5 ms·

South Korea and Ghana were at the exact same place 50 years ago. South Korea’s leadership were largely competent, so they’ve industrialized and used trade to be

South Korea and Ghana were at the exact same place 50 years ago. South Korea’s leadership were largely competent, so they’ve industrialized and used trade to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Ghana has not had nearly as good leadership and institutions, so they haven’t. Everyone constantly blames the West for all the problems of the world. If trade was really that deleterious to developing countries, you wouldn’t see the rise of China happening at all

karpierz 4y ago
South Korea had a propped up dictatorship that the United States strengthened and funded because they were scared of commies. Meanwhile Ghana had a dictator which was saddled with US loans who was overthrown. But the country still had to pay the loans back, despite them being will outside of their means.
- fsloth 4y ago
  This is extremely disrespectful of the economic savvy and work ethic of South Korean people. Korean state had an extremely focused industrial policy to improve the added value created by the country's economic output. The thing that needs critique here is that free trade would be somehow always beneficial. South Koreans state aggressively supported those industries it wanted to uplift. Countries do rise up from third world countries to advanced industries. It just does not happen very often - sadly. Another example of a country that rose from total poverty to industrialized advanced economy is my home country Finland which was in the 18th century dirt poor, started to industrialize, and only after second world war started to get some resemblance of wealth. However, the long history of poverty is still reflected to this day in lack of capital (are there other reasons for lack of capital I'm not sure).
  - karpierz 4y ago
    Your implication is that Ghana failed where South Korea succeeded because they didn't work hard enough. Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. But in South Korea, the US protected them and funded them. Meanwhile in Ghana, the US stripped them of their wealth. How well off do you think South Korea would be if the US didn't intervene in the Korean War?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - yucky 4y ago
      > Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. By what measure did Ghana work as hard as South Korea did? Is that just an assumption?
      - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
        Yes, similar to the assumption that the differences between North and South Korea can't be put down to "lazy people" and "hard working people" being magically seperated on opposite sides of the border.
      - l3uwin 4y ago
        Think reaaaaaaaal hard about who you're calling lazy and what might be influincing your opinion there.
        yucky 4y ago
        Think reaaaaaaaal hard about why you filled in your own blanks and called them lazy..
        l3uwin 4y ago
        If you're going to defend calling an entire African country lazy, maybe this is for you https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.htm https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.h... https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotype-in-Reconstruction-America_fig1_274307150 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotyp...
        yucky 4y ago
        Could you quote where I called them lazy? Or perhaps you're responding to the wrong user? The alternative is that you're being intentionally dishonest, I would hope that's not the case though.
wazoox 4y ago
Ha-Joon Chang explains the case of South Korea in details in his book "Kicking away the ladder": Korea developed because it was extremely protectionist, while receiving substantial financial support from the US (because of North Korea, China and USSR). While Ghana has been under the rule of the IMF the whole time. IMF policies are arguably extremely toxic; they basically guarantee that countries can't develop by keeping them open to a flood of subsidized products from more powerful countries, killing their ability to develop their agriculture and industry. China developed similarly by stringently protecting its interior markets. The US did the same in the 19th century. Basically, all countries that successfully developed were staunchly protectionist, then became "free traders" once they become powerful enough to defend themselves on open markets. See https://www.allencheng.com/kicking-away-the-ladder-book-summary-ha-joon-chang/ https://www.allencheng.com/kicking-away-the-ladder-book-summ...
- zozbot234 4y ago
  > IMF policies are arguably extremely toxic Correlation, not causation. The whole point of IMF intervention is to rescue countries that are already in the toilet, and need to consolidate foreign debt.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    I wonder if a lot of those countries would do better to declare bankruptcy and not pay those debts.
    - kodyo 4y ago
      If by country you mean the people who live there, yes. If you mean whatever oligarchy is nominally in charge, well, the bankers can make sure they’re taken care of as long as the interest payments keep rolling in.
    - deterministic 4y ago
      Iceland did this? And it worked beautifully.
    - 4y ago

karpierz 4y ago

South Korea had a propped up dictatorship that the United States strengthened and funded because they were scared of commies. Meanwhile Ghana had a dictator which was saddled with US loans who was overthrown. But the country still had to pay the loans back, despite them being will outside of their means.

fsloth 4y ago
This is extremely disrespectful of the economic savvy and work ethic of South Korean people. Korean state had an extremely focused industrial policy to improve the added value created by the country's economic output. The thing that needs critique here is that free trade would be somehow always beneficial. South Koreans state aggressively supported those industries it wanted to uplift. Countries do rise up from third world countries to advanced industries. It just does not happen very often - sadly. Another example of a country that rose from total poverty to industrialized advanced economy is my home country Finland which was in the 18th century dirt poor, started to industrialize, and only after second world war started to get some resemblance of wealth. However, the long history of poverty is still reflected to this day in lack of capital (are there other reasons for lack of capital I'm not sure).
- karpierz 4y ago
  Your implication is that Ghana failed where South Korea succeeded because they didn't work hard enough. Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. But in South Korea, the US protected them and funded them. Meanwhile in Ghana, the US stripped them of their wealth. How well off do you think South Korea would be if the US didn't intervene in the Korean War?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - yucky 4y ago
    > Of course people in South Korea worked hard to get where they are. So did people in Ghana. By what measure did Ghana work as hard as South Korea did? Is that just an assumption?
    - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
      Yes, similar to the assumption that the differences between North and South Korea can't be put down to "lazy people" and "hard working people" being magically seperated on opposite sides of the border.
    - l3uwin 4y ago
      Think reaaaaaaaal hard about who you're calling lazy and what might be influincing your opinion there.
      - yucky 4y ago
        Think reaaaaaaaal hard about why you filled in your own blanks and called them lazy..
        l3uwin 4y ago
        If you're going to defend calling an entire African country lazy, maybe this is for you https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.htm https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/links/essays/vcu.h... https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotype-in-Reconstruction-America_fig1_274307150 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Lazy-Black-stereotyp...
        yucky 4y ago
        Could you quote where I called them lazy? Or perhaps you're responding to the wrong user? The alternative is that you're being intentionally dishonest, I would hope that's not the case though.

wazoox 4y ago

Ha-Joon Chang explains the case of South Korea in details in his book "Kicking away the ladder": Korea developed because it was extremely protectionist, while receiving substantial financial support from the US (because of North Korea, China and USSR). While Ghana has been under the rule of the IMF the whole time. IMF policies are arguably extremely toxic; they basically guarantee that countries can't develop by keeping them open to a flood of subsidized products from more powerful countries, killing their ability to develop their agriculture and industry. China developed similarly by stringently protecting its interior markets. The US did the same in the 19th century. Basically, all countries that successfully developed were staunchly protectionist, then became "free traders" once they become powerful enough to defend themselves on open markets. See https://www.allencheng.com/kicking-away-the-ladder-book-summary-ha-joon-chang/ https://www.allencheng.com/kicking-away-the-ladder-book-summ...

zozbot234 4y ago
> IMF policies are arguably extremely toxic Correlation, not causation. The whole point of IMF intervention is to rescue countries that are already in the toilet, and need to consolidate foreign debt.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  I wonder if a lot of those countries would do better to declare bankruptcy and not pay those debts.
  - kodyo 4y ago
    If by country you mean the people who live there, yes. If you mean whatever oligarchy is nominally in charge, well, the bankers can make sure they’re taken care of as long as the interest payments keep rolling in.
  - deterministic 4y ago
    Iceland did this? And it worked beautifully.
  - 4y ago