Yingluck in tears over Bt35-bn civil damages

[smutcakes]

 

6 minutes ago, robblok said:

Again avoiding what i said.. nothing new there.. going from the rice program to coups... 

 

Maybe its democracy that does not work here and the coups to set it right.. ever thought of that one  

 

But you seem to avoid what i said about farming not working and the need to change maybe because I am right and I know how much you hate that. 

 

Rob, the farming not working is not ground breaking, it is subsidized in pretty much every country in the world as it is not economically viable for the most part! That is hardly ground breaking!

 

Have you spoken to the EU, the Americans even perhaps your home country about your solution to the problem of agriculture subsisides? You seem to have missed your calling in life.

[jaltsc]

“It’s a lot of money.”

She realizes that 35 billion is a lot of money. They didn't waste their money on her Kentucky State University education.

 

I wonder if she can make the same statement in English.,

[robblok]

26 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

 

Rob, the farming not working is not ground breaking, it is subsidized in pretty much every country in the world as it is not economically viable for the most part! That is hardly ground breaking!

 

Have you spoken to the EU, the Americans even perhaps your home country about your solution to the problem of agriculture subsisides? You seem to have missed your calling in life.

If you look in other topics you will see I am against EU subsidies too. Its wrong for the taxpayer to pay for farmers while other sectors are not supported. If you don't change the way farmers work and if other countries can do it cheaper its just plain stupid. So either the farmers change or they have to keep on paying them off all the time. How come that certain farmers that went more natural away from fertilizer and pesticides do seem to sell at a profit ? There seem to be quite some farmers out that that do make money. Difference is they changed and adapted now you reward stupidity and rigidness. I don't see that as a good thing.. you obviously do. I believe in economics.. I have no problem helping sectors in hard times if they change but this has gone on for years.. decades even. 

[williamgeorgeallen]

3 hours ago, BuaBS said:

I'm in tears too ... that she got away with paying only 35 Bn THB . It should have been at least 5 times more.

I hope they are keeping an eye on her and not let her flee the country. And start to confiscation of her accounts & property.

i am fairly sure the armies goal is to get her to flee the country. she would probably win an election if a free and fair one was held tomorrow.  her money has already left the country. she may be facing jail time if she does not have the funds in thailand. they will let her go like they let her brother go. her private jet is probably on standby.

[robblok]

36 minutes ago, TheSiemReaper said:

 

That's your issue here. There is no such thing as a situation with the same variables as last time. Entropy dictates this (Einstein would have know that too - it's kind of important in physics).

 

That not-Einstein quote is part of what's responsible for a drunk driver thinking it's OK to drive home drunk. "Last time I didn't kill anyone, therefore this time I won't kill anyone."  It's a logical fallacy. The situation is always different from last time. Not killing anyone is not good judgement on the drunk's part; it's pure luck.

 

Confirmation bias, however, (which are you are a victim of too - which is why you think your quote is essentially wise - because it suits the story you are telling yourself) is what the drunk is victim to and we are all often a victim of that particular bias.

 

If you're a good accountant you will know that "past performance is not a reliable indicator of future returns". It is precisely because doing the same thing and expecting the same result is foolish. 

 

This is why your "wisdom" is trite. You're too sure of yourself and instead of listening and questioning you are trying to dictate to other people. An action which, in itself, rarely produces positive results even if you can find examples to the contrary. 

I disagree with you.. that drunk driver could have been more drunk.. there might have been more cars and so on.. not the same thing by a long shot.. not to mention that driving drunk is never a smart thing.

 

and as a good accountant i know that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future terms is because the situation can change.. they are not doing the same thing.. the market changes.. more competitors ect. 

 

Your examples make no sense because they are not the same.. here in this case the government is doing the same all the time the farmers don't change their methods of production, their sales channels and expect to be bailed out each time again. That is pretty much the same. 

 

I am real sure of myself that farming in Thailand needs to change if you look at its neighbors who can do better. No need to be an Einstein for that. 

 

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/thai-farmers-poorest-asean/ read and educate yourself.

Edited November 4, 2016 by robblok

[smutcakes]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

If you look in other topics you will see I am against EU subsidies too. Its wrong for the taxpayer to pay for farmers while other sectors are not supported. If you don't change the way farmers work and if other countries can do it cheaper its just plain stupid. So either the farmers change or they have to keep on paying them off all the time. How come that certain farmers that went more natural away from fertilizer and pesticides do seem to sell at a profit ? There seem to be quite some farmers out that that do make money. Difference is they changed and adapted now you reward stupidity and rigidness. I don't see that as a good thing.. you obviously do. I believe in economics.. I have no problem helping sectors in hard times if they change but this has gone on for years.. decades even. 

 

Perhaps you can show us those farmers who went away from fertlizer and pesticde making a profit? No doubt there are small niche markets that profit can be made. I presume the world over there are subsidies as food production is seen as a critical product for most countries, or at least a large ditch contigency shuld things go really pear shape.

 

 

[TheSiemReaper]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

I disagree with you.. that drunk driver could have been more drunk.. there might have been more cars and so on.. not the same thing by a long shot.. not to mention that driving drunk is never a smart thing.

 

and as a good accountant i know that past performance is not a reliable indicator of future terms is because the situation can change.. they are not doing the same thing.. the market changes.. more competitors ect. 

 

Your examples make no sense because they are not the same.. here in this case the government is doing the same all the time the farmers don't change their methods of production, their sales channels and expect to be bailed out each time again. That is pretty much the same. 

 

I am real sure of myself that farming in Thailand needs to change if you look at its neighbors who can do better. No need to be an Einstein for that. 

 

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/thai-farmers-poorest-asean/ read and educate yourself.

 

 

You think Thailand's neighbours do it better? You only need to turn to Cambodia (an absolute neighbouring state) to know that's not true. You're full of hot air old boy and your insights are trite and dogmatic. You seem incapable of actual thought; you're approaching this as though it were a religion rather than a science. 

 

You also completely failed to read the post I made. Which is why your disagreement is as infantile as it is. All situations change constantly. This is a fact. The impact of subsidies over time varies - if you don't know that - you need to hand back your accountancy qualifications and apologize to the people whose businesses you've "helped". You are not a rice farmer, you're not engaged in rice selling or production or distribution, you're a "know it all" without any actual knowledge. You have no proof of your assertion that this is "exactly the same" (which it cannot be - entropy again old chap, read up on it, very, very important). You're making stuff up to suit your argument and then basking in the glow of your own self-importance. Get over yourself already.

[elgordo38]

6 hours ago, dcnx said:

What she means is, her money isn't in Thailand, and good for her for being smart enough to keep the bulk of her assets in a stable and logical country. 

Might they be tears of joy because she moved her money out of the country. Yes the people still love her and might just pass the hat. 35 billion would need a mighty big hat. 

[elgordo38]

She might want to try "Go Fund Me"

[Goingmad]

6 hours ago, dcnx said:

What she means is, her money isn't in Thailand, and good for her for being smart enough to keep the bulk of her assets in a stable and logical country. 

What country would that be :) Agreed that her family is smart. Better she stay out of Politics.

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Your right.. those rules are not democratic.. but the PTP never acted democratic (only the voting part) so why moan that they get subjected to non democratic rules. 

 

Point me in the direction of a true democracy. My decades on this planet have convinced me there is none zilch nada. If we behave we are given certain freedoms. The media keeps us pumped up with BS and the Kardashians among others serve as a distraction. We are now reaching the choke point in time where big business wants to "come out of the closet" and really push us and their weight around. Its just the beginning of a 5 year cycle of upheavals and wars. 

 

Signed The Oracle of Chiang Mai

[Dustdevil]

4 hours ago, Cuchulainn said:

Starting to get sick sore and tired of this blubbering mess of an excuse for a human

I think you meant to post this on a Trump thread.

[robblok]

14 minutes ago, TheSiemReaper said:

 

You keep disagreeing because this is a religious thing for you. Thailand's neighbours are not ALL doing better than Thailand. Yingluck's subsidies would have looked very clever indeed if say a rice weevil had wiped out crops in India and China (and stranger things have happened - both bananas and bees are suffering wipe outs of a biological nature at the moment).

 

Thailand still has welfare. What do you think the 30 baht healthcare scheme is? What do you think free education is? What do you think road building, etc is? It's welfare. You throw Thai farmers out of work, they don't pay any tax, these programs suffer. You're so fixed on "proving" your argument that you're not looking beyond the end of your nose.

 

Your example sucks as do your other examples. In the end, without loss of production, the value of commodity products remains the same. Supply and demand. Changing who sells to whom - only puts someone else out of work at a direct cost to society. Same for any other change you make in the system. Le Chatelier's principle "systems always struggle to re-exert equilibrium" (paraphrased of course). 

 

"Experts"? I've never met an expert in anything. Experts freely admit their ignorance. They don't take up a position and try to prove it right; they try to examine why it might be wrong - because that enables learning. It's called the... wait for it... "scientific method". If you are incapable of carrying out the calculations - you're not an expert, whatever you might believe of yourself. 

 

You fail to read the link, we are talking here about growing rice, where did I say all ? If so I was wrong because it only showed 2 countries doing better in lower production costs and higher output per rai. That was what I am talking about.

 

YL her subsidie would have looked clever IF.. yea if my dad had tits he was my mom... but he is not is he. 

 

Welfare as in income from the state when your not working.. your trying to prove a point by taking things out of context. My point on welfare was made after an other poster said what should those farmers do.. so it was clear it was about welfare for income. Jeez get over yourself. 

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/welfare   (even the dictionary seems to point to what I am saying)

 

Mate the people who would be put out of work are rich rice miller.. surely they can suffer jeez... again your trying to make a point without looking at what is the problem here. 

 

I am no expert on rice and farming never said I was. I said it stupid to reward people who fail and fail to change. 

 

If you know anything about people they only change if they absolutely have to.. without some outside force people don't change (look it up educate yourself). By constantly shielding them they will never change and the situation will always stay the same. 

https://www.torbenrick.eu/blog/change-management/12-reasons-why-people-resist-change/

 

and i am an atheist.. so religion is a bad thing for me.. so I don't see this as a religion.. but hey you know me better of course.

Edited November 4, 2016 by robblok

[Baerboxer]

7 hours ago, dcnx said:

What she means is, her money isn't in Thailand, and good for her for being smart enough to keep the bulk of her assets in a stable and logical country. 

 

So you support money laundering - how nice of you. I'm sure you're right and no doubt those open and transparent banks will have checked the source of all her wealth.

[jcsmith]

25 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

Point me in the direction of a true democracy. My decades on this planet have convinced me there is none zilch nada.

 

Not to interrupt your conspiracy theory , but you don't see a difference between people having rights and freedoms which include free speech and the ability to vote, and between one where those rights are taken away? Yeah, there's no such thing in the world as a true democracy where everyone has a say in every single small decision made. But there is certainly a big difference between the democracies of the world and the junta rule we have now.

[ddavidovsky]

3 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

Except I didn't say that democracy was just about voting.I simply pointed out that Yingluck had a mandate from the Thai people.If that in your weird universe is a typical red reply, so be it.

Nobody argued that the rice price support policy was well conceived or executed - although the current government is doing something fairly similar.In both cases the objectives are the same - to help the disadvantaged.
 

 

 

The objective in the current case is to prevent revolution.

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, jcsmith said:

 

Not to interrupt your conspiracy theory , but you don't see a difference between people having rights and freedoms which include free speech and the ability to vote, and between one where those rights are taken away? Yeah, there's no such thing in the world as a true democracy where everyone has a say in every single small decision made. But there is certainly a big difference between the democracies of the world and the junta rule we have now.

 

And there is a big difference between democracies that have the rule of law, impartial justice and police who ensure elections are free from mass bribery, intimidation and where people are forced to vote for whom their told to vote or else. And a very big difference where elected governments think that means they are above and beyond the law, have the police in their pocket and allow the crook who owns their party to dictate all policies and select cabinets.

 

[Baerboxer]

29 minutes ago, TheSiemReaper said:

 

You keep disagreeing because this is a religious thing for you. Thailand's neighbours are not ALL doing better than Thailand. Yingluck's subsidies would have looked very clever indeed if say a rice weevil had wiped out crops in India and China (and stranger things have happened - both bananas and bees are suffering wipe outs of a biological nature at the moment).

 

Thailand still has welfare. What do you think the 30 baht healthcare scheme is? What do you think free education is? What do you think road building, etc is? It's welfare. You throw Thai farmers out of work, they don't pay any tax, these programs suffer. You're so fixed on "proving" your argument that you're not looking beyond the end of your nose.

 

Your example sucks as do your other examples. In the end, without loss of production, the value of commodity products remains the same. Supply and demand. Changing who sells to whom - only puts someone else out of work at a direct cost to society. Same for any other change you make in the system. Le Chatelier's principle "systems always struggle to re-exert equilibrium" (paraphrased of course). 

 

"Experts"? I've never met an expert in anything. Experts freely admit their ignorance. They don't take up a position and try to prove it right; they try to examine why it might be wrong - because that enables learning. It's called the... wait for it... "scientific method". If you are incapable of carrying out the calculations - you're not an expert, whatever you might believe of yourself. 

 

Yingluck's, well her brother's really, gamble was that either rice prices would go higher or he could manipulate the price by slowing supply. He failed to see that even the real experts can't manipulate markets when all conditions are adverse.

The reaction was to hastily conceal the accounts and forbid discussion about the losses whilst trying to push the 2.2 trillion loan through, keep it off books and away from scrutiny and then siphon off some to keep the scheme solvent. The poor almost non existent management of the scheme made matters worse as many in the chain sort to fiddle and exploit it.

 

Yingluck appointed herself chair of the scheme. but never chaired or attended meetings. Her brother and his mates presumably thought this would protect her as she could deny all knowledge. Ironically they created the Achilles heel by which she's now to suffer.

[jonclark]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

 

I gave a nice quote from Einstein.. totally ignored by you.. but that is what is happening.. the farmers dont change make a loss year after year and do the same all over again and expect different results. 

 

 

Rob you make a number of very fair points. 

 

But the issue is 'how' do the farmers make that change. If they have no cash, then it does make it very tough to change to something new - which crops, what machinery, equipment is required, what is the expected return, what is the market like, do supplies merchants exist.

 

And most importantly who is going to fund this great agricultural change with millions engaged in rich farming in some capacity, someone will need very, very deep pockets with no guarantee of profit for possibly some time. And if it fails ???

 

I totally agree with you that a change in the agricultural sector is required. But there needs to be a large push, backed up by cash, research and education to make this happen. I just feel the political words are there, but the will to make it happen is non existent. 

[Gary A]

I'm ALWAYS amazed at what a nasty bunch posters there are on TV. I'd like to see the elite thieves who actually stole the massive amounts of missing rice. Unfortunately the BIG thieves are too well protected and are among the elite. No one touches the big guys. Persecuting and prosecuting Yingluck is certainly not the way to unify the country. She did help the farmers and she was too ignorant and naive to see what was happening behind the scenes. What happened to the super thieves who made the big money? What about the government big shots who allowed rice grown in other countries to cross the borders to be sold to the Thai government under the scheme? There are plenty of wrongs to go around.

[Baerboxer]

Another dog and pony photo shoot. 

 

Well, when you have a photogenic stooge who is an accomplished actress why not? Boo hoo, woe is me. Wonder if she was doubled up with laughter like she was caught before after some crocodile tears.

 

Guess we can expect the usual ultra sympathetic sycophantic leave out the balancing facts BBC article saying how the adoring masses are rallying to support the poor impoverished persecuted billionaire Yingluck.

 

 

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, jayboy said:

 

 

You are aware that this was far from the first time off budget financing has been used - including Democrat administrations?

 

But you are right: the approach is unsatisfactory - and in the case of the rice price support sloppily administered and monitored.

 

You raise a very fair comment regarding the sustainability of the rice growing culture - but unless one takes a Stalinist line the answer can't be "just quit." There's a real discussion to be had here.

 

Where you made me splutter -given your otherwise sensible post - was your reference to farmers as a "violent bunch".Suffice it to say there is a violent force in Thailand dragging the country backwards and in my view heading for a fall - but it's not the farmers.

I would condemn any off budget financing.. if it was done by the army.. democrats or whatever. Its just not done. This was a huge off budget financing. 

 

Fact is Vietnam has double the output per rai and lower production cost even in Myanmar they have lower production costs. (see the link i posted). So its either change something or forever keep pouring money into the farmers. I just don't feel its the right strategy to keep pouring in money without changing things.  I also find it unfair to farmers that do change and adapt and get nothing while those that rigidly refuse to adapt because they get bailed out get rewarded. 

 

My reference as farmers as a violent bunch is because of the riots in BKK and my previous European encounter with militant farmers. So there might be some bias there. But in general farmers are not afraid to result to violence while normal office workers are in general far more docile. 

 

http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/thai-farmers-poorest-asean/

[robblok]

20 minutes ago, jonclark said:

 

Rob you make a number of very fair points. 

 

But the issue is 'how' do the farmers make that change. If they have no cash, then it does make it very tough to change to something new - which crops, what machinery, equipment is required, what is the expected return, what is the market like, do supplies merchants exist.

 

And most importantly who is going to fund this great agricultural change with millions engaged in rich farming in some capacity, someone will need very, very deep pockets with no guarantee of profit for possibly some time. And if it fails ???

 

I totally agree with you that a change in the agricultural sector is required. But there needs to be a large push, backed up by cash, research and education to make this happen. I just feel the political words are there, but the will to make it happen is non existent. 

 

I am not against helping the farmers change.. good loans.. help and so on. Setting up cooperatives and so on. I am against this senseless keeping things the same and poring money at it. I think the money wasted in the rice program would have been enough to finance it.

 

But your right money needs to be allocated.. else this will only get worse 

 

 

[djjamie]

She will not be getting any money from the poorest rice farmers. They were never eligible for the scheme. 

 

Poor farmers. They deserved better than her.

 

 

[david555]

Give it only a reminder that it is very easy to loose your money , condo , house in "lease" ,with a snap of the  " in power fingers " , In Thailand for farangs even quicker if enough   $$$ is available ...think..... those who find it a funny thing to loose some ones money ......Today this one ...tomorrow maybe you

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

All alledgedly in your opinion. Were the black shirts farmers? I thought the party line was they were Ronin warriors from elite army forces? Now they were Somchai the farmer?

Ill go with that.. i doub't they were the backshirts but I am talking about the other violent protesters.. quite a lot of pictures of those too. 

 

 

 

 

[smutcakes]

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

Ill go with that.. i doub't they were the backshirts but I am talking about the other violent protesters.. quite a lot of pictures of those too. 

 

 

 

 

 

I wish they were just sit back and let the army, judiciary, courts continue to trample accross their rights. Why can't they just bend over and take it. It was so much easier 50 years ago when they knew their place.

[Baerboxer]

6 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

No but it wil tell you which clan the largest majority of the population want to rule Govern them. If there are going to be crooks running a country, you ay as well let it be the crooks that people want.

 

You mean largest minority. 

 

Wrong. The current government, for all their ills are seemingly trying to change some things. The Shins would never have changed a system they could control and manipulate to suit themselves. And never did during their rule for most of this century.

 

Unless of course you don't mind a lying cheating crooked government that tries to ignore the law and claims it's all ok because they came from election?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Baerboxer

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

Surely every policy whether feasible or not is intended to get votes and to appeal to groups of persons that the party/candidate wants to vote for them? Essentially people will vote for policies which benefit them. Surely all policies based on tax etc which are aimed at groups of persons are 'vote buying'?

 

That is the thing.. in my country they can't promise things that are not feasible.. so if they buy votes.. they have to cut somewhere else (need to get the money somewhere) so you can't keep everyone happy.  

 

And yes your right in a way its all vote buying.. but in case of YL she kept the things off book because otherwise her budget deficit would have been too big and she would have had to scrap other policies and made people unhappy. 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

I wish they were just sit back and let the army, judiciary, courts continue to trample accross their rights. Why can't they just bend over and take it. It was so much easier 50 years ago when they knew their place.

 

An other coalition was formed.. perfectly legal.. they brought down a government with their protests and now they moan the yellows did the same.