Thailand’s prime minister has said 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.

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.

    • big_slap@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      4 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.worldEnglish
          2·
          4 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.eeEnglish
            1·
            4 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.

        • big_slap@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          4 months ago

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

        • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.eeEnglish
          0·
          4 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.