Nationwide rice audit ordered by NCPO nearly complete

[Thai at Heart]

 

I saw pics of another warehouse where there was a facade.  So I've seen at least 2.  And of course that one warehouse where there were 100,000 bags missing.  That's a bunch.
 
The big problem for Yingluck and her cronies will be the fake G to G deals.  If they find evidence of that, they'll all be in big trouble.  Fraud, pure and simple.
 
Another great article from a year ago.  I love this comment:
 
http://world.time.com/2013/07/12/how-thailands-botched-rice-scheme-blew-a-big-hole-in-its-economy/
 

Pressed to name a single independent economist who thought Thailands rice plan would work, Dawe paused for a moment to think, then answered, Not that I know of. One of the more optimistic forecasts, from Sam Mohanty at the International Rice Research Institute (yes, it exists), predicted that Thailand could at best drive up prices for one growing season. Still, he advised against it. Could the policy-makers have been so fixated on votes that they missed the near unanimous warnings coming from market experts?
 

 
I think we all know the answer to the last question. 

There were some but few GtoG deals. These were just froth thrown into the market to start stories that govts were still buying. The total they have found missing is apparently going to be paltry.

So, after all this, anyone going to maybe admit they didn't nick the rice?
 

 
Your theme song is always the same when ever there is an article about the rice scheme. Please can we just wait until the audit is done. No one can possibly answer your questions at this point.     Just remember that if you are told that there are 1000 marbles in a bag, and you only find 999, then there is not a huge shortfall  IF the figure of 1000 is correct. However, perhaps the true figure is actually 1100 - the shortfall is then considerably greater.
 
"126 granaries [as of Friday] were found to have irregular rice, and the type of rice in storage was not the same as that listed on the records," ---    This is akin to an audit of an art gallery. Out of a total of 100 Old Masters, 5 of them were discovered to be prints. The number may correlate, but it is obvious that something under hand took place.  
 
BTW - One of the alleged G to G deals seemed to be untrue.  

Just pointing out the obvious point that the so called massive physical theft of 3mn tonnes is becoming less and less likely.

[Eric Loh]

I saw pics of another warehouse where there was a facade.  So I've seen at least 2.  And of course that one warehouse where there were 100,000 bags missing.  That's a bunch.
 
The big problem for Yingluck and her cronies will be the fake G to G deals.  If they find evidence of that, they'll all be in big trouble.  Fraud, pure and simple.
 
Another great article from a year ago.  I love this comment:
 
http://world.time.com/2013/07/12/how-thailands-botched-rice-scheme-blew-a-big-hole-in-its-economy/

Pressed to name a single independent economist who thought Thailands rice plan would work, Dawe paused for a moment to think, then answered, Not that I know of. One of the more optimistic forecasts, from Sam Mohanty at the International Rice Research Institute (yes, it exists), predicted that Thailand could at best drive up prices for one growing season. Still, he advised against it. Could the policy-makers have been so fixated on votes that they missed the near unanimous warnings coming from market experts?

 
I think we all know the answer to the last question.

I think you are referring to the G to G China deal. Thats the only one that I can think off. If you are, it's not fake. 10% of the million was delivered before the PDRC immobilized the ministry operation. The junta is now trying to negotiate with China for the rest 900, 000 tons to be deliver. Do try to catch up with the latest news.

 
I don't see any reference to support this.  I can only find articles like this, saying it was cancelled and delivery was delayed:.
 
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/04/us-thailand-rice-china-idUSBREA1309L20140204?_ga=1.133106894.1562096145.1406539531

Look at Bangkok Post today edition under "Commerce, exporters join in rice sales", scrowl down to last para. I can't provide link as it is against TVF rule. But I qoute below:-
"A Thai delegation will visit Beijing Wednesday and Thursday to follow up on import under a 1 million ton contract. Only 10% exported and Thailand wants to fulfill the other 900,000 tons".

[rubl]

While some like to talk about minimal losses only, localised minor issues, nothing really, it would seem we still have the HUGE loss of 500 billion Baht and probably more.

 

Minor only indeed 

[ricklev]

I wonder how much the rice price support scheme utilized under the Democrats cost?

 

Edited July 28, 2014 by ricklev

[rubl]

I wonder how much the rice price support scheme utilized under the Democrats cost?

 

-- table removed, see original post (no offence meant, but I see no need to repost that big table ) --

 

Interesting table, but indeed somewhat limited

 

What the table doesn't clearly tells you is that the 'price guarantee' only meant the government paid the difference between market price and guarantee price. The guarantee price was close to the market price, sometimes hovering above and sometimes below it.

 

The RPPS offered an above market price for paddy which had the effect of concentrating on quantity rather than on quality. Furthermore the burden of (arranging / paying for) milling, storage and selling was taken by the government.

 

 

[ricklev]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

 

 

I wonder how much the rice price support scheme utilized under the Democrats cost?

 

-- table removed, see original post (no offence meant, but I see no need to repost that big table ) alt=wai.gif width=20 height=20> --

Interesting table, but indeed somewhat limited

 

What the table doesn't clearly tells you is that the 'price guarantee' only meant the government paid the difference between market price and guarantee price. The guarantee price was close to the market price, sometimes hovering above and sometimes below it.

 

The RPPS offered an above market price for paddy which had the effect of concentrating on quantity rather than on quality. Furthermore the burden of (arranging / paying for) milling, storage and selling was taken by the government.

 

 

 

I read that Abhisit's plan tended to benefit the landowners and not the tenant farmers and that Yingluck's plan benefited the tenant farmers.  Is that true?  I really don't know anything about this.  

[rubl]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

 

I wonder how much the rice price support scheme utilized under the Democrats cost?

 

-- table removed, see original post (no offence meant, but I see no need to repost that big table ) alt=wai.gif width=20 height=20> --

Interesting table, but indeed somewhat limited

 

What the table doesn't clearly tells you is that the 'price guarantee' only meant the government paid the difference between market price and guarantee price. The guarantee price was close to the market price, sometimes hovering above and sometimes below it.

 

The RPPS offered an above market price for paddy which had the effect of concentrating on quantity rather than on quality. Furthermore the burden of (arranging / paying for) milling, storage and selling was taken by the government.

 

 

 

I read that Abhisit's plan tended to benefit the landowners and not the tenant farmers and that Yingluck's plan benefited the tenant farmers.  Is that true?  I really don't know anything about this.  

 

The Abhisit scheme only paid farmers. That would mean that farmers selling to millers at a price below market value would be compensated directly by the government. From what I heard the farmers were not too happy as the subsidy wasn't nearly enough.

 

The Yingluck government paid anyone pledging rice / delivering rice. That means farmers selling to millers at a below government pledged price wouldn't get compensation, but the millers pledging the rice would get the full pledge price.

 

For millers read 'millers, middlemen, or who ever'.

 

Now in the first case farmers had no choice, millers wouldn't give marker price as they also wanted/ needed a margin and would try to get as big a margin as possible. In the second case farmers selling to millers would hardly ever get the government pledge price and any price they got would be final, no further compensation. From what I heard on average farmers would get a bit more than with the previous governments scheme, but even that difference started to erode with price increases of rental fees, minimum wages, etc., etc.

 

Now before you ask more simple questions which can take a lot of time to answer, I'd like to suggest you do some reading on this subject. Finding info should be no problem, you already found an BAAC table I hadn't seen before 

[ricklev]

Rubi, thanks for your answer.  No need to respond to this.

 

It's quite difficult to assess the truth regarding the costs/benefits of both plans because the widely promoted narrative is that Yingluck's plan was riddled with corruption, dysfunctional and expensive beyond compare.  Probably so I guess, but I can't really know for sure.  

 

I have been told that Yingluck's plan was structured to benefit the millers because they often controlled the village votes.  Once again, I can't assess the accuracy.....

Edited July 29, 2014 by ricklev

[animatic]

I saw pics of another warehouse where there was a facade.  So I've seen at least 2.  And of course that one warehouse where there were 100,000 bags missing.  That's a bunch.
 
The big problem for Yingluck and her cronies will be the fake G to G deals.  If they find evidence of that, they'll all be in big trouble.  Fraud, pure and simple.
 
Another great article from a year ago.  I love this comment:
 
http://world.time.com/2013/07/12/how-thailands-botched-rice-scheme-blew-a-big-hole-in-its-economy/
 

Pressed to name a single independent economist who thought Thailands rice plan would work, Dawe paused for a moment to think, then answered, Not that I know of. One of the more optimistic forecasts, from Sam Mohanty at the International Rice Research Institute (yes, it exists), predicted that Thailand could at best drive up prices for one growing season. Still, he advised against it. Could the policy-makers have been so fixated on votes that they missed the near unanimous warnings coming from market experts?
 

 
I think we all know the answer to the last question. 

There were some but few GtoG deals. These were just froth thrown into the market to start stories that govts were still buying. The total they have found missing is apparently going to be paltry.

So, after all this, anyone going to maybe admit they didn't nick the rice?

Well the tale may be told in the quality of rice left there.
Cheap Lao or Cambodia rice replacing top quality thai jasmine rice?
And someone hoping the buyers won't notice.

But the real damage is economic, they trashed the market
and have a glut of questionable stock they can
dump on the market or risk a price crash world wide.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Thai at Heart]

I saw pics of another warehouse where there was a facade.  So I've seen at least 2.  And of course that one warehouse where there were 100,000 bags missing.  That's a bunch.
 
The big problem for Yingluck and her cronies will be the fake G to G deals.  If they find evidence of that, they'll all be in big trouble.  Fraud, pure and simple.
 
Another great article from a year ago.  I love this comment:
 
http://world.time.com/2013/07/12/how-thailands-botched-rice-scheme-blew-a-big-hole-in-its-economy/
 

Pressed to name a single independent economist who thought Thailands rice plan would work, Dawe paused for a moment to think, then answered, Not that I know of. One of the more optimistic forecasts, from Sam Mohanty at the International Rice Research Institute (yes, it exists), predicted that Thailand could at best drive up prices for one growing season. Still, he advised against it. Could the policy-makers have been so fixated on votes that they missed the near unanimous warnings coming from market experts?
 

 
I think we all know the answer to the last question. 

There were some but few GtoG deals. These were just froth thrown into the market to start stories that govts were still buying. The total they have found missing is apparently going to be paltry.

So, after all this, anyone going to maybe admit they didn't nick the rice?

Well the tale may be told in the quality of rice left there.
Cheap Lao or Cambodia rice replacing top quality thai jasmine rice?
And someone hoping the buyers won't notice.

But the real damage is economic, they trashed the market
and have a glut of questionable stock they can
dump on the market or risk a price crash world wide.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

No doubt. But the market will straighten itself out. They will just have to eat the loss on the stock and move on.