Tariffs top closures
Re: "Making Cambodia pay for border row", (Opinion, Oct 2). As a seasoned economist, Chartchai Parasuk makes a valid point by suggesting that Thailand open its borders with Cambodia. After all, the closed borders are only hurting this nation, economically speaking.
The above writer makes an astute observation by pointing out that Thailand has a trade surplus of over 280 billion baht with Cambodia, which is about 1.5% of its annual GDP. But even though the borders have only been closed with Cambodia for a couple of months, both exports and imports to this nation have already plummeted.
So, rather than keeping the borders closed, and to allay the fears of the nationalists here, Mr Parasuk suggests that Thailand taxes imported Cambodian goods to the tune of 19%, and imposes 5% tariffs on goods exported there.
This surely is a better solution to closing the borders with the previously mentioned nation, and making an already suffering economy even worse.
Paul
No CO2 miracle
Re: "No to carbon tax", (PostBag, Oct 3).
Anna Aarts is labouring under the same misconception about CO2 that regular contributor Michael Setter tries to foist on us.
Carbon dioxide is not a plant food, and the "aerial fertiliser effect" is, sadly, a myth. Plants, be they oak trees or cabbage, grow from seeds and water. Only when they develop foliage does the process of photosynthesis begin. No amount of free CO2 in the atmosphere will spontaneously create plant life and thus promote global greening and increased agricultural productivity, as Ms Aarts suggests.
It would be great if all that CO2 spewing out of coal-fired power plant chimneys and car exhausts were in fact producing lush forests and swaying fields of food crops, but that is, unfortunately, a fantasy.
I do however agree with the writer that the concept of carbon taxes (with its accompanying carbon market and tradable carbon credits), is not the answer to CO2 pollution, though I would have thought that, rather than "coming to light", the whole idea had long since been been discredited and abandoned. I thank Ms Aarts also for introducing me to the phrase "Pigouvian tax", which I hadn't previously come across.
Ray Ban
Drug policy fails
Re: "PM hails successful drug suppression campaign", (BP, Oct 4).
Some pertinent questions for deciding whether a drug suppression campaign was successful or not are all comparative. Are there fewer drugs on the street? Are prices higher? Are there fewer Joe Ferraris in the Royal Thai Police and related agencies involved in drug crimes? Are there fewer criminal gangs getting rich? Are fewer people using drugs? Is there less drug-related crime? If the answer to one or more of these questions is "no," then it's the usual failure to reduce drug harms to society. Not a single statistic was provided to substantiate that the answer to any of these questions is "yes".
The statistics given do, on the other hand, effectively establish that drug use remains rampant and that criminal activity remains highly lucrative thanks to law and drug policy that has, for many, many decades, failed to reduce drug use and harms to society. Boasting of such a blatant failure is perhaps somewhat ill-advised.
Felix Qui
