How to save the Thai economy: Opinion

[Thai at Heart]

All well and good with the qualified economist bit except, in Thailand you also need to pay close attention to the sociology part of the equation otherwise it will all blow up. In the past the economic tweaks that have been taken in consideration of the sociology, try and make major tweaks to it, without consideration for the masses of poor and boom.

Thaksins polices did nothing of the sort, and at the time were utterly mind blowing for Thailand. They didn't consider Thai societal norms.

Look where it got him.....

From the OP, "In a time of prosperity (Thaksins times), the Prayuth government might have been able to keep pleasing its main supporters without scuttling the economy. Not these days. Last weekend the junta’s legitimacy took another hit when its proxies voted down its own draft constitution — a move widely seen as a ploy to delay elections that had been planned for early 2016 and extend the generals’ rule.

So what you are saying is that the OP is telling me something I already knew.

Thanks....

[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.

[lostoday]

Yes, he originally he Piryathorn because he is blue blooded as they come and the go to man who is a complete numpty.

Massive massive error.

Now they have Somkid who is rolling out precisely the same ideas he had before. Situation is completely different than it was I'm trt time. Somkids policies are not some wonderful new discovery.

They have been used and accepted the world over for rural development. Of course thailand now owns them as thaksinomics or blatant populism depending on your politics.

Whilst Thailand continues to try and reinvent the wheels, the world is turning and people are innovating all over the world without having to ask permission from a pooyai. Thailand is neither exceptional or unique.

People are people, u just need to understand by which rules they are playing the game...

Yes, from the OP, "Gen. Prayuth seems finally to have realized these mistakes, and that the economy is his government’s Achilles’ heel."

umm, hey Lostaday, is it possible for you to compose an original thought? All this copy and paste propaganda make you look like you lost a day...

Quoting the OP is not propaganda nor off topic.

From the OP, "The return of autocracy to Thailand is putting a hole in the people’s pockets. Sixteen months after the coup that brought down the democratically elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra, incomes in rural areas, where more than 34 million Thais live, have collapsed. Exports fell by 4.9 percent during the first half of 2015, according to the Thai government."

[lostoday]

Thaksins polices did nothing of the sort, and at the time were utterly mind blowing for Thailand. They didn't consider Thai societal norms.

Look where it got him.....

From the OP, "In a time of prosperity (Thaksins times), the Prayuth government might have been able to keep pleasing its main supporters without scuttling the economy. Not these days. Last weekend the junta’s legitimacy took another hit when its proxies voted down its own draft constitution — a move widely seen as a ploy to delay elections that had been planned for early 2016 and extend the generals’ rule.

So what you are saying is that the OP is telling me something I already knew.

Thanks....

Did you know that the answer to Thailand's economic problems were "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.

The transfers should also be made conditional on the beneficiaries’ compliance with, for example, vaccination requirements and the enrollment of children in school. Promoting socially responsible behavior in exchange for funds would not only serve the public good; it would also go some way toward appeasing the Bangkok elites who resent redistribution policies as a form of state charity.

Devaluing the baht — by, say, 20 percent?"

[lostoday]

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.

[Thai at Heart]

Thaksins polices did nothing of the sort, and at the time were utterly mind blowing for Thailand. They didn't consider Thai societal norms.

Look where it got him.....

From the OP, "In a time of prosperity (Thaksins times), the Prayuth government might have been able to keep pleasing its main supporters without scuttling the economy. Not these days. Last weekend the junta’s legitimacy took another hit when its proxies voted down its own draft constitution — a move widely seen as a ploy to delay elections that had been planned for early 2016 and extend the generals’ rule.

So what you are saying is that the OP is telling me something I already knew.

Thanks....

Did you know that the answer to Thailand's economic problems were "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.

The transfers should also be made conditional on the beneficiaries’ compliance with, for example, vaccination requirements and the enrollment of children in school. Promoting socially responsible behavior in exchange for funds would not only serve the public good; it would also go some way toward appeasing the Bangkok elites who resent redistribution policies as a form of state charity.

Devaluing the baht — by, say, 20 percent?"

I knew there was a shocking disparity, didnt know it was quite that horrendous. I am an economist by training. Seeing what goes on in Thailand with some experience isn't that hard. Moving govt expenditure is part of the solution in my opinion. They need more foreign investment and the last bits left are the protected industries. They have had 40 or 50 years to get established and are now a hindrance more than a benefit. They need to face more competition.

They needn't move expenditures this way. They need to get better at taking the legal tax take from the economy. I would reform the tax dept tomorrow and send them out of the office 4 days a week chasing legal tax.

What I believe is that if they don't get back to democracy and realise that Thailand is the countryside not Bangkok, then the eventually the country will go bang.

It is inevitable. Absolutely inevitable. They have created a monster with this Bangkok centric policy, they have smashed the guy who dared to focus on the countryside, and the electorate is being told how to vote or else.

Times are different. The old authority doesn't work anymore.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Thai at Heart

[lostoday]

Thaksins polices did nothing of the sort, and at the time were utterly mind blowing for Thailand. They didn't consider Thai societal norms.

Look where it got him.....

From the OP, "In a time of prosperity (Thaksins times), the Prayuth government might have been able to keep pleasing its main supporters without scuttling the economy. Not these days. Last weekend the junta’s legitimacy took another hit when its proxies voted down its own draft constitution — a move widely seen as a ploy to delay elections that had been planned for early 2016 and extend the generals’ rule.

So what you are saying is that the OP is telling me something I already knew.

Thanks....

Did you know that the answer to Thailand's economic problems were "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.

The transfers should also be made conditional on the beneficiaries’ compliance with, for example, vaccination requirements and the enrollment of children in school. Promoting socially responsible behavior in exchange for funds would not only serve the public good; it would also go some way toward appeasing the Bangkok elites who resent redistribution policies as a form of state charity.

Devaluing the baht — by, say, 20 percent?"

I knew there was a shocking disparity, didnt know it was quite that horrendous. I am an economist by training. Seeing what goes on in Thailand with some experience isn't that hard.

What I believe is that if they don't get back to democracy and realise that Thailand is the countryside not Bangkok, then the eventually the country will go bang.

It is inevitable. Absolutely inevitable. They have created a monster with this Bangkok centric policy, they have smashed the guy who dared to focus on the countryside, and the electorate is being told how to vote or else.

Times are different. The old authority doesn't work anymore.

Fixed

[NOC]

Yes, he originally he Piryathorn because he is blue blooded as they come and the go to man who is a complete numpty.

Massive massive error.

Now they have Somkid who is rolling out precisely the same ideas he had before. Situation is completely different than it was I'm trt time. Somkids policies are not some wonderful new discovery.

They have been used and accepted the world over for rural development. Of course thailand now owns them as thaksinomics or blatant populism depending on your politics.

Whilst Thailand continues to try and reinvent the wheels, the world is turning and people are innovating all over the world without having to ask permission from a pooyai. Thailand is neither exceptional or unique.

People are people, u just need to understand by which rules they are playing the game...

Yes, from the OP, "Gen. Prayuth seems finally to have realized these mistakes, and that the economy is his government’s Achilles’ heel."

umm, hey Lostaday, is it possible for you to compose an original thought? All this copy and paste propaganda make you look like you lost a day...

Quoting the OP is not propaganda nor off topic.

From the OP, "The return of autocracy to Thailand is putting a hole in the people’s pockets. Sixteen months after the coup that brought down the democratically elected government of Yingluck Shinawatra, incomes in rural areas, where more than 34 million Thais live, have collapsed. Exports fell by 4.9 percent during the first half of 2015, according to the Thai government."

We read the OP. We don't need you to tell what us what it means or to restate it. That's the part where thinking comes into play. Just take a vitamin...

[billd766]

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.

[billd766]

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?

[heybruce]

From the OP and the real crux of the problem, "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 countrys total wealth, according to a 2012 study by the National Economics and Social Development Board, the state economic planning agency."

End of quote

PS don't get angry with me I didn't write the above it was posted by Webfact/Thaivisa and written by the NYT.

In scanning the posts up to this point, I get the impression that you are one of the few, and perhaps the only one, who read the entire article. Well done, and don't let the idiots get you down.

I personally liked this part, because I've been using the same information and source http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/05/10/thailand-public-finance-management-review-report since the coup:

"The Thai state spent more than 72 percent of public funds in greater Bangkok, where only 17 percent of Thais lived, according to 2012 figures from the World Bank, the most recent data available."

Some interesting figures quoted here. It might have more weight if they were compared to other countries in Asia and Europe. Not sure where to find these facts, but perhaps another poster with more experience in that field could provide the details.

The figures came from the World Bank link provided. I don't think you'll find any first world country where 72% of public funds go to the 17% of the population that live in the capital, that's more of a third world thing.

A little additional information from the full report, page 11, which also has some graphs giving a visual of the disparities:

"Figure III shows that although Bangkok accounts for about 17 percent of population and 25.8 percent of GDP, it benefits from about 72.2 percent of total expenditures. This is in sharp contrast to the Northeast which accounts for about 34 percent of population and 11.5 percent of GDP, but received only 5.8 percent of expenditures. Even correcting for the fact that Bangkok is the administrative capital for the country, such concentration of expenditures is extreme.

Service delivery disparities mirror expenditure disparities. In the health sector there are three times more doctors per capita in Bangkok than in other regions. While in the education sector the teacher per student ratio is much lower in the North and the Northeast than Bangkok and the central region. These disparities are correlated to human development outcomes." http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2012/06/20/000333038_20120620014639/Rendered/PDF/674860ESW0P1180019006020120RB0EDITS.pdf

There is also a chart on page 32 that shows that per capita spending on health and education is many times greater in Bangkok than in the rest of Thailand, but it didn't cut and paste very well.

The general picture is of a government in Bangkok that exists to serve Bangkok, and can't understand why the rest of the country isn't happy with that.

Edited September 12, 2015 by heybruce

[lostoday]

We read the OP. We don't need you to tell what us what it means or to restate it. That's the part where thinking comes into play. Just take a vitamin...

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 that?

[lostoday]

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?

Edited September 12, 2015 by lostoday

[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?

[lostoday]

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.

[heybruce]

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?

Why not these guys:

"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."

[billd766]

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?

Why only from the middle class and not from everybody by raising taxes, bringing in a land and house tax, inheritance tax etc which is what the government is trying to do.

The problem with most ideas like that is that are a good idea but they need thinking through and the financing side. I expect that the government could borrow the money but that then creates problem in later years when comes the time for repayment.

They could always print the money as the west had done over the years but that is a double edged sword and has its own problems.

They could bring forward some of next years budget but they haven't got the funds for that yet either.

No I wasn't asking you personally.

[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....

[lostoday]

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?

Why only from the middle class and not from everybody by raising taxes, bringing in a land and house tax, inheritance tax etc which is what the government is trying to do.

The problem with most ideas like that is that are a good idea but they need thinking through and the financing side. I expect that the government could borrow the money but that then creates problem in later years when comes the time for repayment.

They could always print the money as the west had done over the years but that is a double edged sword and has its own problems.

They could bring forward some of next years budget but they haven't got the funds for that yet either.

No I wasn't asking you personally.

Because the middle class pays most of the taxes and half of the economy is off the books. A sales tax on everything sold is the only equitable solution to pick up the grey market income.

[lostoday]

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....

fixed

[chiang mai]

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

[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.

[lostoday]

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

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?

[glenmohr]

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.

Back in 1932, the original coupers envisaged a French style constitution and French style democracy.

The Bangkok elite replaced the first constitution because the original constitution contained the term " Universal suffrage". This term is not acceptable to the Bangkok elite who comprise a significant 17% of the total population.

Generally a country in Thailand's situation will study the pros and cons of other systems. That study will not work in Thailand because it interferes with the " We have never been colonised" policy.

I believe the original French concept would have been the best scenario because of its emphasis on personal freedoms and human rights. Again the Bangkok elite will take a lot of convincing that the concept of equality is suitable for Thai society .

Some one some how some day must teach the vision of equality for all under the law in Thailand, which is what the first constitution laid down.

I really feel the Bangkok (17%) elite have cost this country 83 wasted years with their desperate bid to prevent any form of democracy. The economy would work much better if there was a consistent spread of State money around the various regions instead of being monopolised by only one city.

Rural subsidies are a significant part of most democratic countries' practice for a wide range of reasons. Most importantly, social stability.

[phycokiller]

First, hold democratic elections with all and any party allowed to participate and stop running the country as a quasi communist autocratic state.

Your 'expertise' are in the Military arena, not public or political office. Which is abundantly clear for everyone to see.

And keep your mouth SHUT.

Two questions for you.

What is your version of a democratic election and is that all there is to democracy?

What is YOUR area of expertise?

As for the last line. How arrogant of you living in someone else's country where you have no voice and telling the people running it to keep their mouth shut.

One question for you Build.

Where did the current rulers of Thailand get their legitimacy from?

Just to give you some help, it is against the criminal code in Thailand to overthrow an elected Thai government.

That leads me to the conclusion that you and Suthep installed these current rulers illegally and against the wish of the Thai people.

Many of us posters have a life long interest in democracy and freedom of speech, concepts totally foreign to you Mr Build.

Under your puppet regime the country of Thailand is going backwards very fast and that is a situation which makes many of us very sad. However I do not agree with Peter Jackson, I believe the current ruler should resign, hand Thailand over to the Thai people, which should include the rural portion of the population, and retire back to his barracks. In the meantime the personal affairs of Prayuth should be closely examined, bank accounts, all that kind of information. You Sir ,need to examine your own arrogance in coming to a country and giving support to a wicked regime against the wishes of the local populations.

I think you are forgetting that the King is the head of the Thai army and it would be treason for them not to act or go against his orders, probably arent supposed to say it but it would also be treason to not say it as well, I have no doubt they are following orders

[chiang mai]

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.

[chiang mai]

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

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!,

Edited September 12, 2015 by chiang mai

[Jon Wetherall]

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.

This is probably the thing behind my somewhat dismal view of Thailand's future prospects. I. like many foreigners,. have just about had enough of them and am looking to Vietnam.

The problem in Thailand is they've had it easy for so long, the employers, mostly working under franchises from someone, together with no-competition 'agreements' so the inward flow of funds is maintained, have paid as little as possible to their employees. and come the day when they don't have enough skilled labour that wants to work for them. they run around looking for hand-outs. Chinese-style networking and exploitation has had it's day I think, and Chinese-style face saving and 'I know it all already so I don't have to listen to advice from westerners' permeates every nook and cranny of Thai society.

The aviation industry is about fall on hard times by all accounts. And the fishing industry. And foreign investment, and exports, etc etc.

The sun doe not always shine on Thailand, and I fully believe they have some very hard knocks coming.

[lostoday]

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

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.

[Jon Wetherall]

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.

Indeed. it's worked pretty much as planned. Someone hasn't been looking after the Thai people quite as claimed. Successive governments until 2001 for a start.