[prawn]

They put more into the Thai economy (renting a house, buying products, paying for services) and didn't take any money out (all earnings were from existing clients abroad).

It might contravene visa issues from a literal read, but I think the intent was fair. Many Australians would call this "the vibe of the thing" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJuXIq7OazQ

[ashconnor]

By that logic. Rental prices would go up, as foreign demand for property increases, pricing locals out of the market in the process, because they cannot compete with foreign earned salaries. Not just rentals, goods and services go up.

Increased strain on policing and hospitals. Strain on Thailand's subsidised public transport system, subsidised diesel fuel, subsidised water utilities.

No tax revenue from foreign workers as they don't declare in Thailand despite being required to do so by law. The only exception being VAT.

The general point of nomads working in Thailand is the ability to lower outgoings beyond what you could do in North America or Europe. Nomads don't spend cash like tourists and that makes them a drain on the economy.

So what's Thailand got to lose from allowing foreigners to set up shop. Well the huge fees required to be legal for one.