Endless Handouts Lead To Weakness And Dependency: Thai Editorial

[MAJIC]

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Mrs Thatcher said that!, though I cannot confirm it was an original quote.

What she should have said,was : The problem with Socialism,is there is nothing left after Capitalism has cleaned the Country out!

[FOODLOVER]

The HiSo guy who wrote this article really gets it. Right now poor people in Thailand are becoming outright spoiled by the immense social benefits afforded to them by the government. They are living the life of riley on the tax payers baht and it is making them unproductive.

Try the USA. More than 40% of citizens receive some sort of government handouts and this does not include the millions of illegal aliens. Now the younger generation has come to expect it. I am from the old school. No work no eat.

May i have a link please. Are you including social security( which one pays into) and or federal pensions which one gets instead of social? Thanks

[nurofiend]

The HiSo guy who wrote this article really gets it. Right now poor people in Thailand are becoming outright spoiled by the immense social benefits afforded to them by the government. They are living the life of riley on the tax payers baht and it is making them unproductive.

sounding a bit fascist there tbh.

[nurofiend]

The HiSo guy who wrote this article really gets it. Right now poor people in Thailand are becoming outright spoiled by the immense social benefits afforded to them by the government. They are living the life of riley on the tax payers baht and it is making them unproductive.

Try the USA. More than 40% of citizens receive some sort of government handouts and this does not include the millions of illegal aliens. Now the younger generation has come to expect it. I am from the old school. No work no eat.

oh... definitely sounds fascist...

[nurofiend]

so is anything they ever do 'for the poor' or is everything always just 'populist policy'....

[brit1984]

so is anything they ever do 'for the poor' or is everything always just 'populist policy'....

If the government really wanted to help the poor, they would focus on policies to improve education and economic opportunities, rather than giving them free handouts to pay off their debts

[nurofiend]

so is anything they ever do 'for the poor' or is everything always just 'populist policy'....

If the government really wanted to help the poor, they would focus on policies to improve education and economic opportunities, rather than giving them free handouts to pay off their debts

so you don't think they really want to help the poor, or am i reading that wrong...

[Curt1591]

Brings to mind the US Department of Agriculture's announcement that it was proud to be offering a record number of food stamps to recipients. Surprisingly, this is the same department that asks that people do not feed wild animals, because it makes them dependent on handouts!

[tig28]

I don't know what to call the economic system in Thailand, but I believe either socialism or capitalism would be an improvement

Well .... concidering recent global financial difficulties .... I guess Thailands economic system could best be called ........ successful.

Edited April 29, 2012 by tig28

[brit1984]

so is anything they ever do 'for the poor' or is everything always just 'populist policy'....

If the government really wanted to help the poor, they would focus on policies to improve education and economic opportunities, rather than giving them free handouts to pay off their debts

so you don't think they really want to help the poor, or am i reading that wrong...

I don't know whether the government wants to help the poor; but this insane policy does not help the poor

[pimay11]

The HiSo guy who wrote this article really gets it. Right now poor people in Thailand are becoming outright spoiled by the immense social benefits afforded to them by the government. They are living the life of riley on the tax payers baht and it is making them unproductive.

Try the USA. More than 40% of citizens receive some sort of government handouts and this does not include the millions of illegal aliens. Now the younger generation has come to expect it. I am from the old school. No work no eat.

May i have a link please. Are you including social security( which one pays into) and or federal pensions which one gets instead of social? Thanks

Link below. Social security is included plus the increase in people receiving in social security disability benifits withing the last three years. Government pension not included.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/01/31/dependent-on-uncle-sam/

[animatic]

Even more important, it's the fastest route to bankrupt the entire nation.

[nurofiend]

so is anything they ever do 'for the poor' or is everything always just 'populist policy'....

If the government really wanted to help the poor, they would focus on policies to improve education and economic opportunities, rather than giving them free handouts to pay off their debts

so you don't think they really want to help the poor, or am i reading that wrong...

I don't know whether the government wants to help the poor; but this insane policy does not help the poor

but i'm just wondering what you think?

do you think that they really want to help the poor?

[Thai at Heart]

Only took to halfway down to compare thailand to v greece. 40% debt to gdp versus 150. Indeed very comparable. Useless article.

Why is it a useless article because of that comparison? Do you think Greece has always been at 150? It was the policies within the Greek economy that led it down the path to financial ruin. The Government there were continually handing out money to the poor and to government workers. Populist policies were rife. The same trend is being set in Thailand. Drain the banks at the tax payers expense to get re-elected. It wont take much more mismanagement for it to start snowballing out of control.

It appears that the Finance Minister needs to do a course in finance.

I just grow very weary of people believing that if Thailand enacts some "social" policies, that it inevitably ends in a situation like Greece without realising that the comparisons are so far apart, that it represents very basic scaremongering. I lived and worked in Greece for a while, and it was patently obvious that the model was broken a long time ago and that social costs were sprialliing way way out of control. Of course it isn't impossible for any country to replicate the situation that Greece is in, but when overall government debt in Thailand is about 40>45% of GDP, and growth is about 3 to 5% a year that there is scope to implement some social policies.

Comparing the benefits available to the Greeks from their government and those available to Thais is apples and oranges. The similarity is of course is that people in both countries don't pay their taxes to the levels at which they should. Fraud and the "cash" economy was enormous in Greece as it is here, but at the level of government debt around in Thailand today, Thailand would have to implement absolutely enormous social programs for a very long time to get into the same position.

[brit1984]

nurofiend.. I don't know whether the government thinks they are helping the poor with this policy... but I find it hard to believe they would be quite so stupid to think that bailing borrowers out of their debts using taxpayers money is a good way to help the poor

[nurofiend]

nurofiend.. I don't know whether the government thinks they are helping the poor with this policy... but I find it hard to believe they would be quite so stupid to think that bailing borrowers out of their debts using taxpayers money is a good way to help the poor

i think setting up a debt moratorium program for farmers and people on low income, really is the government wanting to help the poor.

[whybother]

nurofiend.. I don't know whether the government thinks they are helping the poor with this policy... but I find it hard to believe they would be quite so stupid to think that bailing borrowers out of their debts using taxpayers money is a good way to help the poor

i think setting up a debt moratorium program for farmers and people on low income, really is the government wanting to help the poor.

The question then is, WILL this really help the poor?

[brit1984]

nurofiend.. I don't know whether the government thinks they are helping the poor with this policy... but I find it hard to believe they would be quite so stupid to think that bailing borrowers out of their debts using taxpayers money is a good way to help the poor

i think setting up a debt moratorium program for farmers and people on low income, really is the government wanting to help the poor.

The question then is, WILL this really help the poor?

obviously not...

if you really want to help poor people you need to improve education and economic opportunities

teaching poor people that debts do not necessarily need to be repaid is not helping poor people

the only benefactors of this policy will be budget retailers (e.g. Big-C) who sell consumer goods to poor people on credit

[JurgenG]

Everybody need to borrow money at one moment or an other.

For the poorest in Thailand the only option is the loan shark with killing interest rates that will make sure they will never get out of poverty.

Of course when you lend money at a large scale, there is going to be a number of people who, for one reason or an other won't be able / willing to pay back. That's true even for private banks. But these banks are still in the business of lending, so it is manageable.

Now they are people who don't want to lend money to poor people because they want to make sure these people remain poor. Democrat electors live in an outdated feudal system that can survive only if the majority of the population remains poor. They even deny the right to these people to own their land. If you can't own your land, you can't borrow from your bank, to buy a tractor for example. The only option is the loan shark. But the killing interest rates will eat away all the benefit you get from the tractor. Providing these people will cheap loan will help them to get out of poverty. But again that's not the interest of a feudal system.

Edited April 30, 2012 by JurgenG

[cup-O-coffee]

Agreed JurgenG; but one thing this article does not cover is where the money that the mechanism is financing is going. I am curious how these loans are being spent, and what are the short term / long term results or consequences of the borrowers intentions and efforts.

Sad to say, that I am a bit skeptical of the intentions of the borrowers, and how they use these funds that are loaned to them.

True, I do not like that the poor are kept that way, but to dismiss any responsibility on their part is an oversight that brings disaster to these loan schemes. It is throwing money away or another way to bring about usury.

There is a reason the average person is poor. I am not describing the hard luck case. I am describing the person who pisses away every satang they get - as quickly as it falls into their sweaty palm - on lotto, whiskey, cigarettes, cards, televisions, etc. and the next day they are right back where they were, whining and begging for more without any regard for the day before. Idiots all!

You simply cannot throw money at illiterate and uneducated people without some sort of moderating the system and policing how those funds are spent.

A man wants a loan for a tractor. Fine! Make sure someone goes out to his place to make sure he has something to grade or dig, and to make sure he has in fact purchased a tractor. Or better yet, look at the reason for the loan and let the bank work together with the businesses that the borrower will use to purchase whatever they are purchasing, be it a house, a parcel of land, a car, bike or tractor.

To simply throw money into the hands of people who have a history of being poor (credit history right there in your face!) and not somehow govern them spending it as they describe on the loan application is a recipe for disaster.

This article does not clearly state what these borrowers are doing with the money. I submit that the banks don't give a dam_n about what is being done withe the banks money, and that is not a wise investment. The results and the decisions of the government make this quite clear.

Edited April 30, 2012 by cup-O-coffee

[JurgenG]

By the way, right after the coup, the junta organized a tour of foreign governments to explain the new economic policy of Thailand. The foreign governments were baffled, what the hell are they talking about ? I don't know if the democrats really supported these new policies but they never say anything against them.

One of the reason for the junta to hand over the government to civilians was because, from their own admission, they weren't able to handle the economical problems of the nation. Handling the economical problems of the nation was never an issue with the Thaksin administration.

Democrats never said a thing at the time. IMO, they earned the right to remain silent today.

[whybother]

Everybody need to borrow money at one moment or an other.

For the poorest in Thailand the only option is the loan shark with killing interest rates that will make sure they will never get out of poverty.

Of course when you lend money at a large scale, there is going to be a number of people who, for one reason or an other won't be able / willing to pay back. That's true even for private banks. But these banks are still in the business of lending, so it is manageable.

Now they are people who don't want to lend money to poor people because they want to make sure these people remain poor. Democrat electors live in an outdated feudal system that can survive only if the majority of the population remains poor. They even deny the right to these people to own their land. If you can't own your land, you can't borrow from your bank, to buy a tractor for example. The only option is the loan shark. But the killing interest rates will eat away all the benefit you get from the tractor. Providing these people will cheap loan will help them to get out of poverty. But again that's not the interest of a feudal system.

It's not that people don't want to lend money to the poor. This scheme doesn't do anything for people that have loaned money from loan sharks. Those people can't get credit at reasonable interest rates from banks. And it's the people with loans at banks that are getting the debt moratorium.

If the government wants to help people with debt, then provide micro-credit schemes at acceptable interest rates.

[Bagwan]

I am not against giving those with problems a helping hand but I do object to shelling out for idiots who produce far too many kids or have just given up on life. You want kids, you pay for them. More support should be given to educating the simple and stupid, under penalty of withdrawal of all social security payments, such as they are, if they do not try to better themselves so that they make themselves employable. Such a system would assist Thailand to grow expotentially to the benefit of all.

Do not feed the poor, give them a rod or net so that they may catch fish and feed themselves. In Thailands case, give them land, teach them to farm, teach them what is most profitable to grow, crack down on the greedy middlemen, and maybe just as important, teach them financial discipline. And good luck with that! Somewhat much like baying at the moon, maybe.

There is very little in the way of social security in Thailand. A small old age payment, and milk powder for one child for the mother of twins is the only that I've heard of.

There is a plan to give landless farmers 2 rai of land. This is sufficient to keep them in poverty for the rest of their life.

Would co-operatives work? Pull all the local small farmers in, give each a voice on the governing council, gain by economies of scale? Maybe not. TIT. Getting them to agree to anything is up hill. The local phu yais wouldn't care to have competition either.

[Bagwan]

The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.

Mrs Thatcher said that!, though I cannot confirm it was an original quote.

What she should have said,was : The problem with Socialism,is there is nothing left after Capitalism has cleaned the Country out!

Blair and Brown didn't exactly leave the coffers overflowing, did they?

I am convinced that Socialism and Communism will never work. They are contrary to human nature.

[nurofiend]

Everybody need to borrow money at one moment or an other.

For the poorest in Thailand the only option is the loan shark with killing interest rates that will make sure they will never get out of poverty.

Of course when you lend money at a large scale, there is going to be a number of people who, for one reason or an other won't be able / willing to pay back. That's true even for private banks. But these banks are still in the business of lending, so it is manageable.

Now they are people who don't want to lend money to poor people because they want to make sure these people remain poor. Democrat electors live in an outdated feudal system that can survive only if the majority of the population remains poor. They even deny the right to these people to own their land. If you can't own your land, you can't borrow from your bank, to buy a tractor for example. The only option is the loan shark. But the killing interest rates will eat away all the benefit you get from the tractor. Providing these people will cheap loan will help them to get out of poverty. But again that's not the interest of a feudal system.

It's not that people don't want to lend money to the poor. This scheme doesn't do anything for people that have loaned money from loan sharks. Those people can't get credit at reasonable interest rates from banks. And it's the people with loans at banks that are getting the debt moratorium.

If the government wants to help people with debt, then provide micro-credit schemes at acceptable interest rates.

you mean kinda like what thaksin was doing?

[hyperdimension]

at the level of government debt around in Thailand today, Thailand would have to implement absolutely enormous social programs for a very long time to get into the same position.

If the government is irresponsible with social spending and borrowed heavily from the central bank to fund the social programs, problems can grow exponentially (think about the compound interest formula) and spiral out of control (instead of gradually worsen in a linear manner as you appear to suggest), exacerbated by the great number of recipients. Thailand has 65M people compared with Greece's 11M, so Thailand has much more people to "feed", yet Thailand's GDP (PPP) per capita in 2011 was just 9,396 while Greece's was 26,294 (Source: List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita).

Edited May 3, 2012 by hyperdimension

[OzMick]

I am not against giving those with problems a helping hand but I do object to shelling out for idiots who produce far too many kids or have just given up on life. You want kids, you pay for them. More support should be given to educating the simple and stupid, under penalty of withdrawal of all social security payments, such as they are, if they do not try to better themselves so that they make themselves employable. Such a system would assist Thailand to grow expotentially to the benefit of all.

Do not feed the poor, give them a rod or net so that they may catch fish and feed themselves. In Thailands case, give them land, teach them to farm, teach them what is most profitable to grow, crack down on the greedy middlemen, and maybe just as important, teach them financial discipline. And good luck with that! Somewhat much like baying at the moon, maybe.

There is very little in the way of social security in Thailand. A small old age payment, and milk powder for one child for the mother of twins is the only that I've heard of.

There is a plan to give landless farmers 2 rai of land. This is sufficient to keep them in poverty for the rest of their life.

Would co-operatives work? Pull all the local small farmers in, give each a voice on the governing council, gain by economies of scale? Maybe not. TIT. Getting them to agree to anything is up hill. The local phu yais wouldn't care to have competition either.

My suggestion for a co-op - 20 farmers pool their adjacent plots, borrow to mechanise. 19 get a job while the other grows rice. He takes a similar salary to the others, pays the loan and splits the rest 20 ways. All are better off.

Small scale farming of a low value crop keeps you poor. Subsidising the crop only delays the realisation that it is a loser situation, while reducing spending on the nation's infrastructure - but, hey, it gets you elected.

[sparebox2]

Handout is bad for the rich and good for the poor.

Just call it a Sherwood forest government, and Thaksin is Robin.

[lungmi]

I am not against giving those with problems a helping hand but I do object to shelling out for idiots who produce far too many kids or have just given up on life. You want kids, you pay for them. More support should be given to educating the simple and stupid, under penalty of withdrawal of all social security payments, such as they are, if they do not try to better themselves so that they make themselves employable. Such a system would assist Thailand to grow expotentially to the benefit of all.

Do not feed the poor, give them a rod or net so that they may catch fish and feed themselves. In Thailands case, give them land, teach them to farm, teach them what is most profitable to grow, crack down on the greedy middlemen, and maybe just as important, teach them financial discipline. And good luck with that! Somewhat much like baying at the moon, maybe.

There is very little in the way of social security in Thailand. A small old age payment, and milk powder for one child for the mother of twins is the only that I've heard of.

There is a plan to give landless farmers 2 rai of land. This is sufficient to keep them in poverty for the rest of their life.

Would co-operatives work? Pull all the local small farmers in, give each a voice on the governing council, gain by economies of scale? Maybe not. TIT. Getting them to agree to anything is up hill. The local phu yais wouldn't care to have competition either.

My suggestion for a co-op - 20 farmers pool their adjacent plots, borrow to mechanise. 19 get a job while the other grows rice. He takes a similar salary to the others, pays the loan and splits the rest 20 ways. All are better off.

Small scale farming of a low value crop keeps you poor. Subsidising the crop only delays the realisation that it is a loser situation, while reducing spending on the nation's infrastructure - but, hey, it gets you elected.

We have a co-op (manager studied in Denmark), school for members (bio-farming, seed selection, irrigation technics, soil analysis), engines sharing, rice mill, savings bank, micro-credits).

[TAWP]

Handout is bad for the rich and good for the poor.

No, but it is great for creating people that are dependent on handouts instead of learning self-reliance.