4 ms·

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 wh

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.
        4y ago
  - fsloth 4y ago
    US military intervention and economic uplifting are partly two different things. I would limit this discussion to "how can a once poor country become an industrialized economy". Since not all countries do this, the question is incredibly interesting. Perhaps I were too harsh but "US helped them" is not a satisfactory answer. The fact that north korea is poor and south korea is not, is an interesting part of this puzzle as rare empirical sample of an area with roughly equivalent starting position well into modern history, and it should not be explained away by "because US duh". I found "Why Nations Fail" an extremely interesting book pondering the puzzle of apparent differences in economic outcomes between countries and warmly suggest it to anyone interested in the topic. It's not really about state failure but about the bigger picture of what makes some states successfull (using the metrics of the author of course).
    - karpierz 4y ago
      "Why Nations Fail" comes from the Jared Diamond school of "My Model Fits My Data So It's Causal". It's a series of just-so stories, which discounts outliers (ex: Singapore, India, China). They take the scientific method (find examples to disprove your hypothesis) and invert it (find examples that match your hypothesis), which does nothing except provide people with the feeling of confidence that they've finally come across the Truth.
      - fsloth 4y ago
        Yes, but like Guns, germs and steel it contains data even though the model is flawed, so is an interesting read in any case :) I think the key point of the book is that unless there is a massive transfer of people from place to place the power of historical institutions can carry over generations and generations. Is quality of institutions the one truth to explain it all? No, but I find it pretty hard to argue against that it is a relevant factor in historical evolution of polities regarding their quality of administration and general expectations of life outcomes of their populations. My intent was not to sell the book as "the one truth", sorry.
        karpierz 4y ago

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.
        4y ago
- fsloth 4y ago
  US military intervention and economic uplifting are partly two different things. I would limit this discussion to "how can a once poor country become an industrialized economy". Since not all countries do this, the question is incredibly interesting. Perhaps I were too harsh but "US helped them" is not a satisfactory answer. The fact that north korea is poor and south korea is not, is an interesting part of this puzzle as rare empirical sample of an area with roughly equivalent starting position well into modern history, and it should not be explained away by "because US duh". I found "Why Nations Fail" an extremely interesting book pondering the puzzle of apparent differences in economic outcomes between countries and warmly suggest it to anyone interested in the topic. It's not really about state failure but about the bigger picture of what makes some states successfull (using the metrics of the author of course).
  - karpierz 4y ago
    "Why Nations Fail" comes from the Jared Diamond school of "My Model Fits My Data So It's Causal". It's a series of just-so stories, which discounts outliers (ex: Singapore, India, China). They take the scientific method (find examples to disprove your hypothesis) and invert it (find examples that match your hypothesis), which does nothing except provide people with the feeling of confidence that they've finally come across the Truth.
    - fsloth 4y ago
      Yes, but like Guns, germs and steel it contains data even though the model is flawed, so is an interesting read in any case :) I think the key point of the book is that unless there is a massive transfer of people from place to place the power of historical institutions can carry over generations and generations. Is quality of institutions the one truth to explain it all? No, but I find it pretty hard to argue against that it is a relevant factor in historical evolution of polities regarding their quality of administration and general expectations of life outcomes of their populations. My intent was not to sell the book as "the one truth", sorry.
      - karpierz 4y ago