VIETNAM SHOULD BAN EATING DOGS, CATS AND WILD ANIMALS......Re: It's a dog's life in Vietnam

According to Bui Tat Thanh, Hanoi,
http://www.nira.go.jp/publ/review/20...ng/06thang.pdf , VN economy
growth rate 76-80 is about half population rate or about 1.4%, 80-85
"is a bit better"(page2) so it won't be anywhere near 6.4% as comrade
Ky quote. 86-90 is 4.5% with population growth rate of 2.09% .

With the population growth rate of from 2.8% down to 2%, the real
economy growth did not start to go above zero until 1984.

And this stats may be inflated for the benefit of Communist Party
propaganda since Thanh said Vietnamese poverty rate is 28% in 1993
(page 3) while the measure by WorldBank and IMF is 50% for the same
period.

The VCP connected people of course get bigger the cake because it is
in VCP constitution that give everything to VCP members first, from
University entrances to getting fertile land to run a state-owned
enterprise to getting favorable treatment in civil disputes... the
list goes on ...

TL.

Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> According to http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/vietnam...en.html#table4
>
> Between 1980-1985, VN annual economy growth was 6.4%. Between
> 1975-1980, the growth rate was 0.4%.
>
> With the population increase of probably around 2.5-3% annually, the
> standard of living is actually down between 1975-1980 by around 2-2.5%
> each year. However, since 1980, the people standard of living has been
> improved steadily by around 5% each year (today the annual population
> increase is about 1.5%, the ecomonic growth is around 6-7%).
>
> The worldbank forcasts the growth rate of around 7% is sustainable in
> the medium term. If the policies are moving along the current line,
> this growth rate of 7% is sustainable for the next ten years, I
> believe.
>
> Speaking of income distribution, go by the international income
> inequality index, GINI, Vietnm GINI index for the period between
> 1990-2001 hovers around 35 - 35.1.
>
> While the GINI index for Thailand is around 43.8-46-41-43.1 for the
> period 1988-2001, Philippines 41 -46 for 1985-2001, Indonesia 30.3 -31
> for 1984-2002, Malaysia 45.2 -42 for 1984-2001 and interestly China
> 33.5(1990) to 40.3(1998).
>
> Source: http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/eap/eap.nsf/Attachments/Poverty+Reduction+&+International+Development+Goals/$File/Poverty_Brief.pdf
>
> The lower GINI index means less income disparity. This means Vietnam
> economic growth has been distributed fairly even amongst all sections
> of Vietnamese society. Combined this with the significant reduction of
> poverty, the myth that the economic growth has only benefited the VCP
> members is simply baseless and untrue. In general, it has benefited a
> VCP member as much as a poor peasant or a rich merchant,
> percentage-wise.

do_trong_luc@yahoo.com (trongluc) wrote in message news:...

> According to Bui Tat Thanh, Hanoi,
> http://www.nira.go.jp/publ/review/20...ng/06thang.pdf , VN economy
> growth rate 76-80 is about half population rate or about 1.4%, 80-85
> "is a bit better"(page2) so it won't be anywhere near 6.4% as comrade
> Ky quote.

I find that wholly unconvincing. He gives stats for the 1976-80
period, but no specific stats, sectoral or overall, for the the early
1980s, just he assures us there was continued output stagnation. At
the end of the paper, he calls for sped up reform. This is a very
familiar stance to me. Economists in the PR China who advocate sped
up reform (meaning mass privatization) often completely denigrate the
1970s, rather than taking a balanced view, good and bad aspects, which
the facts warrants.


> And this stats may be inflated for the benefit of Communist Party
> propaganda since Thanh said Vietnamese poverty rate is 28% in 1993
> (page 3) while the measure by WorldBank and IMF is 50% for the same
> period.

The difference needn't be fraud. They could have totally different
definitions of "poverty" or they could be using different prices for
various things.

do_trong_luc@yahoo.com (trongluc) wrote in message news:...

> Brian wrote "Saigon's per-capita living standard being greatly
> inflated by US aid".
>
> However, US economic aid to Saigon in 1973 is about 640 millions USD
> as opposed to 7-800M USD Soviet economic aid anually to VNCS 76-90,
> and also the undisclosed amount of China aid to VNCS as well.
>
> Would you care to analyse the impact of these aids to Vietnam GDP and
> growth rate. Thanks.
>
> TL.

Did China give any aid after the 1979 war? Anyway...

Are the comparative figures in constant dollars?

I'm presuming the Soviet aid is given rational prices.

Presumably the direct US aid to the RVN wasn't the only impact on the
city of Saigon's economy, right? Wasn't the spending of off-duty
soldiers, officers, and civilian personnel an important market, and a
source of circulation of money; a market that ceased to exist after
the pull out?

The Soviet aid would have gone to the entire country, rather than
being concentrated in Saigon, so the impact would be more diffuse.
During the period 1976-80 it might not have been used very wisely, or
it may have been used wisely, and accounts for the relatively flat
output (falling per capita output) rather than falling output (with
faster falling per-capita output). From 1979-89, the aid might have
off-set the impact of the wars with Cambodia and China. Presumably
the aid was used more wisely in the 1980s than the late 1970s, and
since the most rapid growth was in the heavy industrial sector, that's
probably where the aid went (thus why you didn't see explosions in
consumer good output).

Whether the Soviet aid off-set the economic cost of the embargo is
unclear without a lot more information (and expertise than I have),
but I would offer an amateur guess it did not, seeing how Vietnam has
a large coast facing a very rapidly growing region, thus had
substantial gains from trade to be had. Also Japanese, Hong Kong,
Singapore, and Taiwanese technology--to the extent Vietnam would have
been able to learn from any investment that would have occurred from
those places--would have been more helpful than Soviet technology,
which, while very useful given Vietnam's development level, was not
cutting edge by the 1980s (in non-military areas), thus not the best
to be had.

1. The "poverty" definitions are different. VN has its own "food
poverty" definition, which stands today at about 10%, while by the UN
poverty definition, the number is around 30% today. In 1993, it is
quite reasonable to see the figures at 28% and 50% respectively. They
are consistent and do not contradict each other.

2. I understood that But Tat Thang is the head of some department in
Vietnam, however his article uses only two references, both are
focused on the period after 1990 (by the name of the references). So
his information in this case is very much second or even third handed.
Whether it is more credible than the figures in the previous link
which are quoted directly from many sources (including both Dougles
Pike and Vietnam Statistics Yearbook), is up to the reader to decide.

1. Is this mean other South East Asia countries now are heaven to the
Communist Vietnam standards ?

2. Bui Tat Thang is head of department of Vietnam's external economic
relations at the Institute of Economics, which is directly control by
Minister of Trade, which reports directly to National Assembly and
Prime Minister to set up economic planning, trade policy domestic and
international which directly affects 80 millions Vietnamese at home.

And he used second or third handed statistic data.

Is it a joke or what ?

TL.

Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> 1. The "poverty" definitions are different. VN has its own "food
> poverty" definition, which stands today at about 10%, while by the UN
> poverty definition, the number is around 30% today. In 1993, it is
> quite reasonable to see the figures at 28% and 50% respectively. They
> are consistent and do not contradict each other.
>
> 2. I understood that But Tat Thang is the head of some department in
> Vietnam, however his article uses only two references, both are
> focused on the period after 1990 (by the name of the references). So
> his information in this case is very much second or even third handed.
> Whether it is more credible than the figures in the previous link
> which are quoted directly from many sources (including both Dougles
> Pike and Vietnam Statistics Yearbook), is up to the reader to decide.

I am very glad to have a good ally like Mr. Trong Luc who can teach
the lazy and corrupt VC's lessons in economics and humanity!

BTW, it's not a joke that Bui Tat Thang uses hearsays and third-hand
stats in all economic planning.

The VC's are notoriously stupid, lazy, corrupt, bent on spending most
their working hours stealing from the people, and the rest lying to
their superiors and the public.

VIETTHIET

************************************************
do_trong_luc@yahoo.com (trongluc) wrote in message news:...
> 1. Is this mean other South East Asia countries now are heaven to the
> Communist Vietnam standards ?
>
> 2. Bui Tat Thang is head of department of Vietnam's external economic
> relations at the Institute of Economics, which is directly control by
> Minister of Trade, which reports directly to National Assembly and
> Prime Minister to set up economic planning, trade policy domestic and
> international which directly affects 80 millions Vietnamese at home.
>
> And he used second or third handed statistic data.
>
> Is it a joke or what ?
>
> TL.
>
> Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> > 1. The "poverty" definitions are different. VN has its own "food
> > poverty" definition, which stands today at about 10%, while by the UN
> > poverty definition, the number is around 30% today. In 1993, it is
> > quite reasonable to see the figures at 28% and 50% respectively. They
> > are consistent and do not contradict each other.
> >
> > 2. I understood that But Tat Thang is the head of some department in
> > Vietnam, however his article uses only two references, both are
> > focused on the period after 1990 (by the name of the references). So
> > his information in this case is very much second or even third handed.
> > Whether it is more credible than the figures in the previous link
> > which are quoted directly from many sources (including both Dougles
> > Pike and Vietnam Statistics Yearbook), is up to the reader to decide.

CONGRATULATION Vietzan Vietthot!

Mo+'I MUA The^m Cho' Kie^?ng Mo+'I A`

Nhu+ng Cho' na^`y ku~ng chi? Nhu+ ca'c Cho' Kie^?ng khi Chu+o+'c xu?a
ko' 1 ba?n

"Cho^'I Bo? Za`I La^u
Cho^'I Bo? Tu+` La^u"

DDe'o ko' ba`I ba?n ra ho^`I, Y' Kie^'n mo+'I bi. Bo^. Ddo^.i Cu. Ho^`
no' DDa'nh Te' DDa'I ru`i

Mua Kon Kha'c Ddi

Cho Na^`y Gia`, I't Thi.T la.i Ho^I Ha'm nu+~a Cho tu.i Ho^' Nai Xua^n
Lo^.c No' Ku~ng DDe'o The`m A(n




vIETTHIET00@YAHOO.COM (VIET THIET) wrote in message news:...
> I am very glad to have a good ally like Mr. Trong Luc who can teach
> the lazy and corrupt VC's lessons in economics and humanity!
>
> BTW, it's not a joke that Bui Tat Thang uses hearsays and third-hand
> stats in all economic planning.
>
> The VC's are notoriously stupid, lazy, corrupt, bent on spending most
> their working hours stealing from the people, and the rest lying to
> their superiors and the public.
>
> VIETTHIET
>
> ************************************************
> do_trong_luc@yahoo.com (trongluc) wrote in message news:...
> > 1. Is this mean other South East Asia countries now are heaven to the
> > Communist Vietnam standards ?
> >
> > 2. Bui Tat Thang is head of department of Vietnam's external economic
> > relations at the Institute of Economics, which is directly control by
> > Minister of Trade, which reports directly to National Assembly and
> > Prime Minister to set up economic planning, trade policy domestic and
> > international which directly affects 80 millions Vietnamese at home.
> >
> > And he used second or third handed statistic data.
> >
> > Is it a joke or what ?
> >
> > TL.
> >
> > Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> > > 1. The "poverty" definitions are different. VN has its own "food
> > > poverty" definition, which stands today at about 10%, while by the UN
> > > poverty definition, the number is around 30% today. In 1993, it is
> > > quite reasonable to see the figures at 28% and 50% respectively. They
> > > are consistent and do not contradict each other.
> > >
> > > 2. I understood that But Tat Thang is the head of some department in
> > > Vietnam, however his article uses only two references, both are
> > > focused on the period after 1990 (by the name of the references). So
> > > his information in this case is very much second or even third handed.
> > > Whether it is more credible than the figures in the previous link
> > > which are quoted directly from many sources (including both Dougles
> > > Pike and Vietnam Statistics Yearbook), is up to the reader to decide.

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.

Countries with oppressive regimes will get very small percentages of
foreign investment.

This is because international businesses and governments are just
people. They know oppressive regimes like Communist Vietnam foster
resentment, mistrust and lack of cooperation between the peoples and
their governments, which cause inefficiencies and ultimately
instability. These are major risks and the death kisses for all
investment.

Investors prefer to put money in countries that are politically
stable, with legitimate and democratically-elected, transparent and
corruption-free government which Communist Vietnam is NOT! The
government of Communist Vietnam operates exactly like the MAFIA, so
don't be surprised that no one will trust them with their precious
investment money.

If the VC's want more investment money, they should release all
political prisoners which the world knows full well, stop all
oppressive policies and allow free, fair, open elections, make
transparent all government activities....Then the people of Vietnam
will be free, happy, cooperative, and international investment money
will start rolling in!

VIETTHIET



***********************
do_trong_luc@yahoo.com (trongluc) wrote in message news:...
>
> >
> About the FDI investment let have a look at the giant Japan the second
> biggest investor in Vietnam, their FDI invested to VN in 2000 is only
> 0.9% while to Thailand is 37.4% and to Singapore is 17%.
> http://www.asean.or.jp/general/statistics/inv04.html, that means FDI
> market in VN is peanut compare to neighbours. You don't have to be
> smart to know why.
>
> TL.
>
> Cao_Ky@beer.com (Tran Cao Ky) wrote in message news:...
> > do_trong_luc@yahoo.com (trongluc) wrote in message news:...
> > > When Nguyen Gia Thieu's Dong Nam Associates set out to do business in
> > > VN the tax department has never had a word to him about his accounting
> > > practices. Then came one early morning state owned media gathered in
> > > front of Thieu's office ahead of the police to film the entire raid.
> > > The media usually knows nothing of politburo activities, how come it
> > > knew the raid beforehand? No doubt it should be orchestra from the
> > > head of poliburo.(Far eastern economic review, may 15 2003, Failing to
> > > earth) And that why Lee called "ambush"
> > >
> > > And while Nguyen Gia Thieu is being detained, nobody has found him
> > > guity yet, he should be resume inocent, how come the communist
> > > confiscated his assets and sold it off (1). was this an act of
> > > "robbery" ?
> > >
> > > And when Far Easter Economic Review wrote letters to Nong duc Manh
> > > asking him if he would treat Nguyen Gia Thieu as French or Vietnamese
> > > nationality, they received no reply from Manh. Was it called "contempt
> > > to international public opitions" ?
> > >
> > > Finally, comrade Ky said Singapore has invested more than 10 billion
> > > USD in VN while comrade NguyenGianViet said it was only 7.5b . Which
> > > comrate was f*ck up? or both of you bullshited equally ?
> >
> > The erred person was me. Anh ElChino's figure of 7.5b is accurate. But
> > I dont think it would change a single thing in the context of
> > disccusion though. 7.5b is still a huge amount.
> >
> > For DongNam, they were officially charged with struggling (of mobile
> > phones) and tax avoidance. The evidence are paramount, I believe. I
> > dont know from where, you got the idea that no charge against Nguyen
> > Gia Thieu was ever laid.
> > http://vnexpress.net/Vietnam/Phap-lu...3/01/3B9C4080/
> >
> > Finally, you need a chilled beer, comrade :-). I got several cases of
> > Hanoi's beers. They taste real good. Highly recommended.

bkt90@hotmail.com (brian turner) wrote in message news:<66dc0679.0308082349.7ee17ea4@posting.google.com>...
> minhduc2001@MailandNews.com (Minh Duc) wrote in message news:<7d293701.0308081354.536728ef@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Agricultural output did go down when the collectivization was applied.
>
> In the North, in the late 1970s, agricultural growth, which had been
> decent during the war (considering) slowed down to a crawl, but yields
> did not fall if I remember some stats I saw once correctly (per capita
> yields might have though). When the government tried to forcibly
> collectivize the south, and abolish or greatly reduce market activity
> generally it caused major agricultural crisis. But by the early
> 1980s, I'm saying that the VCP gave up on forcible collectivization,
> having encountered lots of resistance. After that agricultural growth
> did not go down any further, but started to improve slowly, then
> improved rapidly after Doi Moi.

When the communist started the collectivization, the South Vietnamese
had the first experience of eating corn, manioc for rice in hundreds
year long history of the South Vietnam. The communist did not give up
the collectivization in the early 80's. In fact, they temporarily
backed off before the stiff resistance of the peasants. This is the
tactic they had planned before starting the collectivization campaign.
The officials who participated in the collectivization received the
instructions from above telling them to apply collectivazation in
several attempts. If they met stiff resistance then back off, and
waited for a while then applied again, and continued until the
peasants became tired of resisting. Thus the collectivization
continued until 1986 and resulted in the food shortage.

Brian Turner was wrong when he said the cause of the food shortage in
Vietnam during the 80's was the U.S. embargo. Vietnam had the food
shortage in the late 70's when the communists started
collectivization, then had a reform in 1986, and started to export
rice in 1989 while the U.S. embargo was not lifted until 1994. If the
food shortage had been caused by the embargo then Vietnam would not
have been able to export rice in 89, 4 years before the embargo was
lifted. What made Vietname to be able to export rice in 1989 was the
reform which dismantled the collectivization.

Minh Duc