Transcript of the above video: 

We discussed in a prior video, I did a video regarding so-called tax harmonization. I even did another one going back a while ago, the principle of tax, I can’t remember what the exact title that was but the Prime Minister here in Thailand basically was talking about how essentially everybody should be taxed; it's sort of like they want to make this a presumption that just for living you need to be taxed. It's part of this whole thing to harmonize these different jurisdictions so that effectively people can't figure out ways to effectively avoid and I know 'avoid', the word 'avoid' in certain parlance, certain legal parlance, is its own term of art, but I'm using this in the context of avoidance versus evasion in the American Common Law vernacular as it pertains to taxation. So again not looking to commit crimes but people who are looking to efficiently plan their Tax matters and go ahead and avoid certain taxes because they may be able to avail themselves of benefits in one jurisdiction that may not exist in another. But the sort of international bureaucratic class if you will is attempting to close the loopholes - I hate that term - but they are attempting to essentially stop that practice; basically they just want to suck every ounce of blood out of everybody if they can I imagine. And I don't find this funny by the way, it's almost gallows humour talking about this. As I have discussed in other videos, I am a Tax Attorney, I am a member of the US Tax Court, but I am not a big fan of tax and I really don't believe in this notion that there's some overarching principle whereby people need to be taxed just by dint of their existence. I think that's silliness, I think it goes against general notions of individual sovereignty etc.

That being said, here we are in the world in which we live in, and Thailand is thinking about joining this OECD. The OECD which stands for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it has a lot to do with all this tax stuff so it's worth noting. In fact we may make the title of this video: Should Thailand join the OECD and how does that pertain to tax? So we will throw that on there. In any event, I thought of making this video after reading a recent article from the Bangkok Post, bangkokpost.com, the article is titled: Thailand begins OECD membership process. Quoting directly: "Thailand has developed a road map to become a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). However, some International Economists have warned that joining the affluent club of countries may bring more drawbacks than benefits." So one thing I would note here is there was a time where I would say yeah unequivocally the membership was affluent. In the current state of economic affairs that we are seeing in the world right now, affluence may be a little bit of a strong term when referring to certain Western jurisdictions. Quoting further: "The OECD was founded in 1961 by developed countries. 50 years on its membership has expanded geographically to include Latin America, Asia and the Pacific." Again the verbiage with this stuff always kind of makes me chuckle. "Developed countries". I mean okay in 1961, what did that mean? Which first of all, I find it fascinating, there's this kind of presumption of a sort of time where Thailand was very sort of almost primitive and there weren't hardly any people; it was like a much more rural place. I had a friend over in Phnom Penh for a number of years, he used to run a guest house over there, and he had actually been coming to Southeast Asia for decades because his father had worked for the US Government. He had travelled over here as a child and he was an avid photographer, he's a photography enthusiast and he had as a kid taken photos around different parts of Thailand, and Phnom Penh for that matter and as time had gone on he had primarily done this with Thailand because there was a bit of an interruption in going over to Cambodia there for quite a little while, but he had taken photos over the years of how like cities for example in Thailand, Pattaya, Bangkok had sort of progressed over time. And he showed me these photos of the late ‘50s, early ‘60s and Bangkok was a massive urban area then. It was not quite so vertical but it was a densely populated urban area that went on and on in terms of development. So again, I have always found that any time they bring up this ‘developed/undeveloped’ da, da, da and then they start talking about Thailand, it's always sort of wildly off. In any event, quoting further: "There are only two members from Asia - Japan and South Korea - though Indonesia is in the process of applying for membership. Within the ASEAN bloc, no countries are members of the OECD." I think that is pertinent because ASEAN has turned out to be its own thing and I know it's a much looser conglomeration if you will of countries than we mostly see - it's not like the EU; it's not even like CARICOM or some of these other places, it's much looser but it works. I am constantly baffled by people that come here - especially so-called analysts and things - and they look at Thailand and they say: "Well Thailand should do this, that or the other thing." Well should they? If whatever they are doing is working, why mess with it? And that is kind of what I have to say about this OECD thing for Thailand. I mean we are in ASEAN. Thailand can chart its own course. Why does it need to be part of this? Also, if it was so important, why didn't somebody invite Thailand in earlier? It's been around since 1961 and it's not like Thailand hasn't been deeply interactive with the West since that time period. Why now? I am starting to wonder is it perhaps because Thailand is wealthy, is in the area of the world that is going to see rapid further industrialization, so will presumably get more wealthy and the West is worried about being left behind and so they want to sort of throw some latches if you will onto some of these Asian Nations like Indonesia and Thailand and sort of get a piece of their action so to speak. Speculation on my part, but I don't think it's completely unreasonable.

Quoting further: "Thailand recently submitted a letter of intent expressing its commitment to join the bloc to the OECD Secretary-general in February, but the approval process is lengthy." Well good. Quoting further: "Once an application is submitted for approval by the OECD's 38 Member Council, it typically takes 7 or 8 years." Well yeah, let's just pump the brakes and really think about this. Quoting further: "For Thailand, the Government's planning unit, has set a goal to shorten this timeline to five years." Well my next question is "why?" Was anybody consulted about this? And during the campaign season that we just saw last year, did anybody even talk about this? Because I don't remember anybody saying "hey it's our priority to get Thailand into the OECD." What would the voters have thought about that if it was really explained to them? I don't know the answer to that question but I remember this past campaign season and I don't remember anybody talking about this particular issue. Quoting further, and now we are quoting directly from Prommin Lertsuridej, Secretary-general to the Prime Minister, quote: "At this time, if we are to invite foreign investment into Thailand, establishing contacts for investment or trade necessitates having various standards for the country that are widely accepted. The key word on why Thailand needs to join OECD is the high standards of developed countries." Thailand has high standards too and Thailand is a developed country. Let's just say that. You could maybe make the argument it's developing on some level; you can say well like rural Thailand isn't the same thing as the urban areas like Bangkok, Pattaya, Phuket, Chiang Mai even and probably Hua Hin you could say. Yeah those areas are more developed but what does that mean? Nobody sits around talking about the state of Louisiana like just because they have a major urban center in New Orleans and the rest of the state is highly rural for the most part, nobody is sitting around saying that they need to be more developed or whatever and I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to see certain infrastructural developments in a general sense, but I'm really tired of this vernacular that is being used where Thailand needs to somehow improve itself and that we are not up to some kind of high standard here. Well if we're not up to some kind of high standard, why do you want them in the group anyway? There was a time in Thailand where in many ways the leadership here in Thailand was very astute at this in the moment going back - and I'm not going to get into great detail here - but very astute at maintaining, putting on its best face, sort of putting its best foot forward, the nation's best foot forward and showing the world that Thailand was a developed and civilized and sophisticated country especially back during Colonialism because otherwise so-called 'great powers' would use their 'lack of development' as a pretext for colonialism, for colonization. And the Thais did a spectacular job of rebuffing that and fending that off. They were actually very proactive in doing that. What worries me is that same mindset which is sort of ingrained in the thinking of many Thai people might operate against them moving forward because again, I don't really see what the great benefit of joining this OECD is. I really don't understand the benefits of most of these supranational organizations - the so-called EU, even the Eurasian Economic Union, all of these things - it just looks to me like a lot of power consolidation by a lot of elitists, is what it looks to me like. In any event, quoting further: "Thailand begin considering joining the OECD about 20 years ago during the Administration of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. However, after the 2006 coup, all progress halted." I'll just leave that without comment. Quoting further: "According to Mr Prommin, in terms of legal readiness and regulations to facilitate investment, the Government has established a working group on the ease of doing business to amend various laws for the convenience of business operations potentially enacting a Business Facilitation Act to enhance business convenience." Business convenience for who? For foreigners? We have mechanisms already for that: things like the BOI, the EEC, the US-Thai Treaty of Amity, they all exist. And by the way, there is a reason for the Foreign Business Act. I know I really get burned a lot in comments and things from other foreign nationals because I'm naturalized and I think they kind of view me as some kind of I don't know blood traitor, something of this nature, but at the end of the day, Thailand needs to do what is right for Thailand. This multilateralism and all of this Kumbaya stuff and 'we are going to create more business convenience', well there is a reason for the Foreign Business Act. It was created to insulate the internal labour market from outsiders just sort of over-running it. And you can see this problem in extremist in the United States where we literally have an open border; people are pouring in and it's going to have a massively, it already is having a massively detrimental effect on the labour pool of the United States, of the native population there. Does Thailand really want to go down that road? In any way by the way. People will say 'well you're making a very extreme argument, just joining this isn't going to do that!' Well I don't know, because it looks to me like a lot of the member states in this organization seem to all have that same problem; it seems to be quite pervasive in Europe as well.

Quoting further: "He cited one example that hinders," - and I would say "hinders whom?” Again it doesn't hinder Thais. Hinders foreigners? And again there also seems to be this presumption too that again in the past Thailand had to encourage foreign direct investment. On one level it was to get in foreign capital and benefit thereby in just a very direct sense. Also technological exchanges were key as well. And Thailand did a great job - sort of to quote the Harry Potter books when talking about the Sword of Gryffindor - Thailand did a great job in only taking in "that which made it stronger". They brought in foreign technology, foreign expertise and Thailand basically used it for its purposes; it extracted what was needed out of that for the betterment of the country. Again I don't have any problem with foreign investment per se but I really worry about people who I think are acting in good faith, let me be clear there, I do think people are acting in good faith on this, but who are not seeing the possible downsides of the policies that they may be enacting. In any event let me quote again: "He cited one example that hinders doing business in Thailand, namely the requirement to obtain 19 licenses from 19 different agencies when establishing a factory. The One Stop Service initiative for investment through the Board of Investment or the Eastern Economic Corridor also often falls short of expectations." Well who says? Again some of this is designed to protect. Now again I know when foreigners read that and say "oh 19 licenses to do!" - Well what kind of factory is it? Does it deal with dangerous materials? Does it deal with hazardous material? What are they producing? Are they producing munitions? Are they producing widgets that just go into children's toys? if so do they need to be inspected for whether or not there are safety issues? Look every jurisdiction has a certain level of bureaucracy. Again I'm not saying Thailand's bureaucracy is some shining example of efficiency because I think we all know that that is not necessarily the case. That being said, sometimes inefficiency is intentional because again the local labour pool needs to be protected. Quoting further: "Quote: "The Government's task is to streamline and support rather than hinder business." Okay, I don't necessarily, okay I would say that is true for Thai business most assuredly and even for certain specifically designated types of investment and types of technology exchange that Thailand wants to bring in, but why do we need an outside organization having anything to do with that? Thailand can handle that on her own. Why do we need to OECD? What is that helping? Show me where Thailand is falling short in handling its own national interest because that's one thing I can say Thailand has been good at basically for its history that I've read, is that it knows what its national interest is and it pursues it. I don't see how joining the OECD is particularly in the national interest. "Said Mr Prommin, adding that the Government is in the process of implementing the Digital Government Initiative." Now that terminology creeps me out no end, especially having watched all this digital wallet stuff come out and all this talk about basically totalitarian surveillance of everything having to do with market interactions of the private citizenry here in Thailand. And now we're going to digitize the government too. Yeah, can't wait! "To enhance the transparency of state operations aligning with the requirements of the OECD." Every time I hear the term 'transparency', I always think of the word 'Glasnost' from the end of the USSR. There was Glasnost and Perestroika. Most Americans are very familiar with Perestroika - especially Americans my age - because people always talked about in the context of: "Well this is what brought the USSR down. The free market came in and it was infinitely better and the USSR fell apart." From that standpoint I would say that is probably true. Perestroika came in, it sort of showed the folks that had been living  70 years under this communist totalitarianism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever you want to call it, and then Perestroika comes in and they're like "oh wow we can buy McDonald's hamburgers at market price"; it works basically is what Perestroika showed. What people don't actually think about when they think about Glasnost is, is Glasnost is oftentimes translated into English as "transparency". I was told by a friend of mine who has an extensive understanding of Russian that, no that's not really quite an accurate translation. It's more akin to publicity and what he said was it's sort of like calling social media "transparent". On a level you may be right but on another level, social media in and of itself warps what you are actually looking at to begin with. I worry that this notion of "oh we're going to become more transparent", what does that mean? And by the way every time I hear people talk about transparency, it never seems to shake out that it's more transparency for Government; it is more transparency in your private life. Yeah we are going to bring in digital money for more transparency, so there's no money laundering, but that means we get to monitor every transaction you make private citizen - that's silliness to me. Again these sort of buzz words that you see these folks use, "transparency" kind of stuff, again it harkens back to those buzz words Glasnost, Perestroika, it kind of creeps me out.

Quoting further: "In the financial sector, he said discussions have been held with the Secretary-general of the Thai Bankers Association," (Thai Bankers Association. Again can't imagine this would have anything to do with the so-called digital wallet scheme) "to improve the settlement system through digital platforms, aiming to streamline settlement processes and enhance transparency." Again, I didn't even think of that when I said what I just said. When they talk transparency, have you ever noticed, it doesn't seem like the Government gets more transparent. It seems like it your life gets more transparent. You, the private individual who just wants to live their life and go about their day and not be constantly monitored by some World Economic Forum brainchild, big brother mechanism. "enhance reliability and security."  Well, forgive me but I am okay with a little less reliability and security if people don't know what kind of donuts I like to buy. I mean come on. 

Quoting further: "Sompop Manarungsan, President of the Panyapiwat Institute of Management and a specialist on the Chinese and US economies, said the OECD is a club of wealthy nations, representing countries with per capita incomes exceeding US$13,000. Among the current 38 OECD member countries, there is only one country in Latin America that falls below the threshold of high income, instead categorized within the group of middle-income nations." Quoting further: "If Thailand and Indonesia become members of the OECD, they would be minority countries within the organization." Well yeah, and we are talking about two countries that have totally disparate priorities in what they are doing. Thailand and Indonesia are heading into a totally different direction in terms of the economic horizon - both on a regional and a global scale okay. These are part of Asia at the end of the day, and let's be clear, Asia is industrializing and it really doesn't matter what the West does, Asia is going to continue industrializing. I just don't see any other outcome there at least in the immediately foreseeable future, and by that I mean the next few years. Yeah Asia's just going to keep industrializing. Is that what the West is doing? Quoting further: "More importantly, if Thailand becomes a member of the OECD, it would change Thailand's status from a middle-income country, and the nation would need to contribute funds to less developed nations." Well I'm here to tell you as an American born person and as somebody who routinely keeps track of American politics, I am pretty disgusted with all of this foreign aid - aid so-called - which I often wonder if it's truly aid or it's sort of how do you put it, sort of economic largesse that is put out by the Legislative mechanism in the United States to sort of act as, I hesitate to call a compensation, but as sort of a quid pro quo if you will to the so-called 'donor class' back in the United States; not going to get too deep into that but does Thailand really need to do that? Does Thailand really need to dig into her own wealth that she needs to take care of her own people, which according to this government we have a "sluggish" economy and we need to be worried about all of these things and we need a stimulus which can only apparently come from a half a trillion dollar indebtedness that creates an infrastructure that will create a totalitarian surveillance grid for our monetary transactions, but at the same time we are developed enough that now we can just start throwing money out to other countries? That doesn't make any sense. And finally quoting directly: "The OECD does not have cooperation guidelines with binding agreements unlike free trade agreements or groups like the EU." Well okay, so I guess there's one consolation if Thailand joins this, it's not going to get sucked into something akin to the EU. Quoting further: "which have shared commitments. Therefore, the trade and investment benefits that Thailand would gain from OECD membership are less substantial compared to the potential drawbacks." Yeah, that's a good point. You need to do a cost//-benefit analysis on this thing. Look at what Thailand would have to give up by joining in this and what are the benefits? And I have got to be honest, if I'm looking at these so-called developed nations and their economic policies the last 15 years especially in the West, what is Thailand going to get out of this long-term because it doesn't look like to me there's going to be a lot to be gained down the road. And meanwhile, it looks to me like Thailand is going to have to change the way she does things; again we are going to sacrifice the insulation of our own labour market to some, it's almost like 'magic bean thinking' that somewhere down the road, joining into this and going along with all this is somehow magically going to create prosperity. Where is the prosperity going to come from? What countries that don't do business with Thailand now, are going to start doing business with Thailand? And why is it required that Thailand essentially put on a pair of what can only be described as sort of 'golden handcuffs' to go along with that? Not a lot of this makes a lot of sense to me. Again one silver lining is - at least for the moment - they're saying yeah this is going to be a lengthy process so hopefully we will pump the brakes before we make a terrible decision long-term.