Economic Sense At Last?

Martin · October 2, 2006

"I will not focus on GDP as the previous governments, but I will adhere to the sufficiency economy advocated by the king," Surayud said. "I will focus on the happiness of the people rather than the GDP."

This could be the most momentous statement made in this whole matter.

"Adhere to the sufficiency economy" could become a much-spoken phrase.

However it reminds me of "To keep is to put", which in matters of the law of agricultural holdings is used to remind tenants that, when they sign a tenancy agreement that includes "...will keep in good repair...", if something is not in good repair when they take over, they have taken on the job of putting it into good repair first, and then of maintaining it afterwards.

"To adhere is to stick together and keep stuck" would be the parallel.

Thailand is a country that could make this work, and show the whole world how it can be done in Thailand's circumstances. Thence other countries could consider what ideas it gave them for their circumstances.

I am posting this in the General forum, rather than the 'Money Matters' forum, because it has implications that are societal and cultural beyond the economic (important though food and shelter are).

All 'formerly hi-so' applicants for Peasantry 101 please queue on the left. (In echo of the announcements in 1997/8 about weekend garage sales being held by the 'formerly rich').

But Thailand survived after 1997, and may well survive during the descent from Hubbert's Peak.

" I will adhere to the sufficiency economy advocated by the king," Surayud said. "I will focus on the happiness of the people rather than the GDP."

That must mean adequate food and shelter for all, and being satisfied with adequacy, not chasing excess. And, in essence, it must mean a democratic/equality society not a hierarchical/stratified one.

Three cheers for "Sufficiency economy", and full credit to its advocate, who propounded it through thick and thin.

(And, ironically, I suppose we must thank Thaksin for precipitating this chance to grow. Often, people don't like a right shower (though 'a right shower' might be held to be a quite mild epithet for Thaksin and Thaksinomics), but it is needed that the flowers may bloom).

I hope that the Prime Minister's words mean what they say in, all their implication.

"Sufficiency economy rules OK" is music to these ears.

Thaiquila · October 2, 2006

To me, this statement is paradoxical:

And, in essence, it must mean a democratic/equality society not a hierarchical/stratified one.

I think they are talking mostly about Thai peasants, not Thai elites.

Edited October 2, 2006 by Thaiquila

younghusband · October 2, 2006

"I will not focus on GDP as the previous governments, but I will adhere to the sufficiency economy advocated by the king," Surayud said. "I will focus on the happiness of the people rather than the GDP."
This could be the most momentous statement made in this whole matter.

"Adhere to the sufficiency economy" could become a much-spoken phrase.

However it reminds me of "To keep is to put", which in matters of the law of agricultural holdings is used to remind tenants that, when they sign a tenancy agreement that includes "...will keep in good repair...", if something is not in good repair when they take over, they have taken on the job of putting it into good repair first, and then of maintaining it afterwards.

"To adhere is to stick together and keep stuck" would be the parallel.

Thailand is a country that could make this work, and show the whole world how it can be done in Thailand's circumstances. Thence other countries could consider what ideas it gave them for their circumstances.

I am posting this in the General forum, rather than the 'Money Matters' forum, because it has implications that are societal and cultural beyond the economic (important though food and shelter are).

All 'formerly hi-so' applicants for Peasantry 101 please queue on the left. (In echo of the announcements in 1997/8 about weekend garage sales being held by the 'formerly rich').

But Thailand survived after 1997, and may well survive during the descent from Hubbert's Peak.

" I will adhere to the sufficiency economy advocated by the king," Surayud said. "I will focus on the happiness of the people rather than the GDP."

That must mean adequate food and shelter for all, and being satisfied with adequacy, not chasing excess. And, in essence, it must mean a democratic/equality society not a hierarchical/stratified one.

Three cheers for "Sufficiency economy", and full credit to its advocate, who propounded it through thick and thin.

(And, ironically, I suppose we must thank Thaksin for precipitating this chance to grow. Often, people don't like a right shower (though 'a right shower' might be held to be a quite mild epithet for Thaksin and Thaksinomics), but it is needed that the flowers may bloom).

I hope that the Prime Minister's words mean what they say in, all their implication.

"Sufficiency economy rules OK" is music to these ears.

I don't pretend to fully understand what points you are making in your somewhat opaque post other than you being pleased with the new PM's comments on economic policy.I am also pleased about his emphasis on the happiness of the Thai people, particularly as a large segment (the rural population) has historically been ignored and sidelined.I can understand the merits of "self sufficiency" at some levels. particularly at times of national crisis, but the jury is still out whether it will work in a modern economy like Thailand's in an age of globalisation.

But for the moment it's all speculation until we see the PM's appointments as economic ministers. particularly Minister of Finance.The type of person appointed to that post will tell us all we need to know.

chownah · October 2, 2006

"Self sufficiency" is not the same thing as H.M.the King's ideas on "Sufficiency Economy".....the following link leads to the speach given by H.M.the King on the occasion of the Royal Birthday Anniversary

at the Dusidalai Hall, Chitralada Villa, Dusit Palace on Friday, December 4, 1998 and contains some of H.M.the King's thoughts on this.

http://kanchanapisek.or.th/speeches/1998/1204.en.html

Plus · October 2, 2006

I remember it has been stressed a few times that self-sufficiency is not only for farmers living off the land.

The queue to Peasantry 101 will be very short.

Garage sales were organised by country largest Benz dealer, in Soi Tonglor. Hardly starving people.

It would be good if Thailand learns to walk before trying to run, forget all that hub nonsense and sets less ambitious but achievable goals.

Ned · October 2, 2006

It'll be steady as she goes. In order words keep pursuing low wage bills and make it easier to bring in and hire more Burmese, Laotians and Khmers to man low value added factories and farms not only in border regions but throughout the land. This will improve the bottom line and even force the wages of Thai peasants and labourers down to an even more satisfactory level. Sure, profits are still going to be hard to come by but not impossible. In the last four months buyers of northern produce have managed to cut prices paid in the following manner: Village raised pigs 34 baht kg down from 47 baht. Chillies 12 baht down from 32. Longans this year fetched only between 8 and 11 baht for the most expensive AA size down from about 30 plus a few years ago.

So in other words the trend is for downward wages and prices to stay afloat. I can see the peasants here in the north enjoying a self sufficient economy in no time. "Gee mum, these leaves are really yummy".

samran · October 2, 2006

Dear Dr Thaksin,
We know you were a very greedy goose, and you were bossy and upset all the little ducks.

But after a year of having , first, the sheepdog getting into your nest when you left it for a little while, and then the ducks quacking away about a new constitution, but doing nothing effective about our feeding, we realise that we need back the goose who laid the golden eggs (greedy and bossy though you were).

So please come back, so we can vote for you.

Yours sincerely,

25 million electors in the 'farmyard'.

PS Please come back and do your best, though we do realise that the economy may not be recoverable to the level you got it to before.

Sorry Martin, but the words, 'bandwagon' and 'jumping on' come to mind.....

Martin · October 2, 2006

Thank you, 'chownah', for the link.

The part of the speech that I would highlight is:

"Subsequently, they came out of their caves and began to build houses. The extent of sufficiency economy was reduced to about 80 percent because some people passing by were not hostile. They brought various things to barter with local goods. For example, a stranger from afar would bring animal hides that would be suitable to use as garments. These would be bought or exchanged with food such as fish caught in the lagoon. Thus, it was no longer a sufficiency economy. As time went by, up to the present time, those of you who are either outside or inside this hall would not be able to use a hundred percent sufficiency economy, even if you want to. In addition, if you examine yourself of your own economic system, you will be of the opinion that it has not been done. It is possible that it is done less than 25 percent, that is, less than a quarter because most of the things that are produced or made by the individual must be exchanged with other products that are needed. Therefore, I say that the application of only one-fourth of the sufficiency economy should be enough, and it can be done. "

There are, of course, those doomsters and gloomsters who think that homo sapiens is on its way back to the Stone Age at a great rate come what may.

If I remember aright, their website is "Lifeaftertheoilcrash".

Personally, I am more optimistic that the world (or, at least, parts of it) will manage a controlled 'descent from Hubbert's Peak', via increasing individual-family sufficiency.

When I point to the need for Peasantry 101, I am indicating my belief that in a society that uses a lot more endosomatic energy (i.e. muscles and sunshine) than exosomatic energy (i.e. energy from coal, gas or oil) the agricultural sector will be much larger and the industrial sector will be much smaller. It will behove all to understand it.

So I expect, for instance, salesmen of all sorts of products to line up to enrol. "Know thine customer" is rule one for them.

Present-day curriculum was designed for kids who brought knowledge of peasantry with them from home. So school didn't need to instruct them in that. But since the job of school was to turn such kids into factory fodder, an industrial-awareness curriculum was designed and implemented.

But, now, there are many kids (and adults) who have been born to the urban and do not have 'peasantry awareness'. So it should be made available to them.

I don't foresee that there will be any lack of enrolments for Peasantry 101. Those who don't wish to join the line have, of course, their full individual freedom to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Martin · October 2, 2006

That is a neat quote that implies a different context from the one in which it was posted, 'samran'.

I am still exactly where I was then, and have been for some thirty five years---right on the "sufficiency economy bandwagon".

The post that you quote was what I thought could happen, if the "chattering classes" didn't get their economic act together in the "sufficiency economy" direction, or at least manage to maintain status quo.

It is greatly cheering to me to see that the point is being made that "sufficiency economy" does NOT mean everybody going all the way to self-sufficiency.

Communities will always need their specialists (such as surgeons, located in the cities). They will also need their practioners of a specialisation (such as doctors at the non-teaching hospitals in the towns) and their general practioners in the villages (who will spend their afternoons up at the cottage hospital or out on their rounds, after morning clinic).

So there will be livelihoods, as there were before, for those who prefer specialisation to general farming, and prefer the urban life to the rural.

What will change however will be the urban/rural proportions.

From experience, I expect to see (if I am spared for long enough) some of those salesmen discovering, during Peasantry 101, that they have 'green fingers' and deciding to 'defect' to the peasantry.

Or maybe coming to Isaan and joining our middle-class of peasantry who grow their own rice, but go out selling in the evenings and all day in the dry season.

Of course, for Isaan, "yeomanry" would always have been a more accurate term than "peasantry".

But there were those who wanted to keep high in the hierarchy, and to whom maintaining their position was more important than giving honour where honour was due by using accurate terminology.

That man who used to arrive in a helicopter, with a camera at the ready, always gave honour where honour was due. Bless him.

lannarebirth · October 2, 2006

Self reliant, or "sufficiency" economies are not a new idea. Let's hope Thailand meets with greater success than North Korea:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/juche.htm

mui_mui · October 2, 2006