Yingluck targeted with Bt36-bn asset seizure order

[icare999]

11 hours ago, trainman34014 said:

 

The VOA weren't in our village where many of the older people who couldn't read or write were led into the polling booth and given 100 Baht for putting their thumbprint on a certain place.   Don't be fooled by what you read, get out there and see things for yourself.

only fools dont know what goes on here in Taksins areas it almost makes UK hundreds of years ago seem honest 

[nong38]

Why would anyone want to run for office, when you leave thats when things really come out of the woodwork. Best to go to Big C, have an ice cream, go home and watch some ghost drama on the tele, have a few beers and go to bed, tomorrow, same again.

[jayboy]

 
Similar scheme to what other countries? Off budget, huge losses, no parliamentary reporting? Let us have just one example to support your casual lie.

The trouble is that he is correct and you have simply ignored the painstaking explanations provided to you.In any event it is unacceptable that any view you don't share is dismissed as a "casual lie".

Few people believe that the scheme was sensible or effective, yet you have failed to retain any sense of proportion - so sadly you come across as demented.

Incidentally without wishing to patronise you need to be politely reminded that all subsidies are in some sense losses.The massive US soya subsidies - which aren't scrutinised to any degree - involve massive "losses".

[baboon]

3 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

just curious about the status of any of the past military coup leaders.  How are they doing?  How much money do they have?  How much money did they have before they took over the country? 

General Suchinda Krapayoon is one. Unpunished and doing well enough for himself and family,  God bless him. Google is your friend...

Edited October 10, 2016 by baboon

[jamesbrock]

8 hours ago, Alive said:

Thank you for posting those links Eric. There are people who like to push that bs about the suicides. 

 

There are, and it's sick.

 

Thailand's suicide rate is (depending on the source) 11.4 per 100,000 population/per year. At a population of 67,000,000 that makes 7638 suicides in an average year, or 147 per week.

 

Again, depending on the source, roughly 40% of the population (26,800,000) work on agriculture, most of them farming rice. So if one assumes a conservative estimate of 20,000,000 rice farmers—based on the suicide rates above—on average, 2,200 rice farmers commit suicide each year, or 42 per week.

 

As the stats, and the article that Eric linked to, the reasons for suicide are many and varied, but the fact that people still use these suicides as fodder for their obsessive agenda against the shincrims is sick. One could argue that since only 13 rice farmers committed suicide in "the past few weeks"—a number way below average—the rice pledging scheme was actually a life saver...

[billd766]

10 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

 

There are, and it's sick.

 

Thailand's suicide rate is (depending on the source) 11.4 per 100,000 population/per year. At a population of 67,000,000 that makes 7638 suicides in an average year, or 147 per week.

 

Again, depending on the source, roughly 40% of the population (26,800,000) work on agriculture, most of them farming rice. So if one assumes a conservative estimate of 20,000,000 rice farmers—based on the suicide rates above—on average, 2,200 rice farmers commit suicide each year, or 42 per week.

 

As the stats, and the article that Eric linked to, the reasons for suicide are many and varied, but the fact that people still use these suicides as fodder for their obsessive agenda against the shincrims is sick. One could argue that since only 13 rice farmers committed suicide in "the past few weeks"—a number way below average—the rice pledging scheme was actually a life saver...

 

The rice scheme may well have been a life saver for rice farmers assuming that they were all treated equally which they weren't. There were still rice farmers who had not been paid for the rice that they had delivered right into 2013 because quite simply there was NO money to pay them with.

 

The PTP was running the rice scheme at a deficit and relying on the rice sales to pay the bills. However selling the rice at world market prices 40 to 50% less than you paid for it, then adding on the storage and transport charges too means that it was and still is sold at a massive loss which the Thai taxpayer has to make up for.

 

It was designed as a revolving scheme and would have worked perfectly IF Thailand was the only supplier of rice in the world and IF they could have sold the rice at the prices that Thaksin (the originator of the scheme) wanted for the rice.

 

In reality Thailand effectively priced itself out of the market and every other rice exporter stepped in to fill the gap by expanding their exports. Another reason is that the PTP accepted "every grain of rice" (their words and not mine) and the quality didn't matter. The result of that is that Thailand's good name for quality rice suffered also.

 

The PTP created a surplus of rice in unsuitable warehouses and a shortage of good quality rice in the market place.

 

And people still say that Thaksin is a brilliant businessman. He may be with his own money if he sets the playing field but not in real life.

[jamesbrock]

No one is arguing the merits of the scheme. What most of us are arguing is this vindictive, malicious money grab by the junta.

 

29 minutes ago, billd766 said:

because quite simply there was NO money to pay them with.

 

But the junta suddenly created enough money to buy subs and high speed trains?

[billd766]

49 minutes ago, jamesbrock said:

No one is arguing the merits of the scheme. What most of us are arguing is this vindictive, malicious money grab by the junta.

 

 

But the junta suddenly created enough money to buy subs and high speed trains?

 

When there is a government in power they are allowed to borrow money. A caretaker government is not.

 

I am not sure where the budget came from to buy the submarines (which to my knowledge have not yet been ordered and paid for) but the money for the high speed train system is still bogged down in arguments about the rate of interest that Thailand wants to pay versus the rate that China wants.

 

The PTP were going to borrow 2 or 3 Trillion baht, off budget also to buy a high speed train system, or so they said. Now why would they want that kept off budget I wonder?

[tbthailand]

On October 10, 2016 at 6:15 AM, Intensified said:

 

 

My gut reaction is that one way or other other she is going down, and ultimatly she'll end up with or like her brother, the longer it takes 

 

the more she'll have sqiurreled away.

Of course she is going down. That has been the plan all along.

 

It ticks me off that they could have actually nailed Thaksin for something that he did and then voted him out of office, but instead, they first had a coup and then nailed him for something that they made-up out of thin air. 

 

With Yingluck, they only have the option to fabricate "crimes"... since that is what they do best, it's gonna work out just fine for the junta.... 

[jamesbrock]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

When there is a government in power they are allowed to borrow money. A caretaker government is not.

 

I am not sure where the budget came from to buy the submarines (which to my knowledge have not yet been ordered and paid for) but the money for the high speed train system is still bogged down in arguments about the rate of interest that Thailand wants to pay versus the rate that China wants.

 

The PTP were going to borrow 2 or 3 Trillion baht, off budget also to buy a high speed train system, or so they said. Now why would they want that kept off budget I wonder?

 

"When there is a government in power they are allowed to borrow money." 

 

"government" 

[yellowboat]

On 10/10/2016 at 0:30 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

But being elected and then handing all power and decision making to your criminal brother is o k? Acting illegally is o k?

 

 

Are you talking about good party manners or the legality of letting her brother contribute to her administration ?  Is it against the law for her to speak to her brother at anytime she so chooses ?

[yellowboat]

19 hours ago, halloween said:

Ok, let's take 2 clearly corrupt actions, issuing a passport to her fugitive brother and allowing him access to cabinet meetings. Who is going to investigate complaints and present the case to a court? Tarit and the DSI? the AG? Nobody?

Many governments consult with criminals.  To this day, Dick Cheney will not tell anyone if he was consulting with Enron.  Sorry, but if wish to defy the wishes of the average Thai person in favor of the wealthy elite,   you will get very little in the way of kind words from anyone on this forum. 

[halloween]

1 hour ago, yellowboat said:

Many governments consult with criminals.  To this day, Dick Cheney will not tell anyone if he was consulting with Enron.  Sorry, but if wish to defy the wishes of the average Thai person in favor of the wealthy elite,   you will get very little in the way of kind words from anyone on this forum. 

Who said anything about 'consulting'? And who made you an expert on the wishes of the 'average Thai person'?

In most countries, allowing outsiders access to cabinet deliberation information is a crime. allowing them to make policy decisions goes far beyond that.

[halloween]

17 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

The trouble is that he is correct and you have simply ignored the painstaking explanations provided to you.In any event it is unacceptable that any view you don't share is dismissed as a "casual lie".

Few people believe that the scheme was sensible or effective, yet you have failed to retain any sense of proportion - so sadly you come across as demented.

Incidentally without wishing to patronise you need to be politely reminded that all subsidies are in some sense losses.The massive US soya subsidies - which aren't scrutinised to any degree - involve massive "losses".

You continue to post this BS, but refuse to offer any subsidy anywhere funded off budget and without parliamentary oversight. With you the lies aren't casual, they are expected along with the standard insults.

To suggest that US crop subsidies are not passed by congress, and that there are no oversight committees, sounds like pure tripe. Of course subsidies are losses, but where are they losses of such a large percentage of GDP?

[yellowboat]

3 hours ago, halloween said:

Who said anything about 'consulting'? And who made you an expert on the wishes of the 'average Thai person'?

In most countries, allowing outsiders access to cabinet deliberation information is a crime. allowing them to make policy decisions goes far beyond that.

 

First off, you are in favor of the coup, and the taking away the populace's right to vote?  The hardly makes you a champion of the average Thai.   "In most countries...."  Does that include Thailand ?

Edited October 11, 2016 by yellowboat

[billd766]

4 hours ago, jamesbrock said:

 

"When there is a government in power they are allowed to borrow money." 

 

"government" 

 

It really doesn't matter what you, I or anybody else on TVF thinks or says.

 

They ARE the de facto government and strangely enough most countries in the world accept that as a fact. They may not like it but they do.

 

Accept it as a reality and learn to live with it and work around it if you can. Millions of Thais do on a daily basis. Not every Thai likes this government in the same way that not every Thai liked any of the Thaksin governments but they learned to live with it.

[jayboy]

You continue to post this BS, but refuse to offer any subsidy anywhere funded off budget and without parliamentary oversight. With you the lies aren't casual, they are expected along with the standard insults.
To suggest that US crop subsidies are not passed by congress, and that there are no oversight committees, sounds like pure tripe. Of course subsidies are losses, but where are they losses of such a large percentage of GDP?

Actually there's very little real oversight of the subsidies in either the US or Japan given the over mighty farming lobbies.The Thai scheme though also flawed did have decent redistributive objectives.

Frankly your comments on the Thai scheme are becoming absurd especially when there is common agreement on its shortcomings.You now have started babbling about GDP percentages - apparently oblivious that the macro impact on theThai economy was not that significant.

[halloween]

On 12/10/2016 at 0:07 AM, jayboy said:

 

Actually there's very little real oversight of the subsidies in either the US or Japan given the over mighty farming lobbies.The Thai scheme though also flawed did have decent redistributive objectives.

Frankly your comments on the Thai scheme are becoming absurd especially when there is common agreement on its shortcomings.You now have started babbling about GDP percentages - apparently oblivious that the macro impact on theThai economy was not that significant.
 

 

 

"decent redistributive objectives" which it comprehensively failed to meet - what was the figure, 17%(?) paid to farmers. Many of us believe the STATED objective was a sham to buy votes, and the real intention was once again for crony companies to rake in huge sales commissions.

You are the one who relates this to other countries subsidies, all of which seem to have parliamentary approval.  Why is mentioning relative GDP percentages  of the rice scam compared to the others you want to mention irrelevant? Because you can't find one anywhere close to the same percentage size?

[nausea]

On 10/10/2016 at 5:45 PM, khunpa said:

Properly not relevant, but I think she is cute :-)

Yeah, I agree. They'll have a big problem screwing this woman to the base line. 

[jayboy]

 
"decent redistributive objectives" which it comprehensively failed to meet - what was the figure, 17%(?) paid to farmers. Many of us believe the STATED objective was a sham to buy votes, and the real intention was once again for crony companies to rake in huge sales commissions.
You are the one who relates this to other countries subsidies, all of which seem to have parliamentary approval.  Why is mentioning relative GDP percentages  of the rice scam compared to the others you want to mention irrelevant? Because you can't find one anywhere close to the same percentage size?

What motives you happen to suspect are neither here nor there, particularly as you are a fanatic on this matter and do not even pay lip service to objectivity.You seem to be dense as well as badly informed - particularly your insane suggestion the scheme was to "buy votes" the PTP already had.

Once again - somewhat wearily - I repeat my agreement that the scheme was not successful in meeting.It was ill conceived and poorly managed.

Forgive me but when I last checked the Yingluck government had a democratic mandate.Please do some basic research on the US and other countries agricultural subsidy systems before commenting further.The massive EU subsidy programme has no parliamentary approval and precious little scrutiny.

The GDP issue is certainly to be considered but it is not the most relevant nor the most important factor.It's not even clear that in Thailand's case it was in the long term particularly significant.

[ianf]

On 10/10/2016 at 9:48 AM, yellowboat said:

These actuations run rampant but even VOA says her election was an honest one.  And yes she was elected by the masses, so she does have political power and it grows everyday.  The rice pledge was a really bad idea as was the coup.  The coup has done far more harm than good to the average Thai, even compared the rice scheme.   The only difference is the elected are being unfairly prosecuted, while the unelected are well beyond justice of any kind. 

 

Funny that. Most Thais I speak to have been supportive of the current government.