PM Prayut denies the government is broke

[JAG]

I'm not up to speed on that one so I can't comment.
 
Do you understand what happens in most major countries around the world as governments change? What happens is that the permanent government infrastructure of that country, in the UK it's the Civil Service, remains in place and continues to business as usual. It's those people in those departments that do 98% of the day in day out work of government, the finance department, the tax department and so on. So calling the junta military a bunch of so-called economists is very silly because they are not intended to be economists, they are intended to lead.

The spending decisions, which are presumably the cause of this reduction in reserves, are very much decided by the junta, perhaps with little regard for the realities of the country's economic situation?

They lead. The permanent government infrastructure follows...

[Jonmarleesco]

9 hours ago, webfact said:

Meanwhile, Finance Minister Apisak Tantiwong ... noted that if the government's reserves are too high, the government will have to pay a higher interest rate. 

There are costs, but a higher interest rate for holding higher reserves isn't going to be one of them. On the other hand, if the reserves slip to too low a figure ...

[scorecard]

4 hours ago, jayboy said:

 

Don't find much to disagree with here but it's important to remember the standard of senior bureaucrats in the finance/economic planning ministries is generally extremely high.This to some extent counterbalances the unhelpful contributions of unqualified ministers.

 

Another issue is that in most countries ministers (at least initially) are not required to be experts.Expertise is hopefully vested with senior bureaucrats.A minister's role is to provide strategic leadership/control and represent the department externally.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

And I don't disagree with your comments.

 

I have quite some experience working with Singapore government where many ministers are in fact subject experts and are also not frightened to get additional / aligned advice.

 

Also true in many countries the senior bureaucrats are the experts.  As said you often find ministers are good at leadership and often very wisely surround themselves with industry experts, and listen.  

 

 

[fish monger]

As long as there is a junta governing body, he can forget about foreign investment here. Someone needs to up their dosage....

[OldSiamHand]

1 hour ago, Destiny1990 said:

Yes because the rules currently are unfair.who going to buy a house that u can only own for 30 years?who starts a company invest 100% of the money and owns it for just 49%?

Not true.  Foreigners can own homes and other buildings indefinitely - it's the underlying land that's an issue, but there are ways around that at well (usufructs, superficies, long term leases).   As for owning a business, well that depends on the type of business for one.  If you want to open a manufacturing business for example it can be 100% foreign owned.  There are also creative (and acceptable) ways to structure the 49% ownership limitation so that you as the foreigner effectively control your business.

[chiang mai]

1 hour ago, Brer Fox said:

I suggest you are not up to speed on a number of things. You are entitled to believe what ever nonsense you like.

At least I understand the differences between a solider and an economist!

[Get Real]

1 hour ago, Destiny1990 said:

Yes because the rules currently are unfair.who going to buy a house that u can only own for 30 years?who starts a company invest 100% of the money and owns it for just 49%?

Appearently very many people. Your questions like answer themselfs automatically.

[Get Real]

1 hour ago, rkidlad said:

This thread is about Thailand. This website is mostly about Thailand. Discussing the ease of business in Singapore or somewhere like Namibia, etc, doesn't address this thread. It doesn't help anyone who wants to do business here. It's meaningless digression. It's similar to if a bus crashes and then saying "Yea, but what about all the buses that don't crash? What about the all the buses that arrive safely?"

 

The man in charge said he wants to attract foreign investment. As a foreigner here, I gave some simple suggestions as to how that might be done. Thailand's rules are what they are. I can't change them, but I can certainly criticize them, hypocrisy and double standards. 

 

If you think the rules are fair, live safe in that knowledge and be happy. But I think you'll find many here in Thailand don't find them fair. Again, if you want foreign investment, simply make them fairer. If you want foreign investment but not foreigners, then say so. 

Namibia?? Singapore?? Buses?? Ok, never mind. Up to you.

[Alan Deer]

6 hours ago, Emster23 said:

This post is about Thailand, don't bring up USA!

Maybe current fiscal posture has to do with PM's exercise for all program: want's a government that is "lean and mean"?

Doesn't matter what he wants- if he has incompetent people it is unlikely to happen.

I think any comparison of corruption in Thailand with USA however facetious, would indicate you don't fully grasp the natiure and extant of corruption in Thailand.

[The Dark Lord]

10 minutes ago, Alan Deer said:

Doesn't matter what he wants- if he has incompetent people it is unlikely to happen.

I think any comparison of corruption in Thailand with USA however facetious, would indicate you don't fully grasp the natiure and extant of corruption in Thailand.

.............. or you have jumped on the "Love trumps hate" bandwagon.

[natway09]

Please do not compare the island state of Singapore to Thailand as they are as different as chalk & cheese in so

many ways. 2 examples, extent of roadbuilding in kilometres, 2 Happiness index

The Boss does need to pay a bit more attention to fiscal policy though before he empties the coffers

on high speed trains which the average person will not even be helped one bit by.

They cannot even run the existing SRT properly

[chiang mai]

2 hours ago, JAG said:

 

The spending decisions, which are presumably the cause of this reduction in reserves, are very much decided by the junta, perhaps with little regard for the realities of the country's economic situation?

They lead. The permanent government infrastructure follows...

Yes sure, totally agreed, but part of that "following" would be to provide an understanding of the implications of a particular decision from an economic impact point of view, it's not as portrayed that the junta makes financial decisions in isolation, things just don't work like that. Evidence to support that is the fact the government announced long ago their intention to increase the deficit.

Edited February 8, 2017 by chiang mai

[JAG]

33 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Yes sure, totally agreed, but part of that "following" would be to provide an understanding of the implications of a particular decision from an economic impact point of view, it's not as portrayed that the junta makes financial decisions in isolation, things just don't work like that. Evidence to support that is the fact the government announced long ago their intention to increase the deficit.

Three are, I venture, two important differences at present.

 

The junta is not accountable, in the sense that they do not have to present themselves as a government, ( and thus their spending), for any sort of approval by the electorate, or any other forms of ratification.  There is no forum for debate, criticism or opposition.

 

Secondly no real debate of the implications and/or disclosure of what advice they may have received raises the question of whether they take any note of what they may be told. The point is that they operate outside of all the constraints of a normal government. 

[chiang mai]

5 minutes ago, JAG said:

Three are, I venture, two important differences at present.

 

The junta is not accountable, in the sense that they do not have to present themselves as a government, ( and thus their spending), for any sort of approval by the electorate, or any other forms of ratification.  There is no forum for debate, criticism or opposition.

 

Secondly no real debate of the implications and/or disclosure of what advice they may have received raises the question of whether they take any note of what they may be told. The point is that they operate outside of all the constraints of a normal government. 

The man is clearly not a politician but he takes his job seriously enough and the link between army, king and country is very strong. I'm going to vote them a pass on this one and presume they are self regulating to a greater degree, I suspect the debate in the future will be whether any loss or shortfall was malfeasance or misfeasance.

[Eric Loh]

41 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Yes sure, totally agreed, but part of that "following" would be to provide an understanding of the implications of a particular decision from an economic impact point of view, it's not as portrayed that the junta makes financial decisions in isolation, things just don't work like that. Evidence to support that is the fact the government announced long ago their intention to increase the deficit.

The budget deficit is not the issue. The budget was presented and made public and full disclosure of expenditures which showed a budget deficit. That's much in line with previous government to have a manageable budget deficit. The issue is the 367B Baht spent from the treasury reserves which has no accountability. No explanation yet from the junta government on where and how was this spent or allocated. No one know that 367B Baht was taken out of the treasury reserves and was only exposed by a slip of the tongue by NCPO spokesman Sansern. It could have gone quietly and perhaps all the reserves will be spent if no one question the treasury dramatic decline. If you have details of where the reserves spending went, maybe you can share with me. 

[chiang mai]

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The budget deficit is not the issue. The budget was presented and made public and full disclosure of expenditures which showed a budget deficit. That's much in line with previous government to have a manageable budget deficit. The issue is the 367B Baht spent from the treasury reserves which has no accountability. No explanation yet from the junta government on where and how was this spent or allocated. No one know that 367B Baht was taken out of the treasury reserves and was only exposed by a slip of the tongue by NCPO spokesman Sansern. It could have gone quietly and perhaps all the reserves will be spent if no one question the treasury dramatic decline. If you have details of where the reserves spending went, maybe you can share with me. 

Let me ask you, how much was the budget deficit because that is exactly the issue? The money that was spent from Treasury reserves is exactly that.

[Eric Loh]

3 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Let me ask you, how much was the budget deficit because that is exactly the issue? The money that was spent from Treasury reserves is exactly that.

You can provide a link that say the budget deficit will be funded from drawing the treasury reserves or you just making things up as you go. Even Prayut didn't bring this convenient excuse but you did. By the way, the 2017 budget deficit is 580B Baht.

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

You can provide a link that say the budget deficit will be funded from drawing the treasury reserves or you just making things up as you go. Even Prayut didn't bring this convenient excuse but you did. By the way, the 2017 budget deficit is 580B Baht.

So how has the past years budget deficit been funded if not from reserves, did they have a whip round?

[Eric Loh]

1 minute ago, chiang mai said:

So how has the past years budget deficit been funded if not from reserves, did they have a whip round?

So you making things up as you go.

[chiang mai]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

So you making things up as you go.

No, I've given you the logical answer to a simple economics problem and you don't believe it, I'm now asking you for your version of how the deficit was funded, how was it paid for?

 

Here's the budget in case you want to peek!

 

http://www.bb.go.th/budget_book/e-Book2559/FILEROOM/CABILIBRARY59/DRAWER01/GENERAL/DATA0000/inBrief2016.pdf

Edited February 8, 2017 by chiang mai

[Eric Loh]

Just now, chiang mai said:

No, I've given you the logical answer to a simple economics problem and you don't believe it, I'm now asking you for your version of how the deficit was funded, how was it paid for?

Thailand deficit spending are financed by treasury bills, bonds and other debt instruments or promissory notes. Go and read up notes on the budget issued by the Government Finance Min istry.

[chiang mai]

3 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Thailand deficit spending are financed by treasury bills, bonds and other debt instruments or promissory notes. Go and read up notes on the budget issued by the Government Finance Min istry.

It's posted above, you read it and see what it says about deficits!

 

Para 3.3 reads:

       Expenditures for Replenishment of Treasury Account Balance

        Expenditures of 13,536.1 million baht, a decrease of 28,429.3 million baht or

      67.7 per cent, are allocated for the replenishment of treasury account balance, equivalent

to 0.5 per cent of the total budget compared with 1.6 per cent for FY 2015.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2017 by chiang mai

[chainarong]

Interesting Prayut explained it is to attract foreign investment , watching a special Doco on China Sunday,  they are leaving China by the score including their own Chinese companies, the areas of preference , Cambodia , Myanmar and Vietnam , Thailand on the map was a blank, interesting was China's largest Woolen fabric maker, 5000 employee's ,  leaving for Ethiopia for Christ sake..................................................

[dwcrist]

Didn't he also say that the military wouldn't take over the government and then that he wouldn't become prime minister, and that we would have elections within....? But don't worry, he has a way to solve all problems; if the problem get too big, just have all the people who are saying that it is a problem arrested and the problem goes away.

[gdgbb]

11 hours ago, nasa123 said:

How match Dept Thailand have to another Country Per capita in Thailand old and young ?

PM you borrow 1 Bn in Norwegians Krone = About 5 Bn Bath, So we wonder when you want to start to pay back this loan ?

Do you represent Norges Bank to be asking about debt repayment to Norway?  It's not usually done on Thaivisa through posters here.

[Eligius]

'PM Prayut denies the government is broke ...'

 

In the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies: 'Well he would, wouldn't he!'

[i claudius]

Personally i dont care who runs Thailand ,at the end of the day , will the Baht

1/ stay the same

2/go up

3/go down

4/ fall of a cliff ?

really that is all us guests care about , that is if we bring money from abroad .

[ramrod711]

7 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

So exactly how do they intend to get the foreign investors back?

Simple really, if you are here on a retirement visa you must have 800,000 baht in the bank or an income of 65,000 baht per month. They impose an income tax on foreigners and we all become investors, or flee the country.

[jerojero]

Emergency situation loan... Like how to pay for useless submarines?

[Destiny1990]

4 hours ago, Get Real said:

Appearently very many people. Your questions like answer themselfs automatically.

Apparently not anymore because why else the foreigner investors have stopped investing then here?