That I agree on.

Let’s set the sentence for executing an innocent man to, death.

The first barrier to the death penalty is to make sure verdicts are right 100% of the time.

After that you can begin the debate about **whether it’s moral at all.

I agree, but not for financial crimes.

She’s essentially being executed for screwing over, you guessed it, investors.

That’s fucked up. I’d rather execute the investors.

Nah, he can rot in isolation. Death is just getting away with it, which is what he would’ve wanted.

Not trying to excuse his actions but read the _Early life and reports of abuse _section.

This guy is a product of a mentally ill mother who abused him. Imagine being 4 years old and your caregiver keeps telling you she wished you were dead. Not a recipe for a well balanced individual.

My point is yes, his place is in prison. But if you want to prevent other acts of this kind, social and mental services need to get better. They clearly failed in this case, more than once.

5% of GDP is just absolutely insane

Disclaimer: didn’t read the article yet.

But surely someone can’t commit such a huge fraud alone. Nobody at Saigon Commercial Bank is involved or culpable for loaning that amount to a fraudster?

So you are telling me that we should give them housing, a stable and guaranteed job and a secure income in line with the nation average? Man, I might start thinking about stealing millions, worst it can happen, I’m better off than now. /s

Not with their hands, feet and jaws torn off they can’t.

Is this a Game of Thrones reference? I am confuse

I bet that’s part of why she’s in this situation, rich people lost money. Lots of corrupt government officials also want the spotlight to stay on her. I mean of course in addition to the fact that she did ruin many people’s lives…

…“which we just did. You are now free to go.”

Bingo. Both is good. Not all life is precious.

Anything made in excess of that in any way is seized and applied towards repaying the fraudulent debt.

Plus constant checks to verify their life style is conforming to that, and seize one fifth of their salary until the debt is paid off

It’s been widely reported that the death sentence may be a plot to get her to return the money. If she does this she may have her sentence commuted on appeal.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

“Highly socialist” systems do not have billionaires.

whats important is the end result of better quality of life overall

i do see many corrupt politicians getting the same treatment on say china though

They were not fighting against capitalism, they were fighting for independence. They didn’t care who supported them, they just needed support. Because France was in the West, and had Western support, the only external support they could easily find was communist. So they put on the Communist hat, but they really cared about independence

The history is fascinating

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Minh

the Việt Minh established itself as the only organized anti-French and anti-Japanese resistance group.[6] The Việt Minh initially formed to seek independence for Vietnam from the French Empire. The United States supported France. When the Japanese occupation began, the Việt Minh opposed Japan with support from the United States and the Republic of China. After World War II, the Việt Minh opposed the re-occupation of Vietnam by France, resulting in the Indochina War, and later opposed South Vietnam and the United States in the Vietnam War.

The South Vietnamese governments were all extremely repressive and pretty much openly fascist. The US pretty much didn’t care so long as they were opposed to communism (a recurring theme in US cold war foreign policy)…

The freedom to run their own country whether that’s into the ground or into prosperity its the right of the vietnamese to self govern. How you correlate colonialism and democracy as the same thing is interesting.

The possibility/certainty of intentional or accidental false convictions doesn’t affect your acceptance of the state meting out permanent punishment?

This is a rather reductionist view of capitalism, socialism, and communism. To understand these systems, we need to take a look at the actual literature.

In 1776, Adam Smith published his work “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” which defined the cornerstones of capital, money, and value theory in the context of the changing economies of the 18th century. Smith’s work is known for concepts such as “the invisible hand” and “competition prevents exploitation” through free market capitalism.

In 1867, Karl Marx published his work “Das Kapital,” which offered a critique on some of capitalism’s theories. This work provided the foundation for work on class theory, class struggle, and the notion of socialist/communist states. The key definitions being that capitalism separates the workers (who contribute labour) from the capitalist class (who contribute capital and thus machines and forces to improve productivity) and that socialist states place increasing control of these productive forces in the hands of the state (as opposed to the capitalist class). The other key work towards these notions is “The Communist Manifesto,” written with Friedrich Engels. The slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is perhaps the most representative.

Following Marx, Vladimir Lenin wrote critiques of capitalism and described how revolution could be used to achieve a socialist and (eventually) communist society. Mao Zedong’s writings discuss the ideas of revolution to achieve socialism and communism from a Chinese perspective, rather than the Russian one that Lenin had. Crucially, while Marx had written on the socialist transition as one for the advanced capitalist societies of Germany and England, Lenin and Mao approached it more from the perspective of how socialism could be realized from the predominantly agricultural economies of Russia and China.

In 1936, John Maynard Keynes published his work “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money,” which looked at savings and consumption in the context of the Great Depression. This work forms the foundation for much of modern fiscal and economic policy in the West. Keynes called for government intervention in support of the economy, deviating from Smith’s notions of a free market.

Perhaps the most relevant ideas on the topic today are from Deng Xiaoping Thought, which provided concrete ideas of developing Chinese socialism in the context of a capitalist global economy and in the context of China’s predominantly agricultural economy. This work was kick-started by “Putting into Effect the Socialist Principle of Distribution According to Work,” which described how China was unable to make progress from the primary stage of socialism due to the lack of productive forces which could be leveraged. Remember that Marx’ writings were written from observations of the great industrialized European powers, not the perceived agricultural backwaters of Russia and China.

The crucial concept of Deng Xiaoping Thought is the idea of a socialist market economy. Crucially, that socialism inherently involves the elimination of poverty (pulling people up) rather than the moderation of productivity (pulling people down). As per Keynes, a planned economy with government intervention does not preclude capitalism, and the lack of one does not preclude socialism. Indeed, per Keynes, public ownership of property did not preclude capitalism, and by extension Deng Xiaoping Thought argues that private ownership of property does not necessarily preclude socialism. Indeed, Engels work on the subject discusses that the abolishment of private property cannot happen immediately, and instead proposes alternatives (progressive taxation, inheritance taxes, development of state-owned enterprises) in the meantime for those countries struggling to get past the primary stage of socialism.

Just as a true Smithian free market capitalist economy does not exist, a true Marxist end-stage socialist economy does not exist. If you’ve any interest in this space, the works of Smith and Keynes on one side and Marx, Engels, and Deng on the other side provide pretty complementary coverage of things. In this framework, Smith, Marx, and Engels can be treated as one group (laying the foundations of the work) while Deng and Keynes can be treated as the ones building on top of those core ideas to adapt them to the realities of the situation (for Deng, China’s agriculturally-dependent economy, and for Keynes, the Great Depression).

In practice, we can see the obvious differences between the American and Chinese economies. Whereas the US economy is led by giant multinationals, China’s is led primarily by SOEs. Whereas US billionaires who hold productive forces are essentially invulnerable to government prosecution, Chinese billionaires are not. Whereas land in China is either owned by the state or by farmer collectives, land in the US is mostly privately held.

US is more mercantilist than capitalist

So essentially the easiest way to determine if your society is capitalist or socialist is the existence of private property.

India is considered socialist, even though it has private property.

it’s not capitalism because the capital is controlled by few people?

Isn’t that the point of being a capitalist to secure more capital? Why would a pure-capitalist want Market regulation, and not themselves with all the money and everyone else with none?

No country in the world has claimed to achieve communism. What are you even trying to say?

That’s been too long, people can’t even remember what their own government promised during their election campaign.

And “helping” is still a major understatement

Vietnam were helping in WW2? I thought they were occupied by foreign forces (I think it’s Japan) during the time?

Talking about the Russians who fought side-by-side with their Nazi pals up until Hitler decided he wanted their country too?

In some cases, yes. We should do the same here in the USA once the value of a person’s theft exceeds a limit based on the value of a human life. There is a number for that based on earning potential and some other factors. Give it a multiplier (maybe ten times the value of a life but that’s for bean counters to figure out) and also consider mitigating factors like we do in homicide cases. Somebody who steals enough to wipe out many lifetimes of hard, honest work may not be directly killing anyone but theft at that scale has destructive and deadly consequences.

No true Communist-man, got it.