TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Vietnam - The Cheaper China
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Vietnam - The Cheaper China

I read this one couple weeks ago, and I really liked it! 58000 Americans died fighting the Vietnamese communist forces, you know!

http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/400964

quote:

Meet Vietnam, the cheaper China For business it's the place to be, but what about the 58,000 who died in the war? July 11, 2008 Harold Meyerson The Hamilton Spectator (Jul 11, 2008) Doing business in China is beginning to cost real money. Not that Chinese workers are buying second homes or anything like that: Their average wage is still a little short of a dollar an hour. But so many Chinese have now left their villages for the factories that the once bottomless pool of new young workers is beginning to run dry, and the wages of assembly-line employees are rising 10 per cent a year. Worse yet, new labour laws are making it harder for employers to cheat their workers out of their wages and benefits. Many U.S. businesses that do their manufacturing in China had warned against those laws; the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai had flatly opposed them. But the good old days of Maoist labour discipline, when the government could send tens of millions of skilled workers down to the farms to be toughened up and periodically tortured, are gone. Mao's heirs, though not above a touch of torture here and there just to keep the system humming along, are concerned, as he was not, with achieving social harmony, even if that means compelling employers to sign, and honour, contracts with their employees. Confronted with such appalling squishiness, what's a good, cost-cutting American business to do? Many are fleeing south of the border -- not the U.S. border (Mexico costs way too much) but China's. They're bound for Vietnam. According to a report by Keith Bradsher in the New York Times last month, such multinational companies as Canon (the printer and copier maker) and Hanes (the North Carolina-based underwear empire) are expanding or building factories in Hanoi, where they churn out products for Wal-Mart and other American retailers. Foreign direct investment in Vietnam increased 136 per cent between 2006 and 2007, while it increased just 14 per cent in China. The reason for the move south is straightforward: Vietnamese factory workers make about a quarter of what their Chinese counterparts earn. But why Vietnam and not, say, Thailand, where labour is similarly cheap? Vietnam's edge, it seems, is political. "Communism means more stability," Laurence Shu, the chief financial officer of Shanghai-based Texhong, one of the world's leading manufacturers of cotton fabrics, told Bradsher. This view, Bradsher reports, is common among Asian executives and some American executives, too, though they have the presence of mind never to say so on the record. After all, Vietnam, like China, outlaws independent unions. Absent free speech and free elections, no radical shifts in the government's economic policies are likely to be sprung upon unsuspecting American businesses. Now, far be it from me to begrudge the Vietnamese their moment in the sun before global capital finds them too costly and moves on to Bangladesh and Somalia. But didn't Americans fight a war to keep Vietnam from going communist? Something like 58,000 American deaths, right? And now American business actually prefers investing in communist Vietnam over, say, the more or less democratic Philippines? In all likelihood, it would prefer investing in communist Vietnam to investing in a more chaotic, less disciplined democratic Vietnam, if such existed. Let's imagine, just as an exercise, that we're trying to explain this to those 58,000 Americans and their loved ones. We could argue that by investing in communist countries, we're pushing them toward democracy. But everything we know about China suggests that, in reality, such investments merely make authoritarian regimes stronger. We could argue that what we're really doing is bringing communist nations into the world capitalist system. Then again, the effect of bringing into the global labour pool hundreds of millions of low-wage workers -- people whose wages are held in check by both capital mobility and communist repression -- is to hold down wages in democratic nations with advanced economies and with no national strategy to preserve and expand good jobs at home (as in the United States). Or we could argue that our onetime opposition to communism was noble and all that but that, unburdened by the illusions of the past, American business, backed by the American government, has realized that the problem with communism wasn't that it was undemocratic but that it was anti-capitalist. And that once communism was integrated into a world capitalist system, its antipathy toward democracy not only wouldn't be a bad thing but would actually be good. That is clearly the political logic that underpins our involvement with China. It's a little dicier to say this about our growing involvement with Vietnam, since all those Americans whose names are on that wall on the Mall probably didn't realize how compatible with global American enterprise Vietnamese communism would turn out to be, or how the cause of democracy would turn out to have been of no real importance at all. I guess a note from the American establishment to those men and women with their names on the Wall would be in order. Something like: Say, guys -- sorry 'bout that! Harold Meyerson is editor-at-large of American Prospect and the L.A. Weekly.

The Vietnam War was a huge miscalculation by the leadership in the 1960's. Iraq follows in it's footsteps. If America would just respect the national sovereignty and self-determination of sovereign states, this world would be a much better place.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The Vietnam War was a huge miscalculation by the leadership in the 1960's. Iraq follows in it's footsteps. If America would just respect the national sovereignty and self-determination of sovereign states, this world would be a much better place.

it's amazing how you can connect any situation with the war in iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 it's amazing how you can connect any situation with the war in iraq.

"History repeats itself."

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton "History repeats itself."

not really - the causes and justifications for the wars are totally different. the situations aren't as similar as you think.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 not really - the causes and justifications for the wars are totally different. the situations aren't as similar as you think.

The American leadership is making the same mistake it made in 1965. It has attacked other sovereign nations without just cause. Thus, history has repeated itself.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The American leadership is making the same mistake it made in 1965. It has attacked other sovereign nations without just cause. Thus, history has repeated itself.

do you actually know anything about the vietnam war? being unpopular doesn't mean it was without just cause.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 do you actually know anything about the vietnam war? being unpopular doesn't mean it was without just cause.

Attacking my credibility does not help you. I have very valid reasons to believe the Vietnam War was not a just war. First off, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was COMPLETELY fabricated!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Attacking my credibility does not help you. I have very valid reasons to believe the Vietnam War was not a just war. First off, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was COMPLETELY fabricated!!

that wasn't an attack on your credibility (there is no way i could know whether you are credible), it was a question of whether you have knowledge of the facts of the past.

Lets see the major difference between the two wars. Vietnam no one cared until the draft where "rich" people had to serve. Iraq war is a voluntary army. No draft no similiarity.

I hope Vietnam does get the benefits of american manufacturers.

30 years after the fall of Saigon and millions "re-educated" (read tortured and killed and malnurished) we can all lament the plucky dividends of Maoist communism. fukkin great.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton "History repeats itself."

only if you let it. say by letting Baghdad fall like Saigon?

history, Krypton. get some.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that wasn't an attack on your credibility (there is no way i could know whether you are credible), it was a question of whether you have knowledge of the facts of the past.

In the future, don't worry about what I know. Your argument should stand by itself. I consider it just irrelevant to the conversation.

quote:

only if you let it. say by letting Baghdad fall like Saigon? history, Krypton. get some.

Let's see. We respect Vietnam's and Iraq's national sovereignty and self-determination...Hmmm...There would be no fall of Saigon or Baghdad to worry about. More importantly, MILLIONS OF LIVES SAVED...When we sponsor currupt right-wing regimes, we become entangled by our obligation to prop it up. I very much believe George Washington when he said, "...no entangling alliances." But I'm not surprised. As the House Judiciary Committee's Hearing on Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations demonstrates the blatant disregard for liberal democratic and constitutional foundations of this country.

But I digress...Vietnam the new China! Bravo! I'm glad for the success Vietnam has worked toward. This just shows that moderation is the best policy, whether left wing or right wing. I applaud their free market reforms!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton In the future, don't worry about what I know. Your argument should stand by itself. I consider it just irrelevant to the conversation.

please bro, you draw comparisons where they do not exist - you try to compare every situation to the iraq war.

the US entered the vietnam war with the approval of a government that was being threatened by insurrgency groups and the north. to add to that, the war was a proxy between the US and the USSR. how are those circumstances similar to the iraq war? while unpopular, the vietnam was was not a unilateral invasion of a country without any justification.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton But I digress...Vietnam the new China! Bravo! I'm glad for the success Vietnam has worked toward. This just shows that moderation is the best policy, whether left wing or right wing. I applaud their free market reforms!

you miss the point again. the point, and irony, of the article is that american companies want to move into vietnam for the lack of free markets. companies like the rigidity and control that the vietnamese government has over the market.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 please bro, you draw comparisons where they do not exist - you try to compare every situation to the iraq war. the US entered the vietnam war with the approval of a government that was being threatened by insurrgency groups and the north. to add to that, the war was a proxy between the US and the USSR. how are those circumstances similar to the iraq war? while unpopular, the vietnam was was not a unilateral invasion of a country without any justification.

I would disagree with 75% of what you just said, but I don't want to hi-jack this thread.

quote:

you miss the point again. the point, and irony, of the article is that american companies want to move into vietnam for the lack of free markets. companies like the rigidity and control that the vietnamese government has over the market.

Vietnam's economy is more of a socialist-oriented market economy. I say let them be. I believe that free markets ultimately lead to a moderating government. I would say, what Doi Moi did was a good thing...

quote:

In 1986 Vietnam launched a political and economic renewal campaign (Doi Moi) that introduced reforms intended to facilitate the transition from a centralized economy to a �socialist-oriented market economy.� Doi Moi combined government planning with free-market incentives and encouraged the establishment of private businesses and foreign investment, including foreign-owned enterprises. By the late 1990s, the success of the business and agricultural reforms ushered in under Doi Moi was evident. More than 30,000 private businesses had been created, and the economy was growing at an annual rate of more than 7 percent, and poverty was nearly halved.

There have been very good market oriented reforms. They've even opened up a stock exchange, plus an OTC exchange to partially privatize state-owned enterprises. There are hundreds of the thousands of private businesses. Yes, the government has a strong hand. AND? I respect their self-determination. They are no threat to my country or to world peace.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I would disagree with 75% of what you just said, but I don't want to hi-jack this thread.

that would make you 75% wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 that would make you 75% wrong.

HAHA! You wish!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Let's see. We respect Vietnam's and Iraq's national sovereignty and self-determination...Hmmm...There would be no fall of Saigon or Baghdad to worry about. More importantly, MILLIONS OF LIVES SAVED. But I digress...Vietnam the new China! Bravo! I'm glad for the success Vietnam has worked toward. This just shows that moderation is the best policy, whether left wing or right wing. I applaud their free market reforms!

jeeezus christmas dude, you still dont get it.

do you know exactly what the NVA did after they swept south into Vietnam. then what they did in Cambodia? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DIED. MILLIONS OF REFUGEES.

it took them a decade, a war that cost a million lives, and help from every Western democracy in the world for us to be able to buy a pair of Hanes underwear today they paid a 13 year old girl 10 cents an hour to make yesterday.

really, how more well off are they now? they're the "cheap China" apparently (a step up from Rwanda i suppose) and at what cost?

funny how you can't puke up some George Washington about South Korea can you? ass

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo jeeezus christmas dude, you still dont get it. do you know exactly what the NVA did after they swept south into Vietnam. then what they did in Cambodia? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DIED. MILLIONS OF REFUGEES. it took them a decade, a war that cost a million lives, and help from every Western democracy in the world for us to be able to buy a pair of Hanes underwear today they paid a 13 year old girl 10 cents an hour to make yesterday. really, how more well off are they now? they're the "cheap China" apparently (a step up from Rwanda i suppose) and at what cost? funny how you can't puke up some George Washington about South Korea can you? ass

LOL! But the Capitalist forces were so humane in their war fighting...with Agent Orange and all...Johnson is just oh so innocent isn't he? Does the Mai Lai Massacre ring a bell? Just as long as the corrupt government we prop up is right wing, correct?

I would also say the Korean War was part of the aftermath of post-World War II occupation of Japanese-controlled Korea. Vietnam is a completely different case.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton LOL! But the Capitalist forces were so humane in their war fighting.

ahh yes. when faced with reality Krypton changes up with another moral equivalency argument. a slider so to speak

quote:

I would also say the Korean War was part of the aftermath of post-World War II occupation of Japanese-controlled Korea.

no one gives a f**k about what it was "part of".

did we fight and die there? did we give up? are they today what sacrifices we made yesterday?

quote:

Vietnam is a completely different case.

because South Korea doesn't fit your narrow worldview thats why.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ahh yes. when faced with reality Krypton changes up with another moral equivalency argument. a slider so to speak

Nope! You always give a blank check to Capitalist aggression! America can do no wrong in your opinion..

quote:

no one gives a f**k about what it was "part of". did we fight and die there? did we give up? are they today what sacrifices we made yesterday?

Correction, YOU don't give a f**k. Historical contexts do matter.

quote:

it doesn't fit your narrow worldview that why.

narrow world view... What's yours? Open-minded peace?

Funny you basically call me narrow minded. I was once a hawkish conservative such as yourself, until I saw past the pitiful bullshit of past and present right wing war hawks. It's called critical thinking!

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo jeeezus christmas dude, you still dont get it. do you know exactly what the NVA did after they swept south into Vietnam. then what they did in Cambodia? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS DIED. MILLIONS OF REFUGEES. it took them a decade, a war that cost a million lives, and help from every Western democracy in the world for us to be able to buy a pair of Hanes underwear today they paid a 13 year old girl 10 cents an hour to make yesterday.

Ummm, I dont want to get into this heated discussion, but at least one point here needs to be addressed: say thanks to Vietnam for invading Cambodia and stopping the Pol Pot massacre, which could have been worse.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Ummm, I dont want to get into this heated discussion, but at least one point here needs to be addressed: say thanks to Vietnam for invading Cambodia and stopping the Pol Pot massacre, which could have been worse.

do you think any of that would have happened at the scale it did if we [America] had held South Vietnam? no it wouldn't.

there wouldn't have been the political vaccuum in the South that gave way to corrupt and, yes, murderous communist regime backed by the Soviets.

if we had at least held South Vietnam after 1975 there would have been somewhere for the millions of Vietnamese in Cambodia to flee to during the so-called Pol Pot Killing Fields. thats assuming Pol Pot would have gone ahead with his plan of dividing and conquering Cambodia with an American presence in Southeast Asia. instead Vietnamese refugees in Cambodia had no where to turn to with the communists takeover in South Vietnam. hell, that was probably reason enough for Pol Pot to do what he did knowing there were Soviet backed communists Vietnamese next door..speaking of refugees, we all know what happened to the existing Vietnamese in in South Vietnam after the fall of Saigon.

i'm not thanking anyone for anything that happened in Southeast Asia during that war. (except my dad) not the politicians in America not Vietnam not China, nobody. it was an enormous clusterfuck after we let the South fall. the Soviet backed communist government couldn't get their shit in one sock for years during their occupation of Cambodia and millions suffered greatly. it took Western democratic governments to reach out and try and stop the endless cycle of violence and despair there.

Q, honestly, I really recommend you reading more into the Cambodian-Vietnamese War. Then you'll realize exactly just how "Maoist" Vietnam's Viet Coong was. Cambodia's Khmer Rouge was Maoist. But Viet Cong wasnt. There's a reason why Chinese army invaded north Vietnam after Vietnamese forces run over Khmer Rouge regulars


Besides, it was Cambodia's arrogance that resulted in the eventual Vietnamese invasion - Pol Pot attacked first! Look it up - who invaded Phu Quoc and Tho Chu islands?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.