|
So South Korea distorted its economy for decades and that finally caught up with it? And decades of distortion haven't been fixed by one decade of slightly less distortion?
Obviously the solution is more distortion!
Developing and developed economies are two different things, you won't find a capitalist country that didn't have a heavily interventionist government role in the economy during the developing phase, and you won't find a capitalist country that didn't have to go through hard times at the transition point between developing and developed, caused by government distortions in the market that were out of date and had started to hinder rather than help.
But some people wish to go on with business as usual because it "worked" in the past, no matter how many panics and collapses it caused they don't care, because they're motivated by ideology more than results. Government can cause and exacerbate panics in the 19th century, the Great Depression and stagflation in the 20th, but the solution is always more government,
|
On April 02 2012 23:25 TheDraken wrote:
i was always under the impression that south korea just had an extremely competitive educational culture and that one's success was determined by what university they ended up going to. that in itself would be enough to make everyone unhappy. i'm not sure how much the "welfare" state factors into it.
if you ask me it's more of a cultural perception thing. the country needs to realize people are more than their test scores.
Well Finland's neck-and-neck with Korea in terms of education and they're the other extreme, students spend really little time in school and most of it is out of respect for the teaching profession, thus really good teachers = really good students.
Can SK adapt to the Finnish system?
|
On April 02 2012 23:17 Sinedd wrote:
what do you mean unhappy ???
WHAT ?!
its my DREAM just to go there !
or Japan !
let alone live in one of those..
damn.. some people just dont appreciate the awesomeness of their country !
Um what?How would you know how living in Korea is really like if you have never been there in the first place?
And even if you were there or lived there,living in a country as a foreigner is a totally different experience than being a native.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On April 02 2012 23:22 Velr wrote:
Ever been to a Korean subway?
People sleeping while standing (if they can't sit down) was a very common sight, from rather young guys (they were more often absorbed into some handheld Iphone/TV whatever) to older ones that looked like business man....
That tells more than thousand studies about a country and it's work mentality... No, it is or should not be normal that people just "shut down" as soon as they get a little break from work because they are to tired.
I don't think this correlates directly with capitalism, but it corelates with a failure in SKoreas developement which follows capitalist ideology.
Let's fix it:
Give the people some time to live whiteout immediatly risking poverty and they will be happier (and mroe productive/less ill... In general better off)... (Rocket Science!!)
Okay, let's increase people's safety welfare and you're guaranteeing people will stop sleeping while standing in the subway?
I have a irking suspicion it won't.
|
On April 02 2012 18:54 Supamang wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:41 Taf the Ghost wrote:
2 words: North Korea.
6 more words: Dictator with massive amounts of Artillery.
Any societal analysis of South Korea, without taking this into account, renders it completely mute.
Oh, and that regime just happened to recently acquire Nuclear Weapons. That's a true "fear factor".
The hours studied, per student, just means that Korean children are 1/2 as efficient as Finnish children at studying. That strikes me as a failure completely apart from economic.
The opening paragraph just happens to forgets Korean history from 1900 to 1960. Hard to build an economy when you aren't actually a country. Especially when compared to a former British Protectorate and a major world shipping hub (at the time).
Yeah, it's a pointless article that means nothing. But it fits well with the Guardian's political leanings. (I.e. if you think the reason this piece ran is really about South Korea, you're kidding yourself) Eh...what would North Korea and their military have anything to do with unhappy citizens and high suicide rates? "Oh snap, those North Koreans are gonna kill us! Better kill myself before they do!"
Because by just having NK as a neighbour every male has to stop his life for two years during his "prime years" and do the military service. Not only does the society push them too hard when it comes to grades so they can get into the best school and land the best job but when they are done with school they get sent into the military for two years. I wouldn't be to happy about that and all the pressure either.
|
On April 02 2012 23:39 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 23:22 Velr wrote:
Ever been to a Korean subway?
People sleeping while standing (if they can't sit down) was a very common sight, from rather young guys (they were more often absorbed into some handheld Iphone/TV whatever) to older ones that looked like business man....
That tells more than thousand studies about a country and it's work mentality... No, it is or should not be normal that people just "shut down" as soon as they get a little break from work because they are to tired.
I don't think this correlates directly with capitalism, but it corelates with a failure in SKoreas developement which follows capitalist ideology.
Let's fix it:
Give the people some time to live whiteout immediatly risking poverty and they will be happier (and mroe productive/less ill... In general better off)... (Rocket Science!!) Okay, let's increase people's safety welfare and you're guaranteeing people will stop sleeping while standing in the subway? I have a irking suspicion it won't.
Yeah because that was totally his argument. Well done.
|
On April 02 2012 23:40 Gosi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 18:54 Supamang wrote:On April 02 2012 18:41 Taf the Ghost wrote:
2 words: North Korea.
6 more words: Dictator with massive amounts of Artillery.
Any societal analysis of South Korea, without taking this into account, renders it completely mute.
Oh, and that regime just happened to recently acquire Nuclear Weapons. That's a true "fear factor".
The hours studied, per student, just means that Korean children are 1/2 as efficient as Finnish children at studying. That strikes me as a failure completely apart from economic.
The opening paragraph just happens to forgets Korean history from 1900 to 1960. Hard to build an economy when you aren't actually a country. Especially when compared to a former British Protectorate and a major world shipping hub (at the time).
Yeah, it's a pointless article that means nothing. But it fits well with the Guardian's political leanings. (I.e. if you think the reason this piece ran is really about South Korea, you're kidding yourself) Eh...what would North Korea and their military have anything to do with unhappy citizens and high suicide rates? "Oh snap, those North Koreans are gonna kill us! Better kill myself before they do!" Because by just having NK as a neighbour every male has to stop his life for two years during his "prime years" and do the military service. Not only does the society push them too hard when it comes to grades so they can get into the best school and land the best job but when they are done with school they get sent into the military for two years. I wouldn't be to happy about that and all the pressure either.
Tons of countries has obligatory military service, it doesn't lead to massive unhappyness and hightened suicide rates.
The reason for suicide rates being high in Korea and Japan is simply cultural. In Western culture, you're considered a coward and selfish when you kill yourself, while in Japan and Korea, it's honorable to save face. No matter how hard they are trying to change peoples perception of this, it will take a lot of time. Add in the fact that you're forced to work 90% of your time awake, and then you have to go out and drink with your boss several times a week, no pay for working overtime... yeah, you'll quickly find good reasons to kill yourself.
|
On April 02 2012 23:14 Yorbon wrote:Sorry guys, i'm officially ashamed of being a westerner now. I didn't know westerners were completely ignorant :')
Too retarded to realize that you should probably not go off-topic and instead PM me? Or atleast, please, come up with some arguments or something not just "LOLOLOL:ing" like an imbecille. Please, PM me.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 02 2012 22:44 white_horse wrote:
It's a cultural and social problem. South korea is really small but packed with people, making society ultra-competitive. You really have to grind your ass in order to get into good schools and get good jobs. The bad side is that people are a lot less happier than they could be because life is so competitive and hectic and because there is tremendous pressure to become "successful". The good side is that this is the reason why south korea is an economic giant and the world leader in shipbuilding, electronics, steel, LCD TV, and of course, gaming. big neighbors like china or russia have that much more natural resources and size of population but they don't even come close in a lot of industries.
Having a small and densely populated country does not guarantee that society is ultra-competitive. See, for example, the various Southeast Asian countries.
By the same token, having a large and moderately populated country does not guarantee that society lags behind in strategic industries. The US and various EU countries are, for example, world leaders in technology and industry.
There are benefits to running an ultra-competitive, cutthroat society like South Korea's, but it's not a black and white trade-off as you describe it. Countries at different stages of development have different industrial structures and priorities. South Korea is a newly industrialized country - like Japan was in the 70s and 80s - but I don't see it being at this stage forever.
For this same reason, comparing South Korea to China or Russia is a bit of a mistake.
China is about 20-30 years behind the development stage that South Korea is presently in, and its government and economy are of a very different structure. Although China follows the same model that South Korea has followed - the export-based model - it's not going to obtain the same results simply on the basis of there not being enough consumers for the exports of a country of 1.4 billion people. Its government's unwillingness to let go of its state-controlled corporations - the SOEs that make up the bulk of China's strategic industries - also stifles private sector competition and is what prevents China from seriously entering industries like, say, consumer electronics.
Russia, which is a post-industrial country, is the world leader in a number of key strategic industries - ie military hardware, materials, and research. Russia does not run an export-based economic model, however, but a resource-based model. Russia provides energy and materials to Europe itself - a necessary role, and the Russians benefit greatly from it.
|
Is this why Koreans excel at starcraft2? the overall unhappiness in the society has lead to people to seek happiness in computer games. just a thought...
|
This is old news. Korea's society was pretty shit before I left it, and a decade later it's only gone worse. The system was always broken but the governments have never actually addressed the most fundamental issues and the current government has only made it worse, particularly in the education system. The education system needs to be examined and restructured but people don't give a shit and try to just be at the top of a fucked up system. Pretty much a "if I run faster than the guy next to me then I'll escape the bear that's chasing us".
This is partially why I find the whole kpop obsession that has swept the world recently to be really abhorrent. People eat up what is probably the most vapid entertainment industry in the entirety of Asia while Korea thrives on a superficial, materialistic smoke and mirrors. Underneath all that make up and plastic is a very haggard, tired, and repressed society, especially with the young generation.
I hope the next government will be better, but I don't hold high hopes to it.
|
On April 02 2012 23:51 NebuLoSa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 23:14 Yorbon wrote:Sorry guys, i'm officially ashamed of being a westerner now. I didn't know westerners were completely ignorant :')
Too retarded to realize that you should probably not go off-topic and instead PM me? Or atleast, please, come up with some arguments or something not just "LOLOLOL:ing" like an imbecille. Please, PM me.
So why didn't you PM him?
OT - while this thread seems to be veering off topic with what is turning into a capitalism vs. socialism debate (which ain't gonna end well), some of the points made here I have found particularly interesting, especially that The Guardian is clearly using this research to make a political point 'back home' as it were. The Guardian always seems to disappointment lately, and I'm one of the apparently liberal education 20 somethings it appeals to - at least with The Sun and the other rightwing rags there's no pretention, you get what you expect....
|
On April 02 2012 23:17 Tal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 22:59 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 22:44 Zato-1 wrote:
I hope no one's taking the article at face value, because it's so full of judgment values without any shred of supporting evidence it gives me a headache. Bank deregulation and opening the stock market lead to South Korea being one of the unhappiest countries in the world? Then why has nothing of the sort happened with other developed countries which have taken similar steps?
I get the article's main argument: small amounts of welfare benefits have bad consequences for the country as a whole. But without any supporting evidence other than spurious linking to the country's happiness, I call bullshit. You want to claim correlation between the two? Make a graph and list all of the OECD countries, their level of happiness and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP. Even then you wouldn't show causality. Instead, the article relies on feel-good anecdotal evidence, to reach a conclusion... the conclusion being, from a left-leaning UK newspaper, that the UK shouldn't cut welfare spending.
Give me a break. Because no country was in the same position that korea was in at the end of the 1990's? He's not saying that deregulation and cutting benefits will have these consequences either, just that the consequences of them can just as well be negative as positive. Chang isn't opposed to free markets in general, but the believes that they're only for the common good (ie. economic development/progress) when there is an even playing field. I can't believe the ease with which people are dismissing a world class economist without even bothering to read a book he wrote. This is the fortune cookie version of his argument and he would not (and does not) present this argument the same way in an academic context. Deregulation and free markets at times fuck entire countries over completely. Just look at current day Mongolia, or 1990's Peru. Hell, just look at the way SK developed itself economically, free markets had nothing to do with it. That part of the 'free market' approach doesn't nearly get the attention it deserves in our current economical and political climate, where if anything is taken at face value its the myth that 'markets will solve everything'. I agree with your point that the commentator is worth respecting (though asking someone to read his book in order to respond to his newspaper article is a bit much), but current day Mongolia isn't a perfect example to back up your point: The Economist Report on MongoliaEven with a cynical view, Mongolia has a chance to do very very well out of the capitalist system.
I was referring to the effect the first World Back Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) had on mongolia as a country. It's hard to believe, but Mongolia at the start of the 1990's had more industry, more production and higher average income then China had. Then the World Bank forced their first SAP on them, opening their markets, rapidly destroying their industry because it was uncompetitive on a global level, lowering wages, and forcing the country to specialize in low-profit agriculture. You can make a similar case for Peru in the middle of the 1990's, where liberalization basicly forced the entire country into growing bananas and led to the collapse of average wage levels. It could even apply to most of Asia during their financial crash and the SAP programs the washington consensus forced upon them.
It's obviously excessive to read an entire book to respond on a forum, but if it actually interests you and you want to be able to have an informed opinion on matters like this, newspapers are not enough.
On April 02 2012 23:31 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 22:59 Derez wrote:On April 02 2012 22:44 Zato-1 wrote:
I hope no one's taking the article at face value, because it's so full of judgment values without any shred of supporting evidence it gives me a headache. Bank deregulation and opening the stock market lead to South Korea being one of the unhappiest countries in the world? Then why has nothing of the sort happened with other developed countries which have taken similar steps?
I get the article's main argument: small amounts of welfare benefits have bad consequences for the country as a whole. But without any supporting evidence other than spurious linking to the country's happiness, I call bullshit. You want to claim correlation between the two? Make a graph and list all of the OECD countries, their level of happiness and welfare spending as a percentage of GDP. Even then you wouldn't show causality. Instead, the article relies on feel-good anecdotal evidence, to reach a conclusion... the conclusion being, from a left-leaning UK newspaper, that the UK shouldn't cut welfare spending.
Give me a break. Because no country was in the same position that korea was in at the end of the 1990's? He's not saying that deregulation and cutting benefits will have these consequences either, just that the consequences of them can just as well be negative as positive. Chang isn't opposed to free markets in general, but the believes that they're only for the common good (ie. economic development/progress) when there is an even playing field. I can't believe the ease with which people are dismissing a world class economist without even bothering to read a book he wrote. This is the fortune cookie version of his argument and he would not (and does not) present this argument the same way in an academic context. Deregulation and free markets at times fuck entire countries over completely. Just look at current day Mongolia, or 1990's Peru. Hell, just look at the way SK developed itself economically, free markets had nothing to do with it. That part of the 'free market' approach doesn't nearly get the attention it deserves in our current economical and political climate, where if anything is taken at face value its the myth that 'markets will solve everything'. Free market is good for the world as a whole but doesn't have to be good for a country in particular. Basically you're saying your own countries growth is more important than the worlds growth. And it's not like SK is the only country to be protectionist every trade block has trade barriers and all which screw over people somewhere else in the world.
What's good for the world as a whole is rising income levels in all countries and a diminishing wealth gap between nations. Free trade with countries that are unable to compete leads to a situation where the underdeveloped country will never be able to escape its position; its essentially 21st century colonialism. Countries are right for using protectionism for their non-competitive sectors, because if they don't they'll never develop that sector. US manufacturing, US Steel, Korean Steel, Japanese/Korean cars, none of it would have been possible without fierce protectionism and in the end the world as a whole benefits from the trade and competition that occurs once countries have actual competitive sectors.
Smart well-led countries (like China, India, Brazil) actually reckognize this and act on it. Free trade in low-tech manufacturing, protectionism for the sectors they want to be a part of in the future (biotech, aviation). Deregulation and free markets can have extremely destructive effects that are not in the interest of anyone, which is why policymakers need to carefully consider all options and not simply choose deregulation as a default option.
Also, as a more general note: Cultural explanations are bullshit. You can find positive/negative qualities about any culture and then use those in such a way that it reflects the current economical climate. Germans were considered lazy when the rest of Europe was industrializing, yet a couple of decades later they were considered efficient and always on time. Islam was considered conducive to science and trade at some point, but look how it is treated today. If a country is doing well, positives get associated with it. If it is doing poorly, the negatives come out. Not to mention that economic 'good times' also lead to a change in the attitudes of the population itself. If anything, economic development creates culture more then the other way around. Concepts like time, efficiency, they only start to mean something once you actually have to be somewhere and do something in a somewhat competitive environment. (This line of reasoning is similar to the one Chang utilizes in his works).
|
On April 03 2012 00:05 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 23:51 NebuLoSa wrote:On April 02 2012 23:14 Yorbon wrote:Sorry guys, i'm officially ashamed of being a westerner now. I didn't know westerners were completely ignorant :')
Too retarded to realize that you should probably not go off-topic and instead PM me? Or atleast, please, come up with some arguments or something not just "LOLOLOL:ing" like an imbecille. Please, PM me. So why didn't you PM him? OT - while this thread seems to be veering off topic with what is turning into a capitalism vs. socialism debate (which ain't gonna end well), some of the points made here I have found particularly interesting, especially that The Guardian is clearly using this research to make a political point 'back home' as it were. The Guardian always seems to disappointment lately, and I'm one of the apparently liberal education 20 somethings it appeals to - at least with The Sun and the other rightwing rags there's no pretention, you get what you expect....
I did. So why do you bother?
Btw OT stands for off-topic while OnT is what you meant.
|
On April 02 2012 23:45 Tobberoth wrote:
Tons of countries has obligatory military service, it doesn't lead to massive unhappyness and hightened suicide rates.
it's still gay as shit
yo
User was warned for this post
|
On April 02 2012 23:25 TheDraken wrote:
i was always under the impression that south korea just had an extremely competitive educational culture and that one's success was determined by what university they ended up going to. that in itself would be enough to make everyone unhappy. i'm not sure how much the "welfare" state factors into it.
if you ask me it's more of a cultural perception thing. the country needs to realize people are more than their test scores.
My thoughts on this are similar.
The author refers to South Korea's system as the "US-UK mould"; and the deregulation and welfare cuts he referes to is very similar to what happened in the US during the Reagan administration. So why isn't the US an education obsessed society with a high suicide rate? While the lack of social programs and government attention to socio-economic issues may have some impact here; clearly there has to be something specific to Korea that is contributing to this situation.
Cultural factors seem to be an important factor here; what of course comes to mind is the steriotypical asian parent who puts incredible pressure on thier child to perform 110%. Whether that's entirely accurate or not, I think the constant social pressure on individuals to constantly compete has got to be part of the equation.
|
what i ask myself is why SK? I mean problems with espacially young people with good education( college/university exams) don´t get a job or those agency workers exist in other industrial countries( spain or germany had lot of problems with agency work) too. Almost every country had some sort of crisis or depression when economic growth goes back. I think that you can not say people are unhappy just because of the lack of economic growth. As the article says the fear of falling into "lower class" because of a bad social net might be an important factor. But in my opinion those Asian industrial countries like Japan or SK another big problem in their education system. In school kids have way more than in western countries ( i only talk about state schools, i don´t know how it looks at public schools) and parents put them under huge pressure. In my English class we discussed that and my teacher said that way more kids and teenager commit suicide than in our country( Germany).
For me this high pressure put on everybody and especially kids is an important factor of how happy people are too.
Just want to say that only economic growth doesn´t make you happy. In this way the article is kinda one sided for me.
|
On April 02 2012 22:50 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 22:48 meatbox wrote:
Polt studies at the most prestigious university in South Korea and still finds the time to be a pro gamer! And how much time do you think he actually spends in classes/doing work?
Not sure but he's on HD average. 
|
Kids have to go to school for a ridiculous amount of time compared to most countries standards. Sometimes can be as high as 16 hours in a day. If I remember correctly a study was done and around 1 out of every three women over 18 in S. Korea has had at least one facial procedure. Everyone wants to look like someone else.
|
On April 02 2012 23:45 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2012 23:40 Gosi wrote:On April 02 2012 18:54 Supamang wrote:On April 02 2012 18:41 Taf the Ghost wrote:
2 words: North Korea.
6 more words: Dictator with massive amounts of Artillery.
Any societal analysis of South Korea, without taking this into account, renders it completely mute.
Oh, and that regime just happened to recently acquire Nuclear Weapons. That's a true "fear factor".
The hours studied, per student, just means that Korean children are 1/2 as efficient as Finnish children at studying. That strikes me as a failure completely apart from economic.
The opening paragraph just happens to forgets Korean history from 1900 to 1960. Hard to build an economy when you aren't actually a country. Especially when compared to a former British Protectorate and a major world shipping hub (at the time).
Yeah, it's a pointless article that means nothing. But it fits well with the Guardian's political leanings. (I.e. if you think the reason this piece ran is really about South Korea, you're kidding yourself) Eh...what would North Korea and their military have anything to do with unhappy citizens and high suicide rates? "Oh snap, those North Koreans are gonna kill us! Better kill myself before they do!" Because by just having NK as a neighbour every male has to stop his life for two years during his "prime years" and do the military service. Not only does the society push them too hard when it comes to grades so they can get into the best school and land the best job but when they are done with school they get sent into the military for two years. I wouldn't be to happy about that and all the pressure either. Tons of countries has obligatory military service, it doesn't lead to massive unhappyness and hightened suicide rates. The reason for suicide rates being high in Korea and Japan is simply cultural. In Western culture, you're considered a coward and selfish when you kill yourself, while in Japan and Korea, it's honorable to save face. No matter how hard they are trying to change peoples perception of this, it will take a lot of time. Add in the fact that you're forced to work 90% of your time awake, and then you have to go out and drink with your boss several times a week, no pay for working overtime... yeah, you'll quickly find good reasons to kill yourself.
You can't make a blanket statement like "Lots of countries have military service, that can't be it"
You have to apply it to the culture. I think if you can tell anyone, with a straight face, that taking a kid out of their life (in some of their prime years) and put them into mandatory military service which they cannot avoid, doesn't affect their happiness, then you're crazy. It does, there's no way it can't. You want to talk about slavery? That's slavery. Maybe they're pretty good about making kids feel like they're doing something for their country, but the fact of the matter is, you're not in control of your destiny at that point, and few people can be happy under those circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
