Although the unjust policy of making the sale and use of some recreational drugs illegal is popular, the obvious facts, which we see in the news every day, prove that after more than 40 years it is and always has been a total failure.
Similarly, their constantly poor and powerless condition after decades of government control of their economic decision making seems to be strong evidence that Thai governments do
not help Thai farmers.
- What do you think? Do Thai governments help Thai farmers?
As discussed in class, this question arose out of the desire of several people to discuss such issues in their essays answering Hartmann's question on page 60 of
Quest: "What is the economic system in one country you know?" (2007)
Hartmann, P. (2007).
Quest 2 Reading and Writing (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
I think government try to help farmers but their policies are failed. Because some hidden factors, corruption by politician, is majorly problem in Thai economy. The funding that government set is not received by farmers but also politicians and middle mans.
ReplyDeleteSo I'm partly agree that government help Thai farmers. Maybe I have to change some ideas and supporting details in my essay. [T^T]
i think the government doesnt exactly help farmers. Most of their policies are solving problems; notwithstanding, they should provent to have some problems.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mo that the largest problem of Thai government is corruption; as a result, money for helping poor are not in hand.
I agree with Mo and Som's opinions, Yes, Thai gov. helps farmers sometimes, but it's not effective and doesn't help in the long run. Many Thai politicians corrupt a lot. It's shame about this truth.
DeleteI see many times Thai gov. just allow providing more loans for the farmers; consequently, they will be in dept more and more. Finally, they would become more poorer.
I think that Mo might be right, and that Som is right. Thai governments, every Thai government, do not help farmers, although they all pretend to help and perhaps some try to help, although I'm not sure that they do really try to help.
ReplyDeleteTo give a specific example: Thai farmers are not allowed to freely buy and sell their land. they cannot sell their land to foreign people. This communist like control by the government means that the farmers' land is not priced at its real value. The result is that rich Thai people can abuse the farmers by buying their land too cheaply - it is the same as stealing from them, and it is government control which creates and encourages this injustice against Thai farmers. The laws against free market buying and selling of land benefit a very small group of rich and powerful Thai people, who are able to legally harm most Thai citizens, especially farmers, by taking their land at cheap prices. This is bad not only for the hard working Thai farmers, but for the entire Thai economy.
Another example of communist-like control that harms the Thai economy and the Thai farmers is the legal opposition to businesses such as Tesco-Lotus, which would provide better goods and services at cheaper prices if the government did not interfere to stop free market businesses.
ReplyDeleteThe result is that the poorest Thai people, the farmers, have to pay more for basic goods like food, clothes and furniture because the Thai government stops free market competition to benefit only a very small group of richer people, whilst harming the majority of Thai citizens and the entire Thai economy with these communist policies against free markets.
But please feel welcome to explain why I'm wrong if you disagree with me. I think that no Thai government helps or has helped Thai farmers.
Do you that Thai governments intervene free maket? So you think that without interfering, Lotus supermarket can sell cheaper than now.
DeleteI'm confused about your point. Can you give examples about it?
In my view, I think that international supermarket enterprise, like Lotus, destroyed many businesses Thailand such as grocery and local shopping place. Because client prefer to buy at supermarket more than local one.
Do you that Thai governments intervene free maket? So you think that without interfering, Lotus supermarket can sell cheaper than now.
DeleteI'm confused about your point. Can you give examples about it?
In my view, I think that international supermarket enterprise, like Lotus, destroyed many businesses Thailand such as grocery and local shopping place. Because client prefer to buy at supermarket more than local one.
Mo,
DeleteI agree that supermarkets, Thai and international, have destroyed many businesses. But this is not a bad thing. It is a sad thing for grocery and local shopping businesses, but no injustice when they fail because customers do not freely choose their expensive, limited range of products.
The intervention by Thai governments was not to raise prices but to refuse to allow supermarkets to open in many areas, especially rural areas, although Thai governments do often unjustly raise the prices of goods. This interference to prevent them opening harmed and continues to harm Thai farmers. It also harms the entire Thai economy except for one selfish, greedy group who do not want to improve their service to customers.
More large supermarkets would have opened throughout Thailand, but after protests from the selfish local business owners, the government interfered to prevent more large supermarkets opening up country. The result was that to "help" a small number of businesses owners who do not want to compete freely and who do want to abuse other people, large supermarkets were not allowed to open everywhere that customers wanted them. Consequently, those customers, often the poorest Thai people who cannot afford to travel to better places, are forced to continue using the expensive and unfairly exploitative small grocery shops and local businesses.
The large supermarkets would have done much to benefit the whole local economy: not only providing more and better goods at lower prices and more convenient times, but also employing local people and creating demand for more goods and services.
The small grocery shops and others are only destroyed because in a free and fair market, customers do not want those sorts of stores. And that is not unjust.
But it is unjust to use the law to force people, especially poor people, to pay more by controlling and limiting free market competition, which leads to lower prices, better service and more efficient use of resources.
If you would like to share your ideas on a related but more challenging set of questions, you might like to discuss:
ReplyDelete- What, if anything, must governments do?
- What should governments do?
- What may government's do?
- What shouldn't governments do?
- What may governments not do?
Again, in their essays, a couple of writers have stated or implied opinions on these sorts of questions, which are probably far more difficult and much more controversial than Hartmann's relatively simple expository question on page 60.
And I've probably already written enough here and elsewhere that you can infer a little of my likely answers to these questions. Many (most?) of my friends, at AUA and elsewhere, academic and otherwise, strongly disagree with a lot of my ideas, so don't let disagreement worry you. But I am prepared to support my ideas.