Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[Q Classic]

protectionism was a good thing for korea.

without it, there would be no native korean industries in the following sectors, meaning that both north and south would be backwards:
electronics
automobiles
steel
shipbuilding
chemicals
petrochemicals
textiles
banking
IT
telecommunications
biotechnology

if it weren't for protectionism, you wouldn't have samsung cellphones, hyundai cars, posco steel, SK telecom, or lineage II.

[Oncle Boris]

All right Q-Cubed, I wasn't really saying that the corporations were no help, but rather that it had never been their goal to "help" the workforce.

I sure can't deny what you said about sweatshops, but that's my point: if you need them, better having them ran by yourself than from foreigners who are only looking for a cheap and disposable workforce.

I could bring the example of my own nation, Quebec, whose economy was sweatshop and mining driven until the sixties. The problem is, the shops belonged to the English and the Americans, who had no interest other than exploiting the workforce and never truly reinvested their money in a useful pattern. Our alleged "democratic" governments were nothing more than Catholic right-wing puppets of the large corporations, who sent the police every time workers went on strike.
So, during the sixties, we managed to give ourselves a welfare state and truly progressist working laws. The sweatshops started agonizing, but Quebecers built a "new economy" with the expertise they acquired themselves- don't count on a foreign corporation to do this for you. The government, through massive investments, was in large part responsible for this rebirth. Now, Quebec's economy is mostly export driven and ran by local, small enterprises.

I'm not saying that Korea did this. I'm only going back to the point of my thread, which says that the only "globalization" the US is pushing is one where the large corporations dictate economic policies and are only looking for a cheap and enslaved workforce. Isn't it ironic that the countries who benefitted the most from "free market" rose during the 70s and the 80s, before the contemporary, post-cold war globalization kicked in? Could this be due to the easier protectionism available at the time, as opposed to the all-out deregulations sought by the WTO and the IMF?

[Ramo]

But I'll have to go with the Krugman school of thought and say that South Korea's (as well as the other Asian tigers') rapid growth isn't really due to its protectionist/corporatist policies, but to simple things like a high savings rate, decent education, and the breakup of landlords' power. Eventually, South Korea will go the way of Japan if it continues its corporatist policies.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ramo
But I'll have to go with the Krugman school of thought and say that South Korea's (as well as the other Asian tigers') rapid growth isn't really due to its protectionist/corporatist policies, but to simple things like a high savings rate, decent education, and the breakup of landlords' power. Eventually, South Korea will go the way of Japan if it continues its corporatist policies.

Yes, DECENT EDUCATION- which necessarily requires:
-no child labor
-generous state funding of schools
-and decent salaries so that the working class can send their children to school

Could you really say the current globalization trend has done anything for this...

[Ramo]

1. I didn't defend "globalization," much less say that "globalization" gives the poor better access to schools.
2. The vast majority of South Korean kids - including the poor - go to school. IIRC several percent of South Korea's GDP goes into public education (i.e., much more than the US).

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ramo
1. I didn't defend "globalization," much less say that "globalization" gives the poor better access to schools.
2. The vast majority of South Korean kids - including the poor - go to school. IIRC several percent of South Korea's GDP goes into public education (i.e., much more than the US).

Don't worry Ramo, I was not asking YOU the question, but rather those who have been attacking me from the beginning.

As for education, if we look at what the US did to Nicaragua, when the Sandinists started building schools for their population, then we'll all know that kind of globalization they are defending.

[Q Classic]

Eventually, South Korea will go the way of Japan if it continues its corporatist policies.

skorea is leading the region in banking reform. so it's doubtful.

Yes, DECENT EDUCATION- which necessarily requires:
-no child labor
-generous state funding of schools
-and decent salaries so that the working class can send their children to school

honestly? that's a function of culture. they still had child labor in sweatshops. there's an average class size of 40 or so, iirc. and kids regularly go to school at 7a and come home at 10 or 11p--even as young as fourth grade. so i'd put that less a factor of government/globalization and rather as culture.

[Q Classic]

[edit]

[Ramo]

skorea is leading the region in banking reform. so it's doubtful.

Just saying more corporatism will lead to a Japan-like economic funk, not that South Korea is necessarily heading down that path.