Kittiratt Admits Corruptions Found In Rice-Pledging Scheme: Thailand

[Moruya]

The rice-pledging scheme has been highly criticized by academics who claim the program will cause a huge loss of up to 100 billion baht.

I am getting fed up with hearing how this scheme or that scheme will lose billions of baht. The money will not be 'lost', it will however be redirected into certain individuals pockets.

The Buddha once said, "nothing in the universe is lost", everything finds it's way back to somewhere. In this case, he and you are 100% correct.

That would be the second law of thermodynamics

I'm sure that means that Chalerm will come back as a hungry ghost

[Moruya]

The only reason they are admitting it is to preempt Yingluck's roasting in parliament

[billd766]

The rice-pledging scheme has been highly criticized by academics who claim the program will cause a huge loss of up to 100 billion baht.

I am getting fed up with hearing how this scheme or that scheme will lose billions of baht. The money will not be 'lost', it will however be redirected into certain individuals pockets.

I think that the word you may be looking for is not 'lost' but "stolen" to be blunt and honest.

Theft on a grand scale.

[hellodolly]

The rice-pledging scheme has been highly criticized by academics who claim the program will cause a huge loss of up to 100 billion baht.

I am getting fed up with hearing how this scheme or that scheme will lose billions of baht. The money will not be 'lost', it will however be redirected into certain individuals pockets.

The Buddha once said, "nothing in the universe is lost", everything finds it's way back to somewhere. In this case, he and you are 100% correct.

That would be the second law of thermodynamics

I'm sure that means that Chalerm will come back as a hungry ghost

Will he have a ear ache?

[473geo]

Did the rice growers benefit from increased return on their product? if so, by how much? when we hold this information there can be serious discussion regarding the benefits of the scheme, otherwise we will just view a series of rants against the government based on.... 'there is corruption'

[Moruya]

That would be the second law of thermodynamics

I'm sure that means that Chalerm will come back as a hungry ghost

Will he have a ear ache?

Maybe 2!

[OzMick]

Did the rice growers benefit from increased return on their product? if so, by how much? when we hold this information there can be serious discussion regarding the benefits of the scheme, otherwise we will just view a series of rants against the government based on.... 'there is corruption'

So we should quietly overlook that this subsidy format was known to be a corruption disaster, but used anyway without alteration to prevent that, while illogical reasoning about the reaction of world markets has caused the losses to increase markedly. Not to mention that the whole scam was a ploy to buy votes with public monies.

[SouthernMan3]

Mr Kittiratt said the arrest of the suspects alleged for corruption in the rice-pledging scheme in the Northeast is a good thing.

Corruption in the North-East red federation? Who would have thought

Oh my, oh my.

Say it isn't so.........

[473geo]

Did the rice growers benefit from increased return on their product? if so, by how much? when we hold this information there can be serious discussion regarding the benefits of the scheme, otherwise we will just view a series of rants against the government based on.... 'there is corruption'

So we should quietly overlook that this subsidy format was known to be a corruption disaster, but used anyway without alteration to prevent that, while illogical reasoning about the reaction of world markets has caused the losses to increase markedly. Not to mention that the whole scam was a ploy to buy votes with public monies.

exactly as predicted well done Mick right on cue..............you appear to overlook the possible benefit, and make up your mind that the scheme has been a 'corruption disaster'.....based on what figures exactly

For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion.

I guess you could always draw comfort from your thoughts by the fact that the 'vote buying' failed because of the 'corruption disaster'.........although I wouldn't put your pension on the Democrats winning the next election quite yet

[slapout]

For those who have an intrest in what the producer gets on the rice pledgeing, and other government programs, check the farm forum. You will find that it is one of the sources of what is really happening from the producer/farmers side/perspective.

[rubl]

So we should quietly overlook that this subsidy format was known to be a corruption disaster, but used anyway without alteration to prevent that, while illogical reasoning about the reaction of world markets has caused the losses to increase markedly. Not to mention that the whole scam was a ploy to buy votes with public monies.

exactly as predicted well done Mick right on cue..............you appear to overlook the possible benefit, and make up your mind that the scheme has been a 'corruption disaster'.....based on what figures exactly

For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion.

I guess you could always draw comfort from your thoughts by the fact that the 'vote buying' failed because of the 'corruption disaster'.........although I wouldn't put your pension on the Democrats winning the next election quite yet

So, do tell us, dear geo. How much of the THB 260 billion spent between 2011-10-07 and 2012-07-?? has reached farmers, and how many are rich by now to a level they no longer need financial support, can repay all past debts and still have money to spent?

PS 10% of THB 260 billion is 'only' about THB 26 billion. Peanuts of course. Now please excuse me, looking for a calculator to check how many days of THB 300 that is

[rixalex]

exactly as predicted well done Mick right on cue..............you appear to overlook the possible benefit, and make up your mind that the scheme has been a 'corruption disaster'.....based on what figures exactly

For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion.

I guess you could always draw comfort from your thoughts by the fact that the 'vote buying' failed because of the 'corruption disaster'.........although I wouldn't put your pension on the Democrats winning the next election quite yet

On the subject of accusing others of being predictable... i just never dreamt you would come on here and attempt to put a positive spin on another negative government story. It's so out of character for you.

[473geo]

So we should quietly overlook that this subsidy format was known to be a corruption disaster, but used anyway without alteration to prevent that, while illogical reasoning about the reaction of world markets has caused the losses to increase markedly. Not to mention that the whole scam was a ploy to buy votes with public monies.

exactly as predicted well done Mick right on cue..............you appear to overlook the possible benefit, and make up your mind that the scheme has been a 'corruption disaster'.....based on what figures exactly

For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion.

I guess you could always draw comfort from your thoughts by the fact that the 'vote buying' failed because of the 'corruption disaster'.........although I wouldn't put your pension on the Democrats winning the next election quite yet

So, do tell us, dear geo. How much of the THB 260 billion spent between 2011-10-07 and 2012-07-?? has reached farmers, and how many are rich by now to a level they no longer need financial support, can repay all past debts and still have money to spent?

PS 10% of THB 260 billion is 'only' about THB 26 billion. Peanuts of course. Now please excuse me, looking for a calculator to check how many days of THB 300 that is

Rubl I have pointed out in previous posts the reason for implementation of agricultural policy and subsidies. The reason why many countries subsidise agriculture, it stimulates the economy due to the large amount of business interelated and dependent on rural purchase power, especially when there is a global down turn and export markets are struggling to compete due to the strength of the currency.

300 baht a day across Thailand, good idea, because Bangkok will surely sink if everybody relocates to the cities due to the low agricultural wages (FYI I followed that well worn path myself)

But keep on with your calculator while some of us absorb the bigger picture

[473geo]

Well the only producer known to me shows a 50% increase per kg in the last 2 years for my producer......25% each year an increase of since 2010

That is quite a rise in income for the farmer

[siampolee]

Did the rice growers benefit from increased return on their product? if so, by how much? when we hold this information there can be serious discussion regarding the benefits of the scheme, otherwise we will just view a series of rants against the government based on.... 'there is corruption'

Speaking a a member of a rice growing family on our farm in answer to the question posed by 473geo. The answer is NO.

We have not benefited nor have our fellow neighbouring farmers from this gigantic scam..

Perchance your friendship with a producer is a little skewed as is the increase in price that is quoted,.

Ever heard the expression ''Scotch Mist ? ''

Edited August 11, 2012 by siampolee

[dcutman]

So we should quietly overlook that this subsidy format was known to be a corruption disaster, but used anyway without alteration to prevent that, while illogical reasoning about the reaction of world markets has caused the losses to increase markedly. Not to mention that the whole scam was a ploy to buy votes with public monies.

exactly as predicted well done Mick right on cue..............you appear to overlook the possible benefit, and make up your mind that the scheme has been a 'corruption disaster'.....based on what figures exactly

For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion.

I guess you could always draw comfort from your thoughts by the fact that the 'vote buying' failed because of the 'corruption disaster'.........although I wouldn't put your pension on the Democrats winning the next election quite yet

So, do tell us, dear geo. How much of the THB 260 billion spent between 2011-10-07 and 2012-07-?? has reached farmers, and how many are rich by now to a level they no longer need financial support, can repay all past debts and still have money to spent?

PS 10% of THB 260 billion is 'only' about THB 26 billion. Peanuts of course. Now please excuse me, looking for a calculator to check how many days of THB 300 that is

Rubl I have pointed out in previous posts the reason for implementation of agricultural policy and subsidies. The reason why many countries subsidise agriculture, it stimulates the economy due to the large amount of business interelated and dependent on rural purchase power, especially when there is a global down turn and export markets are struggling to compete due to the strength of the currency.

300 baht a day across Thailand, good idea, because Bangkok will surely sink if everybody relocates to the cities due to the low agricultural wages (FYI I followed that well worn path myself)

But keep on with your calculator while some of us absorb the bigger picture

According to the Thailand development research institute, 63% of the 260 odd billions of baht went merchants and millers. 32% went to large scale rice operations and 5% went to the small producer (poor Farmer). So I guess the money did go where it was intended. I am sure they are pissed about that 5% they didnt get however. Edited August 11, 2012 by dcutman

[473geo]

According to the Thailand development research institute, 63% of the 260 odd billions of baht went merchants and millers. 32% went to large scale rice operations and 5% went to the small producer (poor Farmer).

Of course it did, the majority of small farmers sell to the merchants, and the millers, where do you think they get their rice from!

[473geo]

Did the rice growers benefit from increased return on their product? if so, by how much? when we hold this information there can be serious discussion regarding the benefits of the scheme, otherwise we will just view a series of rants against the government based on.... 'there is corruption'

Speaking a a member of a rice growing family on our farm in answer to the question posed by 473geo. The answer is NO.

We have not benefited nor have our fellow neighbouring farmers from this gigantic scam..

Perchance your friendship with a producer is a little skewed as is the increase in price that is quoted,.

Ever heard the expression ''Scotch Mist ? ''

It is the price my wife negotiates, so a fairly honest appraisal I think, maybe she should come and negotiate on behalf of you and your neighbours!

Not saying the mills and merchants don't take a margin, but in the case I know of the farmer (my wife) has seen the improvement quoted.

Edited August 11, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

Did the rice growers benefit from increased return on their product? if so, by how much? when we hold this information there can be serious discussion regarding the benefits of the scheme, otherwise we will just view a series of rants against the government based on.... 'there is corruption'

Speaking a a member of a rice growing family on our farm in answer to the question posed by 473geo. The answer is NO.

We have not benefited nor have our fellow neighbouring farmers from this gigantic scam..

Perchance your friendship with a producer is a little skewed as is the increase in price that is quoted,.

Ever heard the expression ''Scotch Mist ? ''

Do let me know when you wish to sell your rice at 2010 prices I am sure I can arrange to disposal

[dcutman]

According to the Thailand development research institute, 63% of the 260 odd billions of baht went merchants and millers. 32% went to large scale rice operations and 5% went to the small producer (poor Farmer).

Of course it did, the majority of small farmers sell to the merchants, and the millers, where do you think they get their rice from!

I had to re-read your post #35. It almost seemed as if you where saying the small (poor) rice farmer was benefiting from this rice scheme.

BTW Thank you for letting me know where millers get their rice from, I was thinking right, it comes from rice farmers.

[473geo]

According to the Thailand development research institute, 63% of the 260 odd billions of baht went merchants and millers. 32% went to large scale rice operations and 5% went to the small producer (poor Farmer).

Of course it did, the majority of small farmers sell to the merchants, and the millers, where do you think they get their rice from!

I had to re-read your post #35. It almost seemed as if you where saying the small (poor) rice farmer was benefiting from this rice scheme.

BTW Thank you for letting me know where millers get their rice from, I was thinking right, it comes from rice farmers.

Here is an added explanation......the small farmer does not sell directly to the government......which might just explain why the merchants and millers have taken a large percentage of the government money for rice........because it is the merchants and the millers that are selling the rice they purchased from the farmer, to the government, hence the majority of the government payment would go through the merchants. Farmers also sell their produce to the banks at an agreed rate, I would suggest the banks may well use merchants also. This mechanism allows the farmers to borrow.

[dcutman]

According to the Thailand development research institute, 63% of the 260 odd billions of baht went merchants and millers. 32% went to large scale rice operations and 5% went to the small producer (poor Farmer).

Of course it did, the majority of small farmers sell to the merchants, and the millers, where do you think they get their rice from!

I had to re-read your post #35. It almost seemed as if you where saying the small (poor) rice farmer was benefiting from this rice scheme.

BTW Thank you for letting me know where millers get their rice from, I was thinking right, it comes from rice farmers.

Here is an added explanation......the small farmer does not sell directly to the government......which might just explain why the merchants and millers have taken a large percentage of the government money for rice........because it is the merchants and the millers that are selling the rice they purchased from the farmer, to the government, hence the majority of the government payment would go through the merchants. Farmers also sell their produce to the banks at an agreed rate, I would suggest the banks may well use merchants also. This mechanism allows the farmers to borrow.

Bla Bla Bla. Here is a good read for you, how great this program is.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Analysis_-_Disastrous_intervention_puts_Thai_rice_exporters_in_peril.html?cid=33271378

[rubl]

So we should quietly overlook that this subsidy format was known to be a corruption disaster, but used anyway without alteration to prevent that, while illogical reasoning about the reaction of world markets has caused the losses to increase markedly. Not to mention that the whole scam was a ploy to buy votes with public monies.

exactly as predicted well done Mick right on cue..............you appear to overlook the possible benefit, and make up your mind that the scheme has been a 'corruption disaster'.....based on what figures exactly

For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion.

I guess you could always draw comfort from your thoughts by the fact that the 'vote buying' failed because of the 'corruption disaster'.........although I wouldn't put your pension on the Democrats winning the next election quite yet

So, do tell us, dear geo. How much of the THB 260 billion spent between 2011-10-07 and 2012-07-?? has reached farmers, and how many are rich by now to a level they no longer need financial support, can repay all past debts and still have money to spent?

PS 10% of THB 260 billion is 'only' about THB 26 billion. Peanuts of course. Now please excuse me, looking for a calculator to check how many days of THB 300 that is

Rubl I have pointed out in previous posts the reason for implementation of agricultural policy and subsidies. The reason why many countries subsidise agriculture, it stimulates the economy due to the large amount of business interelated and dependent on rural purchase power, especially when there is a global down turn and export markets are struggling to compete due to the strength of the currency.

300 baht a day across Thailand, good idea, because Bangkok will surely sink if everybody relocates to the cities due to the low agricultural wages (FYI I followed that well worn path myself)

But keep on with your calculator while some of us absorb the bigger picture

My dear geo, you're beating around the bush methinks. You answered a question I didn't ask.

So if you think 'only 10%' lost because of corruption is acceptable, how about 12%, or 16%, or even 20%, would that still be acceptable? Assuming dcutman's figures are correct 63% of THB 260 billion went to merchants and millers and that's OK with you?

Mind you the 'urgent to be implemented in the first year policy' was phrased in English as

"1.11 Raise the price of agricultural products and enable farmers to gain access to sources of investment by ensuring that prices of agricultural products remain reasonably stable, reflecting global market price mechanisms, by utilizing marketing management and futures markets. Support farmers to sell their products at reasonably high prices compared to their costs. Implement a crop insurance scheme in order to provide income security for farmers, beginning with long grain rice and fragrant Hom Mali rice with moisture not exceeding 15% at 15,000 Baht and 20,000 Baht per cart, respectively. Provide remedies to farmers whose crops are damaged by natural disasters. Establish a registration system for farmer households and issue credit cards for farmers."

The bigger picture seems to be that the poor farmers are still poor and hardly if at all helped by pouring THB 260 billion into mostly already well-filled pockets. Of course I'm aware just writing this already makes me a dangerous lefty and might even necessitate me to buy a (grass-root) red shirt

[473geo]

Bla Bla Bla. Here is a good read for you, how great this program is.

http://www.swissinfo...ml?cid=33271378

"Farmers more interested in growing quantity not quality"..........because they make more money? or just for the hell of it.

Like many on the thread you are confusing the cost of an unsold stock pile to the government with benefit to the farmer. I have never argued that the scheme created a profit, subsidy is an outright cost in many countries. (I explained my reasoning in a previous post) My take is that the scheme has increased the revenue of the producer. Your link would appear to support this thinking

But don't bother to respond, you insult my intelligence, with you ignorant response.

[473geo]

So, do tell us, dear geo. How much of the THB 260 billion spent between 2011-10-07 and 2012-07-?? has reached farmers, and how many are rich by now to a level they no longer need financial support, can repay all past debts and still have money to spent?

PS 10% of THB 260 billion is 'only' about THB 26 billion. Peanuts of course. Now please excuse me, looking for a calculator to check how many days of THB 300 that is

Rubl I have pointed out in previous posts the reason for implementation of agricultural policy and subsidies. The reason why many countries subsidise agriculture, it stimulates the economy due to the large amount of business interelated and dependent on rural purchase power, especially when there is a global down turn and export markets are struggling to compete due to the strength of the currency.

300 baht a day across Thailand, good idea, because Bangkok will surely sink if everybody relocates to the cities due to the low agricultural wages (FYI I followed that well worn path myself)

But keep on with your calculator while some of us absorb the bigger picture

My dear geo, you're beating around the bush methinks. You answered a question I didn't ask.

So if you think 'only 10%' lost because of corruption is acceptable, how about 12%, or 16%, or even 20%, would that still be acceptable? Assuming dcutman's figures are correct 63% of THB 260 billion went to merchants and millers and that's OK with you?

Mind you the 'urgent to be implemented in the first year policy' was phrased in English as

"1.11 Raise the price of agricultural products and enable farmers to gain access to sources of investment by ensuring that prices of agricultural products remain reasonably stable, reflecting global market price mechanisms, by utilizing marketing management and futures markets. Support farmers to sell their products at reasonably high prices compared to their costs. Implement a crop insurance scheme in order to provide income security for farmers, beginning with long grain rice and fragrant Hom Mali rice with moisture not exceeding 15% at 15,000 Baht and 20,000 Baht per cart, respectively. Provide remedies to farmers whose crops are damaged by natural disasters. Establish a registration system for farmer households and issue credit cards for farmers."

The bigger picture seems to be that the poor farmers are still poor and hardly if at all helped by pouring THB 260 billion into mostly already well-filled pockets. Of course I'm aware just writing this already makes me a dangerous lefty and might even necessitate me to buy a (grass-root) red shirt

How do you know it was 10% Rubl........my plucked out of the air figure was just that........now you have it as fact......not unusual on the forum, but I am a little surprised you ask my opinion on fabricated numbers......also have I not provided evidence of farmers in my experience that have seen increase in revenue? So where are the numbers that show there has been no increase for the producer? All things being equal that they do have the ability to negotiate the creditable market price.

Rubl I will have my wife buy you a red shirt from her profits.....what size are you?

[dcutman]

Bla Bla Bla. Here is a good read for you, how great this program is.

http://www.swissinfo...ml?cid=33271378

"Farmers more interested in growing quantity not quality"..........because they make more money? or just for the hell of it.

Like many on the thread you are confusing the cost of an unsold stock pile to the government with benefit to the farmer. I have never argued that the scheme created a profit, subsidy is an outright cost in many countries. (I explained my reasoning in a previous post) My take is that the scheme has increased the revenue of the producer. Your link would appear to support this thinking

But don't bother to respond, you insult my intelligence, with you ignorant response.

No bother.

You cherry pick one paragraph,and call this scam great. This program could and most probably will have long term negative consequences on these small farmers not to mention the country as a whole. It is you sir that seem to be the ignorant one here.

[rubl]

So, do tell us, dear geo. How much of the THB 260 billion spent between 2011-10-07 and 2012-07-?? has reached farmers, and how many are rich by now to a level they no longer need financial support, can repay all past debts and still have money to spent?

PS 10% of THB 260 billion is 'only' about THB 26 billion. Peanuts of course. Now please excuse me, looking for a calculator to check how many days of THB 300 that is

Rubl I have pointed out in previous posts the reason for implementation of agricultural policy and subsidies. The reason why many countries subsidise agriculture, it stimulates the economy due to the large amount of business interelated and dependent on rural purchase power, especially when there is a global down turn and export markets are struggling to compete due to the strength of the currency.

300 baht a day across Thailand, good idea, because Bangkok will surely sink if everybody relocates to the cities due to the low agricultural wages (FYI I followed that well worn path myself)

But keep on with your calculator while some of us absorb the bigger picture

My dear geo, you're beating around the bush methinks. You answered a question I didn't ask.

So if you think 'only 10%' lost because of corruption is acceptable, how about 12%, or 16%, or even 20%, would that still be acceptable? Assuming dcutman's figures are correct 63% of THB 260 billion went to merchants and millers and that's OK with you?

Mind you the 'urgent to be implemented in the first year policy' was phrased in English as

"1.11 Raise the price of agricultural products and enable farmers to gain access to sources of investment by ensuring that prices of agricultural products remain reasonably stable, reflecting global market price mechanisms, by utilizing marketing management and futures markets. Support farmers to sell their products at reasonably high prices compared to their costs. Implement a crop insurance scheme in order to provide income security for farmers, beginning with long grain rice and fragrant Hom Mali rice with moisture not exceeding 15% at 15,000 Baht and 20,000 Baht per cart, respectively. Provide remedies to farmers whose crops are damaged by natural disasters. Establish a registration system for farmer households and issue credit cards for farmers."

The bigger picture seems to be that the poor farmers are still poor and hardly if at all helped by pouring THB 260 billion into mostly already well-filled pockets. Of course I'm aware just writing this already makes me a dangerous lefty and might even necessitate me to buy a (grass-root) red shirt

How do you know it was 10% Rubl........my plucked out of the air figure was just that........now you have it as fact......not unusual on the forum, but I am a little surprised you ask my opinion on fabricated numbers......also have I not provided evidence of farmers in my experience that have seen increase in revenue? So where are the numbers that show there has been no increase for the producer? All things being equal that they do have the ability to negotiate the creditable market price.

Rubl I will have my wife buy you a red shirt from her profits.....what size are you?

Geo, this is real fun. You pluck something out of thin air, I ask if you think, and now it's a 'fact'?

Let's step back a wee bit. You said "For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion." Now that figure seems to be plucked out of thin air, but independent of actual figure you seem to think that 'at least some got to the intended people'. Actually I think and I may be wrong in thinking so, I do think you are saying nothing but just enjoy plucking figures out of the sky and suggest that you might or might not put meaning to them depending on what others think you might be saying. And of course you do not provide evidence. All clear now.

PS farang size, XL or XXL, mind you I have to check with various vocal members here if I as a well-known yellow/pink/green/blue shirter am allowed to wear red

Edited August 11, 2012 by rubl

[Thaddeus]

According to the Thailand development research institute, 63% of the 260 odd billions of baht went merchants and millers. 32% went to large scale rice operations and 5% went to the small producer (poor Farmer).

Of course it did, the majority of small farmers sell to the merchants, and the millers, where do you think they get their rice from!

I had to re-read your post #35. It almost seemed as if you where saying the small (poor) rice farmer was benefiting from this rice scheme.

BTW Thank you for letting me know where millers get their rice from, I was thinking right, it comes from rice farmers.

Here is an added explanation......the small farmer does not sell directly to the government......which might just explain why the merchants and millers have taken a large percentage of the government money for rice........because it is the merchants and the millers that are selling the rice they purchased from the farmer, to the government, hence the majority of the government payment would go through the merchants. Farmers also sell their produce to the banks at an agreed rate, I would suggest the banks may well use merchants also. This mechanism allows the farmers to borrow.

Would you now like to explain how this benefits the farmers?

[473geo]

Geo, this is real fun. You pluck something out of thin air, I ask if you think, and now it's a 'fact'?

Let's step back a wee bit. You said "For exmple if I told you 90% of the monies involved had indeed gone into the pocket of the producers as intended, yes there would be corruption but the scheme itself would not have been a disaster in terms of delivering monies where intended, to buy votes if you choose to take that opinion." Now that figure seems to be plucked out of thin air, but independent of actual figure you seem to think that 'at least some got to the intended people'. Actually I think and I may be wrong in thinking so, I do think you are saying nothing but just enjoy plucking figures out of the sky and suggest that you might or might not put meaning to them depending on what others think you might be saying. And of course you do not provide evidence. All clear now.

PS farang size, XL or XXL, mind you I have to check with various vocal members here if I as a well-known yellow/pink/green/blue shirter am allowed to wear red

You sum iit up well Rubl, you see my intial point was that nobody has the actuals on the amount lost to the farmer due to corruption. Now without this knowledge, then completely ignoring that there may have been benefit to a substantial amount of farmers, the scheme is labelled a scam. To quote Mick a "corruption disaster"

Unlike Europe where agriculture is handed 40% of the annual disposable budget, and expect no return other than re-investment in the economy! The criticism levelled at the Thai government is that they have subsidised the farmers and may have to incur storage costs and may have undersell the product. Given the comparrison the Thai government at least hold some return for their input. The Euro government consider the investment in agriculture essential to the well being of the economy. It would appear many of the detractors on the forum completly miss the positives. Let alone the fact that due to poor climate conditions there appears to be a massive hike in grain prices which may well open up further markets for Thai rice, who knows?

Long sleeve or short?

Edited August 11, 2012 by 473geo

[473geo]

Here is an added explanation......the small farmer does not sell directly to the government......which might just explain why the merchants and millers have taken a large percentage of the government money for rice........because it is the merchants and the millers that are selling the rice they purchased from the farmer, to the government, hence the majority of the government payment would go through the merchants. Farmers also sell their produce to the banks at an agreed rate, I would suggest the banks may well use merchants also. This mechanism allows the farmers to borrow.

Would you now like to explain how this benefits the farmers?

Being honest, if you cannot understand how the mechanisms of raising the guaranteed end price makes it possible for an increase to the supplier, alongside an increased or maintained profit for the merchant.....then anything I say is not going to convince you.

Edited August 11, 2012 by 473geo