How Vietnamese still suffer thanks to America. Documentary

[mrfly911]

Vietnam abandoned its language for Latin letters

Vietnam changed her writing system, not language!

 

[xesy]

Vietnam changed her writing system, not language!

Chinese was not our writting anyway.

 

[Lure]

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.

Well of course there are examples of collective companies even in countries that promotes liberal economy. Companies that promotes basic utilities are more collective minded.

However how about,

- Big 4 banks in China ( ICBC, BOC, CCB, ABC). Those are all state owned banks, portions of them are traded in stock markets (so they have private shareholders) and they simply want to maximize their profits.

- Big 4 Automobile cooperations in China (SAIC, Chang'an, FAW, Dongfeng). Those are all state owned enterprises, forms joint ventures with western private automobile manufacturers, all four of them are traded in stock markets so they are again capitalist companies and all of them try to maximize their profits to make more investments.

- In Telecommunications sector ZTE and Datang are very similar, both of them are state owned and both of them are managed just like capitalist companies.

So, there are examples of both types in China, however it's not unique. Utility companies like (transport, electricty, running water) are managed more in collectivist manner since they are the fundamental needs.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

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.

Your argument then seem to allude that SK is enjoying its economical success today due to the same factor: being under the US sphere of influence.

So now let us try to bring in some relevant facts into this debate:

1. As far as I know, the Saigon area was VN's economical hub long before the US had any influence there. The French has established Saigon as their Indochinese colony's main centre of economic activity decades before any US Marines or advisors step foot on VN. Perhaps, SVN has already established itself as a major trading center before its colonisation.

2. During the early 50s (before US officially involved itself in the VN war), a mass exodus of educated Viet elites migrated down south, most likely bringing with them their wealth (minus their land), knowledge and education.

But let's forget all about these socio-cultural and historical factors, let's attribute the economic success of the South (relative to the North) to one factor only: the US influence on SVN during the 60s. This seems to be your reasoning. You are making it like SVN was a poor backwater region before the 60s and as soon as it went under the influence of the US, then BOOM, their economy exploded. And it even sound more absurd to credit SVN's economic success from 2000s (relative to the north) to the same single factor of being under US sphere of influence during the 60s.

Lets look at the case of S Korea. They went through an economic miracle, no doubt. No one would deny this. And no doubt they had a lot of aid and assistance from the US. But again, you seem to ignore their other socio-cultural factors and credit it solely on US influences.

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?

It is a probabilistic scenario. A country under US influence is more likely to succeed than one under Soviet/ChiCom influence, and the record is quite good. It is a straw man to say that my argument implied guaranteed success, since I made no such claim, since it is impossible, and since the US cannot even guarantee itself economic success, much less other countries.

You cannot view the world in black and white, or reduce the economic model to such simplistic terms. I never claimed that the US was the sole factor, and neither should you.

I'm not doubting that their internal political turmoil played a large factor why their economy took a dive. I was simply trying to dispute Leveragedbuyout's selective reasoning in trying to correlate economic performances to one variable only: whether a country is under the influence of the US or not. At least, this is my perception when reading his argument that I quoted.

Simply put, being under the US sphere of influence is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for economic success. There are other more important factors or variables that needs to take into account.

It is not a sufficient condition because the Philippines was still officially under US influence when their economy took a huge dive.

It is not a necessary condition either because PRC had an economic miracle of their own during the 2000s and they weren't under the US sphere of influence.

You will need to prove that my the essence of my argument implied that the US was the single determining factor. You will also need to show that I claimed that US influence was necessary and sufficient for economic growth.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Egypt is a US ally and has been for over 30 years, Thailand for over 40. Why do you ignore those? Liberia copied the US constitution. Nigeria copied the British model of government. Both have received significant US aid in the past 50 years. Why are they all unsuccessful?

Of the countries mentioned, the only NAM country that could be considered under the US sphere of influence was Egypt, and that was because Egypt was literally bribed to come into the US tent. Aid in the developing world is a highly controversial tool, with the likes of William Easterly claiming that it actually harms economic development.

Nevertheless, if I had to use a shorthand indicator for the difference, it would be the presence of US bases as a proxy for level of US involvement. I have already addressed the failure of the Philippines with @Black Flag , but in short, you can't win them all.

South Vietnam was prosperous even under French colonization - does that mean France would've been even better equipped to help Vietnam than the US?

Germany was not devastated after WW1. WW1 barely touched German infrastructure since Germany launched expeditionary warfare into France. Instead what happened was that WW1 *disarmed* Germany without taking away any of its industrial infrastructure. Singapore is a tiny city at a strategic location. Anyone could make it work. Witness Hong Kong - whether it was British or Chinese rule is irrelevant, the city develops at the same rate, simply because it is a small city at a strategic location.

I absolutely believe that Vietnam would have been more prosperous under France than how Vietnam turned out. The issue is Western-style capitalism, now France or the US, but a Western presence would significantly raise the possibility of implementing such a system, and indeed, South Vietnam had such a system. Best of all is a country that implements such a system itself, without outside interference, but that's far more rare.

Regarding Germany, one does not need to physically destroy the infrastructure to destroy an economy. As an example, the Great Depression devastated the US, despite the relatively good condition of its infrastructure and factories. Germany was devastated by the Versaille Treaty's crushing economic burden.

Finally, with Hong Kong, does the "two systems" philosophy mean that for the most part, China's rule is superficial? It's only moot because China is converging towards Hong Kong, but if China were still communist, we would probably see a significant impact, just as the USSR took the nominally advanced East Germany and destroyed it.

 

[senheiser]

loool



I agree with you bro. I have been saying the same thing here as well. But our vietnamese friends here still seem to want to remain with their old Russian Patron instead of choosing the U.S who can offer much more to Vietnam(since Russia will never support Vietnam in any conflict with China with whom it has more global interests). So its up to Vietnam to choose who it thinks will be best for their interests. It cant be on two boats at the same time, as time moves on, it will become even more untenable for Vietnam as China grows more stronger and dominant in the region.

of course it can, russia offers much cheaper military stuff and exploration in natural recources. America and japan is too expensive enough said

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

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.

Nicely argued. Capitalism is the most important factor, not democracy. Democracy serves to reinforce capitalism, in that democracy makes a market out of the political process, but clearly this is not the case always and everywhere. Still, Japan created the model that China is using (investment-led growth, industrial champions financed by captive banks, export-driven economy), and it had far more democracy (and the institutions of democracy) than China, so I am highly skeptical of the need for strong centralization to achieve good economic growth. Switzerland is essentially as decentralized as it gets in the developed world, and seems to do well.

I enjoyed your post immensely.

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.

But in the end, it always comes down to the same question: who subsidized the losses of these types of companies? Simply a different subset of taxpayer than the beneficiaries of the subsidy.

 

[senheiser]

An alliance of Viet Nam, Japan, South Korea, and the US will be a powerful check on China. As how Japan and South Korea prospers under capitalism and democratic processes, so will Viet Nam.

china and russia prospered without any democratic process. You cherry pick the best examples but overshadow the dozens of US ally/democracies today who are dirt poor like the Philippines ( much much poorer than china and russia). Culture makes an economy not democracy or being US ally.

American sphere of influence:
West Germany, capitalist, prosperous
South Korea, capitalist, prosperous
Japan, capitalist, prosperous

Soviet sphere of influence:
East Germany, communist, impoverished
Belarus, communist, impoverished
Vietnam, communist, impoverished

Chinese sphere of influence:
North Korea, communist, impoverished

Even China under communism was impoverished.

This is not a difficult decision to analyze. America promotes capitalism, and it has no territorial designs on Vietnam. The question isn't why Vietnam is making this choice, the question is why it took so long.

west german schoolbook

 

[NiceGuy]

What are you fighting for? If you are not coward, then donot stop fighting, you should go to Cambodia, why you come back. Go and continue the war against Taihland. Please never stop fighting, if fighting brings you more. Before you go to Cambodia, send e a message, I am planing exporting conffins to Viet Nam, that will make big money.

U dont know why we stop war against Thai-Camb ?? thats your IQ problem, I dont need to explain again. U can get a '"spiritual victories" on internet again, I dont care coz it doesnt change the truth abt your cowardice

Since u dare not stand up against USA like VietNam and fight for the right to live in TW, u guys Chinese will end up like coward Ah Q. We will happy to sit and watch your miserable lives going to the bad end

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Vietnam changed her writing system, not language!

Banh Mi is not traditional vietnamese.

But in the end, it always comes down to the same question: who subsidized the losses of these types of companies? Simply a different subset of taxpayer than the beneficiaries of the subsidy.

In most so called "capitalist" economies, the cost is socialized and all taxpayers pay for it - in the form of bailouts, pollution, straight up taxes that go to subsidies, etc. The profits, meanwhile, are privatized. You did not receive one single cent of benefit from the banks being bailed out because that money went straight to speculative securities instead of propping up the real economy. The banks profits off this speculation, of course, are private.

In socialist countries, both cost and profit are socialized. State Grid's subsidies benefit anyone that uses electricity - that is 99.8% of the population. China Railways benefits anyone that uses the railway or consumes a good that has been transported by rail - that is nearly 100% of the population. The cost is borne by all users of the service. Fair.

 

[Jlaw]

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.

Your argument then seem to allude that SK is enjoying its economical success today due to the same factor: being under the US sphere of influence.

So now let us try to bring in some relevant facts into this debate:

1. As far as I know, the Saigon area was VN's economical hub long before the US had any influence there. The French has established Saigon as their Indochinese colony's main centre of economic activity decades before any US Marines or advisors step foot on VN. Perhaps, SVN has already established itself as a major trading center before its colonisation.

2. During the early 50s (before US officially involved itself in the VN war), a mass exodus of educated Viet elites migrated down south, most likely bringing with them their wealth (minus their land), knowledge and education.

But let's forget all about these socio-cultural and historical factors, let's attribute the economic success of the South (relative to the North) to one factor only: the US influence on SVN during the 60s. This seems to be your reasoning. You are making it like SVN was a poor backwater region before the 60s and as soon as it went under the influence of the US, then BOOM, their economy exploded. And it even sound more absurd to credit SVN's economic success from 2000s (relative to the north) to the same single factor of being under US sphere of influence during the 60s.

Lets look at the case of S Korea. They went through an economic miracle, no doubt. No one would deny this. And no doubt they had a lot of aid and assistance from the US. But again, you seem to ignore their other socio-cultural factors and credit it solely on US influences.

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?

Don't forget the thousands and thousands of Chinese merchants who travelled to Cholon and establish that part of Saigon since the Qing dynasty.

 

[xesy]

Banh Mi is not traditional vietnamese.

Dude, so is coke, pepper, tomato etc. There are thousands of things brought to Asia by the Westerners during the colonial period, along with their culture. What's wrong to adapt to some of them?

Don't forget the thousands and thousands of Chinese merchants who travelled to Cholon and establish that part of Saigon since the Qing dynasty.

I thought they were Ming refugee fleeing from Qing invasion? The term "boat people" in VNese was mostly invented around that time.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Banh Mi is not traditional vietnamese.



In most so called "capitalist" economies, the cost is socialized and all taxpayers pay for it - in the form of bailouts, pollution, straight up taxes that go to subsidies, etc. The profits, meanwhile, are privatized. You did not receive one single cent of benefit from the banks being bailed out because that money went straight to speculative securities instead of propping up the real economy. The banks profits off this speculation, of course, are private.

Not correct. The bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer any money, and in fact turned a profit. It also had the minor side effect of saving the financial system and preventing an economic cataclysm, but we don't need to split hairs.

In socialist countries, both cost and profit are socialized. State Grid's subsidies benefit anyone that uses electricity - that is 99.8% of the population. China Railways benefits anyone that uses the railway or consumes a good that has been transported by rail - that is nearly 100% of the population. The cost is borne by all users of the service. Fair.

While I agree that subsidizing the transport of goods probably benefits the vast majority of the population, it also distorts price signaling in the market. In other words, if by no longer subsidizing the transport of distant product A to the market, distant product A became more expensive than local product B (which had previously been slightly more expensive due to, say, higher local labor costs), then the consumers will divert more consumption to product B. In other words, the subsidy didn't help the consumer, it only helped the producer of product A. The consumer paid for A + his fraction of the subsidy to A, when he might have been paying less overall by simply purchasing B. The problem is that the subsidy is a hidden cost, not transparent to the consumer, and since it's a government diktat, the consumer doesn't even have a choice whether or not to participate in the subsidy.

In addition, not everyone rides the train, so the non-riders subsidize the riders.

Subsidies always harm one group while helping another. Sometimes the self-appointed elites correctly guess who deserves to be subsidized, and who does not--but most of the time, they fail in the selection process, and prop up unworthy causes. True, the cost is borne by all taxpayers (not everyone, since not everyone pays tax), but I would not call that fair. Failures should fail, not be subsidized.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Not correct. The bank bailout did not cost the taxpayer any money, and in fact turned a profit. It also had the minor side effect of saving the financial system and preventing an economic cataclysm, but we don't need to split hairs.



While I agree that subsidizing the transport of goods probably benefits the vast majority of the population, it also distorts price signaling in the market. In other words, if by no longer subsidizing the transport of distant product A to the market, distant product A became more expensive than local product B (which had previously been slightly more expensive due to, say, higher local labor costs), then the consumers will divert more consumption to product B. In other words, the subsidy didn't help the consumer, it only helped the producer of product A. The consumer paid for A + his fraction of the subsidy to A, when he might have been paying less overall by simply purchasing B. The problem is that the subsidy is a hidden cost, not transparent to the consumer, and since it's a government diktat, the consumer doesn't even have a choice whether or not to participate in the subsidy.

In addition, not everyone rides the train, so the non-riders subsidize the riders.

Subsidies always harm one group while helping another. Sometimes the self-appointed elites correctly guess who deserves to be subsidized, and who does not--but most of the time, they fail in the selection process, and prop up unworthy causes. True, the cost is borne by all taxpayers (not everyone, since not everyone pays tax), but I would not call that fair. Failures should fail, not be subsidized.

You still paid for it in the form of inflation. Inflation is just as much of a tax as a direct tax, but even more insidious in that it not only taxes your current earnings but also your previous earnings. Whether the bank profit was actually a profit given the changing value of money in the interval is also questionable, and the way it was earned (speculations vs. commercial bank activities which boost the real economy) also influences whether those profits actually result in economic gains in other sectors. From my experiences - it did not. All other bailouts failed.

What about electricity? Why not also privatize air? In the future, why not split regions into "air zones" where a utility has the right to control distribution of air, and people have chips attached to their lungs to monitor air volume intake per year? Those who don't pay get automatic paycheck deductions, and those who are in air debt too much are jailed. Why not? It is quite expensive to maintain quality air. "Don't be a debtor, switch to Google Air Resources today!"

 

[Jlaw]

Capitalism, where one guy (group) can own 90% of all the resources and the rest have to fight for the 10%.
That is just crazy.