Prev Page 2 of 2 1 2 Please log in to reply 35 replies to this topic

[tlansford]

Moruya, on Yesterday, 16:14 , said:

TLansford

Personally I look for my facts in other organs. BP doesn't quite float my boat for the same reason as TAN

In 2010 the public debt was 42.4% of GDP

In 2011 that had reduced to 40.5%

The amount of budget that will be off the sheet with the PTP policies will be much larger. They have also shifted over a trillion baht in bad (Thaksin) debt to the BOT as well as borrowing hundreds of billions for their various schemes.

Thailand is an export driven economy. That is what has traditionally got it out of trouble. With the current market dropping and rice exports a disaster it will certainly see a drop in income from exports.

check the source referenced by the BP and you'll probably think it is a reliable one. They did not pull it out of thin air.

regardless, the MP was talking about the debt incurred by the government, and it is likely that he is talking about the debt from the previous admin.  And, even if by some means of poor reporting or misquoting that this is not the case, the debt run by the democrats was 400 Billion and 380 billion respectively and they are complaining here about a 300 billion shortfall.

??

[phiphidon]

waza, on Yesterday, 15:36 , said:

If you add the Thaskins years you will find its much much worse..........
"Thaksinomics could have had a devastating effect on the Thai economy if Thaksin had not been stopped when he was removed from power on September 19. Policies implemented under Thaksinomics coupled with populist policies that pandered to the unprincipled wants of people have accumulated whopping Bt150 billion worth of debts, both on and off the budget.
These debts accumulated mostly because Thaksin rushed through populist policies to score quick political points without concerning himself with the crucial question of how to fund them, as a responsible leader should.................But of greater importance is determining how to educate our citizens, particularly the rural masses still enamoured with Thaksin’s populist policies, about the financial ruin that Thailand may have narrowly averted when corruption-prone Thaksin was removed from power in disgrace.........The truth of the matter is there is no such thing as a free lunch. Taxpayers will have to start paying for Thaksin’s populist excess and the mountain of debt he incurred.  http://www.nationmul...on_30025662.php
Seems it more of the same

Which was shown up as just so much B/S in an article I've posted before about the myths of Thaksinomics

Quote

So Thaksin comes to power to find a dramatic increase in public debt with the government using almost 11% of revenues to finance this debt. Under Thaksin the ratio of public debt to GDP decreased from just under 58% at the end of 200 to 41.7% in 2006. Yes, you read that right the ratio of public debt to GDP fell under Thaksin. Far from there being a “mountain of debt” the country was in a much more sustainable fiscal position. The so-called “financial ruin” that Thaksin brought to the Thai economy included budget surpluses between 2003-2005. The Nation’s editorial is so devoid of any logic it is breathtaking, but we came to expect that from The Nation.

http://asiancorrespo...dget-surpluses/

Don't ignore it, read the article and the ones mentioned below the main text.

Edited by phiphidon, Yesterday, 17:00 .

[waza]

So you repudiate the Nations article using the Bangkok Pundits blog site?  Next you will be quoting Amsterdam.

It should be noted that Thaksinomics has not advocated personal saving or supported long term investment. Nor was Thaksin endorsed for good governance or avoiding conflicts of interests.
Thaksin was able to carry out these policies because the economy had recovered from the Asian financial crisis of 1997. The former government, led by the Democrat Party, had already implemented the necessary measures to stabilise the country’s international reserves and had reformed the banking system. Thaksin was able to use the reserves accumulated by the Chuan government to repay Thailand’s debt to the IMF ahead of schedule and claimed credit for this feat for himself.
In late 2004 and 2005, Thailand’s economic growth decelerated as a result of rising inflation and oil prices. Its economy was plagued by consumer debt and trade deficits as a result of Thaksin’s populist policies. Corruption and allegations of disrespecting the monarchy were widespread. The sale of Thaksin’s family-owned business — ShinCorp — which involved avoiding income tax, ignited an outcry, particularly from the middle class who bore the majority of the tax burden. The Bangkok middle class protested, sowing the seeds for the coup in September 2006. Interestingly, the urban population did not show any resistance to the military intervention.
http://www.eastasiaf...ulist-politics/

[phiphidon]

waza, on Yesterday, 17:29 , said:

So you repudiate the Nations article using the Bangkok Pundits blog site?  Next you will be quoting Amsterdam.

It should be noted that Thaksinomics has not advocated personal saving or supported long term investment. Nor was Thaksin endorsed for good governance or avoiding conflicts of interests.
Thaksin was able to carry out these policies because the economy had recovered from the Asian financial crisis of 1997. The former government, led by the Democrat Party, had already implemented the necessary measures to stabilise the country’s international reserves and had reformed the banking system. Thaksin was able to use the reserves accumulated by the Chuan government to repay Thailand’s debt to the IMF ahead of schedule and claimed credit for this feat for himself.
In late 2004 and 2005, Thailand’s economic growth decelerated as a result of rising inflation and oil prices. Its economy was plagued by consumer debt and trade deficits as a result of Thaksin’s populist policies. Corruption and allegations of disrespecting the monarchy were widespread. The sale of Thaksin’s family-owned business — ShinCorp — which involved avoiding income tax, ignited an outcry, particularly from the middle class who bore the majority of the tax burden. The Bangkok middle class protested, sowing the seeds for the coup in September 2006. Interestingly, the urban population did not show any resistance to the military intervention.
http://www.eastasiaf...ulist-politics/

I thought the argument was Thaksinomics would lead Thailand to ruin as according to the Nation. You then question the Bangkok Pundit that lays out figures that according to the Asian Development Bank show that the countrys fiscal position is sustainable in fact getting more so. Come the coup and the 2007 budget

Quote

What do you think the new sufficiency economy government did when they came to power? Instead of running a budget surplus, they are going to run a deficit of 146 billion bahtin the 2007 budget of which 40 billion baht can be blamed on Thaksin. The other 100 billion baht is going to the military and other projects.

The Nation which dislikes “populist policies that pandered to the unprincipled wants of people” was supportive of the extra 200 billion baht in the 2007 budget in another editorial just the other day:

Although exports should continue to post double-digit growth figures, the Thai economy really needs a fiscal prime-pumping to keep on track with a 4-per cent to 5-per cent growth rate.

COMMENT: That money will be spent on rebranded “populist” policies, but since Thaksin is not behind them, it is not just ok, but gets The Nation’s tick of approval.


http://asiancorrespo...dget-surpluses/

Which is exactly what this is about, isn't it - you've been told Thaksinomics is bad but when you're told it's not and in fact he had a couple of years of budget surplus, because Thaksin is behind it, it can't be true.


"Interestingly, the urban population did not show any resistance to the military intervention". With their history are you really suprised?

Edited by phiphidon, Yesterday, 19:18 .

[473geo]

I seem to remember Korn quoted, when his view on Thaksinomics was requested......

"Thaksinomics?.......more of the same"

[farang000999]

If I read one more article about how Thailand is the next Greece cause their debt level is 40% of GDP I am going to puke. Stfu!

[rubl]

Some historical data of GDP deficits in Thailand. It's in percentage, not THB. Note what is lacking is information on economical environment, government policy, GDP in THB, etc., etc. That would explain at least some of this.

Strictly speaking the table as is has little value but for showing the possibility to offer different explaination based on the same data :-)

http://www.tradingec...vernment-budget

Edited by rubl, Yesterday, 19:33 .

[waza]

Which is exactly what this is about, isn't it - you've been told Thaksinomics is bad but when you're told it's not and in fact he had a couple of years of budget surplus, because Thaksin is behind it, it can't be true.  #29 phiphidon


"Interestingly, the urban population did not show any resistance to the military intervention". With their history are you really suprised?

No matter how many blog sites you quote, (Bangkok pundit, Thailand post blog spot) that hobble obscure quotes together to substantiate their misleading assumptions that Thaksinomics stimulates an economy into surplus.  I checked every citation in the Bangkok pundits blog and coudn't find one that is still active.  I personaly would be embarrassed to use that blog to repudiate the facts contained in the Nation article and verified in the Bangkok Post article.
In conclusion I dont believe that Thakinomics, whether instituted by Thaksin or by Yingluck, is a valid finacial strategy for any economy.  Thaksinomics isnt about budget surpluses its about populist spending to maintain suport as his governments corrupts the countries finances into a massive deficit.  As the topic says "Budget Is All About Plundering For A Spending Spree:".

Edited by waza, Yesterday, 21:00 .

[tlansford]

waza, on Yesterday, 20:59 , said:

Which is exactly what this is about, isn't it - you've been told Thaksinomics is bad but when you're told it's not and in fact he had a couple of years of budget surplus, because Thaksin is behind it, it can't be true.  #29 phiphidon


"Interestingly, the urban population did not show any resistance to the military intervention". With their history are you really suprised?

No matter how many blog sites you quote, (Bangkok pundit, Thailand post blog spot) that hobble obscure quotes together to substantiate their misleading assumptions that Thaksinomics stimulates an economy into surplus.  I checked every citation in the Bangkok pundits blog and coudn't find one that is still active.  I personaly would be embarrassed to use that blog to repudiate the facts contained in the Nation article and verified in the Bangkok Post article.
In conclusion I dont believe that Thakinomics, whether instituted by Thaksin or by Yingluck, is a valid finacial strategy for any economy.  Thaksinomics isnt about budget surpluses its about populist spending to maintain suport as his governments corrupts the countries finances into a massive deficit.  As the topic says "Budget Is All About Plundering For A Spending Spree:".

"As the topic says "Budget Is All About Plundering For A Spending Spree:"."

Would that include the nearly 800Billion THB deficit under 2 years of the Abhisit government, too, or is this just dogmati-conomics?

[waza]

tlansford, on Today, 01:53 , said:

waza, on Yesterday, 20:59 , said:

Which is exactly what this is about, isn't it - you've been told Thaksinomics is bad but when you're told it's not and in fact he had a couple of years of budget surplus, because Thaksin is behind it, it can't be true.  #29 phiphidon


"Interestingly, the urban population did not show any resistance to the military intervention". With their history are you really suprised?

No matter how many blog sites you quote, (Bangkok pundit, Thailand post blog spot) that hobble obscure quotes together to substantiate their misleading assumptions that Thaksinomics stimulates an economy into surplus.  I checked every citation in the Bangkok pundits blog and coudn't find one that is still active.  I personaly would be embarrassed to use that blog to repudiate the facts contained in the Nation article and verified in the Bangkok Post article.
In conclusion I dont believe that Thakinomics, whether instituted by Thaksin or by Yingluck, is a valid finacial strategy for any economy.  Thaksinomics isnt about budget surpluses its about populist spending to maintain suport as his governments corrupts the countries finances into a massive deficit.  As the topic says "Budget Is All About Plundering For A Spending Spree:".

"As the topic says "Budget Is All About Plundering For A Spending Spree:"."

Would that include the nearly 800Billion THB deficit under 2 years of the Abhisit government, too, or is this just dogmati-conomics?

I dont know what dogmati-conomics is and cant find a definition.  I tried dogmatic-economic but only got this, "for Economics to move past theories that have acquired dogmatic status and remake Economics a useful but less deterministic tools in understanding the economic behaviour of people and organisations". http://npthinking.bl...dogmatic.html   Another blog I am afraid and  I am not sure it applies as a definition of Thaksinomics.
However, I dont support the laisser-faire ideology of  new classical macroeconomics theory which is practiced by most western economies and by the Democrat party.

Edited by waza, Today, 03:23 .

[simple1]

OzMick, on 2012-05-25 10:06:19, said:

DP25, on 2012-05-25 08:59:41, said:

Quote

Apart from this ongoing massive debt creation, the government also plans to dig deep into the vaults of the Bank of Thailand to spend at least US$100 billion (Bt3 trillion) of its $180 billion in international reserves.

Now that is scary.  Wonder where that money is going to end up.  I'm sure Thaksin's African contacts would be fabulous places to keep it safe  

I tried to work out what 30% of 3 trillion would be but my calculator doesn't have enough digits. They should have played Ginger singing "We're in the Money" as background music.

Is this a rare photo of Yingluk in parliament?

Yes, there will be some serious increase in wealth for 'influencial persons"