World Bank, IMF concerned for Thailand’s economic outlook

[Naam]

22 hours ago, leeneeds said:

devalue the baht will be the next hit on  the economy 

if wanton spending on non critical items is not reigned in

the IMF boffins would be correct in their assessment.

the IMF's as well as the world bank's eggsburts presented nothing but a noncommittal yada-yada yakety-yak

Quote

According to Apiradi, the two banks expressed concern for Thailand’s aging population and relatively low average income, which could result in an overburdened welfare system. 

The Development Committee communique also suggests that world economy is recovering, but commodity prices have lagged behind. It also pointed to uncertainty stemming from national economic policies and conflict on the Korean peninsula.

 

[Naam]

15 minutes ago, elgordo38 said:

23 hours ago, webfact said:

relatively low average income,

Really who would have thought with such a smart government in power. Time to put the toys away and come out of the play room into the real world. Time can be a terrible taskmaster. 

an unfair as well as unwarranted statement.

[Naam]

24 minutes ago, pentap said:

What a surprise! Not.
It just takes simple logic and the opening of eyes to see what's really going on.
I'm no economist, but it is so obvious how bad the situation is.
 

if you use reading glasses and simple logic you'll find out that there was no mentioning of any bad situation.

[dcnx]

23 hours ago, inzman said:

Everything is fine says uncle. 

He was the most handsome boy in school.

 

It's all under control.

[thailand49]

23 hours ago, trainman34014 said:

The overburdened welfare system will not affect rich people and it's ok for poor people to just lay in the gutter and die.....problem solved Thai style  !

That is after they crash on their motorbikes, which their form of population control.

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, pentap said:

What a surprise! Not.

It just takes simple logic and the opening of eyes to see what's really going on.

I'm no economist, but it is so obvious how bad the situation is.



 

Like all the problems in the world today its 10 years down the road (kick). Why do you think soccer is so popular here??

Edited April 27, 2017 by elgordo38

[hotchilli]

It's ok don't worry, Commerce Minister Apiradi Tantraporn & T.A.T minister will get together and have a cosy chat with the IMF etc and Put their minds at rest. 
The 10 year plan is to get rail/road/ocean links fully established from the Pattaya area to Hua Hin, once that is done a 10-fold increase in west coast "Happy Zones" will be firmly implemented & the Gross GDP will double accordingly !!

 

[connda]

What?  The IMF hasn't got it's hooks into Thailand at the moment?  Just engineer another financial crisis.  You can probably get the billionaire who engineered the last one to help out again.  

[simoh1490]

4 hours ago, pentap said:

What a surprise! Not.

It just takes simple logic and the opening of eyes to see what's really going on.

I'm no economist, but it is so obvious how bad the situation is.



 

As if proof were needed, your post confirms you indeed are not an economist.

[simoh1490]

4 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

Really who would have thought with such a smart government in power. Time to put the toys away and come out of the play room into the real world. Time can be a terrible taskmaster. 

Odd, in your earlier post you suggested Thailand was not alone in its economic woes yet I don't see you taking pot shots and low blows at Western governments!

[elgordo38]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

Odd, in your earlier post you suggested Thailand was not alone in its economic woes yet I don't see you taking pot shots and low blows at Western governments!

Do you have any one government in mind or all of them? Bang there is a shot over their bow to. We aim to please. I am truly happy you follow my posts so closely good on you. 

[simoh1490]

Just now, elgordo38 said:

Do you have any one government in mind or all of them? Bang there is a shot over their bow to. We aim to please. I am truly happy you follow my posts so closely good on you. 

I can smell hypocrisy a mile away!

[candide]

22 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

As if proof were needed, your post confirms you indeed are not an economist.

He may not be an economist but if you look at the evolution of various economic indicators since 2014, they rather confirm his perception. See for example in:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/indicators

[mtls2005]

the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) expressed concern for Thailand’s 10-year outlook

 

"No problem, we've got a 20 year plan."

 

Who knew subs and tanks were "infrastructure"?

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, candide said:

He may not be an economist but if you look at the evolution of various economic indicators since 2014, they rather confirm his perception. See for example in:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/thailand/indicators

GDP growth rate alone is about as useful for measuring an economy as BMI is for measuring weight vs health!

 

What ever measures you want to use, please say which economy you want to compare against since looking at Thailands economic perofirmance in isolation is pointless - how about we compare debt per capita between Thailand and the UK for example, public borrowing, consumer debt, foriegn currency reserves, NPL's, take your pick.

[kokesaat]

On 4/26/2017 at 3:20 PM, ballpoint said:

They certainly won't be red.

But in fact, they will be 'red'.

[candide]

23 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

GDP growth rate alone is about as useful for measuring an economy as BMI is for measuring weight vs health!

 

What ever measures you want to use, please say which economy you want to compare against since looking at Thailands economic perofirmance in isolation is pointless - how about we compare debt per capita between Thailand and the UK for example, public borrowing, consumer debt, foriegn currency reserves, NPL's, take your pick.

It's you who made the claim that if the concerned poster was an economist he would not state that the economy was in bad shape. So please show us how an economist should analyse the economic situation of Thailand since 2014. I suggest two comparisons: historical (before/after Junta) and geographical (ASEAN). 

PS I never wrote that GDP growth alone is sufficient, although it is quite indicative.

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, candide said:

It's you who made the claim that if the concerned poster was an economist he would not state that the economy was in bad shape. So please show us how an economist should analyse the economic situation of Thailand since 2014. I suggest two comparisons: historical (before/after Junta) and geographical (ASEAN). 

PS I never wrote that GDP growth alone is sufficient, although it is quite indicative.

"(before/after Junta)" is coincidental, which Western economy(ies) do you want to compare against Thailand's and for which year?

[candide]

11 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

"(before/after Junta)" is coincidental, which Western economy(ies) do you want to compare against Thailand's and for which year?

Before/after junta is not coincidental at all in this  topic. As I wrote before, it should be relevant to compare with the other ASEAN countries over the last 5 years (it does not make sense to compare with western countries such as UK, as you probably know).

Edited April 27, 2017 by candide

[simoh1490]

Just now, candide said:

Before/after junta is not coincidal at all in this  topic. As I wrote before, it should be relevant to compare with the other ASEAN countries over the last 5 years (it does not make sense to compare with western countries such as UK, as you probably know).

Hmm! So the hoards of western expats and tourists who frequent these pages, from home and occasionally from Thailand, all compare the Thai economy and its social structure with that of other countries in ASEAN, really? Methinks not!

 

So pray tell, why does it not make sense to compare the economy of an advanced, fully developed, high earning, first world country such as the UK with that of an emerging, developing, third world country such as Thailand? Surely such a comparison over time would highlight which, at a minimum, was positioned better currently? Remember, the objective is not to identify which economy in the world is the strongest, the objective is to fairly assess the performance of the Thai economy, over time.

[candide]

3 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

Hmm! So the hoards of western expats and tourists who frequent these pages, from home and occasionally from Thailand, all compare the Thai economy and its social structure with that of other countries in ASEAN, really? Methinks not!

 

So pray tell, why does it not make sense to compare the economy of an advanced, fully developed, high earning, first world country such as the UK with that of an emerging, developing, third world country such as Thailand? Surely such a comparison over time would highlight which, at a minimum, was positioned better currently? Remember, the objective is not to identify which economy in the world is the strongest, the objective is to fairly assess the performance of the Thai economy, over time.

Come on! There are two possible explanations to your post. Either you are not an economist, or you don't like the most relevant comparisons (compare what is comparable) because it will not present a good image of the Junta.

[simoh1490]

Just now, candide said:

Come on! There are two possible explanations to your post. Either you are not an economist, or you don't like the most relevant comparisons (compare what is comparable) because it will not present a good image of the Junta.

The governement, be it elected or a junta is irrelevant to any debate of a country's economic strength, our debate is economics not politics. 

 

It might however be that such a thing was identified as the cause of economic strength or weakness but since we haven't had the debate, who knows. The problem seems to be that you want to start with your conclusion that the junta has caused the economy to weaken and having done so, now want to have a discussion on economics to make the detail fit your conclusion. I don't think so!

 

And please forgive me if I don't wait around for ever to debate this topic with you and if I go out for dinner instead. I promise however that will however respond in the morning to any further challenge you want to post on this subject. Having said, that, waiting for my better half to get ready to go out is not unlike waiting for UK debt levels to recede hence I may well reply this evening!

[jadee]

Quote

the two banks expressed concern for Thailand’s aging population and relatively low average income, which could result in an overburdened welfare system. 

The banks are overlooking or unaware of how little support the Thai welfare system offers the elderly - it's something like 1,000baht per month for old people in Thailand. The government doesn't even pretend that they are giving enough for people to live on or do anything with. It's fine to say that the cost of living in Thailand is low, but the welfare system doesn't even cover living costs in a low-cost environment. 

[USPatriot]

But but 8m Chinese tourists visited

[candide]

3 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

The governement, be it elected or a junta is irrelevant to any debate of a country's economic strength, our debate is economics not politics. 

 

It might however be that such a thing was identified as the cause of economic strength or weakness but since we haven't had the debate, who knows. The problem seems to be that you want to start with your conclusion that the junta has caused the economy to weaken and having done so, now want to have a discussion on economics to make the detail fit your conclusion. I don't think so!

 

And please forgive me if I don't wait around for ever to debate this topic with you and if I go out for dinner instead. I promise however that will however respond in the morning to any further challenge you want to post on this subject. Having said, that, waiting for my better half to get ready to go out is not unlike waiting for UK debt levels to recede hence I may well reply this evening!

Hmm.. I recognise I may have been too impetuous in my posts.

The economic perspective may not be very promising for some developped countries, i.e. some European countries, but the comparison with developing countries is not so relevant, for different reasons such as the stock of material and immaterial resources (to make it short). So it does not make sense to compare growth rates, or debt ratios, as you mention it. The debt ratio level which is sustainable for a developed country is not the same as for a developing country.

It is true that a current situation cannot be a reliable indicator of future economic situation at a ten years horizon, but if we look at the evolution of Thailand's indicators during the last 5 years, compared to other ASEAN countries, and in particular the less developed ones, the relative situation of Thailand has degraded.

Have a good night!

[simoh1490]

5 hours ago, candide said:

but if we look at the evolution of Thailand's indicators during the last 5 years, compared to other ASEAN countries, and in particular the less developed ones, the relative situation of Thailand has degraded.

On that point we can agree, the question now becomes why.

 

I think it is correct to say that the coup of 2014 came at a cost to the economy in several ways, most of which are difficult to quantify in financial terms, it is certain however that the the coup saved the country from almost certain bloodshed and in economic terms was likely the better path to follow at the time. And whilst it is tempting to blame all of the economic failures on the coup, the reality is very different since the coup took place at a time when other negative economic and climatic factors were coming into play: exports to Thailand’s biggest trading partner China fell on the back of China’s own lack of growth; tourism fell on the back of a global downturn; the country experienced its worst drought in twenty years; inward investment fell as a result of much anticipated US Fed action; the swing in the price of oil affected each country differently; the legacy rice scandal saw prices fall and local farmers in need of support and the market price of Thailand’s second largest crop rubber, fell.

 

The economy of each ASEAN member country is different to a lesser or greater degree, their dependency on various export markets is different, the products and services they do or don't offer is different and the degree to which consumer spending impacts those economies is not the same. Agriculture is a feature of most ASEAN countries and the worst drought in 80 years affected agricultural exports differently, the global economic downturn also affected each differently also - significantly, the starting base and export maturity of each of those countries is also different thus the impact of market loss by each country is also quite different. Trying to disentangle then measure the impact of the coup from the other known economic and climatic events taking place around the same time and subsequently, is almost impossible, the easy way out of course is to not do so and simply blame it all on the coup, even if that's not the right answer!

 

I see in other forums on TVF there are posters rubbing their hands with glee because the Baht is weakening, most blaming, happily so, the generals who "don't know how to manage the economy" apparently it's all their fault. Sadly for those posters the reality is quite different since the Baht always weakens in May and it has done so for many years thus it's not as a result of the coup: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-21/peak-tourist-season-ending-signals-baht-rally-likely-to-reverse

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2017 by simoh1490

[candide]

8 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

On that point we can agree, the question now becomes why.

 

I think it is correct to say that the coup of 2014 came at a cost to the economy in several ways, most of which are difficult to quantify in financial terms, it is certain however that the the coup saved the country from almost certain bloodshed and in economic terms was likely the better path to follow at the time. And whilst it is tempting to blame all of the economic failures on the coup, the reality is very different since the coup took place at a time when other negative economic and climatic factors were coming into play: exports to Thailand’s biggest trading partner China fell on the back of China’s own lack of growth; tourism fell on the back of a global downturn; the country experienced its worst drought in twenty years; inward investment fell as a result of much anticipated US Fed action; the swing in the price of oil affected each country differently; the legacy rice scandal saw prices fall and local farmers in need of support and the market price of Thailand’s second largest crop rubber, fell.

 

The economy of each ASEAN member country is different to a lesser or greater degree, their dependency on various export markets is different, the products and services they do or don't offer is different and the degree to which consumer spending impacts those economies is not the same. Agriculture is a feature of most ASEAN countries and the worst drought in 80 years affected agricultural exports differently, the global economic downturn also affected each differently also - significantly, the starting base and export maturity of each of those countries is also different thus the impact of market loss by each country is also quite different. Trying to disentangle then measure the impact of the coup from the other known economic and climatic events taking place around the same time and subsequently, is almost impossible, the easy way out of course is to not do so and simply blame it all on the coup, even if that's not the right answer!

 

I see in other forums on TVF there are posters rubbing their hands with glee because the Baht is weakening, most blaming, happily so, the generals who "don't know how to manage the economy" apparently it's all their fault. Sadly for those posters the reality is quite different since the Baht always weakens in May and it has done so for many years thus it's not as a result of the coup: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-21/peak-tourist-season-ending-signals-baht-rally-likely-to-reverse

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with you that the coup and Junta's government are not the only factors that may explain the recent economic performance of this country. However, it costed 3 points of GDP in 2014 (a similar amount as the rice scheme deficit, but the lost gdp was completely lost), and the economic impact of the Junta's government have not been assessed, for lack of trust from investors (they usually don't like military governments, and in particular when laws are not predictable), and also for incompetence. See the website of The Economist, there are plenty of good articles on Thailand.

 

Now concerning "it is certain however that the the coup saved the country from almost certain bloodshed and in economic terms was likely the better path to follow at the time", I cannot assess if it was the better path for the economy, as I don't know which policy the government due to be elected in July 2014 would have implemented. However, that the coup saved the country from almost certain bloodshed, is quite objectionable  (I will make it short, there have been long debates about it in this forum). Bangkok was becoming very quiet as Suthep was barely able to mobilise people any more and his mob was spreading thin. As mentioned, elections were planned for July. Actually, it can even be argued that the coup occured because the situation was returning to normal, leaving no other option to the political faction opposed to the "red" faction. Plan A (Suthep's people's upheaval) failed, plan B (the judicial coup with the help of appointed senators) failed, so there was only plan C left.

[simoh1490]

1 hour ago, candide said:

I agree with you that the coup and Junta's government are not the only factors that may explain the recent economic performance of this country. However, it costed 3 points of GDP in 2014 (a similar amount as the rice scheme deficit, but the lost gdp was completely lost), and the economic impact of the Junta's government have not been assessed, for lack of trust from investors (they usually don't like military governments, and in particular when laws are not predictable), and also for incompetence. See the website of The Economist, there are plenty of good articles on Thailand.

 

Now concerning "it is certain however that the the coup saved the country from almost certain bloodshed and in economic terms was likely the better path to follow at the time", I cannot assess if it was the better path for the economy, as I don't know which policy the government due to be elected in July 2014 would have implemented. However, that the coup saved the country from almost certain bloodshed, is quite objectionable  (I will make it short, there have been long debates about it in this forum). Bangkok was becoming very quiet as Suthep was barely able to mobilise people any more and his mob was spreading thin. As mentioned, elections were planned for July. Actually, it can even be argued that the coup occured because the situation was returning to normal, leaving no other option to the political faction opposed to the "red" faction. Plan A (Suthep's people's upheaval) failed, plan B (the judicial coup with the help of appointed senators) failed, so there was only plan C left.

Sorry if you find that statement objectionable, it was not and is not my intention to discuss politics, only the economics of the period so feel free to discard that statement.