved the nation. If they weren't so stupid, they would have elected competent politicians who campaigned on anti-corruption platforms. They certainly did not do that.

What saved Argentina was taking elections away from people too stupid to elect competent representatives to manage what really is simple economic theory and simple policies, which are only very difficult to implement because corruption is one hell of an opponent and those with probity are inevitably hampered by an electorate too stupid to elect politicians who understand that governing > scoring cheap, unproductive points, i.e. politicians who would make the job a lot easier from the opposition benches (current US example). Or coalition and opposition benches (current Thai example).

Saving Argentina was, on paper, a ludicrously simple task. Impossibly hard to sell to that stupid populace, of course, but a genius pulled it off. But simple it was in theory, Argentina and it's population simply were not worth what they believed. They could recover, with uncomfortably tough measures - which were enacted amid riots and screaming and petulance. Argentina was saved by a genius named Lavagna. He was SELECTED to save Argentina, by a President who was not elected President by Argentina.

And once the genius Lavagna saved the nation (he told FT it was only possible by endlessly saying No! to the vested interests), this is how the democratic electorate thanked him. They elected Kirchner and his cronies, corrupt of course.

FT.com: "Mr Lavagna said there had been over-pricing in a number of public contracts to build roads. That was taken as a direct attack on Julio De Vido, the planning minister and a confidante of the president.""

Outrage from the electorate of a nation he saved from unimaginable chaos? Don't be silly. Why would they care. They're off spending and living and laughing. Such is democracy.

There are lessons in there for Thailand. Really, really obvious lessons.

Which I'm sure won't be learned.

I begin to understand.

Might be a bit of chore, but would you lay out a road map for such an economy for Thailand, how it would work, checks and balances. In the model assume corruption is zero (I know, you can all stop laughing at the back).

[Emptyset]

Pracha wiwat social programmes = 2 billion baht a year. New calvary division = 70 billion. Priorities?

To pick two items and compare them without any background information can be very misleading, even if unintentional. Check the government website for budget details, maybe start here

http://thailand.prd....ide.php?id=5058

I'm obviously not saying the military is taking the lion's share of the budget. But it is illustrative. There's almost no complaint about a totally unnecessary new calvary division, whereas Pracha Wiwat, which costs far less and is aimed squarely at helping people is apparently a huge waste of money. The government won't have money to pay for it etc, yet military spending is hardly ever questioned. 2 billion is clearly not much at all, and I think people are expecting way too much from these policies (not that I'm saying they're bad, they're not).

[rubl]

I'm obviously not saying the military is taking the lion's share of the budget. But it is illustrative. There's almost no complaint about a totally unnecessary new calvary division, whereas Pracha Wiwat, which costs far less and is aimed squarely at helping people is apparently a huge waste of money. The government won't have money to pay for it etc, yet military spending is hardly ever questioned. 2 billion is clearly not much at all, and I think people are expecting way too much from these policies (not that I'm saying they're bad, they're not).

Pracha Wiwat THB 2B. Separately a THB 9.1B budget approved for a Thailand Reform Plan covering four areas of development. Both from this year's budget.

Somehow I doubt allocating more money this fiscal year could be used productively. More money would probably invite more corruption only.

(PS the THB 9.1B is in newsflash here: )

Edited January 11, 2011 by rubl

[Emptyset]

It's why Sir John Cowperwaite is virtually worshiped in HK/China. Bronze busts of Cowperthwaite are very popular. He is regarded as the father of modern life there.

Obligatory Wikipedia link

Yes, his policies worked well for HK, but HK is the exception, not the rule. Plus aren't HK starting to demand greater regulations, social security and so on? What looks good on paper might not actually be good for the populace as a whole. HK is the exception even in Asia. China, Singapore, Korea and so on tend to have large public sectors & interventionist trade & industrial policies.

[rubl]

Yes, his policies worked well for HK, but HK is the exception, not the rule. Plus aren't HK starting to demand greater regulations, social security and so on? What looks good on paper might not actually be good for the populace as a whole. HK is the exception even in Asia. China, Singapore, Korea and so on tend to have large public sectors & interventionist trade & industrial policies.

Yes, but = No. I must admit I'm also guilty of such constructions

[Emptyset]

Pracha Wiwat THB 2B. Separately a THB 9.1B budget approved for a Thailand Reform Plan covering four areas of development. Both from this year's budget.

Somehow I doubt allocating more money this fiscal year could be used productively. More money would probably invite more corruption only.

(PS the THB 9.1B is in newsflash here: http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4144423 )

True. Well, I won't prejudge it. Have to see how these schemes are implemented first, I suppose.

[rubl]

True. Well, I won't prejudge it. Have to see how these schemes are implemented first, I suppose.

Hope for the best, but be watchful!

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Might be a bit of chore, but would you lay out a road map for such an economy for Thailand, how it would work, checks and balances. In the model assume corruption is zero (I know, you can all stop laughing at the back).

Wow. That would be one huge job. You're talking an entire constitutional rewrite, because unless you have a crisis (like Argentina had) which puts a nation in a spot where they're just so desperate and broken and on the verge of collapse...which allows power to be centralised in one or two or a tiny handful of men (who just happened to be both brilliant and ethical in Argentina's case, by sheer fluke I think)....you simply can't enact economic policies which are perfectly streamlined in a coldly utilitarian manner. Lavagna just had the entire nation's fate in his hands and the complete support of his President to do just about anything he wanted, but only because they'd simply reached the point way past panic and if he screwed up, well they were screwed anyway.

You could replicate it in a non-apocalyptic scenario but it would require an all-powerful dictator who acts only in altruism and always with ethics. Human nature being what it is, this would almost never happen. Argentina's example was a freak black swan. You'd have to do away with checks and balances, because it's the checks and balances which create the inefficiencies. And if we're assuming zero corruption in the model, why would one need those checks and balances?

But all the above is only talking about perfect efficiency. Look at Thailand's growth potential. This year should have been a write-off in a zero-sum economic climate. Those riots took out 1/5th of the year (or severely hampered 1/5th). USD 3 billion cost to economy (not the good kind of expenditure, the damaging kind of lost revenue, lost tourism, the massive floods...it's been a really tough year.

And yet, look at the economic performance of this nation (courtesy of The Nation):

GDP for this year should grow by at least 7.9 per cent.

The unemployment rate dropped to 343,000 people, or 0.9 per cent, this year.

Exports rose to US$17.7 billion from November 2008 to November 2010.

Exports were worth $11.8 billion before the government entered office.

Tourist arrivals increased more than expected, from 14.6 million people in 2008 to 15.2 million in 2010.

The Thai stock exchange index rose from 449.96 points in 2008 to 1,002.90 this year which was not speculation but was based on strong growth of listed firms.

I mean, this is ridiculous. Imagine Thailand's growth potential with some efficiency (Abhisit has done more than any PM in Thai history, but to say he's eradicated corruption / graft would be hilarious nonsense)......the performance potential is mind-blowing.

The simple fact is a lot is being done right. And Thailand's economy is primed to grow (as is all of underdeveloped Asia). Even corruption (which would be putting brakes on those numbers above) can't dampen the performance enough to notice. But imagine the potential in a Utopian world....ridiculous potential.

[jayjay0]

This is the kind of article which really frustrates me from anti-Abhisit journalists like The Nation's Avudh.

Everything he suggests is unproductive. It's not an intelligent article about the nation's economic future. It's a detrimental article which seems to run along a very similar line to propaganda. The tone suggests an agenda, and one that is not pro-Thailand's future. I'll explain why, but I imagine Avudh doesn't much care that his Op-Eds aren't in the best interests of Thailand's poor.

It's hard exposing frauds in punchline-format. But I'll give it an attempt...Either Avudh is unable to understand simple concepts, or....

Avudh hates poor people.

One wonders how Avudh could possibly have missed all of these other gifts below, when they were in his own newspaper's article outlining the PM's 9 Gifts yesterday. Seems peculiar, perhaps even embarrassing. Journalists should finish articles they start, especially when they're in the newspaper they're writing for.

But we all make 'mistakes', here are the gifts Avudh 'overlooked':

POPULIST POLICY?

Nine New Year Gifts for People

By The Nation

{{ 9 gifts snipped }}

More gifts to come…They include

- Welfare for pregnant women and children from birth till the age of two

- Free milk for pregnant women to improve their health conditions

- Food supplements for pregnant but unhealthy women

- Gifts and counselling for breastfeeding mothers

- 24-hour hotline on the hygiene of mothers and their babies

- Welfare for children aged between three and five years old

- Setting up a centre to encourage private businesses to provide nursery centres in exchange for tax incentives

- Requiring all tambon administrative organisations to operate nursery centres

- Free care for pre-school children of construction workers/employees

- Solving problems facing landless people

- Establishing special economic zones for agricultural sectors

- Boosting educational opportunities among children outside schools

- Giving cash awards of Bt10,000 each to outstanding teachers

- Special grants worth Bt500,000 each to outstanding teachers in remote areas

- Overhauling the judicial and political system to reduce social injustices

-- The Nation 2011-01-10

I've highlighted in green all the long-term investments in breaking cycles of poverty...they're for the children of the disadvantaged, teaching them how to fish so they aren't reliant of the good moods of those who have fish on any given day.

Not that Avudh can be expected to care, I suppose.

In any case, he has a appropriate excuse for the oversight. It was National Children's Day yesterday, after all.

Burning issue, indeed. I daresay my prose masks my emotions...Thailand cannot be expected to move forward, when 'journalists' like this are so intent on holding the nation back.

This is in answer to your previous post.

Well said. I have to disagree with one item quote "Responsible journalists". Do you not realize this is the Nation.

At any rate thank you for your information on the Natives in Australia.

I had a scarry thought as I was reading your post. Perhaps you can help me out with it.

Who reads this stuff do they have paper with the same content in Thai? Or is it strictly tailored to the English speaking population? Might as well all we can do is talk.

If they don't There is a lot of English speaking people buying this inane ramblings. That's s carry .

[MJP]

Might be a bit of chore, but would you lay out a road map for such an economy for Thailand, how it would work, checks and balances. In the model assume corruption is zero (I know, you can all stop laughing at the back).

Wow. That would be one huge job. You're talking an entire constitutional rewrite, because unless you have a crisis (like Argentina had) which puts a nation in a spot where they're just so desperate and broken and on the verge of collapse...which allows power to be centralised in one or two or a tiny handful of men (who just happened to be both brilliant and ethical in Argentina's case, by sheer fluke I think)....you simply can't enact economic policies which are perfectly streamlined in a coldly utilitarian manner. Lavagna just had the entire nation's fate in his hands and the complete support of his President to do just about anything he wanted, but only because they'd simply reached the point way past panic and if he screwed up, well they were screwed anyway.

You could replicate it in a non-apocalyptic scenario but it would require an all-powerful dictator who acts only in altruism and always with ethics. Human nature being what it is, this would almost never happen. Argentina's example was a freak black swan. You'd have to do away with checks and balances, because it's the checks and balances which create the inefficiencies. And if we're assuming zero corruption in the model, why would one need those checks and balances?

But all the above is only talking about perfect efficiency. Look at Thailand's growth potential. This year should have been a write-off in a zero-sum economic climate. Those riots took out 1/5th of the year (or severely hampered 1/5th). USD 3 billion cost to economy (not the good kind of expenditure, the damaging kind of lost revenue, lost tourism, the massive floods...it's been a really tough year.

And yet, look at the economic performance of this nation (courtesy of The Nation):

GDP for this year should grow by at least 7.9 per cent.

The unemployment rate dropped to 343,000 people, or 0.9 per cent, this year.

Exports rose to US$17.7 billion from November 2008 to November 2010.

Exports were worth $11.8 billion before the government entered office.

Tourist arrivals increased more than expected, from 14.6 million people in 2008 to 15.2 million in 2010.

The Thai stock exchange index rose from 449.96 points in 2008 to 1,002.90 this year which was not speculation but was based on strong growth of listed firms.

I mean, this is ridiculous. Imagine Thailand's growth potential with some efficiency (Abhisit has done more than any PM in Thai history, but to say he's eradicated corruption / graft would be hilarious nonsense)......the performance potential is mind-blowing.

The simple fact is a lot is being done right. And Thailand's economy is primed to grow (as is all of underdeveloped Asia). Even corruption (which would be putting brakes on those numbers above) can't dampen the performance enough to notice. But imagine the potential in a Utopian world....ridiculous potential.

I see real wealth here. I drive into the local market town of Roi-Et, about an hour through the rice paddies . . . and I see endless rice (price fixed). Endless rubber. Endless potato.

I also see people able to set up shop, restaurant, garage, market . . . all sorts here, without obstruction.

That's where the UK went wrong. The army of would be unemployed, taken on by a government overwhelmed by globalisation, made an industry out of obstruction.

Faber loves Thailand. Not just his rather embarrassing quips about how much he enjoys the nightlife, but in its as you say, growth potential.

Two things. 1. Externalised costs, not sure they quite understand how much the clean up bill will be for environmental damage, particularly waste. 2. Winner takes all is still the ethos here and a bit of Henry Ford ideology wouldn't go a miss.

Oh and 3. Falling birth rate through demographic transition.

Edited January 11, 2011 by MJP

[rubl]

begin removed ...

I had a scarry thought as I was reading your post. Perhaps you can help me out with it.

Who reads this stuff do they have paper with the same content in Thai? Or is it strictly tailored to the English speaking population? Might as well all we can do is talk.

If they don't There is a lot of English speaking people buying this inane ramblings. That's s carry .

In Thailand lots of slogans in English are ONLY for foreigners, i.e. image building. Thai slogans are often different in meaning and not just because of different background to relate to.

A nice example of course is the well known phrase 'peaceful protesters, not terorists'. Just in line with

"The following is from Rajprasong News

..In my opinion, the “non-violent†strategy would work far more effectively in terms of the world media coverage as well as the sympathy of the Thai “publicâ€â€¦â€¦..and it would allow far greater numbers to join the crowd than a violent situation would…"

http://<URL Automatically Removed>/

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Well said. I have to disagree with one item quote "Responsible journalists". Do you not realize this is the Nation.

Sigh. I dunno, I live in hope. I'm an idealist sucker after all. They've got to be better than the other guys. My fury would alternate with shock with falling off my chair with stunned disbelief and any other of the various stages of grief intermittently...when I would read the other guys.

But you're right, if you're saying that the Thai media needs to pull up their socks. They should have more freedom, I'm sure they will have, once they stop so actively proving they can't be trusted with the keys to the family sedan.

At any rate thank you for your information on the Natives in Australia.

An outrageous horror from almost the minute Cook landed on mainland soil. A century of abuse and borderline genocide, then a half-century of stealing almost an entire generation of children from their parents, the traumatised remnants of their once-proud race (their black parents clearly couldn't be expected to raise them right - Church / Government policy), and the last half century guiltily throwing cash at them in shame of our forefathers and how they were treated.

And now, sheer horror. It's just macabre, what happens when morons govern. The things they do to innocents, even when they mean well...Australia is mostly in denial over it, but we know. Deep down inside, we know. Gonna take forever to fix, once that culture sets in, good luck snapping children out of it. I'd hate to see Thailand go down that route, although they'd probably go bankrupt long before it could get horribly ugly like in Australia.

Who reads this stuff do they have paper with the same content in Thai? Or is it strictly tailored to the English speaking population?

Is a good question. I've always just assumed it was a cleaned up, streamlined, basically representative version of the mainstream (tabloid) Thai print media. But I just realised I'm basing that on nothing, just assumption....I'd be interested in learning the answer to this question also...