Thread: PM: Govt cutting budgets for populist policies

PM: Govt cutting budgets for populist policies
Sarun Saelee



BANGKOK, 29 July 2010 (NNT)– The Government has started to adjust the amount of budgets allocated for populist policies, notably the relief measures for low-income earners, according to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

As detailed by Prime Minister Abhisit, the Government so far has been gradually reducing the budgets used to maintain reasonable living expenses of the low-income group. Also, the government focused on spending appropriately with the current situations and directing the aids to those in need.

The Thailand Development Research Institute (TDRI) earlier suggested that the Government should cut down on budgets used for its populist policies and instead turn to adjust tax structure.

The Prime Minister then ensured that Thai economy is making a good recovery as he confirmed that the Government would not have to seek loans as high as 400 billion THB as expected while its budget deficit was lesser than the expected figure by 200-300 billion THB.

Prime Minister Abhisit added that the Bank of Thailand (BoT) in the meantime would be monitoring the interest rate in independent manner; therefore, there would be no problem for the overall economic stability as concerned.

thainews.prd.go.th

Originally Posted by Mid

As detailed by Prime Minister Abhisit, the Government so far has been gradually reducing the budgets used to maintain reasonable living expenses of the low-income group. Also, the government focused on spending appropriately with the current situations and directing the aids to those in need.

Oh good. A lot of people think its about time people other than the poor should be getting ' the aids '

This term 'populist policies' really freaks me out. The government's job is to serve the population, so policies directed at the mass population are the correct agenda for any functioning government and would thus be considered popular. It has been changed into a dirty word/idea by the top tier of society rapists to serve their own needs; 'popular policies aimed at helping the masses are BAD!', 'tough policies that benefit the bankers and massive land owners/business owners while making sure the masses should be self-sufficient, are GOOD!'.

It's an example of doublespeak. I know I've simplified the macro-economic situation, but basically it's just an abuse of language through subtle and long-lasting propaganda/misinformation to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor... Fuks me right off, bastardoses the lot of 'em...

Economy might be doing well but the factory workers round here are still on 5k a month, so this news will be most unwelcome, if not unexpected

Can give the money saved to the army - to buy more jet fighters and sniper rifles, with a bit left over for a share out among Top Brass.

They must have had a big bill for all those daft yes we can shirts and posters. I want a shirt that's the same bit says no you can't.

Everyone knows who the Dem's work for, who they represent- and it sure ain't the people.

What I don't understand though is that Thaksin became PM as Thailand was still reeling from a devastating financial crisis- and the Thai economy did very well under him. In spite of his 'populist programs' (which Dem apologists disengenously argue was sending the country broke) his government produced mainly government surpluses- and paid off the IMF Emergency loans two years early. Yet the Dem's are running persistent government deficits- and using this as their excuse to successively, peel back the 'populist' policies of Thaksin. So where is the money going? Why is the government in persistent deficit? Thai export performance is actually doing very well. Seems pretty clear to me it's a case of feathering the nest of the Dem's real bosses- Military, Amat, SinoThai biz community- at the expense of the majority of the people.

No wonder they can't win an election.

Originally Posted by sabang

What I don't understand though is that Thaksin became PM as Thailand was still reeling from a devastating financial crisis- and the Thai economy did very well under him.

only because Chuan was able to save the country from collapse with the help of the IMF, and austerity plans helped reassured bonds and currency holders. See the J-curve effect, well documented. Eventually growth returned in 2002, and incidentally he was on the driver seat.

Originally Posted by sabang

In spite of his 'populist programs' (which Dem apologists disengenously argue was sending the country broke) his government produced mainly government surpluses

only because GDP growth was financing those policies, eventually they would have not been sustainable and persistent in that form (cash funds) as soon as the economy had slowed down. It's easy to be a good manager when everyone else is doing fine, just like in the stock market incidentally.

Originally Posted by sabang

and paid off the IMF Emergency loans two years early.

only because he didn't want to follow IMF remedies, namely raise the VAT and other income taxes. The early payment was eventually more expensive. Not sure how you can qualify this as a good thing.

Originally Posted by sabang

Yet the Dem's are running persistent government deficits- and using this as their excuse to successively, peel back the 'populist' policies of Thaksin.

only because they took back the country under a world wide economic crisis, and everyone is in the shit, not only Thailand. Check France and England for a clue.

Originally Posted by sabang

Thai export performance is actually doing very well. Seems pretty clear to me it's a case of feathering the nest of the Dem's real bosses- Military, Amat, SinoThai biz community- at the expense of the majority of the people.

Corporate tax are quite low here,