|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
| Julius wrote: |
| liveinkorea316 wrote: |
| the concept of individualistic vs collective cultures is hardly rocket science |
Individualistic cultures strive for personal happiness.
Collectivists strive for the material advancement of their tribe.
Personal happiness does not matter to Koreans, it is not their goal. Neither is personal or societal development. They all come a distant second to the pursuit of national economic superiority. |
In practical terms, it's why a pound of Korean ground beef costs $12. And the lack of personal development is why, for example, Hyundai Motors has to hire foreign car designers. |
First, you do realize that American companies hire foreign designers as well? It's a global economy. Everyone hires foreign firms.
Perhaps, but it is also why they were able to massively improve their standard of living, develop their economy, and when they faced a major crisis like their IMF penalty, they were able to pay off their debt incredibly quickly because everyone was willing to contribute their private money in order to clear it, as it was a source of national collective concern.
Can you imagine the citizens of certain bankrupt and bailed-out nations or states in other countries engaging in such behavior?
Everything has its plusses and minuses and depending on the situation it can be really good for a people or really bad or something inbetween. |
Yes to the IMF, but that shows a negative--while the chaebols were making out like bandits thanks to the weak won and the new ability to layoff workers, the ordinary Kim was robbing his savings to bail out the country.
You'll have to a bit more specific than "certain" for your comparison to be meaningful, if then.
They developed their economy thanks to a dictatorship, yes, but also with lots of help from other countries and world events. They've yet to establish an enough of an economy or strength to defend themselves.
Americans don't design their cars in Namyang. I doubt everyone has to hire foreigners. San Francisco airport just went through a major renovation, Miami airport too--do you think they hired foreign architects to do the design, as Korea did with Incheon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes to the IMF, but that shows a negative--while the chaebols were making out like bandits thanks to the weak won and the new ability to layoff workers, the ordinary Kim was robbing his savings to bail out the country.
|
That's true, but no more so than the financial problems plaguing Europe.
| Quote: |
They've yet to establish an enough of an economy or strength to defend themselves.
|
Actually they have, but like much of Europe they "mooch" on US defense. They have the economy to be self-reliant defensively, but not the will (largely in part because its economically rational to have that relationship)
| Quote: |
| Americans don't design their cars in Namyang. I doubt everyone has to hire foreigners. San Francisco airport just went through a major renovation, Miami airport too--do you think they hired foreign architects to do the design, as Korea did with Incheon? |
Are you suggesting that large American corporations never hire white collar foreign workers or contract with foreign firms for things like design or marketing? Are you suggesting that American architectural projects never involve foreign designs?
I sense this is a "Koreans could do no right" argument. If Koreans only designed things themselves, people would bash them for not having a more "diverse" mindset. They'd say things like "but back home, people's ideas from around the world are welcome and sought after". Conversely if Koreans hire foreign firms or advisors its "Koreans can't do anything for themselves. Back home we rely on our designs." It doesn't matter what behavior Koreans are engaging in that is right or wrong. No matter what they do they are wrong because they are Korean. They could go left, right, straight, reverse, or stop the car. It wouldn't matter, they would still be going in the wrong direction because they are Korean which makes their decisions automatically wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
augustine
Joined: 08 Sep 2012
Location: México
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| War Eagle wrote: |
| The reason I am getting so much flack is because this is the Internet, pure and simple. |
Yeah, that's it. It has nothing to do with being obviously delusional to a certain extent.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
Yes to the IMF, but that shows a negative--while the chaebols were making out like bandits thanks to the weak won and the new ability to layoff workers, the ordinary Kim was robbing his savings to bail out the country.
|
That's true, but no more so than the financial problems plaguing Europe.
| Quote: |
They've yet to establish an enough of an economy or strength to defend themselves.
|
Actually they have, but like much of Europe they "mooch" on US defense. They have the economy to be self-reliant defensively, but not the will (largely in part because its economically rational to have that relationship)
| Quote: |
| Americans don't design their cars in Namyang. I doubt everyone has to hire foreigners. San Francisco airport just went through a major renovation, Miami airport too--do you think they hired foreign architects to do the design, as Korea did with Incheon? |
Are you suggesting that large American corporations never hire white collar foreign workers or contract with foreign firms for things like design or marketing? Are you suggesting that American architectural projects never involve foreign designs?
I sense this is a "Koreans could do no right" argument. If Koreans only designed things themselves, people would bash them for not having a more "diverse" mindset. They'd say things like "but back home, people's ideas from around the world are welcome and sought after". Conversely if Koreans hire foreign firms or advisors its "Koreans can't do anything for themselves. Back home we rely on our designs." It doesn't matter what behavior Koreans are engaging in that is right or wrong. No matter what they do they are wrong because they are Korean. They could go left, right, straight, reverse, or stop the car. It wouldn't matter, they would still be going in the wrong direction because they are Korean which makes their decisions automatically wrong. |
You're senses are wrong.
You're trying, as per your wont, to argue by anecdote. Or by non sequitur, which is what your European economies comment amounts to.
As for American companies hiring foreigners, that's as American as apple pie. Surely, you've heard of Ellis Island. But that's not how collectivism works.
Do you have some numbers that prove SK could afford to defend itself and what percentage of GDP that would entail and how it would impact the standard of living here? In other words, they may be able to afford it, in the same way I could afford a Ferrari, but at what cost? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures |
South Korea is up there, they certainly could spend more.
And btw, they are largely able to maintain their own defense against North Korea. Unless you are one of those idiots who believe that Lil Kim's 5000 old Soviet tanks are going to storm Seoul.
But they are playing a very cynical game- get Washington to cover as many costs while still maintaining a high level of quality on their own. Not a noble outlook, but a rather rational one which has been played by Japan and Europe as well.
And for the record, as an American, I think that the US should stop enabling this behavior, both for Korea and Europe. However, I completely understand why the Europeans and Koreans engage in such behavior and support them in their choice to do so.
| Quote: |
| You're trying, as per your wont, to argue by anecdote. |
And your example of a couple of airports is what? Meticulously researched data?
| Quote: |
| As for American companies hiring foreigners, that's as American as apple pie. Surely, you've heard of Ellis Island. But that's not how collectivism works. |
So when Americans hire foreign workers they are doing the right thing for the right reasons, but when Koreans do it, they are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.
Okay. I understand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
So what happens to the economy if they double that, which would put them up with Japan? You're talking 5% of GDP. And Japan still has U.S. backing.
The post to which you replied was about collectivism as opposed to individualism. So it's not whether it's wrong or right to use foreign expertise, which the U.S. imports through immigration, it's about how the systems differ.
Collectivism does not by its nature encourage or enable innovation and creativity and for the most part has a hard time accepting it. Thus Korea has to use foreign architects, foreign engineers, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
So what happens to the economy if they double that, which would put them up with Japan? You're talking 5% of GDP. And Japan still has U.S. backing.
The post to which you replied was about collectivism as opposed to individualism. So it's not whether it's wrong or right to use foreign expertise, which the U.S. imports through immigration, it's about how the systems differ.
Collectivism does not by its nature encourage or enable innovation and creativity and for the most part has a hard time accepting it. Thus Korea has to use foreign architects, foreign engineers, etc. |
How do you explain Japan's success or China's? Both collectivist societies, both economic powers in their own right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cabeza
Joined: 29 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think everything can be or needs to viewed through the lens of Individualism vs. Collectivism. Obviously countries may have succeeded becuase of/inspite of both of them.
China is a good example of this. You could argue that China has only really taken off since they embraced a more Individualistic outlook with Deng's opening up of the economy and encouraging more enterprise, the break up of families as younger generations move to the cities, overt conspicuous consumption etc. At the same time there is certainly a base of Collectivism that it is built upon.
Same goes for Japan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atwood wrote: |
So what happens to the economy if they double that, which would put them up with Japan? You're talking 5% of GDP. And Japan still has U.S. backing.
The post to which you replied was about collectivism as opposed to individualism. So it's not whether it's wrong or right to use foreign expertise, which the U.S. imports through immigration, it's about how the systems differ.
Collectivism does not by its nature encourage or enable innovation and creativity and for the most part has a hard time accepting it. Thus Korea has to use foreign architects, foreign engineers, etc. |
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were responsible for plenty of innovative things and they certainly leaned collectivist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| War Eagle wrote: |
| And obviously you have never lived/grown up in the Southern US, where I can assure you, this type of behavior is much more prevalent. |
And obviously you haven't either. Southerners, far more often than not, return friendliness with friendliness and spite with spite, regardless of nationality. Race is another matter, but, unlike Korea, those opinions are borne more from experience than propaganda.
I offer no defense for Southerners' religious bigotry, though.
*edit* Looking at your name, I think you may be confusing the conceit of places like Auburn (and Oxford) with the general attitude of the entire region. Thankfully we don't all share their arrogance.
Last edited by geldedgoat on Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cabeza wrote: |
I don't think everything can be or needs to viewed through the lens of Individualism vs. Collectivism. Obviously countries may have succeeded becuase of/inspite of both of them.
China is a good example of this. You could argue that China has only really taken off since they embraced a more Individualistic outlook with Deng's opening up of the economy and encouraging more enterprise, the break up of families as younger generations move to the cities, overt conspicuous consumption etc. At the same time there is certainly a base of Collectivism that it is built upon.
Same goes for Japan. |
Exactly and same goes for Korea.
It is a mix of each element. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PatrickGHBusan wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
So what happens to the economy if they double that, which would put them up with Japan? You're talking 5% of GDP. And Japan still has U.S. backing.
The post to which you replied was about collectivism as opposed to individualism. So it's not whether it's wrong or right to use foreign expertise, which the U.S. imports through immigration, it's about how the systems differ.
Collectivism does not by its nature encourage or enable innovation and creativity and for the most part has a hard time accepting it. Thus Korea has to use foreign architects, foreign engineers, etc. |
How do you explain Japan's success or China's? Both collectivist societies, both economic powers in their own right. |
I've already addressed Japan in response to one of your earlier posts.
China and Korea both used the Fast Follower model for economic success. They copy. China's success is mostly a matter of size--population and natural resources. It has nothing to do with innovation and very little to do with R&D.
Because manufacturers so want a crack at China's vast population and also its cheap labor, they have entered joint ventures with Chinese companies (the government in many cases) that force them to share parts of their technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
So what happens to the economy if they double that, which would put them up with Japan? You're talking 5% of GDP. And Japan still has U.S. backing.
The post to which you replied was about collectivism as opposed to individualism. So it's not whether it's wrong or right to use foreign expertise, which the U.S. imports through immigration, it's about how the systems differ.
Collectivism does not by its nature encourage or enable innovation and creativity and for the most part has a hard time accepting it. Thus Korea has to use foreign architects, foreign engineers, etc. |
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were responsible for plenty of innovative things and they certainly leaned collectivist. |
Most of the German scientists you're probably referring to were trapped in rather than a product of Nazi Germany.
I'm no Russian history expert, but obviously it has a long tradition of arts and sciences begun before Communism and it took several decades for Communism to grow into Stalin's collectivism. Considering how many leading Russian scientists were dissidents, I'd think Russia's achievements were in spite of collectivism, with help from a great spy network.
I've already posted that it's a nuanced argument, but one still has to see the forest for the trees. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
earthquakez
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| atwood wrote: |
So what happens to the economy if they double that, which would put them up with Japan? You're talking 5% of GDP. And Japan still has U.S. backing.
The post to which you replied was about collectivism as opposed to individualism. So it's not whether it's wrong or right to use foreign expertise, which the U.S. imports through immigration, it's about how the systems differ.
Collectivism does not by its nature encourage or enable innovation and creativity and for the most part has a hard time accepting it. Thus Korea has to use foreign architects, foreign engineers, etc. |
Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were responsible for plenty of innovative things and they certainly leaned collectivist. |
Somebody needs to take a big slice of humble pie or all of the pie itself and get some knowledge before they post here. Hint - it's not Attwood, others, me.
Nazi Germany was certainly innovative in designing death camps that killed maximum numbers of people with minimum first hand butchery needed by the staff there. The use of Zyklon B divorced the obscene reality of genocide - just herd in the women and children, some of whom were babies, turn on the taps and there you go. Clinical killing without all the bullets and blood. Same for the men and boys.
Soviet Russia's propaganda machine under both Lenin and Stalin was amazingly effective. Mass murders of democratic workers' groups, the soviets, so that the democratic mass movements suddenly became the enemy and not the elitist Bolsheviks.
As for supposed innovation in both countries - in Lenin's time western manufacturers were building railway lines and factories there despite all the nonsense about how Soviet Russia went rogue because of the dreadful western capitalists trying to destroy the revolution. They gave Lenin the technology to keep the dictatorship alive, it carried over to Stalin.
The Soviet Union had a space program later because of this western technology. It was not a huge feat for a dictatorship to put resources into military and space research because under dictatorships nobody can oppose the countrys' resources going into those things instead of encouraging freedom, quality housing, quality food and quality education.
Much of the talk of Nazi Germany's technological advancements in aircraft etc is just that. Talk and myth. Prescott Bush, the father of George Bush senior and the grandfather of George Bush Junior, was connected with American industrialists who were giving technology to and trading with Nazi Germany when there was an embargo on this kind of activity.
Prior to Hitler, under the Weimar Republic there were significant technological and other developments that were used by the Nazis later. They seized those German companies and used them for the Nazi state. The innovation was prior to Nazi Germany and again like the Soviets, the Nazis monopolised these resources for their various programs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
