Thailand’s prime minister said Monday that eligible businesses and individuals can register from August for digital cash handouts, a controversial program that will cost billions of dollars and is meant to boost the lagging economy.
The government announced in April the widely criticized ambitious plan, named the Digital Wallet, meant to give 10,000 baht (about $275) to 50 million citizens in digital money to spend at local businesses.
However, economists have criticized the program, calling it an ineffective way to contribute to sustainable economic growth compared to other measures.
Thailand has in recent years suffered from a sluggish economy that appears to have deteriorated with no clear sign of growth. This month, the World Bank’s Thailand Economic Monitor projected GDP growth of 2.4% for the year 2024.
The 13.8 billion digital support plan. You’re supporting people, not giving “handouts”.
What’s the difference?
a handout can be seen as unearned money, it carries a negative connotation. this is money going to people for support of their lives, since things are very bad for them right now.
a handout can be seen as unearned money
What did they do to earn this money?
Look, I’ll be straight with you. “Universal Basic Income” is in substance the same thing as “handouts.” The only difference is in the tone and connotations of the phrase you choose to use. “Handouts” has overwhelmingly negative connotations of “free stuff for lazy people,” while “Universal Basic Income” has connotations of a futuristic economic policy that will solve a lot of societal problems.
You can use many words to describe something like this. Stipend. Dividend. Stimulus. Welfare. The dole. They all walk the same but each carries different baggage.
So I think the person above you was a little silly to say it’s NOT a handout. Sure it is. But it’s a humane and well planned handout designed to reduce suffering and stimulate the economy -not the unwashed masses robbing the country blind.
Let’s all just say what we think of such policies instead of letting connotations do the work for us.
Personally, I’m excited to see any program like this of such a size, and especially in a country I have been to and know a little about. Let’s see how it plays out. UBI could be awesome and it could be a blind alley where the funds just cause inflation and the benefits are short lived. We have to see.
Stipend. Dividend. Stimulus. Welfare. The dole.
Allowance. Patronage. Sponsorship. Trust fund payout.
From all the – granted, limited – data we have UBI is an absolute win, mostly because it allows people to make long-term plans and investments. People living paycheck to paycheck might be easy to exploit, but they’re also not very economically productive. And, no, despite all that neolib propaganda exploiting people to bolster stock market valuation has never led to macroeconomical productivity. The increases we had were despite the exploitation, not because of it.
Contrast with microcredit, which has a spotty at best track record. And that’s before loan sharks got into the business.
So I think the person above you was a little silly to say it’s NOT a handout.
I agree, it is a moot point.
A: Being alive, being part of the economy and social structures, etc.
You know, humans.
Nobody needs to earn money. That by default means those who cannot earn money by current local financial sentiments, are worthless. Yet everyone is worthless if there is nobody spending “earned” money.The ‘poor’ spend relatively more money than the rich, and they tend to do that locally, they pay more taxes, produce labour, etc.
Ie all the money gets recirculated into the local economy, which (the local companies) can then invest or compete better.
Rich don’t do any that or at a fraction of the poor. And additionally it’s easier to stash money offshore, invest & support companies doing shady stuff etc.Giving money to big private corps literally never worked better that giving money to all local companies and/or citizens.
The former is just a transfer from citizens who earned money to a few private citizens.But, for example, what do investors do to earn our money?
I just pace money I have in excess somewhere & demand from their CEOs to cut costs by 14,3% or they are fired.
That ads financial value, but at what actual cost?However, investors take advantage of/rely on the poor spending their money by taking it and concentrating it, which makes that money a lot more dead compared to it being spent.
Investors do provide an important role by taking on risk and enabling growth that otherwise wouldn’t occur. The concept of an economy that constantly grows is that, through investment and work, value greater than the sum of the parts put in can be generated.
If Bob pays Frank to build a house and buys all the supplies, Frank does the actual labor, and Laura buys it then Bob and Frank are left with more money than they started with and Laura is left with an asset worth to her what she paid for it. Her net worth is unchanged and she can borrow against the house or sell it some day. All three people have gained from the situation.
If Bob and Frank can’t sell the house though or the price of houses drops while it’s being built Frank still gets his salary, Laura’s life is unchanged or she got a good deal, but Bob just lost everything he put in.
The problem is our society is wildly imbalanced towards Bob, so Frank is going to earn pennies for actually doing the work to build a house and Bob is going to rake in most of the profits. Taking the risk and enabling something to be built is obviously important and a valuable service, but it’s deeply overvalued in our current system as compared to actual labor
That’s how an economy can be doing well (generating lots of value) but for regular humans almost none of the value gets passed to us and instead gets concentrated in the hands of Bobs and Lauras who contribute money instead of labor.
Ensuring us Franks have enough money to spend is critical because, as you pointed out, a far larger share of my money is recirculating into the economy than a billionaire who spends tiny percentages of their net worth. Conversely, someone living paycheck to paycheck is by definition recirculating essentially 100% of their net worth back into the economy every pay cycle.
Lastly being poor is expensive, and has large costs associated. Not having savings to cover unexpected expenses often leads to debt, not being able to afford a large one time purchase often leads to many smaller expenses that add up much higher in total, etc. Enabling people to break out of those cycles is massively beneficial to economies and obviously (and more importantly imo) to individuals and communities
I worked in financial conglomerates all my career, I understand what you are saying very well.
But I think you missed the point about (intrinsic) value of the GDP components I was trying to make, and what brings the added value (if that makes sense, if it is actually value added, or did the agreed upon financial number go up for other reasons).
Why is house/housing an asset (in the sense of investment) to Laura? An asset that she did or had to pay more than it would cost her to hire the workers herself a day before (and risking the investment … about as much or even less as she is risking now that she bought it at a higher price)?
I agree with you, technically and practically, but my point is that the (economy) “generating lots of value” is bs when not taking extremely locally (like within a village).
In arguing that there needs to be a system where not only one single metric (capital) is important. That’s why ‘the system is heavily favouring Bob’, its by default, it’s the only logical way and the only end goal (we are taught and experience in short term that “if Bob doesn’t profit the most and most easily, the system/economy isn’t doing good bcs the profits aren’t high”). It’s obviously completely unsustainable within a closed environment, but with a variable timescale, where it can and does exist.
Eg if you are born in a world where you must buy a car to survive, that’s is a “must” for all intents and purposes. But the “value added” comes from misguided production which itself isn’t needed.
Or eg - developing products that last just isn’t and won’t be sensible in a capitalist free market, it says so itself. It’s stupid to produce eg light bulbs that last hundreds of years, the investors would divest from you immediately.
Now imagine we had a balancing power to financial power.
Something magical, like “the good of humanity” or something. Something that would be as powerful and desirable to offset even financial ruin. A meritocracy of sorts, but but exactly/just that (I dont see the mechanics of it for us atm, basically what Star Trek is without money, but with and abundant production of everything through basically unlimited energy).
Eg if someone creates a good product (for example those everlasting light bulbs), but covers the whole world with no customers left.
That guy/team due to their merits/contributions/career should still be able to indulge in some of the finite stuff (just like it would have been with money in the financial sense).I dont mean basic stuff like food, but naturally limited and/or unique stuff like an apartment with a specific view (no two have it exactly the same, but the light bulb guy should be able to “afford” it/get it easier than someone who worked a lifetime in a library and much much easier that an average student or kid).
Tl;dr: Only with a balancing power to keep pure financial interests in check can we advanced society, otherwise it’s mostly (and especially “eventually”) not in anyone’s financial interest to do so.
And we want to advance, right?
Think of the good all the geniuses being able and having the option to pursue what they are good at instead of what is immediately in some powers financial interest (eg flipping burgers - it’s great for those who like it, and bad for those who don’t, the other way around too, nobody with a good salary won’t go flipping burgers even if that is their calling, would enjoy it, and produce a better product and a more pleasant society).The house is an asset to Laura because she values it and it acts as an investment because it has value to others and their evaluation may change. If she buys it then she is assuming the risk from Bob that people’s valuation of it may go down or that something might happen to it. If she buys it primarily because she needs a place to live then that risk vs reward is likely less important to her than having a home.
Not involving Bob would be very beneficial in many ways for both Laura and Frank if that can be arranged, any middle man will add cost and without him Laura will pay less and Frank will earn more. The problem is Laura may be busy and not have time to find Frank, buy all the building supplies, and wait for the house to be built. She also avoids the risks involved with the building of the house (e.g. it turns out different than the plan and she hates it, it takes longer/ requires more parts and the cost goes way up, etc.) By having Bob involved her experience becomes vastly smoother, she gets to show up, see the finished product, say “I like it and I’m willing to spend this much on it”, and start moving in the next day.
If you can manufacture a lightbulb that lasts 100 years and price it reasonably you can absolutely start competing with light bulb companies. You may not make as much per customer over 100 years time, but if you convince enough of their customers they’ll save money with you then you’ll make a killing. Some types of investors are very willing to gamble on potentially disruptive ideas like that. The existing lightbulbs companies and their shareholders do have the exact lack of incentive to innovate you talked about but that doesn’t necessarily stop a new actor.
I completely agree that an unregulated market will tend towards greed and cause immense suffering. Ideally that’s one of the primary purposes of government, (unfortunately mine hasn’t functioned that way at all for my whole lifetime) but an entity that is “for the people by the people” which can intervene when greed could cause harm, ensure human rights and needs are provided for, and pull the correct levers to ensure the economy has both enough investment and healthy labor compensation to keep generating value (and to ensure the value generated actually ends up in the hands of the people) is absolutely critical.
I also totally agree with the fact that it’s critical to have other value systems besides money. In a small way I believe what we as individuals place value on and encourage in our communities has an impact. Obviously it won’t solve the issue or make society pivot in a dime, but it’s important nonetheless. Glorifying wealth and those who have it, entertainment factor, and fame/ infamy and losing sight of concepts like civic duty and an obligation to your community, society, or polis has consequences. I understand feelings on patriotism being complex as it’s been co-opted as a hateful concept by nationalists in many places but embracing more collectivist and less individualist attitudes at all levels of society help reinforce other value systems besides late stage capitalism
A: Being alive, being part of the economy and social structures, etc. You know, humans.
So nothing then?
If that’s how much you value that, then yes.
But I happen to disagree.
Merely existing is not earning compensation. Not everyone contributes anything to society and some certainly take more than they give.
You can make an argument that they deserve it or that it’s a benefit to society, but then you have to acknowledge that it is in fact a handout and just be okay with that.
nothing. it’s support because the country is doing badly, similar to the checks that were cut during covid for americans
So then we agree it’s a handout?
Maybe just accept and acknowledge it for what it is rather then trying to make some senseless semantic argument that others can and will use against the cause.
sure
Connotation
What connotation, exactly? Seems like splitting hairs to me.
Have you not heard all the people complaining about people getting handouts? Yes, it may not be incorrect but if we know that phrasing is going to lead to many people being dismissive of others getting help why are you so insistent on it? Are you against the concept and prefer people see it as a negative?
Yes, it may not be incorrect but if we know that phrasing is going to lead to many people being dismissive of others getting help why are you so insistent on it?
Because being dishonest is going to make people far more dismissive.
Where is the dishonesty?
…are you serious? Scroll up.
Lul, all that money not being transferred to like 10 already rich people, but to all people??
It’s like they want to actually boost economy and living standards.
The US has done one-off stimulus checks on multiple occasions.
They do nothing.
With nothing being measured by the stock market growth, yes, that is correct.
(Also those were tiny compared to free “stimulus” money for corps)And the other way around too - all the trickle down y’all regan-ed yourself into, in what sense did that ever help anyone, not measured by the stock market?
(And this isn’t even counting central banks printing money to buy govies & benefiting only the investors with that monetary policy, and for an insane amounts (7+ trillion sustained on the books?) over insane number of years - and all this do the stock market wouldn’t temporarily crash, at the cost of inevitable inflation surge. This too is a stimulus, the biggest one actually. Monetary policies are for stabilisation of cycles, not a decade of producing one.)
But yes, if you dont define “what works” by “what works for you personally” then stimulus checks absolutely work, all over the world.
Also Alaska basically has monthly stimulus checks, for no particular need from the government to do so.
One problem, though. In this case we still don’t know the source of this money that they are handing out. Would it become gigantic public debts, while the money will change hands to corporates very soon? The entire country is monopolized by a handful of families.
Why a single stimulus? why not a Universal Basic Income? Doesn’t the world is in recession because of US covid stimulus?
Step by step, capitalism too stronk.
But hopefully very soon.
My fear about UBI over the long term is that it will just get baked into prices and stop having a beneficial effect. Basically inflation. Inflation is what happens when money is devalued. And if everybody suddenly all have this magic same amount of money dropped out of the sky, who’s to say that anything fundamental in society will change? All the basic supplies and demands will still be there, so will there just be slightly different digits on all the price tags? What does that solve? Anyway, you shouldn’t expect a government to go STRAIGHT to UBI without some shorter term one-time stimulus experiments. So let’s hope it goes well and inspires more experimentation instead of saying hey stupid why didn’t you make it permanent? There are some obvious questions about how that would go.
My fear about UBI over the long term is that it will just get baked into prices
That’s why UBI alone would ultimately not help much, but UBI and price controls would be EXTREMELY helpful, especially to those struggling the most.
money dropped out of the sky
This is basically what most money is already. Difference with UBI is that a certain amount is guaranteed to go to everyone to create a financial floor, rather than almost all of it going to the 10% that exploit the other 90%
who’s to say that anything fundamental in society will change?
With UBI and price controls combined? Unless the UBI amount is too small or the price controls are too lax, it literally can’t NOT fundamentally change a society where the majority is struggling to get by.
All the basic supplies and demands will still be there
Except there’s TONS of market forces beyond just the basics, including ones that artificially deflate income and inflate prices. UBI combined with price controls would undoubtedly change the entire landscape for the better for the struggling majority as well as those of the rich whose income is at all connected to open commerce rather than just the stock market casino.
Anyway, you shouldn’t expect a government to go STRAIGHT to UBI without some shorter term one-time stimulus experiments
Except for the fact that such incrementalism has been shown again and again to take one or two insufficient steps in the right direction before being rolled back by opposing forces.
When it comes to transformative change, half or quarter measures and onetime tests just don’t work.
And sweeping comprehensive permanent changes “work?” Do we have a single practical example of UBI + price controls?
Do you really think a south East Asian country is going to be the first in the world to roll out UBI?
Easily. They actually make things.
You just need to make it tax supported instead of a money printer.
Actually it’s quite clever. In Thailand the biggest companies belong to extremely rich and very secretive families. Giving the digital wallet money to the people, but at the same time limiting where you can use it and what you can buy with it. This will make sure the money ends up in the pockets of the rich families. Keeping Election promises, a good PR Spin, and padding the pockets of the people that keep you in power. All at the same time.
Yep like the Chearavanont family they own, among other things, almost all of the 12000 7-Eleven stores in Thailand. And the ones they don’t own are franchised or licensed via them.
Honestly, even with cash it is actually hard to not give money to the oligarchs in Thailand. Pretty much every single transaction involves profit to the likes of CP Group. The chicken farms, the plastic bags, the sauces, the fuel…
I owe my ewallet to the company store!
How is ensuring it is spent locally giving it to franchises and big business?
This is worse than QE. This money is helicopter money.
What does really says is “Thailand will crash the crypto market.”
The implementation of digital currency will lead to enslavement.
