Thailand Set For Return To 'Thaksinomics'

[whybother]

For now investors appear largely unfazed: Thai stocks surged 4.5 percent last week as news of a decisive win by Puea Thai in the July 3 vote raised hopes of a return to political stability after years of turmoil.

The Thai baht also rose sharply and extended its gains after Yingluck, who is widely seen as Thaksin's political proxy, said the value of the currency would continue to be determined by market forces.

The observant member will no doubt have to choke on this fact.

To all the anti T brigade,......... time to move on and get with the program.

And there will be two things to watch for in the coming months to see the direction of economy:

- when the PTP start implementing some of their promises.

- when the PTP start back tracking on some of their promises.

[steveromagnino]

Clearly you are a scholarly chap, reads a lot etc but the essential ingredient missing here is the contact with the real Thai rural poor with whom I mix and meet daily.

i have never seen any instance of rice farmers profteering from the guaranteed price scheme,

They barely have enough money to pay for the staples in life let alone send children to highschool, pay for a motorbike, build a decent house etc.

The fabled 'man on the street defense' only rivalled by 'my wife says' ...well it's an interesting approach, and one I wholeheartedly respect, since I am not in the same village as you.

However, a macro view (including the data that TRT looked at to come up with their policies), is not solely based on a single micro village view.

Reread - I didn't comment on rice farmers profiteering. Rice farming is back breaking menial torture! I very clearly spelt out the profiteering possible, which is done by rice importers selling Cambodian/Burmese/Laotian rice into the Thai pledge....and is a (IIRC) proven fact. We can also point out the flow on fact, that Thai exports of rice suffer because no government wants to suffer the real loss of buying at 15,000b and selling at 9,000b. So the rice just goes rotten. And the rice grown is of a lower quality because there is not an incentive for quality rice in the pledging scheme.

Most importantly, the rice farmer is being subsidised as long as the pledge price exceeds the market price. As of today, the rice farmer, under PT's 15000b promised (and 20,000 on the campaign trail), assuming 1 crop per year and at average productivity of 400kg per rai (isaan level productivity rather than decent water supply central plains productivity) with a farm size of 40 rai is receiving a gift of 6,000/11,000b per ton for rice that they grow or approximately in cash a 100,000b gift ABOVE market price per farm (or higher if they do decide to run with 20,000b per ton), generously provided by the tax payer, most of the tax take coming from either the majority of Thais who AREN'T working in the agricultural sector and certainly not all in the agricultural sector are rice farmers...or from all Thais via consumption taxes (VAT, duties, etc) which are again mostly a tax on the rich.

I would be quite happy to instead just say to the farmers, you earn what you deserve (the market price) and the market price if it slumps below your break even point (say 7,000b per rai) then we will step in to protect you. And we will provide free education, healthcare, reasonable loans, and the rest....except PT also wants to give them free credit and this crop pledge 'bribe' (it cannot easily be described in any other way).

There is a reason why so many rice farmers are destitute...it's because it is a loss making subscale c&*p occupation to be in with sub 40 rai plots and 1 crop a year....which is why we also have seen a shift in Thailand in the last 10 years from agriculture being the primary occuption to it now no longer having that status with workers (including labourers, security, maids, factory staff, etc etc) outnumbering the people in the fields. And take a look in the fields...you see the elderly, the less capable in the poorer single crop areas; the able bodied are now doing something else. A single crop farm, the farmer is working on productive income generating activities about maximum 90 days a year, and sitting around scratching about for 270 days a year. That's why we see them coming to the factories, the taxi ranks, etc etc the rest of the year.

And rather than stop doing the farming and developing some economies of scale, what we are going to see is PT basically saying "it's a loss making occupation...so have a bunch more money to keep doing it".

The Thai farming sector will need to go through a major restructuring and subscale farmers will need to grow up, change their skill set, or move onto something else. It is part of increasing productivity, rather than zero change in productivity and simply taking money out of my pocket and handing it to a rice farmer (which is how the pledge scheme works).

The micro loans scheme which I have witnessed has been a resounding success. water pumps, spray equipment, Kubota powered implements have all enabled farmers to increase their productivity and provide some relief from the back breaking toil of hand digging, pumping etc.

This is the reality. You might like to find fault by accentuating the odd scam here and there, but the overwhelming majority of farmers have been able to improve their lot in life honestly, with the help of these schemes.

That's a bold claim without real evidence in most media that the scheme was a resounding success. To look at the things the scheme of microcredit was supposed to help; productivity per rai; profitability per rai; income per household; reduction in household debt; etc etc...and you cannot seem to find the success stories across the board. And investing more money to tap into the ground water supply or use of motorised equipment on sub scale farms whose workers are already only doing 90 days a year with a single crop and limited ability to do more....it doesn't necessarily help them and in fact just saddles them with more debt and sometimes higher operating costs as we saw in 2004-5 when diesel and petrol prices shot up.

I only know of the villages where my family hails from, and it was viewed as a wonderful source of cheap money for motorcycles, phones, consumerables, booze, and this is borne out by the economic performance of the companies who supplied those items in the period of the village fund. My own personal experience is mostly that it wasn't a success as you claim (overwhelming majority I think was your choice of words) and as I previously stated when the economist who established the scheme spoke to me, he also didn't seem to feel it was a success (he also didn't say it was a failure). So on a micro level maybe your area is exceptionally good....it's not like that right across Thailand. And you'd think we'd see 50% returns on the fund if it was working really well...I think close of 50% of the funds burned through their funds with nothing left now.

Thailand has a history of feudalism, and it isn't that long ago, in the country especially, where there was zero hope for the poor, to achieve any financial independence.

Those with the power liked it that way, and that mentality still exists. The born into privilege Thais couldn't care less about the unwashed masses, ( the way they are parodied on the television soap operas is a clue) and it will take a long while until they achieve real equality.

Despite all you scholars giving them fatherly lectures about how bad Mr T is, I don't believe they are as dumb as you think. They understand the big boys are all corrupt, (not just one side) but at least they are getting some recognition and seeing some small improvement in their lives. That is the feed back I am getting.

Some pretty big assumptions made; FYI the majority of Thai soap watchers are the people upcountry, and the two channels they love the most to get their fix are Channel 3 and Channel 7; both big TRT supporters.

It is funny that within a generation or two, myself, and countless others have gone from squalor and no wealth at all to being relatively 'ok'. There is plenty of social mobility in Thailand. What IS true is that the farmers operating on subscale small plots are not rich, were never rich and will only ever get rich from continuing what they are doing especially if a government starts paying them a subsidy to do their little thing.

I don't believe farmers are dumb. I do suspect many of them know a lot less about the business of government or economics or constitutional reform than I do, and may know less about the reasons and way in which Thaksin has spent the budget of Thailand than I do. Just as I freely admit they know a lot more about growing rice than I do.

It is always amusing to me that having got off my behind to study and educate myself, that being well read or scholarly or educated is somehow a bad thing.

In short, for the farmers rather than pay them a gift of 100k per farm, I would like them to get some new skills and get a new job or buy up some extra land and run a proper farm. Which is happening by default anyhow.

Thaksin would rather pay them to keep the same skills and keep doing the same thing in the same subscale manner.

My only issue is that I am one of the ones having to pay for the subsidy to keep people doing something tiring, boring and unpleasant. As well as all the other dumb schemes.

Edited July 13, 2011 by steveromagnino

[termad]

Thaksin unveils 3 megaprojects-land reclamation along Bangpakong and Tajean rivers, high-speed train, new water source construction /TAN_Network

Goh, who would have thought, k. Thaksin the non-involved unveils. He also confirmed to respect the opinion of locals regarding ecological impact I assume

Could you just for once make a rational critique instead of a rather feminine and catty comment? I don't know what it is about Thaksin that upsets you so much, as you are a farang whose opinions count for nothing in Thailand and he is a Thai politician who would be chosen by the majority of the Thai people to lead the country in any election that he stood - as has been demonstrated. I haven't seen you once post a reply criticising Abhisit who has been a dismal failure and in fact not much better than Chulomont who was also installed as Prime Minister.

I believe that Thaksin was the most effective PM that Thailand has ever had so why don't you stop the carping replies and congratulate the Thai electorate on the wise decision to elect Jingluck Shinawatra as PM?

Edited July 13, 2011 by termad

[jdinasia]

Hmmm since the Topic is Thaksinomics ---- Maybe it would be good to go back and read what what written about Thaksin leading into his first stint as PM.

http://groups.google.com/group/jaring.general/browse_thread/thread/da68523544d8b4d7/4a9be7f4e22b30d9?pli=1

The above is a link to a FEER (Far Eastern Economic Review) article dated January 2001.

It is well worth a read! These guys were more accurate than Nostrodamus when they said what the risks of having Thaksin around would be .... the section below is from the article ...

Thaksin's personal success with Shin Corp. is very much a product of

such favoured treatment. In the early 1980s, his political connections

in the country's police department earned him exclusive rights to

outfit it with computers. With that cash, Thaksin established the

Shinawatra group of companies, including Advanced Information

Services--Thailand's largest mobile-phone operator, which enjoyed a

monopoly for much of the 1990s.

But when competition with his chief rival, Telecom Asia of the CP

Group, started heating up, Thaksin entered politics in person, rather

than by proxy.

Thailand's local telecoms market is slated for liberalization later

this year, and Thaksin will be under heavy pressure to prove that Shin

Corp. isn't getting preferential treatment. Another big test of his

government's credibility will be whether he can resist the temptation

to reward his political allies by favouring their interests in

liberalization of the media and the privatization of many state-owned

enterprises, also due later this year.

"Old Boy's Reunion" later on that page is worth a read too.

Edited July 13, 2011 by jdinasia

[termad]

Hmmm since the Topic is Thaksinomics ---- Maybe it would be good to go back and read what what written about Thaksin leading into his first stint as PM.

http://groups.google.com/group/jaring.general/browse_thread/thread/da68523544d8b4d7/4a9be7f4e22b30d9?pli=1

The above is a link to a FEER (Far Eastern Economic Review) article dated January 2001.

It is well worth a read! These guys were more accurate than Nostrodamus when they said what the risks of having Thaksin around would be .... the section below is from the article ...

Thaksin's personal success with Shin Corp. is very much a product of

such favoured treatment. In the early 1980s, his political connections

in the country's police department earned him exclusive rights to

outfit it with computers. With that cash, Thaksin established the

Shinawatra group of companies, including Advanced Information

Services--Thailand's largest mobile-phone operator, which enjoyed a

monopoly for much of the 1990s.

But when competition with his chief rival, Telecom Asia of the CP

Group, started heating up, Thaksin entered politics in person, rather

than by proxy.

Thailand's local telecoms market is slated for liberalization later

this year, and Thaksin will be under heavy pressure to prove that Shin

Corp. isn't getting preferential treatment. Another big test of his

government's credibility will be whether he can resist the temptation

to reward his political allies by favouring their interests in

liberalization of the media and the privatization of many state-owned

enterprises, also due later this year.

What are you trying to say? I see no relevance in your post to Thaksins effectivness as a PM. Try to be more objective when answering Rubi's posts.

[Pi Sek]

Thaksin unveils 3 megaprojects-land reclamation along Bangpakong and Tajean rivers, high-speed train, new water source construction /TAN_Network

Goh, who would have thought, k. Thaksin the non-involved unveils. He also confirmed to respect the opinion of locals regarding ecological impact I assume

Could you just for once make a rational critique instead of a rather feminine and catty comment? I don't know what it is about Thaksin that upsets you so much, as you are a farang whose opinions count for nothing in Thailand and he is a Thai politician who would be chosen by the majority of the Thai people to lead the country in any election that he stood - as has been demonstrated. I haven't seen you once post a reply criticising Abhisit who has been a dismal failure and in fact not much better than Chulomont who was also installed as Prime Minister.

I believe that Thaksin was the most effective PM that Thailand has ever had so why don't you stop the carping replies and congratulate the Thai electorate on the wise decision to elect Jingluck Shinawatra as PM?

With all due respect, why should he? Whether you or I or rubl believes Thaksin was good, bad, effective, useless, rich, poor, round or square is of very little significance. However, it is a little bit fishy that Thaksin is not involved yet he is unveiling projects, don't you think?

As for the rest of the 1st paragraph of your post, 45% of the public voted Peua Thai (correct me if I'm wrong), and Peua Thai won 55% of the seats in parliament - without any critical inconcsistencies too. I think Thaksin is a much more divisive figure than Yinglak and it would only be speculation to say he "would be chosen by the majority of the Thai people to lead the country in any election that he stood".

And the last bit, that your belief that Thaksin was Thailand's most effective PM means that rubl should essentially "shut up" was a really silly thing to say. I hope I don't have to explain why.

[termad]

Thaksin unveils 3 megaprojects-land reclamation along Bangpakong and Tajean rivers, high-speed train, new water source construction /TAN_Network

Goh, who would have thought, k. Thaksin the non-involved unveils. He also confirmed to respect the opinion of locals regarding ecological impact I assume

Could you just for once make a rational critique instead of a rather feminine and catty comment? I don't know what it is about Thaksin that upsets you so much, as you are a farang whose opinions count for nothing in Thailand and he is a Thai politician who would be chosen by the majority of the Thai people to lead the country in any election that he stood - as has been demonstrated. I haven't seen you once post a reply criticising Abhisit who has been a dismal failure and in fact not much better than Chulomont who was also installed as Prime Minister.

I believe that Thaksin was the most effective PM that Thailand has ever had so why don't you stop the carping replies and congratulate the Thai electorate on the wise decision to elect Jingluck Shinawatra as PM?

With all due respect, why should he? Whether you or I or rubl believes Thaksin was good, bad, effective, useless, rich, poor, round or square is of very little significance. However, it is a little bit fishy that Thaksin is not involved yet he is unveiling projects, don't you think?

As for the rest of the 1st paragraph of your post, 45% of the public voted Peua Thai (correct me if I'm wrong), and Peua Thai won 55% of the seats in parliament - without any critical inconcsistencies too. I think Thaksin is a much more divisive figure than Yinglak and it would only be speculation to say he "would be chosen by the majority of the Thai people to lead the country in any election that he stood".

And the last bit, that your belief that Thaksin was Thailand's most effective PM means that rubl should essentially "shut up" was a really silly thing to say. I hope I don't have to explain why.

If he was such a devisive figure could tell me which other Thai PMs had larger majorities than Thaksin and why is it devisive to win a landslide victory in a general election? I also would ask you to read a post before replying to it as I did not state whether Thaksin was or wasn't involved with the Phue Thai party. Having said that, although being banned from politics there is nothing wrong or illegal in Thaksin giving economic advice to anybody who asks for it.

As to your second pararaph. I have read your first paragraph so I doubt if any further explanation from you would be of any value.

[steveromagnino]

....he is a Thai politician who would be chosen by the majority of the Thai people to lead the country in any election that he stood

Actually, he did stand in an election in 1995 as a party leader, and gained something like 23 seats, and ended up in cohorts with PM Banharn as a minor faction. Certainly not a winner in those days. Flop as a politician as well.

Coincidentally his vast wealth gained from principally government granted monopolies and risk of losing that through deregulation has coincided with his landslide success politically. he reinvented himself, and in terms of PR and presentation, right now is basically without equal unless you count his 'clone' the photogenic Yingluck, and let's face it, his magic marketing touch even took good old Samak into the PM's seat despite the fact that, well, that he's Samak and was in political wilderness to that point.

As politics is an investment (you pay in various legal ways to win - a war chest to campaign), the return has to be there somewhere.

If sources are true and it was tripling family wealth in the 2001 - 2006 period for the Shinawatras I suppose is not a bad sort of return.

The 2006 and 2007 election cost him a pretty penny as he campaigned twice without any real benefit accruing.

Happy days are here again....at least that's what the strong performers in the SET post election suggest....for politically connected business groups. This time I reckon they will stay in power for about 12 months...buy up the smaller parties...then call a snap election with the 111 back and aim for 350 in the house one party and that's when the real fun begins since the parliamentary check and balance will be attempted to be removed through the popular vote.

It's a bit of a risk as this election must be an enormous investment; however i supppose 46 billion or so is a nice incentive.

If the senate is changed by then, we will be back to the heady days of 2004-2005. All we need is raging oil prices, a few egos and it will be like dejavu all over again.

Edited July 13, 2011 by steveromagnino

[animatic]

You have started by insulting me,

and then insulting one of the most well connected and well traveled Thais I have ever personally met. He also is someone who crosses class borders easily, and is a genuinely warm and caring human being, besides being very well informed. There is a difference between first hand sources and reading scholarly tomes, and if you can't tell the difference, play nice, it makes it easier to take any of your points half seriously.

MILT was quite right in his assessment.

I suggest you start being nicer because you are clearly WAY out of your depth in this one.

I guess someone will have to break the news to you, this is a democratic forum and it doesn't belong to you or your ilk.

If you cannot accept a view which disagrees with your view of Thai politics then perhaps that is why you are so prickly.

It isn't personal oh mighty one, it's just your views are perhaps more representative of yesterdays and not of todays.

Thailand is changing and the old guard are having to move out.

get with the program.

You have the right to make foolish comments if you wish,

it degrades only the stature of your points here.

Argumentum ad hominem is the weakest form of disputation.

My " ilk ", my that is supercilious of you. You give good irony without even knowing it.

But throwing insults is called flaming and you have no democratic right to do that here on TVF, because this is not a country, nor an elected government, but a privately run discussion forum, which has rules about throwing insults. The mods to keep count, and do act.

And I reiterate; insulting Steveromagino is a losing position all around,

because he can wipe the floor with you in these debates should he choose to.

Using facts and primary source info.

Way out of depth; comprehending so or not.

Ideology is no counterbalance to facts and true understanding

Edited July 13, 2011 by animatic

[patjem]

Can some one tell me why there are so many poor people after all Thaksin did for them?

Are there no poor people where you come from?

Next.

Sorry, I'm not ready for "next", following such a lame response.... would you care to actually answer the question?

If it was a genuine question, then this forum is not the place to start a discourse on economics.

If it wasn't (which I strongly believe to be the case), then it's just another immature attempt to try and score some cheap points. is this what this forum has become? I get more intellectual stimulation sitting next to some drunken farang in a Pattaya bar.

5555 (fell off my chair!)

OK, so will you answer the actual question rather than counter it with a question to which the answer would always be "yes", Regardless of where I'm from or my background, and hence is pointless? The point is that my question remained un-answered. Enough said, since the very topic of this particular thread is "Thaksinomics" (AKA- economics Khun_T style), so another response that has no relevance at the second attempt of getting a suitable answer, and with a quite ironic contradiction, given the title of the thread.

[MrChangers]

You have started by insulting me,

and then insulting one of the most well connected and well traveled Thais I have ever personally met. He also is someone who crosses class borders easily, and is a genuinely warm and caring human being, besides being very well informed. There is a difference between first hand sources and reading scholarly tomes, and if you can't tell the difference, play nice, it makes it easier to take any of your points half seriously.

MILT was quite right in his assessment.

I suggest you start being nicer because you are clearly WAY out of your depth in this one.

I guess someone will have to break the news to you, this is a democratic forum and it doesn't belong to you or your ilk.

If you cannot accept a view which disagrees with your view of Thai politics then perhaps that is why you are so prickly.

It isn't personal oh mighty one, it's just your views are perhaps more representative of yesterdays and not of todays.

Thailand is changing and the old guard are having to move out.

get with the program.

You have the right to make foolish comments if you wish,

it degrades only the stature of your points here.

Argumentum ad hominem is the weakest form of disputation.

My " ilk ", my that is supercilious of you. You give good irony without even knowing it.

But throwing insults is called flaming and you have no democratic right to do that here on TVF, because this is not a country, nor an elected government, but a privately run discussion forum, which has rules about throwing insults. The mods to keep count, and do act.

And I reiterate; insulting Steveromagino is a losing position all around,

because he can wipe the floor with you in these debates should he choose to.

Using facts and primary source info.

Way out of depth; comprehending so or not.

Ideology is no counterbalance to facts and true understanding

If you wish to put your point across do it in English as this is the common language spoken here not the Latin Buffoonery you like to use to pretend you have a greater knowledge of a subject. Big talk = little people.

[patjem]

You have started by insulting me,

and then insulting one of the most well connected and well traveled Thais I have ever personally met. He also is someone who crosses class borders easily, and is a genuinely warm and caring human being, besides being very well informed. There is a difference between first hand sources and reading scholarly tomes, and if you can't tell the difference, play nice, it makes it easier to take any of your points half seriously.

MILT was quite right in his assessment.

I suggest you start being nicer because you are clearly WAY out of your depth in this one.

I guess someone will have to break the news to you, this is a democratic forum and it doesn't belong to you or your ilk.

If you cannot accept a view which disagrees with your view of Thai politics then perhaps that is why you are so prickly.

It isn't personal oh mighty one, it's just your views are perhaps more representative of yesterdays and not of todays.

Thailand is changing and the old guard are having to move out.

get with the program.

You have the right to make foolish comments if you wish,

it degrades only the stature of your points here.

Argumentum ad hominem is the weakest form of disputation.

My " ilk ", my that is supercilious of you. You give good irony without even knowing it.

But throwing insults is called flaming and you have no democratic right to do that here on TVF, because this is not a country, nor an elected government, but a privately run discussion forum, which has rules about throwing insults. The mods to keep count, and do act.

And I reiterate; insulting Steveromagino is a losing position all around,

because he can wipe the floor with you in these debates should he choose to.

Using facts and primary source info.

Way out of depth; comprehending so or not.

Ideology is no counterbalance to facts and true understanding

If you wish to put your point across do it in English as this is the common language spoken here not the Latin Buffoonery you like to use to pretend you have a greater knowledge of a subject. Big talk = little people.

Ironically, I think you actually proved Animatic's point. Sorry if you couldn't spot that.

[rubl]

Thaksin unveils 3 megaprojects-land reclamation along Bangpakong and Tajean rivers, high-speed train, new water source construction /TAN_Network

Goh, who would have thought, k. Thaksin the non-involved unveils. He also confirmed to respect the opinion of locals regarding ecological impact I assume

Could you just for once make a rational critique instead of a rather feminine and catty comment? I don't know what it is about Thaksin that upsets you so much, as you are a farang whose opinions count for nothing in Thailand and he is a Thai politician who would be chosen by the majority of the Thai people to lead the country in any election that he stood - as has been demonstrated. I haven't seen you once post a reply criticising Abhisit who has been a dismal failure and in fact not much better than Chulomont who was also installed as Prime Minister.

I believe that Thaksin was the most effective PM that Thailand has ever had so why don't you stop the carping replies and congratulate the Thai electorate on the wise decision to elect Jingluck Shinawatra as PM?

Well, since you asked.

K. Thaksin is a banned politician who has no legal status to unveil mega projects which may or may not be part of Pheu Thai policies. Furthermore Thailand and many parties have a history of announcing mega projects which effect the environment and people living in the area in a very negative way. That's why locals start protesting and slowly even having success with it.

K. Thaksin is a master in perception, k. Abhisit is not.

As for k. Thaksin effective, you may praise him for having awakened the rural poor, I believe that's about the only plus, the rest has many negative sides apart from being amply rich of course.

I congratulate the Thai voters on a successful and peaceful election. I will not judge on the 'wise decision to elect Ms. Yingluck', strictly speaking she wasn't 'elected', party list you know

All in all this is MY opinion, just as the post I reply to is yours. We're entitled to it, you know. No need to ask a 'red committee' if please, is it possible to have an opinion which is not officially endorsed by UDD or Pheu Thai or k. Thaksin

[rubl]

You have started by insulting me,

and then insulting one of the most well connected and well traveled Thais I have ever personally met. He also is someone who crosses class borders easily, and is a genuinely warm and caring human being, besides being very well informed. There is a difference between first hand sources and reading scholarly tomes, and if you can't tell the difference, play nice, it makes it easier to take any of your points half seriously.

MILT was quite right in his assessment.

I suggest you start being nicer because you are clearly WAY out of your depth in this one.

I guess someone will have to break the news to you, this is a democratic forum and it doesn't belong to you or your ilk.

If you cannot accept a view which disagrees with your view of Thai politics then perhaps that is why you are so prickly.

It isn't personal oh mighty one, it's just your views are perhaps more representative of yesterdays and not of todays.

Thailand is changing and the old guard are having to move out.

get with the program.

You have the right to make foolish comments if you wish,

it degrades only the stature of your points here.

Argumentum ad hominem is the weakest form of disputation.

My " ilk ", my that is supercilious of you. You give good irony without even knowing it.

But throwing insults is called flaming and you have no democratic right to do that here on TVF, because this is not a country, nor an elected government, but a privately run discussion forum, which has rules about throwing insults. The mods to keep count, and do act.

And I reiterate; insulting Steveromagino is a losing position all around,

because he can wipe the floor with you in these debates should he choose to.

Using facts and primary source info.

Way out of depth; comprehending so or not.

Ideology is no counterbalance to facts and true understanding

If you wish to put your point across do it in English as this is the common language spoken here not the Latin Buffoonery you like to use to pretend you have a greater knowledge of a subject. Big talk = little people.

Little people, mostly associated with 'less educated', or 'somewhat downtrodden' or 'hobbits'.

Well, even us little people have learned to google around or use wiki to check. Being a non-native English speaker I feel a need to have my copy of COD next to my PC. No offence and all that my dear chap, but do you hear me complain about all quaint expressions, americanisms and more-than-three-syllable-words? Get real.

"An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.["

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_hominem

[nurofiend]

i'll firstly admit i don't know every detail about thaksin.....

but from what i gather, the coup was about the elite wanting to have the power and keep the rich poor divide for their own gains,

the rich staying rich and the poor staying poor

im sure its not as black and white as this but the only thing i'd have against thaksin was his harsh and illegal war on drugs.

BUT let's be realistic, any thai government in power has overly harsh drug criminalization!

im sure he lined his own pockets and 'looked after his own' but that's politics...

i just wonder why there is such venom in the hate of thaksin, is it simply the rich and powerful feeling more vulnerable?

[Jingthing]

i just wonder why there is such venom in the hate of thaksin, is it simply the rich and powerful feeling more vulnerable?

No, not that simple.

He was turning into an autocratic dictator in the style of Hugo Chavez. To think he was cementing his power for the sake of the "poor" is naive beyond words.

[nurofiend]

i just wonder why there is such venom in the hate of thaksin, is it simply the rich and powerful feeling more vulnerable?

No, not that simple.

He was turning into an autocratic dictator in the style of Hugo Chavez. To think he was cementing his power for the sake of the "poor" is naive beyond words.

as i clearly said "i don't know every detail about thaksin" and "i'm sure it's not that black and white" ie Not that simple!

also, no i'm not that naive to think ANY politician would cement their power solely for the sake of the 'poor'....as i clearly stated he lined his own pockets and looked after his own

so please don't try to pigeonhole me on a point i wasn't making

i was basically saying that despite whatever personal gains he made, when he was in power the poorer people had a better quality of life....i think that's a fair assessment , hence the outcome of the recent vote

plus my point was about why he was removed and not what his real intentions were

and i have read up on thaksin, so please explain to me how you could say he was turning into a 'dictator'

[jaidam]

i just wonder why there is such venom in the hate of thaksin, is it simply the rich and powerful feeling more vulnerable?

No, not that simple.

He was turning into an autocratic dictator in the style of Hugo Chavez. To think he was cementing his power for the sake of the "poor" is naive beyond words.

as i clearly said "i don't know every detail about thaksin" and "i'm sure it's not that black and white" ie Not that simple!

also, no i'm not that naive to think ANY politician would cement their power solely for the sake of the 'poor'....as i clearly stated he lined his own pockets and looked after his own

so please don't try to pigeonhole me on a point i wasn't making

i was basically saying that despite whatever personal gains he made, when he was in power the poorer people had a better quality of life....i think that's a fair assessment , hence the outcome of the recent vote

plus my point was about why he was removed and not what his real intentions were

and i have read up on thaksin, so please explain to me how you could say he was turning into a 'dictator'

How was Thaksin turning into a dictator?

By silencing any dissenting voice(either brutally ie southern rights lawyer, or financially with billion baht lawsuits ie airport runway cracks). By removing all checks and balances to his power by meddling and stocking all institutions with family and cronies. By not arranging an election and clinging to power ilegally, which led to a coup. By starting to use genocide as a tool. First there was a mass murder of alleged drug dealers, history shows the majority were not involved with drugs but all were innocent as there was no trial or judicial process. By using propaganda to ensure Thaksin became a much loved and revered character effectively brainwashing large segments of the population to believe that only Thaksin could improve their lives and other traditional benevolent powers had failed them.

What would have happened had Thaksin not been removed by coup?

Judging by the mans actions in the past, its probable that there would have been a Khmer rouge style "war" against Thaksins opponents by which I mean the educated and proffesional classes who were anti him. We still may see something like this play out with Thaksin II government. Hopefully not, but I can't see him letting go of power this time.

Edited July 14, 2011 by jaidam

[Valentine]

i just wonder why there is such venom in the hate of thaksin, is it simply the rich and powerful feeling more vulnerable?

No, not that simple.

He was turning into an autocratic dictator in the style of Hugo Chavez. To think he was cementing his power for the sake of the "poor" is naive beyond words.

as i clearly said "i don't know every detail about thaksin" and "i'm sure it's not that black and white" ie Not that simple!

also, no i'm not that naive to think ANY politician would cement their power solely for the sake of the 'poor'....as i clearly stated he lined his own pockets and looked after his own

so please don't try to pigeonhole me on a point i wasn't making

i was basically saying that despite whatever personal gains he made, when he was in power the poorer people had a better quality of life....i think that's a fair assessment , hence the outcome of the recent vote

plus my point was about why he was removed and not what his real intentions were

and i have read up on thaksin, so please explain to me how you could say he was turning into a 'dictator'

Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland_Plot which may or may not be true but as Thailand still seems to be run like a medieval fiefdom with courtiers & conspirators everywhere anything is possible. Mr T has also stated that he planned to rule for 20 years.

[KKvampire]

Fact, If PT carry out their Economic Policies they used to deceive or bribe the peasants, the Thai economy will tank and the hundreds of factories all around where I live and work that come mainly from Japan and other foreign Countries in the Region will be gone,

[bobmac10]

You have started by insulting me,

and then insulting one of the most well connected and well traveled Thais I have ever personally met. He also is someone who crosses class borders easily, and is a genuinely warm and caring human being, besides being very well informed. There is a difference between first hand sources and reading scholarly tomes, and if you can't tell the difference, play nice, it makes it easier to take any of your points half seriously.

MILT was quite right in his assessment.

I suggest you start being nicer because you are clearly WAY out of your depth in this one.

I guess someone will have to break the news to you, this is a democratic forum and it doesn't belong to you or your ilk.

If you cannot accept a view which disagrees with your view of Thai politics then perhaps that is why you are so prickly.

It isn't personal oh mighty one, it's just your views are perhaps more representative of yesterdays and not of todays.

Thailand is changing and the old guard are having to move out.

get with the program.

You have the right to make foolish comments if you wish,

it degrades only the stature of your points here.

Argumentum ad hominem is the weakest form of disputation.

My " ilk ", my that is supercilious of you. You give good irony without even knowing it.

But throwing insults is called flaming and you have no democratic right to do that here on TVF, because this is not a country, nor an elected government, but a privately run discussion forum, which has rules about throwing insults. The mods to keep count, and do act.

And I reiterate; insulting Steveromagino is a losing position all around,

because he can wipe the floor with you in these debates should he choose to.

Using facts and primary source info.

Way out of depth; comprehending so or not.

Ideology is no counterbalance to facts and true understanding

I have read and reread my posts and nowhere have I insulted anyone.

If I have dared to disagree with your heros then .... tuff... suck it up.

this forum is for all views.

Unfortunately, it is dominated by the "those who know all" anti-Thaksin brigade.

If one reads any news posts about the PT party or Thaksin, there is immediately a flood of cynical posts.

That is quite acceptable, but when other members dare to take an opposing view they are immediately branded as being ignorant of the facts.

once again, I dispute steveromagino's "facts" and it would be clear to anyone that they are subjective and selective.

e.g. the bulk of small rural loans were spent on televisions, motor bikes or booze!

You cannot be serious?

the loans were applied for specific purposes and had to be spent on those purposes, I know this is how they were administered in our Amphur.

you conservatives need to wake up and smell the roses.

the times are a changing...

[nurofiend]

i just wonder why there is such venom in the hate of thaksin, is it simply the rich and powerful feeling more vulnerable?

No, not that simple.

He was turning into an autocratic dictator in the style of Hugo Chavez. To think he was cementing his power for the sake of the "poor" is naive beyond words.

as i clearly said "i don't know every detail about thaksin" and "i'm sure it's not that black and white" ie Not that simple!

also, no i'm not that naive to think ANY politician would cement their power solely for the sake of the 'poor'....as i clearly stated he lined his own pockets and looked after his own

so please don't try to pigeonhole me on a point i wasn't making

i was basically saying that despite whatever personal gains he made, when he was in power the poorer people had a better quality of life....i think that's a fair assessment , hence the outcome of the recent vote

plus my point was about why he was removed and not what his real intentions were

and i have read up on thaksin, so please explain to me how you could say he was turning into a 'dictator'

How was Thaksin turning into a dictator?

By silencing any dissenting voice(either brutally ie southern rights lawyer, or financially with billion baht lawsuits ie airport runway cracks). By removing all checks and balances to his power by meddling and stocking all institutions with family and cronies. By not arranging an election and clinging to power ilegally, which led to a coup. By starting to use genocide as a tool. First there was a mass murder of alleged drug dealers, history shows the majority were not involved with drugs but all were innocent as there was no trial or judicial process. By using propaganda to ensure Thaksin became a much loved and revered character effectively brainwashing large segments of the population to believe that only Thaksin could improve their lives and other traditional benevolent powers had failed them.

What would have happened had Thaksin not been removed by coup?

Judging by the mans actions in the past, its probable that there would have been a Khmer rouge style "war" against Thaksins opponents by which I mean the educated and proffesional classes who were anti him. We still may see something like this play out with Thaksin II government. Hopefully not, but I can't see him letting go of power this time.

as i said i never claimed to know it all, i'm open to being enlightened and proved wrong...that's what healthy debate is all about

but can you show me a RELIABLE source that shows that he clung to power illegally (and i emphasize the 'reliable' not to condescend but just to be clear that you link a neutral source and not some anti thaksin source)

i totally agree that his 'war on drugs' was a disgrace but when you say that the Majority were not involved in drugs, you're just buying into what was stated post-coup, who's to say they're not just saying that to justify themselves.....either of us can't prove each other wrong on that

i'm not pro-anyone, and i really do think his drug policy was horrific and am not claiming that you're wrong on the amount of innocent killed, it just can't be proven

there's a lot of propaganda and 'hot air' but i'd like to see some concrete evidence of his illegally clinging to power

[nurofiend]

i just wonder why there is such venom in the hate of thaksin, is it simply the rich and powerful feeling more vulnerable?

No, not that simple.

He was turning into an autocratic dictator in the style of Hugo Chavez. To think he was cementing his power for the sake of the "poor" is naive beyond words.

as i clearly said "i don't know every detail about thaksin" and "i'm sure it's not that black and white" ie Not that simple!

also, no i'm not that naive to think ANY politician would cement their power solely for the sake of the 'poor'....as i clearly stated he lined his own pockets and looked after his own

so please don't try to pigeonhole me on a point i wasn't making

i was basically saying that despite whatever personal gains he made, when he was in power the poorer people had a better quality of life....i think that's a fair assessment , hence the outcome of the recent vote

plus my point was about why he was removed and not what his real intentions were

and i have read up on thaksin, so please explain to me how you could say he was turning into a 'dictator'

Check this out http://en.wikipedia....ki/Finland_Plot which may or may not be true but as Thailand still seems to be run like a medieval fiefdom with courtiers & conspirators everywhere anything is possible. Mr T has also stated that he planned to rule for 20 years.

interesting, thanks for the link andas you said yourself 'may or may not be true'...and yeah i think that pretty much sums up thai, well no, all politics!

[whybother]

as i said i never claimed to know it all, i'm open to being enlightened and proved wrong...that's what healthy debate is all about

but can you show me a RELIABLE source that shows that he clung to power illegally (and i emphasize the 'reliable' not to condescend but just to be clear that you link a neutral source and not some anti thaksin source)

i totally agree that his 'war on drugs' was a disgrace but when you say that the Majority were not involved in drugs, you're just buying into what was stated post-coup, who's to say they're not just saying that to justify themselves.....either of us can't prove each other wrong on that

i'm not pro-anyone, and i really do think his drug policy was horrific and am not claiming that you're wrong on the amount of innocent killed, it just can't be proven

there's a lot of propaganda and 'hot air' but i'd like to see some concrete evidence of his illegally clinging to power

Check out the HRW reports on the "war on drugs". I don't think the junta had anyone on their panel.

[hyperdimension]

Check out the HRW reports on the "war on drugs". I don't think the junta had anyone on their panel.

Not Enough Graves

The War on Drugs, HIV/AIDS, and Violations of Human Rights

July 7, 2004

This 60-page report provides fresh evidence of extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests and other human rights violations by Thai authorities. The report contains first-hand testimony from relatives of people killed during the drug war, as well as drug users who endured beatings, forced confessions and arbitrary arrests at the hands of Royal Thai Police. The government's anti-drug campaign has resulted in as many as 3,000 killings and has driven drug users underground and away from lifesaving HIV prevention services.

Edited July 17, 2011 by hyperdimension

[steveromagnino]

I dispute steveromagino's "facts" and it would be clear to anyone that they are subjective and selective.

e.g. the bulk of small rural loans were spent on televisions, motor bikes or booze!

You cannot be serious?

the loans were applied for specific purposes and had to be spent on those purposes, I know this is how they were administered in our Amphur.

you conservatives need to wake up and smell the roses.

the times are a changing...

YOu got that from when I said:

"I only know of the villages where my family hails from, and it was viewed as a wonderful source of cheap money for motorcycles, phones, consumerables, booze, and this is borne out by the economic performance of the companies who supplied those items in the period of the village fund. My own personal experience is mostly that it wasn't a success as you claim"

Certainly not a fact, although I don't think the strong performance of mobile phone and motorcycle companies during this period nor the massive growth in household debt in the same period is disputed.

If you wish for me to write that more simply....I can do so.

I welcome any hard evidence to the points raised so we can set out the real 'facts' as you describe them (please leave personal experiences at the door if you wish to discuss 'facts'). I admit my viewpoint is based on what I do for a living, including statistics, dealing with senior policy makers (including some of the people responsible for the TRT policies of the past that you are commenting on) and is often 'big picture'.

"I have read and reread my posts and nowhere have I insulted anyone."

Your deliberate and childish insult was already removed from the thread...it doesn't mean you didn't say it. FYI describing people as you did with an A substituted for the I is both more amusing and more relevant, especially for the female posters.

As the saying goes, on the internet no one knows you are a dog. All we have are what each member writes or says. Instead of stating 'well you lot are wrong' you may get further by pointing out the specifics of where we are all wrong in a constructive discourse, and from there we can all be a little smarter as Nurofiend points out, rather than descending into a 'well I don't agree with you, and that's that' approach which is not exactly enlightening (although can be quite amusing). :jap:

Edited July 18, 2011 by steveromagnino

[bobmac10]

I dispute steveromagino's "facts" and it would be clear to anyone that they are subjective and selective.

e.g. the bulk of small rural loans were spent on televisions, motor bikes or booze!

You cannot be serious?

the loans were applied for specific purposes and had to be spent on those purposes, I know this is how they were administered in our Amphur.

you conservatives need to wake up and smell the roses.

the times are a changing...

[YOu got that from when I said:

"I only know of the villages where my family hails from, and it was viewed as a wonderful source of cheap money for motorcycles, phones, consumerables, booze, and this is borne out by the economic performance of the companies who supplied those items in the period of the village fund. My own personal experience is mostly that it wasn't a success as you claim"

Certainly not a fact, although I don't think the strong performance of mobile phone and motorcycle companies during this period nor the massive growth in household debt in the same period is disputed.]

If you wish for me to write that more simply....I can do so.

I welcome any hard evidence to the points raised so we can set out the real 'facts' as you describe them (please leave personal experiences at the door if you wish to discuss 'facts'). I admit my viewpoint is based on what I do for a living, including statistics, dealing with senior policy makers (including some of the people responsible for the TRT policies of the past that you are commenting on) and is often 'big picture'.

"I have read and reread my posts and nowhere have I insulted anyone."

Your deliberate and childish insult was already removed from the thread...it doesn't mean you didn't say it. FYI describing people as you did with an A substituted for the I is both more amusing and more relevant, especially for the female posters.

As the saying goes, on the internet no one knows you are a dog. All we have are what each member writes or says. Instead of stating 'well you lot are wrong' you may get further by pointing out the specifics of where we are all wrong in a constructive discourse, and from there we can all be a little smarter as Nurofiend points out, rather than descending into a 'well I don't agree with you, and that's that' approach which is not exactly enlightening (although can be quite amusing). :jap:

YOu got that from when I said:

"I only know of the villages where my family hails from, and it was viewed as a wonderful source of cheap money for motorcycles, phones, consumerables, booze, and this is borne out by the economic performance of the companies who supplied those items in the period of the village fund. My own personal experience is mostly that it wasn't a success as you claim"

You have set yourself up as the oracle, wise in all things statistical, knowledgable on all things to do with economic policies, condescending in your comments to other who dare to disagree, and yet you can make a most unscientific comment (really just an opinion) about the micro loan policy, which I maintain to have been a success.

When called to justify your remarks, you have just fobbed me off.

You attempt to drag the subject of growth of household debt in Thailand into the same argument, (they are quite different) to smear the micro credit scheme and muddy the waters.

The growth of household debt was due to the supply of easy credit by banks willing to take land titles as collateral due to rapidly rising land prices. yes much of this credit was wasted by unsophisticated borrowers, but the micro credit scheme was quite different. Specific uses for the funds had to stated in the application, and it had to be allied to an enterprise, like a farm or business.

I know because I advised some community members as to whether the loan would be able to be repaid from their current operating cashflow minus expected increased productivity.

I am sure there would have been the odd rort to the scheme but by and large it was well administered.

[eljeque]

"The facts speak for itself. Taksin's era was a time where the economy was at its zenith, inflation keep at bay, IMF loan paid and people were generally happy compare to last 2 years where inflation peaked and GDP was lower than most ASEAN countries. Taksin was touted as the next Mahathir and Lee Kuan Yew. Then the coup and schemers took that all away."

Thaksin came to power at the time when all of SE Asia was coming out of the 1997 fall.

All of SE Asia did well then; it was not due to him, but to the time at which he was in office.

Some leaders have good timing, Reagan, Clinton, while others have bad timing, Carter, Bush 1, Obama.

He did have some generally good ideas on improvements in rural poverty, but there was a lot of lending going on to people who had no idea it had to be repaid. The Democrats told them it was time to repay the money.

The upcountry business lords who rake the wealth from the Isaan farmers are also Isaan people. That is what needs to be addressed, but we do not see Thaksin rallying against them. He has no problem in having 2,000 people shot, supposed drug dealers, although none went to trial, none were arrested instead of being shot, etc. And many had nothing to do with drugs, but did have disagreements with his policies.

[hammered]

One of the things that gets missed in the did Thaksinomics work or not row is that what really counts is how the electorate perceive them. This is not disimilar to policies worldwide that had nice timing but were maybe flawed or maybe not. If they worked because of prevailing economic winds rather than because of the policies being well thought out then with time they will fail as economic conditions change.

That however, is the crux, the electorate have to be allowed time to see this. Interupting things with coups, court decisions and lines of betters telling people they dont work and that they can do it better isnt the way in a democracy and moaning that most of the electorate are too ill educated to see the truth shows ignorance but should also teach the more conservative elements that their failure in the past to deliver on education has ramifications.

One is left wondering that if Thaksin and TRT had been left in place in 2006, if by now their hold on power and people would be weaker. It is difficult to pull rabbits out of hats repeatedly and economies go up and down, politicians fall out with each other and even boredom takes hold in politics If however, your opponents toss you continual easy balls you can continue to hit them out of the park, and if they continually give you reason to stay united even when falling out.... And of course when the only option is a party that is widely perceived as being little more than a front for vested interests that have repeatedly kept most down it just doesnt really create any condition for the electorate to change who they support.

[animatic]

Not one actual economist, not on Thaksins payroll EVER said Thaksins economics plan, AKA Thaksinomics, was sustainable in a functional way, more than short term. It was labeled by most as a populist PR exercise using public funds and nothing more. Letting it continue would have only exposed it's structural flaws, and Thaksin's economic ineptitude, which at this point might have been a good thing, if his quest to absolutely consolidate power in his hands wasn't running concurrently.

Edited July 19, 2011 by animatic