Thai Govt's Rice Pledging Scheme To Be Evaluated

[rubl]

It's no problem Thailand goes broke by spending 18% of it's National Budget (8% of it's GDP) on price pledging as other countries spent even more (in absolute terms).

Now that's logic :-)

Counting the costs but not accounting for the revenue.

Now that's logic :-)

You may have missed the post I made four hours ago, #50:

"Budget, costs, profit or loss. In that order.

So two years in a row 400 billion Baht budgeted, no money left, unknown amount of money recovered by selling, profit or loss so clear as to be transparent."

[Robby nz]

Counting the costs but not accounting for the revenue.

Now that's logic :-)

As, Rich Teacher you seem to know more about it than most could you please post what revenue has been gained.

Then Rubi and myself, among others will then be able to factor it in and then we will be able to see the success of this scheme.

That will help to alleviate the tragedy.

[moe666]

Where is GK to explain it all away, he posted a very detailed piece when they started this program on how exactly it would be a win- win situation. He hasn't been back to explain why it has become a lose=lose situation. I guess no explanation need to describe the incompetence of this government in there policies and programs.

If a hill of beans is a trillion dollars don't worry because the losses don't amount to a hill of beans.

your post is drivel

[chiangmaikelly]

The small, "poor farmer", that this scheme scam was promised(Yingluck campaign) to help so much (make rich), farms between 5 an 20 rai of land. I believe last year 1.2 million farmers were involved(enrolled). Each rai on average produces about 450kg of paddy. So on average each "poor farmer'' farmed 12 rai of land. 12x450kg = 5.4tons x Bt15000 to Bt20,000 = Bt81,000 to Bt108,000

Many reports have the "poor farmer" increasing yearly profit by 8 to 12% since the start. The TRDI has stated the ''poor farmer" is getting 5% from this scam, where the Millers/merchants are taking 67% of the cut. The rich, high production farmers, supposedly taking the rest.

Just a monthly update on the "poor farmer" that borrowed the 20% down payment from the BAAC for his new Toyota Hillux 4x4 with Bt8000 a month payments for the next 7 years, to take advantage of the Govt's first car buyer scam.

PS.

CMK, it has nothing to do with the countries GDP.

The way to compare different things like agriculture or health care or education between different countries is to look at the percent of GDP each country allocates to a particular resource. Looking at the percent of GDP will uncover the priority given an asset or event or system. Comparing percents of expenditures of GDP of different size countries of different wealth allows us to evaluate the priority the government of those countries places on goods and services.

This is why in financial reports amounts are discussed in percents of GDP.

[chiangmaikelly]

Where is GK to explain it all away, he posted a very detailed piece when they started this program on how exactly it would be a win- win situation. He hasn't been back to explain why it has become a lose=lose situation. I guess no explanation need to describe the incompetence of this government in there policies and programs.

If a hill of beans is a trillion dollars don't worry because the losses don't amount to a hill of beans.

your post is drivel

The previous administration spent 60 billion over two years on a rice pledging scheme. The World Bank thinks the current administration is spending 115 billion. How much do you think and why should we believe you instead of the World Bank?

Edited May 13, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[chiangmaikelly]

so at the end of the day,the uneducated will still believe there getting a great deal,and the corrupt government carries on filling there bank accounts,sounds good to me,,can i sign up as an independent mp,and promise them free labour,,,,,,

Says Groon To-Chai, a 67-year-old farmer from Nakon Sawan province in central Thailand who says his monthly income has jumped by 50 percent, to 30,000 baht ($1,000)

http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

[chiangmaikelly]

It's no problem Thailand goes broke by spending 18% of it's National Budget (8% of it's GDP) on price pledging as other countries spent even more (in absolute terms).

Now that's logic :-)

Counting the costs but not accounting for the revenue.

Now that's logic :-)

You do understand there is not really any revenue from this rice scheme right?

The farmers earn less than the pledge price; money skimmed back to various people of influence (let's call them the Rice Amartaya). I don't know a single rice farmer earning the pledged amount nor has ANY of the crops grown on my family's land received the pledged amount.

The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians and Laotians to grow it instead.

Also, various 'consultants' can be hired at every step using government money to do investigative buying and selling trips to rice mainstay economies, I hear Paris, London, Dubai and Hong Kong are all popular places to buy Louis Vuitt...I mean to sell rice.

Therefore.... it's all cost, no revenue.

But I really don't see this as a problem.

I think the scheme has great promise, and I don't know why you lot don't seem to like it. As a direct result of this scheme, I am hopeful that one day, perhaps all the rice growing land in Thailand can be left to rot, and instead, we import the world's entire rice supply from abroad, pretend it is Thai, pay top price for it to 'Thai' rice farmers, and then keep it in giant silos, which can be located on the rice growing land since that's not doing anything now. After all, everyone says the world food supply is going to increase to keep pace with the growth in the world population. Let's do our bit to prove that theory wrong, but letting a major staple just rot.

And then once it is all rotten, I think we can move up the value chain. After all, everyone is selling rice to eat! That's old school. that's like rice 1.0. Just like the internet, we need rice 2.0 and rice 3.0. I think rice 2.0 can be rotten putrid rice and we package it in bean bags, and call it 'putrid rice bags' as a new eco furniture. It will be the coolest thing. Please pay me 20m consulting fee to investigate if the Louis Vuitton in Landmark will be interested, you can fly me over first class and I'll stay in The Oriental, and I might accidently meet Dr T.

For rice 3.0, I like to think this will be when putrid rotting rice becomes a way to socially network. I am thinking that humans have facebook. But there are far more cats, rats and dogs, than people in Thailand. So, if we can just create a new social network for cats, rats and dogs, under the new brand name 'Soo-nuk mai dtaek, maew mai yoo, noo rah-rehng' we stand to make all the money back that we lost on the pledging scheme, with google adwords. For cats, rats, and dogs.

Please pay me 50m consulting fee to fly to Dubai, and stay at the One and Only in the Palms, for 'investigative analysis'/

See? We all win, with the rice pledging scheme.

Sorry but I don't see any factual information in the above post. It strikes me it was written only to create conflict and adds nothing to the discussion. Perhaps I missed something. Let me know if I did.

[hellodolly]

"Among OECD members (a group of high-income countries), “producer support estimate” rates average about 31 percent of total revenue for the main grain, oilseed, sugar, and livestock products."

"The average support rate in the European Union is about 35 percent of the value of production."

"In wealthy nations such as the United States, farm subsidies, though large in total, are relatively minor political issues for most voters"

"Most governments around the world intervene actively in the operation of their agricultural markets."

Agricultural Price Supports

by Robert L. Thompson

"In 2009, Japan paid USD$46.5 billion in subsidies to its farmers.." Wikipedia

Now what are you talking about. Maybe they needed it to get up to the world price.

Thailand is far above the world price. And there is no guarantee that the farmer is getting it.

the promise was given in such a way as to lead people into thinking the grower was going to get it and be able to pay his field hands more. That was the oral part the written part allowed the middleman to get the lions share of it. Not only that it allowed politicians to purchase store houses for the grain that could not be sold and there by enrich them selves.

[hellodolly]

It's no problem Thailand goes broke by spending 18% of it's National Budget (8% of it's GDP) on price pledging as other countries spent even more (in absolute terms).

Now that's logic :-)

Counting the costs but not accounting for the revenue.

Now that's logic :-)

You do understand there is not really any revenue from this rice scheme right?

The farmers earn less than the pledge price; money skimmed back to various people of influence (let's call them the Rice Amartaya). I don't know a single rice farmer earning the pledged amount nor has ANY of the crops grown on my family's land received the pledged amount.

The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians and Laotians to grow it instead.

Also, various 'consultants' can be hired at every step using government money to do investigative buying and selling trips to rice mainstay economies, I hear Paris, London, Dubai and Hong Kong are all popular places to buy Louis Vuitt...I mean to sell rice.

Therefore.... it's all cost, no revenue.

But I really don't see this as a problem.

I think the scheme has great promise, and I don't know why you lot don't seem to like it. As a direct result of this scheme, I am hopeful that one day, perhaps all the rice growing land in Thailand can be left to rot, and instead, we import the world's entire rice supply from abroad, pretend it is Thai, pay top price for it to 'Thai' rice farmers, and then keep it in giant silos, which can be located on the rice growing land since that's not doing anything now. After all, everyone says the world food supply is going to increase to keep pace with the growth in the world population. Let's do our bit to prove that theory wrong, but letting a major staple just rot.

And then once it is all rotten, I think we can move up the value chain. After all, everyone is selling rice to eat! That's old school. that's like rice 1.0. Just like the internet, we need rice 2.0 and rice 3.0. I think rice 2.0 can be rotten putrid rice and we package it in bean bags, and call it 'putrid rice bags' as a new eco furniture. It will be the coolest thing. Please pay me 20m consulting fee to investigate if the Louis Vuitton in Landmark will be interested, you can fly me over first class and I'll stay in The Oriental, and I might accidently meet Dr T.

For rice 3.0, I like to think this will be when putrid rotting rice becomes a way to socially network. I am thinking that humans have facebook. But there are far more cats, rats and dogs, than people in Thailand. So, if we can just create a new social network for cats, rats and dogs, under the new brand name 'Soo-nuk mai dtaek, maew mai yoo, noo rah-rehng' we stand to make all the money back that we lost on the pledging scheme, with google adwords. For cats, rats, and dogs.

Please pay me 50m consulting fee to fly to Dubai, and stay at the One and Only in the Palms, for 'investigative analysis'/

See? We all win, with the rice pledging scheme.

Sorry but I don't see any factual information in the above post. It strikes me it was written only to create conflict and adds nothing to the discussion. Perhaps I missed something. Let me know if I did.

Well it has been known for quite awhile but apparently you are denying it or just haven't been paying attention.

"The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of

storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has

increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to

pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from

overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because

then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians

and Laotians to grow it instead."

[chiangmaikelly]

Sorry but I don't see any factual information in the above post. It strikes me it was written only to create conflict and adds nothing to the discussion. Perhaps I missed something. Let me know if I did.

Well it has been known for quite awhile but apparently you are denying it or just haven't been paying attention.

"The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of

storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has

increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to

pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from

overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because

then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians

and Laotians to grow it instead."

So link and document it. Or say it's a rumor.

[Rich teacher]

hellodolly, on 13 May 2013 - 21:33, said:

chiangmaikelly, on 13 May 2013 - 21:27, said:

Sorry but I don't see any factual information in the above post. It strikes me it was written only to create conflict and adds nothing to the discussion. Perhaps I missed something. Let me know if I did.

Rich teacher, on 13 May 2013 - 18:39, said:

rubl, on 13 May 2013 - 18:31, said:
It's no problem Thailand goes broke by spending 18% of it's National Budget (8% of it's GDP) on price pledging as other countries spent even more (in absolute terms).

Now that's logic :-)

Counting the costs but not accounting for the revenue.
Now that's logic :-)

You do understand there is not really any revenue from this rice scheme right?

The farmers earn less than the pledge price; money skimmed back to various people of influence (let's call them the Rice Amartaya). I don't know a single rice farmer earning the pledged amount nor has ANY of the crops grown on my family's land received the pledged amount.

The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians and Laotians to grow it instead.

Also, various 'consultants' can be hired at every step using government money to do investigative buying and selling trips to rice mainstay economies, I hear Paris, London, Dubai and Hong Kong are all popular places to buy Louis Vuitt...I mean to sell rice.

Therefore.... it's all cost, no revenue.

But I really don't see this as a problem.

I think the scheme has great promise, and I don't know why you lot don't seem to like it. As a direct result of this scheme, I am hopeful that one day, perhaps all the rice growing land in Thailand can be left to rot, and instead, we import the world's entire rice supply from abroad, pretend it is Thai, pay top price for it to 'Thai' rice farmers, and then keep it in giant silos, which can be located on the rice growing land since that's not doing anything now. After all, everyone says the world food supply is going to increase to keep pace with the growth in the world population. Let's do our bit to prove that theory wrong, but letting a major staple just rot.

And then once it is all rotten, I think we can move up the value chain. After all, everyone is selling rice to eat! That's old school. that's like rice 1.0. Just like the internet, we need rice 2.0 and rice 3.0. I think rice 2.0 can be rotten putrid rice and we package it in bean bags, and call it 'putrid rice bags' as a new eco furniture. It will be the coolest thing. Please pay me 20m consulting fee to investigate if the Louis Vuitton in Landmark will be interested, you can fly me over first class and I'll stay in The Oriental, and I might accidently meet Dr T.

For rice 3.0, I like to think this will be when putrid rotting rice becomes a way to socially network. I am thinking that humans have facebook. But there are far more cats, rats and dogs, than people in Thailand. So, if we can just create a new social network for cats, rats and dogs, under the new brand name 'Soo-nuk mai dtaek, maew mai yoo, noo rah-rehng' we stand to make all the money back that we lost on the pledging scheme, with google adwords. For cats, rats, and dogs.

Please pay me 50m consulting fee to fly to Dubai, and stay at the One and Only in the Palms, for 'investigative analysis'/

See? We all win, with the rice pledging scheme.

Well it has been known for quite awhile but apparently you are denying it or just haven't been paying attention.

"The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of
storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has
increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to
pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from
overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because
then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians
and Laotians to grow it instead."

You quote another poster who has posted unsubstantiated claims to try & make some point. In fact the proceeds from the sale of the rice are currently unknown, but the assertion that they simply cover the cost of storage & wastage is ludicrous. Edited May 13, 2013 by Rich teacher

[rubl]

Where is GK to explain it all away, he posted a very detailed piece when they started this program on how exactly it would be a win- win situation. He hasn't been back to explain why it has become a lose=lose situation. I guess no explanation need to describe the incompetence of this government in there policies and programs.

If a hill of beans is a trillion dollars don't worry because the losses don't amount to a hill of beans.

your post is drivel

The previous administration spent 60 billion over two years on a rice pledging scheme. The World Bank thinks the current administration is spending 115 billion. How much do you think and why should we believe you instead of the World Bank?

This government spends THB 800 billion over two years. The World Bank thinks at least THB 115 billion loss in the first year on rice alone and estimates even more in the second year. So what's your problem

[rubl]

Sorry but I don't see any factual information in the above post. It strikes me it was written only to create conflict and adds nothing to the discussion. Perhaps I missed something. Let me know if I did.

Well it has been known for quite awhile but apparently you are denying it or just haven't been paying attention.

"The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of

storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has

increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to

pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from

overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because

then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians

and Laotians to grow it instead."

So link and document it. Or say it's a rumor.

Go look for yourself. The amount of rice being sold is really limited, the amount of rice being pledged and delivered to government stockpiles is ever increasing.

BTW while you're looking and searching have a look at post 51 here as well

Edited May 13, 2013 by rubl

[chiangmaikelly]

The previous administration spent 60 billion over two years on a rice pledging scheme. The World Bank thinks the current administration is spending 115 billion. How much do you think and why should we believe you instead of the World Bank?

This government spends THB 800 billion over two years. The World Bank thinks at least THB 115 billion loss in the first year on rice alone and estimates even more in the second year. So what's your problem

There are two issues on the cost. The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts

the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

[rubl]

You quote another poster who has posted unsubstantiated claims to try & make some point. In fact the proceeds from the sale of the rice are currently unknown, but the assertion that they simply cover the cost of storage & wastage is ludicrous.

Totally agree! The assumption that sales of rice will cover costs of buying it in the first place, storing it and accounting for waste, is totally ludicrous.

[chiangmaikelly]

Sorry but I don't see any factual information in the above post. It strikes me it was written only to create conflict and adds nothing to the discussion. Perhaps I missed something. Let me know if I did.

Well it has been known for quite awhile but apparently you are denying it or just haven't been paying attention.

"The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of

storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has

increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to

pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from

overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because

then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians

and Laotians to grow it instead."

So link and document it. Or say it's a rumor.

Go look for yourself. The amount of rice being sold is really limited, the amount of rice being pledged and delivered to government stockpiles is ever increasing.

BTW while you're looking and searching have a look at post 51 here as well

Maybe I got it wrong but I thought I link articles or ideas; facts that I post and other people link articles or ideas or facts that they post. I don't expect you to post links for my stuff. Nor will I post links for yours.

Edited May 13, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[rubl]

The previous administration spent 60 billion over two years on a rice pledging scheme. The World Bank thinks the current administration is spending 115 billion. How much do you think and why should we believe you instead of the World Bank?

This government spends THB 800 billion over two years. The World Bank thinks at least THB 115 billion loss in the first year on rice alone and estimates even more in the second year. So what's your problem

There are two issues on the cost. The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts

the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

My dear chap, you were mixing costs and losses in your posts.

BTW the World Bank said "The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.". Read the document and see that the 140 billion is for a single year, not the total since the scheme started.

[chiangmaikelly]

The previous administration spent 60 billion over two years on a rice pledging scheme. The World Bank thinks the current administration is spending 115 billion. How much do you think and why should we believe you instead of the World Bank?

This government spends THB 800 billion over two years. The World Bank thinks at least THB 115 billion loss in the first year on rice alone and estimates even more in the second year. So what's your problem

There are two issues on the cost. The government and the opposition are poles apart on the cost. TDRI puts

the loss in the first year (October 2011-September 2012) at 112 billion baht (counting money spent, revenue received, and also taking into account storage costs and other costs associated with the scheme). The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

My dear chap, you were mixing costs and losses in your posts.

BTW the World Bank said "The World Bank puts it at 115 billion Baht for the first year, but estimates that for future years it will be up to 140 billion baht.". Read the document and see that the 140 billion is for a single year, not the total since the scheme started.

I didn't say anything about loss. The article I quoted above from Bloomberg is talking about cost. Am I wrong?

[rametindallas]

chiangmaikelly, on 12 May 2013 - 22:12, said:

robblok, on 12 May 2013 - 22:05, said:

chiangmaikelly, on 12 May 2013 - 21:59, said:

Somebody help me with these numbers. They are too big for me. GDP next year according to IMF 13967.77 billions Thai Baht. What percent of the GDP is the rice pledging scheme going to cost?

GDP is something totally different from tax income.. did you not know that ?

No reason to compare it to GDP more interesting to compare it to tax income.

Economic statistics are compared as a percent of GDP. We could use percent of allowence of 12 year old school children or the amount of money raised by beggars in the weekly market. The fact is that statistics between countries are compared in percent of GDP.

American humorist and writer, Mark Twain said, "There are three types of lies. lies, damned lies, and statistics". Maybe if you spelled out your point, people would know what you are driving at.

[dcutman]

The small, "poor farmer", that this scheme scam was promised(Yingluck campaign) to help so much (make rich), farms between 5 an 20 rai of land. I believe last year 1.2 million farmers were involved(enrolled). Each rai on average produces about 450kg of paddy. So on average each "poor farmer'' farmed 12 rai of land. 12x450kg = 5.4tons x Bt15000 to Bt20,000 = Bt81,000 to Bt108,000

Many reports have the "poor farmer" increasing yearly profit by 8 to 12% since the start. The TRDI has stated the ''poor farmer" is getting 5% from this scam, where the Millers/merchants are taking 67% of the cut. The rich, high production farmers, supposedly taking the rest.

Just a monthly update on the "poor farmer" that borrowed the 20% down payment from the BAAC for his new Toyota Hillux 4x4 with Bt8000 a month payments for the next 7 years, to take advantage of the Govt's first car buyer scam.

PS.

CMK, it has nothing to do with the countries GDP.

The way to compare different things like agriculture or health care or education between different countries is to look at the percent of GDP each country allocates to a particular resource. Looking at the percent of GDP will uncover the priority given an asset or event or system. Comparing percents of expenditures of GDP of different size countries of different wealth allows us to evaluate the priority the government of those countries places on goods and services.

This is why in financial reports amounts are discussed in percents of GDP.

The thing you fail to understand is, its not about a comparison to another country, or its GDP. The only thing that matters is the "poor farmer" is not getting what was promised, and his future as a rice farmer is being destroyed by the govt through this scam. What ever reputation that Thai rice had, is now gone, and many loyal customers that used to pay a high premium for that reputation and quality as "The Worlds best rice" are also gone, possibly forever.

Edited May 13, 2013 by dcutman

[longway]

The small, "poor farmer", that this scheme scam was promised(Yingluck campaign) to help so much (make rich), farms between 5 an 20 rai of land. I believe last year 1.2 million farmers were involved(enrolled). Each rai on average produces about 450kg of paddy. So on average each "poor farmer'' farmed 12 rai of land. 12x450kg = 5.4tons x Bt15000 to Bt20,000 = Bt81,000 to Bt108,000

Many reports have the "poor farmer" increasing yearly profit by 8 to 12% since the start. The TRDI has stated the ''poor farmer" is getting 5% from this scam, where the Millers/merchants are taking 67% of the cut. The rich, high production farmers, supposedly taking the rest.

Just a monthly update on the "poor farmer" that borrowed the 20% down payment from the BAAC for his new Toyota Hillux 4x4 with Bt8000 a month payments for the next 7 years, to take advantage of the Govt's first car buyer scam.

PS.

CMK, it has nothing to do with the countries GDP.

The way to compare different things like agriculture or health care or education between different countries is to look at the percent of GDP each country allocates to a particular resource. Looking at the percent of GDP will uncover the priority given an asset or event or system. Comparing percents of expenditures of GDP of different size countries of different wealth allows us to evaluate the priority the government of those countries places on goods and services.

This is why in financial reports amounts are discussed in percents of GDP.

The thing you fail to understand is, its not about a comparison to another country, or its GDP. The only thing that matters is the "poor farmer" is not getting what was promised, and his future as a rice farmer is being destroyed by the govt through this scam. What ever reputation that Thai rice had, is now gone, and many loyal customers that used to pay a high premium for that reputation and quality as "The Worlds best rice" are also gone, possibly forever.

Looks like they have broken the market mechanism of the rice industry, likely its going to require the government buying huge amounts of rice for many years to come to keep rice farmers going; they need to start transparently selling the stockpiled rice and openly booking the losses too.

Edited May 13, 2013 by longway

[waza]

The small, "poor farmer", that this scheme scam was promised(Yingluck campaign) to help so much (make rich), farms between 5 an 20 rai of land. I believe last year 1.2 million farmers were involved(enrolled). Each rai on average produces about 450kg of paddy. So on average each "poor farmer'' farmed 12 rai of land. 12x450kg = 5.4tons x Bt15000 to Bt20,000 = Bt81,000 to Bt108,000

Many reports have the "poor farmer" increasing yearly profit by 8 to 12% since the start. The TRDI has stated the ''poor farmer" is getting 5% from this scam, where the Millers/merchants are taking 67% of the cut. The rich, high production farmers, supposedly taking the rest.

Just a monthly update on the "poor farmer" that borrowed the 20% down payment from the BAAC for his new Toyota Hillux 4x4 with Bt8000 a month payments for the next 7 years, to take advantage of the Govt's first car buyer scam.

PS.

CMK, it has nothing to do with the countries GDP.

The way to compare different things like agriculture or health care or education between different countries is to look at the percent of GDP each country allocates to a particular resource. Looking at the percent of GDP will uncover the priority given an asset or event or system. Comparing percents of expenditures of GDP of different size countries of different wealth allows us to evaluate the priority the government of those countries places on goods and services.

This is why in financial reports amounts are discussed in percents of GDP.

The thing you fail to understand is, its not about a comparison to another country, or its GDP. The only thing that matters is the "poor farmer" is not getting what was promised, and his future as a rice farmer is being destroyed by the govt through this scam. What ever reputation that Thai rice had, is now gone, and many loyal customers that used to pay a high premium for that reputation and quality as "The Worlds best rice" are also gone, possibly forever.

Looks like they have broken the market mechanism of the rice industry, likely its going to require the government buying huge amounts of rice for many years to come to keep rice farmers going; they need to start transparently selling the stockpiled rice and openly booking the losses too.

That would be political suicide, better to keep borrowing money to keep the pending bankruptcy hidden for a while longer, at least till after the next election.

[chiangmaikelly]

chiangmaikelly, on 12 May 2013 - 22:12, said:

robblok, on 12 May 2013 - 22:05, said:

chiangmaikelly, on 12 May 2013 - 21:59, said:

Somebody help me with these numbers. They are too big for me. GDP next year according to IMF 13967.77 billions Thai Baht. What percent of the GDP is the rice pledging scheme going to cost?

GDP is something totally different from tax income.. did you not know that ?

No reason to compare it to GDP more interesting to compare it to tax income.

Economic statistics are compared as a percent of GDP. We could use percent of allowence of 12 year old school children or the amount of money raised by beggars in the weekly market. The fact is that statistics between countries are compared in percent of GDP.

American humorist and writer, Mark Twain said, "There are three types of lies. lies, damned lies, and statistics". Maybe if you spelled out your point, people would know what you are driving at.

How much did the rice scheme cost the previous administration and how much is it costing this administration. Is it in line with what other countries are spending to support the agricultural sector that would actually be lost because of industry pay rates. Reporting the numbers as a percent of GDP is necessary to compare to other countries and compare Thailand over time.

[Thai at Heart]

hellodolly, on 13 May 2013 - 21:33, said:

chiangmaikelly, on 13 May 2013 - 21:27, said:

Sorry but I don't see any factual information in the above post. It strikes me it was written only to create conflict and adds nothing to the discussion. Perhaps I missed something. Let me know if I did.

Rich teacher, on 13 May 2013 - 18:39, said:

rubl, on 13 May 2013 - 18:31, said:

It's no problem Thailand goes broke by spending 18% of it's National Budget (8% of it's GDP) on price pledging as other countries spent even more (in absolute terms).

Now that's logic :-)

Counting the costs but not accounting for the revenue.

Now that's logic :-)

You do understand there is not really any revenue from this rice scheme right?

The farmers earn less than the pledge price; money skimmed back to various people of influence (let's call them the Rice Amartaya). I don't know a single rice farmer earning the pledged amount nor has ANY of the crops grown on my family's land received the pledged amount.

The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians and Laotians to grow it instead.

Also, various 'consultants' can be hired at every step using government money to do investigative buying and selling trips to rice mainstay economies, I hear Paris, London, Dubai and Hong Kong are all popular places to buy Louis Vuitt...I mean to sell rice.

Therefore.... it's all cost, no revenue.

But I really don't see this as a problem.

I think the scheme has great promise, and I don't know why you lot don't seem to like it. As a direct result of this scheme, I am hopeful that one day, perhaps all the rice growing land in Thailand can be left to rot, and instead, we import the world's entire rice supply from abroad, pretend it is Thai, pay top price for it to 'Thai' rice farmers, and then keep it in giant silos, which can be located on the rice growing land since that's not doing anything now. After all, everyone says the world food supply is going to increase to keep pace with the growth in the world population. Let's do our bit to prove that theory wrong, but letting a major staple just rot.

And then once it is all rotten, I think we can move up the value chain. After all, everyone is selling rice to eat! That's old school. that's like rice 1.0. Just like the internet, we need rice 2.0 and rice 3.0. I think rice 2.0 can be rotten putrid rice and we package it in bean bags, and call it 'putrid rice bags' as a new eco furniture. It will be the coolest thing. Please pay me 20m consulting fee to investigate if the Louis Vuitton in Landmark will be interested, you can fly me over first class and I'll stay in The Oriental, and I might accidently meet Dr T.

For rice 3.0, I like to think this will be when putrid rotting rice becomes a way to socially network. I am thinking that humans have facebook. But there are far more cats, rats and dogs, than people in Thailand. So, if we can just create a new social network for cats, rats and dogs, under the new brand name 'Soo-nuk mai dtaek, maew mai yoo, noo rah-rehng' we stand to make all the money back that we lost on the pledging scheme, with google adwords. For cats, rats, and dogs.

Please pay me 50m consulting fee to fly to Dubai, and stay at the One and Only in the Palms, for 'investigative analysis'/

See? We all win, with the rice pledging scheme.

Well it has been known for quite awhile but apparently you are denying it or just haven't been paying attention.

"The warehouses overflow and rice is sold basically covering the cost of

storage and wastage. But on the flip side, the amount of rice grown has

increased, because people switch from high margin high quality rice, to

pledge quality low grade rice. In addition, rice is smuggled in from

overseas, and also added to the production which is even better, because

then you don't have to grow the rice at all, you can get the Cambodians

and Laotians to grow it instead."

You quote another poster who has posted unsubstantiated claims to try & make some point. In fact the proceeds from the sale of the rice are currently unknown, but the assertion that they simply cover the cost of storage & wastage is ludicrous.

You think the massive rice conglomerates don't see it this way, in terms of where they get their rice? They don't care if it is Thai, Laos or Cambodian supplied as long as they keep their margins.

[OzMick]

How much did the rice scheme cost the previous administration and how much is it costing this administration. Is it in line with what other countries are spending to support the agricultural sector that would actually be lost because of industry pay rates. Reporting the numbers as a percent of GDP is necessary to compare to other countries and compare Thailand over time.

Nobody knows the exact figures (?) but as i remember the figure was trivial compared to the current, and it was paid directly to farmers without the 60+% that goes missing from the current scheme. But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity? Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

[chiangmaikelly]

The small, "poor farmer", that this scheme scam was promised(Yingluck campaign) to help so much (make rich), farms between 5 an 20 rai of land. I believe last year 1.2 million farmers were involved(enrolled). Each rai on average produces about 450kg of paddy. So on average each "poor farmer'' farmed 12 rai of land. 12x450kg = 5.4tons x Bt15000 to Bt20,000 = Bt81,000 to Bt108,000

Many reports have the "poor farmer" increasing yearly profit by 8 to 12% since the start. The TRDI has stated the ''poor farmer" is getting 5% from this scam, where the Millers/merchants are taking 67% of the cut. The rich, high production farmers, supposedly taking the rest.

Just a monthly update on the "poor farmer" that borrowed the 20% down payment from the BAAC for his new Toyota Hillux 4x4 with Bt8000 a month payments for the next 7 years, to take advantage of the Govt's first car buyer scam.

PS.

CMK, it has nothing to do with the countries GDP.

The way to compare different things like agriculture or health care or education between different countries is to look at the percent of GDP each country allocates to a particular resource. Looking at the percent of GDP will uncover the priority given an asset or event or system. Comparing percents of expenditures of GDP of different size countries of different wealth allows us to evaluate the priority the government of those countries places on goods and services.

This is why in financial reports amounts are discussed in percents of GDP.

The thing you fail to understand is, its not about a comparison to another country, or its GDP. The only thing that matters is the "poor farmer" is not getting what was promised, and his future as a rice farmer is being destroyed by the govt through this scam. What ever reputation that Thai rice had, is now gone, and many loyal customers that used to pay a high premium for that reputation and quality as "The Worlds best rice" are also gone, possibly forever.

Of course it is about other countries. Japan for example gives it's farmers large rice subsidies. Large subsidies are also paid by the US and EU. Perhaps you should google global food prices and international trade. You even wrote, "The Worlds best rice." I think that means you are concerned about other countrie's rice compared to Thailand's rice.

Edited May 14, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[chiangmaikelly]

How much did the rice scheme cost the previous administration and how much is it costing this administration. Is it in line with what other countries are spending to support the agricultural sector that would actually be lost because of industry pay rates. Reporting the numbers as a percent of GDP is necessary to compare to other countries and compare Thailand over time.

Nobody knows the exact figures (?) but as i remember the figure was trivial compared to the current, and it was paid directly to farmers without the 60+% that goes missing from the current scheme. But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity? Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

According to Bloomberg and the world bank http://asiancorrespondent.com/105941/bloomberg-on-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-rice-pledging-scheme/

It cost the previous administration 60 billion and this administration 114 the first year and they estimate 140 billion in further years and suggest Thailand may lower the amount paid the farmers to continue the program.

Bloomberg and the World Bank did not mention the 60% that goes missing. I am sure they would have if it was accurate. Sounds like a story they would be very interested in. Perhaps you could provide a link if it is factual information.

Edited May 14, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[yoshiwara]

The small, "poor farmer", that this scheme scam was promised(Yingluck campaign) to help so much (make rich), farms between 5 an 20 rai of land. I believe last year 1.2 million farmers were involved(enrolled). Each rai on average produces about 450kg of paddy. So on average each "poor farmer'' farmed 12 rai of land. 12x450kg = 5.4tons x Bt15000 to Bt20,000 = Bt81,000 to Bt108,000

Many reports have the "poor farmer" increasing yearly profit by 8 to 12% since the start. The TRDI has stated the ''poor farmer" is getting 5% from this scam, where the Millers/merchants are taking 67% of the cut. The rich, high production farmers, supposedly taking the rest.

Just a monthly update on the "poor farmer" that borrowed the 20% down payment from the BAAC for his new Toyota Hillux 4x4 with Bt8000 a month payments for the next 7 years, to take advantage of the Govt's first car buyer scam.

PS.

CMK, it has nothing to do with the countries GDP.

The way to compare different things like agriculture or health care or education between different countries is to look at the percent of GDP each country allocates to a particular resource. Looking at the percent of GDP will uncover the priority given an asset or event or system. Comparing percents of expenditures of GDP of different size countries of different wealth allows us to evaluate the priority the government of those countries places on goods and services.

This is why in financial reports amounts are discussed in percents of GDP.

The thing you fail to understand is, its not about a comparison to another country, or its GDP. The only thing that matters is the "poor farmer" is not getting what was promised, and his future as a rice farmer is being destroyed by the govt through this scam. What ever reputation that Thai rice had, is now gone, and many loyal customers that used to pay a high premium for that reputation and quality as "The Worlds best rice" are also gone, possibly forever.

Looks like they have broken the market mechanism of the rice industry, likely its going to require the government buying huge amounts of rice for many years to come to keep rice farmers going; they need to start transparently selling the stockpiled rice and openly booking the losses too.

If they were allowed to sell at a loss they would do. There was suggestion some time ago that they tried to sell at a loss to China with false invoicing to cover up losses. Other countries may provide subsidies to rice farmers, but this is not the same as buying up stock and then wanting to dump the stuff (can't).

[NeverSure]

I am confused by the GDP numbers here. See we have two systems. In America a trillion is 10 to the 12th power. In British system a trillion is 10 to the 18th power. So you can see why I am confused cause there a lot of Brits here. So what is the Thai system and what percent of the GDP is the total cost of the loss of the rice pledging system. Since the American and British numbering systems are different you can see why I would want it as a percent of GDP.

I mean really how can one discuss the rice pledging scheme unless one knows how much money will be lost by the scheme?

Kelly, always the great defender of anything Thai.

Kelly, the GDP doesn't belong to the government. Only the taxes generated by the private sector go to the government. You can't even care what percentage of GDP it is. The question is, what percentage of government spending is it? The next logical question would be: Of all of the deficit spending the Thai government is doing, what percentage of that will come from rice scheme losses? Another logical question would be: How much more will the government have to borrow to pay for this?

We know that "loans" to cover this scam scheme have come from the Agricultural Bank, and we know think that those loans should be paid back by the Thai government who caused the loans to be made. Now the Agricultural Bank is upside down, along with at least a couple of other Thai banks and the government has to bail that out. They all belong to the government.

How much will the government have to borrow to pay for all of this? Where are they going to borrow it?

Now can you start to get a clue as to why the government is in such an uproar about the policy rate vs the value of the baht? If they lower the policy rate they won't have anyone to buy their bonds for their deficit spending.

I would really like to audit the books of the BOT. It has to be losing money covering the differences in daily exchange rates for guaranteed rate borrowing. Oh yeah, there's another good reason to not let the value of the baht fall regardless of what it does to exports. But then, there's your rock and a hard place. If exports don't meet expectations then neither will tax collections on the companies that export, so it's a two edged sword. Damned if you do and Damned if you don't.

So now that I've used up all of the cliches in the dictionary, go ponder the real issue which is "how is the government going to pay for all of this without borrowing, and how will it borrow without a high policy rate, and how is it going to pay it back when it is ballooning?"

[chiangmaikelly]

If they were allowed to sell at a loss they would do. There was suggestion some time ago that they tried to sell at a loss to China with false invoicing to cover up losses. Other countries may provide subsidies to rice farmers, but this is not the same as buying up stock and then wanting to dump the stuff (can't).

No they didn't. If some time ago they tried to sell at a loss to China please provide the link.