Srikcir

It's not really the physical export of gold that increased but rather Thailand could have physically exported less gold but still experienced more export revenue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cbbql0/thailands_agriculture_and_cooperatives_minister/ All three produced in China. Fifty-three countries, including China, Vietnam and Laos have banned paraquat, while 17 countries limit the use of all three chemicals. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/cbbql0/thailands_agriculture_and_cooperatives_minister/ Paraquat has been banned in the European Union since 2007. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraquat List of countries that banned or limited use of Glyphosate includes Sri Lanka, Switzerland and Austria. https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/toxic-tort-law/monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/where-is-glyphosate-banned/ Summary of evidence for stopping or regulating the use of the three chemicals detailed in Thailand's Pathway to Regulation of Three Dangerous Chemicals by BioThai, published 2018-04-18. https://www.biothai.org/node/1431 If Thailand does proceed with any pesticide ban, it will be against Paraquat.

Is there any limit to the number of back-to-back soft loans a farmer can get? Since Prayut became PM it seems the government has backed more than a dozen sequential soft loans to farmers through the BAAC over the past five years, in some cases cancelling defaults on loan payments.

Please run for the Senate. You'll no longer sheltered by Trump, the Republican majority Senate and privileged to silence your detractors in the State Department, nor from the electorate in general and professional statesmen, you'll have a lot to answer for your support for your leader POTUS Trump's foreign policies. I look forward to your debates with Republican candidates for the Senate, with the Democrat candidate should you win the Republican primary, and your town hall meetings with the electorate.

Has the real estate sector received any direct government subsidies - no. But it has received a government stimulus of a sorts. The new Land and Building Property Tax that was to go in effect in 2019 was delayed, allegedly by the Prayut regime until after the February (then March) 2019 elections, then further delayed until 2020. I don't see appetite in the majority pro-military parliament coalition to allow it to apply in 2020 (unless the baht is forecast for a significant depreciation). There has been also an indirect stimulus from the Prayut government's investment in various new infrastructure and the Eastern Economic Corridor. Such projects invariably and predictably attract adjacent commercial development that increases land values. Finally, albeit very indirect, the government's and BOT's economic policies have fueled the SET that can indirectly benefit real estate funds and listed ventures. For example, government subsidized new home purchases and subsidized home mortgages.

You'd think this is a good sign: But in 2018 it was reported that 40% of Thai farmers lived under poverty line, set at 32,000 baht a year. Meanwhile, the ageing farm population is also a hurdle for the sector, as agricultural labor aged 40-60 increased significantly from 39% of the workforce in 2003 to 49% in 2013, while younger farmers aged 15-40 declined from 48% to 32% over the same period. https://www.thailand-business-news.com/economics/69303-40-of-thai-farmers-live-under-poverty-line.html The reason that Thailand remains poor is imbalanced development. https://borgenproject.org/why-is-thailand-poor/ To support industrial production, resources were centralized to the capital and surrounding urban areas, thus depriving rural areas. The enrollment rate for “tertiary education” was reported as 18 percent in rural areas compared to 39.5 percent in urban.

This might better read: Somkid not confident he'll last beyond the next quarter

Which has been the antithesis of Prayut's Eastern Economic Corridor development and the infrastructure development to sustain it, independent of the poor and vulnerable groups being excluded from its benefits.

A fairly honest and astute article. However, Given the current government is essentially the previous government that had five years with absolute political power to plan for longer term measures to assure economic sustainability, I don't have any hopes that it now as a coalition facing significant political parliament opposition will have the will to find workable solutions. The current government will continue to fall into its own trap of short term measures that even it has labeled as "gifts" during the previous Prayut regime. Not designed so much as an evolution towards electorate economic sustainability and social equality, but to the continued status quo of holding the Thai electorate hostage to an undemocratic system of governance.

Why Trump keeps calling women 'nasty' "misogyny involves punishing women who don't act the way men want them to. This is exactly what Trump does, and he does it publicly." http://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_f755f506f8e710b849d8d3defb6516ef

Windows is an operating software system, not a pc.

Great! Resign or retake the oath as a responsible Head of Government. As Prayut led his Cabinet in the oath whom also made the same failure, they too should take responsibility for their mistake.

Some OP's keep reminding us that Harry S. Truman offered to buy Greenland in 1946 for US$100,000,000 as if that was in some way a rationale for Trump's purchase idea. It isn't. Look at the context of Truman's offer in 1946. In 1946 Greenland was only protected by Denmark. WW2 showed how vulnerable Denmark was to attack and overthrow. It would be strategic therefore for the U.S. to offer purchase of Greenland to better protect the U.S. But NATO was created in 1949. That meant that all the NATO members including the U.S. would come to the defense of any NATO member against any attack. As such the U.S. got its strategic position without purchase! Furthermore, the subsequent North Atlantic Treaty between Denmark and the U.S. in 1949 provided the U.S. with additional strategic military advantage including U.S. military bases in Greenland. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/den001.asp In the final analysis, there is no strategic need for the U.S. to offer purchase of Greenland in 2019. The only explanation remaining is that Trump's offer was an absurd flight of fantasy. Duly noted by Denmark.

If the most powerful person in the world has to retake his oath of office - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-inauguration-roberts/after-fumbled-oath-roberts-and-obama-leave-little-to-chance-idUSBRE90H16L20130118 - shouldn't the newly elected Thailand PM show the same respect to the Constitution, the Thai People and the Monarchy by doing the same?

POTUS Trump (Bolton?), please make an offer to purchase Thailand - it's very strategic to U.S. national security.