Exhibit A for capitalism

The New York Times has never met a capitalist country it likes, but that doesn’t stop it from occasionally observing the unpalatable truth:

Nearly four decades ago, South Vietnamese leaders mapped out their battle plans inside the presidential palace here. When they lost the war, the palace became the base for the Ho Chi Minh City People’s Committee, which worked to impose tight Communist control.

But in September it was the scene of a very different gathering: a board meeting of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank.

In the three decades since Vietnam has gone from communism to a form of capitalism, it has begun surpassing many neighbors. It has Asia’s second-fastest-growing economy, with 8.4 percent growth last year, trailing only China’s, and the pace of exports to the United States is rising faster than even China’s. (Emphasis mine.)

Hmm. Maybe capitalism is good for more than oppressing widows, orphans and Third Worlders. Maybe, just maybe, it is the approach that best benefits those for whom the liberals weep.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • erp

    The Vietnamese got tired of living in the violence, poverty and despair of communism, so they took a lesson from the U.S. economy and are now enjoying the peace and prosperity that capitalism brings.

    Prosperous happy people want to manage their own lives, so real democracy can’t be too far behind.

    Some GOP ads about this amazing development would certainly wake up the American public. About now would be good.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    You know the ironic thing, Book. The reason why Asians embrace capitalism, is so they can get more money into their coffers. Dictatorship, or even communist dictatorship, without the moola is pretty boring.

    I don’t really think Vietnam is enjoying much of “peace and prosperity”. The ones in power just got tired of killing, it got a little bit too expensive, it is far more beneficial and profitable to make these guys work instead of some ideological communist commune.

    The only difference in the end, to whether the US won or lost in Vietnam, was not the ultimate destiny, self-autonomy, and self-determination of Vietnam. Vietnam was going to end up capitalist in one way or another. The only thing that a US victory would change, is that a lot more people would be alive to enjoy the benefits, and a lot less powerfully corrupt people would be alive to enjoy those same benefits. The North Vietnamese “won” nothing in the end, except more death, more corruption, and more inevitability.

    But for those who lost, it was far worse than any North Vietnamese pyrric victory.

    The Left cannot win, but they can make you lose, which should matter a lot to you.

  • erp

    Y – I believe you might want to research this a little better and peace and prosperity are, like most things, relative, especially in comparison to the repressive poverty stricken leftie dictatorships in adjacent countries.

    In addition, many Vietnamese who came here after the debacle are going back to lead the movement to even a more enhanced peace and prosperity. Having known some of these Vietnamese immigrants of 30 years ago, I’d put my money of them and if I were a betting “man,” I’d put a couple of bucks on Vietnam becoming the next miracle economy in Asia.

  • http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/ Ymarsakar

    I’m not denying that relatively their economy is better than it was before. No amount of research would change something that doesn’t need changing. As for the future of Vietnam, that depends. Mostly on their leaders. Individual Leaders can waste a lot of hard work by millions of people