Foreign Investors Remain Uncertain About Nominee Status

[womble]

I take issue with the thoughts in:

"Whether foreign investment rules are ridiculously restrictive and should be relaxed - of course they are and should be."

I would contend that there is nothing ridiculous about a country making a decision not to sell its soul for a mess of pottage.

Of course, countries that have done so under the 'leadership' of Thatcher and Reagan will use any power they have to get you to follow suit.

Thomas L. Friedman, in his book 'The Lexus and the olive tree' calls it "putting on the Golden Straitjacket".

Thailand tried it for size, starting around twentyfive years ago and got one of the sleeves inside out. Hence the famous, though necessarily elliptical, speech about being satisfied with sufficiency in late 1997.

The election of 2001 resulted in Thaksin getting the power to try it again, but then it was seen what that would lead to. So various groups (for various different reasons) used whatever came to hand (mainly corruption and the Shin sale) to push Thaksin out of the driving seat.

The bottom line is that outside money (derived by China from selling consumer goods to Americans for money they haven't got but is paid for them by the US Government issuing T-bonds, and by Middle East countries pumping out oil) would like Thailand to put itself into that 'Golden Straitjacket'.

But Thailand, as a country, doesn't need to.

Hopefully, (having got rid of the younger and brasher), wiser and older counsels will now prevail; and outside money will be spurned.

Guess you're going home then...

Sometimes he sounds like he's a Thai himself.

Allbeit one in the dark ages.

Yes, it had crossed my mind. I guess he will be "spurning" other evil foreign invading items, such as oil, cars, computers, phones etc. etc.

Have we found the Thai equivelent of an Amish??

Not sure, but he'll have to live his Thai Amish life outside of Thailand as non Thai's wouldn't be welcome in the community.

Edited November 11, 2006 by womble

[LaoPo]

It sounds like the example owners are not 100% Thai but more like Chinese-Thai. I have nothing against Chinese-Thais. Some of them are extremely kind people with high morals but there is a lot of totally heartless scum around who are only interested in the money and treat their employees worse than they treat their dogs.

One of the problems with this country is that it is ruled and run by Chinese-Thais.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be a solution for this problem.

Bahtbox

1. Aren't there any other 'heartless scum' ethnic groups ?

2. Take away the Chinese-Thai and what do you get ? If Thailand wasn't run by them it would still be in the stone age and worse off than it's now.

JR Texas:

You said it very well. Unfortunately we all know that...but does the government listen ?

I hope I'm completely wrong when I say that nothing will change dramatically for the better with this, hmmmmmm........transit-period-government.

Thailand needs brilliant leaders, top-educated and with a heart for their own (poor) people, but above all, with an open eye for the declining economy and therefore, take:

ACTION NOW !

LaoPo

[faranginbkk]

2. Take away the Chinese-Thai and what do you get ? If Thailand wasn't run by them it would still be in the stone age and worse off than it's now.

If we look at the 'real' ownership, behind the scene, I suppose Indians may control 10 %?, Japanese 10 %?, Farang 20 %?, Chinese(-Thai) 40 %?.....then what's left for the Thais themselves..

I have no idea if this is correct....just a thought.....

[womble]

2. Take away the Chinese-Thai and what do you get ? If Thailand wasn't run by them it would still be in the stone age and worse off than it's now.

If we look at the 'real' ownership, behind the scene, I suppose Indians may control 10 %?, Japanese 10 %?, Farang 20 %?, Chinese(-Thai) 40 %?.....then what's left for the Thais themselves..

I have no idea if this is correct....just a thought.....

No it's not correct.

[h5n1]

i agree w/ most if not all that has been posted - but you guys aint gettin' it...

thailand remains nothing more than a cash-cow, luxury resort and whorehouse replete with serving staff (class). it remains in the top 20% ruling class (CHINES, petty monarchy, faux vip's and govt lackeys) to keep thailand as it is. therefore nothing will change -

a nation never changes based on the benevolence of its ruling elite, it comes from below and thais are politically undemanding and do not have any inclination toward education and sacrifice.

cambodia is a perfect example of this writ large - sadly, it has returned to its ugly past and does not seem all that different than post ww2 pre-vietnam era. those that have all, and they rest that have nothing. come to think of it not all that different than amerikkka.

ps: do not discount chinese factor in all this, home and abroad

Edited November 11, 2006 by h5n1

[Dakhar]

Facts are

China: large cheap hardworking population with large numbers of English speaking qual grads and skilled people + cheap low skilled labour

Malaysia: excellent English, relaxed foreigner investment laws (eg anyone can buy property over 250,000 RM), political stability (one party rule means no "Malaysia love Malaysia" party!) and a government that invest massively in IT (MSC has very relaxed laws on foreign investment). Proton though was Dr M.'s baby and they want to get rid of it! Oil industry (Petronas) is virtually run by foreigners as Malaysia knows that locals are not up to the job (not enough dynamic skilled managers to fill all the posts).

Singapore - begs foreigners to come in! 5 year PR is easily available BEFORE getting a job if you have a Masters degree or equiv experience. You can even get a passport after 3 years easily! They know more foreigners = more wealth for Singaporeans. They have their heads screwed on right! And they speak fluent English

Vietnam - waking upto the fact that foreign investment = more wealthy for Vietnam. No "Vietnam loves Vietnam" nonsense their either.....

India: millions of English speaking graduates. IT is flooded with IT grads from India and most are of good enough quality

Thailand: worst almost non-existent English pool of grads/workers. Most grads have Thai only degrees of "dubious quality" even when compared with other SE Asian countries. "Thai loves Thai" party represents feeling that "foreign = evil" among rural population. Anti investment laws and lack of political stability. No government strategic view on economic development holds back capital investment - Thailand seems content to be the low tech manufacturer eg clothes. Anti foreign investment laws - its illegal to do almost any job! WP/visa rules are just plain stupid. Malaysia gives 3 year work permits with Gold ID card that allows fast transit via imi at airports WITH NO STAMPING OR STUPID "RE ENTRY VISA"

Now where would you invest? Thailand at bottom of the list on every count (English/qual grads/capital investment/work permits-visas/...............)

I bow to your wisdom

[Geppis72]

1. Aren't there any other 'heartless scum' ethnic groups ?

2. Take away the Chinese-Thai and what do you get ? If Thailand wasn't run by them it would still be in the stone age and worse off than it's now.

JR Texas:

You said it very well. Unfortunately we all know that...but does the government listen ?

I hope I'm completely wrong when I say that nothing will change dramatically for the better with this, hmmmmmm........transit-period-government.

Thailand needs brilliant leaders, top-educated and with a heart for their own (poor) people, but above all, with an open eye for the declining economy and therefore, take:

ACTION NOW !

LaoPo

You right ! We all know... but nobody from upstairs wants to listen...

I'm reading and reading and feel a bit of frustration too .

BUT

Come on guys, just try to think positive... it could be a good chance ... who knows....

Personally I'm a bit depressed, but I want / must be positive.

I will move to LOS in march 07 and big ?? head because I'm in the same situation of many who has the Co. and House (set up back more then a year ago with saved money) and wants come there for work and live there, not more in Italy. Unfortunately under 50....

Dear Mr Minister :

We Want Work

We Want Pay Tax

We Want help

We Like you

We will do all necessary to be good...

Why not ?

Please allow us to do it !

Good Luck everybody !

Hopefully Christmas time delivery presents.....

[JR Texas]

1. Aren't there any other 'heartless scum' ethnic groups ?

2. Take away the Chinese-Thai and what do you get ? If Thailand wasn't run by them it would still be in the stone age and worse off than it's now.

JR Texas:

You said it very well. Unfortunately we all know that...but does the government listen ?

I hope I'm completely wrong when I say that nothing will change dramatically for the better with this, hmmmmmm........transit-period-government.

Thailand needs brilliant leaders, top-educated and with a heart for their own (poor) people, but above all, with an open eye for the declining economy and therefore, take:

ACTION NOW !

LaoPo

You right ! We all know... but nobody from upstairs wants to listen...

I'm reading and reading and feel a bit of frustration too .

BUT

Come on guys, just try to think positive... it could be a good chance ... who knows....

Personally I'm a bit depressed, but I want / must be positive.

I will move to LOS in march 07 and big ?? head because I'm in the same situation of many who has the Co. and House (set up back more then a year ago with saved money) and wants come there for work and live there, not more in Italy. Unfortunately under 50....

Dear Mr Minister :

We Want Work

We Want Pay Tax

We Want help

We Like you

We will do all necessary to be good...

Why not ?

Please allow us to do it !

Good Luck everybody !

Hopefully Christmas time delivery presents.....

JR Texas (51, USA, in China now): Virtually every country I can think of has a ruling elite--the men and women who stand at the top of the corporate-political-military triangle of power. They normally comprise about 1% of the population. And they own/control 99% of the country's wealth (old news....C.Wright Mills wrote about this decades ago and Pres. Eisenhower in USA alluded to it in the late 50s). They have a tremendous amount of power and influence.

Thailand is no exception. The ruling elite in Thailand (no....I am not talking about the King here who I think is the best person in Thailand) control the press. Thailand has no freedom of the press. It has been this way for years now. The press is designed to entertain the masses and keep them ignorant of reality and to make good and obedient consumers out of them (same in USA).

They do not, I think, want competition because they know they simply can't compete. The Chinese, among others in the region, would crush them in any competition. They can't compete because their education system is less than stellar (gross understatement...trying to be a bit kind). And any person who knows anything about Thailand knows that Thai people, in general, lack imagination and creativity. They are not even very good at copying ideas. This is related to an education system that does not promote freedom of thought.

They are extremely afraid: afraid of change; afraid that they will lose some of their power and wealth, afraid the world will see them as they really are; afraid the "game" will finally come to an end; afraid the masses will "open their eyes." They like things as they are. They live lives that most of us can't even imagine.

Change does, of course, happen. It always does. But that change does not normally lead to a dismantling of the corporate-political-military triangle of power. The only thing that normally happens is that one "talking puppet" takes the place of another.......the "game" continues....the status quo is maintained. It is like going from Coke to Pepsi and proclaiming massive change.

But I think that this time the status quo must change. The new govt. has a fantastic opportunity to bring Thailand into the 21st century. Thailand has much that foreigners find appealing. It could attract trillions of baht in investment dollars. The economic pie could become much larger. Literally millions of jobs could be created. Poverty could start to be alleviated. And the existing elites could make even more money.....lots more.

A win-win situation can be created. I hope they will search for it. I hope they will implement it. And I hope they do it soon.

[Thaible]

it remains in the top 20% ruling class (CHINES, petty monarchy, faux vip's and govt lackeys) to keep thailand as it is.

um, who did you just call "petty"?

Edited November 12, 2006 by Thaible

[sting01]

A win-win situation can be created. I hope they will search for it. I hope they will implement it. And I hope they do it soon.

For all the reasons you already gived it will not happend.

Yet, the world tendance is to the conservative, less and less countries take creative road (I think since the euros introduction nothing new was given to the mass.

Worst, since 25 years, any revolution who happened in the world have not give a single iota of freedom to people, but simply cut more freedom to them. I will simply named a 'neutral' exemple : the iranian revolution who indeed kicked a bloody tyrant (the shah) but installed a very reactionist (spelling) or narrow minded system (I do not judge on the religion, but I do judge on how progressive elements are systematically removed).

Here we are in the sabai sabai country. I will take an exemple, I (untill last friday) worked as freelancer, earned my money but have to work to have that money (logicall), on the same time the gf was chatting (MSN, yahoo), and was earnig the same amount of money or more just by chatting with horny middle aged foreigners. Even if the gf have a master, why the hel_l she would think to go to find a job and stay in a office and earn 4/5 or maybe 10 times less than when rip off the farangs??????

Any reason for her to change?

Saddly, I do believe the whole Thailand have those values : as long as it pay, as long as we can lay on the back and get some money while doing near to nothing, then life is just perfect.

On a personal note, I do not think I will persue that relationship of 2 years, I am affraid one day I will be weak, will not have the strenght to go to work and decide to rely on the gf money (50 k a month is enougt to have a correct life). On a general note, I think the big business will not pursue HEAVY investment in Thailand; heavy beng the key word. It will still be investment here, because it's kinda a tradition, there is human factors that attract people mind ... But it will be small investment, for exemple why invest heavily in equipment here if in case of problem (such as 2 MRT trains that collide) will be at the end your responsability (still can argue people where badly trained, but not people are incompetent ....)in the best case, in the worst the investment will be simply taken away from you without counter part. So even for big business, the actual saying is simply : do not invest more than you can afford to loose.

[thaigene2]

The thing that worries me most is that this is not one of those typically ill-thought out Thai trial-balloons.

I think (IMHO) that they are determined to get rid of any foreign competition and they're starting with the resident farangs...all designed to eliminate the competition for the thai-chinese.

Look at the Tesco nonesense. You simplyneed to ask yourself who stand to benefit when this sort of crap starts appearing since you can bet mom and pop store owners have not organizaed this.

Have a look at CP Group (owners of 7-11 chain - ironically a 'foreign' brand isn't it?) and some of the other rich thai-chinese familyrun companies for potential suspects.

Plan an exit strategy thanks to JR Texas and the others for the info about other nearby countries we can relocate.

[Steph1012]

The thing that worries me most is that this is not one of those typically ill-thought out Thai trial-balloons.

I think (IMHO) that they are determined to get rid of any foreign competition and they're starting with the resident farangs...all designed to eliminate the competition for the thai-chinese.

Look at the Tesco nonesense. You simplyneed to ask yourself who stand to benefit when this sort of crap starts appearing since you can bet mom and pop store owners have not organizaed this.

Have a look at CP Group (owners of 7-11 chain - ironically a 'foreign' brand isn't it?) and some of the other rich thai-chinese familyrun companies for potential suspects.

Plan an exit strategy thanks to JR Texas and the others for the info about other nearby countries we can relocate.

Think you're right and we should start hitting em where it hurst. No more money transfers.

[Thaitim0077]

The reason the (Rich) 'Ruling elite' keep out foreign investors, and benefit to the thai working class, blue collar and 'poverty base' population (90% of folks) is that they don't want to lose their power over the people they currently can enslave. Thai firms only employ family members in senior roles, and so the super money is kept in the family. The poor stay poor, and are made poorer to be exploited for labour, illegal or military activities, and of course are expendilble for vote buying, or blame when things go wrong for one 'boss' or another.

Foreign investment, business and infrastructure would raise millions out of poverty, into

education, and then a generation or two from now these people will be middle classed, with middle class values, sharing their wealth with the poor, raising the cost base and living standards for the country. Then the difference between rich and poor will be less, and the people who rule Thailand won't be as powerful as they are now. Of course.. they hold on to power to milk the blood of the thai population. Question is, how long can they continue to do this whilst neighbouring countries are growing and modernising. With the rich spending their money overseas and limitied money coming in.. wonder how long they can continue to enjoy their power. They will of course wait til the last minute to give any up.

[bkkandrew]

I take issue with the thoughts in:

"Whether foreign investment rules are ridiculously restrictive and should be relaxed - of course they are and should be."

I would contend that there is nothing ridiculous about a country making a decision not to sell its soul for a mess of pottage.

Of course, countries that have done so under the 'leadership' of Thatcher and Reagan will use any power they have to get you to follow suit.

Thomas L. Friedman, in his book 'The Lexus and the olive tree' calls it "putting on the Golden Straitjacket".

Thailand tried it for size, starting around twentyfive years ago and got one of the sleeves inside out. Hence the famous, though necessarily elliptical, speech about being satisfied with sufficiency in late 1997.

The election of 2001 resulted in Thaksin getting the power to try it again, but then it was seen what that would lead to. So various groups (for various different reasons) used whatever came to hand (mainly corruption and the Shin sale) to push Thaksin out of the driving seat.

The bottom line is that outside money (derived by China from selling consumer goods to Americans for money they haven't got but is paid for them by the US Government issuing T-bonds, and by Middle East countries pumping out oil) would like Thailand to put itself into that 'Golden Straitjacket'.

But Thailand, as a country, doesn't need to.

Hopefully, (having got rid of the younger and brasher), wiser and older counsels will now prevail; and outside money will be spurned.

Guess you're going home then...

Sometimes he sounds like he's a Thai himself.

Allbeit one in the dark ages.

Yes, it had crossed my mind. I guess he will be "spurning" other evil foreign invading items, such as oil, cars, computers, phones etc. etc.

Have we found the Thai equivelent of an Amish??

Not sure, but he'll have to live his Thai Amish life outside of Thailand as non Thai's wouldn't be welcome in the community.

Well one thing seems to have happened and that is no comment from the aformentioned Amish Thai. It appears that he has, indeed, spurned his evil, foreign invented computer

[Martin]

In post #98, 'JR Texas' said:

"But I think that this time the status quo must change. The new govt. has a fantastic opportunity to bring Thailand into the 21st century. Thailand has much that foreigners find appealing. It could attract trillions of baht in investment dollars. The economic pie could become much larger. Literally millions of jobs could be created. Poverty could start to be alleviated. And the existing elites could make even more money.....lots more."

Fortunately, or unfortunately, (and we can argue our prejudices for evermore over which!), the time has passed when that could have been possible.

We are now at the waning stage of the Great Consumerist Age. The resources that allowed it to happen (very cheap bulk exosomatic energy and easily-mined ores) have gone from the scene.

As a greatgrandfather, my interest is in considering how my grandchildren and great-grandchildren's generations will manage the descent from the consumption peak that has been climbed in my lifetime. (And as a mountaineer, I always warned less-experienced climbers that the descent phase needs a lot more thought and care than the ascent).

[bkkandrew]

In post #98, 'JR Texas' said:

"But I think that this time the status quo must change. The new govt. has a fantastic opportunity to bring Thailand into the 21st century. Thailand has much that foreigners find appealing. It could attract trillions of baht in investment dollars. The economic pie could become much larger. Literally millions of jobs could be created. Poverty could start to be alleviated. And the existing elites could make even more money.....lots more."

Fortunately, or unfortunately, (and we can argue our prejudices for evermore over which!), the time has passed when that could have been possible.

We are now at the waning stage of the Great Consumerist Age. The resources that allowed it to happen (very cheap bulk exosomatic energy and easily-mined ores) have gone from the scene.

As a greatgrandfather, my interest is in considering how my grandchildren and great-grandchildren's generations will manage the descent from the consumption peak that has been climbed in my lifetime. (And as a mountaineer, I always warned less-experienced climbers that the descent phase needs a lot more thought and care than the ascent).

Er, you also said: "Hopefully, (having got rid of the younger and brasher), wiser and older counsels will now prevail; and outside money will be spurned."

Can you make up your mind...???

[Robski]

In post #98, 'JR Texas' said:

"But I think that this time the status quo must change. The new govt. has a fantastic opportunity to bring Thailand into the 21st century. Thailand has much that foreigners find appealing. It could attract trillions of baht in investment dollars. The economic pie could become much larger. Literally millions of jobs could be created. Poverty could start to be alleviated. And the existing elites could make even more money.....lots more."

Fortunately, or unfortunately, (and we can argue our prejudices for evermore over which!), the time has passed when that could have been possible.

We are now at the waning stage of the Great Consumerist Age. The resources that allowed it to happen (very cheap bulk exosomatic energy and easily-mined ores) have gone from the scene.

As a greatgrandfather, my interest is in considering how my grandchildren and great-grandchildren's generations will manage the descent from the consumption peak that has been climbed in my lifetime. (And as a mountaineer, I always warned less-experienced climbers that the descent phase needs a lot more thought and care than the ascent).

There's playing devils advocate Martin and then there's playing the batty old toff who's spent a life-time cocooned in privilege, you seem to do the latter much better.

For the absolute rich it doesn't matter who is in power, their interests will always be taken care of, from your lofty heights politics, it would seem, are cake crumbs that the majority fight over, keeping them distracted, while the men of power get on with what they do best.

Fact is though old bean your opinion is going down like a lead balloon.

Wether you see it as the end of an era or not, normal people still need to get on with their daily lives with some degree of certainty for the future.

Your obvious contempt for people struggling in poverty represents the vileness of human nature.

[bkkandrew]

In post #98, 'JR Texas' said:

"But I think that this time the status quo must change. The new govt. has a fantastic opportunity to bring Thailand into the 21st century. Thailand has much that foreigners find appealing. It could attract trillions of baht in investment dollars. The economic pie could become much larger. Literally millions of jobs could be created. Poverty could start to be alleviated. And the existing elites could make even more money.....lots more."

Fortunately, or unfortunately, (and we can argue our prejudices for evermore over which!), the time has passed when that could have been possible.

We are now at the waning stage of the Great Consumerist Age. The resources that allowed it to happen (very cheap bulk exosomatic energy and easily-mined ores) have gone from the scene.

As a greatgrandfather, my interest is in considering how my grandchildren and great-grandchildren's generations will manage the descent from the consumption peak that has been climbed in my lifetime. (And as a mountaineer, I always warned less-experienced climbers that the descent phase needs a lot more thought and care than the ascent).

There's playing devils advocate Martin and then there's playing the batty old toff who's spent a life-time cocooned in privilege, you seem to do the latter much better.

For the absolute rich it doesn't matter who is in power, their interests will always be taken care of, from your lofty heights politics, it would seem, are cake crumbs that the majority fight over, keeping them distracted, while the men of power get on with what they do best.

Fact is though old bean your opinion is going down like a lead balloon.

Wether you see it as the end of an era or not, normal people still need to get on with their daily lives with some degree of certainty for the future.

Your obvious contempt for people struggling in poverty represents the vileness of human nature.

I will put it more bluntly (and I have politely reasoned with him in previous posts), he is simply a moron and lives in a cocoon of unreality. I cannot be bothered to have any further discourse with him and hope that his computer suffers a similar elderly malfunction...

[apalink_thailand]

As trade and investment consultants, we have put on hold any projects involving invesment into Thailand with the exception of JV's. We are now turning our attention to Vietnam for SEA investment opportunities. Thailand better wake up before they realise that everybody has left the party and it will be almost impossible to ever gain back confidence of foreign investors. What a shame.

[JR Texas]

As trade and investment consultants, we have put on hold any projects involving invesment into Thailand with the exception of JV's. We are now turning our attention to Vietnam for SEA investment opportunities. Thailand better wake up before they realise that everybody has left the party and it will be almost impossible to ever gain back confidence of foreign investors. What a shame.

JR Texas (51, USA, in China now): Reply to Apalink Thailand: I think your comment is something that the govt. needs to pay attention to because your views no doubt represent the norm among a growing tide of current and potential investors.

Given the lunatic visa/business rules and regulations and negative attitude of the govt. towards foreigners, it is hard for me to understand why any sane individual or sound company would invest one baht in Thailand.

Thailand is mentally locked inside a 19th century socio-economic box. Foreigners tell them where the "key" is, but they ignore them. "You don't understand........you are not Thai." That is the typical Thai reply when a simple solution is put forth to address a simple problem.

Yes, you are correct Apalink T., they must wake up. Thailand needs a great leader to step forward and remove the darkness of ignorance that is damaging the country. That leader must find a way to create a more humane, equitable and environmentally sound Thailand.

I am in China now. When I look at Thailand from over here--in a place where foreigners are warmly embraced, where visa/business rules are regulations are sound, and where economic growth is skyrocketing--the immortal words of of Woody Allen come to mind: "Excuse me, I'm due back on planet earth."

[Martin]

Earlier, I had prepared the posting below, but had to go out to a funeral in a nearby village before I got it put up. Now I see there is another posting that deserves a considered reply. I will try to get to that a bit later.

There has been a suggestion that my advocacy of Thailand being cautious not to get beholden to foreign capital indicates that I might have Amish roots.

I would be proud to have them, if I had (see http://www.800padutch.com/amishshooting.shtml), but I don’t.

On both my Mother’s side and my father’s side, my roots are in ‘tribes’ that practiced semi-sufficiency with semi-specialisation in semi-urban communities. That is quite different from the rural, near-total sufficiency, system of the Amish.

My mother came from West Yorkshire Weaver stock and my father came from North Yorkshire Iron Ore Mining and Blast Furnaces stock.

A quarter of a millennium, or eleven generations, ago a man called William Brown brought his family away from living by self-sufficiency mixed farming plus farmhouse-based wool spinning and weaving in the Yorkshire Dales to live in semi-specialisation between Bradford and Leeds.

He took farmland on which the family could do what they had done before, plus producing milk and retailing it to industrial workers who weren’t able to keep their own cow.

Some of his descendants continued that until just two generations ago, when the land produced its final crop---houses.

Others of his descendants took jobs, or built up small businesses, in and around Bradford and Leeds. But most continued to keep a link with semi-sufficiency via part-time food gardening and/or animal husbandry.

One of my greatgrandfathers was a college teacher. But he also had a woodyard and a team of horses. When not teaching, he (with other family members) would haul in trees and cut them up into lumber and from some of the lumber they would fashion the various parts of wooden wheelbarrows. There is a family story of my greatgrandmother being interviewed on her eightieth birthday and putting together a wheelbarrow for the young reporter to show him how it was done. I can just remember her and the last vestiges of the woodyard, but what I best remember were the pigs and poultry and vegetables and homing pigeons kept by my uncles who were a builder, a teacher, a carpenter, and a plumber. And the vestiges of its former use as a weaving loft in my bedroom.

My father’s folk had jobs as iron-ore miners, or steelworkers at Skinningrove Iron and Steel Works, but also went out doing inshore fishing in the North Sea and kept pigs, poultry and homing pigeons in little holdings on the slope between the mine and the steelworks.

Obviously, in both my mother’s girlhood community and my father’s boyhood community, the wage incomes were at the mercy of ‘The Market’, but the business capital wasn’t borrowed on, and at the mercy of, the ‘Foreign Exchange’ and the partial-sufficiency element was impervious to both.

We Western-centrics seem to tend to simplify our understanding of the Thailand economy into just being the hyper-urbanisation of Bangkok, and the industrialization of the Eastern Seaboard, by urban drift from Ban Nork.

But also there was that famous speech of 1997 (when that economy looked to have come unstuck), from somebody who gets around Thailand much more than any of us.

It could have been prompted by insight into the fact that Thailand has much more diversity that could be harnessed into acceptable lifestyle, if and when globalisation runs out of the ability to (cheaply) make steam.

It may be that the thinking behind the subject of this thread is that Thailand would do better in the long run if Thai business would look more to home-grown capital and less to flighty foreign capital.

That makes sense to me, since I see us as being at the peak of industrialism and consumerism and globalisation.

In descending from that peak, and from ‘Hubbert’s Peak’, and from the aquifer-water peak, and from the availability-of-virgin-forests peak, we are likely to go through some of the phases that we passed through coming up. One of those was the building up of Thailand’s ability to make for itself some of what it had previously had to import. That was National-Scale Partial Sufficency and needs to be given attention again.

As to question as to whether I am going home, I am at a loss to answer, since I am at home.

[womble]

Ok, so now it all makes sense..............

[JR Texas]

Earlier, I had prepared the posting below, but had to go out to a funeral in a nearby village before I got it put up. Now I see there is another posting that deserves a considered reply. I will try to get to that a bit later.

There has been a suggestion that my advocacy of Thailand being cautious not to get beholden to foreign capital indicates that I might have Amish roots.

I would be proud to have them, if I had (see http://www.800padutch.com/amishshooting.shtml), but I don’t.

On both my Mother’s side and my father’s side, my roots are in ‘tribes’ that practiced semi-sufficiency with semi-specialisation in semi-urban communities. That is quite different from the rural, near-total sufficiency, system of the Amish.

My mother came from West Yorkshire Weaver stock and my father came from North Yorkshire Iron Ore Mining and Blast Furnaces stock.

A quarter of a millennium, or eleven generations, ago a man called William Brown brought his family away from living by self-sufficiency mixed farming plus farmhouse-based wool spinning and weaving in the Yorkshire Dales to live in semi-specialisation between Bradford and Leeds.

He took farmland on which the family could do what they had done before, plus producing milk and retailing it to industrial workers who weren’t able to keep their own cow.

Some of his descendants continued that until just two generations ago, when the land produced its final crop---houses.

Others of his descendants took jobs, or built up small businesses, in and around Bradford and Leeds. But most continued to keep a link with semi-sufficiency via part-time food gardening and/or animal husbandry.

One of my greatgrandfathers was a college teacher. But he also had a woodyard and a team of horses. When not teaching, he (with other family members) would haul in trees and cut them up into lumber and from some of the lumber they would fashion the various parts of wooden wheelbarrows. There is a family story of my greatgrandmother being interviewed on her eightieth birthday and putting together a wheelbarrow for the young reporter to show him how it was done. I can just remember her and the last vestiges of the woodyard, but what I best remember were the pigs and poultry and vegetables and homing pigeons kept by my uncles who were a builder, a teacher, a carpenter, and a plumber. And the vestiges of its former use as a weaving loft in my bedroom.

My father’s folk had jobs as iron-ore miners, or steelworkers at Skinningrove Iron and Steel Works, but also went out doing inshore fishing in the North Sea and kept pigs, poultry and homing pigeons in little holdings on the slope between the mine and the steelworks.

Obviously, in both my mother’s girlhood community and my father’s boyhood community, the wage incomes were at the mercy of ‘The Market’, but the business capital wasn’t borrowed on, and at the mercy of, the ‘Foreign Exchange’ and the partial-sufficiency element was impervious to both.

We Western-centrics seem to tend to simplify our understanding of the Thailand economy into just being the hyper-urbanisation of Bangkok, and the industrialization of the Eastern Seaboard, by urban drift from Ban Nork.

But also there was that famous speech of 1997 (when that economy looked to have come unstuck), from somebody who gets around Thailand much more than any of us.

It could have been prompted by insight into the fact that Thailand has much more diversity that could be harnessed into acceptable lifestyle, if and when globalisation runs out of the ability to (cheaply) make steam.

It may be that the thinking behind the subject of this thread is that Thailand would do better in the long run if Thai business would look more to home-grown capital and less to flighty foreign capital.

That makes sense to me, since I see us as being at the peak of industrialism and consumerism and globalisation.

In descending from that peak, and from ‘Hubbert’s Peak’, and from the aquifer-water peak, and from the availability-of-virgin-forests peak, we are likely to go through some of the phases that we passed through coming up. One of those was the building up of Thailand’s ability to make for itself some of what it had previously had to import. That was National-Scale Partial Sufficency and needs to be given attention again.

As to question as to whether I am going home, I am at a loss to answer, since I am at home.

JR Texas (51, USA): Reply to Martin: I think you might agree that Thailand has gone too far in one direction......that it has, in fact, been too cautious in opening up its economy to foreign investment. That is one major reason, in my view, that so many people (the vast majority) are poor and not very well educated. Perhaps there is a middle ground that would be better for Thailand in the long run--not totally open and not totally closed.

You are correct that human beings are not on the road to 21st century sustainability. We are unraveling all of the life systems of the planet (air, water, soil, living biota). But we have a serious problem to deal with: over 6 billion people and still growing. Over half of them live off less than 2 US dollars per day. And now we have the largest number of young people that have ever existed on the planet, all wanting to be American-like over-consumers and over-producers.

Something has to change. But we can't stop economic growth. That would doom the vast majority of the world's population to a life of misery. What is necessary is to find a way to meet the growing economic demands in an environmentally sound manner. How? Simple.........start reducing population growth worldwide (not one politician is even talking about it outside of China) and commit to the development and deployment of a totally new energy system that will allow us to meet our material needs in an environmentally sound manner. Of course, massive recycling and tree planting are also necessary.

Yes, global population growth rates are falling. But I am talking about a massive, rapid and radical reduction. We do not have the luxury to wait another 100 years to reach sustainable population levels.

It is something we can do. But it will take political leadership.......something that we do not have worldwide. But change is a constant.........

"Keep a fire burning in your eye, pay attention to the open sky, you never know what will be coming down."

--Jackson Browne

[Robski]

Earlier, I had prepared the posting below, but had to go out to a funeral in a nearby village before I got it put up. Now I see there is another posting that deserves a considered reply. I will try to get to that a bit later.

There has been a suggestion that my advocacy of Thailand being cautious not to get beholden to foreign capital indicates that I might have Amish roots.

I would be proud to have them, if I had (see http://www.800padutch.com/amishshooting.shtml), but I don’t.

On both my Mother’s side and my father’s side, my roots are in ‘tribes’ that practiced semi-sufficiency with semi-specialisation in semi-urban communities. That is quite different from the rural, near-total sufficiency, system of the Amish.

My mother came from West Yorkshire Weaver stock and my father came from North Yorkshire Iron Ore Mining and Blast Furnaces stock.

A quarter of a millennium, or eleven generations, ago a man called William Brown brought his family away from living by self-sufficiency mixed farming plus farmhouse-based wool spinning and weaving in the Yorkshire Dales to live in semi-specialisation between Bradford and Leeds.

He took farmland on which the family could do what they had done before, plus producing milk and retailing it to industrial workers who weren’t able to keep their own cow.

Some of his descendants continued that until just two generations ago, when the land produced its final crop---houses.

Others of his descendants took jobs, or built up small businesses, in and around Bradford and Leeds. But most continued to keep a link with semi-sufficiency via part-time food gardening and/or animal husbandry.

One of my greatgrandfathers was a college teacher. But he also had a woodyard and a team of horses. When not teaching, he (with other family members) would haul in trees and cut them up into lumber and from some of the lumber they would fashion the various parts of wooden wheelbarrows. There is a family story of my greatgrandmother being interviewed on her eightieth birthday and putting together a wheelbarrow for the young reporter to show him how it was done. I can just remember her and the last vestiges of the woodyard, but what I best remember were the pigs and poultry and vegetables and homing pigeons kept by my uncles who were a builder, a teacher, a carpenter, and a plumber. And the vestiges of its former use as a weaving loft in my bedroom.

My father’s folk had jobs as iron-ore miners, or steelworkers at Skinningrove Iron and Steel Works, but also went out doing inshore fishing in the North Sea and kept pigs, poultry and homing pigeons in little holdings on the slope between the mine and the steelworks.

Obviously, in both my mother’s girlhood community and my father’s boyhood community, the wage incomes were at the mercy of ‘The Market’, but the business capital wasn’t borrowed on, and at the mercy of, the ‘Foreign Exchange’ and the partial-sufficiency element was impervious to both.

We Western-centrics seem to tend to simplify our understanding of the Thailand economy into just being the hyper-urbanisation of Bangkok, and the industrialization of the Eastern Seaboard, by urban drift from Ban Nork.

But also there was that famous speech of 1997 (when that economy looked to have come unstuck), from somebody who gets around Thailand much more than any of us.

It could have been prompted by insight into the fact that Thailand has much more diversity that could be harnessed into acceptable lifestyle, if and when globalisation runs out of the ability to (cheaply) make steam.

It may be that the thinking behind the subject of this thread is that Thailand would do better in the long run if Thai business would look more to home-grown capital and less to flighty foreign capital.

That makes sense to me, since I see us as being at the peak of industrialism and consumerism and globalisation.

In descending from that peak, and from ‘Hubbert’s Peak’, and from the aquifer-water peak, and from the availability-of-virgin-forests peak, we are likely to go through some of the phases that we passed through coming up. One of those was the building up of Thailand’s ability to make for itself some of what it had previously had to import. That was National-Scale Partial Sufficency and needs to be given attention again.

As to question as to whether I am going home, I am at a loss to answer, since I am at home.

Total sanctamonious self agrandising BS, can you get a thread of your own, pleeeeeeeeease.

Thailand is the whorehouse of the world, it's people are proud but downtrodden, it is the short term interests of corruption that rule here, the fear of losing the quick buck is keeping out large scale foreign investment, how is that going to do anything but make the situation worse for the majority?

[Martin]

Re post # 107: I do not see myself as playing ‘devil’s advocate'. Whether the present administration are ‘devils’ motivated by evil, or not, is something that I have simply no insight into.

Some who post on here seem to feel that they can judge. But I remember the saying: “When Peter tells us what he thinks of Paul, we learn much about Peter and maybe naught about Paul”.

Nor have I lived a life cocooned in privilege, though I did go to school amongst some who were. I was a scholarship boy at a school that my parents could never have afforded to send me to as a paying pupil. I hated it, as its ethos was: “We train you to privilege and to go forth and bully the native peoples of the Colonies.” However, my father persuaded me that, if ever I was to do anything on behalf of the downtrodden against the downtreaders, I should regard my attendance at that school as an invaluable opportunity to “Learn To Know Thine Enemy”.

Subsequently I careered around the world as an electrical and electronics engineer and as a technical-college teacher.

But I do know something firsthand about semi-sufficiency.

My late wife and I decided that we would bring up the children on a small mixed farm on which we would be semi-self-sufficient. Small mixed farms were by then hopelessly economic in the UK, so I funded it for 11 years by working as an engine driver. It was only a stationary engine, but it was nuclear and a million horsepower so the engine drivers’ pay was quite good.

All people would like to ‘get on with their lives with some degree of certainty in the future’, but it just is not possible. The only certain thing about the future is that it is uncertain. However, there are ways of reducing some of the risk, and they all start with looking realistically at the state we are in and taking steps to avoid, or at least reduce, the biggest risks.

I recommend the reading of the US Government’s ‘Hirsch Report’. It doesn’t tell us anything that we didn’t know about the fact that we have drifted into over-dependence on more exosomatic energy than will be available, but it does give an excellent dissertation on Risk Assessment and the costs of being prematurely pre-emptive versus the effects of not being pre-emptive early enough.

What lies at the bottom of the debate on this thread is the quite-common contraindications given by extrapolating an existing trend and those given by addressing an emerging issue.

There has been a trend established that sucking in foreign capital allowed a developing country to build up its manufacturing industry faster than it could have done on home-country capital alone. Thailand did that well a couple of decades ago on largely Japanese capital that came and brought with it assured markets for the outputs of the automobile industry.

Unfortunately, there came to be additional Western capital looking to invest here and that merely created a speculative bubble in property.

My reservation about the prospect of foreign capital again flowing into Thailand is based on my belief that there is little prospect of increased manufactured exports finding customers.

The trend occurred because, with oil at US$20 per barrel, Westerners had money to spare for consumer goods. With oil at US$50 per barrel, and higher from time to time, the Westerners won’t have spare money for the importation of consumer goods. Therefore that trend is near its end.

(And it is not just the Westerners’ heating bills hat are going up. Even worse is the effect of energy prices on the price of food, since all the inorganic fertilizer uses natural gas and oil for its production and distribution. Wheat futures are already up by 40%.)

The emerging issue is that countries like Thailand, which can produce food without large amounts of fertilizer provided there is more labour available, have a way of counterbalancing the loss of manufactory orders.

But making such a turnaround is fraught if it means that people have to turn from complete dependence on one specialism to complete dependence on a different one. Having partial sufficiency would make the change less fraught.

Finally, I am defeated by trying to see how what I have written indicates that I have ‘contempt for people struggling in poverty’.

I am on their side, and opposed to any who contribute to making their struggle harder.

[bkkandrew]

Ok, so now it all makes sense..............

Hmm, makes my head spin to think about how strange the guy is. Especially his contradictions...

Possibly the biggest contradiction of all is his inability to understand that under his own rules and standards, HE DOES NOT BELONG HERE! He croaks on about how foreign capital, influence etc. should be "spurned", yet does not put 2 and 2 together to get that he is a foreign influence on this country and (presumably) brought some foreign capital with him. The irony is delicious, he is part of the cause of the (alleged ) problem he has identified.

He actually doesn't need to be part of this (or any other) thread. He could run one just by himself, contradicting himself at every turn, blaming himself for issues he discovers. What fun that thread would be.!

In the mean time, perhaps you could give us a break with your family trees, history of Yorkshire etc. etc. This is, after all Thai Visa, not the Cleegthorps Working Man's Club!

Oh, and his link doesn't work (stop laughing at the back, I was not referring to his "link" to the real world that time, I actually meant his URL in his post 111...

Edited November 13, 2006 by bkkandrew

[Robski]

Finally, I am defeated by trying to see how what I have written indicates that I have ‘contempt for people struggling in poverty’.

I am on their side, and opposed to any who contribute to making their struggle harder.

So how is your grand vision going to better the position of the majority living in poverty in thailand? answer that in two paragraphs or less.

no I shouldnt encourage you.

It's like some crypto communist rice economy your talking about, spurning foreign investment equals disengaging from the world economy, you are contemptuous of the people that you think should be understanding enough to support your vision, the rural workforce.

Year zero anyone?

[Martin]

I think that this thread is about whether companies in Thailand should be genuinely majority-owned by Thai nationals. Shouldn’t the Thai nationals amongst the owners be putting up, and risking, at least 51% of the capital? That was the policy that was decided on, in the past. It seems to be recognized that, in more recent times, this policy has been circumvented by the use of nominees. So it has been possible for a dangerously-large inflow of foreign capital to occur and cause a speculative bubble that has ultimately burst. My view is that the present administration is right to take steps to avoid that risk.

I have no grand vision of economics. The grand (i.e. rampant) visions of communism, socialism, and capitalism have all ended up doing more harm than good when immoderately pursued. However, a country that combines the strengths of its communities, society, and personal accrued capital can develop itself comfortably, provided (as JR Texas says) its population does not grow to exceed its capacity to feed and house its populace. So, to me, it makes sense for Thailand to be cautious about foreign capital and spurn excess offerings. Building family enterprises (that include partial sufficiency in urban, semi-urban and rural settings) and public companies from the bottom up seems, to me, to be less risky nowadays than building from the top down by capitalizing new companies with money from abroad.

[JR Texas]

Finally, I am defeated by trying to see how what I have written indicates that I have ‘contempt for people struggling in poverty’.

I am on their side, and opposed to any who contribute to making their struggle harder.

So how is your grand vision going to better the position of the majority living in poverty in thailand? answer that in two paragraphs or less.

no I shouldnt encourage you.

It's like some crypto communist rice economy your talking about, spurning foreign investment equals disengaging from the world economy, you are contemptuous of the people that you think should be understanding enough to support your vision, the rural workforce.

Year zero anyone?

JR Texas (51, USA, in China): Reply to Robski and Martin: I think it is time for a fight....in the ring, Robski vs Martin. What you are both saying is interesting. You are sitting on the opposite side of a fence. I think both of you are correct.

On one side of the fence: We need more self-sufficiency to get people out of the system (that alleviates the labor supply problem) and reduce stress on the life systems of the planet (if they act like environmentalists and consume less).

Problem: We have too many people and not enough land. And most people do not want to live that type of life in the 21st century. In fact, they are struggling hard to move away from it because it is linked to poverty.

On the other side of the fence: We need more economic growth to stimulate job creation and get people out of poverty. The last thing we need is to create another Year Zero event.

Problem: The globalization of the economy and attendant economic growth is leading to the dismantling of the life systems of the planet. We have too many people who are not benefiting from the system. Economic inequality is increasing worldwide. Environmental damage is increasing worldwide. More of the same will destroy us in the long run (environmental destruction, more social chaos, war, ethnic violence).

Is there a solution? Is their some type of socio-economic arrangement that would result in a win-win situation for both of you? I think so (e.g., a mixed type of economic system that gives people more choices), but is that really something that should be discussed here?

I think the main question on this thread has to do with Thailand's current investment climate. Are foreigners reluctant to invest in Thailand? Why are foreigners reluctant to invest in Thailand? What changes could the new govt. take to create a positive investment climate?

Under the present circumstances, I would not invest one baht in Thailand.

[Gary A]

I suppose there are some people here who are genuinely concerned about poverty in Thailand, BUT, most of the "investors" are here to line their own pockets. Since they live in the farang ghettos, how do they even know what the country people look like or what conditions they live with? They are NOT doing a service for Thailand, only for themselves. And what is wrong with that? Nothing, it's simply capitalism. The simple fact is that many generations of Thai people have lived like this for longer than most of our home countries have existed. They will continue to get along whether we are here or not. Everywhere in the world the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. What makes Thailand unique is that there is plenty to eat. Rice is plentiful and the poor Thai Buddhists are a generous people. I live in a poor area of Issan and I have never seen anyone go hungry. They DON'T care what the wealthy politicians and greedy crooks in Bangkok are doing.