Yingluck Gets By With A Little Help

[kerryk]

I think it is important to realize we were talking about unemployment. I said Thailand had no unemployment. ½ of 1 percent would be interpreted by most people as none. There is more allowable fly feces in pepper than one percent and most people would state they don't eat fly sh** on a daily basis.

So, three of the above posters who know absolutely nothing about the Thai economy have made it their business to comment on the Thai economy as a result of their ignorance about the Thai government as a whole. They think in an adolescent way that name calling like, "I'm nonsensical and spurious" is cute.

You would think they would apologize. But no, they shoot and run.

I am not always correct and when I am wrong I have the balls to admit it, apologize and move on.

But I am also not engaged in character assassination every time the name of the current Thai PM comes up.

[whybother]

I think it is important to realize we were talking about unemployment. I said Thailand had no unemployment. ½ of 1 percent would be interpreted by most people as none. There is more allowable fly feces in pepper than one percent and most people would state they don't eat fly sh** on a daily basis.

So, three of the above posters who know absolutely nothing about the Thai economy have made it their business to comment on the Thai economy as a result of their ignorance about the Thai government as a whole. They think in an adolescent way that name calling like, "I'm nonsensical and spurious" is cute.

You would think they would apologize. But no, they shoot and run.

I am not always correct and when I am wrong I have the balls to admit it, apologize and move on.

But I am also not engaged in character assassination every time the name of the current Thai PM comes up.

You were wrong. You admitted you were wrong TWICE. How about you apologise for wasting everyone's time.

[kerryk]

I think it is important to realize we were talking about unemployment. I said Thailand had no unemployment. ½ of 1 percent would be interpreted by most people as none. There is more allowable fly feces in pepper than one percent and most people would state they don't eat fly sh** on a daily basis.

So, three of the above posters who know absolutely nothing about the Thai economy have made it their business to comment on the Thai economy as a result of their ignorance about the Thai government as a whole. They think in an adolescent way that name calling like, "I'm nonsensical and spurious" is cute.

You would think they would apologize. But no, they shoot and run.

I am not always correct and when I am wrong I have the balls to admit it, apologize and move on.

But I am also not engaged in character assassination every time the name of the current Thai PM comes up.

You were wrong. You admitted you were wrong TWICE. How about you apologise for wasting everyone's time.

I would actually answer you but anyone who thinks there is a substantive difference when talking about unemployment between none and half of one percent is a nitpicking loon and trying to bait me again. So no take your nits somewhere else.

[OzMick]

I think it is important to realize we were talking about unemployment. I said Thailand had no unemployment. ½ of 1 percent would be interpreted by most people as none. There is more allowable fly feces in pepper than one percent and most people would state they don't eat fly sh** on a daily basis.

So, three of the above posters who know absolutely nothing about the Thai economy have made it their business to comment on the Thai economy as a result of their ignorance about the Thai government as a whole. They think in an adolescent way that name calling like, "I'm nonsensical and spurious" is cute.

You would think they would apologize. But no, they shoot and run.

I am not always correct and when I am wrong I have the balls to admit it, apologize and move on.

But I am also not engaged in character assassination every time the name of the current Thai PM comes up.

You were wrong. You admitted you were wrong TWICE. How about you apologise for wasting everyone's time.

I would actually answer you but anyone who thinks there is a substantive difference when talking about unemployment between none and half of one percent is a nitpicking loon and trying to bait me again. So no take your nits somewhere else.

Tut, tut! Name calling, and off topic .

[kerryk]

I think it is important to realize we were talking about unemployment. I said Thailand had no unemployment. ½ of 1 percent would be interpreted by most people as none. There is more allowable fly feces in pepper than one percent and most people would state they don't eat fly sh** on a daily basis.

So, three of the above posters who know absolutely nothing about the Thai economy have made it their business to comment on the Thai economy as a result of their ignorance about the Thai government as a whole. They think in an adolescent way that name calling like, "I'm nonsensical and spurious" is cute.

You would think they would apologize. But no, they shoot and run.

I am not always correct and when I am wrong I have the balls to admit it, apologize and move on.

But I am also not engaged in character assassination every time the name of the current Thai PM comes up.

You were wrong. You admitted you were wrong TWICE. How about you apologise for wasting everyone's time.

I would actually answer you but anyone who thinks there is a substantive difference when talking about unemployment between none and half of one percent is a nitpicking loon and trying to bait me again. So no take your nits somewhere else.

Tut, tut! Name calling, and off topic .

So tell me what you think is an appropriate description of a debate between one half of one percent and no unemployment.

Do you think any government in the world would care or start a program or do anything differently because they had one half of one percent unemployment as opposed to no unemployment?

What would you think about a person who insisted there was a substantial difference between none and one half of one percent unemployment.

The difference is meaningless and your insistence it is not is foolish.

[OzMick]

You were wrong. You admitted you were wrong TWICE. How about you apologise for wasting everyone's time.

I would actually answer you but anyone who thinks there is a substantive difference when talking about unemployment between none and half of one percent is a nitpicking loon and trying to bait me again. So no take your nits somewhere else.

Tut, tut! Name calling, and off topic .

So tell me what you think is an appropriate description of a debate between one half of one percent and no unemployment.

Do you think any government in the world would care or start a program or do anything differently because they had one half of one percent unemployment as opposed to no unemployment?

What would you think about a person who insisted there was a substantial difference between none and one half of one percent unemployment.

The difference is meaningless and your insistence it is not is foolish.

MY insistence???

Thailand's close to zero unemployment figure is meaningless because few people have serious savings and there is no social security to fall back on - so they either work, starve, steal or bludge. As the last 3 aren't very palatable to most, you get near zero unemployment.

BTW Australia also offers work to UK nurses. By your logic there is no unemployment in the UK?

[kerryk]

Do you think any government in the world would care or start a program or do anything differently because they had one half of one percent unemployment as opposed to no unemployment?

What would you think about a person who insisted there was a substantial difference between none and one half of one percent unemployment.

The difference is meaningless and your insistence it is not is foolish.

MY insistence???

Thailand's close to zero unemployment figure is meaningless because few people have serious savings and there is no social security to fall back on - so they either work, starve, steal or bludge. As the last 3 aren't very palatable to most, you get near zero unemployment.

BTW Australia also offers work to UK nurses. By your logic there is no unemployment in the UK?

Mike sorry I can't debate with you any more. I am beginning to feel like a fish. Remember if you have any problems getting home just click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home."

Must be late, your post is a little confusing. What time is it in OZ now. You are different though. You are the only person I have ever met discussing economics that said 0 unemployment is meaningless.

[hyperdimension]

Unemployemnt rate is the number of people actively looking for a job divided labour force. It is not the number of people actively looking for a job divided by the entire population.

So the statement

99% of the people in Thailand are employed.

is technically incorrect because the labour force in Thailand does not equal the population of Thailand. People who are not looking for work are not counted as being part of the labour force.

[kerryk]

Unemployemnt rate is the number of people actively looking for a job divided labour force. It is not the number of people actively looking for a job divided by the entire population.

So the statement

99% of the people in Thailand are employed.

is technically incorrect because the labour force in Thailand does not equal the population of Thailand. People who are not looking for work are not counted as being part of the labour force.

Did you really think anyone was confused? I mean we were discussing unemployment. I don't think anyone thought that babies and old people were part of the job force or that I was talking about them. Your post was kind of like the grammar police for economics.

[OzMick]

Do you think any government in the world would care or start a program or do anything differently because they had one half of one percent unemployment as opposed to no unemployment?

What would you think about a person who insisted there was a substantial difference between none and one half of one percent unemployment.

The difference is meaningless and your insistence it is not is foolish.

MY insistence???

Thailand's close to zero unemployment figure is meaningless because few people have serious savings and there is no social security to fall back on - so they either work, starve, steal or bludge. As the last 3 aren't very palatable to most, you get near zero unemployment.

BTW Australia also offers work to UK nurses. By your logic there is no unemployment in the UK?

Mike sorry I can't debate with you any more. I am beginning to feel like a fish. Remember if you have any problems getting home just click your heels together three times and say, "There's no place like home."

Must be late, your post is a little confusing. What time is it in OZ now. You are different though. You are the only person I have ever met discussing economics that said 0 unemployment is meaningless.

"Fourthly as i have indicated before I have interest in wasting my time arguing with someone who slips off at a tangent whenever something inconvenient is presented, and then declares a line of discussion off topic despite that subject being self-raised."

Thank you for proving my point again BTW my posts are timed, as are all others.

[phiphidon]

Unemployemnt rate is the number of people actively looking for a job divided labour force. It is not the number of people actively looking for a job divided by the entire population.

So the statement

99% of the people in Thailand are employed.

is technically incorrect because the labour force in Thailand does not equal the population of Thailand. People who are not looking for work are not counted as being part of the labour force.

Did you really think anyone was confused? I mean we were discussing unemployment. I don't think anyone thought that babies and old people were part of the job force or that I was talking about them. Your post was kind of like the grammar police for economics.

Unfortunately his post was about par for the course in nit picking, I'll have the last word if it kills me, I'm right, you're wrong even if I have to make ridiculous claims style of debate you experience with these posters. TV is a playground they never grew out of.

[kerryk]

The later parts of this thread have been characterized by nitpicking nonsense. The current government has a mandate to govern and unemployment in Thailand is almost non existent.

The first attack at the obvious was by semantic argument both by English usage and economic reality.

The next is by unrelated facts that have nothing to do with either.

It is too bad that a few of the leading nitpickers are from the same country as it lends itself to ethnic stereotyping.

So I will just mention it again what any reasonable person would find obvious looking at the current situation in Thailand. The current government has a mandate to govern and unemployment in Thailand is almost non existent. Australia has 10 times the out of work individuals by percent but Australia still has a very low rate of unemployment if that gives you an idea of just how low the unemployment rate is in Thailand.

Mentioning unrelated facts to unemployment like individual savings does not alter the importance of the almost non existent unemployment rate.

[metisdead]

A flame post has been removed as well as the replies.

[animatic]

Writing and speaking a language is not the same. Another matter is that public speaking is quite different from having a conversation. In a more private setting Yingluck's English is far better than on the stage.

such as this one on one conversation she had with ABC News Zoe Daniel.

"The problem in Thailand is we have high debt."

So who has just hugely increased the Thai national debt.

Oh yes, Yinglucks government.

[animatic]

The later parts of this thread have been characterized by nitpicking nonsense. The current government has a mandate to govern and unemployment in Thailand is almost non existent.

The first attack at the obvious was by semantic argument both by English usage and economic reality.

The next is by unrelated facts that have nothing to do with either.

It is too bad that a few of the leading nitpickers are from the same country as it lends itself to ethnic stereotyping.

So I will just mention it again what any reasonable person would find obvious looking at the current situation in Thailand. The current government has a mandate to govern and unemployment in Thailand is almost non existent. Australia has 10 times the out of work individuals by percent but Australia still has a very low rate of unemployment if that gives you an idea of just how low the unemployment rate is in Thailand.

Mentioning unrelated facts to unemployment like individual savings does not alter the importance of the almost non existent unemployment rate.

How and who is applied to those 'Employment Numbers'

explains a lot of why 'apparent unemployment' is non-existant.

How about the functionally unemployed, working subsistance jobs or die from starvation.

Making 6,000 baht / US$195 a month may be technically employed, but is it not a living wage.

These numbers of people are staggering.

[OzMick]

The later parts of this thread have been characterized by nitpicking nonsense. The current government has a mandate to govern and unemployment in Thailand is almost non existent.

The first attack at the obvious was by semantic argument both by English usage and economic reality.

The next is by unrelated facts that have nothing to do with either.

It is too bad that a few of the leading nitpickers are from the same country as it lends itself to ethnic stereotyping.

So I will just mention it again what any reasonable person would find obvious looking at the current situation in Thailand. The current government has a mandate to govern and unemployment in Thailand is almost non existent. Australia has 10 times the out of work individuals by percent but Australia still has a very low rate of unemployment if that gives you an idea of just how low the unemployment rate is in Thailand.

Mentioning unrelated facts to unemployment like individual savings does not alter the importance of the almost non existent unemployment rate.

Last night I saw a blind man and his guide singing/begging, another man on a home made skateboard because he had no legs also begging.

At least they are employed.

In Australia they would be reasonably comfortable on a Disability Pension but can also register as unemployed if they want to boost their income. Likewise relatively fit people who have no real interest in working can receive unemployment benefits while making sure by their attitude or appearance that no employer will offer them a job.

If you fail to see the difference in the two situations you are being deliberately obtuse again.

[ginjag]

Amazing posts about unemployment 5555555. is there a difference between unemployed, the ones that are not taxable ?? and the ones that are out of work and the ones who never work, others who never pay anything to the state, the million who WORK in the sex industry--NOT WORKING, the sick and elder people. I would doubt anyone could get a percentage for Thais unemployed. if they did like a poster claims it is Bul#s#it. The government could never know I can only think their figures come from, the ones who normally work but now are not. All the people everyday in your life here who are laid on bamboo tables sleeping, and drinking, all the kids that have left school who do not have jobs. Tell me what is all this 1% bull.