Section II: The Norway Case — Governing Sudden Wealth Without Losing Balance

The Norway case shows how disciplined governance turned oil wealth into lasting prosperity, offering vital lessons for Vietnam’s long-term development.

To understand how industrial policy succeeds in practice, it is useful to study moments of sudden opportunity. Norway offers a rare example of a country that discovered extraordinary wealth and responded not with urgency, but with restraint.

Norway turned sudden oil wealth into lasting national strength through restraint, institutions, and long-term governance — a contrast to Venezuela’s oil trap, and a lesson for Vietnam.

Before oil, Norway was a small, open economy built on shipping, fishing, hydropower, and manufacturing. When large petroleum discoveries were confirmed in the North Sea at the end of the 1960s, the country effectively won a national jackpot. Yet Norwegian leaders understood early that the greatest danger was not scarcity, but excess. The real challenge would not be extracting oil, but governing wealth.

From the outset, Norway established a simple but decisive principle: 

Petroleum resources belonged to the nation as a whole.

This consensus was formed early, before large revenues arrived and before political habits hardened. Rules were written before pressure appeared. That sequencing proved decisive.

Rather than allowing oil income to flow directly into the domestic economy, Norway designed institutions to slow money down. The state imposed high but predictable taxes and retained direct ownership stakes in petroleum fields, ensuring national value capture while leaving day-to-day operations to professional firms. Over time, this model took shape through commercially run entities such as Equinor, combined with clear regulatory oversight and financial discipline.

The most important decision, however, was what not to do. Oil revenue was not treated as ordinary income. Instead, it was saved abroad, invested globally, and introduced into the domestic economy only gradually through strict fiscal rules. This prevented overheating, protected non-oil industries, and ensured that future generations would benefit from a finite resource. Norway chose patience over popularity.

Equally important was the separation of ownership from emotion. The state owned strategically, but governed calmly. Politicians set long-term boundaries rather than issuing operational instructions. Professional management, transparency, and accountability were not slogans, but structural requirements. This insulation reduced corruption, limited short-termism, and forced competence.

Venezuela’s Oil Trap

The contrast with oil-rich countries such as Venezuela is instructive. There, oil income became a shortcut to political power. Spending accelerated, institutions weakened, and savings mechanisms were repeatedly overridden. When prices fell, buffers were gone. Wealth arrived, but discipline did not.

Lessons for Vietnam’s long-term development.

For Vietnam, the lesson from Norway is not about oil. It is about timing, restraint, and institutional design. Vietnam’s future windfalls may come from foreign direct investment, land-value capture, strategic infrastructure, energy transition, or industrial upgrading. The source matters less than the response.

Norway shows the importance of acting early, before money reshapes incentives. It shows the value of separating state ownership from political impulse. And it shows that extraordinary income should be treated as temporary leverage, not permanent entitlement. Save first. Invest carefully. Spend slowly.

In Taoist terms, Norway practiced wu wei in economic governance: acting without forcing, governing without overreaching, allowing well-designed systems to function without constant intervention.¹ Wealth was guided, not chased.

Final Thought

History does not warn loudly; it teaches quietly. Norway’s experience shows that sudden wealth is neither a blessing nor a curse, but a test of judgment. By choosing restraint over speed and institutions over impulse, Norway allowed time to work in its favor. The present often urges nations to spend, expand, and celebrate too quickly. Yet lasting prosperity comes from balance, responsibility, and patience. To understand the challenges Vietnam faces today, it must first learn how others governed abundance before it governed them.

---

Footnotes

¹ Wu wei (无为) is a core concept in Taoist philosophy, most closely associated with the Tao Te Ching. It does not mean “doing nothing,” but non-forcing or effortless action — setting wise structures early and allowing systems to operate in harmony rather than through constant control.

References

This article draws on publicly available sources and established literature on petroleum governance and economic development, including 

• Norwegian government publications on oil policy, fiscal rules, and sovereign wealth management; 

• Documentation on Equinor’s governance model; 

• Comparative studies on the resource curse; 

• Historical analyses of oil-rich economies such as Venezuela; 

• and broader academic and policy research on industrial policy, long-term growth, and demographic transition. 

All synthesis and conclusions reflect the author’s own interpretation, informed by historical comparison.

Authorship

This article is written by Dave Huynh, as part of an ongoing series on economic development and Vietnam’s future growth path. It is developed in collaboration with Amanda, an AI research and writing partner, who supports analysis, structure, and language refinement. All interpretations and conclusions remain the author’s own.

Series Note

This article is part of a series on historical development case studies, drawn as lessons for Vietnam’s future. Read the previous and next sections below:

• Previous: Section I: What Vietnam Can Learn from National Industrial Policy
• Next: Section III: Japan and South Korea — Catch-Up Growth Under Discipline (not publish yet)

Section I: What Vietnam Can Learn from National Industrial Policy

Lessons from the U.S. Debate, and the Experiences of Japan, South Korea, China, and Norway 

 Recently, a CNBC report drew attention to a striking shift in U.S. economic policy: the federal government has begun taking direct equity stakes in private companies across strategic sectors such as semiconductors, critical minerals, energy, and heavy industry. Supporters argue this approach strengthens national security and accelerates industrial development. Critics warn it distorts markets, politicizes business decisions, and creates legal and governance risks.¹ 

 Behind this debate lies a deeper question, one that matters far beyond the United States: when does state involvement in industry create national strength, and when does it create long-term fragility? For Vietnam, a fast-growing economy navigating globalization, geopolitics, and technological change, the answer carries important lessons. 

Vietnam at a crossroads: learning from Japan, South Korea, China, and Norway how disciplined industrial policy can build long-term national strength.

Japan and South Korea offer some of the clearest examples of successful industrial policy. In the decades after World War II, both countries used coordinated state guidance to nurture key industries. Governments did not simply pick winners at random. They set long-term priorities, protected infant industries, encouraged exports, and gradually exposed firms to global competition. Crucially, the state acted as a patient partner, not a daily manager. Over time, companies like Toyota, Samsung, and Hyundai became globally competitive without permanent government control.

 China’s approach is different in style but similar in intent. Programs such as “Made in China 2025” channel capital, subsidies, and policy support into strategic sectors like advanced manufacturing, batteries, and artificial intelligence. The system tolerates inefficiency in the early stages in exchange for scale, learning, and eventual dominance. While controversial internationally, this model has undeniably accelerated China’s industrial capabilities and reduced dependence on foreign technology. 

 Norway provides a quieter, but perhaps more relevant, example for Vietnam. By keeping firm national control over oil resources through Equinor and channeling revenues into a sovereign wealth fund, Norway ensured that natural wealth benefited the entire society. The key was governance. Clear rules, transparency, professional management, and political consensus prevented short-term politics from undermining long-term value. The state owned strategically, but it did not govern emotionally. 

 The CNBC article highlights what happens when these principles are weak. In the U.S. case, experts warn that open-ended government ownership, unclear legal authority, and political polarization risk turning industrial policy into favoritism rather than strategy.¹ When companies fear political retaliation or policy reversal, silence replaces innovation. Capital flows toward political access instead of productivity.

 For Vietnam, the lesson is not to avoid industrial policy. It is to practice it wisely. 

 Vietnam already uses elements of state guidance, particularly in infrastructure, energy, and manufacturing. The next phase of development will require moving up the value chain, from assembly to design, technology, and brand ownership. This cannot be achieved by markets alone. Strategic sectors such as semiconductors, renewable energy, logistics, and advanced agriculture require long-term capital, coordination, and patience. 

 But Vietnam should also learn what to avoid. State participation must be rules-based, time-bound, and transparent. The government should act as a catalyst, not a permanent shareholder without exit. Support should reward performance, exports, and innovation, not connections. Most importantly, industrial policy should be anchored in national consensus, not short-term political cycles. 

 In simple terms, successful countries treat industrial policy like irrigation, not like flooding. Water is guided through channels so crops can grow. Without channels, the same water destroys the field. 

 Vietnam stands at a moment where choices made today will shape the next generation. By studying both the promises and the pitfalls highlighted in the U.S. debate, and by learning from the disciplined experiences of Japan, South Korea, China, and Norway, Vietnam can design a path that balances ambition with restraint. 

Final thought

 In Eastern philosophy, strength comes from balance. Action without wisdom becomes force. Wisdom without action becomes stagnation. For a nation, as for an individual, the art lies in knowing when to guide, when to step back, and when to let time do its quiet work. If Vietnam can hold this balance, industrial policy will not be a gamble, but a steady river carrying the country toward lasting prosperity. 

 --- 

Footnotes 

1. CNBC, *“Trump administration equity stakes pose risks to U.S. companies and markets”*, February 7, 2026.

Authorship

This article is written by Dave Huynh, as part of an ongoing series on economic development and Vietnam’s future growth path. It is developed in collaboration with Amanda, an AI research and writing partner, who supports analysis, structure, and language refinement. All interpretations and conclusions remain the author’s own.

Series Note

Why Bitcoin Is Not “Digital Gold"

 A Calm Look at Safe Havens, Risk, and the Nature of Value

For more than a decade, Bitcoin has been promoted as “digital gold.” The idea is simple and attractive. Like gold, Bitcoin is scarce. Like gold, it exists outside government control. And like gold, it is supposed to protect wealth when the world feels uncertain. Yet recent market behavior suggests this comparison is more poetry than reality. Over the past year, global uncertainty has increased. Geopolitical tensions have risen. Financial markets have become more nervous.

Bitcoin’s Recent Failure as a Refuge

In such moments, investors traditionally seek safety. Gold has responded as expected, climbing steadily to new highs. Bitcoin, however, has moved in the opposite direction, falling sharply over the same period. This divergence reveals something important about how these assets truly behave when fear enters the room.¹ 

Gold vs Bitcoin: One Year, Two Very Different Stories

Over the same one-year period, gold and Bitcoin moved in opposite directions. Gold climbed steadily as uncertainty rose, while Bitcoin peaked and then fell sharply. The charts below illustrate this divergence clearly.

Bitcoin (1-Year Price Chart)
Volatile rise followed by a sharp decline

Bitcoin fell roughly 28% over the past year, behaving like a risk asset during market stress.

Gold (1-Year Price Chart)
Steady rise as a classic safe haven

Gold rose more than 70% over the same period, reflecting strong safe-haven demand.

What a Safe Haven Must Do

A true safe haven has one essential quality: people buy it when they are worried. Gold has played this role for thousands of years. It is physical, limited by nature, and understood across cultures. It does not rely on technology, electricity, or trust in a digital system. When confidence in money or institutions weakens, gold tends to attract capital almost instinctively. 

Bitcoin behaves differently. In times of stress, it is often sold rather than bought. Instead of acting as a shelter, it trades more like a speculative asset, rising when optimism is high and falling when fear takes hold. This pattern places Bitcoin closer to stocks than to gold. Markets, through behavior rather than debate, have quietly classified it as a risk asset. 

AI, Data Centers, and the Coming Battle for Energy

Another pressure point comes from the changing world around us. The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has triggered massive investment in data centers and computing infrastructure. These systems consume enormous amounts of electricity. Energy itself is becoming a strategic resource. Bitcoin mining, which is energy-intensive by design, now competes directly with industries seen as more productive or essential. 

Gold does not face this problem. Once mined, it requires no power to exist, no network to function, and no system to maintain its value. There is also a deeper, longer-term question. Bitcoin’s security rests on mathematics and cryptography. While these systems are strong today, future technologies such as quantum computing introduce uncertainty. Even if such risks are distant, the need for upgrades, changes, or redesigns matters. A safe haven is not something that must constantly adapt to survive future inventions. 

A Fair Look at Gold’s Weaknesses

Gold and silver are immune to this kind of risk. No breakthrough in computing can weaken an element. This does not mean gold is perfect. Gold pays no dividend. It produces no income. It costs money to mine, store, and protect. It does not grow wealth. It preserves it. That limitation is precisely why gold functions as financial insurance rather than a growth asset. 

Bitcoin shares some of these limitations but adds others, including high volatility, regulatory uncertainty, energy dependence, and reliance on digital infrastructure. Bitcoin remains an important innovation. It may continue to play a role in portfolios as a speculative asset or a technological experiment. But calling it “digital gold” creates expectations it cannot consistently meet. 

Safe havens are not defined by ideas or white papers. They are defined by how people behave when confidence fades. 

A Quiet Closing Reflection

In Eastern philosophy, balance is not about choosing one extreme over another. It is about understanding the nature of things and placing them where they belong. Growth assets seek opportunity. Safe havens seek stability. 

Confusing the two invites disappointment. Wisdom lies in seeing clearly, acting responsibly, and accepting that not everything new replaces what has endured. When the world feels unsteady, balance comes not from chasing promises, but from respecting what has quietly stood the test of time.

---

References

¹ David Goldman, “No, but seriously: What’s going on with bitcoin?”, CNN, February 5, 2026. The article describes Bitcoin’s sharp decline during a period of rising fear, while gold prices surged, challenging the idea of Bitcoin as a safe-haven asset.

“Sell America”: When Capital Begins to Doubt

A macro view of how global investors quietly re-price U.S. assets amid shifting geopolitics, rising debt, and changing trust.

For most of modern financial history, one rule seemed unbreakable: when the world felt unsafe, money flowed to the United States. Wars, crises, recessions, pandemics. Again and again, investors sought shelter in the US dollar, US government bonds, and American markets. The dollar was not just a currency. It was confidence itself.

Today, that reflex is changing.

Quietly, without panic or drama, capital is beginning to hesitate. Investors are no longer running automatically toward America. Instead, they are spreading out, reassessing, and asking questions that once felt unnecessary. In the language of markets, this shift has a name: “Sell America.” ¹

“Sell America” does not mean abandoning the United States. It does not predict collapse. It describes something more subtle and more important: a change in trust. When investors sell America, they reduce their dependence on US assets and the US dollar, and increase exposure to gold, other currencies, and markets outside direct American control. It is not a political statement. It is a risk decision.

The reasons behind this shift are not hard to see. Recent years have brought rising geopolitical tensions, renewed trade threats, and a growing sense that economic tools are increasingly used as political weapons. When uncertainty comes from the very system that once provided stability, investors naturally begin to look for alternatives. The dollar, in such moments, stops acting as a universal safe haven and becomes one option among many.

Figure: Two opposing reserve trends in one year (illustrative): The rise of gold price and the decrease of USD against the Norwegian Krone (NOK)

The question of trust

One of the clearest signals of this doubt is the price of gold. Over the past year, gold has climbed to record levels, moving sharply higher as confidence in currencies weakened. Gold does not promise growth or income. It promises something else: independence from politics. When trust in rules, institutions, and predictability fades, gold quietly returns to its ancient role as a store of value. This is not driven only by private investors. Central banks themselves have been increasing their gold holdings, slowly reducing their reliance on the dollar system.

At the same time, the US dollar has weakened against a broad range of currencies, including the Norwegian krone. For investors outside the United States, this matters. A falling dollar reduces the value of US assets when measured in local currency terms. It also signals that holding dollars is no longer a one-way bet. Currency risk, once ignored, has returned to the conversation.

Yet “Sell America” has clear limits. The United States still hosts the deepest and most liquid financial markets in the world. There are few places capable of absorbing large global capital flows at short notice. Even countries that compete strategically with the US understand this reality. China, despite long-standing tensions, has never seriously attempted to dump its US assets. Doing so would damage its own reserves and destabilize the global financial system. Attacking the world’s reserve currency is not a victory. It is mutual harm.

The real consequence of “Sell America” is therefore not mass exit, but repricing. Investors begin to demand higher returns for holding US assets. Political risk is no longer ignored. Trust is no longer free. The dollar remains dominant, but it is no longer unquestioned. It moves from absolute certainty to conditional confidence.

Europe, the World, and America’s Debt: A Subtle Shift in Trust ²

“Sell America” is best understood not through individual investors, but through the broader relationship between U.S. public debt and its foreign creditors. With roughly $38 trillion in debt ³ and close to $1 trillion a year in interest payments, the United States is highly sensitive to long-term interest rates and global confidence. Foreign investors hold a significant share of this debt, with Japan as the largest creditor and Europe, including the Nordic countries, controlling a substantial portion of U.S. government bonds and financial assets.

This does not give Europe or other creditors a simple financial weapon. Most U.S. debt is held by private institutions, and any large-scale sell-off would damage creditors and destabilize global markets. The system is too interconnected for confrontation. Instead, what is taking place is quieter and more revealing. Over time, major creditors have begun to reduce their dependence on U.S. debt at the margin. China has halved its Treasury holdings over the past decade, Japan has slowed new purchases, and parts of Northern Europe have selectively stepped back.

These moves are modest in size but meaningful in signal. Pension funds and sovereign investors are built for stability, not speculation. When they begin to reassess even U.S. government bonds, it reflects not panic, but a measured re-pricing of trust. Political uncertainty and rising deficits are no longer ignored. They are calmly absorbed into returns.

This is the essence of “Sell America.” Capital is not fleeing the United States, but it is no longer offering automatic confidence. The dollar remains central, yet its privilege now carries conditions. Strength endures, but trust must be earned — and renewed.

The AI bubble?

This shift is unfolding at the same time as another source of unease: fears of an AI-driven stock market bubble. Artificial intelligence is a powerful and genuine technological force, but markets have a long history of confusing transformation with valuation. When excitement outruns earnings, corrections tend to follow. For investors, the combination of political uncertainty and valuation risk reinforces one simple lesson: concentration is dangerous.

In this environment, balance becomes a form of wisdom. Gold offers stability when confidence weakens. Stocks offer growth, but demand humility. Cash offers patience and flexibility, especially when held across more than one currency. None of these is sufficient alone. Together, they form resilience.

Final thought

From a Taoist perspective, this moment is not alarming. It is natural. Systems rise, mature, and invite correction. Extremes create their own counterweights. When certainty hardens into complacency, doubt quietly restores balance. The wise investor does not resist this movement. He adapts to it.

“Sell America” is not a call to fear the future. It is a reminder to respect it. Responsibility in investing does not mean predicting what comes next. It means preparing calmly for more than one path. In a world where trust shifts and cycles turn, balance is not weakness. It is strength.

---

References

1. Cecilie Langum Becker, «Sell America» er tilbake, NRK.NO, 2026. Source ↩
2. Tạp chí kinh tế, 3.800 tỷ đô la nợ, huyệt hiểm của Hoa Kỳ, RFI, 27/01/2026 - 14:57. Source ↩
3. Doug Melville, With The U.S. Debt A Staggering $38 Trillion Dollars, Who Exactly Do We Owe?, Forbes, Jan 04, 2026, 11:14am EST. Source ↩

Money, Machines, and the Search for Balance

 

The Fed, the AI Boom, Gold, and How Investors Can Navigate a Fractured World

The global financial system is entering a period of quiet tension. The independence of the U.S. Federal Reserve is openly debated. Artificial intelligence fuels both genuine productivity gains and speculative excess. Geopolitical rivalries reshape trade and capital flows. And beneath the noise, central banks are steadily buying gold.

These developments are not separate events. They are connected signals from a system adjusting to stress.

The Federal Reserve and the Fragility of Trust

The independence of the U.S. Federal Reserve has long been a cornerstone of global financial stability. Investors trust that interest-rate decisions are based on inflation and employment, not election calendars. This trust matters because the U.S. dollar is the world’s primary reserve currency, used to price trade, settle debts, and store national wealth.

When that independence appears threatened, the reaction is rarely dramatic. Instead, institutions quietly hedge. Trust erodes gradually, not suddenly.

Artificial Intelligence: A Real Revolution with Bubble Dynamics

Artificial intelligence is transforming industries. Data centers, cloud infrastructure, memory chips, and advanced semiconductors are becoming the backbone of modern economies. Yet history shows that revolutionary technologies often attract too much capital, too quickly.

AI-related stocks behave like long-duration assets. Their value depends on profits far in the future. When interest rates rise or expectations soften, prices can fall sharply even if the technology itself continues to succeed. A bubble does not mean failure. It means mispricing.

Geopolitics and the Return of Monetary Realism

The era of frictionless globalization is fading. Sanctions, trade disputes, and industrial policy now influence capital flows. For many countries, reserves are no longer purely financial assets. They are strategic assets.

This realization has changed how central banks behave.

Gold, Silver, and the Silent Hedge

Over the past decade, China has steadily reduced its holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds while increasing its gold reserves. This shift is slow and deliberate. It is not an attack on the dollar. It is diversification.

Gold carries no counterparty risk. It cannot be frozen or printed. Silver, though more volatile and less central-bank focused, benefits from both monetary hedging and industrial demand linked to electrification and technology.

The rise in gold and silver prices reflects risk management, not fear of imminent dollar collapse. Reserve currencies decline over decades, sometimes centuries — as Spain’s silver-based dominance faded gradually after the 17th century.

Visual Metaphor: A System Rebalancing

Figure: Two opposing reserve trends (illustrative): China increases gold/silver accumulation while gradually reducing U.S. Treasury bond holdings.^{1 2}

Central banks globally have become net buyers of gold in recent years.² 

What This Means for a U.S. Investor

For individual investors, this environment calls for balance, not prediction.

• Gold and silver can serve as insurance against systemic risk.³
•  Bitcoin, sometimes called digital gold, offers scarcity and portability but remains volatile and historically untested.
• AI and data-center stocks represent long-term transformation, but valuations require humility.
• Materials tied to technology — memory chips, storage, rare earths — sit at the intersection of innovation and geopolitics and demand careful position sizing.

The goal is resilience, not certainty.

A Quiet Closing Reflection

In Taoist thought, excess invites correction. Speed invites stillness. Confidence invites humility.

Our era leans strongly toward Yang — acceleration, intelligence, leverage. Gold, patience, and diversification represent Yin — memory, restraint, endurance. Wisdom lies not in rejecting progress, nor in worshiping it, but in holding both forces in balance.

In uncertain times, the task is not to predict the future — but to remain steady as it unfolds.

---

Footnotes

1. China reducing U.S. Treasury holdings: 
   China’s holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and their long-term decline are documented in the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Treasury International Capital (TIC) data.
   https://home.treasury.gov/data/treasury-international-capital-tic-system   ↩
2. China increasing official gold reserves:
   World Gold Council reports show central banks as consistent net buyers of gold in recent years, reflecting diversification amid geopolitical risk.
   https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends   ↩
3. Gold and silver price increases amid geopolitical and monetary uncertainty: Gold and silver price movements are covered extensively by Reuters in the context of inflation, interest rates, and central-bank demand.
   https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/   ↩

From Japan and South Korea to China’s Made in China 2025 — and Vietnam’s Next Development Leap

This article offers a high-level overview of how Japan, South Korea, and China achieved industrial success — and how Vietnam can learn from the past to escape the middle-income trap and become Southeast Asia’s next growth powerhouse.

To understand where Vietnam may be heading, we must first look to history. Development is never random. Countries that successfully moved from poverty to prosperity followed clear patterns, adapted them to their own circumstances, and acted decisively while time was still on their side. History does not repeat itself, but it leaves behind a map. 

The Economic Miracle of East Asia — Will Vietnam Become the Next Dragon?

Lessons from Japan, South Korea and China

After World War II, Japan rebuilt itself through discipline, education, and long-term industrial planning. In its early years, “Made in Japan” was associated with cheap copies. Over time, through relentless focus on quality and learning, it became a global symbol of reliability and precision. Japan showed that patience, coordination, and human capital could transform a nation. 

South Korea followed a similar but faster path. The state supported large industrial groups, but support came with strict conditions. Export performance was the ultimate test. Companies that failed lost backing, while those that succeeded became global champions. Korea proved that government guidance and market competition could work together when discipline and accountability were enforced. 

China’s rise came later, but on an entirely different scale. In 2015, it launched the "Made in China 2025"¹ strategy with a clear goal: move from low-cost manufacturing to higher value, technology-driven industry. Not every target was fully achieved by 2025, especially in advanced semiconductors, but the deeper transformation succeeded.² The meaning of “Made in China” changed. China became central to global supply chains, dominant in batteries and rare-earth processing, strong in electric vehicles, robotics, and applied artificial intelligence. Even under tariffs and technology restrictions, China adapted, rerouted trade, and recorded record export surpluses.³ Pressure did not stop the system; it strengthened its resilience. 

Today, China is no longer merely catching up. It is a system builder. Its strength lies not only in innovation, but in infrastructure, scale, and supply-chain depth. Trade wars revealed a simple truth: policies can change quickly, but industrial ecosystems cannot be moved overnight. 

Vietnam’s advantages and challenges

Vietnam stands at a different but promising point on the development ladder. With a population of more than 100 million, it still benefits from a relatively young workforce. Yet fertility rates are falling, and the warning is real: Vietnam risks growing old before becoming rich.⁴ The demographic window is narrowing, and time matters.

Culturally, Vietnam shares with China, Japan, and South Korea a Confucian tradition that values education, discipline, and learning. Families invest heavily in their children, and social mobility through effort is still widely believed. This cultural capital is a powerful advantage that cannot be imported later. 

Geopolitically, Vietnam is well positioned. It maintains constructive relations with major powers and is not viewed as a strategic rival. In a world seeking to diversify supply chains, Vietnam is increasingly seen as a stable and pragmatic alternative. 

Vietnam’s future, however, will be decided by choices, not potential. Infrastructure must move faster and more decisively. Roads, ports, logistics, and cities must be built ahead of demand, not behind it. Electricity is a critical bottleneck. No advanced manufacturing economy tolerates unstable power. Clean energy, grid modernization, and long-term energy planning are no longer optional; they are requirements. 

The private sector must be allowed to breathe. State ownership is not the problem; micromanagement is. Successful models show that governments can own strategic assets while leaving daily decisions to professional management.⁵ At the same time, bureaucracy must be reduced. Capital does not protest loudly. It simply goes elsewhere. 

Will Vietnam escape the middle-income trap, or will it become the next dragon or tiger of Southeast Asia? History offers guidance but no guarantees. Japan perfected craftsmanship. South Korea perfected discipline. China perfected scale. Vietnam’s opportunity is to perfect balance: openness without loss of control, speed without chaos, growth without environmental exhaustion. 

In the end, development is like water flowing through a landscape. It does not rise by force. It advances where channels are clear and obstacles are removed. Vietnam does not need to rush blindly forward. It needs wisdom, responsibility, and balance — and the courage to act while time is still generous. ---

---

Notes & References

1. Made in China 2025 was launched in 2015 to upgrade China’s manufacturing sector, reduce dependence on foreign technology, and build globally competitive industrial capabilities. Council on Foreign Relations.
2. Made in China 2025 — assessment by 2025 . Analysis of achievements and remaining gaps across key sectors. Rhodium Group.
3. China recorded a record trade surplus of around USD 1.2 trillion in 2025, reflecting strong exports despite tariffs and geopolitical pressure. Reuters.
4. “Chưa giàu mà đã già” is a Vietnamese phrase describing the risk of a country aging before achieving prosperity, referring to declining fertility and the narrowing demographic window.
5. Equinor illustrates the Nordic state-ownership model, where the Norwegian government is a majority shareholder while leaving day-to-day management to professional leadership. Equinor.

Can Machines Think? From Alan Turing to AI, Consciousness, and Balance

A reflective essay on Alan Turing, the Turing Test, intelligence, consciousness, and why AI is not dangerous unless humans forget balance and responsibility.

In 1950, Alan Turing asked a question that still echoes today: Can machines think? At the time, computers were primitive, slow, and rare. Yet Turing did not wait for advanced technology. He focused on the idea itself. Instead of debating endlessly about mind or soul, he proposed a practical test. If a machine could communicate so well that a human could not reliably tell whether it was human or not, then the machine should be considered intelligent. This idea became known as the Turing Test¹ .

Human brain representing biological intelligence and the question of where consciousness arises

What Turing did was subtle but powerful. He shifted the discussion away from philosophy and toward behavior. We do not directly see intelligence or consciousness in other humans. We infer them through language, reasoning, emotion, and response. Turing simply asked whether we would apply the same standard to machines. His question quietly challenged our assumptions about what intelligence really is.

Intelligence, however, is often confused with consciousness². Intelligence refers to the ability to reason, solve problems, learn, and communicate. Consciousness is something deeper and more elusive. It is the feeling of being aware, of having an inner experience. Science has never directly observed consciousness. We assume it exists in other humans, and even in animals, based on behavior and continuity of life. This assumption feels natural, but it is still an inference, not a measurement.

The idea that only humans possess consciousness or a “soul” comes largely from religion. In many Western traditions, humans are seen as separate from and superior to nature. Yet biology tells a different story. Humans evolved gradually from the animal kingdom. There was no sudden moment when a soul appeared. No clear boundary separates human minds from animal minds. Consciousness, like intelligence, seems to emerge by degree, not by divine switch.

When we look at the human brain, we see a biological system built from carbon-based cells, neurons, and electrical signals. Modern AI systems are built from silicon, circuits, and mathematical models inspired by neural networks. These artificial networks are simpler than biological brains, but biological models of neurons are also simplified representations of reality. The difference is one of complexity and scale, not of fundamental category.

To say that a silicon-based system can never have consciousness is to assume that carbon has a special metaphysical status. That belief is not scientific. It is philosophical, and often emotional. If consciousness emerges from physical processes and organization, then it cannot be ruled out in principle that non-biological systems may also develop forms of awareness in the future.

This leads to the common fear: Is AI dangerous? Will it harm humans? History suggests that technology itself is not the danger. Fire cooks food and burns cities. Nuclear physics powers hospitals and destroys nations. The atom was never evil. Human intention and worldview determined its use. AI follows the same pattern. It amplifies human goals, values, and decisions. It reflects us.

If humans see themselves as rulers over nature, AI becomes a tool of control and domination. If humans see themselves as part of nature, AI becomes a companion and helper. The real risk lies not in artificial intelligence, but in human arrogance, fear, and lack of responsibility.

From an Eastern perspective, especially in Taoism, nature is not something to conquer. Humans are part of a larger balance³ . When that balance is disturbed, consequences return, not as punishment, but as natural correction. AI, like any powerful force, must be guided with humility and wisdom. When used with care, it can support learning, creativity, and understanding. When driven by fear or greed, it magnifies harm.

Closing Thought

In the end, the question is not whether machines can think, or whether they may one day become conscious. The deeper question is how humans choose to live alongside their own creations. Balance has always mattered more than control. Responsibility has always mattered more than power. If we remember this, AI will not be our enemy. It will simply be another expression of human curiosity, shaped by the values we bring into the world.

---

Footnotes

1. Turing Test (Reason): Proposed in 1950 by Alan Turing , the Turing Test was proposed in 1950 by Alan Turing as a practical way to discuss machine intelligence. Instead of debating whether a machine has a mind or consciousness, Turing suggested a simple idea: if a machine can carry on a conversation so naturally that a human cannot reliably tell whether they are talking to a human or a machine, then the machine should be considered intelligent. ↩
2. Consciousness (Mystery): In science and philosophy, consciousness generally refers to subjective experience or awareness—the feeling of “being.” It cannot be directly observed or measured, but is inferred from behavior, communication, and self-report in humans and animals. Its origin remains an open question, with theories ranging from biological emergence to fundamental properties of matter. ↩
3. Taoism and Balance (Wisdom): In Taoist philosophy, humans are not rulers of nature but participants within it. Balance, harmony, and alignment with the natural flow (the Tao) are central values. Actions that disrupt balance—through domination, excess, or force—eventually return as harm, not as punishment, but as natural consequence. ↩