Outstanding, El a Communist arguing Economics is
like pissing on his Rice so it tastes better with
out all his teeth.

"fob" wrote in message news:RbHYa.11033$jg.3341332@news1.news.adelphia.ne t...
Well, Viet. Wait until El Chino gets his Satellite up
with a 12 year old girl playing a Polish Piano a up there
in Commie Vietnamese !
Me ? I can't wait.

"VIET THIET" wrote in message news:a9efa7b5.0308071619.7037e6f6@posting.google.c om...
> Dear Brian,
>
> I am sorry for not knowing you have been waiting for answers on this
> subject. Since I don't make a living as an economist, I can only
> answer your quations based on my empirical observations of the
> economic situations in Vietnam, with personal comparisons between now
> and during the war in the 70's.
>
> My position is that the 7% growth rate between 1985 until 1998 is not
> much to call home about. The main reason was that between 1975 and
> 1985, the VC's collectivization policy was a disastrous failure. It
> collapsed the entire economy, taking the entire population of a large
> rice-growing country to the brink of mass starvation. It should not
> take much effort to register growth in the double digit range coming
> up from a totally wrecked economy, mass starvation, or is it?
>
> The GDP per capita in 1985, before Doi Moi was probably $40 if anybody
> in the world cared to measure. I read some reports that it grew to
> $157 in 1991. The point is, growth rate in the 5-7% per-annum range
> back from mass starvation and a completely collapsed economy is
> nothing to be proud about!
>
> My personal observations after touring all over Vietnam from cities to
> country side is that, presently the people of Vietnam is much poorer
> off, even compared to the period when the VC's were waging a war of
> terrorism througout Vietnam during the 70's. Of course the population
> has doubled into 80 millions while the arable land mass remain the
> same (we are not even talking about the territories the VC's stole
> from Laos and Cambodia).
>
> The relative poverty is shown by the cramped housing, the ratios of
> beggars, peddlars, prostitutes, unattended children found on the
> street, and circumstantial clues like the absence of domestic produces
> like sea foods, fruits, vegeatbles etc... which appear to be exported
> for hard currencies. The variety, availability and affordability of
> basic food items appear very good in 2000, due to my observations that
> people in isolated areas were able to assemble quick meals with pork,
> chicken, beef, vegetables ingredients etc...
>
> The relative poverty is shown in the scarcity of finished goods, like
> building materials etc...In most other cities besides Saigon and
> Hanoi, you only have to travel a few miles from the center whenmost of
> the housing are just tiny mud and thatched huts, made from local
> natural materials. That's another aspects of poverty.
>
> If you have any reliable economic data to show, I would be happy to
> correlate them to reality, and to compare them to other contemporary
> countries!
>
> VIETTHIET
>
>
> **********************
> bkt90@hotmail.com (brian turner) wrote in message news:<66dc0679.0308061928.4a70597b@posting.google.com>...
> > VIETTHIET00@YAHOO.COM (VIET THIET) wrote in message news:...
> >
> > [snipped]
> >
> > > The next embarassing thing is the horrible poverty created by the
> > > incompetent and corrupt VCP, which causes total loss of human dignity
> > > and all moral rectitude among the average people.
> >
> > I've asked you this several times in the last couple years, and have
> > not gotten a satisfactory answer.
> >
> > The Vietnamese government did not asked to be embargoed after the war.
> > On the contrary, they tried to join ASEAN and tried to get loans from
> > the IMF and World Bank.
> >
> > 1) What do you think Vietnam's average GNP growth rate was from 1982
> > to today (hint: the economy accelerated after Doi Moi, growth didn't
> > begin then)?
> >
> > 2) Under conditions of involuntary embargo, what *would* have been the
> > growth rate from 1982-current if whatever policies you favor were in
> > place?
> >
> > I stipulate to 2 things -- a) that the economic policies from 1976-80
> > were astoundingly awful b) that GNP growth is not the only, or even
> > most important criteria by which a government should be evaluated.
> > Nevertheless, you repeatedly claim that the Vietnamese government has
> > been an economic failure, and you never say only in the early post-war
> > years, so you must be talking about the entire record. So, let's see
> > some facts supporting your claim. How fast did they grow since 1982,
> > how fast could they have grown realistically? These are straight
> > forward questions. If you have never read such data, then you should
> > be cautious about making such sweeping statements until you have.