How Vietnamese still suffer thanks to America. Documentary

[Viet]

Vietnamese abandoned traditional foods for banh mi and bread, which are now part of Vietnam's breakfast. Do Chinese eat bread? No. Coffee is a beverage which is different - even the US drinks vodka as the #1 spirit. Unlike vodka, coffee is also not limited to certain countries. Vietnam abandoned its language for Latin letters.

And no, many Vietnamese here have indeed forgiven the US, despite its lack of any apology for wrongdoing. That means they have accepted that the US was justified and right. You yourself have tried justifying the war by saying it was China that started it all, pushing the responsibility for the atrocities away from those who actually committed them. I have ridiculed no one. I find it sad, not amusing.

I am curious: what was our traditional breakfast before french bread?

 

[TaiShang]

This seems to be a clear case of selective reasoning. Let me try to get you straight. You showed some economic data of South VN from the 60s and from 2000s onwards. Then you credit these positive data to one factor: US influences on SVN during the 60s.

That's arrogant US logic, is it not? Just as they now demand the Japanese to fall in love with their mass-murderer, the US?

These people also credit the US for the Japanese miracle from the 60s, ignoring the fact that the pre-war government had already laid out the Japanese revitalization with extensive tax and land reforms. The US simply devastated Japan, and held back its industrial development for a couple of decades.

For one thing, no one asks for handouts from the US or the West; Asian nations have man power, ingenuity, and creativity to develop on their own. Whatever success we have is of our own just as whatever failure we have is of our own.

US people can forget about the idea that we are a bunch of miserables to feel grateful forever to them. There is no appreciation towards you on part of us as we did get nothing from you -- neither did we beg for.

 

[xunzi]

Let all cut the crap and let talk reality, all right? The Ukraine is currently testing American ability to defend her "friend" and at this moment we know the US ain't got shit to go into a nuclear war with Russia. This is just a big mouth talk I see from some of Western friend in here. As for these Vietnamese, we know the US abandon them before. So who say you wouldn't left them again if they got into a war with us?

 

[gambit]

You seem to also ignore other countries that were under the US sphere of influence but didn't do so well. The Philippines was economically better than S Korea in the 60s, but then took a dive from there. They were still officially under the US sphere of influence from 1960-1990. Will you then blame their economic failure on the US influence? or will you then conveniently ignore this US-influence factor and now focus on other socio-cultural and historical factors to explain their failure?

The crux of his -- and mine -- argument is that while countries under US influence do not always economically prospered, the communist model consistently failed.

The democracy-capitalist combination allows those 'other socio-cultural' factors to influence the countries to the tune that some succeeded and some failed. The communist model removed those 'other socio-cultural' factors, as they are aberrant to the centralized control method of societal planning, so that under comparison to the democracy-capitalist model, communist countries have no choice but to fail.

Do not take China's economic success as the middle-of-the-road or compromise between the two ends. The reality is that the democracy-capitalist model is the compromise while Marxism-communism is the extreme. If history is instructive in any way, the state directed capitalist method do not last long. The method produced a string of fast initial successes, but over the long term, the method is unsustainable as England and a host of Continental powers learned the hard way. Now we see Russia and China repeating the same mistakes.

 

[xunzi]

The crux of his -- and mine -- argument is that while countries under US influence do not always economically prospered, the communist model consistently failed.

The democracy-capitalist combination allows those 'other socio-cultural' factors to influence the countries to the tune that some succeeded and some failed. The communist model removed those 'other socio-cultural' factors, as they are aberrant to the centralized control method of societal planning, so that under comparison to the democracy-capitalist model, communist countries have no choice but to fail.

Do not take China's economic success as the middle-of-the-road or compromise between the two ends. The reality is that the democracy-capitalist model is the compromise while Marxism-communism is the extreme. If history is instructive in any way, the state directed capitalist method do not last long. The method produced a string of fast initial successes, but over the long term, the method is unsustainable as England and a host of Continental powers learned the hard way. Now we see Russia and China repeating the same mistakes.

democracy-capitalist has no correlation with economic success. Japan, SK, Taiwan were all under dictatorship or centralized power during their rise to success. And I hate to say this but the Republican dominated America during their rise until real democracy propel America to the next stage of social development. Economic development is simply a matter of smart decision making. Only centralized power can have smart-decision making.

 

[kawaraj]

The crux of his -- and mine -- argument is that while countries under US influence do not always economically prospered, the communist model consistently failed.

The democracy-capitalist combination allows those 'other socio-cultural' factors to influence the countries to the tune that some succeeded and some failed. The communist model removed those 'other socio-cultural' factors, as they are aberrant to the centralized control method of societal planning, so that under comparison to the democracy-capitalist model, communist countries have no choice but to fail.

Do not take China's economic success as the middle-of-the-road or compromise between the two ends. The reality is that the democracy-capitalist model is the compromise while Marxism-communism is the extreme. If history is instructive in any way, the state directed capitalist method do not last long. The method produced a string of fast initial successes, but over the long term, the method is unsustainable as England and a host of Continental powers learned the hard way. Now we see Russia and China repeating the same mistakes.

Japan(so does Korea) has been such a state directed caplitalism economy. I would say Japan enbrace more socialism than China or Russia, the fact is how would you know if Keynesians were wrong when they were still at hight of the days. Libre is praised is a fact that they are doing correction of Keynesians. this CORREction is not called a sucess.

 

[gambit]

democracy-capitalist has no correlation with economic success. Japan, SK, Taiwan were all under dictatorship or centralized power during their rise to success. And I hate to say this but the Republican dominated America during their rise until real democracy propel America to the next stage of social development. Economic development is simply a matter of smart decision making.

That is utter nonsense considering the European countries along with the Asian countries you cited.

Only centralized power can have smart-decision making.

If that is true, then why did the Soviet Union failed ?

 

[Cossack25A1]

The problem with the Philippines was that the policies of the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos harbored a culture of cronyism and nepotism. This was anti-thetic to the Meritocracy that was paramount during the early years of the Philippine Republic, as seen during the time of Quezon, Laurel, Magsaysay, Garcia et al. Prior to Marcos the Philippines was a shining example of a post-independent Asian republic; a democracy in work.

But I am optimistic about the Filipinos. They have a habit of making things work out in the end.

It was worsened by the first Aquino administration where the "Utang na Loob" culture where one is in-debt with someone gets more favor. This started from the first Aquino and was continued even up to the present second Aquino.

 

[xunzi]

That is utter nonsense considering the European countries along with the Asian countries you cited.

Please study the rise of the Asian tiger + Japan. All of them rise during period of dictatorship having strong centralized power. As a matter of fact, I would like to categorize them into two separate factors. Democracy led social development while centralized power led the economic development.

If that is true, then why did the Soviet Union failed ?

SU failed because they followed communist market model and it was too late to change. It has nothing to do with democracy or not. Ask your Indian friend. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the Indian will never succeed until they have strong centralized power. That is the main reason Modi got vote in because he represents a strong centralized power government.

 

[Cossack25A1]

Yes, you're right that the Philippines' political issues , namely its constant internal strife with communist insurgencies, muslim separatists took a toll. Despite that, tho, they're doing good in the recent 10 years in regards to economic development. Let us not refrain from acknowledging that it was only in 1986 that they were able to repudiate the Marcos Regime. It was under the regime of Cory Aquino where she encouraged the large economic families to liberalize their holdings, which was allowed only after Marcos was removed from power (who supported a policy of strict government control of market policies, holdings). So from an objective perspective, we see that within the past some 28 years-- the Filipinos have done good for themselves. To this day they are the 2nd fastest growing economy in the Asia-Pacific and the fastest in ASEAN.They are considered a rising Asian Tiger economy, at present.

Lastly, I would like to say that perhaps @LeveragedBuyout was indirectly referring to nations that had historical western influence. In ASEAN alone I can count the success of Singapore, Malaysia and to some degree even Thailand.

I have to disagree with this; while the cronyism of Marcos was axed because of the 1986 revolt, what it did in turn is to return the old oligarchy into power whose descendant now more worry about their own welfare (their business standing) and that the economic protectionism was further enforced by the 1987 constitution made under the first Aquino administration. Because the of the oligarchs return and their lobbying, it is impossible to open the country to FDIs despite that within 28 years, they have already developed their businesses and industry.

 

[gambit]

Please study the rise of the Asian tiger + Japan. All of them rise during period of dictatorship having strong centralized power. As a matter of fact, I would like to categorize them into two separate factors. Democracy led social development while centralized power led the economic development.

State directed capitalism does produce quick economic success, but invariably, corruption and inefficiencies arises at all levels of that model. Look at your own China.

SU failed because they followed communist market model and it was too late to change. It has nothing to do with democracy or not. Ask your Indian friend. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the Indian will never succeed until they have strong centralized power. That is the main reason Modi got vote in because he represents a strong centralized power government.

That make no sense. The communist model is one of absolute centralized control, which YOU asserted as the only way to produce correct decision making, which mean the Soviet Union should have far surpassed the US and that would have led to worldwide communist revolution as countries after each other looks at the Soviets for guidance.

Do you even understand your own arguments ?

 

[xunzi]

State directed capitalism does produce quick economic success, but invariably, corruption and inefficiencies arises at all levels of that model. Look at your own China.


That make no sense. The communist model is one of absolute centralized control, which YOU asserted as the only way to produce correct decision making, which mean the Soviet Union should have far surpassed the US and that would have led to worldwide communist revolution as countries after each other looks at the Soviets for guidance.

Do you even understand your own arguments ?

Communist model should be used as a political tool to guide the economic policy based on capitalism. Get it?

 

[Lure]

State directed capitalism does produce quick economic success, but invariably, corruption and inefficiencies arises at all levels of that model. Look at your own China.


That make no sense. The communist model is one of absolute centralized control, which YOU asserted as the only way to produce correct decision making, which mean the Soviet Union should have far surpassed the US and that would have led to worldwide communist revolution as countries after each other looks at the Soviets for guidance.

Do you even understand your own arguments ?

It's not the communist model that dictates the absolute centralized economy, it's socialist model. Communism has a lot of forms. For example anarcho-communism rejects every form of centralized government/management model. Radical democracy is also another model that is theoreticized by left world view which also rejects any form of unitary management model. Those theories were not in practice, never in USSR or China. One should be really careful when talking about communism, since theory and practice had been very different.

US and EU had Marxist practices in the past and they have still government interventions to economy. In 2009 crisis US government saved bankrupting companies with taxpayers' money. Normally in a liberal economy that'^s absolute "blasphemy". Since liberal economy dictates a form of "natural selection" among the companies, the bankrupting companies and the economic policy should "fail" and the new companies/policies arise from the ashes of the old one. That's why capitalist economies sees cyclic economic crisis in every decade or two (the magnitude of the crisis depends) and readjust the policies according to learned "mistakes" from the economic crisis. However in 2009 US weren't given that chance and the companies and a portion of non-performing economic policies were simply "saved". That was pretty socialist and exact definition of government intervention to economy.

Another recent example in my mind is Paul O'Neill ex-CEO of Alcoa, and ex-Secretary of Treasury. When he was the CEO of Alcoa, the profits of the company was stagnating. The shareholders were complaining a lot about it. The first thing he said when he started as the CEO was "his primary aim would be decreasing the work accidents". Normally in a capitalist economy the aim should be "maximize profit". However after huge efforts for training the workers and managers for work safety and replacing the old machines that causes trouble, Alcoa also saw a great revenue rise as a side effect because the workers were feeling much more attached to the company and their proposals were simply taken into consideration and that improved the efficiency a lot. Marx also made similar predictions about manufacturing efficiency, if the workers are somewhat "attach" to their work environment the manufacturing productivity will rise. That's what happened in Alcoa and that was pretty socialist.

Since Deng Xiaoping, China is a country that can be modeled as state capitalism. By definition state capitalism and socialist economy differs a lot. In both economies there is a centralized form of economic model, and that's their only mutual property. In socialism companies that are controlled by the central body does not seek "profit", but seeks to distribute the surplus as evenly as possible. This is called collectivism and is the main form of thinking behind the socialist economic model. Also in socialist model a community would only share the surplus, not the actual need. What is meant by that is they first produce for domestic consumption, then only surplus is distributed.

On contrary for state capitalism main driving force for companies is just like the personal/private capitalism meaning maximize the profit. State capitalism relies on the same values with personal/private capitalism and they are as anti-socialist as the normal capitalists. Domestic consumption is promoted in state capitalism only if it's profitable to sell the product domestically. Otherwise export-driven economies are welcome in state capitalism unlike socialism.

Underlining the two main differences, between socialism and state capitalism, I also want you to challenge you about the current economic environment of China. China is undergoing a huge transform. State capitalism is being replaced by private/personal capitalism. State owned enterprises in China are currently being challenged by their privately owned counterparts.

Private enterprises deserve fair treatment - Opinion - Chinadaily.com.cn

News above is a good example. Normally when financing, SOEs in China were the favorite sons of the banks and they were taking the lion's share of the credits. However today this idea is being challenged in favor of the development of the personal/private capitalism. Li Keqiang also pushing for similar policies. Besides terms like Chinese Dream frequently used by Xi Jinping, clearly indicates that the new administration targets for a Chinese middle class that consumes and pass on to the next stage of development.

So what China is becoming : A single party state that uses liberal economy as it's economic model.

@LeveragedBuyout @Nihonjin1051 @cnleio you guys might enjoy it as well.

 

[xesy]

I am curious: what was our traditional breakfast before french bread?

Normally, a peasant family only used to eat twice a day, and the concept of breakfast was not really porpular in VN. Only those who worked early ate leftover from the night before dinner (if there was any left).

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Since Deng Xiaoping, China is a country that can be modeled as state capitalism. By definition state capitalism and socialist economy differs a lot. In both economies there is a centralized form of economic model, and that's their only mutual property. In socialism companies that are controlled by the central body does not seek "profit", but seeks to distribute the surplus as evenly as possible. This is called collectivism and is the main form of thinking behind the socialist economic model. Also in socialist model a community would only share the surplus, not the actual need. What is meant by that is they first produce for domestic consumption, then only surplus is distributed.

On contrary for state capitalism main driving force for companies is just like the personal/private capitalism meaning maximize the profit. State capitalism relies on the same values with personal/private capitalism and they are as anti-socialist as the normal capitalists. Domestic consumption is promoted in state capitalism only if it's profitable to sell the product domestically. Otherwise export-driven economies are welcome in state capitalism unlike socialism.

State Grid is the national electricity monopoly. It posts almost negligible profits for its monopoly position:

http://fortune.com/global500/state-grid-7/

It is not inefficient - State Grid's transmission losses are right next to Austria, Singapore and Canada's.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.LOSS.ZS?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=asc

Its electricity prices are lower than the US despite electricity costs coming mostly from capital equipment and resources that trade on the global market and have nothing to do with domestic purchasing power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

It has no "shareholders", "financial information" or anything else related to profit on its webpage: http://www.sgcc.com.cn/ywlm/index.shtml

Instead, the webpage is purely technical - about state grid's projects, research and users.

If it was purely about making profit, State Grid could charge insane prices for its electricity due to its monopoly position. It does not and indeed, posted losses in 2008 and 2012 because it was to keep prices constant despite rises in costs. A profit seeking corporation would never be able to do to that.

Another example is China Railways, owned by the Ministry of Transport. Each section of rail is managed by Railway Bureaus. Never heard of Bureaus in private companies. There is absolutely no profit in building a line to Tibet, as there is neither the population density along the line nor demand at the end of the line nor a trans-shipment point in Tibet to justify building a line for profit there, along with exceptionally high risk.

There is little-no profit motive for railway, petrochemicals or electricity at the very least.