'New' rice scheme reveals Thai govt's dearth of ideas

[Bluespunk]

It is not exactly the same idea at all.

Thaksin's scheme was to artificially inflate the world price of rice by removing the Thai rice from the world market. He gambled (and lost) on the notion that the world price would increase but it didn't as countries like India and Vietnam filled the gap and managed to stabilize the market. His was a rice pledging scheme and many people were not paid for their rice. Indeed the middlemen made far more money from this than the farmers. At the end of the day, paying the farmers directly is no different from some of the EEC schemes and it is far superior to the original rice scam because the farmers will actually get the money. Not middlemen, politicians and corrupt figures in the shadows.

I am sure you would of been so magnanimous had TS paid them directly.........

By the end the farmers would have welcomed being paid anyway at all.....

[smutcakes]

It is not exactly the same idea at all.

Thaksin's scheme was to artificially inflate the world price of rice by removing the Thai rice from the world market. He gambled (and lost) on the notion that the world price would increase but it didn't as countries like India and Vietnam filled the gap and managed to stabilize the market. His was a rice pledging scheme and many people were not paid for their rice. Indeed the middlemen made far more money from this than the farmers. At the end of the day, paying the farmers directly is no different from some of the EEC schemes and it is far superior to the original rice scam because the farmers will actually get the money. Not middlemen, politicians and corrupt figures in the shadows.

I am sure you would of been so magnanimous had TS paid them directly.........

By the end the farmers would have welcomed being paid anyway at all.....

I am sure they would, its amazing the banks were suddenly so cooperative....

[ianf]

It is not exactly the same idea at all.

Thaksin's scheme was to artificially inflate the world price of rice by removing the Thai rice from the world market. He gambled (and lost) on the notion that the world price would increase but it didn't as countries like India and Vietnam filled the gap and managed to stabilize the market. His was a rice pledging scheme and many people were not paid for their rice. Indeed the middlemen made far more money from this than the farmers. At the end of the day, paying the farmers directly is no different from some of the EEC schemes and it is far superior to the original rice scam because the farmers will actually get the money. Not middlemen, politicians and corrupt figures in the shadows.

I am sure you would of been so magnanimous had TS paid them directly.........

By the end the farmers would have welcomed being paid anyway at all.....

Smutcakes misses the point.

[tbthailand]

So, the Junta are cheapskate populists.

nailed it.

They have to do these things to maintain some level of acceptance from the masses

but they can't do what is really good for the people because their dogma/DNA is completely against it.

[Denim]

No, it's not the same because it's not as criminally and catastrophically stupid as PT's moronic economically insane one.

Actually, anything this unelected government does is illegal. Why do you think they granted themselves an amnesty right after the coup?

The junta granted themselves an amnesty because a coup is an inherently illegal act. It would not cover them for any crimes committed while in government. OTOH why did the Yingluk government feel the need to grant themselves an amnesty?

Your claim that the current government is illegal is misinformed opinion, not uncommon in red supporters. If you ever find the need to use it for defense in a court, please let us know. We all enjoy a good laugh.

As far as I understand the military government has not granted itself an amnesty. An amnesty would imply they had been found guilty of doing something wrong. In order not to be lumped in with lesser mortals they have granted themselves something a bit better ..... immunity from prosecution. As far as they are concerned , after all their coups , they never have need of an amnesty because they believe they are patriots and have done nothing wrong,

However , from the point of view of previous constitutions , coups are a grey area ( to them if nobody else ).

In order to be even squeakier clean , they want to clarify their right to intervene in any future government by having their new constitution written to allow legal intervention by themselves if they deem it necessary.

[phoenixdoglover]

So, the Junta are cheapskate populists.

nailed it.

They have to do these things to maintain some level of acceptance from the masses

but they can't do what is really good for the people because their dogma/DNA is completely against it.

Just for grins, let's put some numbers together to compare the Thaksin Scheme to the Junta Scheme.

THAKSIN SCHEME

Pheu Thai has asserted the scheme benefited 3.7 million Thai farming households to the tune of 800 billion Baht. TVF Thai economics expert, EnglishJohn, figures the farmers only got 100 billion, and corrupt parties siphoned off 500 billion. NACC claims 600 billion in "losses", but it's anybody's guess what that means in relation to money going to farmers. Then there is the question of how much of the patment can be considered a subsidy versus compensation at true market value. It has been routinely reported the payments were up to 40% over market, so let's peg the subsidy part as the extra 40% of a 600 billion program, about 170 billion.

So, a subsidy of 170 billion baht, spread over 3.7 million farm households.

That's 46,000 baht (USD $1,300) per household.

JUNTA SCHEME

According to the article, there's 35 billion baht to spread around to farmers at the rate of 1000 baht per 0.4 acre. In aggregate, that's still 35 billion for 3.7 million farm households.

So, 9,500 baht per household (USD $270)

SUMMARY

Thaksin Scheme, maybe 46,000 baht per household

Junta Scheme, maybe 9,500 baht per household

Everyone familiar with Thailand can use their own judgement about the probable positive benefits of one scheme over the other, in terms of direct farm family benefit, and the potential for stimulating the economy due to spending.

My personal opinion is that 10,000 baht doesn't go very far, even in the farming village. But I'm sure plenty of farmers will line up for it. Free money, after all.

Edited October 24, 2015 by phoenixdoglover

[LukKrueng]

I am not an expert on anything, but I can see big differences between the current government scheme and the YL scheme. For 1, the YL government paid (or actually promised to pay but most farmers got just a promissory note - never got the actual cash later) way too high a price for the rice so the rice could never be resold - and thus most of it got rot in the storage rooms. The idea of the government buying the rice got some articulated people fortune by smuggling rice they bought for market value in neighboring countries and selling it to the government so the money didn't really go to the Thai growers... Current government is supporting actual local farmers according to the fields they own, can't smuggle that into Thailand...

As it states in the OP: "there are additional inclusions to the junta’s 35 billion baht plans to boost Thailand’s agricultural structure, such as in diversification of crops" - if you follow the link there are more details as for why the subsidy now, and what are the future plans in order to make a change for the better to the livelihood of the rice farmers, whereas the YL government was just giving handouts with no actual future plans of enabling the farmers to fend for themselves.

[halloween]

Just for grins, let's put some numbers together to compare the Thaksin Scheme to the Junta Scheme.

THAKSIN SCHEME

Pheu Thai has asserted the scheme benefited 3.7 million Thai farming households to the tune of 800 billion Baht. TVF Thai economics expert, EnglishJohn, figures the farmers only got 100 billion, and corrupt parties siphoned off 500 billion. NACC claims 600 billion in "losses", but it's anybody's guess what that means in relation to money going to farmers. Then there is the question of how much of the patment can be considered a subsidy versus compensation at true market value. It has been routinely reported the payments were up to 40% over market, so let's peg the subsidy part as the extra 40% of a 600 billion program, about 170 billion.

So, a subsidy of 170 billion baht, spread over 3.7 million farm households.

That's 46,000 baht (USD $1,300) per household.

JUNTA SCHEME

According to the article, there's 35 billion baht to spread around to farmers at the rate of 1000 baht per 0.4 acre. In aggregate, that's still 35 billion for 3.7 million farm households.

So, 9,500 baht per household (USD $270)

SUMMARY

Thaksin Scheme, maybe 46,000 baht per household

Junta Scheme, maybe 9,500 baht per household

Everyone familiar with Thailand can use their own judgement about the probable positive benefits of one scheme over the other, in terms of direct farm family benefit, and the potential for stimulating the economy due to spending.

My personal opinion is that 10,000 baht doesn't go very far, even in the farming village. But I'm sure plenty of farmers will line up for it. Free money, after all.

You have a severe logic flaw in that scenario. If "it's anybody's guess what that means in relation to money going to farmers" why do you guess that ALL that 600 billion went to farmers which is the basis of your calculation?

Could it be that some of the B600 billion in losses went to storage costs, transport costs, imported rice, G2G scams, other fraud and theft? Oh yeah, them. Also the 40% figure you use is for the price paid for paddy compared milled rice price. There is a substantial loss in milling not included, and the 40% is unrealistically low.

Then you have a nice figure per household. How much of the current scheme goes to small area (poor) farmers? All of it.

How much of the PTP scam went to (wealthy) large scale producers? Most?

Your judgement is based on false premise and prejudice, and worth as much as they are.

BTW did you miss "there are additional inclusions" in the OP?

Edited October 24, 2015 by halloween

[MZurf]

Just for grins, let's put some numbers together to compare the Thaksin Scheme to the Junta Scheme.

THAKSIN SCHEME

Pheu Thai has asserted the scheme benefited 3.7 million Thai farming households to the tune of 800 billion Baht. TVF Thai economics expert, EnglishJohn, figures the farmers only got 100 billion, and corrupt parties siphoned off 500 billion. NACC claims 600 billion in "losses", but it's anybody's guess what that means in relation to money going to farmers. Then there is the question of how much of the patment can be considered a subsidy versus compensation at true market value. It has been routinely reported the payments were up to 40% over market, so let's peg the subsidy part as the extra 40% of a 600 billion program, about 170 billion.

So, a subsidy of 170 billion baht, spread over 3.7 million farm households.

That's 46,000 baht (USD $1,300) per household.

JUNTA SCHEME

According to the article, there's 35 billion baht to spread around to farmers at the rate of 1000 baht per 0.4 acre. In aggregate, that's still 35 billion for 3.7 million farm households.

So, 9,500 baht per household (USD $270)

SUMMARY

Thaksin Scheme, maybe 46,000 baht per household

Junta Scheme, maybe 9,500 baht per household

Everyone familiar with Thailand can use their own judgement about the probable positive benefits of one scheme over the other, in terms of direct farm family benefit, and the potential for stimulating the economy due to spending.

My personal opinion is that 10,000 baht doesn't go very far, even in the farming village. But I'm sure plenty of farmers will line up for it. Free money, after all.

You have a severe logic flaw in that scenario. If "it's anybody's guess what that means in relation to money going to farmers" why do you guess that ALL that 600 billion went to farmers which is the basis of your calculation?

Could it be that some of the B600 billion in losses went to storage costs, transport costs, imported rice, G2G scams, other fraud and theft? Oh yeah, them. Also the 40% figure you use is for the price paid for paddy compared milled rice price. There is a substantial loss in milling not included, and the 40% is unrealistically low.

Then you have a nice figure per household. How much of the current scheme goes to small area (poor) farmers? All of it.

How much of the PTP scam went to (wealthy) large scale producers? Most?

Your judgement is based on false premise and prejudice, and worth as much as they are.

BTW did you miss "there are additional inclusions" in the OP?

"Your judgement is based on false premise and prejudice..."

And your judgement is not?

"How much of the PTP scam went to (wealthy) large scale producers? Most?"

Sources, please? Or is this your judgment which might very well be based on false premise and prejudice???

[halloween]

Just for grins, let's put some numbers together to compare the Thaksin Scheme to the Junta Scheme.

THAKSIN SCHEME

Pheu Thai has asserted the scheme benefited 3.7 million Thai farming households to the tune of 800 billion Baht. TVF Thai economics expert, EnglishJohn, figures the farmers only got 100 billion, and corrupt parties siphoned off 500 billion. NACC claims 600 billion in "losses", but it's anybody's guess what that means in relation to money going to farmers. Then there is the question of how much of the patment can be considered a subsidy versus compensation at true market value. It has been routinely reported the payments were up to 40% over market, so let's peg the subsidy part as the extra 40% of a 600 billion program, about 170 billion.

So, a subsidy of 170 billion baht, spread over 3.7 million farm households.

That's 46,000 baht (USD $1,300) per household.

JUNTA SCHEME

According to the article, there's 35 billion baht to spread around to farmers at the rate of 1000 baht per 0.4 acre. In aggregate, that's still 35 billion for 3.7 million farm households.

So, 9,500 baht per household (USD $270)

SUMMARY

Thaksin Scheme, maybe 46,000 baht per household

Junta Scheme, maybe 9,500 baht per household

Everyone familiar with Thailand can use their own judgement about the probable positive benefits of one scheme over the other, in terms of direct farm family benefit, and the potential for stimulating the economy due to spending.

My personal opinion is that 10,000 baht doesn't go very far, even in the farming village. But I'm sure plenty of farmers will line up for it. Free money, after all.

You have a severe logic flaw in that scenario. If "it's anybody's guess what that means in relation to money going to farmers" why do you guess that ALL that 600 billion went to farmers which is the basis of your calculation?

Could it be that some of the B600 billion in losses went to storage costs, transport costs, imported rice, G2G scams, other fraud and theft? Oh yeah, them. Also the 40% figure you use is for the price paid for paddy compared milled rice price. There is a substantial loss in milling not included, and the 40% is unrealistically low.

Then you have a nice figure per household. How much of the current scheme goes to small area (poor) farmers? All of it.

How much of the PTP scam went to (wealthy) large scale producers? Most?

Your judgement is based on false premise and prejudice, and worth as much as they are.

BTW did you miss "there are additional inclusions" in the OP?

"Your judgement is based on false premise and prejudice..."

And your judgement is not?

"How much of the PTP scam went to (wealthy) large scale producers? Most?"

Sources, please? Or is this your judgment which might very well be based on false premise and prejudice???

I have shown my evidence of 'false premise'. What's yours?

What source do I need to ask a question?