So says the Wall Street Journal. The argument is that so long as the large state enterprises,

http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/thai-state-enterprises.htm,

remain under state control the corruption level in high govt places will not change. Since the Thai state controls the schemes and the bosses, the elite will seek those cushy jobs and pay off the state officials with the big bucks. And those state enterprises are generally not subject to deep scrutiny or open books, hence more monkey business. Let the market forces, privatization, rule the land, in addition of course, to HRH The King.

More here:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/thai-generals-and-corruption-1402593819

Privatisation has worked really well in the UK, as the consumers get more and more screwed.

Privatization, a neo-conservative wet dream predicated upon wholly unsubstantiated theory's has led to a global usurpation of government authority to corporate money. It is an on-going disaster that shows no signs of going away anytime soon.

My father's generation paid taxes so that the UK government could buy non profitable enterprises to keep them going (post, railways, water, and so on....). They belonged to the British. Under the marvellous discovery that these weren't making a profit, they were sold off to rip off merchants, we didn't get any tax money back. The quality of service and safety has since gone to the dogs, arrff, arrf.

"Since the Thai state controls the schemes and the bosses, the elite will seek those cushy jobs and pay off the state officials with the big bucks."

WSJ apologizes for newbie written article, and issued this correction:

"Since the elite and the bosses control the schemes and Thai state, the elite will seek take those cushy jobs and pay off the state officials themselves with the big bucks."

The current situation seems to call for change. What direction that will take is up to the Thai people to decide.

I liked a couple of posts, Ol Empire related, but this happens in many western countries. Its the start of....Animal Planet.....

Well it is the WSJ, what did you expect them to say?

I don't think it's really as easy as they suggest though. If we're talking about replacing a government monopoly or near-monopoly with the same thing in private hands, half the time that ends up being a step backwards. Often the new enterprise either ends up with such an advantage that it effectively just charges a rent on the economy, or else it is so hamstrung by regulations to keep things fair that they end up requiring significant government intervention just to keep things going within a few years.

So while we can probably all agree that competition and market forces deliver the best outcomes in the long run, it's much less clear that privatizing existing state enterprises is the best way to get there.

look at russia, where an ex-kgb guy became a billionaire and president...

privatisation is only good for the happy few and the prices will increase for the populace

what poppycock ... governments use the people's money to build government owned assets; then - by a seemingly left-field innocent - concerted media proposal of the 'benefits' of privatization; they then sell to corporate mates under the guise of privatization - at under-valued prices - and then lease them back ... (jeez some people are real gullible) ...

Governments may sometimes have monopolies, but they never have a monopoly on corruption...

Privatisation has worked really well in the UK, as the consumers get more and more screwed.

Indeed. And the UK felt compelled to introduce additional much tougher anti-corruption legislation since privatization too,

Suggesting that increasing privatization decreases corruption in sophistry.

look at russia, where an ex-kgb guy became a billionaire and president...

privatisation is only good for the happy few and the prices will increase for the populace

Alas, but so too was communism. Rampant corruption with life very sweet for the elite few and their party members.

Suggests that political doctrine is not a moderating variable in the relationship between corruption and humans.

My father's generation paid taxes so that the UK government could buy non profitable enterprises to keep them going (post, railways, water, and so on....). They belonged to the British. Under the marvellous discovery that these weren't making a profit, they were sold off to rip off merchants, we didn't get any tax money back. The quality of service and safety has since gone to the dogs, arrff, arrf.

Yep - and if it happened here we'd all be writing posts calling the government of the time all sorts of things.

In the UK, just do some research on the family connections, school and university backgrounds and wealth of the leading political players over the years and their family wealth. All political persuasion - including the lovely champagne socialist brigade,

Dress it up how you will, but it's the same the whole world over - and nobody has yet come up with viable propositions to change it. If they did, I wonder how long they'd last given the "interests" in keeping it the same.

Privatisation has worked really well in the UK, as the consumers get more and more screwed.

The UK electorate has learnt the cost of privatisation of public utilities, which can only work in certain industries, and with ongoing government oversight and controls. Government, unfortunately, is impervious to learning anything that demonstrates the error of its ways.

Just beacause the west's moronic leaders fell for the rich people's BS, doesn't mean that Thailand has to be so stupid, and they say that Thailand is 3rd world, LOL.