Korean Job Discussion Forums

[eskeemo]

Noam Chomsky recently, starting at 06:19, answers that Korea is economically strong because it ignored Western, neo-liberal, economic policy. Points to Latin America, which instituted Western policy rigorously, and failed, as characteristic counter-examples. Chomsky asserts Korea suffered in 1997 because it finally gave into implementing neo-liberal Western policies, as dictated from elsewhere, in the early '90s.

06:19- end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUeni1OZG0E&feature=related
'Asia Institute Seminar with Noam Chomsky, Dec. 3rd 2011 #2'

[Kuros]

I see, I see. And what does Derek Jeter think about the U.S. security approach to Afghanistan?

[eskeemo]

[radcon]

Does "ignoring the West" include taking billions in aid, access to its markets, and living under the security umbrella provided by the West?

[eskeemo]

[goreality]

In the last 20 years the Korean economy has more than doubled. Their balance of trade has went from negative to positive. Their economy has diversified substantially. Korean's are much better off in general. Ask Koreans if they would like to go back to the 'good old days'.
The socialist-left leaning academics attack against neo-liberalism is out of touch with reality and serves a perverse agenda.

[Unposter]

Korea has had a strange combination of corporatism (strong Government -Big Business partnership) with surprisingly strong labor laws. Its economy is nothing like Western economies, especially the U.S.Before that, it was a right-wing military dictatorship.

So, what are you talking about Goreality?

Chomsky, in this isolated case, isn't far off the mark. And, he can add China and Japan to that list, too.

[bucheon bum]

[Unposter]

I can't say much about Chile and South America but I will continue to put forth that the South Korean economy is not like the U.S.'s.

It has followed a much more Japanese pattern which includes crony capitalism, high levels of protectionism, export-driven economy with surprisingly tough labor protections. I will assume with you that much of those labor protections came after Democracy in 1988 but I really don't know and I don't really understand how it is relevent.

Japan, Korea and China have all followed very unique models of development, different than the West with success (a very relative term) but China is still the 2nd largest economy in the world, Japan is third and Korea is still top 10, so it is hard not to declare them successes at some level.

Now, would I like to live as a "citizen" of any of these three countries? Probably not. I enjoy American-style freedoms. But, I think Chomsky is right that Korea has succeeded and they have not followed a Western model.

And, there is nothing lefty and socialist about the Korean economy either. It is kind of all over the place with its low taxation, weak social saftey net, nationalized health insurance, low minimum wage, crony and highly corrupt capitalism and its awkward pursuits of free trade agreements despite its history of protectionism.

Now, for whatever reason, when we look at economic development from a strict are they developing model, East Asia has far outpaced South America and I am going to guess Chile, as well.

Now, I have no idea if it is because of the economic model but you would think it would be a place to start.

Personally, I am not a big fan of Chomsky and I didn't listen/read (whatever was available) at that link. But, I totally disagree with Goreality's interpretation/description of the poitcal-economic system of Korea and its successes and problems.

[jvalmer]

I say it's dictators (long serving leaders/parties) that don't take too much out of the pot for their own use that has helped some countries get rich.

Let's look at the rich nations in Asia...
Japan was run by the same party for 50-some years.
Singapore still very much an authoritarian government.
Hong Kong never had free elections until a few years before the hand-over back to China. And note that the Brits never appointed an ethnic Chinese as governor of Hong Kong.
Taiwan was, until recently, run by a couple of military men.
South Korea was basically ruled by two guys 30 years, until the late-80's.


Of course developing a city-state is much easier than a whole country.

What all these places did was build infrastructure, protect their markets and support companies in key industries. Also, they rammed development down the populations throats.