Thai Ratings Raised By Fitch On Yingluck Stability

[A_Traveller]

Whist noticing some claim experience in whatever discipline is allegedly relevant to the topic, often with spectacular implications for their life's experience/educational attainment it is intriguing to note that the senior economist for the World Bank's East Asia and the Pacific division, Kirida Bhaopichitr, stated December last, that the rice pledging scheme's expenditure for the 2012-2013 harvest season will be 432 billion THB [14.4 billion USD], or 3.8 per cent of GDP which is an increase from the previous year’s 376 billion THB [12.5 billion USD], or 3.4 per cent of GDP.

Of course the final loss will not be known until the government sells the rice held in its stockpile and thus far the government has posted a loss of Bt115 billion [$3.83 billion] for the last year, while the loss on the new harvest is projected at Bt132 billion [4.4 billion USD], Dr Kirida noted.

[chiangmaikelly]

Who is a red? Who brought up rice pledging? Rubi. But I think if Waza is correct and it is 12.5% of the GDP it certainly would effect the Fitch rating. Don't you?

yeah 1.2 next

There is a big difference between one percent and twelve percent. One percent is almost meaningless. So if one percent of the GDP keeps the economy stable then Yingluck has done an excellent job and Fitch is correct.

I have no idea what your blathering on about now.

OK fair enough if you don't know I'll tell you. There is a big difference between 1 percent of the GDP and 12 percent. One percent would not raise alarm bells at Fitch 12 percent would. The only way the rice pledging could be remotely on topic is if it cased a significant loss like the 12%. However at 1% it is relatively unimportant as far as an international credit agency is concerned.

Edited March 12, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[ginjag]

It's always nice to hear from fellow posters, especially when they ignore each others and proclaim that the majority of Thais are happy. They know because all around them they only see happy people and even Fitch says so (eeven though as none-Thai their opinion is a wee bit suspect of course. I mean, imagine anyone being happy with a rating upgrade to the level of Italy, an upgrade because we didn't have many violent riots organized by the previous government of PM 'kill me some' Abhisit.

The wonderful work of our ever smiling PM Yingluck, obviously. And now back to explaining why 'loosing' THB 250 billion in two years rice price pledging is so helpful to the economy

I think you have to understand the rating system and understand why the direction of a countries rating makes news. Try looking for other countries recently that have gone down in the rating for examples and education. Although you might want to talk to Waza in another thread he said the rice price pledge was a trillion dollars.

The rice scam has cost the Thai tax payer around 700 billion so far and will be around 1 trillion by the end of 2014. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623866-yingluck-calls-thailand-a-haven-for-foreign-investment/?p=6182298

A hell of a lot more than the couple of million you claim.

Not me, I said I didn't know for sure. Rubi said 250 billion. I think it makes a difference to the credit rating if it's 250 billion or a trillion don't you? You and Rubi might want to hash it out. I don't have a view one way or the other except I would like to see some link to a accurate number as I am sure Fitch would.

CMK, watch psi IN channel Thai-but broadcast in English, They discussed it and said 400 billion min, so when you quote try to be nearer, I saw the figures so you check with the channel

[chiangmaikelly]

I think you have to understand the rating system and understand why the direction of a countries rating makes news. Try looking for other countries recently that have gone down in the rating for examples and education. Although you might want to talk to Waza in another thread he said the rice price pledge was a trillion dollars.

The rice scam has cost the Thai tax payer around 700 billion so far and will be around 1 trillion by the end of 2014. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/623866-yingluck-calls-thailand-a-haven-for-foreign-investment/?p=6182298

A hell of a lot more than the couple of million you claim.

Not me, I said I didn't know for sure. Rubi said 250 billion. I think it makes a difference to the credit rating if it's 250 billion or a trillion don't you? You and Rubi might want to hash it out. I don't have a view one way or the other except I would like to see some link to a accurate number as I am sure Fitch would.

CMK, watch psi IN channel Thai-but broadcast in English, They discussed it and said 400 billion min, so when you quote try to be nearer, I saw the figures so you check with the channel

I'm not quoting nor did I bring it up. I was only repeating the numbers Waza and Rubi quoted. In Waza's case he was off by a trillion or something like that. At any rate I don't care and it has nothing to do with the topic so look the numbers up yourself and start a thread about the rice pledging thing because I am simply not interested. Thanks.

[rubl]

Yingluck has sought to avert political tensions since taking power in 2011 by shelving measures that would bring back Thaksin Shinawatra, her brother who was ousted as prime minister in a coup seven years ago.

The upgrade comes as her government prepares a bill to spend 2 trillion baht ($67 billion) by 2020 on high-speed trains and mass-transit networks.

A bit confusing message here. Obviously a crimimal fugitive skyping orders on how to run his country AND table the amnesty bills came too late to influence Fitch in their decision to upgrade Thailand's rating, or they don't give a da_n as long as business is not effected?

[smutcakes]

Interesting change in how members of Thai Visa view the credibility of rating agenices

[AleG]

Interesting change in how members of Thai Visa view the credibility of rating agenices

Interesting how things change when facts start to appear, no?

[waza]

yes very interesting

[scorecard]

And the previous Govt was considered unstable because of the actions of who??

The question has already been succinctly answered by geriatrickid why the previous government was unstable.A related issue is that while technically legitimate the previous government rode to power on the back of a military coup, judicial activism, and the backing of the unelected elite.To this must be added the sheer incompetence of Abhisit as a politician.Whatever its shortcomings the current government benefits from having fairly won power in a general election, and its unquestioned legitimacy is reflected in the credit ratings.

What? You also on the ear medicine?

[moe666]

Bbb+ is that the corruption factor rateing

[hellodolly]

Ya I was here. When a country has an election they have to be prepared for the side that they don't like to win if they are the majority. In this case part of the spoils was a financial rating increase. I don't think Abhisit created the problems but he could have reacted differently and he didn't. He could have won the next election but he defeated himself by his actions during his term in office.

How bad was that ??? he was chosen to stand in after a shambles-corruption thats all, then had to face the backed reds, and look what they did, he was calling for early election but that was washed away with the destuction of part of BKK, he sounded so bad didn;t he, you cannot have been here or you wouldn;t be so twisted and brainwashed

So Yingluck got the benefit of the inaction of the previous government; so what.

Now you are falling down on simple arithmetic.

48% is not even in the same ball park as majority.

On the other hand 52% is hands down no doubt about it majority.

You might want to wait until tomorrow to post.

Don't you think it is about time for you fellows to get over it. Does every thread in Thai News have to be a re hash of the last election. The guys you like lost. Get over it and start posting on topic. Everyone knows how a coalition government is formed, Give it a rest. Yinglucks government is doing a good job according to Fitch. If we ignore some posters on Thai Visa the majority of Thais seem happy and stable.

I agree with you every one knows how a coalition government is formed. It is not formed democratically. I do not know the proper name I think it is called the Parliamentarian system.

It would be nice if people understood that. Instead they claim it was formed by a majority of votes. This is not true and I for one never bring it up unless it is in response to the false claims made here by supposedly knowledgeable people.

[RubbaJohnny]

Hey have a wonderful term in the UK

'Buggins Turn'

of course locals have upgraded this to

Loaded Buggins turn

cf

Buggins' turn - The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com/Buggins'+turn‎

Brit slang the principle of awarding an appointment to members of a group in turn, rather than according to merit.

Edited June 8, 2013 by RubbaJohnny