Topic: The Thailand government will distribute money to its citizens. Economists critic (Read 428 times)

I feel this policy is one-sided because not all citizens benefit from these types of policies. The government manipulates the process just to control how people spend. This policy gives the government the upper hand in the control of the citizens, but the same government would steal from the process to enrich themselves.

The idea of controlling the citizens on how to spend their money is another factor that is not feasible, as not everybody would want that, and as such, nobody would want to be controlled up to the point of their personal life and privacy being breached by the government. This would be worse than one could imagine.

And how exactly can a person invest if they do not have money saved? Saving money is always the first step when trying to obtain a better financial situation for yourself and there is no way around it.

And if at some point money as it has been proposed on the past came with a time limit then this will severely limit you, as whatever that limit was then you will be unable to invest or buy anything more expensive than whatever amount of money you can save during that time.

Yeah, that's one sad fact about in most countries that does this.

It gives more idea to the corrupt officials on how they're going to corrupt more money from the government and this results to a higher inflation. But it shouldn't only be done through this.

Because when they do give out financial incentives, there has to be some other counter for it to at least slow down the inflation that it will have as an effect.

trust the 'real-fake' money is not a problem if they do not do this over and over.

But knowing the worlds governments this will get done over and over and over turning into the very thing you fear.

Not really that shocking, that is what printing of money looks like. We need to remember two things, first of all governments do not have their own money, they do not make money, they do not have income, they just tax you and then in this case give you the money back, equally to everyone no matter how much you were taxed.

Secondly, we need to remember that no matter if you do a good thing or a bad thing for a nation, as long as you do not have a sustained thing, it will not matter. Even the worst thing possible, unless it is for a very long period of time, I do not think that it will matter all that much, we should realize that we need to do a lot better with some time and that means that we need to be careful about it.

This is a good step from the Thai government and could be a form of realization for the president during the campaign before he ascended, but in my opinion this discourse could be considered by some people there or other parties as being forced and having excessive intervention in the private lives of citizens (Full Control over Society )

I might agree with the use of electronic wallets as a pattern for controlling outgoing funds because it can facilitate distribution and ensure that the aid is actually used for consumption, in accordance with the government's objectives.

There is no doubt people are in need of financial incentives because of the high inflation all over the world but the problem I have with this kind of financial incentive is that most of it goes towards consumption, if the government can find a way to push the funds towards production the positive impact will be greatly felt in the economy but from history especially in countries with high corruption level most of these fund ends up being stolen whereby living the citizen worse off.

What does this have to do with the Bitcoin issue here on the forum? Because it is clear that this topic you raised is a government policy that wants to be implemented for all the citizens under their jurisdiction. And it seems like it's still in the experimental period right now, if I'm not mistaken, right?

In addition to what the government of Thailand is doing, it seems like you have no secrets to hide from them; they want to control your entire privacy. I don't agree with what the country of Thailand is doing, to be honest. This is just my opinion; I don't know about the rest of us.

It would be helpful to know what this


means in detail. At first glance, it means that they can't spent the money on literally anything, for example things like gambling or using it to buy Bitcoin or any pleasure activity will be blocked/prohibited.

But while economic stimulation could be one reason to do this, gathering data and getting access to a person's private sphere could be another reason. I have no idea how the infrastructure is built out and whether the government has a good overview of who owns what, who consumes what and so on and so forth, but I can tell you that even in some European countries governments have severe problems to figure out the social and financial status of their citizens and to address citizens either all at once or based on selective requirements because they lack data necessary to decide who is eligible for support and who is not. If bureaucracy is an issue in a country, this kind of project may help to sensitize them for what's to come what has long been planned by the government.

saving is really just a waste of time, the fiat money we get now will not necessarily sell in the next 10 years, so if you get fiat money now, only use it for investment (buy gold or bitcoin), every few years, inflation causes us to have to spend more money to buy a product while our income does not increase. The Thai government may see that currently giving free money to their population is effective but in the long term it is completely ineffective.

If the government can manage to give $1000 or even $100 to 50 million people without printing that money then it will do the job as suggested like helping the local vendors, bringing back the money circulation which is practically impossible and they will print money and give it to people which doesn't make any changes in the core and just decrease the purchasing power and increase the supply.

I do wonder what the end result of this will be, I can't say that I can predict it. Everyone thinks they know what's going to happen, but nobody says "let them do it, it doesn't bother me, I am not from there, so lets see how it happens and what are the results".

I think that could be something important and we could learn from it, if it sucks and it is terrible then we learned what not to do, and if it works and everyone is doing better then we learned a new idea what to do to improve a nation. These are all important stuff and we should not judge them, we should let them do whatever, it is like an experiment and the results will help us grow and use for our nation in the time to come, that matters a lot for all of us.

Absolutely. That will be the drawback of the stimulus funding provided. Many people(especially young people) won't want to work as hard because they believe that they will get stimulus money each month, which they can use to pay their bills and live their lives without trying to earn more money. However, I don't think this will apply to the people of Thailand because there are restrictions on the over a thousand dollars that were supposed to be handed to the country's 50 million population.

The Thai government distributing money to its citizens is a policy to help stimulate the country's economy. Foreign tourist arrivals gives negative affections to domestic economy in Thailand. Local markets, tourism resorts and tourism jobs for local people are getting lower income. The another factor is that the demand for goods from Thailand's top trading partner, China, is also getting lower. Many factories struggle to sell their products without alternative market. The government hopes the policy will help to boost economic growth in Thailand.

This party, as I've anticipated, it populist, so it's not surprising that they've suggested handouts of money. Interestingly, they're using blockchain to distribute the funds. If I calculated correctly, they're giving $280 per person via digital wallets, which is a decent financial incentive.
If Thailand can afford such a measure, it can be a good thing. I don't think it signifies full control or whatever, as it's a temporary one-time thing to help people out. I don't think it should be perceived negatively, unless based on argumentation that it's too much governmental spending, which can turn out bad for the economy.

There's no difference then, because even if they can redeem a food and basic necessities, they can still sell it or exchanged it for those banned substances but that is only risky. I think there are still people who are not going to take risks because they can lose what they got plus they can also get penalized. That sounds or looks unpleasant to them than what they already going to have or already have.

It may seem that there is a less or no freedom there but I think that was also for their own good. Sometimes if we let people do what they want, they can also abuse it and do things which are not appropriate anymore. I'm sure you and others don't also want that to happen.

Isn't this just going to cause inflation rates in Thailand to rise? Considering that many people are receiving assistance, it seems like traders can hike prices as they know there's extra money to spend on their goods. If everything goes as planned, prices should go back down to normal within that final 6-month period. However, sneaky traders might not do that because the profits seem more attractive than caring about the national economy.

Indeed, economic issues are pretty complex. The same problem in another country might not be solved the same way. I see this as the government's attempt to control the economy through experimentation. Or perhaps, is it a beneficial campaign move for the political party?

What stops people who benefit from the scheme from reselling things they buy for cash?

I'm actually OK with limiting the kind of things people who benefit from free money can buy with the money, as they could still be motivated to work for money they can buy anything with.  Besides, the free money has to be spent on things that are abundant in supply or things that can be sufficiently produced anytime, to avoid creating inflation.
  

Nevertheless, I believe people should be encouraged to work hard for every money they earn. This will help them value the money and spend it more prudently which will consequently strengthen the value of the money.   When it becomes necessary to help people who do not have enough, you should still tie the money that will be given to them to hardwork. They should be guranteed to receive the money when they need it, but under the condition that they solve some listed problems for society.



You could however develop similar scheme for under-paid people who work really hard and do fair or good job. That's better way to stimulate the economy because they are more likely to spend the money in ways that help productivity and grow the economy. And even could use the opportunity to own their own businesses and employ people the government want to give free money. People who work hard and well should be able to manage their own businesses unlike those who don't. Besides if you give any kind of person free money, he/she won't  be motivated to work hard and will likely expect wage that is higher than the free money he gets from government when he decides to work.

By the way, if you work hard for your money, nobody will have the right to determine how you use it. So people should really be careful with "free money".

People are curious about the Thai government's plan. It could be a covert test of controlling money and manipulating people. Most likely. Limits on how the money can be spent, the fact that it can only be used electronically, and the fact that spending is tracked all point to a plan to watch and control how people act. The goal, on the surface, is to boost the economy, but what is the plan? To say the least, its not normally done.

But let us think more. Is this a step toward a new way of controlling currencies around the world? We could be wrong, but thats a big jump. An action like this would need agreement from all over the world, which is famously difficult to achieve. To be fair, the idea isnt completely crazy. This could be a place where bigger economic ideas are tried out. Pay close attention, because what happens in Thailand could affect how economies work all over the world in the future.

is a good government to help its citizens. This is very necessary during the global economic crisis. I don't think it's just the government that has to step in, even we, who have advantages, have to have the courage to step in to help with the basic needs of those in need. In an economic crisis, humanity is truly tested.

Distribution of money to people in my country has been done for a long time, but with different methods. Even residents in my country receive it once a month or once every 3 months. But people here are free to use their money for anything as long as it meets their living needs. But there are also programs that give money to the community to be used as business capital. But there is no program that requires the money given to be spent within a certain time limit. But I see what the Thai government is doing to stimulate the market there. Because there may have been a decline in purchasing power there. Which if left unchecked could indeed endanger the economy there. Or the level of recession will get worse if people's purchasing power and the circulation of money in the market slow down over a long period of time. So the distribution of money is possible to stimulate purchasing power and the circulation of money itself. Since there is a time limit this clarifies everything.

That temporal limit is what worries me the most, governments giving ‘free’ money to their citizens once in a while is incredibly common so it should not be surprising at all.

However over the years there have been talks about governments around the world putting a time limit to the currency that you earn, and once that time passes then it can not be used any longer, and this is a huge threat as in essence governments will be making saving money an impossible activity, which will have huge implications about how the world economy has to be run.

If a country has financial problems and decides to obtain a loan in order to give the citizen a specific amount per month, then this country will not obtain more loans, as lenders do not like their money to be spent on services or individuals and will not return it in the future. these solutions are always for countries that have A budget surplus or additional funds to cover such spending.

Discussion in the local board will give you experiences from the reality in which people live.

Giving advice, for another country, is not good. But, uh. I would recommend not just to give money to the population, but to give limited funds, for example in the form of funds that can only be invested in shares, for example - public or private companies in Thailand. I.e. to give a guaranteed amount of money to each citizen of the country, so that he did not spend it on trinkets, but invested in the economy of the country - from production to tourism business. This will allow the country to provide real help to its economy, and each resident to provide passive income. Yes - and allow the sale of shares in companies in which the population will invest this money, for example, in 3-5 years. This will be a chance for those who really need "living money" to receive income, and for the rest to receive dividends for many years and use them to buy goods produced by local companies, which will again help the local economy.

PS I love Thailand. I used to vacation there often, it's a beautiful country !

we have our own FED that also punishes the citizen. increasing taxes is just like taking back what they gave while the government is not increasing the wages of workers.
people will still be grateful for the distributed money because of the currency economic situation actually.

all countries today are in big trouble due to inflation and the people will start relying on this money that they will send whatever the government asks, if the government asks to scan the iris of these people, they will happily do it for free money.

The problem isn't only that, but they will start to trust this real-fake money.

Increase the interest rate, price control, adjust the tax rate etc that make people to give the money to banks/governments. It's a never ends problem, when the inflation rate drop, they will decrease the interest rate etc. They just switch a new policy and hold, then switch back to the old policy, repeat.

This is a crazy plan carried out by the Thai prime minister (PM). And while neighboring countries are busy thinking about ways to restore the country's economy, Thailand is planning crazy things to provide aid to most of its citizens in quite large amounts.

And here I quite understand, although the aim is good, namely to provide a stimulus so that people's purchasing power can increase so that the economy can return to stability. However, we need to remember that this is only temporary and when the money they get runs out, the Thai economy will stagnate again and people's purchasing power will decline again. And I am very worried that this plan will have a negative impact on the financial stability of the country of Thailand in the long term.

This is a bad thing that some people often do. Indeed, by giving them a certain amount of cash assistance, this can at least help them economically. However, we also need to remember that not everyone is able to manage and allocate cash assistance well. Because most of them (people) use this cash assistance just to meet their needs. So it cannot be utilized properly to further support their economy.

And like the proverb that says "Don't give fish, but give fishing rods" which means, if we give fish, the fish will run out instantly and in the end they will come back asking for the fish, because they don't know how to catch fish. Meanwhile, if we give them fishing rods, it is hoped that they will be able to find fish themselves.

In other words, as a government, don't let our society become the recipient of aid and become a society that can only beg. But give them a decent job or a micro business program, so that they try on their own to find out how they can earn money. And slowly this will have a positive impact, namely reducing their dependence on the assistance provided by the government.

They do make out such distribution but as i have read up, then you cant really be able to make use on the ff; which had been mentioned

So how it would really be used? For some test out then for sure there's really some intent behind those things. If citizens do really be able to get something from its government
but cant really be able to totally make use of it then its just pointless or useless. We dont know on whats behind those kind of decisions or situations happening
but pretty much sure that there's really some plan behind those actions. It did really just turning out that it is really just that they've been test subjects on this one.

If it turns out to be something beneficial then its good but for the sake of some kind of avoiding or trying out to make bad things look legal
then this is where things becomes shit.

yes. it's a controlled money so they can also dictate where the Thais can spend this money. this must be the implementation of the CBDC in their country. amazing though that they can afford to distribute such funds, and massive creation of digital cash but this is equivalent to printing.

i'm not an economist but this is the kind that will devalue their own currency. are they sure they will do this to the whole country or are they just doing this to a few cities?  i'm sure there are remote areas in the country where people have no phones no internet connection.

If money is injected into the economy through distribution to citizens, then this injection will devalue existing deposits and increase inflation and loan rates. Production increases when demand increases, and when money runs out, real demand will fall again. Then they will need policies to combat inflation.

I would much rather implement a "Coupon" system that can only be redeemed for "food" and basic necessities. I have seen people buying goods and selling it for "banned" substances, so no measures are free from exploitation. 

Let's not forget that the money that was used for this initiative are coming from the tax payers, so someone are paying for this. Yes, they are getting something back from their taxes, but they do not have the freedom to buy what they want from it. 

rice keeps longer than a year.
So buy bags of rice.

Thailand has canned foods that keep long than a year.

buy that.

with careful shopping you could buy a lot of food.

If the people really get this real-fake money I wonder if the price of

rice and canned foods rise.

Rules are done and they're not allowed to do that. It's a stimulus for most that's tackling with specific industries that they want to inject with that demand. There is an economical reason and logic behind these decisions and rules that they've made. And most of the countries does this but the difference from the other ones that did this was the eligibility and industries where the stimuli can be used.

Well, for those who are eligible for this and will receive it. There is no reason for them to be ungrateful as they receive it for free so still, that's still a big help for them to at least get some help from anything that they are able to purchase with that subsidy.

With what they'll be doing here, they're putting their economy into a rather difficult situation since they'll be handing out free money to a lot of people. Where will the money come from? What plans do they have to offset that? If this is to stimulate their own economy then good luck with that. I'm pretty sure a lot of people will just hold the money and consider it as their savings rather than use it for actual expenses if need be. This should be thought thoroughly and, if it's really a test as they say, the funds that they'll pour on the citizens should be very minimal so as not to damage their economy.

I hope for a reasonable attitude of the people of THAILAND, for such a decision. I'll give you an example - Switzerland. In 2014, the Swiss rejected an increase in the minimum wage ! I.e. the population of the country rejected the state's proposal to increase, in essence forced, the income of...POPULATION !
And the population understands perfectly well that the excessive burden on the economy and unnecessary money will not improve the situation.

"Swiss residents in a nationwide referendum rejected a proposal to introduce the world's highest minimum wage, preliminary data show.
The minimum wage per hour of work was proposed to be set at 22 Swiss francs (about $25).
The minimum monthly wage, thus, should be equal to 4 thousand francs (4.5 thousand dollars).

This is of course not exactly the same process as proposed in Thailand, but it is very similar. And the Swiss population realizes that such an injection of "extra money" will not lead to good things.

Well, what OP have said is not a totally new thing in the economics of the economy. Many countries have used such method to alleviate poverty and it worked for them while same method failed woefully for some other countries.

Another method which the government should have considered is subsidizing the products for her citizens. This will enable majority of the people with lower purchasing power to enjoy the economy, thereby doing the exact work that what is discussed in the Op would do.

I will strong say that the success of any of the above schemes depend so much on the corruption level of the country. I my country both schemes have been practiced and they failed. Recently, the new government removed subsidy because it was hijacked by a few elites. The government now introduced disbursement of funds to poor families, yet the top corruption politicians mered the vision. The best thing to do is to employ the citizens and pay accordingly (job creation).

Usually these handouts only make things go up in price and increase inflation. Stupid move if you ask me.

I also don't understand the restrictions because people paying their debts should be beneficial to the government. A person in debt is more prone to erratic behavior, mental problems, but a person who pays debts shows responsibility and long-term thinking. Don't they really want to incentivize that? Don't they want healthy and responsible society?

If they do not spend it on these needs and wants, what then will they spend it on? How will the moeny go round the economy? Maybe I am missing something because, I don't understand this at all


They already have control over the society with the government issued fiat so, I do not see this as an experiment of any sort. If for example they allow bitcoin to be used along side their local fiat, and then try to control what they buy, not buy, do or not do with bitcoin, then I would agree that it is an experiment but this is no way any experiment, just a poor policy that doesn't help their economy.

So, what does that leave? Food and clothes?
What's the point if they cannot pay their bills. It's supposed to help these people, but not really.

The first thing that would come to my mind if I wanted to spend it would probably be tools. I used to work in construction and $1k in tools is like nothing, but can get you all the basics like levels, drills, work clothes... Same with other trades like it's a good set of tools if you're a mechanic. I have no idea why you can get tools, but not fuel. So if you're a professional mechanic, that's fine, but if you're a taxi driver, that's a no no. No help for you man. Buy yourself some clothes!

If it's an one time cash transfer to revive the internal demand, then it should be fine! But it must not become recurring. Because of people start getting recurring payment from government without any effort, their economy will go into hyper inflation. This is what happened to Venezuela.

One time transfer is good because it will start circulating in the market. Might give a boost to the economy by increasing demand. But this money should not get deposited to the bank's. Thai government should be very careful about it.

You've not explained how it will be possible to spend the money, just said it's targeted at internal use and will not be possible to cash out? Sounds like a recipe for abuse, as many companies will take advantage of this in a whole variety of ways. To me it seems like a vote buying exercise with little substance to it. The Thai currency does not exactly have much faith in it and these sort of actions further dilute any trust that the world has in good governance of debt. It seems strange that it's not possible to use it towards things like debt repayments or tuition fees, as these can have a very beneficial effect in helping young people in future, as the burden can be quite crushing early on.

I think it depends on what kind of goods you can buy with that money. If the government is limiting purchase of things then they are targeting some specific item which can be bought using that money. Also, it's an e-wallet issued by the government and they can monitor each and every spending that the citizens do. Isn't this like a survey? Good or bad I have no idea about it but seems like a manipulation to me. I don't know about this temporary currency so no comments on that. But how would people save and invest if it's temporary money?
It doesn't answer our question instead it raises more question.

I'm still a little bit confused on what kind of intention the government have. If they are inspiring citizens to buy certain things by giving free money to them, it does seem like there is a hidden agenda behind it. What is it, nobody knows.

their government should permit its people to at least use it to pay for their bills. that's basic necessity also. so don't know how they are limiting the scope of their "stimulus" per se. but for those who badly need this money, definitely they will be thankful for this government subsidy.
not many governments have such kind of initiatives so they better use the funds wisely. the possibility of abuse will always be there especially if there will be a lot of corrupt officials in their govt.

This is stimulus but for some conditions, it can't be spent for most of the basic needs of their citizens as you've mentioned mainly with the bills. Much better if this is like the subsidy that they does but if there are some conditions then for sure its people will think of what important thing they can use it for. Honestly, when a country does this, there's a possibility that it can be abused by the recipients although the control is there. The results will vary as well but with what I have seen for some countries that did this like for many times, they didn't able manage to comeback and overcome the inflation.

I quite understand that there are some convincing reasons why governments give money to their citizens. It's either to stimulate the economy during a recession. A good example of this was during the COVID-19 pandemic. Some countries around the world gave money to their citizens to help them stay afloat financially. Sometimes, government share money to provide financial support for people who are struggling especially those on low incomes or those who are unemployed. But this very action of giving money has repercussions on the economy because sometimes it can lead to inflation if the government prints too much money. People become too reliable and dependent on government for bailout. These money could be better spent on other things like infrastructure or education to better the lives of the citizens. But what I don't understand here is why the government wants to dictate how this money should be spent? When you gift someone something, I guess the person can decide on whatever they choose to do with it.

This looks like something between a voucher system and a "helicopter money" government program.
I wonder how this program will be funded. Does the government of Thailand have 50 billion dollars in the form of reserves, or the money will come from the foreign creditors.
Such "helicopter money" programs usually lead to two things-short term revival of the economy and long term inflation.
Perhaps the "expiry date" of these "electronic vouchers" are a measure against future inflation. This seems like an interesting idea in theory, but I don't know what will happen in reality. Perhaps the impact of this program will be short term, and the economy will return back to it's previous state(before the program launch) after this weird "e-cash" thing expires.

Basic income provision is seen as a healthier alternative to only providing cash to those without a job etc.   The idea being its conducting greater amounts of business in the economy by not excluding the hard working and active members from capital they can deploy and create further revenue with.  I  think there is some worth to this idea but the first thing any government should do is return a surplus on their budget every year, also trade balance or the currency itself is a source of poorer citizens.

It is highly unlikely that the thai government will distribute money to its citizens thailand's economy is currently slowing down. The country's economy slowed due to lower than expected foreign tourist arrivals and lower demand for goods from top trading partner China. Apart from this it is also feared that inflation in the country may increase due to the possibility of reduced production of rice and sugar due to drought. In view of this Thailand has decided to launch a digital wallet program to encourage investment financing through the national budget and taxes could further exacerbate the fiscal deficit.

Uncontrolled circulation of money is just a time bomb for the country, besides that giving free money to citizens will not be effective if the money in the country only circulates within the country, not leaving the country.  The government should prioritize buying products produced by small traders to stimulate purchasing power, because i'm sure there will be a lot of fraud that occurs, for example people who receive financial assistance put the money into gambling or other negative things, hopefully they will study their plan more deeply.

I know that this policy will have positive and also some negative effects, but it is good to know that it is targeted at low-income earners. At least it will meet some of their basic needs. It will also create employment opportunities because businesses will enjoy high patronage which could lead to an increase in profit maximization. The only problem with such policies is implementation. In some cases, they are marred by corruption, tribalism, and nepotism. But if it is well implemented, it will improve the standard of living of citizens for a while.

The time frame for the use of money is also ideal to avoid saving or hoarding these funds. It will help to stimulate the economy within a period and the government will afterward roll out control measures to tackle inflation.

There is a need to control the money that will be spent to avoid waste. Spending money on cigarettes and alcohol is a waste because it has little impact on the people. it is better to spend the money on food, clothing, and shelter. I would have suggested that the spending be limited to locally produced goods to stimulate the local industry.

This injection of money is unlikely to solve the economy's problems. I emphasize that these are systemic problems.

Of course, there is an anecdote about 100 dollars, which solved the problems of the village, having passed through all hands and returned to the hands of the one who brought them, but this is a different story and there is a different meaning. In order for the economy to work:
- The population regularly produces and consumes the domestic product. For this purpose, people should take money out of their wallets and give it to others. The movement of money in the economy is like the movement of blood in an organism - it moves, and there is enough of it - the organism works perfectly. Blood pressure drops a lot - and you can't move yourself.
- The economy has to produce goods for export in order to get stable currencies to buy critical products for the country on the foreign market. Since local economies are rarely fully self-sufficient.

And giving away money is not a very logical way to go about it. I can assume that most of the population will buy an iPhone or fashionable sneakers, unfortunately this is human nature, independent of the country.

To me the most interesting part about this initiative if how this government are putting some hard restrictions on what those benefited by the program can or cannot do with the money. The fact they cannot use that money to pay for loans or use it to buy hard commodities like gold or precious gems says a lot about the awareness the Thailand authorities on this plan would have on the prices of those products/goods.

Hopefully a good percentage of those people use that stimulus to pay for things the need and also in order to get for things they can later use as mean of production.

This Thai government endeavor poses intriguing money supply manipulation and social control problems. Fine line, eh? Funding the economy could boost consumption and local businesses. But control - limiting how the money is used, who gets it, and keeping it digital - looms. Is this the start of a global, controlled digital currency? Due to its unregulated status, Bitcoin thrives. It lets users manage their assets without third-party interference, unlike banks.

In contrast, Thailand rigorously controls digital currency. It looks to be controlling crypto and stimulating the economy. This may influence global monetary policy (perhaps). Government-controlled digital currencies offer economic benefits but pose concerns about surveillance and control.

Well, this would be a nice policy for the poor people, but due to this policy, people should not stop working because it's not money running the economic circle of the country is the service & productivity.

TBH there are a lot of welfare programs running in my country to help different types of people, and it's not enough amount live well in current economic circumstances, most people misuse it some of the needy ones are not getting their allocated funds due to politics and corruption around 20% to 30% of the funds are helping and rest are going to the pockets of corput people. They use such support programs to promote their party, they utilize the government funds on their name for their election campaigns & market purposes.

TBH when I look closely at how unfair the system is I feel so sad about how brutally immorality is dominating. Transparency in the system can only fix it, they are no willing to bring transparency because of how they and their heirs will live in luxuries. 

First of all, I'm wondering if there are similar experiments in the past about money distribution or stimulus packages, and figuring out their impact and consequences. But let's take their good initiative that their main intent is to boost the economy and help those in need. Another thing I consider is the reason this policy was initiated, I believe it will heavily affect the impact of how the regulation is configured. As you said, if the goal is only to stimulate the economy, other thoughts worth thinking about and noting are whether this is the only policy to achieve that goal.

I believe if the goal is to stimulate the economy there are many other ways, but, I can't say much since I don't know how the country's similar policy results in comparison. Nevertheless, back to your main concern, this kind of initiative surely requires massive surveillance and heavily configured output expectations. As in result, the capability in case of manipulation and control is clear. In fact, it is likely prone to such effects. I believe the outcome of this initiative will surely affect and shape how the future digital currency or stimulus package policies will turn out, for better or worse.

I guess this is nothing new, many other country must experienced like this one, but in different forms.

Asking a customer to join membership, giving a promotion by installing their apps, getting free money after submitting personal identity etc. All of them are few or many ways to get someone information.

Fiat is always related with supply manipulation and yes this could the first way to migrate to their own CBDC.

---

Move this topic to Economy section.

The government in my country has been providing cash stimulus money for at least the last decade (new leader program). In its aim it is to "protect" the poor, but in reality it only maintains poverty levels. Someone who is poor becomes dependent on stimulus money and reduces their workload because they feel secure.

This policy has also been carried out in my country, at least in my country this model policy is successful in raising the consumption of the country and the economy is running again. Policies such as the Thai government do now have our officials to do during Pandemi Covid 19, many free money programs from the government, with the condition that the money must be spent immediately, not to be tube, so that the economy runs. And that was successful, maybe this was what the Thai government did to save his country from the monetary crisis.

It is not the first time, but many countries provide financial aid to individuals in the middle class to move the wheel of the economy, especially if traditional solutions, for example, zero interest rates are not useful. This happened to many countries in the Corona pandemic in some economic crises, but it will be useful as long as the consumer classes know the nature of. spending: If citizens shift to a culture of keeping money and not withdrawing it, this money may cause unintended inflation instead of moving the wheel of the economy. In short, economics is not a fixed science, and there cannot be a single solution suitable for all countries.

It is not as simple as it looks, First of all as the restriction to the spending of the received amount next to it giving such an amount of money to the citizens can really lead to a major economic crisis and inflation, I'm not sure what type of experiment they want to conduct because the amount they are giving to the people is increased supply it will directly lead to the inflation whether there is the restriction to limits such as Petroleum products some other services which cant be afforded by this directly.

Still, it will greatly disturb local production and local product costs, etc. More to this OP this topic doesn't belong to the Bitcoin discussion session it should be moved to the economics.

Where is Bitcoin discussion on this topic OP? I don't see anything about Bitcoin in it. What you writing is about government policy if systematic distribution of virtual money to it's citizens account. I don't think the topic is relevant to the Bitcoin discussion board. It is better to move this topic to Politics & Society discussion board as your topic doesn't even talk about crypto.

If nothing else, this will give its citizen something to augment their income.
Also, instead of having those money in the pocket of few officials, at least give something to its people.
We don't know their long-term plan on this matter, but I guess, they will make a study on how it will impact their economy.
As we are not residing in their country, we don't know exactly what benefits it will give to its citizen, but for sure, people will be happy as it is free money.

The policy of mass cash transfers was one of the campaign slogans of the centrist Pheu Thai Party (For Thais), which came to power in the Asian country in the summer. The aim is to stimulate the economy by giving the equivalent of over a thousand Dollars to 50 million people, encouraging them to spend more and thus helping local producers, shops, and small businesses. Under the influence of opposition criticism, Prime Minister Srettha slightly reduced the initially planned scale of the program, which was originally intended to cover 56 million people. Income limits and savings limits were introduced. Ultimately, anyone who is at least 16 years old, earns less than 70,000 baht per month, and has less than 500,000 baht in their bank account will be eligible for the transfer.


The money is intended to reach the broad masses of the population exclusively in electronic form, through an e-wallet available via the government application used by millions of Thai citizens. Citizens will not be able to convert the virtual wallet contents into cash, and the funds will need to be spent within six months of receiving them.

The authorities also want to control how the money is spent. Recipients of the government program will not be allowed to use the received funds for debt repayment, bill payment, tuition fees, gas and petrol purchases, gold or gemstones, internet products and services, alcohol, cigarettes, or marijuana.

-------------------------------------------

Question : is this a planned experiment regarding money supply manipulation and full control over society? Is this an attempt before implementing "temporary" currency internationally? A test on the population? What are your thoughts on this?