The issue of rice subsidies, both past efforts and current ones have been in the news recently.   In your opinion, do you believe that it is a good idea to have the government guarantee rice prices, or do you believe it should be left to the markets to determine the price?

 

Please feel free to leave a comment.

 

For further reading, here are several links:

 

This is a general overview of how the system works:

 

 

The question incorrectly implies that Thai government action will affect either regional or world-wide rice prices.  Isn't going to happen.  On the other hand, it would seem reasonable if the Thai government provided financial support to rice farmers and other groups of the poor.....so long as it's limited to doling out cash per ton of rice grown (with a limit of "x" number of tons per farmer or company).  

 

Check out today's Bangkok Post (2nd page article titled "Rice Pledging Scheme Deja Vu") for an illuminating view of the expanding new scheme.

Yes the y should be involved in subsidizing rice and other crops but should do it differently.  They should pay the farmers up front to plant other crops than rice and not commit to buy it after it is harvested.  That way the price will remain high and the farmers will benefit.  Many other countries subsidize farmers in this way for not growing certain crops.

The problems with changing the crops that the rice farmers grow would be finding out initially what other crops can be grown using the current land, what crops would bring in a greater value to the farmer, whether the new crop can be sold without depressing the current market price of the crop and finding buyers, storage, customers etc for the new crop.

 

If that cannot be managed there is not much use in changing the crops.

 

Also during the change over period the farmers and their families will need to able to live, eat, send their children to school all without creating more debt.

 

This also has to assume that the farmers who are willing to take that step of crop changing actually own the land and are not simply renting it from somebody else. If it is owned by a landlord then the landlord might want to do it himself which would put the farmer and his family out of a job with no way of repaying their debts.

 

It also assumes that the farmers themselves are willing to give up the old ways and learn new ones. IMHO many of the older farmers aged 50+ probably wont or dont want to do that.

I'd agree that a limited amount of intervention can be useful, helping smooth the highs & lows in prices set by the market, but only if this were overall cost-neutral or relatively inexpensive to the public purse.

 

Attempts to rig or influence the world market-price are clearly foolish & doomed-to-failure, the world doesn't insist on Thai-rice, many consumers are price-sensitive and vote with their wallets. Sorry if this offends anyone here, who was raised to believe differently, but this is the reality of the situation.

 

The benefits should be tailored to reach the actual farmers, not just the millers or other middle-men, if at all possible.

 

Long-term the government should try to encourage higher-quality, perhaps more organic-rice or Hom Mali, as it has clearly been a disaster to set a high-premium on growing ordinary rice, farmers who planted rice then are now returning to other crops, in my village/area at least.

 

And if ever Thai prices are again significantly higher than world prices, then more effort must be made to block informal-imports from neighbouring countries, Thai government-subsidies should not be wasted on Burmese or Cambodian-grown rice !

Probably should rephrase this survey as there is no government

Just a ( definition here) trying to drive with no experience

 

Other than that....of course you cannot try to manipulate the free market

will always end in tears for those who try.

 

The whole rice deal is just progress as other lower earning countries fill the void

 

No different than what happened to large companies like C&H Sugar

Edited November 6, 20169 yr by mania

So, why the need to subsidize rice? The issue is not rice at its core. The issue is economic disparity and the need to address the poverty of regions outside Bangkok. Thus, the focus on rice, as most of Thailand's economically depressed people are the farmers of Isaan growing rice. What is needed in Thailand (and this can be applied to the rest of the globe) is to address the wealth gap. Use of subsidizing rice crops is not going to address the core issue. I do not propose that there is one "silver bullet" but rather state that the world's wealthy need to be finding the means to lesson the wealth gap before the whole pyramid collapses as unsustainable. Too bad that takes a long term vision and not a focus on immediate benefit. This issue is driving Brexit, the US Presidential campaign, the European growth of right wing nationalism, the acceptance of radical extremists due to the lack of any hope for the current way of doing things addressing the core issue. Rant over...for the moment.

This military government seems to be under some delusion that they are everything to all people when in fact they are not. In the case of rice growers they appear to be playing a dual role. They are trying to be the mothers milk of human kindness while at the same time be the military big brother and telling everyone what they should and should not be doing without doing anything themselves. This crisis has been coming for many years but all eyes have been shut because habits are entrenched.

 

If the government subsidise rice farmers, what about every other business venture that fails to make a profit

Does every one get a hand out

I theory easy no subsidizing at all, but in real life not so easy.

Even US subsidize rice (You wouldn't think ah?) 

Same for EU where farmers in France and son is protesting on the streets as soon as any one mention cutting down on this.

The agricultural sector is suffering from a world wide sickness. This is not an isolated Thai thing.

 

If you are paying tax is US read this and cry , this is a bottomless hole for taxpayers money.

https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends $25 billion or more a year on subsidies for farm businesses. The particular amount each year depends on the market prices of crops and other factors. Most agricultural subsidies go to farmers of a handful of major crops, including wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton. Roughly a million farmers and landowners receive federal subsidies, but the payments are heavily tilted toward the largest producers.

26 minutes ago, monkey4u said:

If the government subsidise rice farmers, what about every other business venture that fails to make a profit

Does every one get a hand out

If you want your economy to perform well then your people will need money to play a part, or I guess you could just shoot 25 million farmers as they all have failing crops. Do you not have subsidies in your home country?

In a way, the government got themselves to blame for the rice subsidies and all other subsidies including energy, electricity etc. It is every government social contract to assist the poor and narrow the income disparity. The disproportionate allocation of annual budget to mainly Bangkok and much much less to the poorer regions resulted in lesser opportunities for the farmers to do something else and stuck with only farming. The absence of spending on education and infrastructure for investments especially manufacturing leave no other alternative employment. If the government don't put much development emphasis in the farming provinces, we can expect subsidies to continue. 

1 hour ago, monkey4u said:

If the government subsidise rice farmers, what about every other business venture that fails to make a profit

Does every one get a hand out

 

Correct.. the farmers are only making 8,4% of the GDB but now get 127 billion.. while the annual healthcare budget is around 270 billion. Just to put it in perspective.. how a group that is not contributing so hugely gets a huge budget.. under YL it was even double.. the same as the health budget.

 

Only reason is because they are a large group and can swing votes. Just imagine in your home country if people on welfare become such a large group that they can say increase taxes and my welfare. The working who are paying it would not like it one bit.

 

Also in Thailand its just the farmers who get the handouts.. anyone else that loses his job has nobody to turn to. Just totally unfair.

 

If you look at Vietnam who has a double yield per rai.. that means Thai farmers have to change one way or an other. You can't just keep pouring money into it without any changes and expect it to get better. There is no reason for them to grow less rice as they get bailed out all the time so the oversupply keeps on. 

 

Help them, sure.. but help them and force them to change.. they were never forced to change and keep doing it their way.. and that clearly does not work. (see a decade of funding them).

I voted No but not really for the position stated.

 

I believe the government should consider strategic subsidies together with other forms of economic assistance BUT not as the only solution to a sustainable agricultural industry. And that's been the limit of the Prayut government and previous elected governments largely for the rice and rubber farmers.

 

The government needs to plan the means to lower production costs that provide for a reasonable profit and quit trying to manipulate the world market prices.  With three other major world rice producers, Thailand cannot succeed. But such a plan may require disrupting traditional and cultural farming techniques to advance the whole agricultural industry. That will create a plurality backlash that may be too difficult for any Thai government to brave.

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

If you want your economy to perform well then your people will need money to play a part, or I guess you could just shoot 25 million farmers as they all have failing crops. Do you not have subsidies in your home country?

 

Nobody else here gets a handout when they lose their job and they still survive.. why should farmers be the exception.. for over a decade they have been bailed out without changing their ways. (because they were always bailed out). Its just unfair. 

 

Funny 25 million farmers (if that is true) only account for 8,4 percent of the GDP (i looked it up).. seems strange. Also your 25 million seems a bit high. Assuming that of the 65 million people half are of working age.. that would mean farmers are hugely over-represented.. and that a smaller part of the populace is responsible for 90% of GBP while the larger part the farmers only 8,4%. 

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

I voted No but not really for the position stated.

 

I believe the government should consider strategic subsidies together with other forms of economic assistance BUT not as the only solution to a sustainable agricultural industry. And that's been the limit of the Prayut government and previous elected governments largely for the rice and rubber farmers.

 

The government needs to plan the means to lower production costs that provide for a reasonable profit and quit trying to manipulate the world market prices.  With three other major world rice producers, Thailand cannot succeed. But such a plan may require disrupting traditional and cultural farming techniques to advance the whole agricultural industry. That will create a plurality backlash that may be too difficult for any Thai government to brave.

 

The junta had a good chance to do it as they did not have to be popular.. but they also failed.. i see little hope for any one else as they all need votes and the farmers are just too powerful. 

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Correct.. the farmers are only making 8,4% of the GDB but now get 127 billion.. while the annual healthcare budget is around 270 billion. Just to put it in perspective.. how a group that is not contributing so hugely gets a huge budget.. under YL it was even double.. the same as the health budget.

 

Only reason is because they are a large group and can swing votes. Just imagine in your home country if people on welfare become such a large group that they can say increase taxes and my welfare. The working who are paying it would not like it one bit.

 

Also in Thailand its just the farmers who get the handouts.. anyone else that loses his job has nobody to turn to. Just totally unfair.

 

If you look at Vietnam who has a double yield per rai.. that means Thai farmers have to change one way or an other. You can't just keep pouring money into it without any changes and expect it to get better. There is no reason for them to grow less rice as they get bailed out all the time so the oversupply keeps on. 

 

Help them, sure.. but help them and force them to change.. they were never forced to change and keep doing it their way.. and that clearly does not work. (see a decade of funding them).

 

"Just imagine in your home country if people on welfare become such a large group that they can say increase taxes and my welfare. The working who are paying it would not like it one bit."

 

No need to imagine it.  That is the situation in the UK with the retired, aging population.  They are the growing large group, consuming pensions and most of the healthcare budget, who the working young are supposed to keep as pets.

 

Sorry for going off track, but it's the truth that nobody dares speak.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 6, 20169 yr by Enoon

48 minutes ago, robblok said:

 

Nobody else here gets a handout when they lose their job and they still survive.. why should farmers be the exception.. for over a decade they have been bailed out without changing their ways. (because they were always bailed out). Its just unfair. 

 

Funny 25 million farmers (if that is true) only account for 8,4 percent of the GDP (i looked it up).. seems strange. Also your 25 million seems a bit high. Assuming that of the 65 million people half are of working age.. that would mean farmers are hugely over-represented.. and that a smaller part of the populace is responsible for 90% of GBP while the larger part the farmers only 8,4%. 

OK I agree, no more subsidies for anything, this means the military must shut down today as they have never made a dime, no more roads built as the payments come from the people as a subsidy for the contractors, no bridges, no parks, no shipping ports, Airports, am I forgetting anything else. Do any of these people have to compete with a world market?

55 minutes ago, Grubster said:

OK I agree, no more subsidies for anything, this means the military must shut down today as they have never made a dime, no more roads built as the payments come from the people as a subsidy for the contractors, no bridges, no parks, no shipping ports, Airports, am I forgetting anything else. Do any of these people have to compete with a world market?

 

Your funny, how can you compare things that should make money with things that never going to make money. Talk about no arguments. I can bet you that Airports do make money. Roads.. are financed with road tax.. and unlike the farmers for everyone to use. Your missing the point. (on purpose)

 

 

Doesn't really matter as we have no vote and no say. So another survey for farang which is surplus to requirements. Can see the headline now

FARANGS VOTE TO END RICE SUBSIDY 

58% voted no ( out of how many votes)

5 hours ago, Brer Fox said:

This military government seems to be under some delusion that they are everything to all people when in fact they are not. In the case of rice growers they appear to be playing a dual role. They are trying to be the mothers milk of human kindness while at the same time be the military big brother and telling everyone what they should and should not be doing without doing anything themselves. This crisis has been coming for many years but all eyes have been shut because habits are entrenched.

 

I would find  reason to disagree. To my comprehension  this Government is  actually trying to remove  entrenchment. While  agreeing that as of the  moment they are in a position to  be  big brother they are actually  doing a great amount to encourage initiative in place of  entrenchment. Not the  mothers   milk but the slightly vineger  flavoured  mayonnaise to   enhance  the  real deal  meal of these times.

Rationality dictates that an immediate removal of  entrenched  dependencies instituted by previous authorities would  create  disasterous effects on  a massive population percentage firstly  economically and secondly  politically. 

For this/these reasons assistance  is  being  promoted  and  financially supported on the basis of productive  viability in place of open handed subsidies.

But while in the interim period a guaranteed price  for rice at whatever  quality is offered  at  close  to international  value there  is  also the encouraged suggestion  of alternatives to the  entrenched .

If  you  choose  to continue to  grow rice  then grow  high  quality/higher  value....... (exportable) if  you expect to have higher  income.

If  local  agents  are  not offering to  buy at  guaranteed prices  growers  are welcome to  bypass them .

Growers  are free to sell  to who ever. ( free  marketing which many have been  lead to considered  illicit).

Any  considerations of  upgrading  or  finding  alternatives can be  assisted on request from Government  Agricultural   sectors with assistive  funding possible.

The financial initiatives extended  to the  agricultural sector are  not  subsidies as  such  because  they do  not provide  for entrenched

dependency on bulk funding.

Unlike  many western countries there  is  no  question  of historical bulk agro funding  for   zero  production.

A manipulation that  few  comprehend  the  socio  economic abuse  that entails !

 

 

 

 

 

 

The subsidizing of rice is so politicized that it should be forbidden by all governments in the future.   

The USA has and does have all sorts of crop subsidy programs over the years.  It is hard to say how good or bad they have been.  Unfortunately, just like any program that pays out monies, there are always people and groups that try to take advantage of the programs.  The less forthcoming and publicly open the subsidy programs are, the more abuse is likely.  

Eradicate the family smallholding and the replacement is an alternative welfare system  - take your choice......

 

Temples do good work unfortunately can't house and support all the jobless, unemployable, sick, and aged, currently taken care of on the family unit as necessary

 

Squeeze out your rural communities and a whole raft of local associated employment recedes, to be replaced where and by what?

 

So while this little conundrum is being carefully resolved.....let us just maintain support for the current system, at least until the road ahead is straight and clear and the hills to climb clearly sign posted  

 

 

governments the world over give farmers subsides and so should thailand.Rice farmers have it hard enough without producing crops that earn no money.If thailand wants to keep a viable rice industry then yes i think a subsidy should be put in place when prices are too low to make a profit.We as consumers are happy to have low prices in the supermarkets but not at the expense of farm producers.

17 hours ago, Grubster said:

If you want your economy to perform well then your people will need money to play a part, or I guess you could just shoot 25 million farmers as they all have failing crops. Do you not have subsidies in your home country?

Yes we do and this is not a Thai bashing

My question is if we give money to farmers, do we also give it to any other business that is failing.

 

In my view, it's a fundamental obligation of every government to assist their poorest citizens and also to maintain a viable agricultural industry (when/if important to the country); however, direct payments to those groups (limiting payments so big companies aren't benefitted)  is a whole lot more effective to assist those farmers than any insertion of the government into the market scheme as a whole.  Neither politicians nor generals have a clue about buying, storing, or selling rice and any governmental attempt to do that is guaranteed to end up to be an economic disaster.

 

It is ironic that the current unelected government is (1) going after the prior government officials who were elected by a majority of the people on a platform that promised rice subsidies and (2) doing the same thing (after, of course, granting themselves the cloak of immunity for the guaranteed losses the current subsidy program will cause). 

18 hours ago, monkey4u said:

If the government subsidise rice farmers, what about every other business venture that fails to make a profit

Does every one get a hand out

 

You seem to forget what a catastrophe it would be for the country and its people if the rice growing industry failed. The real world does not revolve around profit - you can't eat $ bills.

 

So if Coca-Cola, GM, Apple or any other manufacturer of non-essential goods goes bust - so what. If food production stops for whatever reason, people starve. 

 

14 hours ago, robblok said:

 

Your funny, how can you compare things that should make money with things that never going to make money. Talk about no arguments. I can bet you that Airports do make money. Roads.. are financed with road tax.. and unlike the farmers for everyone to use. Your missing the point. (on purpose)

 

 

No you are missing the point, I am saying if you don't want unfair advantages than the government should do nothing for the tourist industry, or any other industry. These industries should provide there own Airports, Shipping yards etc. The fact these industries are making money is because the government has spent vast resources to make it possible. Now is not the time to give up on the farming industry, It is the time to help them get a foot up on the highly subsidized world markets. How to do that is not an easy answer to come up with but turning their back on the farmers is not the answer.

          I don't know how many farmers there are but it sure seams that the current government has gone to great measures to ensure they can't vote on anything haven't they. They/He has already announced that for the next eight years He will decide if anybody elected should take office or not. Do you not believe your vote should count in your country? Cant have it both ways or can they?

You're question on the survey is stupid. I find noting wrong with paying subsides to farmers, but trying to keep the rice price high is not subsidies. Buy the rice, if you like, and then sell it for whatever the open market will pay and the Government takes the loss (or profit). This is actually not a good plan, because there were many cases of rice being smuggled into Thailand from Cambodia.

 

If you're going to pay subsidies. Pay the farmer to fallow the land (ie: don't grow a crop that year). Bad thing is the people who make the decisions on who to select and how it's selected will be the ones who will profit most (you know, from corruption).