Thailand's Economy

[Plus]

Get your historical facts straight for once - Thai culture as we know it is not "thousands and thousands years old", but the earliest period, the first Thai kingdom we know of, is the Sukhothai period, somewhere mid 13th century. That makes it not even 800 years - a relative newcomer in regional (and global) terms.

The Thai culture as we understand it now is an artificial construct of not more than a 100 years. There is a long ongoing debate between modern Thai nationalism and cultural identity, and T'ai ethnic culture, often diametrically opposed. But i guess you have never heard of that conflict.

The Indian Ramayana may be the most popular epic in India, but you have completely lost me on "Ramaraj"???

The base of Hindu social systhem and worldview are spelled out in the Vedas, the Puranas, and in the Mahabarata, especially in the Bhagavadgita. The earliest Veda - the Rig Veda - dates to 1500 BC, or to 3000 BC, depending which theory you prefer to believe.

Millions of years ago? That was the time dinosaurs walked the earth. Or do you dispute the evolution theory as well?

It doesn't matter when Sukhotai was built. Thais imported Buddhism and whole cosmological system from India. Ramaraj is literally Kingdom of Rama, the hero or Ramayana (and Ramakien). That disputed Sukhotai inscription is talking about the same concept of governance.

Indian historians have completely different timescale for Vedas. They are biased, but still they have found enough clues to believe that Mahabharata talks about a real history, dated about 2,500 BC. Ramayana is from a previous cycle, before dinosauras, before the biblical flood.

Evolution is a far from a settled theory. There are too many findings that can turn it upside down if accepted. Like Indian history it's dominated by orthodoxy, there's no serious discussion allowed.

[ColPyat]

"...employment as labourers in the more modernised, large scale and efficient farming sytems."

What is the reasoning behind this belief that farming systems will become "more...large scale"?.

From my training, and a lot of experience, in electrical generation, communications, and industrial electronics, I have a mind-set that tells me that "when causes reverse, effects reverse". (We are forever dealing with things such as sinusoids and one-shot pulses that rise and then fall.)

Over my lifetime, I have seen more and more abundant fossil fuels become available at cheaper and cheaper prices.

One of the effects of this has been cheaper and cheaper inorganic fertiliser. Another has been cheaper and cheaper tractors.

Knock-on effects, in the West, have been that small human-labour-scale fields have been amalgamated to make big tractor-efficient fields, and big farms have appeared by the amalgamation of a number of small farms.

These big farms have tended to monoculture of what they could grow best, and cheaper and cheaper transport and shipping hs been available to take their one product far distances.

Now that the base cause is reversing, I would expect all these effects to reverse.

There is, incidentally, 'a straw in the wind' this week.

On the American market, corn futures have risen 30% and wheat futures have risen 40% on the expectation that the American prairies are not going to meet demand this next year.

The analysis of the reasons why (and their proportionate contributions) remains to be ascertained.

One part-reason could well be that farmers are forecasting reduced output because their working capital won't let them purchase so much higher-priced inorganic fertiliser.

I don't know how much effect this is likely to have in the way of demand for rice, but I can't see it having a negative effect.

As the cost of producing inorganic fertiliser is roughly proportionate to the price of natural gas, these large-scale farms will be gradually losing their economic advantage over the years.

If inorganic fertiliser became prohibitively expensive, the most efficient farming system wouldn't be modern, large-scale, monoculture but old-fasioned, small-scale, mixed farming.

Land redistribution is crucial to a smooth transition, though. The British experience in World War II, when some farms were compelled to amalgamate, and others were compelled to turn permanent pasture to arable farming was fraught, even under Emergency Legislation.

Whether Thai governance can rise to the occasions that will present themselves is yet to be seen. It really does depend on the extent to which the next generation is prepared to think for itself, and whether it then has the courage of its convictions.

Big land, small population, propitious climate. The 'hardware' is available.

Semi-self-sufficiency skills and arrangements not lost. The 'software' is there.

Can the next generation get its 'orgware' together???

The reason is the example of most western societies in which small scale farming is not economically feasable anymore. I do not know exactly how long the availability of cheap fuel will last, the only thing i know though is that there are still huge hardly explored fields in especially the 'stans (one of the main reasons of the Afghanisthan war - get the fields already in US domination under further control by dominating the closest pipeline route).

Definately one day we will run out of cheap fuel, but i am not so sure if that is as soon as you seem to predict, and i lack the knowledge if there is maybe another technical replacement for fossil fuels in sight, or if previously too expensive storages will be by technical advancement cheaper to exploit, or if nuclear energy will have a rebirth.

GM food will also change sustantially the world's agriculture, there is another variable i believe you did not count in yet, and like it or not - it will come large scale, worldwide.

I prefer not to fix myself on doomsday scenarios that are depending on far too many variables, but prefer to stick to what has a higher propability because of trends that are happening/have happened already in comparable scenarios.

Semi-self sufficiency skills concerning agriculture here in Thailand are rapidly lost. The present generation of farmers has the skills to produce monocultures for the world market, with high intensity fertilisation, but not anymore the skills necessary for what is needed in a semi-self sufficient farm. I do know that out of practical experience, having built up a farm here.

It was, and still is, a steep learning curve for my wife's brothers to aqcuire this knowledge as apart from one they have only known to work as hired field labour on world market oriented farms. The same counts for farmers who have not lost their land, but changed their farming methods 20 something years ago during the green revolution.

Semi-selfsufficient farming and agro business are two completely different matters, with completely different skills needed. The huge problem is, that the vast majority of farmers in Thailand increasingly do lack both skills, and the necessary land.

If you wait for the next generation - the necessary skills will be completely lost. There will be no returning to some sort of village refuge.

Even if what you predict might come true, i would still put my bets on far better functioning western societies to find solutions to adapt their economies. Mainly due to a higher educational level and a far greater transparancy, and a more progressive outlook on their societies.

[ColPyat]

Ramayana is from a previous cycle, before dinosauras, before the biblical flood.

Evolution is a far from a settled theory. There are too many findings that can turn it upside down if accepted.

Sorry, but this is turning far too surreal for my taste, and entirely based on faith lacking any sort of proof.

Edited October 12, 2006 by ColPyat

[Plus]

I don't have any proof either, but it's Thailand we are talking about, if they believe it, who am I to preach atheism to them?

[hammered]

"...employment as labourers in the more modernised, large scale and efficient farming sytems."

What is the reasoning behind this belief that farming systems will become "more...large scale"?.

From my training, and a lot of experience, in electrical generation, communications, and industrial electronics, I have a mind-set that tells me that "when causes reverse, effects reverse". (We are forever dealing with things such as sinusoids and one-shot pulses that rise and then fall.)

Over my lifetime, I have seen more and more abundant fossil fuels become available at cheaper and cheaper prices.

One of the effects of this has been cheaper and cheaper inorganic fertiliser. Another has been cheaper and cheaper tractors.

Knock-on effects, in the West, have been that small human-labour-scale fields have been amalgamated to make big tractor-efficient fields, and big farms have appeared by the amalgamation of a number of small farms.

These big farms have tended to monoculture of what they could grow best, and cheaper and cheaper transport and shipping hs been available to take their one product far distances.

Now that the base cause is reversing, I would expect all these effects to reverse.

There is, incidentally, 'a straw in the wind' this week.

On the American market, corn futures have risen 30% and wheat futures have risen 40% on the expectation that the American prairies are not going to meet demand this next year.

The analysis of the reasons why (and their proportionate contributions) remains to be ascertained.

One part-reason could well be that farmers are forecasting reduced output because their working capital won't let them purchase so much higher-priced inorganic fertiliser.

I don't know how much effect this is likely to have in the way of demand for rice, but I can't see it having a negative effect.

As the cost of producing inorganic fertiliser is roughly proportionate to the price of natural gas, these large-scale farms will be gradually losing their economic advantage over the years.

If inorganic fertiliser became prohibitively expensive, the most efficient farming system wouldn't be modern, large-scale, monoculture but old-fasioned, small-scale, mixed farming.

Land redistribution is crucial to a smooth transition, though. The British experience in World War II, when some farms were compelled to amalgamate, and others were compelled to turn permanent pasture to arable farming was fraught, even under Emergency Legislation.

Whether Thai governance can rise to the occasions that will present themselves is yet to be seen. It really does depend on the extent to which the next generation is prepared to think for itself, and whether it then has the courage of its convictions.

Big land, small population, propitious climate. The 'hardware' is available.

Semi-self-sufficiency skills and arrangements not lost. The 'software' is there.

Can the next generation get its 'orgware' together???

The reason is the example of most western societies in which small scale farming is not economically feasable anymore. I do not know exactly how long the availability of cheap fuel will last, the only thing i know though is that there are still huge hardly explored fields in especially the 'stans (one of the main reasons of the Afghanisthan war - get the fields already in US domination under further control by dominating the closest pipeline route).

Definately one day we will run out of cheap fuel, but i am not so sure if that is as soon as you seem to predict, and i lack the knowledge if there is maybe another technical replacement for fossil fuels in sight, or if previously too expensive storages will be by technical advancement cheaper to exploit, or if nuclear energy will have a rebirth.

GM food will also change sustantially the world's agriculture, there is another variable i believe you did not count in yet, and like it or not - it will come large scale, worldwide.

I prefer not to fix myself on doomsday scenarios that are depending on far too many variables, but prefer to stick to what has a higher propability because of trends that are happening/have happened already in comparable scenarios.

Semi-self sufficiency skills concerning agriculture here in Thailand are rapidly lost. The present generation of farmers has the skills to produce monocultures for the world market, with high intensity fertilisation, but not anymore the skills necessary for what is needed in a semi-self sufficient farm. I do know that out of practical experience, having built up a farm here.

It was, and still is, a steep learning curve for my wife's brothers to aqcuire this knowledge as apart from one they have only known to work as hired field labour on world market oriented farms. The same counts for farmers who have not lost their land, but changed their farming methods 20 something years ago during the green revolution.

Semi-selfsufficient farming and agro business are two completely different matters, with completely different skills needed. The huge problem is, that the vast majority of farmers in Thailand increasingly do lack both skills, and the necessary land.

If you wait for the next generation - the necessary skills will be completely lost. There will be no returning to some sort of village refuge.

Even if what you predict might come true, i would still put my bets on far better functioning western societies to find solutions to adapt their economies. Mainly due to a higher educational level and a far greater transparancy, and a more progressive outlook on their societies.

There are arguements that if the price of oil stabilizes around its current level then oil fields/deposits that up to now have not been economical to extract will become viable providing extra oil to take us on a few more years or decades. Maybe too it will prove that the profit from these new fields will fuel further expoloration and further discovery of new fields. It is far from certain that peak oil is a proven fact imho. I also wouldnt be at all surprised if in a few years we were drilling not only in Alaska but also in Antarctica.

I also agree that the changes in occurring in Thailand are resulting in the loss of certain skills. However, in some cases it is harder to see where new skills are being added. There is some "upgrading" of the young as they complete their education but no general reskilling beyond this as far as I can see. To be in a position of having to sell ones unskilled labor on a market that is saturated with this is an unenviable position made worse if the skills and ability (through loss of land) to support oneself and family are missing. This will just put further pressure on those with jobs to earn more if the exteded family is still to be effectively supported from within its own labor force. The contradiction is as more members of the extended family have to relocate to work in other and maybe varied locations this will place additional pressures on this family structure through distance and a loss of familiarity. The next period could see changes that are very hard to even predict right now.

[Plus]

I think small farmers will survive by providing niche foods at premium prices. Right now it's organic food in Thailand, or "brand" food in Europe, like Parma Ham, Khao Hom Mali is a good Thai brand with strong potential.

Generic, mass produced food will be covered by large corporations, farmers who don't upgrade themselves will not survive.

As the world becomes better connected, small brands like Khao Hom Mali will have enough customers to keep the demand, and prices high.

I think it's Google who pioneered this new business model - they are not looking for "killer application" anymore, like everyone was doing in the 90s, they are providing miriad of small services with small revenues to make lots of money in the end. Connectivity brings them billions of customers, they will always find one or two suckers to justify a new business line.

Making big things to sell is the model of the past, judging by IT developments. These days it's all about being small, and niche, and customised. Even with giants like Yahoo, every user sees different highly personalised information, in his own preferred format. AOL-Turner, the merger of the century, failed spectacularly because they thought that people would buy Time magazine in the morning, then watch the same stories on CNN, then read them again on the Internet.

The point is that Internet brings the world to your doorstep. It doesn't matter if you are big or small - if the product is any good, you WILL find customers.

The target for Thai farmers is to create those products. Growing chickens in the backyard for sale to CP is not a solution for 21 century economy.

[ColPyat]

I think small farmers will survive by providing niche foods at premium prices. Right now it's organic food in Thailand, or "brand" food in Europe, like Parma Ham, Khao Hom Mali is a good Thai brand with strong potential.

Generic, mass produced food will be covered by large corporations, farmers who don't upgrade themselves will not survive.

As the world becomes better connected, small brands like Khao Hom Mali will have enough customers to keep the demand, and prices high.

The point is that Internet brings the world to your doorstep. It doesn't matter if you are big or small - if the product is any good, you WILL find customers.

Internet and dirt poor Thai farmers?!

If they would have the skills to sell their produce over the internet, they hardly would need to be farmers anymore.

Khao Hom Mali is a mass product, and not a speciality product. It goes through the net of rice mills and agents before it ever sees the market. The small scale farmer operates at best with minimal profits not enough to life from.

Creating speciality products here do farmers with education, skills, and the necessary investment. Additionally, the power and the network of getting their poducts to the market cutting out the middlemen. Such as a guy in the Or Dor Gor market who raises proper pedigree cows, and produces very good beef. He owns lots of land closed to Bangkok, rents his stall at the market, and supplies places such as Villa as well. The man is educated, skilled, and wealthy by any standards.

The average small scale farmer cannot be compared to this.

Sorry, but i would suggest you have a proper look yourself at the rural areas of Thailand to make a realistic assessment on the life of the average small scale Thai farmer.

[hammered]

I think small farmers will survive by providing niche foods at premium prices. Right now it's organic food in Thailand, or "brand" food in Europe, like Parma Ham, Khao Hom Mali is a good Thai brand with strong potential.

Generic, mass produced food will be covered by large corporations, farmers who don't upgrade themselves will not survive.

As the world becomes better connected, small brands like Khao Hom Mali will have enough customers to keep the demand, and prices high.

I think it's Google who pioneered this new business model - they are not looking for "killer application" anymore, like everyone was doing in the 90s, they are providing miriad of small services with small revenues to make lots of money in the end. Connectivity brings them billions of customers, they will always find one or two suckers to justify a new business line.

Making big things to sell is the model of the past, judging by IT developments. These days it's all about being small, and niche, and customised. Even with giants like Yahoo, every user sees different highly personalised information, in his own preferred format. AOL-Turner, the merger of the century, failed spectacularly because they thought that people would buy Time magazine in the morning, then watch the same stories on CNN, then read them again on the Internet.

The point is that Internet brings the world to your doorstep. It doesn't matter if you are big or small - if the product is any good, you WILL find customers.

The target for Thai farmers is to create those products. Growing chickens in the backyard for sale to CP is not a solution for 21 century economy.

I seem to remember a big debate over what would happen to Thai Khao Hom Mali if passage of the proposed US-Thai free trade agreement were completed, and indeed the negative effects this could have on the Thai farmer. Maybe we need to see this questionable deal scrapped before we start to regard Khao Hom Mali as a niche product of Thailand.

[Martin]

It could well be that the guy in Or Dor Gor market was a bright youngster from an Isaan village, who went to where there were customers.

Get the rural-urban balance right (i.e. into what the situation can manage to support) and it could be that his kids would move the business back to Isaan and rent a stall on Udon Thani market.

A generation from now and all buildings that need aircon (i. e. a lot of Bangkok) will be unviable, and a lot of population will disperse.

Those farangs who live there extol Udon Thani to me, and I see 'where they are coming from'.

If the physicists manage to make fusion happen (and that is a big IF), there will still be forty or so years of engineering development (that may or may not be successful) before the cheap, bulk electricity will flow, and air con be affordable again to allow Bangkok to re-fill.

Fusion is no hopeful project. Fission was a walk-in-the-park in comparision. No piece of metal in a fission reactor had to withstand a temperature more than 600C, but for fusion the temperatures will be close to those on the Sun.

Like 'chownah', I am not worried about the fact that cheap bulk energy ended back when oil last rose from US$20 per barrel.

With a bit of sensible preparation and willingness to change, we can cope.

Actually, I would worry if I felt that cheap bulk energy would soon return, because (judging by their track record) the present generations would use it to really knacker the planet.

My greatgrandsons seem to have more wits about them. I hope so.

[Martin]

I have been taking a look at how increasing partial sufficiency could help the Thai economy become more secure.

The big improvement required is not for us rural peasants to become even more self-sufficient.

It is for any of you who are urban workers to get stuck into your gardening when you come home from work.

[ColPyat]

It could well be that the guy in Or Dor Gor market was a bright youngster from an Isaan village, who went to where there were customers.

Get the rural-urban balance right (i.e. into what the situation can manage to support) and it could be that his kids would move the business back to Isaan and rent a stall on Udon Thani market.

Nops, a central Thai with education and start up capital that a small scale farmer will not get in 100 lifetimes.

The big improvement required is not for us rural peasants to become even more self-sufficient.

It is for any of you who are urban workers to get stuck into your gardening when you come home from work.

This is a misunderstanding of the problems here.

Many wealthy urban Thais do own land upcontry. Actually - most of Thailand's land is owned by banks and urban Thais and not by farmers. Land is prohibitively expensive in Thailand. The average price of agricultural land is 20 000 to 40 000 baht a rai. You need at least 10 Rai for a family for a sort of self sufficient farm, and that means not just wet rice land, but land suitable for orchards and other crops, which in many areas is simply not available. In this case you would even need more. Add to that the costs of machinery (or buffalo, if your scenario comes true), tools, housing, etc.

We are talking here in most areas of Thailand a start up capital of between 500 000 baht to 1 million baht per family.

The trend here is that most farmers do lose their land to the banks due to debts, and/or, are producing for the world market in high intesity fertilisation with miniscule profit margins. To change from this method into self sufficiency model you still need a start up capital of several hundred thousand baht.

How can a unskilled, under educated farmer ever make that amount of money?

I have many friends and relatives who work in the industrial belt around Bangkok.

One of my friends in particular is what you might call a bright formerly youngster from Isaarn. He actually has a future plan he has followed for the past 15 odd years. Working about 16 hours a day as a welder, sleeping on average about three to four hours a night (or day, depending on shift), living in a horrible township ruled by an industrial mafia, he, according to his plan has 5 more years until he paid up his small farm, and can move back to the village. His calculation goes the way that his son will be by that time 13, so just enough hope that he can still get used to farm life, and not be completely swallowed up by the ever present youth gangs of this township.

This man is an exception.

Most people i know, including relatives of my wife, do not have the incredble discipline needed to follow such a plan. They will have no hope ever to return to the village, even if they would want to. Neither do they make enough that their children have much hope to be successful in the city.

We are talking realities here, not wishful thinking.

Edited October 13, 2006 by ColPyat

[Plus]

Internet and dirt poor Thai farmers?!

If they would have the skills to sell their produce over the internet, they hardly would need to be farmers anymore.

Quite right, but don't they have plenty of middlemen who market their produce already? Those middlemen will have to live in connected world to survive. If it doesn't happen in Thailand, it will happen somewhere else. World is becoming a cruel place and if you don't catch up, you are dead.

Marketing is not farming, it falls under "services". Farmers just have to be skillful enough to produce high quality food. Issue like land ownership had to be resolved last century. Urbanites don't own anything, btw, they sell their skills and labour. Same thing should happen to landless farmers. Local wine producers often employ farang wine makers, for example. They don't own the wineries, they just work there.

Khao Hom Mali is a mass product, and not a speciality product. It goes through the net of rice mills and agents before it ever sees the market.

It is a speacialty product in the wolrd market. There are billions of people out there who have never heard of it. For Thai market they might want to differentiate it into subcategories. It was just an example, I don't claim to know much about rice production: "I don't do detail"

The small scale farmer operates at best with minimal profits not enough to life from.

I think their income is proportional to general level of prosperity. When the whole country becomes rich, farmers incomes would grow in proportion. Society's task should be to assure that they are not left behind.

Creating speciality products here do farmers with education, skills, and the necessary investment. Additionally, the power and the network of getting their poducts to the market cutting out the middlemen.

I beg to disagree here - middlemen should be the ones to demand and create added value to farmers products. If all they do is provide trucks to transport rice from farms to mills, then there's no value in that, of course, and never will be. They should the agents for education, skill development, investment and so on. Someone has to manage those farmers, they are naturally not very good at that. Maybe then out of total 35-40% rural population we will have only half left in actual farming, and the other half in services.

Sorry, but i would suggest you have a proper look yourself at the rural areas of Thailand to make a realistic assessment on the life of the average small scale Thai farmer.

Realistically Thai farmers are light years away from this vision, but is there any other way? Thaksin was right about added value and I hope they learned some lessons from schemes like OTOP. It was premature and ill-concieved, but it's the way of the future.

Edited October 13, 2006 by Plus

[hammered]

It could well be that the guy in Or Dor Gor market was a bright youngster from an Isaan village, who went to where there were customers.

Get the rural-urban balance right (i.e. into what the situation can manage to support) and it could be that his kids would move the business back to Isaan and rent a stall on Udon Thani market.

Nops, a central Thai with education and start up capital that a small scale farmer will not get in 100 lifetimes.

The big improvement required is not for us rural peasants to become even more self-sufficient.

It is for any of you who are urban workers to get stuck into your gardening when you come home from work.

This is a misunderstanding of the problems here.

Many wealthy urban Thais do own land upcontry. Actually - most of Thailand's land is owned by banks and urban Thais and not by farmers. Land is prohibitively expensive in Thailand. The average price of agricultural land is 20 000 to 40 000 baht a rai. You need at least 10 Rai for a family for a sort of self sufficient farm, and that means not just wet rice land, but land suitable for orchards and other crops, which in many areas is simply not available. In this case you would even need more. Add to that the costs of machinery (or buffalo, if your scenario comes true), tools, housing, etc.

We are talking here in most areas of Thailand a start up capital of between 500 000 baht to 1 million baht per family.

The trend here is that most farmers do lose their land to the banks due to debts, and/or, are producing for the world market in high intesity fertilisation with miniscule profit margins. To change from this method into self sufficiency model you still need a start up capital of several hundred thousand baht.

How can a unskilled, under educated farmer ever make that amount of money?

I have many friends and relatives who work in the industrial belt around Bangkok.

One of my friends in particular is what you might call a bright formerly youngster from Isaarn. He actually has a future plan he has followed for the past 15 odd years. Working about 16 hours a day as a welder, sleeping on average about three to four hours a night (or day, depending on shift), living in a horrible township ruled by an industrial mafia, he, according to his plan has 5 more years until he paid up his small farm, and can move back to the village. His calculation goes the way that his son will be by that time 13, so just enough hope that he can still get used to farm life, and not be completely swallowed up by the ever present youth gangs of this township.

This man is an exception.

Most people i know, including relatives of my wife, do not have the incredble discipline needed to follow such a plan. They will have no hope ever to return to the village, even if they would want to. Neither do they make enough that their children have much hope to be successful in the city.

We are talking realities here, not wishful thinking.

In this lies the huge potential problem. While politicians are looking at the rural poor who are a shrinking and aging group, who is looking at the rapidly expanding young group of urban workers? At the moment they do have jobs and aspirations and are willing to make the best of their lot, but this will not go on forever. As a group the urban working class are not wealthy enough to buy into the urban areas althoug of course there are exceptions, and we should probably define what we mean by urban working class. The other problem is that this group is the most disenfranchised in the whole country. This coupled with nobody looking out for them from above does not bode well for the future. Personally, I do not see some doomsday scenario where everyone will have to go back to some imagined agrarian utopia. However, if I am wrong it could be a catastrophe waiting to happen if all the urban workers have to go back to scratching a living from the land even if their is any family land left as if there is a crash of some sort it highly likely the banks will not be able to just forgive hundreds of thousands of farmers debts. More likely the land will have to be seized by the banks.

However, as I said I do not see this doomsday scenario. As the price of oil rises more will become economically extractable creating a new and higher but stable oil price for a while. There will also be a movement, small at first, to other forms of energy. GM foods, which I do not particularly like, will become the norm - arent certain (3 I read) Isaan provinces already flooded with GM papaya? People will be less choosy about GM crops as they become the cheap option. Then there is technology and discovery. This all brings us back to the most presing issue being a need for political solutions to a recognizable and changing demographic. Whether this happens remains to be seen, but it is not too late.

[ColPyat]

It was just an example, I don't claim to know much about rice production: "I don't do detail"

The small scale farmer operates at best with minimal profits not enough to life from.

I think their income is proportional to general level of prosperity. When the whole country becomes rich, farmers incomes would grow in proportion. Society's task should be to assure that they are not left behind.

Issue like land ownership had to be resolved last century. Urbanites don't own anything, btw, they sell their skills and labour. Same thing should happen to landless farmers. Local wine producers often employ farang wine makers, for example. They don't own the wineries, they just work there.

I beg to disagree here - middlemen should be the ones to demand and create added value to farmers products. If all they do is provide trucks to transport rice from farms to mills, then there's no value in that, of course, and never will be. They should the agents for education, skill development, investment and so on. Someone has to manage those farmers, they are naturally not very good at that. Maybe then out of total 35-40% rural population we will have only half left in actual farming, and the other half in services.

Realistically Thai farmers are light years away from this vision, but is there any other way? Thaksin was right about added value and I hope they learned some lessons from schemes like OTOP. It was premature and ill-concieved, but it's the way of the future.

The devil lies in the detail.

Landright issues could not be solved last century in Thailand, as the landright issue wasn't an issue at that time. This only became an issue starting about 40 years ago. Previously land was cheap and abundant. And it wasn't solved yet, on the opposite - it becomes worse.

Here in Thailand urbanites own most agricultural land.

Nice what you believe middlemen should be. But in reality they aren't. They are businesses that buy cheaply, give out loans, and sell expensively. And they have huge political clout.

[ColPyat]

In this lies the huge potential problem. While politicians are looking at the rural poor who are a shrinking and aging group, who is looking at the rapidly expanding young group of urban workers?

If we forget for a moment the issues such as corruption, authoritarianism and human rights abuses, Thaksin did to some extend adress this problem with his different U-Athorn schemes. It is a sad thing, but i believe that Thaksin and TRT were they only political party on the whole landscape of powers here in Thailand who had a somehwat realistic view of Thailand's problems, and attempted to solve some of them (trust me - it really pains me to say this!).

Some lecturers, especially the ones who have not joined the pro-coup bandwagon and the self-sufficiency mania, are aware of this issue, but their power so far does not extend further than running their heads against ignorant walls of self-righteousness.

It is not too late, but the clock is ticking, and i fear the problem is only going to be looked at when it will be so late that the situation is already beyond bad.

[Plus]

That's the ugly reality, yes. Thailand is not ready to lead the world into the 21 century. However if it wants to be there, changes are necessary.

That's why I think decentralisation is important. You can't change anything if you don't take charge of the process.

And the step before that - you can't delegate responsibility to irresponsible people. If they don't act as a social unit, for the benefit of the whole country, they are doomed. Under Thaksin everyone learned how to steal and cheat. There's a limit on how much you can steal from eachother. Five years everyone was thinking how to get a bigger share, not how to increase the pie.

Complete waste of time. In the modern world five years is an era. Five years ago Google was nothing, wikipedia didn't exist, blogs didn't exist. Mobile phones were good for talking only and so on. Of course for the vast majority of Thais these things still don't exist. They had a telecom tycoon in power who did nothing for telecoms or IT in his own country. ######ing waste.

[ColPyat]

And the step before that - you can't delegate responsibility to irresponsible people. If they don't act as a social unit, for the benefit of the whole country, they are doomed. Under Thaksin everyone learned how to steal and cheat. There's a limit on how much you can steal from eachother. Five years everyone was thinking how to get a bigger share, not how to increase the pie.

There you are absolutely wrong. This is a blanket generalisation that simply is not realistic.

This attitude did not start with Thaksin (and definately won't stop after his ouster), but a long time before. Under all the previous administrations (i have been here during more than a few, starting from Chatchai) this was in some parts even worse, as the general population was only allowed to watch while the politicians/businessmen, army and police blatantly enriched themselves.

What people have learned under Thaksin is, that also they are allowed to benefit from the national budget, and not just the rich.

On some levels corruption has decreased under Thaksin, especially at the visible level at the bottom. Mafias definately had a much rougher time under Thaksin than before (many friends of mine are mainly for that reason rather happy about Thaksin's ouster and present governmemt ). In some levels it has increased, and to some extend a for Thailand completely new policy corruption has been intruduced.

Working as a "social unit" smells of highly ideological social engeneering, the fascist "leader principle", and excludes growth and development through discourse and healthy competition.

[hammered]

In this lies the huge potential problem. While politicians are looking at the rural poor who are a shrinking and aging group, who is looking at the rapidly expanding young group of urban workers?

If we forget for a moment the issues such as corruption, authoritarianism and human rights abuses, Thaksin did to some extend adress this problem with his different U-Athorn schemes. It is a sad thing, but i believe that Thaksin and TRT were they only political party on the whole landscape of powers here in Thailand who had a somehwat realistic view of Thailand's problems, and attempted to solve some of them (trust me - it really pains me to say this!).

Some lecturers, especially the ones who have not joined the pro-coup bandwagon and the self-sufficiency mania, are aware of this issue, but their power so far does not extend further than running their heads against ignorant walls of self-righteousness.

It is not too late, but the clock is ticking, and i fear the problem is only going to be looked at when it will be so late that the situation is already beyond bad.

Thaksin may have scratched the surface with the urban poor or more accurately with certain parts of it, but his main aim was the rural poor, which is what I was referring to, and indeed Thaksin probably saw the urban workers or those parts of it he recognized as an extension of the rural poor rather than an emerging group. The new government seem to be doing the same too. I would guess this wont change much until the urban group have more political clout. This is unlikely to happen until they either have the money to buy property and hence get voting rights where they live and work, or the laws are changed so that they are no longer tied politically to where they came from but no longer reside.

[Plus]

This attitude did not start with Thaksin (and definately won't stop after his ouster), but a long time before. Under all the previous administrations (i have been here during more than a few, starting from Chatchai) this was in some parts even worse, as the general population was only allowed to watch while the politicians/businessmen, army and police blatantly enriched themselves.

What people have learned under Thaksin is, that also they are allowed to benefit from the national budget, and not just the rich.

So you DO agree that Thaksin was the first to introduce farmers to plundering the country - something that previously was reserved for elite only.

Working as a "social unit" smells of highly ideological social engeneering, the fascist "leader principle", and excludes growth and development through discourse and healthy competition.

NO, it's more like a teamwork on national scale. EVERY country does it, and the better they are at it, the more prosperous they become. In the US it's worship of Declaration of Independence and its principles, and firm believe that they have a special mission on Earth. They brainwash their children since early age and by the time they step into the world everyone knows that it's "self-evident truth". Japanese are complete control freaks, too, you can't go to a toilet without your boss signing leave order. Take any successful society and this kind of social engineering is there.

About urban land ownership - I didn't mean idle assets upcountry, I meant businesses that make 90% of the economy.

Edited October 13, 2006 by Plus

[Martin]

What will be the basis of the economy of Thailand's urban areas?

I can see the basis of the economy of the rural areas, and of the provincial towns that serve them.

And I can see that there still exists the pre-industrial 'economy' of those in Bangkok who siphoned off a proportion of the value of the forest produce and agricultural-surplus as it went by on its way abroad.

But there is now an additional five million or so, and they can't all be 'living by taking in each others washing'. The basis must be that some of them manufacture goods for which there is an export market and the rest 'service' them.

The big export demand seems to have been from Americans buying things they don't need with money they haven't got. And China has been willing to loan the necessary money to the US Treasury for that and for the USA to fight wars they don’t understand with methods that don’t work. But, surely, that must end sometime?

So what happens then in Bangkok and on the Seaboard?

I have postulated one scenario (reversal of urban drift) with its massive needs for a huge change in the pattern of land holdings, and for methods of making available training and capital for one-family farms.

I look forward to reading coherent, complete descriptions of other possible scenarios.

[ColPyat]

Thaksin may have scratched the surface with the urban poor or more accurately with certain parts of it, but his main aim was the rural poor, which is what I was referring to, and indeed Thaksin probably saw the urban workers or those parts of it he recognized as an extension of the rural poor rather than an emerging group. The new government seem to be doing the same too. I would guess this wont change much until the urban group have more political clout. This is unlikely to happen until they either have the money to buy property and hence get voting rights where they live and work, or the laws are changed so that they are no longer tied politically to where they came from but no longer reside.

I have previously tended to see that sector the same way as very connected to the rural poor, but the more i look at it i do start to understand that there is something completely different, a for Thailand very new class, in the process of development now.

[ColPyat]

allowed to benefit from the national budget, and not just the rich.

So you DO agree that Thaksin was the first to introduce farmers to plundering the country - something that previously was reserved for elite only.

Working as a "social unit" smells of highly ideological social engeneering, the fascist "leader principle", and excludes growth and development through discourse and healthy competition.

NO, it's more like a teamwork on national scale. EVERY country does it, and the better they are at it, the more prosperous they become. In the US it's worship of Declaration of Independence and its principles, and firm believe that they have a special mission on Earth. They brainwash their children since early age and by the time they step into the world everyone knows that it's "self-evident truth". Japanese are complete control freaks, too, you can't go to a toilet without your boss signing leave order. Take any successful society and this kind of social engineering is there.

About urban land ownership - I didn't mean idle assets upcountry, I meant businesses that make 90% of the economy.

Sorry, but the poor having access to funds from the national budget does not mean "plundering" the country - it means development with the aim of a more egalitarian society with equal opportunities for all. But i believe you have already expressed many times that you abhor such a social model, and are in favour of a strictly hirarchal feudal system in which the individual's place is in serfdom to the ones born in a higher rank according to your religious and ideological concepts.

Thank you, but we differ here enormously, and i personally have not a single Thai friend who would agree with you ideas.

Not that i have not heard those ideas here uttered by some, but those were not the ones who have ever needed to do one bit of work in their life other than ordering their servants around in order to keep their luxurious standard of life.

"Team work on national scale"...

Well, i have neither been brought up in the US, nor in Japan, but in Europe. Fortunately the talk of "special mission" and "social units" and similar concepts belong in Europe to the past, a very dark past indeed, during WW2. I doubt you will find there many people outside the groups and parties of the extreme right expressing those sort of ideas.

[ColPyat]

I look forward to reading coherent, complete descriptions of other possible scenarios.

There are lots of them available. But honestly, i prefer to stay away from all of them. There are so many variables that inevitably such prediction will be closer to fortune reading than to realistic asessments.

There is even some sort of science, i think it's called futureology or something. I remember when those people had a field day, especially here in South East Asia. They have predicted great future to the Tiger Countries, arguing that because their fewer institutions those places here will be far more flexible in their economies than the rest of the world. These people were paid hugely to hold lectures in front of exalted audiences, their books were best sellers.

Well, then came the '97 crash. And what happened that because the lack of institutional power insane corruption and idiotic lending destroyed those economies. None of those futurologists has predicted that, only people who had long term on the ground experience. But nobody listened to them, of course, because they were "pessimists".

So, yes, i have some long term future scenarios in my mind, but i keep them to myself, because chances are that i will make a fool out of myself, because there are far too many variables in order to be even slightly accurate.

[pap]

allowed to benefit from the national budget, and not just the rich.

So you DO agree that Thaksin was the first to introduce farmers to plundering the country - something that previously was reserved for elite only.

Working as a "social unit" smells of highly ideological social engeneering, the fascist "leader principle", and excludes growth and development through discourse and healthy competition.

NO, it's more like a teamwork on national scale. EVERY country does it, and the better they are at it, the more prosperous they become. In the US it's worship of Declaration of Independence and its principles, and firm believe that they have a special mission on Earth. They brainwash their children since early age and by the time they step into the world everyone knows that it's "self-evident truth". Japanese are complete control freaks, too, you can't go to a toilet without your boss signing leave order. Take any successful society and this kind of social engineering is there.

About urban land ownership - I didn't mean idle assets upcountry, I meant businesses that make 90% of the economy.

Sorry, but the poor having access to funds from the national budget does not mean "plundering" the country - it means development with the aim of a more egalitarian society with equal opportunities for all. But i believe you have already expressed many times that you abhor such a social model, and are in favour of a strictly hirarchal feudal system in which the individual's place is in serfdom to the ones born in a higher rank according to your religious and ideological concepts.

Thank you, but we differ here enormously, and i personally have not a single Thai friend who would agree with you ideas.

Not that i have not heard those ideas here uttered by some, but those were not the ones who have ever needed to do one bit of work in their life other than ordering their servants around in order to keep their luxurious standard of life.

"Team work on national scale"...

Well, i have neither been brought up in the US, nor in Japan, but in Europe. Fortunately the talk of "special mission" and "social units" and similar concepts belong in Europe to the past, a very dark past indeed, during WW2. I doubt you will find there many people outside the groups and parties of the extreme right expressing those sort of ideas.

Your views seem to sound very socialistic. Maybe I am reading you wrong. It is a wonderful idea that in practice is literally undoable for some fundamental reasons. Just as pure capitalism is a lousy idea. We do have some responsibility to our neighbors. Pure equality is a wonderful concept but without some fundamental changes as a species I doubt we will ever get there. There are many obvious issues with hirarchal systems but its advantages outweigh its faults. I am not talking a fuedal system. The key is in how you blend these two systems to something that is workable. The problem with actually making everyone equal is that the people above the mean average don't want to drop down in their level of perks. Many of them work very hard to get that level. Some are simply born to it. Does that mean we should ignore our responsibilities to others? No. If you have friends above the mean average that you are speaking with you should ask them what they are willing to give up so that others can have more. I for one am willing to give up alot and do but I could probably do without more. Admitedly I am less than perfect. The problem I see which I beleive to be global is the gap between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. I see no justification for that. To me that is a sad thing. I simply do not know what can be done to change this however.

If you have realistic solutions I would love to hear them. Maybe you have given this more thought than I have and have one or more likely several ideas. Idealistic goals are noble but without a process to make them work they are just another idea. It would be nice to know someone has a practical approach to these issues. I wish I did.

With respect to "and are in favour of a strictly hirarchal feudal system in which the individual's place is in serfdom to the ones born in a higher rank according to your religious and ideological concepts" I think you may not have followed the logic of this through to the "who" or "what" that is in Thailand unless you are simply talking generally within the actual government for Thailand.

[ColPyat]

If you have realistic solutions I would love to hear them. Maybe you have given this more thought than I have and have one or more likely several ideas. Idealistic goals are noble but without a process to make them work they are just another idea. It would be nice to know someone has a practical approach to these issues. I wish I did.

With respect to "and are in favour of a strictly hirarchal feudal system in which the individual's place is in serfdom to the ones born in a higher rank according to your religious and ideological concepts" I think you may not have followed the logic of this through to the "who" or "what" that is in Thailand unless you are simply talking generally within the actual government for Thailand.

Of course i am talking only in generals terms here, concerning Thailand. Anything else would not be permissable in public.

And yes, you are right, my views are definately very socialist inspired (to be accurate, more following Bakunin's ideas, in an extremely non-dogmatic fashion, and only very loosely as i don't really understand a lot of what this brilliant mind produced ). But before everybody screems - i am by nature non-dogmatic, and therefore abhor the usual social engineering done by socialists.

I know it is highly impossible to make everybody "equal", but equal opportunities is a very realistic goal that in many European countries has been achieved to a large extend. And that is thanks to social democracy - not through extreme capitalism, or strict adherence to outdated highly ideological forms of governing, and whatever lies between.

Realistic solutions for Thailand. Well, presently some of them i can only voice in a place such as this when martial law is finally lifted (and that very possibly is still going to be at least a month or so in the future).

But generally speaking, a "solution" is at least a generation away, if certain parameters are set today. A lot of my suggestions are wishful thinking, unfortunately.

1) stop fiddling with the democratic process. Let people decide through elections, especially let them learn from their own mistakes, and let them solve this by elections, and not by supporting undemocratic means. Democracy is not built in a day - it is a steady process, a social contract, not something that can simply ordered from above, and taken away at will when things don't go according to plans of the above.

2) solutions for the poor have to be carefully thought through. At first the problem has to be identified, and epecially the complexity of it. Pragmatism has to take over from the present ideological view. Not all approaches work for all. The rural poor, especially the underskilled might be running best with the self sufficient farming method. They need land (which they cannot sell, or rent out), that only goes into their posession after maybe at least 10 years successfully working that land. The old practise of community forest has to be re-introduced, in which those farmers have special rights to cut wood for their housing (not for sale!).

This obviously has to be financed by subventions and funding has to be found. As a start a few model projects have to be initiated in order if this would actually work in reality.

The aim is, to bring stability back into the families, so that the next generation can finish school and get a skill that allows them to leave unprofitable farming.

3) decentralisation of the industry.

Tax-Incentitives have to be given so that industries can move from the eastern seabord, and Bangkok and its suburbs into structurally poor provinces. Transport has to be created to move products from there to the ports. Energy supply has to be built up in those provinces.

4) I am a big fan of the idea of the Kra canal (sorry, Singapore). Feasability studies have to be done in earnest, and financing can be found by letting foreign companies in.

5) Corruption. The institutions have to be cleaned up. Courts and Police have to be cleaned first. Give better training. Give better pay, especially to the lower ranks. Punish corruption harshly, regradless of rank. Advancements only by achievments and qualification, not by seniority or peer group.

That is just without thinking much. I am sure there are far more practical ideas, and also a lot of what i wrote here is not financable to the extend i wish. But somehwere has to be started, if Thailand does not want to fall back any further and keep being a failed system. Other countries have done so, why should Thailand one day not be able to as well?

If present powers in Thailand would be as good in working towards practical solutions as they are at finding explanations why Thailand is so different than other countries and therefore cannot do so, Thailand would have made the first steps towards development a long time ago.

What is found are lousy excuses for continuing to profit from the status quo, lazyness and complacency. And the result is that Thailand is stuck while many of its neighbors in the region advance.

Every country is different, but many have been able to overcome their own particular difficulties. When Singapore left Malaysia - nobody gave it much chance for success because of a complete lack of a rural hinterland. Malaysia started independence with a civil war and severe problems between the ethnicies. Both countries are now far better off than Thailand. Not perfect, but they definately provide far better for their population than Thailand.

I am sure that one day things are going to be better here in Thailand, but i fear that will not be without much suffering before.

[hammered]

What will be the basis of the economy of Thailand's urban areas?

I can see the basis of the economy of the rural areas, and of the provincial towns that serve them.

And I can see that there still exists the pre-industrial 'economy' of those in Bangkok who siphoned off a proportion of the value of the forest produce and agricultural-surplus as it went by on its way abroad.

But there is now an additional five million or so, and they can't all be 'living by taking in each others washing'. The basis must be that some of them manufacture goods for which there is an export market and the rest 'service' them.

The big export demand seems to have been from Americans buying things they don't need with money they haven't got. And China has been willing to loan the necessary money to the US Treasury for that and for the USA to fight wars they don’t understand with methods that don’t work. But, surely, that must end sometime?

So what happens then in Bangkok and on the Seaboard?

I have postulated one scenario (reversal of urban drift) with its massive needs for a huge change in the pattern of land holdings, and for methods of making available training and capital for one-family farms.

I look forward to reading coherent, complete descriptions of other possible scenarios.

For the foreseable future, but obviously not forever, the urabn areas will continue to produce manufactured goods and also part assemble, or completlely assemble bits from elsewhere to serve the globalised capitalist world system that still exists, and service industries to support this will continue to expand. This is not just driven by the US although it certainly is a major consumer. There is the still expanding EU, as well as the oil producing nations that are seeing a windfall right now. Then the huge emerging consumer markets of India and China are not self sufficient in production of the manufactured good they need and they also import part assembled products to complete. Unless one sees the world consumer/industrial economy totally collapsing Thailand will continue in the short term to produce in the urban areas like it does now. As time progresses Thailand will probably move up the ladder in terms of the skills in what it manufactures or part manufactures, and the percentage of service industries will increase. We should also remember that at the moment the industrial areas of Thailand are growing in both size and number of workers driven by demand.

Personally I do not see an irreversible world system collapse and inevitable move to an "agrarian utopia". However, even if I were wrong about the collapse (and none of us can predict the future), I do not see any harmonious mass movement back to farming happening. The days of small scale agrarian production as viable are gone. imho. I also think that technology needs fitting into any future ideal and in the proposed scenario it seems singularly missing. I still have not seen anyone answer the question of how high yield and sturdier GM crops will affect farming in the future.

Anyway. This has to be one of the most interesting threads on these boards whatever our differnces. maybe jusy maybe we will get to see or at least get an inclination of what will actually happen in our own lifetimes.

[Plus]

Well, i have neither been brought up in the US, nor in Japan, but in Europe. Fortunately the talk of "special mission" and "social units" and similar concepts belong in Europe to the past, a very dark past indeed, during WW2.

Social engineering is not that visible in Europe, true. It's most noticable when it fails. Check this week headlines - Jack Straw, former British Foreign Minister, advocates ban on muslim women covering their faces. The reason is they look too different, they don't fit (in their engineered model). Same story was in France last year, and then it ended in Arab riots (that eventually spread over half a dozen countries). The reason was the same - they don't fit in with French traditional values. Muslim riots in England were only a couple of years ago. Turkey is not welcome in EU because it's incompatible with core, Christian EU values that are supposed to be shared by everyone.

So, no, it wasn't just in Hitler's Germany that people were forced to comply and be like everyone else. The US does a better job at that - it's called a melting pot for a reason - you go in and you lose your identity, become American.

the poor having access to funds from the national budget does not mean "plundering" the country - it means development with the aim of a more egalitarian society with equal opportunities for all.

Gramin bank in Bangladesh that just got the Nobel prize - yes, Thaksin's village fund - no. He basically unlocked banks' doors and invited everyone in to grab as much as they can. "Development" and "equal opportunities" is what they put in their glossy brochures about their Dear Leader. I don't think you actually believe this propaganda.

On the topic - Thailand is projected to face a serious shortage of labour in a couple of years, and it's not only cheap Burmese builders. They need engineers, they need chemists, they need qualified people. I don't know if they can manage educating all those useless farmer sons, but the demand is there, and the reward would be a nice, middle class life for them. I think Thailand has almost passed the urban slums stage, certainly past the peak, which is a very good, promising sign.

[Plus]

strictly hirarchal feudal system in which the individual's place is in serfdom to the ones born in a higher rank according to your religious and ideological concepts.

Thank you, but we differ here enormously, and i personally have not a single Thai friend who would agree with you ideas.

Don't put words like serfdom in my mouth, and that I prescribe it for everyone. However, independently of what I, or you, want for them, there are millions of Thais who are quite happy being in what you call serfdom. Maybe you mean that "Isanese", the happiest Thais, are in fact free from any serfdom at all and always demand transparency and accountability from their village headmen and assorted pooyais. I don't know, that's news to me. The heart of serfdom culture, Isan, consistently shows highest "happiness quotent" of all country, and the freest region - Bangkok, consistently shows the lowest score. That has changed recently - after the coup, under martial law, and with tanks on the streets, Bangkok is finally almost as happy as Isan.

I don't know how you can deny existence of a strict hierarchial system in Thailand - it's pretty much the first thing people notice when they come here. Or maybe you mean that the system is here but people really hate it. I don't know, that's news to me, too. I've been saying all along in thise thread that there's no social tension in Thailand, people generally accept the status quo - whether it's Thaksin or the coup, they don't care, it's just change of masters, and as long as they have their masters, they are happy.

Giles Ungpakorn, btw, got himself in the papers again. I learned that he actually established a political party, and he's got whooping 200 members. Not many takers for socialism, I gather.

About econimic demand for qualified labour it's good not just for the economy, but for democracy as well. They need middle class, they have to have a strong, mature society built around shared values, before they let people choose what to do with their lives. The trick is that once indoctrinated, people won't make wrong choices anyway. Communists knew this trick, Saddam Hussein knew this trick, and Americans have learned it better than anyone. I suppose you heard of Chomsky.

[Plus]

Turkey's entry into the EU is very controversial because of its appalling human rights record, and not because of a lack of "Christian values".

I don't know how you can deny that threat to Christian values is one of the main reasons against Turkey's assesssion. Read this, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_...kish_membership

If you believe that Thailand has passed the urban slums stage, then you really should get out once in a while and have a look at your surroundings.

I said Thailand is past the PEAK in slum growth. I know my surroundings very well, thank you. I live in a middle class mooban, certainly not the most expensive in this area, and whichever way I drive from here North, South, East, West - there are dozens and dozens of new housing estates, all middle class, being built. There are new private schools, with bilingual programs being opened everywhere - we are spoilt for choice for our kids. I drive about a hundred kilometers a day - endless moobans, no new slums. Old slums are still there, true, but they are not growing.

Edited October 14, 2006 by Plus

[Ijustwannateach]

I have provisionally cleaned up this topic and reopened it. If there is any move towards discussion of popular support of the monarchy, yellow shirts, or government censorship, I will close the topic and assign appropriate warnings. If there is any gloating or taunting or namecalling I will also hand out warnings and holidays, if necessary. The topic is Thailand's ECONOMY.

"Steven"