3 ms·

No, it's actually pretty dry compared to the real thing happened in the bond market. What it means is that no bond could be fully trusted in South Korea in the

No, it's actually pretty dry compared to the real thing happened in the bond market. What it means is that no bond could be fully trusted in South Korea in the long term. Whenever political power shifted, some crazy politician can decide to default it and there's no system to stop them from doing such stuff. If you cannot trust government-issued bonds, you don't have the economical foundation at all. > Wouldn't it have been easier to retract the policy of the local government, sack the local leaders, etc., to rollback the loss of trust? That would help the situation, but the only solution here would be the systematic guarantee to punish such politicians but we don't have any hope for a foreseeable future since the governor is from the ruling party and was a prosecutor. South Korean prosecutors are the worst for this job, they're corrupted to the root and is a highly political entity but without being elected. I don't see any possibility of prosecuting the governor for abuse of power.

MichaelZuo 4y ago
Thanks for responding, I edited my comment afterwards as I did some digging and it does seem to have seriously damaged mutual trust in SK. Not exaggerated at all by FP, my first impression was incorrect.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  An important thing to keep in mind is that despite South Korea’s wealth, the sharp rise in its economy and relatively recent regime change means that its institutions are not battle-tested. This causes its markets to behave more similarly to developing markets, because the institutional trust is not there. It also does not help that historically it was one of the worse managed Asian Tiger economies. During the 1998 crisis it was the only East Asian economy to need an IMF bailout, and it has a very well publicized revolving door of pardons for chaebol CEOs convicted of things like bribery and fraud.
yongjik 4y ago
> the only solution here would be the systematic guarantee to punish such politicians ... Yeah I don't think it would work, even in principle. Being an idiot is not a crime, and you can't prosecute politicians for being grossly incompetent, unless they break the law. Besides, as you already pointed out, any such system would be abused by politicians and their supporters to "get back at" their opponents. I'm pretty sure many who voted for Yoon specifically did it to watch his predecessor Moon going to prison. (I guess they will have to keep waiting - you can like or hate Moon, but nobody made a convincing case of corruption.)
- avianlyric 4y ago
  > Yeah I don't think it would work, even in principle. Being an idiot is not a crime, and you can't prosecute politicians for being grossly incompetent, unless they break the law. Depends what you’re doing. Here in the UK, it is a crime to be an idiot if you’re a member of senior management in bank (there 10 or so “prescribed roles” that can only be held by a single individual at a time that are considered senior management). Laws exists because wilful ignorance and deliberate idiocy was a large component of why no banker went to jail after 2008.
- r00fus 4y ago
  > Being an idiot is not a crime Criminal negligence is a thing [0]. It's just not applied to politicians yet (probably because they write the laws). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

MichaelZuo 4y ago

Thanks for responding, I edited my comment afterwards as I did some digging and it does seem to have seriously damaged mutual trust in SK. Not exaggerated at all by FP, my first impression was incorrect.

bobthepanda 4y ago
An important thing to keep in mind is that despite South Korea’s wealth, the sharp rise in its economy and relatively recent regime change means that its institutions are not battle-tested. This causes its markets to behave more similarly to developing markets, because the institutional trust is not there. It also does not help that historically it was one of the worse managed Asian Tiger economies. During the 1998 crisis it was the only East Asian economy to need an IMF bailout, and it has a very well publicized revolving door of pardons for chaebol CEOs convicted of things like bribery and fraud.

yongjik 4y ago

> the only solution here would be the systematic guarantee to punish such politicians ... Yeah I don't think it would work, even in principle. Being an idiot is not a crime, and you can't prosecute politicians for being grossly incompetent, unless they break the law. Besides, as you already pointed out, any such system would be abused by politicians and their supporters to "get back at" their opponents. I'm pretty sure many who voted for Yoon specifically did it to watch his predecessor Moon going to prison. (I guess they will have to keep waiting - you can like or hate Moon, but nobody made a convincing case of corruption.)

avianlyric 4y ago
> Yeah I don't think it would work, even in principle. Being an idiot is not a crime, and you can't prosecute politicians for being grossly incompetent, unless they break the law. Depends what you’re doing. Here in the UK, it is a crime to be an idiot if you’re a member of senior management in bank (there 10 or so “prescribed roles” that can only be held by a single individual at a time that are considered senior management). Laws exists because wilful ignorance and deliberate idiocy was a large component of why no banker went to jail after 2008.
r00fus 4y ago
> Being an idiot is not a crime Criminal negligence is a thing [0]. It's just not applied to politicians yet (probably because they write the laws). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence