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.

  • palmtrees2308@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    Why a single stimulus? why not a Universal Basic Income? Doesn’t the world is in recession because of US covid stimulus?

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          And sweeping comprehensive permanent changes “work?” Do we have a single practical example of UBI + price controls?

  • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

      • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        • learningduck@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

  • abos@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      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…

    • SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

    • Squizzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      How is ensuring it is spent locally giving it to franchises and big business?

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    The 13.8 billion digital support plan. You’re supporting people, not giving “handouts”.

      • big_slap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • scarabic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.

          • big_slap@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            nothing. it’s support because the country is doing badly, similar to the checks that were cut during covid for americans

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              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.

          • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            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.

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              A: Being alive, being part of the economy and social structures, etc. You know, humans.

              So nothing then?

                • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              No we’re just ignoring the “spins” and discussing facts. If you want to use different words, that’s fine. But to say that someone else is wrong because they didn’t use your preferred synonym is factually incorrect. It’s needless banter in an area that already has a massive excess.

              • acargitz@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                2 months ago

                So, if I call you a pedant, as opposing to “detail oriented”, you’ll be fine with it, because we’re just discussing facts and you’re fine with different words. Cool cool cool cool cool.

                • helenslunch@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  So, if I call you a pedant

                  I’m being the opposite of a pedant so that would indeed be the opposite of factual.

          • can@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            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?

            • helenslunch@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              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.