"The country's economy may need to change in some parts. Previously, about 70 per cent (of gross domestic product) depended on Thai exports and the remaining 30 per cent on domestic consumption. Given the external uncertainties, export revenue has declined and the next task is to increase domestic spending," she said.

A rich country like Thailand doesn't need to earn money through exports

You might have something interesting to say if you used your intellect to evaluate instead of insult. Oz, Wazu and you three flames in a row. Insults with no substance. What is the point? If you think the PM is in error give us some data. Stop the constant insults without any substance.

Should we follow your example and only criticize other posters? Are any attempts at light-hearted humour now unwelcome since you were appointed as a moderator?

My dear chap at least you could get the small stuff correct. Look at the photo above. Is she smiling?

I stand corrected. Let me rephrase to "our not always smiling PM"

IMHO thinking is painful for her, and when a thought crosses her mind, she stops smiling.

My dear chap at least you could get the small stuff correct. Look at the photo above. Is she smiling?

I stand corrected. Let me rephrase to "our not always smiling PM"

IMHO thinking is painful for her, and when a thought crosses her mind, she stops smiling.

Gas

"The country's economy may need to change in some parts. Previously, about 70 per cent (of gross domestic product) depended on Thai exports and the remaining 30 per cent on domestic consumption. Given the external uncertainties, export revenue has declined and the next task is to increase domestic spending," she said.

A rich country like Thailand doesn't need to earn money through exports

You might have something interesting to say if you used your intellect to evaluate instead of insult. Oz, Wazu and you three flames in a row. Insults with no substance. What is the point? If you think the PM is in error give us some data. Stop the constant insults without any substance.

To be honest Yingluck began her tenure acting like a village rube, her inexperience illustrated how complete out of her depth and comfort zone she was. Her stumbling, faulty english was synonymous with her bumbling ineffective actions. But that was ok because she was just keeping the chair warm til the return of her brother. As she evolved she became the abscentee PM, it was embarrassing watching her ducking, weaving and hiding in shadows from the press and the opposition. Just raising her head to make another cringe worthy speech on the world stage. But through it all her popularity grew and she became more than just the stand in. But she needed more substance, so she was given minders with better skills who stage managed her public persona. Yingluck appeared to be maturing as a politician, she distance herself from her brother, appearing to rebel against his agenda. began speaking in sound bites and cliches further increasing her popularity. Although one could argue that she is just a colourfull parot. Pleasant to look at and repeating what she is trained to say, this speech being a prime example. Her sole function is to provide a mask for the not so invisable hands that are running the country and their nefarious machinations. I am sorry if that insults you fragile sensabilities but I give her little credability as a leader but applaud the brilliance of her role.

"The country's economy may need to change in some parts. Previously, about 70 per cent (of gross domestic product) depended on Thai exports and the remaining 30 per cent on domestic consumption. Given the external uncertainties, export revenue has declined and the next task is to increase domestic spending," she said.

A rich country like Thailand doesn't need to earn money through exports

You might have something interesting to say if you used your intellect to evaluate instead of insult. Oz, Wazu and you three flames in a row. Insults with no substance. What is the point? If you think the PM is in error give us some data. Stop the constant insults without any substance.

Should we follow your example and only criticize other posters? Are any attempts at light-hearted humour now unwelcome since you were appointed as a moderator?

It is a forum for adults not kindergarten poop jokes about flatulence. Insulting gender and jokes about gas seem to me to be more appropriate to the Pub forum. You are confusing insult like the comedian Don Rickles with political discourse. I don't see anything wrong with insulting the first female Prime Minister of Thailand if that is your thing, like the quote, " IMHO thinking is painful for her, and when a thought crosses her mind, she stops smiling." or , " Gas." I just think it's a shame to turn a news forum into a kindergarten potty humor mudsling fest every time the ruling political party of Thailand is mentioned. By all means point out her errors and ways for improvement but I fail to see how jokes about her personal appearance serve the discussion.

You might have something interesting to say if you used your intellect to evaluate instead of insult. Oz, Wazu and you three flames in a row. Insults with no substance. What is the point? If you think the PM is in error give us some data. Stop the constant insults without any substance.

Should we follow your example and only criticize other posters? Are any attempts at light-hearted humour now unwelcome since you were appointed as a moderator?

It is a forum for adults not kindergarten poop jokes about flatulence. Insulting gender and jokes about gas seem to me to be more appropriate to the Pub forum. You are confusing insult like the comedian Don Rickles with political discourse. I don't see anything wrong with insulting the first female Prime Minister of Thailand if that is your thing, like the quote, " IMHO thinking is painful for her, and when a thought crosses her mind, she stops smiling." or , " Gas." I just think it's a shame to turn a news forum into a kindergarten potty humor mudsling fest every time the ruling political party of Thailand is mentioned. By all means point out her errors and ways for improvement but I fail to see how jokes about her personal appearance serve the discussion.

Equally, I am not interested in reading (is it 5 now) posts criticizing other posters. They are boring, repetetive, long-winded and off-topic. If you object to a post, use the report button.

I call another White Lie

You might have something interesting to say if you used your intellect to evaluate instead of insult. Oz, Wazu and you three flames in a row. Insults with no substance. What is the point? If you think the PM is in error give us some data. Stop the constant insults without any substance.

Should we follow your example and only criticize other posters? Are any attempts at light-hearted humour now unwelcome since you were appointed as a moderator?

It is a forum for adults not kindergarten poop jokes about flatulence. Insulting gender and jokes about gas seem to me to be more appropriate to the Pub forum. You are confusing insult like the comedian Don Rickles with political discourse. I don't see anything wrong with insulting the first female Prime Minister of Thailand if that is your thing, like the quote, " IMHO thinking is painful for her, and when a thought crosses her mind, she stops smiling." or , " Gas." I just think it's a shame to turn a news forum into a kindergarten potty humor mudsling fest every time the ruling political party of Thailand is mentioned. By all means point out her errors and ways for improvement but I fail to see how jokes about her personal appearance serve the discussion.

Equally, I am not interested in reading (is it 5 now) posts criticizing other posters. They are boring, repetetive, long-winded and off-topic. If you object to a post, use the report button.

Let me get this straight. You're complaining that I am pointing out that you are mocking the persona of the PM of Thailand rather than post anything about the topic? And you don't want me to do this?

Equally, I am not interested in reading (is it 5 now) posts criticizing other posters. They are boring, repetetive, long-winded and off-topic. If you object to a post, use the report button.

Let me get this straight. You're complaining that I am pointing out that you are mocking the persona of the PM of Thailand rather than post anything about the topic? And you don't want me to do this?

Mate as far as I can make out she is the subject of this thread making a statement on behalf of the government of Thailand as PM and any comments about her performance worthiness stature capability position (and the like) seem to be well on topic here and open for discussion

For me she's more like a press liason than a PM and a bad one at that - if you really think she is running this country then you've missed something

Equally, I am not interested in reading (is it 5 now) posts criticizing other posters. They are boring, repetetive, long-winded and off-topic. If you object to a post, use the report button.

Let me get this straight. You're complaining that I am pointing out that you are mocking the persona of the PM of Thailand rather than post anything about the topic? And you don't want me to do this?

Mate as far as I can make out she is the subject of this thread making a statement on behalf of the government of Thailand as PM and any comments about her performance worthiness stature capability position (and the like) seem to be well on topic here and open for discussion

For me she's more like a press liason than a PM and a bad one at that - if you really think she is running this country then you've missed something

Mate as far as I can make out the topic of the thread is 5% economic growth expected in the year ahead. I'm with you about comments about her performance but I don't think comments about her perceived flatulence fit into that subject matter. Let me put it this way. A news article writes that the PM expects 5% growth in the economy and one poster says, but she has gas and another says she is a rube and a third one says she looks like a gorilla. If you really think those comments are germane to the topic then you've missed something.

Agreed

calculate the rice-growing period to be in line with the seasons

You'd think they had already got a grip on that over the last 1000 years?

She thinks she can raise agricultural produce prices! I hope to god she isn't thinking of using the same methods that have destroyed Thailand's rice exports industry. No one with two brain operating brain cells would try this approach in other areas of food production, mind you would have to be fairly ignorant of reality if you thought rice farmers at the point of production were benefiting from the rice pledging scheme.

Contemplate a couple of numbers and put everything in perspective. The US subsidizes American rice farmers more than Thailand its rice farmers. The rice scheme is expected to cost 260 Billion Baht next year. US agricultural subsidies are currently at $20 billion. Japan $46,5 billion. EU €57 billion. It's all about keeping agriculture viable, competitive against foreign farmers who can produce cheaper, to have a national food supply, and to keep the prices for food low. Agriculture collapsed in many areas were there are no subsidies, like all over Africa. The same would inevitably happen in Thailand. They couldn't compete against foreigners who have an income from the sale of rice, and subsidies, and can therefore sell cheaper.

she's talking about her ministers bank accounts obviously.

she's talking about her ministers bank accounts obviously.

Do you have any factual data to back up that scurrilous untruth?

She thinks she can raise agricultural produce prices! I hope to god she isn't thinking of using the same methods that have destroyed Thailand's rice exports industry. No one with two brain operating brain cells would try this approach in other areas of food production, mind you would have to be fairly ignorant of reality if you thought rice farmers at the point of production were benefiting from the rice pledging scheme.

Contemplate a couple of numbers and put everything in perspective. The US subsidizes American rice farmers more than Thailand its rice farmers. The rice scheme is expected to cost 260 Billion Baht next year. US agricultural subsidies are currently at $20 billion. Japan $46,5 billion. EU €57 billion. It's all about keeping agriculture viable, competitive against foreign farmers who can produce cheaper, to have a national food supply, and to keep the prices for food low. Agriculture collapsed in many areas were there are no subsidies, like all over Africa. The same would inevitably happen in Thailand. They couldn't compete against foreigners who have an income from the sale of rice, and subsidies, and can therefore sell cheaper.

It is confusing when you use two currencies when talking about the same thing. Please convert the Japanese 46.5 billion to Baht. If you are not trying to mislead us.

She thinks she can raise agricultural produce prices! I hope to god she isn't thinking of using the same methods that have destroyed Thailand's rice exports industry. No one with two brain operating brain cells would try this approach in other areas of food production, mind you would have to be fairly ignorant of reality if you thought rice farmers at the point of production were benefiting from the rice pledging scheme.

Contemplate a couple of numbers and put everything in perspective. The US subsidizes American rice farmers more than Thailand its rice farmers. The rice scheme is expected to cost 260 Billion Baht next year. US agricultural subsidies are currently at $20 billion. Japan $46,5 billion. EU €57 billion. It's all about keeping agriculture viable, competitive against foreign farmers who can produce cheaper, to have a national food supply, and to keep the prices for food low. Agriculture collapsed in many areas were there are no subsidies, like all over Africa. The same would inevitably happen in Thailand. They couldn't compete against foreigners who have an income from the sale of rice, and subsidies, and can therefore sell cheaper.

It is confusing when you use two currencies when talking about the same thing. Please convert the Japanese 46.5 billion to Baht. If you are not trying to mislead us.

Personally I don't think those figures on foreign countries are relevant. The relevant part would be Thailand having a THB 400 billion budget on produce price pledging in Fiscal year 2012-1013 of which they think upto THB 140 billion can be gotten from selling rice previously pledged. In all we have two years where 400 billion is used out of a 2.1 trillion (national) budget. That's around 18% for the second year round. Note the Minstry of Education with the largest budget has THB 420 billion!

She thinks she can raise agricultural produce prices! I hope to god she isn't thinking of using the same methods that have destroyed Thailand's rice exports industry. No one with two brain operating brain cells would try this approach in other areas of food production, mind you would have to be fairly ignorant of reality if you thought rice farmers at the point of production were benefiting from the rice pledging scheme.

Contemplate a couple of numbers and put everything in perspective. The US subsidizes American rice farmers more than Thailand its rice farmers. The rice scheme is expected to cost 260 Billion Baht next year. US agricultural subsidies are currently at $20 billion. Japan $46,5 billion. EU €57 billion. It's all about keeping agriculture viable, competitive against foreign farmers who can produce cheaper, to have a national food supply, and to keep the prices for food low. Agriculture collapsed in many areas were there are no subsidies, like all over Africa. The same would inevitably happen in Thailand. They couldn't compete against foreigners who have an income from the sale of rice, and subsidies, and can therefore sell cheaper.

It is confusing when you use two currencies when talking about the same thing. Please convert the Japanese 46.5 billion to Baht. If you are not trying to mislead us.

Personally I don't think those figures on foreign countries are relevant. The relevant part would be Thailand having a THB 400 billion budget on produce price pledging in Fiscal year 2012-1013 of which they think upto THB 140 billion can be gotten from selling rice previously pledged. In all we have two years where 400 billion is used out of a 2.1 trillion (national) budget. That's around 18% for the second year round. Note the Minstry of Education with the largest budget has THB 420 billion!

It is quite a bit more relevant than comparison with the education budget. How would you have any understanding of the importance of rice subsidies unless you had some knowledge of rice subsidies in other countries where agriculture is as important as it it in Thailand. Not everyone is a Euro person there are other parts of the world like the US and Japan where maintaining a farm industry is important culturally. The previous poster was trying to make it seem Thailand was spending billions in dollars when that was not the case at all. If you are going to compare something, do it in like currency. It makes it easier to understand which was my point. Either use Dollars or Baht for all monies compared. It is nice when I go to the bank to count my millions and tell folks I am a multimillionaire but ....... See what I am saying?

It is confusing when you use two currencies when talking about the same thing. Please convert the Japanese 46.5 billion to Baht. If you are not trying to mislead us.

Personally I don't think those figures on foreign countries are relevant. The relevant part would be Thailand having a THB 400 billion budget on produce price pledging in Fiscal year 2012-1013 of which they think upto THB 140 billion can be gotten from selling rice previously pledged. In all we have two years where 400 billion is used out of a 2.1 trillion (national) budget. That's around 18% for the second year round. Note the Minstry of Education with the largest budget has THB 420 billion!

It is quite a bit more relevant than comparison with the education budget. How would you have any understanding of the importance of rice subsidies unless you had some knowledge of rice subsidies in other countries where agriculture is as important as it it in Thailand. Not everyone is a Euro person there are other parts of the world like the US and Japan where maintaining a farm industry is important culturally. The previous poster was trying to make it seem Thailand was spending billions in dollars when that was not the case at all. If you are going to compare something, do it in like currency. It makes it easier to understand which was my point. Either use Dollars or Baht for all monies compared. It is nice when I go to the bank to count my millions and tell folks I am a multimillionaire but ....... See what I am saying?

I hear you, but I disagree. I think it is much less important to see how much or much less Thailand spends in market distortion than other countries. It's about 18% of the National Budget for a second year of price pledging which seems to trickle down only to the intended target.

BTW the total 2012 EC budget of Euro 149 billion (which is 1.12% of EC-27 GNI) had Euro 60 billion for "Preservation and management of natural resources". http://ec.europa.eu/...012/2012_en.cfm

"In 1985, around 70% of the EU budget was spent on agriculture. In 2011, direct aid to farmers and market-related expenditure amount to just 30% of the budget, and rural development spending to 11%. This declining path continues."

http://ec.europa.eu/...hs_en.cfm#9of15

PS there are about 40 Baht in a single Euro

It is confusing when you use two currencies when talking about the same thing. Please convert the Japanese 46.5 billion to Baht. If you are not trying to mislead us.

Personally I don't think those figures on foreign countries are relevant. The relevant part would be Thailand having a THB 400 billion budget on produce price pledging in Fiscal year 2012-1013 of which they think upto THB 140 billion can be gotten from selling rice previously pledged. In all we have two years where 400 billion is used out of a 2.1 trillion (national) budget. That's around 18% for the second year round. Note the Minstry of Education with the largest budget has THB 420 billion!

It is quite a bit more relevant than comparison with the education budget. How would you have any understanding of the importance of rice subsidies unless you had some knowledge of rice subsidies in other countries where agriculture is as important as it it in Thailand. Not everyone is a Euro person there are other parts of the world like the US and Japan where maintaining a farm industry is important culturally. The previous poster was trying to make it seem Thailand was spending billions in dollars when that was not the case at all. If you are going to compare something, do it in like currency. It makes it easier to understand which was my point. Either use Dollars or Baht for all monies compared. It is nice when I go to the bank to count my millions and tell folks I am a multimillionaire but ....... See what I am saying?

I hear you, but I disagree. I think it is much less important to see how much or much less Thailand spends in market distortion than other countries. It's about 18% of the National Budget for a second year of price pledging which seems to trickle down only to the intended target.

BTW the total 2012 EC budget of Euro 149 billion (which is 1.12% of EC-27 GNI) had Euro 60 billion for "Preservation and management of natural resources". http://ec.europa.eu/...012/2012_en.cfm

"In 1985, around 70% of the EU budget was spent on agriculture. In 2011, direct aid to farmers and market-related expenditure amount to just 30% of the budget, and rural development spending to 11%. This declining path continues."

http://ec.europa.eu/...hs_en.cfm#9of15

PS there are about 40 Baht in a single Euro

A good point. Does the rice subsidy not get to the farmers? Don't they complain?

It is quite a bit more relevant than comparison with the education budget. How would you have any understanding of the importance of rice subsidies unless you had some knowledge of rice subsidies in other countries where agriculture is as important as it it in Thailand. Not everyone is a Euro person there are other parts of the world like the US and Japan where maintaining a farm industry is important culturally. The previous poster was trying to make it seem Thailand was spending billions in dollars when that was not the case at all. If you are going to compare something, do it in like currency. It makes it easier to understand which was my point. Either use Dollars or Baht for all monies compared. It is nice when I go to the bank to count my millions and tell folks I am a multimillionaire but ....... See what I am saying?

I hear you, but I disagree. I think it is much less important to see how much or much less Thailand spends in market distortion than other countries. It's about 18% of the National Budget for a second year of price pledging which seems to trickle down only to the intended target.

BTW the total 2012 EC budget of Euro 149 billion (which is 1.12% of EC-27 GNI) had Euro 60 billion for "Preservation and management of natural resources". http://ec.europa.eu/...012/2012_en.cfm

"In 1985, around 70% of the EU budget was spent on agriculture. In 2011, direct aid to farmers and market-related expenditure amount to just 30% of the budget, and rural development spending to 11%. This declining path continues."

http://ec.europa.eu/...hs_en.cfm#9of15

PS there are about 40 Baht in a single Euro

A good point. Does the rice subsidy not get to the farmers? Don't they complain?

Now before you complain I don't answer a meaningfull question, I'd like to understand this question first, in relation to the 5% GDP growth expected, that is. I mean I can see and really understand that with everything rosy, THB 400 billion trickling down a wee bit and National Health budgets looking to be reigned in, it's extremely important to clearly identify all who profit from the price pledging scheme.

Still surely all be rich very soon now after two years of THB 400 billion and we can maybe stop looking at reigning in Health budgets, like that of the NHSF which squanders away THB 106 billion on 48 million people ?

It is quite a bit more relevant than comparison with the education budget. How would you have any understanding of the importance of rice subsidies unless you had some knowledge of rice subsidies in other countries where agriculture is as important as it it in Thailand. Not everyone is a Euro person there are other parts of the world like the US and Japan where maintaining a farm industry is important culturally. The previous poster was trying to make it seem Thailand was spending billions in dollars when that was not the case at all. If you are going to compare something, do it in like currency. It makes it easier to understand which was my point. Either use Dollars or Baht for all monies compared. It is nice when I go to the bank to count my millions and tell folks I am a multimillionaire but ....... See what I am saying?

I hear you, but I disagree. I think it is much less important to see how much or much less Thailand spends in market distortion than other countries. It's about 18% of the National Budget for a second year of price pledging which seems to trickle down only to the intended target.

BTW the total 2012 EC budget of Euro 149 billion (which is 1.12% of EC-27 GNI) had Euro 60 billion for "Preservation and management of natural resources". http://ec.europa.eu/...012/2012_en.cfm

"In 1985, around 70% of the EU budget was spent on agriculture. In 2011, direct aid to farmers and market-related expenditure amount to just 30% of the budget, and rural development spending to 11%. This declining path continues."

http://ec.europa.eu/...hs_en.cfm#9of15

PS there are about 40 Baht in a single Euro

A good point. Does the rice subsidy not get to the farmers? Don't they complain?

Now before you complain I don't answer a meaningfull question, I'd like to understand this question first, in relation to the 5% GDP growth expected, that is. I mean I can see and really understand that with everything rosy, THB 400 billion trickling down a wee bit and National Health budgets looking to be reigned in, it's extremely important to clearly identify all who profit from the price pledging scheme.

Still surely all be rich very soon now after two years of THB 400 billion and we can maybe stop looking at reigning in Health budgets, like that of the NHSF which squanders away THB 106 billion on 48 million people ?

I should have known better than to ask. Sorry.

"Stimulating the economy."

She looks like she needs a lot of stimulation for her own personal satisfaction..--

"Stimulating the economy."

She looks like she needs a lot of stimulation for her own personal satisfaction..--

What do you mean?

It is quite a bit more relevant than comparison with the education budget. How would you have any understanding of the importance of rice subsidies unless you had some knowledge of rice subsidies in other countries where agriculture is as important as it it in Thailand. Not everyone is a Euro person there are other parts of the world like the US and Japan where maintaining a farm industry is important culturally. The previous poster was trying to make it seem Thailand was spending billions in dollars when that was not the case at all. If you are going to compare something, do it in like currency. It makes it easier to understand which was my point. Either use Dollars or Baht for all monies compared. It is nice when I go to the bank to count my millions and tell folks I am a multimillionaire but ....... See what I am saying?

I hear you, but I disagree. I think it is much less important to see how much or much less Thailand spends in market distortion than other countries. It's about 18% of the National Budget for a second year of price pledging which seems to trickle down only to the intended target.

BTW the total 2012 EC budget of Euro 149 billion (which is 1.12% of EC-27 GNI) had Euro 60 billion for "Preservation and management of natural resources". http://ec.europa.eu/...012/2012_en.cfm

"In 1985, around 70% of the EU budget was spent on agriculture. In 2011, direct aid to farmers and market-related expenditure amount to just 30% of the budget, and rural development spending to 11%. This declining path continues."

http://ec.europa.eu/...hs_en.cfm#9of15

PS there are about 40 Baht in a single Euro

A good point. Does the rice subsidy not get to the farmers? Don't they complain?

Now before you complain I don't answer a meaningfull question, I'd like to understand this question first, in relation to the 5% GDP growth expected, that is. I mean I can see and really understand that with everything rosy, THB 400 billion trickling down a wee bit and National Health budgets looking to be reigned in, it's extremely important to clearly identify all who profit from the price pledging scheme.

Still surely all be rich very soon now after two years of THB 400 billion and we can maybe stop looking at reigning in Health budgets, like that of the NHSF which squanders away THB 106 billion on 48 million people ?

48 million people? Thai population's around 67 million.

A good point. Does the rice subsidy not get to the farmers? Don't they complain?

Now before you complain I don't answer a meaningfull question, I'd like to understand this question first, in relation to the 5% GDP growth expected, that is. I mean I can see and really understand that with everything rosy, THB 400 billion trickling down a wee bit and National Health budgets looking to be reigned in, it's extremely important to clearly identify all who profit from the price pledging scheme.

Still surely all be rich very soon now after two years of THB 400 billion and we can maybe stop looking at reigning in Health budgets, like that of the NHSF which squanders away THB 106 billion on 48 million people ?

48 million people? Thai population's around 67 million.

Rather than repeating all, let me just point to the relevant topic:

A good point. Does the rice subsidy not get to the farmers? Don't they complain?

Now before you complain I don't answer a meaningfull question, I'd like to understand this question first, in relation to the 5% GDP growth expected, that is. I mean I can see and really understand that with everything rosy, THB 400 billion trickling down a wee bit and National Health budgets looking to be reigned in, it's extremely important to clearly identify all who profit from the price pledging scheme.

Still surely all be rich very soon now after two years of THB 400 billion and we can maybe stop looking at reigning in Health budgets, like that of the NHSF which squanders away THB 106 billion on 48 million people ?

48 million people? Thai population's around 67 million.

Rather than repeating all, let me just point to the relevant topic:

http://www.thaivisa....thcare-schemes/

The man asked a reasonable question. Is it too much to give him an answer. You could also tell me about the rice money.