Re: When VN becomes a real Tiger?

[Tuan Trung NGUYEN <nttrung@alfa.mimuw.edu.pl>]

Thanh Tung Truong wrote:

Hi, anh Tu`ng,

> > Thanh Tung Truong wrote:
> >
> > > 1. The GDP figure is only an imperfect measurement for the
> strength and the
> > > potential of an economy.
> > > Important factors such as enviromental conditions, intellectual
> potential,
> > > social security, buying power or the amount of peoples leisure
> time remain
> > > unreflected in GDP figures.
> >
> > Sure, I agree that it's far from perfect. But, like democracy,
> nothing
> > better has yet been invented.
> >

> >I do not really know about what you said.

Well I was referring to a saying (I think it's from Churchill, but I am
not quite sure) that saiddemocracy has a lot of bad things, but we'd
better stick with it because we don't know any
better system. Just take what I said as a supporting comment.

> What I know is that both GDP/GNP and
> democracy are country specific matters, i.e. in different countries
> GDP/GNP
> (democracy) may be calculated (practiced) in different ways.

If you are saying about the methods governments may use to manipulate or
falsifythe data in the GDP calculation, then you have a point. But IMO
the GDP figures,
PPP-converted, are still very good measurements of the potential of
different economies,
especially when it comes to compare them.

> BTW, as regards
> democracy, it is not for every country and in every historical period
> a good
> thing, is it?
>
I agree with you here.

> So I am not as much concerned with the GDP figures as with
> enviromental, cultural and human issues, which also determine the
> long-term economic growth and tell much about the
> strength of a nation.
>
Lets say we have different weight functions for our concerns :-)

> > > 3. Income per capita cannot be used to measure peoples' wealth and
>
> > > happiness.
> >
> > For hapiness your statement may be true, but IMO there exists a very
>
> > strong corelation between a country's IPC and the commonly
> understood
> > wealth of its people. IPC may not be used to exactly mesure, but it
> > definetly reflects the living standard of a country. Can you cite a
> > country with hight IPC and poor people or vice versa. I mean poor
> and
> > rich in the material sense of course.
>
> Take a look at Brazil. I do not have up-to-day figures, but in 1985
> this
> country's IPC stands at some 1700 US$ per year, more than 6 times of
> that of
> today’s Vietnam. And you sure have heard about street childreen in
> Rio. In
> fact, the majority of Brazilians are poor due to the extremely uneven
> economic
> distribution. And even in the US there are millions of poor and
> HELPLESS
> people.
>
Thanks for an interesting example. Despite those TV pictures about the
slums in Rio,
I somehow feel Brazilians have a better living standard than Vietnamese.
But for now I
can't give your convincing support for my opinion, so I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt.
But if you want to use the existence of poor and helpless people in the
US to convince
me that GDP does not reflect the real wealth of the US people than I
don't think it will
work.

> > > The Vietnamese people can live with a modest income per capita if
> they
> > > don't repeat the mistake others have been making.
> >
> > Sure we CAN. But do we HAVE to ?
>
> When saying „we CAN live with ...“ I mean „we are SATISFIED with ...“.
> In that
> sence, I am even not sure if we CAN, as far as we do not find a
> balance between
> what we WANT and what we HAVE to. It is a common mistake WANTING to
> see fast
> and, in fact, short-term changes. On the other side, we definitely
> HAVE to
> maintain resources and do sustainable development. The current
> position of our
> nation implies we HAVE TO a lot when it comes to material side of
> life. If we
> WANT more, we will naturally get discontented.
>
What so bad about being discontent anyway ? If it's an incentive for us
to work harder, then I think it's quite useful. Here I think we have
different approaches. You think we should lowerour desires, I think we
should try harder.

> BTW, it is a global trend to put back the material demands of man,
> even if this
> trend has been facing many enemies/opponents. I am convinced that this
> more or
> less philosophic approach is the only solution for a number of global
> problems
> that cannot be solved otherwise, for example by just democracy.

I got an impression that this trend is not so 'global' as you says here.
It may be observablein _rich, developed_ countries and doesn't seem to
be followed by people from the developing
world. Exactly like a joke posted a few days ago on vnsa: "Everyone
wants what he doesn't have."

> Of course, Vietnam needs lots of money for defence, infrastructure,
> and for the
> wealth of its citizens after all. But this can by no means justify the
> attempts
> to maximize the GDP/GNP at the expense of enviroment or culture. A
> reasonable
> growth rate is neccessary to keep the interests of present and future
> generations in harmony.
>
  I still think that in the present stage of our development, economics
growth remains
principal objectif. And I think if we have a wise environmental policy,
we can achieve
a high growth rate without devastating the environment. As for the
culture, I am not sure
how it would suffer from a high growth rate, but my position is still
that if we are not willing
to pay, then we will never get anything.

Best,

Trung