Sri Lanka is in a civil war, and its economy is doing well.

[Swamp Fox]

One of the anomalies of the Vietnam War is that, even as the country was torn apart by an insurgency and bombings, the economy of the former republic of South Vietnam was doing well, due in no small part to its people.

The same is also true for Sri Lanka - even though it is going through a civil war with the Tamil Tigers being fairly active in the northern part of the island, the island state's economy is growing at a respectable clip of 4-5% per annum - imagine what it could do if it was at peace.

http://economist.com/countries/SriLanka/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast

I've always wondered how that was possible, but I can see that now with our present situation. The US is engaged in a war against terrorism and is sending troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq, and, yet, its economy is continuing to hum along, and its people are moving on with their lives. So a war, unlike what happened to Germany and Japan in WWII, may not totally destroy a society or its economy.

Comments?

[Coot]

Ummm...Stan. The economy of South Vietnam was predicated almost entirely on the presence of Americans in that country and the fact that they were spending like drunken sailors and drunken grunts and drunken jarheads. The American presence was at least half of the South's GNP.

The Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka are certainly making the news, but they're not having a tremendous affect on the country or its growth. That's probably due more to the fact that it's not a civil war, but an upstart region demanding independence because they don't want to end up the stirred in fat in someone else's melting pot. ;)

[Swamp Fox]

The economy of South Vietnam was predicated almost entirely on the presence of Americans in that country and the fact that they were spending like drunken sailors and drunken grunts and drunken jarheads. The American presence was at least half of the South's GNP.

I understand that, even then, the South Vietnamese entrepreneurs were exporting shrimp and low-cost manufactures, just as the South Koreans, Taiwanese, and Singaporeans were doing the same at the time.

[Coot]

Yah well, the SK's the Singaporean's and the Taiwanese weren't embroiled in a civil war at the time; which I believe was your premise at the beginning of this thread. :)

[Swamp Fox]

Yah well, the SK's the Singaporean's and the Taiwanese weren't embroiled in a civil war at the time; which I believe was your premise at the beginning of this thread. :)

Do you actually want to argue economics with a student of economics? (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/04/29_vietnameconomy.shtml)

The southern economy was largely based on free enterprise, with significant state ownership of industrial enterprises. Agriculture flourished in the Mekong delta, while trade and transport were developed by private enterprise. The standard of living was significantly higher in the south than it was in the north.


http://www.tuvy.com/Countries/vietnamese/economy_of_vietnam.htm

[Coot]

A significantly higher standard of living in the south is pretty relative Stan. The North Vietnamese could barely feed themselves. Having spent a fair amount of time in the south, I can tell you that outside of Saigon, it wasn't exactly a budding economic success (http://www.photius.com/countries/vietnam/society/vietnam_society_south_vietnam.html).

[Swamp Fox]

That's true, but that does not deny the fact that the economy of the South was growing, and, if it had not been taken over, would have become another South Korea.

[Coot]

That's true, but that does not deny the fact that the economy of the South was growing, and, if it had not been taken over, would have become another South Korea.

That's not a fact Counselor, that's an unsupported supposition. The facts are that the mining and manufacturing that were occuring in the south could not exist without western investment, and those could not exist without western military and financial support. True and free markets do not necessarily free people. More often than not, free markets maximize opportunites and freedoms already granted to people who are free to make choices about their money and how it is best invested.

[Sierra Mike]

Witness China. :)

SM

[Swamp Fox]

First of all, I'm referred to as "Counsel", not "Counsellor" - that's for therapists like Deanna Troi. :) If you were a lawyer, you could refer to me as "my learned friend", but, otherwise, Stanley, Stan, Foo-fighter (as SM prefers), or, as I prefer, Destroyer of Pinko Liberals would be fine.

But, back to our discussion ...

The supposition is that South Vietnam would have been another South Korea, that is correct; but the fact is that it was doing well economically, though, as you say, it's all relative.