Water Influx Outpaces Drainage: Bangkok Governor

[whybother]

I am one of the people here who has a home that is already under water (Thonburi) and all the first floor possessions are damaged. The water has not gone done, but appears to either be the same or increasing. The more time my stuff is underwater, the more it is screwed from being salvageable. I would really like the flood waters to recede to minimize the damage.

The way I look at it, I am already screwed. If the water goes through downtown, what does that mean for every body else? That the levels will go down a little bit? There's still going to be water and its still going to be flooded. And what good will it do even if the water goes down. Everything is pretty much destroyed already. Because I, as well as many other people, have been screwed, I don't think that justifies screwing down town BKK. The victims in the other areas are already there. But the infrastructure of downtown BKK getting screwed will screw everything even worst. Water filtration, the train system, the financial and business districts. It makes sense to save what you can, and if they can save it, then do it.

At this point, however, I think this entire discussion is moot. The satelite photos of the water is just scary. I do not think it is physically possible.

:jap:

[sparebox2]

Futility. People have known for weeks that it was best to just let the water flow where it wanted, which was through Inner Bangkok. They delayed it and have made things worse for people in outlaying areas, but in the end it's going to happen anyway. It's just that the flooding would have ended much faster and fewer districts put under water if the prideful people in charge had just allowed things play out from the beginning the way they are inevitably fated to go.

It's a travesty that they are allowing the people in the outlying areas to suffer in their water-drenched homes for weeks and weeks to save the downtown. Share the pain should be the Modus Operandi. It would reduce the suffering of millions of people at the cost of threatening a bit of shopping downtown. What's worse. No retail activity downtown for a while. or continued to disruptions to the lifeblood of Thailand's economy: the manufacturing sector.

The inmates are in charge of the asylum

Bankok are full of human, very few buffalos (limited in zoos and safari world).

Rural areas are full of baffalos (to work the field), and very few human (most migrated to BKK for career purposes).

So it is only right to protect the better off Bangkokian hi-so at the expense of the poor farmers. I am sorry, but this is just how it is. Same same all over the world. The japs would have protect Tokyo more, Americans NY, Europe London, etc.

[monty1412]

Futility. People have known for weeks that it was best to just let the water flow where it wanted, which was through Inner Bangkok. They delayed it and have made things worse for people in outlaying areas, but in the end it's going to happen anyway. It's just that the flooding would have ended much faster and fewer districts put under water if the prideful people in charge had just allowed things play out from the beginning the way they are inevitably fated to go.

It's a travesty that they are allowing the people in the outlying areas to suffer in their water-drenched homes for weeks and weeks to save the downtown. Share the pain should be the Modus Operandi. It would reduce the suffering of millions of people at the cost of threatening a bit of shopping downtown. What's worse. No retail activity downtown for a while. or continued to disruptions to the lifeblood of Thailand's economy: the manufacturing sector.

The inmates are in charge of the asylum

No wonder spermwhales are on the endangered species list, with thinking like this i wouldn't wonder if you'd swim right up to the Japanese harpoon ship and roll belly over.

Do you actually believe that flooding bangkok would alleviate the flooding in rural areas, does more pain across wider range of people make it better.

You save your capital city and driving infrastructure no matter what.

The travesty is not where its flooding or where its not rather the inept and morally bankrupt governments handling of the whole situation which was known about three months ago.

My tip is we will need a dry Bangkok for the humanitarian disaster then will unfold... when cholera, leptospirosos, dengue and other water/ insect / rodent borne diseases stasrt their inevitable onslaught the general populace will need a dry and functioning capital city to seek refuge/ medical help and basic necessitates such as food and water.

The idea of flooding Bangkok to lessen the pain on those thus affected is well frankly speaking exactly the same sort of myopic thinking we have seen from the Thai government and their handling.. short term solutions without long term plan based on data.

[DocN]

Futility. People have known for weeks that it was best to just let the water flow where it wanted, which was through Inner Bangkok. They delayed it and have made things worse for people in outlaying areas, but in the end it's going to happen anyway. It's just that the flooding would have ended much faster and fewer districts put under water if the prideful people in charge had just allowed things play out from the beginning the way they are inevitably fated to go.

It's a travesty that they are allowing the people in the outlying areas to suffer in their water-drenched homes for weeks and weeks to save the downtown. Share the pain should be the Modus Operandi. It would reduce the suffering of millions of people at the cost of threatening a bit of shopping downtown. What's worse. No retail activity downtown for a while. or continued to disruptions to the lifeblood of Thailand's economy: the manufacturing sector.

The inmates are in charge of the asylum

I am so sick of these "share the pain"- posts.

It will not SHARE your pain, it will increase it!

Simple maths: not enough drinking water for 3 million evacuees = even less drinking water for 12 million

(replace drinking water by food, medicine, AID....)

It just doesn't make any sense!

Period

P.S. the water will not FLOW through Bangkok , for eff's sake!

[Thaddeus]

I am one of the people here who has a home that is already under water (Thonburi) and all the first floor possessions are damaged. The water has not gone done, but appears to either be the same or increasing. The more time my stuff is underwater, the more it is screwed from being salvageable. I would really like the flood waters to recede to minimize the damage.

The way I look at it, I am already screwed. If the water goes through downtown, what does that mean for every body else? That the levels will go down a little bit? There's still going to be water and its still going to be flooded. And what good will it do even if the water goes down. Everything is pretty much destroyed already. Because I, as well as many other people, have been screwed, I don't think that justifies screwing down town BKK. The victims in the other areas are already there. But the infrastructure of downtown BKK getting screwed will screw everything even worst. Water filtration, the train system, the financial and business districts. It makes sense to save what you can, and if they can save it, then do it.

At this point, however, I think this entire discussion is moot. The satelite photos of the water is just scary. I do not think it is physically possible.

A solid +1 :jap: but I do hope the last statement is wrong.

[zydeco]

Futility. People have known for weeks that it was best to just let the water flow where it wanted, which was through Inner Bangkok. They delayed it and have made things worse for people in outlaying areas, but in the end it's going to happen anyway. It's just that the flooding would have ended much faster and fewer districts put under water if the prideful people in charge had just allowed things play out from the beginning the way they are inevitably fated to go.

I agree 100% with this comment. The effort to make the flood "Go Away" by blocking it's path to the sea is impossible. The flood should be over NOW. It is actually worse now than if the water was allowed to flow through Bangkok. Yes it would have caused damaged. But it is now causing more damge over a much longer period of time, placing greater hardships on the people of Bangkok and Thailand. Next poblerm will be with disease because of the long lasting standing water.

The major problem not yet resolved is the major airport. Blocking water flow to the sea has caused massive amounts of water to back up and spread. It very well can reach and shut down the last remaining airport in Bangkok, a disaster in itself. As we have seen so far, tourism is at least 50% last years levels Do not believe the false figures of reduced tourism of only 15%, it is really around 50%. Major hit for Thailand. This wil also have a negative impact on the big New Years Eve celebrations should any outbreak of disease occur.

Rob, most people still just do not get it. It's not a choice between flooding Bangkok and not flooding Bangkok. You and I have made that point on this board since October, BEFORE I was flooded and just as your place was BEGINNING to flood. The water was always going to go into Bangkok. It was just a matter of how much and how fast. Yes, the powers that be have delayed things. But what happens when you wall up a lot of water for kilometer upon kilometer at least two or three meters high? Answer: it bursts through with force that causes considerable more damage than if things had flowed relatively lower and slower to begin with. Meanwhile, people who would not have been flooded or who would be dry by now are continuing to suffer. What the BMA and FROC have done is create a lose/lose scenerio for everyone. Just to delay the inevitable.

BTW, Mr. Whybother, why DON'T you bother to go out and see the effect of these floods on the lives of real people? I've been out on relief trucks delivering aid to people in Pathum Thani this week and last, and I've seen the long term devestation this flood is causing. I had to evacuate to a friend's house in On Nut, and I've used the opportunity to observe what these floods are doing and try to help people worse off than I am. Instead of NOT bothering with real life, why not get away from your keyboard for a few hours and do something purposeful that helps others?

Edited November 10, 2011 by zydeco

[rcalsop]

I am one of the people here who has a home that is already under water (Thonburi) and all the first floor possessions are damaged. The water has not gone done, but appears to either be the same or increasing. The more time my stuff is underwater, the more it is screwed from being salvageable. I would really like the flood waters to recede to minimize the damage.

The way I look at it, I am already screwed. If the water goes through downtown, what does that mean for every body else? That the levels will go down a little bit? There's still going to be water and its still going to be flooded. And what good will it do even if the water goes down. Everything is pretty much destroyed already. Because I, as well as many other people, have been screwed, I don't think that justifies screwing down town BKK. The victims in the other areas are already there. But the infrastructure of downtown BKK getting screwed will screw everything even worst. Water filtration, the train system, the financial and business districts. It makes sense to save what you can, and if they can save it, then do it.

At this point, however, I think this entire discussion is moot. The satelite photos of the water is just scary. I do not think it is physically possible.

:jap:

This is just another reason the old addage never invest more cash or emotional commitments in Thailand than you are prepared to walk away from .... I have two houses, sorry she! has two houses under 1 metre of water ,now over 1 month and counting ,all the garden and all the long term planting and planning screwed we have BKK refugees living with us in Hong Kong who have small businesses lost ,zero income ,and mounting debts ..... the only good point is my wife now believes my idea of retire to Penang is now a very sound one ...the only question is will I throw more money into repair and rebuilding ( planned for Chinese new year no holidays this time ) or just walk away !!!!!

[LTGTR]

Seriously,300b per day?That's horrible.

[whybother]

Rob, most people still just do not get it. It's not a choice between flooding Bangkok and not flooding Bangkok. You and I have made that point on this board since October, BEFORE I was flooded and just as your place was BEGINNING to flood. The water was always going to go into Bangkok. It was just a matter of how much and how fast. Yes, the powers that be have delayed things. But what happens when you wall up a lot of water for kilometer upon kilometer at least two or three meters high? Answer: it bursts through with force that causes considerable more damage than if things had flowed relatively lower and slower to begin with. Meanwhile, people who would not have been flooded or who would be dry by now are continuing to suffer. What the BMA and FROC has done is create a lose/lose scenerio for everyone. Just to delay the inevitable.

BTW, Mr. Whybother, why DON'T you bother to go out and see the effect of these floods on the lives of real people? I've been out on relief trucks delivering aid to people in Pathum Thani this week and last, and I've seen the long term devestation this flood is causing. I had to evacuate to a friend's house in On Nut, and I've used the opportunity to observe what these floods are doing and try to help people worse off than I am. Instead of NOT bothering with real life, why not get away from your keyboard for a few hours and do something purposeful that helps others?

I am not suggesting that people are not affected by the floods. I'm just questioning how it would help anyone if everyone was flooded.

People that are being flooded in Bangkok aren't being hit by a wall of water. It comes through slowly and rises relatively slowly. It's not like it's coming down a hill. It breaks through and then spreads out.

If Bangkok was flooded, it MIGHT mean that other areas would be less flooded. 90cm instead of 1 metre. But there would also be millions more affected. That would mean there is not only less support for the people that are already flooded, but there would be less support spread over millions more people.

[Just1Voice]

I'm just glad I live in Chiang Mai, about 8 kilometers from the Ping River. My sympathies to ALL who have been, and will yet be, affected by the flooding.

[connda]

"Water influx outpaces drainage" Well.......yeah! Who was the rocket scientist that figured this out?

555 to The Nation: Nothing like reporting the obvious!!!!!!

[connda]

Hey! Think on the bright side: In BBK the locals can just float their krathongs down their sois from their front door step (or second story window)

[VincentRJ]

Look! The situation is quite clear. There's a mass of water heading towards Bangkok and out to sea. More than a month ago when I was in Bangkok, staying at the Menam Riverside Hotel, there were sandbags around the place.

Everyone is aware that water is heading towards Bangkok. The issue has always been how to protect the most essential infrastructure, such as the International Airport and the central business district of Bangkok.

Less important areas will be sacrificed in the process. How could it be otherwise?

Does anyone imagine that a case could be made for allowing the flooding of the centre of Bangkok in order to reduce the flooding in more distant areas surrounding Bangkok?

It's all a matter of priorities. Certain areas will inevitably be flooded. Other areas may be subject to less flooding at the expense of more flooding in other areas, to the extent that some control over the flooding is possible.

The last thing that Thailand wants is the flooding of Suvarnabumi airport. The government will do everything to avoid that.

Don't panic. Be rational.

[AleG]

The flood Bangkok contingent reminds me of the Three Little Pigs fable.

Once upon a time there were three little pigs that heard a Big Bad Wolf was coming, the first pig built a hut out of straw to hide in, the second built one of sticks and the third used brick and mortar to build his house.

The Big Bad Wolf finally arrives to the straw house of the first little pig, he says "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house away!" and so he does.

The first pig runs away to the home of the second pig to seek shelter in the house made of sticks. The Big Bad Wolf comes around and again threatens the two pigs hiding inside "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow this house away!", and again he does so.

The two pigs then run to the house of the third pig, the one made of brick and mortar, and bulldoze it down so that everyone can share the pain.

The Big Bad Wolf ate like a king that night.

[jybkk]

Futility. People have known for weeks that it was best to just let the water flow where it wanted, which was through Inner Bangkok. They delayed it and have made things worse for people in outlaying areas, but in the end it's going to happen anyway. It's just that the flooding would have ended much faster and fewer districts put under water if the prideful people in charge had just allowed things play out from the beginning the way they are inevitably fated to go.

I agree 100% with this comment. The effort to make the flood "Go Away" by blocking it's path to the sea is impossible. The flood should be over NOW. It is actually worse now than if the water was allowed to flow through Bangkok. Yes it would have caused damaged. But it is now causing more damge over a much longer period of time, placing greater hardships on the people of Bangkok and Thailand. Next poblerm will be with disease because of the long lasting standing water.

The major problem not yet resolved is the major airport. Blocking water flow to the sea has caused massive amounts of water to back up and spread. It very well can reach and shut down the last remaining airport in Bangkok, a disaster in itself. As we have seen so far, tourism is at least 50% last years levels Do not believe the false figures of reduced tourism of only 15%, it is really around 50%. Major hit for Thailand. This wil also have a negative impact on the big New Years Eve celebrations should any outbreak of disease occur.

Rob, most people still just do not get it. It's not a choice between flooding Bangkok and not flooding Bangkok. You and I have made that point on this board since October, BEFORE I was flooded and just as your place was BEGINNING to flood. The water was always going to go into Bangkok. It was just a matter of how much and how fast. Yes, the powers that be have delayed things. But what happens when you wall up a lot of water for kilometer upon kilometer at least two or three meters high? Answer: it bursts through with force that causes considerable more damage than if things had flowed relatively lower and slower to begin with. Meanwhile, people who would not have been flooded or who would be dry by now are continuing to suffer. What the BMA and FROC have done is create a lose/lose scenerio for everyone. Just to delay the inevitable.

BTW, Mr. Whybother, why DON'T you bother to go out and see the effect of these floods on the lives of real people? I've been out on relief trucks delivering aid to people in Pathum Thani this week and last, and I've seen the long term devestation this flood is causing. I had to evacuate to a friend's house in On Nut, and I've used the opportunity to observe what these floods are doing and try to help people worse off than I am. Instead of NOT bothering with real life, why not get away from your keyboard for a few hours and do something purposeful that helps others?

You assume that letting the water go through downtown Bangkok would considerably accelerate the rate of water going to the sea. Me and many other are seriously doubting that this is the case.

The thing is, I don't have much more elements to back up this thesis than you have.

We have our own observations of the current flooding, of the ones in the pasts, of what is reported in the media. It's not worth much.

So we could argue for ages for nothing, neither of us being sufficiently expert or having enough data on that.

Because of that, I respect your opinion and understand your point.

However, it would be nice if you didn't assume that people not sharing your views are privileged citizens unaffected by these floods and unwilling to give hand to the relief effort. Because that's insulting.

[wxyz]

it's always painful when you can't save everything and everybody, but the best strategy always is to save the high value areas and as much of everything else as you can.

it's a no brainer to save your pearl Bangkok of 12 million people, and letting the outside areas flood of 1 - 2 million people.

when your home is about to flood, you put your most precious items up on tables or the second floor if you have one,

but you can't put everything up there, so you leave what is not as valuable, not what is most valuable.

Even PM Yingluck agrees with that.

[RichardinBKK]

The practical problem is the relatively small amount of land (Bangkok) flooded for marginal relief verses the human and monetary cost (Tens of thousands of people per square kilometer) This posting is for people who would flood Bangkok, even if it could be avoided.

I live on the Chao Praya river, 30+ floors up, with a view of all of Bangkok. I look out at the city, and wonder how seeing millions of people under water is an improved situation. The infrastructure destroyed, a hot plate of electrocutions, millions of hungry homeless desperate people without clean water, food, sanitation, medical attention...and the ways and means to recover when the waters finally subside.

I also look at the river rushing out to sea every day, and think...because they have diverted the water into canals, and are pumping it into the river...much of the water I see flowing past is another day of misery for millions of people...avoided.

Although I am "high and dry" ... our family has lost two homes, and they are all now living here in the last house we own in downtown Bangkok (Street level). So, if flooding were a choice...not an unavoidable condition...some people are saying to my 70 year old father in law, and two 40+ brother in laws...sorry you lost your homes...but we have decided to flood the last one.

They might ask, "Why?" and remind you that "It will make little or no difference to the rest of the flooded areas in the long run."

More people without homes does not create homes, more thirsty people does not create fresh water, more desperate people does not create less looting and crime, more filthy conditions do not create less disease...In short...more misery does not change for the better the condition of those already suffering. In fact, adding several million more government dependent civilians could be the straw that breaks for once and for all, the camel's back of Thailand's remarkable presence and strength in the region.

So, to those who would flood Bangkok if it were a choice...not an inevitable outcome...consider that sharing your bitter fruit with others, does not improve the quality of your next bite.

Edited November 10, 2011 by RichardinBKK

[anterian]

Futility. People have known for weeks that it was best to just let the water flow where it wanted, which was through Inner Bangkok. They delayed it and have made things worse for people in outlaying areas, but in the end it's going to happen anyway. It's just that the flooding would have ended much faster and fewer districts put under water if the prideful people in charge had just allowed things play out from the beginning the way they are inevitably fated to go.

Yep. It would have been better to flood Bangkok and make things worse for another 10 million people.

If they had let the water in uncontrolled, there would be more than a few districts flooded. And the water has been sitting at Don Mueang for how long, with nothing stopping it and all the drainage available to get rid of it?

The water wouldn't just rush through Bangkok to the sea. It would just sit there for a few weeks. It moves very slowly because the terrain is generally flat ... except that some areas are lower than others, so those areas will get much more flooding which will stay there a lot longer.

A lot of the ten million you refer to are actually in the suburbs of BKK that are flooded. Not many actually live in central BKK. The decision was places over people. That is very well known by those affected. Go to a shelter and talk to people about it. It is very informative. Take some goodies to give out too if you do.

Exactly so, but some people live sheltered lives, away from reality.

[DocN]

The practical problem is the relatively small amount of land (Bangkok) flooded for marginal relief verses the human and monetary cost (Tens of thousands of people per square kilometer) This posting is for people who would flood Bangkok, even if it could be avoided.

I live on the Chao Praya river, 30+ floors up, with a view of all of Bangkok. I look out at the city, and wonder how seeing millions of people under water is an improved situation. The infrastructure destroyed, a hot plate of electrocutions, millions of hungry homeless desperate people without clean water, food, sanitation, medical attention...and the ways and means to recover when the waters finally subside.

I also look at the river rushing out to sea every day, and think...because they have diverted the water into canals, and are pumping it into the river...much of the water I see flowing past is another day of misery for millions of people...avoided.

Although I am "high and dry" ... our family has lost two homes, and they are all now living here in the last house we own in downtown Bangkok (Street level). So, if flooding were a choice...not an unavoidable condition...some people are saying to my 70 year old father in law, and two 40+ brother in laws...sorry you lost your homes...but we have decided to flood the last one.

They might ask, "Why?" and remind you that "It will make little or no difference to the rest of the flooded areas in the long run."

More people without homes does not create homes, more thirsty people does not create fresh water, more desperate people does not create less looting and crime, more filthy conditions do not create less disease...In short...more misery does not change for the better the condition of those already suffering. In fact, adding several million more government dependent civilians could be the straw that breaks for once and for all, the camel's back of Thailand's remarkable presence and strength in the region.

So, to those who would flood Bangkok if it were a choice...not an inevitable outcome...consider that sharing your bitter fruit with others, does not improve the quality of your next bite.

+ 100000000

[whybother]

A lot of the ten million you refer to are actually in the suburbs of BKK that are flooded. Not many actually live in central BKK. The decision was places over people. That is very well known by those affected. Go to a shelter and talk to people about it. It is very informative. Take some goodies to give out too if you do.

Exactly so, but some people live sheltered lives, away from reality.

Not "exactly so", but don't let the facts get in the way of your reality.

[hbullinger]

In many of the above contributions I can smell the Red Shirt philosophy raising its ugly head again.

As they didn't manage to achieve their declared target of destroying Bangkok by fire last year, why not try by water?

I didn't spot many red shirts helping flood victims in Bangkok. Maybe they regarded them as part of the elite.

[rogerdee123]

In many of the above contributions I can smell the Red Shirt philosophy raising its ugly head again.

As they didn't manage to achieve their declared target of destroying Bangkok by fire last year, why not try by water?

I didn't spot many red shirts helping flood victims in Bangkok. Maybe they regarded them as part of the elite.

doesn't fire and water together mean something significant in Chinese? I mean something more significant than steam.

[satiariyan]

You assume that letting the water go through downtown Bangkok would considerably accelerate the rate of water going to the sea. Me and many other are seriously doubting that this is the case.

The thing is, I don't have much more elements to back up this thesis than you have.

We have our own observations of the current flooding, of the ones in the pasts, of what is reported in the media. It's not worth much.

So we could argue for ages for nothing, neither of us being sufficiently expert or having enough data on that.

Because of that, I respect your opinion and understand your point.

Yes, we most certainly do have a loud and clear evidence that letting water flow freely through central Bangkok, would NOT accelerate flow to the sea considerably. Look at the branch going down west of Chao Phrao. This branch has been allowed to run freely, and is totally independant of what blockage may have been put up against the central and eastern flood branches inasmuch as there is and always has been a big river between the west branch an the rest of the runoff all the way from its origin in upper central plains. Despite being unblocked, it has by now been more than a month getting from the north-western part of the Bangkok area and it still has a long way to go before reaching the sea. Similar, but less obvious without usage of calculators, principles go for the eastern branch where flood progress is a bit more intertwined with the central branch.

So, despite how much posters on the westbank would love to blame the depht and duration of the flood on their side of the river on the protection applied to areas on the east - the two parts are independent apart from those very few cubicmeters that may have spilled over from Chao Praya

Edited November 10, 2011 by satiariyan

[Jerrytheyoung]

The problem is " is this dramatic lesson sufficient for being learnt by the Elite?".

If today, I agree everything has to be done in order to avoid extending the Catastrophe and so to protect the maximum of heavy investments in Bangkok.

For the future, it is different: Bangkok is a monster sucking all the wealth and condamning to poverty the rest of the Country, this creating a Society at two speeds; this can only generate heavy social turbulences.

When the flood will have receded, it is time to re-think the development of Thailand, it will be wise to invest on a different way, setting up a proper infrastructure, decentralising the wealth in better locations.

Bangkok development must be slow down for social reasons, for justice and because the investments for protecting the City are going to be huge, more you extend the area to be protected, more the investments are going to be gigantic.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Jerrytheyoung

[Payboy]

"Water influx outpaces drainage" Well.......yeah! Who was the rocket scientist that figured this out?

It ranks right up there with the "Bangkok is situated on a flood plain" observation by those Japanese experts.

[RichardinBKK]

The problem is " is this dramatic lesson sufficient for being learnt by the Elite?".

If today, I agree everything has to be done in order to avoid extending the Catastrophe and so to protect the maximum of heavy investments in Bangkok.

For the future, it is different: Bangkok is a monster sucking all the wealth and condamning to poverty the rest of the Country, this creating a Society at two speeds; this can only generate heavy social turbulences.

When the flood will have receded, it is time to re-think the development of Thailand, it will be wise to invest on a different way, setting up a proper infrastructure, decentralising the wealth in better locations.

Bangkok development must be slow down for social reasons, for justice and because the investments for protecting the City are going to be huge, more you extend the area to be protected, more the investments are going to be gigantic.

Funny, in other parts of the world, "gigantic" infrastructure projects are viewed as job / wealth / opportunity creating where a centralized effort can have a positive effect on wages, worker safety and benefits. Thailand would be wise to count its blessings if they have the financial backing and global "buy in" to rebuild a better and more pridictable infrastructure.

I would be interested to know how, in a producer / consumer economy, the consumer (the person purchasing good and services) is " a monster sucking all the wealth."

Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult, but would like you to expand on this popular belief. I am a person capable of learning, and yes...changing my mind...so please help me understand this.

Many Thanks...

[Jerrytheyoung]

The problem is " is this dramatic lesson sufficient for being learnt by the Elite?".

If today, I agree everything has to be done in order to avoid extending the Catastrophe and so to protect the maximum of heavy investments in Bangkok.

For the future, it is different: Bangkok is a monster sucking all the wealth and condamning to poverty the rest of the Country, this creating a Society at two speeds; this can only generate heavy social turbulences.

When the flood will have receded, it is time to re-think the development of Thailand, it will be wise to invest on a different way, setting up a proper infrastructure, decentralising the wealth in better locations.

Bangkok development must be slow down for social reasons, for justice and because the investments for protecting the City are going to be huge, more you extend the area to be protected, more the investments are going to be gigantic.

Funny, in other parts of the world, "gigantic" infrastructure projects are viewed as job / wealth / opportunity creating where a centralized effort can have a positive effect on wages, worker safety and benefits. Thailand would be wise to count its blessings if they have the financial backing and global "buy in" to rebuild a better and more pridictable infrastructure.

I would be interested to know how, in a producer / consumer economy, the consumer (the person purchasing good and services) is " a monster sucking all the wealth."

Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult, but would like you to expand on this popular belief. I am a person capable of learning, and yes...changing my mind...so please help me understand this.

Many Thanks...

look around:

Malaysia is decentralising the activities throughout the Country....Vietnam also. It stabilises the population.

I have already made several posts on decentralisation. In France, long time ago, the development of Paris was a concern. It has been decided to slow down the development of Paris. Even some Administrations, some Grandes Ecoles (like ENA) have been summoned for leaving Paris area. Some industrial areas, (particularly the northern band with engineering, automotive industry) have been obliged to re-locate in the Country. It has been a long term policy.

The heavy populated suburbs are also the sources of social unstability and are progressively reduced.

Some Thai academics have studied this policy named "Amenagement et developpement du territoire", managed during several dozens of years through various governments of different trends: they are generally admirative and wish to be able to do something like that, blaming every time the short term political gambling making it impossible in Thailand.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Jerrytheyoung

[Samuian]

Well, then let's move it!

Let's move it all, the subaway, the skytrain, just everything... out of there and then let it all flood!

Can't believe the stuff I am reading here!

Is there any, any of the infrastructur, that is found in inner bangkok, out there in the flooded plains?

What makes my mind boggle is the sheer amount of the floods, how and where did it accumulate?

Just accumulated from rainfall?

It makes my mind boggle... how could all this massive amount of water have accumulated woithout beeing somehow noticed.

[OzMick]

The problem is " is this dramatic lesson sufficient for being learnt by the Elite?".

If today, I agree everything has to be done in order to avoid extending the Catastrophe and so to protect the maximum of heavy investments in Bangkok.

For the future, it is different: Bangkok is a monster sucking all the wealth and condamning to poverty the rest of the Country, this creating a Society at two speeds; this can only generate heavy social turbulences.

When the flood will have receded, it is time to re-think the development of Thailand, it will be wise to invest on a different way, setting up a proper infrastructure, decentralising the wealth in better locations.

Bangkok development must be slow down for social reasons, for justice and because the investments for protecting the City are going to be huge, more you extend the area to be protected, more the investments are going to be gigantic.

How do you get the situation so wrong?

Millions of rural Thais are engaged in growing rice in a fundamentally labour intensive and inefficient manner. Being a low value product, it doesn't supply them with sufficient income, so the taxpayers of this country are forced by the electoral clout of the farmers to subsidise their lifestyle. The cost of subsidising this inefficiency reduce the funds available to lift their educational standards, aspirations and income, and successive governments are willing to pander to a mass of gullible, ill-informed and venal (if only due to their poverty) voters.

Bangkok and its environs are the cash cow of the Thai economy, the wealth is being sucked North and NorthEast to support those happy in an unsustainable lifestyle. Even the Reform Commission talks of giving landless farmers 2 rai of rice land, the farming of which will provide enough to keep you in poverty for the rest of your life.

[Jerrytheyoung]

""Funny, in other parts of the world, "gigantic" infrastructure projects are viewed as job / wealth / opportunity creating where a centralized effort can have a positive effect on wages, worker safety and benefits. Thailand would be wise to count its blessings if they have the financial backing and global "buy in" to rebuild a better and more pridictable infrastructure.

I would be interested to know how, in a producer / consumer economy, the consumer (the person purchasing good and services) is " a monster sucking all the wealth."

Honestly, I am not trying to be difficult, but would like you to expand on this popular belief. I am a person capable of learning, and yes...changing my mind...so please help me understand this.

Many Thanks...""

The investments' budget for a " gigantic insfrastructure" strictly located in Bangkok area benefit only to part of the Country. The same budget can be spend on another way for example modernising the railways and highways infrastucture in the up country.

You are distorting my post, I have never stated that the consumer is a monster but Yes Bangkok is becoming a Monster Megapole and as such more and more difficult to manage.

Better to fix the population in the Up country when it is possible, on the long range it is a better utilisation of the budget