How to save the Thai economy: Opinion

[yellowboat]

3% is a good thing, but as stated many times that does not trickle down. It stays with the privileged.

[Thai at Heart]

The OP says to save the Thai economy the poor should be given lots of money* based on how poor they are and the baht should be devalued 20% from today's level to stimulate exports.

Does anyone disagree with that?

*To stimulate sustainable domestic spending, especially among the poor, the Thai government should increase public expenditures in the provinces to at least one half of the total by 2025, up from nearly 28 percent in 2012. Support should be determined based on the recipients’ income rather than their localities or the crops they cultivate, as has traditionally been the case.

Where will the money come from to do that?

Taxes from the middle class in Bangkok. Or are you asking me where I would get the money?

You will start Sondhi and Suthep brushing off their yellow t shirts if you do that.

This is the problem. The inequality is massive, the distribution around the country of money morally abhorrent, but the middle class have been convinced they are right to moan about anything that puts money into the countryside.

It is the most right wing of attitudes and some have fostered it to a horrible level. Ludicrously it is splitting the difference between people earning 50k per month the versus 10k per month.

Such clever manipulation when the reality is the 50 K per monthers should be asking how did the 5mn per monthers get so lucky?

What you are saying is in the OP, " The generals’ economic policy is hampered by concern for their core constituents, the Bangkok-based establishment: a patronage network among the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the army, business elites and the palace. That network has created staggering inequality: Just 0.1 percent of Thais hold nearly half of the country’s total wealth, according to a 2012 study by the National Economics and Social Development Board, the state economic planning agency."

It is obvious if the Thai people read and understand the NYT article they will call for changes.

It would be in the interest of the core constituents (above) to muffle discussion or dissemination of the OP. Which is why I think there are so many who do not want to discuss the contents of the OP in this thread. Just my opinion of course.

​But you have to ask yourself who would not want the 99% of Thailand to know that 1% has all the cash? I would be betting on the 1% wanting to change the subject.

I haven't read the OP. Seems I am I agreement....

The NYT article is rubbish and nonsense, Thailand is no different from any other country in that respect. In the UK, the top 1% owns as much as the bottom 55%. Thailand is no different from any other country in that respect. In the UK, the top 1% owns as much as the bottom 55%. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/15/britains-richest-1-percent-own-same-as-bottom-55-population

You are wrong. The distribution in Thailand is horrendous and the focus of govt spending to Bangkok is awful.

In Thailand it is 0.1% who own 50%. Thus 10 times worse than the UK.

I don't believe that a factor of ten makes that much difference when you're talking about that sort of scale or imbalance and to be honest, I would expect that imbalance to be worse here given the low levels of education etc.

It makes an enormous difference in reality and statistically.

One percent of the British population is 600, 000 people.

One percent of the Thai population is 60,000 approximately.

Then consider how much wealthier the UK is than Thailand on a per capita basis, and this means that the 60k people in Thailand are individually wealthier than the richest 600,000 in the UK, whilst the poorest half of the Thai population is of course much poorer than the poorest half of UK.

It makes an enormous difference.

thats why is a coefficient. 10times is an enormous difference.

[chiang mai]

The NYT article is rubbish and nonsense, Thailand is no different from any other country in that respect. In the UK, the top 1% owns as much as the bottom 55%. Thailand is no different from any other country in that respect. In the UK, the top 1% owns as much as the bottom 55%. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/may/15/britains-richest-1-percent-own-same-as-bottom-55-population

I hardly think if you disagree with one element of the article that you can say the article is rubbish and nonsense. In any event the Gini coefficient does not agree with you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Gini Coefficient

Thailand 53.6

UK 40

Nethelands 30.9

Australia 30.3

The OP says to save the Thai economy the poor should be given lots of money* based on how poor they are and the baht should be devalued 20% from today's level to stimulate exports.

Do you disagree with the above?

"The OP says to save the Thai economy the poor should be given lots of money* based on how poor they are and the baht should be devalued 20% from today's level to stimulate exports.

Do you disagree with the above"?

I agree that could be an element of the solution but the entire package needs to be laid out before I can say if I agree with a single element of it. As for devaluation of THB: it has already devalued by at least 10% so yes, a further devaluation is probable.

As for the Gini coefficient: looking at the Gin numbers and the UK vs Thailand, it looks like the real gap is with the CIA gin numbers, all the others look fairly close to me, naturally you have chosen the worst case scenario to exemplify your point!,

OP - Increase domestic spending and increase exports. What other short term solutions do you propose?

Because if Thailand does not give in to some re alignment of wealth it's going to see many changes that no one wants.

We're going round in circles here. There's nothing new about the need to increase exports by devaluing the currency - infrastructure spending is another must have, albeit very late in the day.

Financial props for the rural poor and tax incentives to business are other items, the sum total of which are all ready in the works hence we're talking about things that are already happening! Unfortunately the discussion around those solutions is masked somewhat by these constant side chats about the elite allegedly controlling/manipulating the currency to their own end, the need for external economic advice, wholesale changes to the Thai way of life and other silly debates about haves vs have nots.

To summarize, there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about the package of measures that have been adopted and/or are currently being put in place, sadly however, the collective minds in this thread have been unable to come up with any original sensible thinking about what else can/should be done, that's what I for one was hoping might surface but apparently not.

Right, I'm off to cut my grass, byee for now.

[heybruce]

To Mr Build,

What I want for you Mr Build is freedom of speech and assembly, something the Thai people do not have.

What I want for the Thai people is for them to be able to choose their own leaders from among the civilian population, be it Abhisit, Yingluck or whoever they choose.

I submit that a civilian leader would better reflect the economic needs of all the Thai people. It is the Thai people who should decide not you and I.

What you, I or anybody here wants or would like to see is meaningless.

It is what the Thai people want that matters. It is all down to them on one side or the other, rich or poor, military or civilian, honest persons or thieves.

It is their problem to solve in their own way and there is very little that any of us farangs can do to affect it. In a local context we may be able to convince our families and friends but that will only be a microcosm of what WE think is needed and who is to say if we are right or wrong?

"It is what the Thai people want that matters."

I agree! That's why democracy should be restored and elections held as soon as possible.

I agree with you but whose version of democracy should be used? This governments, the last government, the one before that etc, a western style one, Korea South or North. the USA, EU, UK, Australia etc.

What would the ground rules for that democracy be. Elections on their own are just the first step to "democracy". So until the stage of well we have had the elections and one side won, "now what do we do" can be answered an election is not a lot of use.

IMHO finding enough people who can set up and monitor a fair and trouble free election will be hard enough in Thailand but to get enough people of all sides and colours to agree on the "what next" scenario may be virtually impossible.

My belief is that whoever is running this needs to sort out the "what do we do next" bit before the election and set it in stone so that EVERY political party will know what it can do and most importantly what it CAN'T do.

There will never be a perfect constitution that everyone agrees to. Go back to the 1997 constitution, perhaps modifying it to strengthen guarantees of freedom of speech and press and to put the military firmly under civilian control. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that the military is under the command of the president and limits the number of officers, a limit that can only be changed with consent from congress. It's a constitution that has survived, with occasional modifications made in keeping with rules for amendments in the original document, for well over 200 years. It seems it has some useful features, but I don't think anyone expects a military junta to do anything that would restrict the military or change its above the law status in Thailand.

Then have an election monitored by ANFREL, or some other credible international election, just as the 2011 election was monitored and the results deemed representative of the voters intent.

Holding out for perfection is just a stalling tactic. Expecting the military to produce a constitution that gives power to the Thai people is delusional.

[lostoday]

What you, I or anybody here wants or would like to see is meaningless.

It is what the Thai people want that matters. It is all down to them on one side or the other, rich or poor, military or civilian, honest persons or thieves.

It is their problem to solve in their own way and there is very little that any of us farangs can do to affect it. In a local context we may be able to convince our families and friends but that will only be a microcosm of what WE think is needed and who is to say if we are right or wrong?

"It is what the Thai people want that matters."

I agree! That's why democracy should be restored and elections held as soon as possible.

I agree with you but whose version of democracy should be used? This governments, the last government, the one before that etc, a western style one, Korea South or North. the USA, EU, UK, Australia etc.

What would the ground rules for that democracy be. Elections on their own are just the first step to "democracy". So until the stage of well we have had the elections and one side won, "now what do we do" can be answered an election is not a lot of use.

IMHO finding enough people who can set up and monitor a fair and trouble free election will be hard enough in Thailand but to get enough people of all sides and colours to agree on the "what next" scenario may be virtually impossible.

My belief is that whoever is running this needs to sort out the "what do we do next" bit before the election and set it in stone so that EVERY political party will know what it can do and most importantly what it CAN'T do.

There will never be a perfect constitution that everyone agrees to. Go back to the 1997 constitution, perhaps modifying it to strengthen guarantees of freedom of speech and press and to put the military firmly under civilian control. The U.S. Constitution explicitly states that the military is under the command of the president and limits the number of officers, a limit that can only be changed with consent from congress. It's a constitution that has survived, with occasional modifications made in keeping with rules for amendments in the original document, for well over 200 years. It seems it has some useful features, but I don't think anyone expects a military junta to do anything that would restrict the military or change its above the law status in Thailand.

Then have an election monitored by ANFREL, or some other credible international election, just as the 2011 election was monitored and the results deemed representative of the voters intent.

Holding out for perfection is just a stalling tactic. Expecting the military to produce a constitution that gives power to the Thai people is delusional.

Good ideas but nothing to do with saving the economy. The easiest way to save the economy is without an election or constitution. Hire someone who understands the problems like the OP and follow his advice by executive fiat. The problem with that as pointed out in the OP is the powers running the country don't want the economy saved at the expense of their profits. Baht goes down and the rich who are the only ones who buy things made outside of Thailand lose money.

Tax the rich give the money to the poor and domestic spending is jump started. That is what the OP suggests.

Even though it could be enacted quicker by the Generals I doubt they can get the real boss to sign off on it.

[fish fingers]

Maybe they need to follow the Hitler model of the 30s. I'm actually serious..

[lostoday]

Maybe they need to follow the Hitler model of the 30s. I'm actually serious..

Not enough Jewish people to steal property from.

[Heng]

Vetted / controlled immigration of desireables (ala Singapore).

:-)

[heybruce]

Maybe they need to follow the Hitler model of the 30s. I'm actually serious..

Not enough Jewish people to steal property from.

Which is why farang should be concerned.

[MaiChai]

Problems are very deep rooted in Thailand and that is why Western modern democracy can't work. Let's just say its one country but two systems: the ultra rich and everyone else who is kept poor and dumbed down by low levels of education. There is a sort of middle class but they are very much the minority. Until everyone stops being serfs of the rich, nothing will change. I am not saying the Red shirts etal are the answer. Guess we will just have to put up with the way it is?

Edited September 13, 2015 by MaiChai

[lostoday]

Problems are very deep rooted in Thailand and that is why Western modern democracy can't work. Let's just say its one country but two systems: the ultra rich and everyone else who is kept poor and dumbed down by low levels of education. There is a sort of middle class but they are very much the minority. Until everyone stops being serfs of the rich, nothing will change. I am not saying the Red shirts etal are the answer. Guess we will just have to put up with the way it is?

What does democracy or not have to do with the economy?