Transcript of the above video: 

Yet again, it seems that these drums roll on with this issue of so-called “tax reform” which reforming toward what, as well as the issue of so-called “digital money”. I don't know why this Government here, or the core coalition party, whatever you want to call it, continues to push this relentlessly because it's pretty clear that at best, there's a tepid response from most like rank-and-file folks, locals especially here in Thailand, Thai people.  I don't think anybody's out wanting a more thorough tax system; I don't think there's a hue and cry for that coming from the streets, nor do I think there's a hue and cry for magic bean money, that can be totalitarianly surveilled and monitored for all of our financial transactions here in Thailand, no matter how small. There's no, again no hue and cry from the streets of Bangkok or anywhere else here in Thailand for any of this that I can see that I am observing. 

That said, I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Minister vows tax reform to enhance competitiveness. First of all, it's noteworthy, this is the Finance Minister. All the nonsense you have been hearing from the media and all these charlatans and frankly negatively acting illegal foreign agents here in Thailand, all of these folks have been talking about this “tax reform” as if it's a foregone conclusion in line with OECD. It is not, as evidenced from this headline alone. As we discussed in other videos, OECD is not a foregone conclusion here in Thailand. If anything, the more people see it here myself included as a Thai, the less we like it, the less we want it, in my personal opinion. I expect OECD will probably go on to the dustbin of Thai history. I hope it does at least, because I don't think there's any good to come from that. But it's been pushed, especially by the media as if this is a foregone conclusion which as you will see from this article, no, they are discussing it, and they may try to come up with something, but it is not a foregone conclusion that we are going to see a change to Tax Law here in Thailand. That said, quoting directly: "The Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira has a pledged to pursue comprehensive tax reform to strengthen the country's competitiveness." - let's state that again, "has pledged to pursue comprehensive tax reforms". So, for all you people that are being confused by the charlatans out there who are saying that, "oh you have to go get a tax ID number", "oh the law has changed", it has not. As we have discussed, there was an intra-departmental memorandum within the Revenue Department regarding assessability and timing of inbound funds but that has nothing to do with a change in the Tax Law. There has been no change to the Tax Law, as noted in this article itself; as noted by the Finance Minister himself. Quoting further: "Comprehensive tax reform to strengthen the country's competitiveness and advance the adoption of digital currency in Thailand by the end of the year." You know what strengthens a country's competitiveness? Byzantine tax requirements and all sorts of disclosure requirements imposed by a supranational banking organization upon a sovereign nation, that's the way you get to some “real competitiveness”, I'm here to tell you. No, no, don't worry about entrepreneurialism and the Government just getting out of people's way to let us get on with it, no, no, we need supranational bureaucrats to really enhance Thailand's competitiveness! And by the way, who said we needed the adoption of digital currency. As has been clearly seen, if 2024 showed nothing else, it's that Thais are not interested in the Digital Wallet. They might be interested in the handout, the actual free money. Who doesn't like free money? But if there was nothing else we gained from 2024, it is the insight that "hey most Thais ain't interested in digital money, myself included”. Quoting further: "He stressed the entire Tax System needs to be reviewed to enhance competitiveness..." Why? Because the World Economic Forum said so? And again, what competitiveness? You are talking about making the system more Byzantine; you are talking about more oversight, more required disclosures, for what? And as we have discussed, the vast majority of foreigners here aren't even going to owe anything anyway so it's just a big exercise in pushing around a bunch of paper, having a big paper chase to no effective end. And again, who's pushing this, because I'm not seeing this coming up from the streets of Thailand.” So who's pushing for all this "tax competitiveness"? Is it the World Economic Forum? It looks like it. Quoting further: "...as the highly mobile business environment demands attractive measures." So it enhances competitiveness to bring in the OECD, to bring in extra documentation, to “align” our tax policies so that foreigners can extract wealth from Thailand; that's the definition of competitiveness? Meanwhile, you're scaring away the retirees and the investors with all of this stuff. It freaks them out. I have heard from no less than probably two or three dozen people in person asking me what's going on with this documentation that they sent me from my bank? blah blah, blah. It's just freaking everybody out and again there's no new law, there's no new requirements. Again, pertaining to Americans we have to deal with a bunch of FATCA stuff to begin with, but other foreigners here in Thailand never have had to deal with this. What? We are going to push that onus on all of them and then do what? Drive them all out of Thailand? All the retirees leave or whatever? All the investment says, “Hey I want to go someplace where I don't have to put up with this onerous stuff.” I mean is that the goal. To push it all away, because that's what it looks like. That said, quoting further: “However he insisted government spending must adhere to fiscal and monetary discipline.” Really? You tried to put as to a half a trillion Baht into debt for some magic bean tokens that would track and trace us all the time, can be turned on and off, and only used for certain products. I mean was that monetary discipline, was that fiscal discipline, especially at a time where the narrative they were trying to push was, “oh, Thailand is in an economic disaster; we need all this stuff”, when in actuality, Quarter 1 of 2024 was one of the best quarters in terms of consumer spending I think in a decade, but they continue to try and push the economic disaster narrative because they want to impose this “monetary and fiscal discipline” on us. That said, quoting further: “Maintaining an appropriate and acceptable deficit level..” – what, you wanted to go up by 10% debt to GDP ratio about a year ago for that digital money. Is that deficit, what do he call it, what did he just say, - is that an ‘acceptable deficit level’, to increase the debt to GDP ratio by 10%? Quoting further: “..while ensuring public debt remains manageable or can be reduced in the near future.” So gutting the budget for “handouts” - that there was no electrical mandate for, that that should be noted - so that is considered, like that's acceptable? How do you factor that? Meanwhile, they tried to cause the nation to go into more debt to the tune of 10% debt to GDP; that's a staggering amount and now they are coming back and saying, “oh we want discipline in terms of all of this stuff”. well that's not consistent with your message thus far. Quoting further: “Mr. Pichai asked why Thailand should not embrace digital currency..” - well let me give you some reasons: general lack of privacy, government invasiveness, the ability to control how people spend their own money and less oversight over government expenses because now they control the digital mechanism and we have no idea what the inputs and outputs in terms of debt and spending even look like. Yeah, there are just a couple of reasons just right off the top of my head, to say nothing of the fact that we don't need 10% more in debt to GDP ratio for all of these blessings to begin with. That said, quoting further: "..which is being exchanged globally and has strong demand.” Digital money has strong demand! Where? Communist China? Where they have their social credit scores? Is that where there's a bunch of demand? I mean at this point; did we learn nothing from following blindly the COVID narrative. If the rest of the world was jumping off a cliff, would we jump off a cliff too? I mean the thing I have always loved about Thailand, one of the reasons I wanted to become a Thai, is Thailand charts its own course. I want to know where all these politicians are coming from, that are sitting there saying that we have to just get in the Conga Line of totalitarianism lest we fall by the wayside, disaster happens, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. I mean Thailand is an independent autonomous nation; she's always charted her own course. We should continue to do so; we don't need to get into the rut, especially the paradigmatic rut of the Davos crowd. The World Economic Forum has shown if nothing else, that they are one, hell bent on totalitarianism, and two, not particularly effective as actually managing anything. As technocrats, they are frankly terrible. Are we better off now than we were five years ago in 2020 before we had even heard of any of these people? No, clearly not. We're not better off, so while they maintain that they want to be totalitarian, they are not even that good at administering anything. So, it is like having someone incompetent becoming a dictator. I mean that's the worst of all worlds. 

Quoting further: "For example, if tourists come to Thailand, they could register their coins on a local platform that ensures verification or allows for "know your customer" protocols." Well whoop-de-do. So now we all get to show up into Thailand and register ourselves, so we are allowed to transact here! What a great plan guys. Neat! And again, this is precisely the opposite reason why they said all of these coins were meant to exist. It's like everybody talking about this Bitcoin reserve in the American financial context. It is like this is the exact opposite of why this stuff was created. Now that said, I often wonder if it was actually honestly created for the purposes they said it was because I remember watching a continuing legal education, it is like a podcast, but this is before podcasts - like 12 years ago - where one of the lawyers who was one of the lawyers on Mt. Gox was talking about Bitcoin and how every talking point associated with Bitcoin most notably privacy, was nonsense. It wasn't in line with what Bitcoin really was. Again, the purpose of Crypto, and I think the reason the folks that really were the tip of the spear in the Crypto universe, they were kind of libertarian types. They just wanted privacy of transactions; they wanted to be able to operate their own parallel system so as to be more free. This system is the exact opposite of that, okay? I mean I think that is worth understanding and nobody really brings that point up. That said, quoting further: "While geopolitical challenges pose risks to the country's economy, he said they also present an opportunity for Thailand to benefit from the relocation of investment, especially in technology, which is an upstream industry." I am really getting tired of the gobbledygook that I hear from the English language press when it's just like all of this WEF talking point stuff. You hear a lot of "sustainable" and "upstream", these kind of hip and cool technocratic lingo jargon. It is very offsetting when you are reading this stuff. That said, quoting further: "The Electric Vehicle industry has investors from several countries, not only China, establishing production bases in the country as the business offers potential, he said. If the development of EV manufacturing can progress to reach its full potential without any interruptions, Thailand can likely become the production hub for EVs in the region, said Mr. Pichai." So full potential without any interruptions in the EV market. Would this be the EV market that just went cap and hand to the Thai Government to ask if they could not pay back subsidies they already took? Again, is this the most efficient allocation of capital? Hey guess what? It's not. You know why? Because it's a command economy function. It is being told the capital needs to go to EVs, not letting the market work out whether or not that is the most efficient use of capital, and what's the result? We have had a bunch of EV manufacturers down here in Thailand, again going to the Government to say, "hey, we are not going to be able to pay you back for money the taxpayer already gave you, already gave the EV manufacturers." They can't pay that money back. They took out a loan from the Government and their economic model is not viable enough that they can even pay back the loan, let alone sell this stuff at a profit out in the open market.

I really truly question the economic thinking that underlies any of this, if there is any thinking. At this point I'm starting to wonder if this stuff is just sort of hatched at Davos - they basically put out a white paper - everybody reads it, they all read from the same script and they don't even really think about what they are saying. Because again I don't see any hue and cry for this "tax reform" coming from the streets in Thailand; I don't see any hue and cry for "digital" magic bean tokens, that will allow for a totalitarian financial system here in Thailand, and I'm really not seeing a hue and cry for an EV "industry" that depends on sucking money off the taxpayers here in Thailand and not paying it back.