Wealth and Thai families

[Newforestcat]

At the very top of the wealth and class pyramid in Thailand, there are only a handful of families. Without being unfair most of them must have done one or two shady deals in the past 50 years. The connections are worth more than wealth in my opinion. I can see how the old-money still continue to be rolling in it right from their humble or noble beginnings in feudal Thailand. Of course, properties, land, rentals and money in the banks do increase in values. The new-money, well, I am sure with good brains and opportunities, some must have earned their wealth, while the other have got theirs from combinations of good and dodgy deals.
Most wealthy Thais have one thing in common, they like to embrace the wealth and to live a high live despite how they have obtained their wealth.

I am not writing the next paragraphs out of spite or bitterness, the fact is I do feel I have got everything I need, that makes me feel rich most of the time. I am always happy when people get ' lucky' through sheer honest hard work and intelligence. But the quiet acceptance of corruptions in Thailand is like cancer and drives me up the ceiling. It makes a large group of corruped officials continue to be corrupted and encaurages even some lowest level civil servants to do the same. These people are very loud about what they have been up to at work. Sometimes, I almost choke on my noodles listening to what they brag about. It is nothing wrong to aspire to be richer and have nice things in life. Unfortunately, you should not use briberies and corruptions as means to realise your get-rich-quick scheme.

I once was having my noodles with my brother when I overheard a coulples in their late 20s and early 30s talking about going to stay at a five star hotel in Hua Hin. Well, I can guess how much roughly they get from their jobs each month, bearing in mind, my local areas are relatively poor. I don't think they come from rich family either, or I would have known them (because most better-off people like to show off their wealth, I would have recognised them).

Most young people in Thailand live off their parents and can continue to do so until the end if they are very wealthy. There is even a verb and a noun for this kind of tradition which comes from the Chinese same as bribing officials. If you don't believe me, you can look into trades with China in the old days as early as the Georgian and early Victorian periods. The Chinese Emperor would only authorise trades with any countries who brought him a lot of gifts. I think both Thais and Chinese still spend millions each year on ' gifts'. I think most Chinese and Thais of Chinese origins mainly work extremely hard in order to provide for the next generations. It is a very noble thought.

Heard of Taksin Shinawatra? His son got his first porsche at 17 or 18. There was a rumour in our school that he crashed it shortly after. I did see some smashed up barriers near our school, unsure if it was his doing. Also there was another rumour, His dad gave a huge cheque to one of the top two universities in Thailand. The uni then started a new faculty so the son could study there otherwise he would have to study abroad or at private university. I won't tell you what I think. LOL
By the way, my family is not rich. I just happened to get in top school and uni by sheer hard work. A lot of my friends are very rich but some are poor, too (we have been friends since meeting at that school). The school runs often looked like Goodwood festival of Speed. I did enjoy drooling over lovely fast cars! I do love fast cars but I am not selling my house to buy an Aston Martin in Thailand anytime soon. I dread to think how the maintenance bills will kill my weak heart and shorten my hubby's life!

Anyway, there are extremely rich people in Thailand. How they have earned it, I am not sure apart from a few well-known families. Based of what I have read in OK magazines which my salon stocks, most of the rich who talk about their lives in the magazines have done more than a few dirty deals in their lives. Sadly, the fact that they talk about the deals makes me wonder if they really think they are acceptable. It worries me because there are tons of brainless kids who read this kind of rubbish. I am worried that they will think of doing anything just to be wealthy.

I guess most successful business brains in this centuray possibly have done some questionable deals. I remember a colleague told me that his partner worked for One of the biggest UK banks and how well the bank had done that year due to shady deals in Africa.

I possibly should get off my high horse now.

[Song_Si]

one less common route to wealth locally is sapphire mining; the Ploy Waen area was once the heart of the world's sapphire trade, and Chanthaburi remains a major gemstone trading centre.
This is a hard-work approach to gaining wealth.
At present I'm aware of 12 sapphire mining operations within 4km of our home, they are digging over - and at far greater depths - the areas previously mined by manual methods - esp for the "Mekong Whiskey" yellow sapphires. Seven days a week and every hour of daylight using tracked diggers, down to depths of 15m+ when the old diggings were likely to be less than 3m.
Landowners lease their land to the miners (either for a set fee per rai or a lower fee and profit-share) who re-instate it after they've finished; apart from all the diesel used it is environmentally-friendly in that the earth is simply dug up, water-blasted and through a centrifuge-type machine to separate stones, wet earth pumped back afterwards and replanted in fruit trees.
There are many new houses being built on the proceeds. More money in sapphires than in bananas and rubber trees which are commonly grown in the area. And three years after the only clue the area was mined is that it is in most cases perfectly flat as the earth was pumped back in semi-liquid form.



1. A handful of rough sapphire from Chanthaburi's Khao Ploi Waen mines. 2 "Mekong Whiskey" yellow sapphires from Bang Kha Cha near Ploy Waen, Chanthaburi.

[Newforestcat]

What Song_Si said reminded me of a guy who got extremely wealthy from selling Chantaburi gems on eBay! Lucky for him, he got on eBay early enough. Finding something or comparing similar things on eBay is like studying for a big exam which I always hate with all my passion. I was an eBay virgin up until early this year when I felt that I needed to get my brother a second job or he was going to pull his hair out when he paid his employees and other expense every month.

I still cannot say that I am a convert. Ebay sometimes makes me feel like I am stealing something from a stranger. I am more keen on Fairtrade not just quantity.

Back to the topic, is not it amazing that with all the advanced technologies, tours of outer space for the extremely geeky and /or priviledged, we are still fascinated by stones. I am one of them, but I am always a bit of cavewoman.

[Song_Si]

a few baht in buying one of these, but not practical for everyday farm use:



2012 Rolls-Royce Phantom

Rolls Royce opens first showroom in Thailand

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012 - British luxury carmaker Rolls Royce on Wednesday announced that it has opened its first showroom in Bangkok, Thailand.

For the moment a total of seven vehicles can be displayed over the two floors, with a lounge which allows customers to configure their car using colour, wood and leather samples from the manufacturing plant at Goodwood, West Sussex, England.

The number of Rolls-Royce Motor Cars showrooms in the Asia Pacific region (including China) is currently 27. In 2011, China became the leading sales region for Rolls-Royce Motor Cars worldwide for the first time, narrowly beating the United States to the top spot.

[Glen10]

I'm not trying to defend the Walton family, but that can't be right. First it says that they(Waltons) have as much as almost half of the population, and the it says as much as 41% of the POOREST families. That saying two very different things. Where is the start of the poorest for who did this study? Is it 5% or 1%. If it was 41% of the total population, that would be 120 million people(population/people). That would only be $700 each. If you made that a Family of four of course that would be 2800$ gross wealth. Even the homeless people who live under a bridge get that much+ per month plus food stamps EACH MONTH from the government. oops--this was meant for your first reply--wrong quote above.

[Song_Si]

^ Hi - agree it could well be misleading: it took it to mean cash savings/money in the bank, not earnings. so the homeless people you mention would be in there with little in cash savings.
Tried to find more info on this report but no in-depth figures.
Didn't intend to mis-lead!

This from LA Times note it uses families/households not individuals

The Waltons' value -- $89.5 billion in 2010 – is equal to the worth of the 41.5% of families at the lower end of the income ladder, according to an analysis by Josh Bivens of the Economic Policy Institute. That comes out to 48.8 million households.

[Glen10]

Originally Posted by Song_Si

^ Hi - agree it could well be misleading: it took it to mean cash savings/money in the bank, not earnings. so the homeless people you mention would be in there with little in cash savings.
Tried to find more info on this report but no in-depth figures.
Didn't intend to mis-lead!

This from LA Times note it uses families/households not individuals

No biggie. Didn't think YOU were trying to mislead. But I'm not so sure of Mr. Bivens. I don't trust the LA Times either. Or the people who own it. Papers are just tools to inform, and just as often misinform the masses to create a mindset in an effort to carry out ones agenda.
Just for the fun of it....household is vague. Is it a household of one, or a household of five? If the household are not individuals(even if it were individuals, as well)), it has to be inaccurate and misleading. If it's a family, how many do they consider a family? I consider a family to be at least three people. One isn't a family. I consider two to be a couple.
Ok. They say 41.5% of families at the lower end of the economic ladder. If we can agree that a family isn't one or two people, we can set a family to be at least three people and use that minimum number as a start for calculation. 3x 48.8 million would be half the population of the country. Half the population of the country couldn't be 41% of the families. How much would the other 59% add up to? Use the minimum of 3 again and you've got 180 million. More than the population of the country and the singles and couples aren't included yet.
It's just a bunch of jive to create discontent of the masses, especially at a time of economic hardships. It uses deceit to stirs up emotions of envy, jealousy and discontent, along with resentment toward the rich. It's class warfare, bro. This is a tool to use people and pull them on your side to make an atmosphere for a power-grab of your group. It's basic Machiavellian strategy.
To sum it up, I'll have to say that someone will have to show me the math. Until then it's just a bunch of double-talk and hogwash.
I wouldn't trust Joshua Bivens or the LA Times(NY Times, Chicago Times, or any other Times) as far as I could throw them.

[Glen10]

I tried to edit the above but had a problem. The 59% would be more than 180 million; it would be 225 million, for a total of 375 million. Total population is aprx 300 million.
Here's how i came to that-I'll round it for simplicity: 40% of fams is 50 mil families, so 60% is 75 mil. remember too that we're using 3 for a family. I think the real number on average is about 4.3. But never-the-less, it doesn't stack up w/3.