Both Reg – I often get caught in my own logic. I try not to, but I can’t help it. I have been criticized for my arrogance too – and will readily admit to it as well… I readily admit (as I used “we”) that I write as a hypocrite.

Similarly, on politics, we are describing a society that is somewhere on the spectrum between a monarchy (Thailand pre-1932) and one that is a liberal democracy (Thailand in 20xx?).

Most of us are doing so from the vantage points of either living or have lived in societies that is already classified as “developed” and a liberal democracy. We assume that we have all the answers and prescriptions. But we could just be dead wrong – if Climate Change extremities kicks in (e.g. already forcing Australians to be “sufficient” with their water use). Now we are telling China and India to “slow down mate” and stop polluting – which is, in essence telling millions to “stay poor longer”.

Whatever we say here, we say as total hypocrites…

Simple concepts, but twisted to suit an underlying agenda – by both sides!

If a sufficiency economy was implemented in Bangkok, many tourists would have to have hotel stays without air conditioning. Could Bangkok find a different industry to butter it’s bread? I think tourism in South East Asia depends so much on all the stereotypes in that Ruby Wax article you posted and in the minds of Westerners who are captivated by seeing what they imagined in books from childhood. Exploring.

If South East Asia, and Thailand in particular didn’t look like it does, if it didn’t have the class issues, the rural poor contrasted with the Bangkok elite – if there was development like there has been in tiger economies throughout Thailand, would people still flock to Thailand in droves? I doubt it. You can’t have an ‘authentic adventure experience’ in a place where nobody starves, everyone has a tractor and air conditioning. Maybe it is the conservative elite attitude in Thailand and the nostalgic, romantic notion of what we see Thailand as that prevents practical development and promotes silly ideas like segregated sufficiency economy.

Maybe if Bhumibol didn’t buy into this sort of conservatism, he would have instead advocated for constructing solar panel factories and geothermal technology centers? This way Thailand could take advantage of a projected international business boom in being –sustainable–, rather than sufficient. Consequently allowing Thailand to emerge as the latest ‘tiger economy’.

So I am very interested in sufficiency because it fuels my inefficient digressions!

From the context of capitalism, it may be difficult for the Bangkokian middle class to understand the sufficiency economy concept. Suranand may focus on the villages because it made it easier to communicate. If he focuses on only village, he is missing the point.