Thai Govt's Rice Pledging Scheme To Be Evaluated

[rubl]

Just for the fun of it let's return to the OP.

The government uses a 'revolving fund' for it's rice price pledging scheme. The Commerce Ministry has spent most of the THB 500 billion in the fund and need to plan how to pay back. The payback is supposed to be by releasing rice from the stockpile. If it fails in that the Commerce Ministry might look at other ways to increase funds which would make the 'revolving fund' bigger (or increases consolidated losses).

Now of funds spent 410 billion was borrowed from BAAC (a government bank) and the rest was still in BAAC reserves.

Already paid back is 110 billion (85 from 2012 pledge, rest from 2011) from 220 to be paid back this year.

[OzMick]

I always answer questions! I was just out getting some rice from the family. I have not bough rice in a store in years. I don't think I could. I have to know when it was harvested to cook it properly and I won't eat anything but brown rice grown in Surin. If I get your question right the idea behind the rice pledging scheme is to get elected again. So it makes no sense if the farmers don't get the money.

Well you seem to have missed the 3 that I asked, so I will re-present them:

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?

why are billions of baht being spent on a policy that is an almost total failure in its stated aim?

The aim of the policy was to GET elected by making promises, which have proved to only faintly fulfilled. If they were to cancel the subsidy and release the glut in storage, the market price would fall to around half the price they are currently paying. So the policy is continued to provide some chance of RE-election.

Edited May 14, 2013 by OzMick

[chiangmaikelly]

I always answer questions! I was just out getting some rice from the family. I have not bough rice in a store in years. I don't think I could. I have to know when it was harvested to cook it properly and I won't eat anything but brown rice grown in Surin. If I get your question right the idea behind the rice pledging scheme is to get elected again. So it makes no sense if the farmers don't get the money.

Well you seem to have missed the 3 that I asked, so I will re-present them:

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?

why are billions of baht being spent on a policy that is an almost total failure in its stated aim?

The aim of the policy was to GET elected by making promises, which have proved to only faintly fulfilled. If they were to cancel the subsidy and release the glut in storage, the market price would fall to around half the price they are currently paying. So the policy is continued to provide some chance of RE-election.

Oz you are not asking a question you are writing a anti government editorial as per usual. If you ask a question I will attempt to answer it. BTW, "When did you stop beating your wife." Is not a question I would answer, if you get my meaning. You wrote, "But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity?" That is not a question anyone would answer unless they were also writing an anti government editorial.

[OzMick]

I always answer questions! I was just out getting some rice from the family. I have not bough rice in a store in years. I don't think I could. I have to know when it was harvested to cook it properly and I won't eat anything but brown rice grown in Surin. If I get your question right the idea behind the rice pledging scheme is to get elected again. So it makes no sense if the farmers don't get the money.

Well you seem to have missed the 3 that I asked, so I will re-present them:

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?

why are billions of baht being spent on a policy that is an almost total failure in its stated aim?

The aim of the policy was to GET elected by making promises, which have proved to only faintly fulfilled. If they were to cancel the subsidy and release the glut in storage, the market price would fall to around half the price they are currently paying. So the policy is continued to provide some chance of RE-election.

Oz you are not asking a question you are writing a anti government editorial as per usual. If you ask a question I will attempt to answer it. BTW, "When did you stop beating your wife." Is not a question I would answer, if you get my meaning. You wrote, "But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity?" That is not a question anyone would answer unless they were also writing an anti government editorial.

I accept that the democrat rice subsidy was irrelevant to the topic. And the other 2 ?

[chiangmaikelly]

I always answer questions! I was just out getting some rice from the family. I have not bough rice in a store in years. I don't think I could. I have to know when it was harvested to cook it properly and I won't eat anything but brown rice grown in Surin. If I get your question right the idea behind the rice pledging scheme is to get elected again. So it makes no sense if the farmers don't get the money.

Well you seem to have missed the 3 that I asked, so I will re-present them:

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?

why are billions of baht being spent on a policy that is an almost total failure in its stated aim?

The aim of the policy was to GET elected by making promises, which have proved to only faintly fulfilled. If they were to cancel the subsidy and release the glut in storage, the market price would fall to around half the price they are currently paying. So the policy is continued to provide some chance of RE-election.

Oz you are not asking a question you are writing a anti government editorial as per usual. If you ask a question I will attempt to answer it. BTW, "When did you stop beating your wife." Is not a question I would answer, if you get my meaning. You wrote, "But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity?" That is not a question anyone would answer unless they were also writing an anti government editorial.

I accept that the democrat rice subsidy was irrelevant to the topic. And the other 2 ?

Maybe you better number them. Which question was the about the democratic rice subsidy?

Edited May 15, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[OzMick]

Oz you are not asking a question you are writing a anti government editorial as per usual. If you ask a question I will attempt to answer it. BTW, "When did you stop beating your wife." Is not a question I would answer, if you get my meaning. You wrote, "But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity?" That is not a question anyone would answer unless they were also writing an anti government editorial.

I accept that the democrat rice subsidy was irrelevant to the topic. And the other 2 ?

Maybe you better number them. Which question was the about the democratic rice subsidy?

Very humourous. You accuse me of writing an anti-government editorial for criticizing a very expensive, corruption ridden, failed policy. I have to wonder what that makes somebody who fails to criticize such a policy, and refuses to look at its short-comings.

Edited May 15, 2013 by OzMick

[chiangmaikelly]

Oz you are not asking a question you are writing a anti government editorial as per usual. If you ask a question I will attempt to answer it. BTW, "When did you stop beating your wife." Is not a question I would answer, if you get my meaning. You wrote, "But what does somebody else's stupidity have to do with the current insanity?" That is not a question anyone would answer unless they were also writing an anti government editorial.

I accept that the democrat rice subsidy was irrelevant to the topic. And the other 2 ?

Maybe you better number them. Which question was the about the democratic rice subsidy?

Very humourous. You accuse me of writing an anti-government editorial for criticizing a very expensive, corruption ridden, failed policy. I have to wonder what that makes somebody who fails to criticize such a policy, and refuses to look at its short-comings.

I'd look at it but I don't know which question you are writing about. If you could write a question without a value judgement and virulent anti goverment sentiment included I would really try to answer. Try leaving out words like stupid and insanity and just ask a simple question without all the editorial.

[OzMick]

I'd look at it but I don't know which question you are writing about. If you could write a question without a value judgement and virulent anti goverment sentiment included I would really try to answer. Try leaving out words like stupid and insanity and just ask a simple question without all the editorial.

Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

why are billions of baht being spent on a policy that is an almost total failure in its stated aim?

[chiangmaikelly]

I'd look at it but I don't know which question you are writing about. If you could write a question without a value judgement and virulent anti goverment sentiment included I would really try to answer. Try leaving out words like stupid and insanity and just ask a simple question without all the editorial.

Why is having a good GDP an excuse for wasting billions that could have made it better?

why are billions of baht being spent on a policy that is an almost total failure in its stated aim?

If the billions are spent improving the GDP the rice scheme makes sense. If the money was getting to the farmers the rice pledging scheme makes sense. I don't know what the total cost or loss per year has been and I doubt if anyone here does either. It woud be nice to know. I would be more likely to accept cost numbers from Bloomberg or the world bank than a reporter at the Nation.

[steveromagnino]

So by this measure, if we simply gave each farmer 100,000b in cash, and did not require them to do anything, and thus were able to save the money of storage of rice, then according to your criteria of success "If the billions are spent improving the GDP the rice scheme makes sense. If the money was getting to the farmers the rice pledging scheme makes sense." this would be a logical way to improve the scheme.

Methinks you never studied economics.

Edited May 15, 2013 by steveromagnino

[chiangmaikelly]

So by this measure, if we simply gave each farmer 100,000b in cash, and did not require them to do anything, and thus were able to save the money of storage of rice, then according to your criteria of success "If the billions are spent improving the GDP the rice scheme makes sense. If the money was getting to the farmers the rice pledging scheme makes sense." this would be a logical way to improve the scheme.

Methinks you never studied economics.

Methinks you never read the rice pledging scheme. Thailand will lose the ability to produce rice unless the government pays the farmers in addition to the market value of the rice. Same as Japan. Same as many crops in the EU. Look up, "Agricultural Subsidy."

[waza]

So by this measure, if we simply gave each farmer 100,000b in cash, and did not require them to do anything, and thus were able to save the money of storage of rice, then according to your criteria of success "If the billions are spent improving the GDP the rice scheme makes sense. If the money was getting to the farmers the rice pledging scheme makes sense." this would be a logical way to improve the scheme.

Methinks you never studied economics.

Methinks you never read the rice pledging scheme. Thailand will lose the ability to produce rice unless the government pays the farmers in addition to the market value of the rice. Same as Japan. Same as many crops in the EU. Look up, "Agricultural Subsidy."

"Thailand will lose the ability to produce rice". What they will loose the recipe? Thailand went from the worlds leading exporter of rise to the worlds leading accumulator of rice, in fact this year they have imported more rice than they have exported. How does that help Thailand?

Edited May 15, 2013 by waza

[chiangmaikelly]

So by this measure, if we simply gave each farmer 100,000b in cash, and did not require them to do anything, and thus were able to save the money of storage of rice, then according to your criteria of success "If the billions are spent improving the GDP the rice scheme makes sense. If the money was getting to the farmers the rice pledging scheme makes sense." this would be a logical way to improve the scheme.

Methinks you never studied economics.

Methinks you never read the rice pledging scheme. Thailand will lose the ability to produce rice unless the government pays the farmers in addition to the market value of the rice. Same as Japan. Same as many crops in the EU. Look up, "Agricultural Subsidy."

"Thailand will lose the ability to produce rice". What they will loose the recipe? Thailand went from the worlds leading exporter of rise to the worlds leading accumulator of rice, in fact this year they have imported more rice than they have exported. How does that help Thailand?

The land and labor used for rice production will be moved to more profitable ventures unless the government pays rice subsidies.

[rubl]

I do admire the stamina of posters here, but the topic is on "Rice Pledging Scheme to be evaluated"

It would seem that the THB 500 billion revolving fund is not revolving fast enough and a few more hundred billion need to be added to it. Of course that doesn't mean the billions couldn't be recovered later on when the government sells it's stock at a huge profit to foreigners who finally understand and accept the really superior quality and price of Thai rice. In the mean time Thai rice stock is maturing which of course only means it's quality and value increases.

[chiangmaikelly]

I do admire the stamina of posters here, but the topic is on "Rice Pledging Scheme to be evaluated"

It would seem that the THB 500 billion revolving fund is not revolving fast enough and a few more hundred billion need to be added to it. Of course that doesn't mean the billions couldn't be recovered later on when the government sells it's stock at a huge profit to foreigners who finally understand and accept the really superior quality and price of Thai rice. In the mean time Thai rice stock is maturing which of course only means it's quality and value increases.

One can sell 10 year old rice. But it for feeding animals and not people. I only mention this because some people think older rice can't be sold. Old rice not being like old men........

[whybother]

I do admire the stamina of posters here, but the topic is on "Rice Pledging Scheme to be evaluated"

It would seem that the THB 500 billion revolving fund is not revolving fast enough and a few more hundred billion need to be added to it. Of course that doesn't mean the billions couldn't be recovered later on when the government sells it's stock at a huge profit to foreigners who finally understand and accept the really superior quality and price of Thai rice. In the mean time Thai rice stock is maturing which of course only means it's quality and value increases.

One can sell 10 year old rice. But it for feeding animals and not people. I only mention this because some people think older rice can't be sold. Old rice not being like old men........

10 year old won't quite fetch the price that the government are currently paying for it. So there will be a loss on the actual purchase of the rice, as well as the cost of storage for 10 years.

Unless you think the price of animal feed is going to sky rocket.

[chiangmaikelly]

I do admire the stamina of posters here, but the topic is on "Rice Pledging Scheme to be evaluated"

It would seem that the THB 500 billion revolving fund is not revolving fast enough and a few more hundred billion need to be added to it. Of course that doesn't mean the billions couldn't be recovered later on when the government sells it's stock at a huge profit to foreigners who finally understand and accept the really superior quality and price of Thai rice. In the mean time Thai rice stock is maturing which of course only means it's quality and value increases.

One can sell 10 year old rice. But it for feeding animals and not people. I only mention this because some people think older rice can't be sold. Old rice not being like old men........

10 year old won't quite fetch the price that the government are currently paying for it. So there will be a loss on the actual purchase of the rice, as well as the cost of storage for 10 years.

Unless you think the price of animal feed is going to sky rocket.

Very true. It is also true we will not know the actual cost of the scheme until all the rice is sold.

[whybother]

One can sell 10 year old rice. But it for feeding animals and not people. I only mention this because some people think older rice can't be sold. Old rice not being like old men........

10 year old won't quite fetch the price that the government are currently paying for it. So there will be a loss on the actual purchase of the rice, as well as the cost of storage for 10 years.

Unless you think the price of animal feed is going to sky rocket.

Very true. It is also true we will not know the actual cost of the scheme until all the rice is sold.

But the loss can be estimated each year based on the purchase price, the current price for x year old rice and the total cost of storage.

[chiangmaikelly]

One can sell 10 year old rice. But it for feeding animals and not people. I only mention this because some people think older rice can't be sold. Old rice not being like old men........

10 year old won't quite fetch the price that the government are currently paying for it. So there will be a loss on the actual purchase of the rice, as well as the cost of storage for 10 years.

Unless you think the price of animal feed is going to sky rocket.

Very true. It is also true we will not know the actual cost of the scheme until all the rice is sold.

But the loss can be estimated each year based on the purchase price, the current price for x year old rice and the total cost of storage.

I agree. So whom would you trust to do the estimation? World bank and Bloomberg news or a reporter at the Nation?

Edited May 16, 2013 by chiangmaikelly

[slapout]

I do admire the stamina of posters here, but the topic is on "Rice Pledging Scheme to be evaluated"

It would seem that the THB 500 billion revolving fund is not revolving fast enough and a few more hundred billion need to be added to it. Of course that doesn't mean the billions couldn't be recovered later on when the government sells it's stock at a huge profit to foreigners who finally understand and accept the really superior quality and price of Thai rice. In the mean time Thai rice stock is maturing which of course only means it's quality and value increases.

One can sell 10 year old rice. But it for feeding animals and not people. I only mention this because some people think older rice can't be sold. Old rice not being like old men........

The sale of 10 year old rice as feed for livestock statement as quoted, indicates that you do not have a clue to livestock feed, quality control/measures in its production/feeding nor the effect on livestock health, when this is ignored. Soured/spoiled milk, fruit, meat, etc consumed by humans is many times can lead to food poisioning and subsquently to sickness and in some cases death.

We have seen examples of both here in Thailand in the school milk programs, spoiled food consumed by humsns and /or used as livestock feed. Just as a note, if you have any interest, grains as stored in Thailand are acknowledged to have a spoilage rate of about 15 to 20% percent per year, if you want to have this placed on your dinner table for your and your families consumption, .et me know.

[chiangmaikelly]

I do admire the stamina of posters here, but the topic is on "Rice Pledging Scheme to be evaluated"

It would seem that the THB 500 billion revolving fund is not revolving fast enough and a few more hundred billion need to be added to it. Of course that doesn't mean the billions couldn't be recovered later on when the government sells it's stock at a huge profit to foreigners who finally understand and accept the really superior quality and price of Thai rice. In the mean time Thai rice stock is maturing which of course only means it's quality and value increases.

One can sell 10 year old rice. But it for feeding animals and not people. I only mention this because some people think older rice can't be sold. Old rice not being like old men........

The sale of 10 year old rice as feed for livestock statement as quoted, indicates that you do not have a clue to livestock feed, quality control/measures in its production/feeding nor the effect on livestock health, when this is ignored. Soured/spoiled milk, fruit, meat, etc consumed by humans is many times can lead to food poisioning and subsquently to sickness and in some cases death.

We have seen examples of both here in Thailand in the school milk programs, spoiled food consumed by humsns and /or used as livestock feed. Just as a note, if you have any interest, grains as stored in Thailand are acknowledged to have a spoilage rate of about 15 to 20% percent per year, if you want to have this placed on your dinner table for your and your families consumption, .et me know.

Nice try. Not talking about milk. "Marketing Organization for Farmers for sale in the domestic market, and about 40,000 tons of old paddy from 2003-05 will be released for use as animal feed. Prices of these releases will be announced later, said the

minister." http://oryza.com/content/thailand-sell-20000-tons-fragrant-rice-china-discounted-prices

[NeverSure]

But the loss can be estimated each year based on the purchase price, the current price for x year old rice and the total cost of storage.

I agree. So whom would you trust to do the estimation? World bank and Bloomberg news or a reporter at the Nation?

Neither, as they all get their Kool-Aid from the same source - the government.

[chiangmaikelly]

But the loss can be estimated each year based on the purchase price, the current price for x year old rice and the total cost of storage.

I agree. So whom would you trust to do the estimation? World bank and Bloomberg news or a reporter at the Nation?

Neither, as they all get their Kool-Aid from the same source - the government.

Seems to be a constant source of problems for folks on here. Can't trust S&P or any of the banks or any of the newspapers, or educated people or the IMF. That only leaves Thai Visa as an accurate news source.

[Thaddeus]

GIGO

[chiangmaikelly]

Now you and I know that all you guys on Thai Visa are really the experts and the people who boutht 8.5 trillion dollars worth of Thai bonds based on the reports of credit rating agencies don't know sh** from wild honey.

And that, "The size of outstanding state-owned enterprise and other bonds climbed 29.8% y-o-y and 1.5% q-o-q to reach THB616 billion. The outstanding amount of LCY corporate bonds increased 28.8% y-o-y and 6.7% q-o-q to reach THB1.8 trillion at end-December." But that must be based on Garbage In stats. Ya we all know that.

http://asianbondsonline.adb.org/thailand/market_summary.php

[Issangeorge]

1.34 million tons of rice was produced by 17,000 farmers. That means each farmer produced 78.82 tonnes or 78820 kgs @ ฿15 per kg that is ฿1,182,352. Where are these farmers? There sure aren't any farmers in my area making that kind of money.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ 6 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[waza]

Now you and I know that all you guys on Thai Visa are really the experts and the people who boutht 8.5 trillion dollars worth of Thai bonds based on the reports of credit rating agencies don't know sh** from wild honey.

And that, "The size of outstanding state-owned enterprise and other bonds climbed 29.8% y-o-y and 1.5% q-o-q to reach THB616 billion. The outstanding amount of LCY corporate bonds increased 28.8% y-o-y and 6.7% q-o-q to reach THB1.8 trillion at end-December." But that must be based on Garbage In stats. Ya we all know that.

http://asianbondsonline.adb.org/thailand/market_summary.php

and because the Thai government didn't collect the fees and taxes owing on them

Edited May 16, 2013 by waza

[steveromagnino]

So by this measure, if we simply gave each farmer 100,000b in cash, and did not require them to do anything, and thus were able to save the money of storage of rice, then according to your criteria of success "If the billions are spent improving the GDP the rice scheme makes sense. If the money was getting to the farmers the rice pledging scheme makes sense." this would be a logical way to improve the scheme.

Methinks you never studied economics.

Methinks you never read the rice pledging scheme. Thailand will lose the ability to produce rice unless the government pays the farmers in addition to the market value of the rice. Same as Japan. Same as many crops in the EU. Look up, "Agricultural Subsidy."

Under the price guarantee scheme, there was no appreciable reduction in rice production nor export sales; so this blows the theory that it is required to subsidise rice farmers to make them grow rice.

There has been an ongoing shift in Thailand from being an agricultural based economy to a manufacturing and services economy. The rice scheme is now enabling more substandard and subscale farmers to stay in business a little longer, but their business model is dying simply because, the average farmer's age is increasing, the younger generation would rather earn more money working in an airconned factory rather than underpaid backbreaking work in the fields.

From a world global perspective, it is a basically a crime to waste so much water and resources growing and paying for something that is only being wasted. Surely, this is obvious. Much as I dislike the scheme, I would rather all the rice stockpiled were donated to Somalia, India and other places with massive malnourishment and lack of food, than the current scheme of sitting on it until it rots.

There are numerous examples of produce created without subsidies, such as NZ's agricultural/dairy sector. In Thailand, rubber, sugar, and numerous other crops survive without an equivalent of rice pledging. I hardly think picking the EU and Japan, two areas of the world in massive financial difficulty are best examples for Thailand. The world is moving away from protectionism and subsidies, not towards them.

I pay 1.5m in tax a year and get pretty much zero for that; I'd like to think that money would be used constructively; giving it to rice farmers as a windfall makes little sense from an economic perspective. It would actually be better if the land was left unharvested, and the water and materials used for something else, since there is no plan to actually sell the rice at this point, since it is like 'pushing water uphill' another idea that this government have also tried with the boats in the river solution to flooding, equally fruitless.

[chiangmaikelly]

So by this measure, if we simply gave each farmer 100,000b in cash, and did not require them to do anything, and thus were able to save the money of storage of rice, then according to your criteria of success "If the billions are spent improving the GDP the rice scheme makes sense. If the money was getting to the farmers the rice pledging scheme makes sense." this would be a logical way to improve the scheme.

Methinks you never studied economics.

Methinks you never read the rice pledging scheme. Thailand will lose the ability to produce rice unless the government pays the farmers in addition to the market value of the rice. Same as Japan. Same as many crops in the EU. Look up, "Agricultural Subsidy."

Under the price guarantee scheme, there was no appreciable reduction in rice production nor export sales; so this blows the theory that it is required to subsidise rice farmers to make them grow rice.

There has been an ongoing shift in Thailand from being an agricultural based economy to a manufacturing and services economy. The rice scheme is now enabling more substandard and subscale farmers to stay in business a little longer, but their business model is dying simply because, the average farmer's age is increasing, the younger generation would rather earn more money working in an airconned factory rather than underpaid backbreaking work in the fields.

From a world global perspective, it is a basically a crime to waste so much water and resources growing and paying for something that is only being wasted. Surely, this is obvious. Much as I dislike the scheme, I would rather all the rice stockpiled were donated to Somalia, India and other places with massive malnourishment and lack of food, than the current scheme of sitting on it until it rots.

There are numerous examples of produce created without subsidies, such as NZ's agricultural/dairy sector. In Thailand, rubber, sugar, and numerous other crops survive without an equivalent of rice pledging. I hardly think picking the EU and Japan, two areas of the world in massive financial difficulty are best examples for Thailand. The world is moving away from protectionism and subsidies, not towards them.

I pay 1.5m in tax a year and get pretty much zero for that; I'd like to think that money would be used constructively; giving it to rice farmers as a windfall makes little sense from an economic perspective. It would actually be better if the land was left unharvested, and the water and materials used for something else, since there is no plan to actually sell the rice at this point, since it is like 'pushing water uphill' another idea that this government have also tried with the boats in the river solution to flooding, equally fruitless.

You wrote, "there was no appreciable reduction in rice production nor export sales; so this blows the theory that it is required to subsidies rice farmers to make them grow rice." No it does't.

You wrote, "The rice scheme is now enabling more substandard and sub scale farmers to stay in business a little longer. No it's not.

You wrote, "the younger generation would rather earn more money working in an airconned factory rather than underpaid backbreaking work in the fields." No they don't.

You wrote, "From a world global perspective, it is a basically a crime to waste so much water and resources growing and paying for something that is only being wasted." It is not being wasted.

You wrote, " I hardly think picking the EU and Japan, two areas of the world in massive financial difficulty are best examples for Thailand." No true. One has nothing to do with the other.

You wrote, "since there is no plan to actually sell the rice at this point." Not true.

You wrote, "another idea that this government have also tried with the boats in the river solution to flooding, equally fruitless." One has nothing to do with the other.

[Thaddeus]

Which of the two assessments above is closest to the mark, I know which one I'd go for.