Richest 1 percent of Thais own 58 percent of country’s wealth

[seancbk]

1 hour ago, digibum said:

On 11/30/2016 at 9:05 AM, ezzra said:

There's nothing wrong with being rich as long as it was obtained through hard work

perseverance and honesty... all the other means people got rich should be condemned....

 

That's why I punch lottery winners in the face.  Dirty scumbags. 

 

Oh, and what if what you did didn't require any perseverance?  Like, let's say that some guy is sitting around one day and thinks, "Hey, I wish there was a way for me to eat and talk on the phone at the same time" and he scribbles some stuff on a piece of paper and files a patent application.  Next day Apple sees the patent application and offers him $10 million for his invention and they create the iFork from his idea.  

 

Condemn or no condemn?  

 

It's just so hard to tell who I should go around judging these days.  

Hahaha!  Nice one.

 

[Jimbo2014]

On 30/11/2016 at 9:05 AM, ezzra said:

There's nothing wrong with being rich as long as it was obtained through hard work

perseverance and honesty... all the other means people got rich should be condemned....

 

The problem with capitalism as its implemented in the west today is that wealth and capital ownership gradually pool.  This creates a permanent renter class and a permanent rich class.  Capital ownership becomes more important than merit and society becomes based on nepotism and cronyism.  As wealth polarity increases, the capacity for social mobility diminishes.  Often wars or social upheaval (such as the socialist revolutions of the 1910s'20s in eastern Europe) can right such a situation but it can take decades. Systems that are flexible such as 4 year democracies gradually right themselves through voter preference for candidates with harsh taxation on the wealthy (inheritance tax, high upper tax brackets).  Thus far America has shown little appetite for this and this will lead to problems in the near future.  Thailand has little in the way of a flexible system and thus the only way to correct the balance is via social upheaval.  The wealthy know this - hence military government.

[Stargeezr]

It's just not fair.  boo  hoo.

  What else  can I say  I am only a Geezer

a  pensioner with a fixed income, and can only afford to

travel abroad every 2 or 3 years.    Poor  me.

And darn   I do not even know any of these rich Thai people.

 

[elgordo38]

21 hours ago, DaveE13 said:

I have worked for over twenty years in private Security looking after every one from pop stars to Oil Rich Arabs and worked for some serious ass holes but the best to work for are the serous family Rich as Seancbk says they are don't look down on you treat you like a member of the family.

 

Don't get me started on the Pop stars though!!

I wonder if any of the seriously? rich would like to adopt me. I have a degree in accounting. One for you and one for me. 

[tails]

On 30/11/2016 at 11:12 AM, nchuckle said:

You don't understand indirect tax then. Far more VAT through higher value of purchases is paid by foreigners.

 

Well I was referring to income/company tax.

 

So you're saying because a few thousand foreigners bought a bigger TV, that means foreigners contribute more than 30-40 million working Thais do?

[seedy]

Troll post removed

[digibum]

12 hours ago, Jimbo2014 said:

 

The problem with capitalism as its implemented in the west today is that wealth and capital ownership gradually pool.  This creates a permanent renter class and a permanent rich class.  Capital ownership becomes more important than merit and society becomes based on nepotism and cronyism.  As wealth polarity increases, the capacity for social mobility diminishes.  Often wars or social upheaval (such as the socialist revolutions of the 1910s'20s in eastern Europe) can right such a situation but it can take decades. Systems that are flexible such as 4 year democracies gradually right themselves through voter preference for candidates with harsh taxation on the wealthy (inheritance tax, high upper tax brackets).  Thus far America has shown little appetite for this and this will lead to problems in the near future.  Thailand has little in the way of a flexible system and thus the only way to correct the balance is via social upheaval.  The wealthy know this - hence military government.

 

Is there a economic system where wealth and capital ownership don't eventually pool?  Being serious.  To some degree even communism is essentially resources (wealth and capital) being pooled at the government level.  Even if you feel that's too broad, eventually, even in communism nepotism and cronyism take over as party members tend to find ways to make their lives better than average and there becomes a fight for premium positions and appointments leading to a mini version of capitalism.  

 

I think we just have to accept that there will always be concentrations of wealth.  That said, I do disagree with you about it being permanent.  For instance, look at Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, etc, etc, etc. Extremely wealthy individuals who did not start out wealthy (well, I guess Bill Gates family had money but not billionaire type of money).  

 

Look at our corporate world.  Apple, one of the wealthiest companies on the planet, is a relatively new company.  Microsoft, Google, etc, etc.  All these companies are still young enough where their founders are still alive (Woz is still around even though Jobs is dead).  

 

If the concentration of wealth was permanent, that wouldn't be happening.  

 

For instance, according to Fortune magazine, 920,000 people became new millionaires in 2014.  

 

The problem in Thailand is that the wealthy intentionally inhibit the lower classes from moving up.  Their own greed suffocates the economic engine.  But like you point out, eventually the economic system corrects all of this, usually with an economic meltdown which forces massive upheaval.  

 

 

[Oziex1]

On 11/30/2016 at 9:16 AM, rkidlad said:

Oh, I'd think it's higher than 58%. There's a lot of money in Thailand and it sure ain't going to the masses.

 

Just like in the West we seem to hold our vulgarly wealthy in high reverence. We put them on the front cover of magazines and label them as geniuses. Meanwhile, people like Steve Jobs were making billions off the backs of Chinese children. 

 

You'll be hard pressed to find someone who's extremely wealthy who isn't crooked. The richer you are the more socially acceptable it is to be caught with you hand in the till. Like you're some cheeky kid stealing a cookie. The poorer you are the more you must be made an example of if caught stealing. It's actually genius how the rich have conditioned so many to believe that they can do no wrong, and then make the poor blame each other, or 'immigrants'. If only they would use that genius for better things. 

 

So, before anyone accuses me of being jealous or bitter, ask yourself: "does anyone actually need that much money?" Simple answer; absolutely not. Whether you've made it honestly or not, you do not need that much money. Not when there are people starving to death or dying of diarrhea. Humans define themselves as the most intelligent animals. Define intelligence? 

 

I agree with the above and scary is the prediction of individual Trillionaires in the not too distant future, sad it is the only system that seems to work for us in based on self interest and greed.

[digibum]

On 11/30/2016 at 6:25 AM, mark45y said:

Britain’s richest households have pulled further ahead of the rest of the population as house prices have accelerated, with the top 10% now owning almost half of the country’s £11.1tn total private wealth.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/dec/18/britain-private-wealth-owned-by-top-10-of-households

 

I would really like to see more research done on topics like this because wealth is such a relative term.  For instance, you mention house prices, but the problem with house prices is that houses aren't liquid.  Same thing when they say that Trump or some other billionaire is worth $X billions of dollars.  Yes, on paper.  But try to liquidate that, especially if you're trying to liquidate in a hurry, and the value drops very rapidly.  

 

It's just very difficult to measure actual wealth in a meaningful way.  You own a house that's worth $100,000 USD, but you don't have $100,000 in cash that you can spend.  You could sell the house and then you would have $100,000 but then you would need a place to live and would have to spend some or all of that $100,000 to acquire a new residence.  

 

Let's say you own 10 homes worth $100,000 each.  Yippee, you're a millionaire.  But you don't have $1,000,000 that you can spend.  Your purpose in owning those 10 homes is to rent them out so that they generate money that you can then live on.  

 

So, what you're calling wealth, is really capital.  Because let's say that each of those homes generates $5,000 a year in revenue after expenses.  The owner makes $50,000 a year but when we compare him to someone with a full time job making $100,000 a year but owns no real estate, we jump to the conclusion that the guy with a million dollars in real estate is driving a Lambo and living it up like Scrooge McDuck and the guy making $100,000 a year is making an upper middle class wage.  But, really, the $100K a year guy has more disposable income than the real estate tycoon.  

 

I just think that disposable income is a much better indication of wealth than capital.  Most people who have high net worths never touch the capital.  They use the capital to generate disposable income.  

 

And along those lines, because the objective is creating disposable income, in many cases that wealth is leveraged.  In other words, the guy with the million dollars in real estate only has to put $200,000 down.  Again, we all look at him and say, "Wow, he owns a million dollars in real estate" but the bank actually owns $800K of that.  

 

 

 

 

[Heng]

Just work a little harder (and smarter) and you'll get there....  first you get to ride planes, then you get to ride in the middle of the plane, then the front of the plane... and if you're a bit more successful, then you get to ride in your own small plane....   then you start looking at boats...

[digibum]

On 12/1/2016 at 11:40 PM, Heng said:

Just work a little harder (and smarter) and you'll get there....  first you get to ride planes, then you get to ride in the middle of the plane, then the front of the plane... and if you're a bit more successful, then you get to ride in your own small plane....   then you start looking at boats...

 

Wrong.  If it fly, floats, or <deleted>, always a wiser decision to rent rather than buy.  Maintenance and depreciation are killers to creating wealth.  

 

The only people who can reasonably buy planes or yachts are people who have such stupid amounts of money that they can't even spend the amount of money that their money is making them.  

 

Even if you are a fairly frequent traveller, private charters will still end up costing you less than owning.  

[nausea]

I don't begrudge them their wealth, some of us have better things to do with our limited time here than build up earthly riches - "Sic transit gloria mundi". What matters is what the richest 1% do with their wealth. It doesn't bring happines that's for sure, having met some of their scions. 

[Heng]

11 hours ago, digibum said:

 

Wrong.  If it fly, floats, or f**ks, always a wiser decision to rent rather than buy.  Maintenance and depreciation are killers to creating wealth.  

 

The only people who can reasonably buy planes or yachts are people who have such stupid amounts of money that they can't even spend the amount of money that their money is making them.  

 

Even if you are a fairly frequent traveller, private charters will still end up costing you less than owning.  

 

(yawn) Hardly something to waste time thinking about...

Edited December 2, 2016 by Heng

[Heng]

Money definitely does not buy happiness.   It does however, since the time of slaves (and actually we're still living in slave times... the masters are just more often employers and financial institutions), buy freedom.   It's certainly easier to be happy with freedom.

[seancbk]

13 hours ago, digibum said:

 

The problem in Thailand is that the wealthy intentionally inhibit the lower classes from moving up.  Their own greed suffocates the economic engine.  But like you point out, eventually the economic system corrects all of this, usually with an economic meltdown which forces massive upheaval.  

 

It does appear that way, but I'm not entirely sure that is completely true.

I have a Thai friend who started out as a telephone repair guy, riding around on a bicycle with his tools.  

He now has a telecoms company with annual turnover of US$150 million, drives a Lamborghini and is the leader of a political party.

I know of another Thai guy who started making steel racks for servers and he also now owns a Lamborghini.   I met him through my other friend as they are Lambo buddies :-)

I would hazard a guess that the numbers of Thais becoming newly wealthy would be statistically similar to the numbers of people in other countries.   You have to remember that Thailand is a very big market, entrepreneurs exist in every society and if someone works hard at providing a service enough other people want then it's almost inevitable that some of those entrepreneurs will achieve success.
 

[digibum]

7 minutes ago, seancbk said:

It does appear that way, but I'm not entirely sure that is completely true.

I have a Thai friend who started out as a telephone repair guy, riding around on a bicycle with his tools.  

He now has a telecoms company with annual turnover of US$150 million, drives a Lamborghini and is the leader of a political party.

I know of another Thai guy who started making steel racks for servers and he also now owns a Lamborghini.   I met him through my other friend as they are Lambo buddies :-)

I would hazard a guess that the numbers of Thais becoming newly wealthy would be statistically similar to the numbers of people in other countries.   You have to remember that Thailand is a very big market, entrepreneurs exist in every society and if someone works hard at providing a service enough other people want then it's almost inevitable that some of those entrepreneurs will achieve success.
 

 

Wealthy and middle-class are two different things.  Obviously if you ask people if they would like enormous amounts of wealth they will say they do but few actually put their time and effort into doing it.  That part is the same as anywhere else in the world.  The elite cannot stop that kind of advancement (well, I guess they could just kill people or run them out of business, but that's so messy). 

 

What I'm talking about is someone who grows up the son or daughter of rice farmers.  The deck is certainly stacked against them.  It starts off with the lack of quality in the educational system, the constant reinforcement from the government and media, and the general societal group-think that people should know their place in life.  

 

There's no path to the middle-class like there is in western societies.  You know, the typical American Dream story, grandparents were uneducated immigrants, they work hard so their children can go to high school, they in turn work 2 or 3 jobs to allow their children to attend college, they graduate and go on to become firmly implanted in the middle-class.  

 

That path doesn't exist (actually it does exist but it's full of potholes).  First off, trying to get your kid into anything resembling a good school involves bribery.  Getting into a university may again require more bribery.  This is all money the farmer's child doesn't have so they get stuck with the rancid education provided in public schools.  

 

And assuming the parent's sacrificed everything to get their child into a university, what does a four year university degree get you in Thailand?  A job selling handbags to foreigners in Central World for peanuts?  Maybe a bank teller job?  

 

So, if they can even afford it, they go back to university and get a master's degree just so they have any chance of career advancement and throw more money down the drain because, ultimately, the real way to get ahead is connections and kissing the bosses patooty.  

 

And to top it all off, the icing on the cake, because there's no pension system in Thailand for poor, uneducated farmers, a good chunk of the income that they make gets sent back to Issan to take care of their parents and every deadbeat in the family and extended family.  

 

Very few, even if they struggle as hard as they can, can get enough earnings momentum to get themselves out of poverty.  Between the low wages and unrealistic social demands that anybody who has more than 2 satang in their pocket give it to any member in their family who asks, at best, most end up only marginally better off than had they just stayed on the farm and planted rice.  

 

Of course, this creates a vicious cycle because Thai children and their parents know this and so they put very little value on education which is why so many farang teachers pull their hair out at the laziness and lack of desire to learn from their students.  They know it's not going to benefit them in any way.  They were born poor and will die poor (unless they make merit and get the lucky lottery numbers).   

 

I see so many people bash Thais but Thais are acting in a totally logical way given the hand they've been dealt.  Go to any inner-city in the US or ghettos in Europe.  You see the same exact thing.  When you cut off the path to a better life, people generally react in a similar manner.  

 

 

[Jimbo2014]

16 hours ago, digibum said:

 

Is there a economic system where wealth and capital ownership don't eventually pool?  Being serious.  To some degree even communism is essentially resources (wealth and capital) being pooled at the government level.  Even if you feel that's too broad, eventually, even in communism nepotism and cronyism take over as party members tend to find ways to make their lives better than average and there becomes a fight for premium positions and appointments leading to a mini version of capitalism.  

 

I think we just have to accept that there will always be concentrations of wealth.  That said, I do disagree with you about it being permanent.  For instance, look at Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, etc, etc, etc. Extremely wealthy individuals who did not start out wealthy (well, I guess Bill Gates family had money but not billionaire type of money).  

 

Look at our corporate world.  Apple, one of the wealthiest companies on the planet, is a relatively new company.  Microsoft, Google, etc, etc.  All these companies are still young enough where their founders are still alive (Woz is still around even though Jobs is dead).  

 

If the concentration of wealth was permanent, that wouldn't be happening.  

 

For instance, according to Fortune magazine, 920,000 people became new millionaires in 2014.  

 

The problem in Thailand is that the wealthy intentionally inhibit the lower classes from moving up.  Their own greed suffocates the economic engine.  But like you point out, eventually the economic system corrects all of this, usually with an economic meltdown which forces massive upheaval.  

 

 

 

Good points.  I think capitalism with a large degree of socialism helps prevent the pooling of capital ownership.  Tools like inheritance tax and upper tax brackets of 80+% can really help but they also run the risk of de-incentivising innovation.  ie: whats the point of building a great and innovative company if you are just going to get taxed at 80%.  However America, during one of its greatest periods of growth, had an upper tax bracket of 90% (1950s), so the argument that this dissuades people may not be valid.  

 

We have recently undergone a technological revolution much like the industrial revolution that created the robber barrons of the 1880s.  Now we have the Tech barrons of the 2000s and they are starting to form unassailable monopolies of the same type the rail, oil and steel barrons did.  We all use facebook, we all use google, you cant function in the business world unless you use windows or Mac (for the other 2-5%).  This all runs the risk of stifling innovation - but fortunately to date it hasnt yet.  The computer revolution of the 1980s was replaced by the internet revolution of the 1990s to 2000s which was in turn replaced by the mobile revolution of the 2010s all giving rise to further innovation and competition.    

 

In thailand - they have the double headwinds of exclusive capital ownership, monopolies and a cultural resistance to innovation.  Young people are intimidated into being subservient to established powers and culturally conditioned not to challenge authority.  To challenge your boss or anyone of power is highly risky in this culture.  So the problems here are multiple and compounded by a poor demographic pyramid skewed to a middle bulge.  Soon there will be fewer young people than old people and thais are ill prepared economically for this event.

 

All of this points to the polarity of wealth only worsening in Thailand in coming years (and associated measures such as the Gini coefficient).

 

 

[digibum]

6 hours ago, Jimbo2014 said:

 

Good points.  I think capitalism with a large degree of socialism helps prevent the pooling of capital ownership.  Tools like inheritance tax and upper tax brackets of 80+% can really help but they also run the risk of de-incentivising innovation.  ie: whats the point of building a great and innovative company if you are just going to get taxed at 80%.  However America, during one of its greatest periods of growth, had an upper tax bracket of 90% (1950s), so the argument that this dissuades people may not be valid.  

 

We have recently undergone a technological revolution much like the industrial revolution that created the robber barrons of the 1880s.  Now we have the Tech barrons of the 2000s and they are starting to form unassailable monopolies of the same type the rail, oil and steel barrons did.  We all use facebook, we all use google, you cant function in the business world unless you use windows or Mac (for the other 2-5%).  This all runs the risk of stifling innovation - but fortunately to date it hasnt yet.  The computer revolution of the 1980s was replaced by the internet revolution of the 1990s to 2000s which was in turn replaced by the mobile revolution of the 2010s all giving rise to further innovation and competition.    

 

In thailand - they have the double headwinds of exclusive capital ownership, monopolies and a cultural resistance to innovation.  Young people are intimidated into being subservient to established powers and culturally conditioned not to challenge authority.  To challenge your boss or anyone of power is highly risky in this culture.  So the problems here are multiple and compounded by a poor demographic pyramid skewed to a middle bulge.  Soon there will be fewer young people than old people and thais are ill prepared economically for this event.

 

All of this points to the polarity of wealth only worsening in Thailand in coming years (and associated measures such as the Gini coefficient).

 

 

 

Should be pointed out that most tax systems doesn't work exactly as some assume.  If you have a top tax rate of 80%, it's not 80% of everything you make.  It looks more like something like this:

 

First off, gazillionaire or regular shmoe, there's a certain amount of income that is your personal exemption so you don't get taxed on that at all.  Then the first $20,000 might be taxed at rate A.  Then the money you earn between $20,001 and $50,000 is taxed at rate B.  And the money you earn from $50,001 to $75,000 is taxed at rate C.  And so on and so on.  

 

The only money being taxed at 80% is money earned beyond a certain threshold.  All the earnings below that threshold are taxed at various other rates.  

 

That's why there's always talk about the effective tax rate which is the tax rate that results from paying all of the various tax rates you paid to get to the highest tax rate.  

 

I really disagree about the tech barrons though. First off, I think the way you presented the information is misleading.  I am on a Mac right now.  I use a Mac at work.  I use a Mac at home.  I can run MS Office.  There is very little that I can't do on a Mac that I can do on a Win PC.  Due to so many companies moving to the cloud or SaaS (software as a service) the compatibility issue is solved in the web browser.  

 

Somewhat similarly, Facebook is the 800 lb gorilla but if you remember your tech history they were not the first social media company.  Back then it was MySpace.  And on the search side, Yahoo was the unbeatable dominant force in search way back in the day too.  Until Google came along.  

 

The switching costs in the world of social media are emotional, not financial so, in theory, someone could come along tomorrow with something better than Facebook and Facebook could become the next MySpace.  

 

Far more likely though, people will simply change their online usage behaviors.  I was an early adopter of Facebook but I rarely use it anymore.  A surprising percentage of Millennials I know don't even have a FB account.  They don't want to share personal info the way FB wants people to.  

 

For instance, one of the women who works for me has never had a Facebook account.  She says she has no desire to get involved in her family's various dramas.  She's on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and pretty much everything else that the bulk of her family doesn't use.  

 

I use it less and less because I've grown tired of the heartbreak of learning that people you once respected are actually racists, bigots, emotionally unstable, homophobic, conspiracy theorists, sexist, etc, etc.  

 

Facebook does not provide anything that is necessary for living one's life.  I see my decision to part with FB the same way that I felt the first time I moved into a new place and didn't bother ordering landline service.  You just were so used to it before that it feels weird not having it but not because it provides any actual real utility.  

 

Maybe I'm ahead of the curve again being as I signed up on Facebook shortly after it was opened to people outside of college campuses but I think ultimately usage will taper off.  Right now, the daily logins and other key stats are off for US users as people use it less.  But they're blowing up in Thailand so it gives the illusion that Facebook is growing and growing and growing.  It's expanding in some markets but it's also maturing and slowing down in others.  Eventually they will reach a point when there is nowhere else to expand to and their growth numbers will start to decline.  

 

And what's going on in China is a great example of how none of these companies should be getting too comfortable at the top of the pyramid.  We all think Amazon is the biggest online retailer but China's online retailer or choice Alibaba makes Amazon look like a fledgling player in the space.  Alibaba generated $9.3 billion in sales in a single day, while Amazon's biggest day of the year is usually more around $2.5 billion.  

 

What happens when China unleashes some of their online retail, social media, etc on the rest of the world?  Will Facebook still remain the cat's meow?  

 

I do however, wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.  Thailand has several hundred years worth of patronage and subservient culture to get over.  This past is ingrained into the language and is one of the only topics Thais must actually pay attention to in schools.  It will not end anytime soon.  

 

But there is hope.  As I've said many times, the internet will be Thailand's downfall.  Once people have access to information things can snowball pretty quickly.  

 

Thailand has no real rolemodels for social, political, or economic reformation.  But now they can go online and read about others who fought for fairness and freedom.  It gives them the ability to choose new role models to learn from.  

 

But more importantly, IMHO, is access to unfiltered news.  I can't begin to tell you how many times I found myself stunned by my wife coming to realizations about Thailand when she began to be exposed to news sources other than Thai news sources.  Things we take for granted, that we think are obvious, being discovered for the first time.

 

When we lived together in Thailand we never discussed the news.  She had little interest in current affairs in Thailand or elsewhere in the world.  She might mention a school bus going off the road or might ask me about an earthquake in some far off place like Turkey that made it into the Thai news but that was about the extent of her interest in news.  

 

But now, almost daily, she asks me about Thai news, world news, US political news.  I've seen her views about Thai people and the Thai government grow increasingly sophisticated.  Now that she has access to information and can compare the Thai government with other governments, it gives her more clarity and understanding as to why things are the way they are in Thailand.  

 

True, she has the benefit of living in the US and being exposed to it daily but even our Thai friends back in Thailand can't escape being exposed to news and information that they never would have seen before the age of Facebook and social media.  And more and more you see the attitude shifting from "If you can't say only beautiful things about Thailand, shut up!!!!" to "That's messed up.  Somebody should do something about that."  

 

So, I do believe that there is hope for change.  Unfortunately, I also believe those who currently have power will not be passive about giving it up and this will not be a clean transformation.  

 

 

[Wilsonandson]

They are called HI SO in Thailand. They can what ever They want to do [emoji4].
 

[JLCrab]

6 hours ago, digibum said:

<snip>.  

 

But more importantly, IMHO <snip2>

So IYHO you really think anything of what you wrote above is  important?

[digibum]

3 hours ago, JLCrab said:

So IYHO you really think anything of what you wrote above is  important?

 

More importantly means if I was ranking the points, that one would be more important. 

 

That at would be contrast to many of your posts which serve no purpose other than to be snarky to other posters without actually providing any substance.  

[JLCrab]

Yes well I'll admit to being a little snarky when my hand hurts just scrolling through some of your stuff -- do you get paid by the word?

[Jimbo2014]

10 hours ago, digibum said:

 

Should be pointed out that most tax systems doesn't work exactly as some assume.  If you have a top tax rate of 80%, it's not 80% of everything you make.  It looks more like something like this:

 

First off, gazillionaire or regular shmoe, there's a certain amount of income that is your personal exemption so you don't get taxed on that at all.  Then the first $20,000 might be taxed at rate A.  Then the money you earn between $20,001 and $50,000 is taxed at rate B.  And the money you earn from $50,001 to $75,000 is taxed at rate C.  And so on and so on.  

 

The only money being taxed at 80% is money earned beyond a certain threshold.  All the earnings below that threshold are taxed at various other rates.  

 

That's why there's always talk about the effective tax rate which is the tax rate that results from paying all of the various tax rates you paid to get to the highest tax rate.  

 

I really disagree about the tech barrons though. First off, I think the way you presented the information is misleading.  I am on a Mac right now.  I use a Mac at work.  I use a Mac at home.  I can run MS Office.  There is very little that I can't do on a Mac that I can do on a Win PC.  Due to so many companies moving to the cloud or SaaS (software as a service) the compatibility issue is solved in the web browser.  

 

Somewhat similarly, Facebook is the 800 lb gorilla but if you remember your tech history they were not the first social media company.  Back then it was MySpace.  And on the search side, Yahoo was the unbeatable dominant force in search way back in the day too.  Until Google came along.  

 

The switching costs in the world of social media are emotional, not financial so, in theory, someone could come along tomorrow with something better than Facebook and Facebook could become the next MySpace.  

 

Far more likely though, people will simply change their online usage behaviors.  I was an early adopter of Facebook but I rarely use it anymore.  A surprising percentage of Millennials I know don't even have a FB account.  They don't want to share personal info the way FB wants people to.  

 

For instance, one of the women who works for me has never had a Facebook account.  She says she has no desire to get involved in her family's various dramas.  She's on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and pretty much everything else that the bulk of her family doesn't use.  

 

I use it less and less because I've grown tired of the heartbreak of learning that people you once respected are actually racists, bigots, emotionally unstable, homophobic, conspiracy theorists, sexist, etc, etc.  

 

Facebook does not provide anything that is necessary for living one's life.  I see my decision to part with FB the same way that I felt the first time I moved into a new place and didn't bother ordering landline service.  You just were so used to it before that it feels weird not having it but not because it provides any actual real utility.  

 

Maybe I'm ahead of the curve again being as I signed up on Facebook shortly after it was opened to people outside of college campuses but I think ultimately usage will taper off.  Right now, the daily logins and other key stats are off for US users as people use it less.  But they're blowing up in Thailand so it gives the illusion that Facebook is growing and growing and growing.  It's expanding in some markets but it's also maturing and slowing down in others.  Eventually they will reach a point when there is nowhere else to expand to and their growth numbers will start to decline.  

 

And what's going on in China is a great example of how none of these companies should be getting too comfortable at the top of the pyramid.  We all think Amazon is the biggest online retailer but China's online retailer or choice Alibaba makes Amazon look like a fledgling player in the space.  Alibaba generated $9.3 billion in sales in a single day, while Amazon's biggest day of the year is usually more around $2.5 billion.  

 

What happens when China unleashes some of their online retail, social media, etc on the rest of the world?  Will Facebook still remain the cat's meow?  

 

I do however, wholeheartedly agree with your last paragraph.  Thailand has several hundred years worth of patronage and subservient culture to get over.  This past is ingrained into the language and is one of the only topics Thais must actually pay attention to in schools.  It will not end anytime soon.  

 

But there is hope.  As I've said many times, the internet will be Thailand's downfall.  Once people have access to information things can snowball pretty quickly.  

 

Thailand has no real rolemodels for social, political, or economic reformation.  But now they can go online and read about others who fought for fairness and freedom.  It gives them the ability to choose new role models to learn from.  

 

But more importantly, IMHO, is access to unfiltered news.  I can't begin to tell you how many times I found myself stunned by my wife coming to realizations about Thailand when she began to be exposed to news sources other than Thai news sources.  Things we take for granted, that we think are obvious, being discovered for the first time.

 

When we lived together in Thailand we never discussed the news.  She had little interest in current affairs in Thailand or elsewhere in the world.  She might mention a school bus going off the road or might ask me about an earthquake in some far off place like Turkey that made it into the Thai news but that was about the extent of her interest in news.  

 

But now, almost daily, she asks me about Thai news, world news, US political news.  I've seen her views about Thai people and the Thai government grow increasingly sophisticated.  Now that she has access to information and can compare the Thai government with other governments, it gives her more clarity and understanding as to why things are the way they are in Thailand.  

 

True, she has the benefit of living in the US and being exposed to it daily but even our Thai friends back in Thailand can't escape being exposed to news and information that they never would have seen before the age of Facebook and social media.  And more and more you see the attitude shifting from "If you can't say only beautiful things about Thailand, shut up!!!!" to "That's messed up.  Somebody should do something about that."  

 

So, I do believe that there is hope for change.  Unfortunately, I also believe those who currently have power will not be passive about giving it up and this will not be a clean transformation.  

 

 

 

I agree with many of your points.  I dont think they contradict my points as I was pointing to risk.  There is a strong risk of tech monopolies if the technology stabilises.  Fortunately it hasn't shown any signs of slowdown to date (which was also my point) and the points you make about the internet and peoples capacity to change provider and services rapidly are very valid.  Concerning tax and tax brackets.  Of course - thats why I noted that the upper 'tax bracket' was to 90% in america not absolute tax.  However for the highest income earners the upper bracket often encompasses the majority of their income and thus tax.  Also corporate tax laws, which the rich can take advantage of more easily than the poor, tend to allow the rich far more exemptions than others.

 

As you do - I have hope in the internet democratising learning and opportunity.  Whilst it does have the potential to do so, this hasn't had a great impact on wealth distribution.  Capital ownership around the world continues to polarise with the wealthiest controlling a much greater slice of the pie than 30 years ago.  This is a global phenomenon and not restricted to Thailand.  Further, recent research has concluded that social mobility is declining under skewed capital ownership (forgive me for not making the time to reference properly - easily found on the net).  More so, despite the internet, the UN reported that the last few years global democratic measures declined and autocratic governments and government policies increased.  So whilst like you I hold out hope for a society of greater learning, democracy and social equity, there is strong evidence to suggest that this may not be realised if capital ownership continues to concentrate at the top.  Perhaps some triggers will kick in to change this, however the risks to middle and low skill jobs from automation further endangers social equity and may have a much greater negative impact on capital ownership.  So I would conclude that the headwinds are significant and without a radical change in governance, I dont hold out much hope that social and economic equity will improve.

[digibum]

1 hour ago, Jimbo2014 said:

As you do - I have hope in the internet democratising learning and opportunity.  Whilst it does have the potential to do so, this hasn't had a great impact on wealth distribution.  Capital ownership around the world continues to polarise with the wealthiest controlling a much greater slice of the pie than 30 years ago.  This is a global phenomenon and not restricted to Thailand.  Further, recent research has concluded that social mobility is declining under skewed capital ownership (forgive me for not making the time to reference properly - easily found on the net).  More so, despite the internet, the UN reported that the last few years global democratic measures declined and autocratic governments and government policies increased.  So whilst like you I hold out hope for a society of greater learning, democracy and social equity, there is strong evidence to suggest that this may not be realised if capital ownership continues to concentrate at the top.  Perhaps some triggers will kick in to change this, however the risks to middle and low skill jobs from automation further endangers social equity and may have a much greater negative impact on capital ownership.  So I would conclude that the headwinds are significant and without a radical change in governance, I dont hold out much hope that social and economic equity will improve.

 

I feel so foolish.  Call it the foolishness of youth but I got my start on the internet before websites even existed.  We, those geeks trolling usenet groups and gopher sites at 2am from our dialup accounts, thought that the internet would lead to a cultural revolution, a new Renaissance period if you will.  

 

We thought giving everyone a voice was a good thing.  But it never dawned on us back then that there were so many idiots out there.  We really thought something like Twitter would lead to people collaborating and making monumental advancements.  Instead people use it to troll celebrities and bully fat kids.  

 

Of course democracy would suffer and autocratic behavior would arise.  That's what happens when the powers that be feel threatened.  Even the supposed bastions of freedom like the US increasingly want to monitor, censor, and control information.  As quickly as the internet caused a threat to powerful institutions, those institutions began becoming a threat to the internet.    

 

However, all that being said, look what part the internet played in the Arab Spring.  See the eyes of Thais being opened, even a little bit, to points of view that have not been spoon fed to them by the government.  Look at the rise of Trump and the UK vote on Brexit.  

 

Mind you, you don't have to agree with someone like Trump (I certainly don't).  But he is a byproduct of people feeling ignored and overlooked by their government.  

 

So, is there yet hope that a lone voice can be heard by many others who share the same frustrations?  

 

Technology and the internet by themselves cannot solve people's problems.  But it can give people a voice.  And that voice can reach millions of people.  And eventually, there will be a voice that resonates with enough people that change becomes inevitable.  

 

 

 

 

[digibum]

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

Yes well I'll admit to being a little snarky when my hand hurts just scrolling through some of your stuff -- do you get paid by the word?

 

No.

[Johnniey]

On 01/12/2016 at 11:40 PM, Heng said:

Just work a little harder (and smarter) and you'll get there....  first you get to ride planes, then you get to ride in the middle of the plane, then the front of the plane... and if you're a bit more successful, then you get to ride in your own small plane....   then you start looking at boats...

Or be a Thai, born with a silver spoon in your mouth, get sent abroad to be educated and work in the family business. Don't try and fool us that you worked for your money.

[JLCrab]

Well I was already familiar with the work of Dr. Joseph Stiglitz -- Nobel Economics Prize-winner and former Chief Economist at the World Bank -- on economic inequality. But now having been introduced to real  jenyoowine substance here on ThaiVisa, I'll have to brush up on the works of the 2 substance posters above.

[JLCrab]

14 minutes ago, digibum said:

 

<snip>

Technology and the internet by themselves cannot solve people's problems. <snip2>

That's profound -- did you think that one up all by yourself?

[George Graham]

On 01/12/2016 at 10:42 PM, digibum said:

 

Is there a economic system where wealth and capital ownership don't eventually pool?  Being serious.  To some degree even communism is essentially resources (wealth and capital) being pooled at the government level.  Even if you feel that's too broad, eventually, even in communism nepotism and cronyism take over as party members tend to find ways to make their lives better than average and there becomes a fight for premium positions and appointments leading to a mini version of capitalism.  

 

I think we just have to accept that there will always be concentrations of wealth.  That said, I do disagree with you about it being permanent.  For instance, look at Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, etc, etc, etc. Extremely wealthy individuals who did not start out wealthy (well, I guess Bill Gates family had money but not billionaire type of money).  

 

Look at our corporate world.  Apple, one of the wealthiest companies on the planet, is a relatively new company.  Microsoft, Google, etc, etc.  All these companies are still young enough where their founders are still alive (Woz is still around even though Jobs is dead).  

 

If the concentration of wealth was permanent, that wouldn't be happening.  

 

For instance, according to Fortune magazine, 920,000 people became new millionaires in 2014.  

 

The problem in Thailand is that the wealthy intentionally inhibit the lower classes from moving up.  Their own greed suffocates the economic engine.  But like you point out, eventually the economic system corrects all of this, usually with an economic meltdown which forces massive upheaval.  

 

 

"...usually with an economic meltdown which forces massive upheaval." AKA revolution, civil war, uprising etc. etc.

[George Graham]

1 hour ago, JLCrab said:

That's profound -- did you think that one up all by yourself?

No he didn't, I told him.