Althought the contribution of Saigon to the whole industrial output
was not necessary 80% while its contribution to the consumer good
production was 80% but this indicates the economical capability of
Saigon and it shows that the saying that the richess of the South
Vietnam was artificial is baseless.

According to an article on Nhan Dan newspaper issued in 1999, until
1997, there was still 70% of machinery and equipments in Saigon were
installed before 1975. The article said, before the major part of
equipments was dated pre-75, these equipments caused polution to the
environment. The article also said, Saigon produced 57% of the
industrial output then.

From 1990 to 1997, there were several new industrial zones created in
the Vietnam at locations other than Saigon. But after 7 years, Saigon
still contributed 57% of the industrial output with 70% equipment
installed before 75. These facts can help us to have the picture of
the year 1980's when there were not many new investments to industry,
then the contribution of Saigon to the economy must have been greater
57%. What ever the communists said, South Vietnam, which could
contribute over 57% of the industrial production, must have its
productive capability.

Since the communists have been trying to play down the importance of
the economical capability of the South while they ruined the economy
after 75, people who fled Vietnam after 75 still hate the communists
so much that now even when they are in other countries, they don't
want to accept the red flag of the communist regime.

Minh Duc

Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> Let me offer you some explanations? Take this or leave this as you
> like. I dont think I am qualified in this domain.
>
> minhduc2001@MailandNews.com (Minh Duc) wrote in message news:<7d293701.0308100949.1d9beb7a@posting.google.com>...
> > Looking at the growth rate 6.4% and the current growth rate around 6%
> > then there are some questions to be raised:
> >
> > If the growth rate during the 80's was 6.4% and the current growth is
> > 6% somthing then since 6.4% is a not bad rate why did the communists
> > need to reform ? You need to reform when the situation is bad, if it
> > is not so bad why do you have to reform?
> Sustainability. Whether the 6.4 percentage point growth would sustain
> in 1986? or the next decade. The leadership might see that it is not,
> given the current communism climate and the reduced aids from Russia.
> They decided to make a move.
>
> > The growth rate before reform and after reform are almost the same.
> > Does it mean reform has no effect and it's just a waiste of time and
> > resources ? And isn't it simply another error of the VCP when they
> > thought that they had to reform ?
> When you plan and execute a reform, you dont expect to see the fruits
> right away. It is normal that you will see a dip in the profit (or the
> growth in this case) when the reform (or the correction) is make.
> However, you will see a return to a decent profit (or growth) level
> for a long period of time. This was clearly the case for the period
> 1986-1996. The growth for this period was quite significant and it is
> quite possible that this high growth rate could only be achieved with
> the reform set in 1986.
>
> > With the reform, plus billions dollars of foreign investment and
> > billions dollars of loans, aids pumping to the current economy of
> > Vietnam, the growth rate is not better the when Vietnam has not been
> > reformed and was embargoed, the this mean the reform, foreign
> > investments, loans, aids don't have any effect to Vietnam economy?
> Before the reform, VN got a fair bit of aids from Russia. About a 1.8
> billions each year. One billion for the army and about 7-800 millions
> civil aids. That is in 1985's money, which is a lot and it is
> completely free. I dont have a figure of the loans but it must have
> been quite substantial, remembering that in 1990's some VNese
> officials were going around full-time just to reschedule those loans.
> Considering in mind that the VN economy at the time is probably about
> 1/4 of the VN economy today. The current level of aids that VN is
> enjoying is probably the same as VN was having from Russia at the time
> (proportionally speaking). My theory is that the leadership must have
> a sense in 1985-86 that the money flow Russia would dry out in the
> following years given the situation in Russia, hence they decide to
> make the move.
>
> > With all the foreign investments, embargo lifted, foreign loans, aids
> > the current grow rate is not improved comparing the period when
> > Vietnam lacking all of these resources. This meand today the economy
> > performs worse than before because with the huge resources added
> > today, the performance is not better.
> See my previous paragraph.
>
> > If the growth rate was 6.4% during the 80's then why the communists
> > officials kept on blaming the American embargo for the bad performance
> > of the economy during the 80's ? According to the growth rate 6.4% it
> > was not really bad. Does it mean the embargo had no impact on the
> > economy? Or the communists blamed the U.S. for no reason?
> Of course, the economy would have been better, if the embargo was not
> there. More trade, easier access to international loans, possibly more
> foreign investment.
>
> > During the period of 95, 96 when the foreign investors were fed up
> > with the red tape in Vietnam and withdrew from Vietnam, the growth
> > rate was dropped to 4% - 5%. Why before the reform, the economy could
> > make 6.4% growth rate without foreign investments and aids, then when
> > there were just some companies left Vietnam, the growth rate was
> > dropped below 6.4%?
> The growth rate of VN in 95-96, was the HIGHEST in VN recent history,
> topping around 9-9.5%. The Asian financial collapse of 1997 hit
> Vietnam badly. For the period 97-01, VN growth could only hover around
> 4-5% mark. I believe that VN government did try to soften the blow of
> the collapse then. Instead of one bad year (e.g -10% growth like in
> some Asian nations + several good years), they opt several years of
> average growth.
>
> > If all foreign companies withdrew from Vietnam tomorrow, then can
> > Vietnam sustain the current 6% growth rate or not? Obviously it's
> > impossible for Vietnam to maitain the current 6% growth rate without
> > the foreign investment. Why Vietnam could make 6.4% growth rate in the
> > past without foreign invesment but it cannot make it now?
> See my previous paragraph.
>
> > Now if the U.S. imposed the embargo again, could Vietnam sustain the
> > current 6% growth rate or not ? The answer is no. Why Vietnam could
> > make 6.4% when there was the embargo but it cannot make make it now?
> See the paragraph, again.
>
> > Indonesia and Thailand also made 6% growth rate during the 80's, then
> > why Vietnam fell to one of 10 poorest countries in the world in the
> > late 80's and just escaped from this misery a few years ago but
> > Indonesia and Thailand became richer and richer during the same
> > period?
> By 1975, Vietnam had already behind the april compare to Thailand by
> around 15 years and that included VNCH economy. Even VNCH economy by
> then had already behind Thailand's economy, by possibly around 15
> years. The five year period of 1975-1980 made it 20 even. I dont
> think, VN felt into the pool of poorest nations in 1980's. It was
> already there, then and long before that.
>
> > Why the Vietnamese did not have enough rice to eat, many families in
> > the south had to sell all their belongings for living when the growth
> > rate was 6.4%, and now with almost the same growth rate, many
> > Vietnamese are saying their living is better than in the 80's while
> > the current growth rate is around 6% and somtimes dropped to 4% - 5%?
> It is better now, because the quality of life now includes the 6.4%
> growth in 1980's, while the quality of life then did not include the
> growth enjoyed in the 1990's period. You ought to understand that
> growth is a continual thing, if the economy grows by 10% in one year
> and 5% in the next, the quality of life in the second year would be
> better than then first one.
>
> BTW, the myth that VNCH was a prosperous economy in 1975 is simply
> untrue (see some of my previous posts). And if you take the inflation
> rate of VNCH currency between 1972-1975, it is clear that VNCH economy
> was not in a good shape at all. Even without the awful policies in
> 1975-80's, I am sure that the correction of VNCH economy would have
> been needed then, meaning a low growth in that period.
>
> I got a feeling that most anti-comminism Vietnamese who were very
> vocal on the issue of prosperous VNCH economy vs a poor VN economy in
> 1980's, came from the upper class, i.e. the rich, of VNCH society and
> hence, their views on VNCH economy, are extremely distorted.