Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Best Korea and Dear Leader's Howitzers

178101213

Posts

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Just for fun, can I get a citation for that precedent?

  • EchoEcho very gravitas Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited November 2010
    Hans Brix for benevolent dictator!

    Blix. I mean Blix.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    So nothing is free. So what? The government spends a ton of money to stabilize the country, maybe takes out huge loans or whatever, then works on development, pays it all back later with a country that's twice as alrge and populous as before, without having a crazy nukey dictator to the north. They could probably even/would have an excuse to stop conscripting men at that point.

    I'm not saying that it would be a cakewalk, but while takeover and development aren't easy, they're difficult roads to almost certain improvement to the status quo.

    "Spends a ton of money?" Have you any idea how much money that would be? To spend that mony would bankrupt South Korea. It doesn't have enough money to stabilise North Kroea by itself. It probably doesn't even have it with mass international support. Take out massive loans? Yeah, again, the sheer amount needed is incredible, the country's debt would skyrocket.

    OK, so you re-unify North and South Korea into one country. Now a third of your population is distinctly malnourished with in all likelihood educations which are in the case of history etc likely massively skewed and in the case of engineering and sciences also quite possibly far behind the profesionals in the South. Even without that problem these people have no money. Assuming that the South survives relatively intact you are going to see mass population movement from the North to the South as Northerners desperate seek the higher wages and living standards available down there.

    Unfortunately this massive influx will in all likelihood put massive strain on the South infrastructure, cause wide scale unemployment and probably result in the creation of an underclass made of ex NK citizens, something which would be very bad. Now what you want to do as a government is pour money into re-education and the building of infrastructure in the North, which will result in Northerners being able to support the economy from their end. But as i said the costs of this, even with foreign aid, will be truly astronomical.

    As this is all after the initial problem of establishing government in the North and starting to try and take care of millions of starving people. The North Korean government is highly involved in it's citizens lives and there is no alternate to that involvement right now. SK will have to take that place as well as trying to deal with the basic issues such as power, food etc. The SK government will also be having to deal with people who will find the SK way to running the show completely different to what they are used to. In all likelihood American troops will be in the street of North Korea, something which will be very, very strange to the North Koreans and might cause outbreaks of Anti-West insurgency (and SK can't not accept that US' help, because they really do need it).

    West and East Germany re-unifying was crippling to the West German economy. And the difference between West and East Germany is not nearly the same as North and South Korea. In some areas in North Korea they don't even have electricity. The war is in many ways not what governments are afraid of, it's dealing with the aftermath which will be the bigger problem. Because of South Korea collapses trying to stabilise the North that wouldn't help anyone.

    Mm... I think the debt would skyrocket, yes, but that doesn't seem like something that would ruin the country. It would be painful, but, well, again, this is the hard road to resolving the North Korea situation, and once north Korea picks itself up, the unified Korea would likely be pretty impressive.

    I'm sure there would be some strain on the infrastructure, but I don't see why it would be catastrophic. I'm not sure that severe controls on population movements would be necessary, but they're an option if stability turned out to be a concern.

    A problem with statements like "now a third of your population is distinctly malnourished" and "result in the creation of an underclass" is that these are problems that exist now, but they're in an apartheid state, imposed by a criminal leader who prevents them from solving the problems that they're in.

    Also, when you say "West and East Germany re-unifying was crippling to the West German economy"... well, that was temporary. Germany's in pretty great shape now. All of this seems like reiterations of the notion that it would be an arduous process, and I don't disagree with that.

    I do disagree with the notion that South Korea would somehow collapse. I don't think you'll find a suitable historical analogy to that particular scenario.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Just for fun, can I get a citation for that precedent?

    To be a precedent someone's gotta go first. One can hope once they get over how fucking awesome military technology is and realize what an impact this could have on Blizzards motivation to finish up Heat of the Swarm.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    I agree with this. Various forms of authoritarian state capitalism style mixed economies seems to have worked remarkably well in East Asia in a number of instances.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Just for fun, can I get a citation for that precedent?

    just a thought really. Though you could look at the Soviet collapse as being a lot faster version of this. I'm simply saying this this would probably be a better option than war.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Just for fun, can I get a citation for that precedent?

    just a thought really. Though you could look at the Soviet collapse as being a lot faster version of this. I'm simply saying this this would probably be a better option than war.

    The problem with war is that it's appealing because there's basically zero risk of me being involved in it, and it seems like maybe - despite it not working all those other times - we could solve a bunch of problems in one shot. And hell, even if I might be involved in it (at some point there was a minor risk of this) - I'd be naive enough to think it'd be a chance to prove my manhood and have stories which would win any internet argument.

    The problem is: this has never fucking happened, and to an extent that's depressing since you'd think when a bunch of people die for something we'd actually make a better future.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Mm... I think the debt would skyrocket, yes, but that doesn't seem like something that would ruin the country. It would be painful, but, well, again, this is the hard road to resolving the North Korea situation, and once north Korea picks itself up, the unified Korea would likely be pretty impressive.

    I'm sure there would be some strain on the infrastructure, but I don't see why it would be catastrophic. I'm not sure that severe controls on population movements would be necessary, but they're an option if stability turned out to be a concern.

    A problem with statements like "now a third of your population is distinctly malnourished" and "result in the creation of an underclass" is that these are problems that exist now, but they're in an apartheid state, imposed by a criminal leader who prevents them from solving the problems that they're in.

    Also, when you say "West and East Germany re-unifying was crippling to the West German economy"... well, that was temporary. Germany's in pretty great shape now. All of this seems like reiterations of the notion that it would be an arduous process, and I don't disagree with that.

    I do disagree with the notion that South Korea would somehow collapse. I don't think you'll find a suitable historical analogy to that particular scenario.

    You don't see how South Korea having to spend more money than they have available to them in order to try and bring stability to the North would ruin the country? You say once the North picks itself up it could help out, but we are talking decades here. If North Korea was a positive aspect of the Korean ecenomy ten years after reunification I would be absolutely staggered. We are talking at least a decade of South Korea essentially propping up a population half as big as it's own. That will almost certainly be devastating.

    As for the strain on the infrastructure, if you prevented population movement then yes the South wouldn't be so overstretched. However then you have, again, twenty five milion refugees waiting for someone to help them in the North of the country. That's what it would be. Infrastructure that survived the war would likely be so broken as to be useless, the people, already starving, would probably find themselves in even worse conditions and this is following what would almost certainly be widespread bombing.

    If South Korea cannot go in a resolve the situation without getting ruined then there is no point, because at the end of it all that will have happened is that the North Koreans will now be free but still fucked, and the South Koreans will still be free but now fucked. There is no point in going to war with North Korea unless there is a fucking solid gold plan of how you are going to make re-unification work without bankrupting South Korea. This happens every fucking time countries go to war. They think loads about the conflict and how to fight it and how to win it but they don't fucking consider what the effects will be afterwards. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, all money-sinks with no end because of the aftermath. Iraq isn't like it is because the US cocked up the war, it's because they cocked up their administration after the war.
    The problem with war is that it's appealing because there's basically zero risk of me being involved in it, and it seems like maybe - despite it not working all those other times - we could solve a bunch of problems in one shot. And hell, even if I might be involved in it (at some point there was a minor risk of this) - I'd be naive enough to think it'd be a chance to prove my manhood and have stories which would win any internet argument.

    The problem is: this has never fucking happened, and to an extent that's depressing since you'd think when a bunch of people die for something we'd actually make a better future.

    Pretty much. War is a means for an end. It is not an end in itself, it does not solve problems, it merely allows the winner to deal with the problems in the way they choose to. If you don't like how North Korea is run then going to war and kicking ass may seem appealing because straight up, traditional war is a pretty simple concept (destroy them) even if it isn't always easy. But that doesn't make things better for the North Koreans. It just means the South Koreans now have the opportunity to try and deal with their problems. And if they can't without fucking themselves up while doing it there is no point in going to war.

  • autono-wally, erotibot300autono-wally, erotibot300 love machine Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Klash wrote: »
    Because it wrecks one country in order to bring a bit more to another?

    I'd love to hear what kind of economy would be possible out of that mess. Let's stay SK gets NK and all goes well, whats the best case scenario? How long before SK is third world-broke and how long to recover? Anybody got an idea?

    What do you mean it "wrecks one country"? In what way would South Korea be "wrecked"? What would prevent South Korea from developing North Korea into a decent economy?

    The massive amount of funds that would take, are you not reading?

    So nothing is free. So what? The government spends a ton of money to stabilize the country, maybe takes out huge loans or whatever, then works on development, pays it all back later with a country that's twice as alrge and populous as before, without having a crazy nukey dictator to the north. They could probably even/would have an excuse to stop conscripting men at that point.

    I'm not saying that it would be a cakewalk, but while takeover and development aren't easy, they're difficult roads to almost certain improvement to the status quo.
    the re-unificartion of germany was a huge process, that fucked west germany's economy for about 20 years. it's seriously only now getting back to where it was. and eastern germany was not in any way as fucked, economically, as NK is. the process would completely fuck the south for at least the next 30-40 years, economically

    sc.jpgsc.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    You don't see how South Korea having to spend more money than they have available to them in order to try and bring stability to the North would ruin the country?

    What exactly do you mean by ruin? What does that imply? Somalia? Iraq? Ireland?

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    You don't see how South Korea having to spend more money than they have available to them in order to try and bring stability to the North would ruin the country?

    What exactly do you mean by ruin? What does that imply? Somalia? Iraq? Ireland?

    They would be vastly different situations. Would South Korea be reduced to a situation like Somalia? Well no, because Somalia has massive issues with tribal violence which South Korea does not have and is highly unlikely to get. Would it be like Ireland is now? Well no, because Ireland is not occupying another country filled with starving refugees.

    I would go so far as to say that that situation is not something we really have a comparison to in recent history, apart from European reunification after 1989, most significantly East and West Germany. But even then the situation is different in many ways, most critically in the sheer size of the gap between NK and SK but also because the US pumped money into that situation but are currently having a lot of trouble of their own, so that may not be as viable now. As people have said twenty years later that reunification still has an impact, East Germany is still poorer than the West and their economy had some very serious issues before that, issues that have only recently been dealt with.

    This is many magnitudes more serious than East and West Germany. Many magnitudes. We haven't really seen it before, if war and reunification happened now I shudder to think what the aftermath might be. As I said, probably the biggest humanitarian crisis in recent history placed into the hands of a country who simply doesn't have the money to deal with it and whose allies are in very bad financial striaghts.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I don't see why you guys are arguing about this. A lot of professional economists have written reports about what unification would look like and how much it would cost. here's one: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704340304574635180086832934.html
    North Korea's per capita income is less than 5% of the South's. Each year the dollar value of South Korea's GDP expansion equals the entire North Korean economy. The North's population is half the South's and rising thanks to a high birth rate. North and South also barely trade with each other. To catch up to the South, North Korea will need more resources than East Germany required if living standards on both sides of the peninsula are to be close to each other.

    More than a dozen reports by governments, academics and investment banks in recent years have attempted to estimate the cost of Korean unification. At the low end, the Rand Corporation estimates $50 billion. But that assumes only a doubling of Northern incomes from current levels, which would leave incomes in the North at less than 10% of the South.

    At the high end, Credit Suisse estimated last year that unification would cost $1.5 trillion, but with North Korean incomes rising to only 60% of those in the South. I estimate that raising Northern incomes to 80% of Southern levels—which would likely be a political necessity—would cost anywhere from $2 trillion to $5 trillion, spread out over 30 years. That would work out to at least $40,000 per capita if distributed solely among South Koreans.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    You know ranging from $50 billion to $1.5 trillion...I can't see how we're not arguing.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    You know ranging from $50 billion to $1.5 trillion...I can't see how we're not arguing.

    Yeah, that is a massive difference.

    Though the fifty billion seems to be for doubled NK income, which isn't a lot of money at all. It's when they started going for solid percentages of SK income that it started to shoot up.

  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The devastating effect of a war on SK and the effect on its economy would bridge the gap a bit.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    MKR wrote: »
    The devastating effect of such a war on SK and its economy would bridge the gap a bit.

    But not in a good direction.

  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    You know ranging from $50 billion to $1.5 trillion...I can't see how we're not arguing.

    50 billion gets them to 10%, 1.5 trillion gets them to 50%, and 2-5 trillion gets them to 80%.
    Admittedly those estimates are from different sources, but they're not contradictory.

  • TimeSynchTimeSynch Registered User
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Makes me wonder how the situation would be like if one of Jong-Il's other sons were made successor instead of Nutjob McNutbutter III. By most accounts, his other potential heirs were more moderate in their political and social views than Jong-Un, but I guess it's pointless now to speculate.

    Just like America doesn't need to add another war to cock up our economy (and the inevitable occupation and reconstruction), I doubt think most South Koreans want a full scale conflict to cock up theirs. Imagine the sell offs of stocks and the impact of the global economy if shit did happen to go down.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Not looking good.

    As ever, don't read the comments unless you want a laugh.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    TimeSynch wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Makes me wonder how the situation would be like if one of Jong-Il's other sons were made successor instead of Nutjob McNutbutter III. By most accounts, his other potential heirs were more moderate in their political and social views than Jong-Un, but I guess it's pointless now to speculate.

    Just like America doesn't need to add another war to cock up our economy (and the inevitable occupation and reconstruction), I doubt think most South Koreans want a full scale conflict to cock up theirs. Imagine the sell offs of stocks and the impact of the global economy if shit did happen to go down.

    Couldn't we like, accidentally poison the crazy one?

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • WaffenWaffen Ours is the Fury Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    Not looking good.

    As ever, don't read the comments unless you want a laugh.

    ugh the comments. Blatant internet trolling just isn't funny anymore.

    North Korea is practicing brinksmanship again. They'll back down in a few weeks once the West caves in to their latest demand.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    L|ama wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    what's kinda weird is this:

    Two_koreas_gdp_1950_1977.jpg
    S. Korea / N. Korea GDP per capita (in 1990 Geary-Khamis dollars) 1950-1977.

    Although that's a graph without any sources listed from wikipedia, so grain of salt the size of Kim Jong-Il's ego.

    Looks about right. South Korea's economic explosion started around the time that graph ends.

    But it shows NK levelling off far more dramatically than SK exploding. The only thing I can see that coincides with that is Kim Il-Sung no longer being premier in 1972, but he still had all the power so I dunno what the deal is. Ideas?

    ECONOMICS TIME

    Okay, there are basically two ways to generate economic growth in a hurry. The first is basically factor mobilization - people are working at home (e.g., as housewives); pull them off and put them in the factories. There's an unexploited lake there, go build a hydro dam. 50% of people have a high school education; make that 90%. etc.

    The second is productivity improvement - given the same amount of labor and capital, make more stuff. This sort of thing is only achievable through technological progress and better - not merely more, but better - education.

    Now the trick is that Stalinism is very good at generating the former - better than any democratic capitalist state, in fact. The reasons should be fairly obvious: it is easy to mobilize labor when you treat your entire population as an army to be ordered about, and it is easy to find funds to create more capital when you can arbitrarily order said population to consume less. And don't get me wrong here, some amount of mobilization is good - but it's the sort of trick you can only do once. You can only hike %employed/population to 70%+ once. Then your growth falls back down to mediocre levels, due to suppressing incentives to innovate.

    Roughly speaking, the only reason SK even kept up with NK up till 1970 is tons and tons of US investment via direct aid, grants, IMF loans, and integration into international capital markets (i.e., private lenders). You can see this via the staggering amounts of foreign debt South Korea racked up across the period - domestic saving stayed flat; imports and investment skyrocketed, and if you examine breakdown by sector it is apparent that much of investment when straight toward importing industrial machinery from the West. Instead of mobilizing capital internally (suppress consumption, redirect resources toward creating capital), as North Korea did, South Korea simply took a lot of loans and just bought capital from other countries.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    So nothing is free. So what? The government spends a ton of money to stabilize the country, maybe takes out huge loans or whatever, then works on development, pays it all back later with a country that's twice as large and populous as before, without having a crazy nukey dictator to the north. They could probably even/would have an excuse to stop conscripting men at that point.

    I'm not saying that it would be a cakewalk, but while takeover and development aren't easy, they're difficult roads to almost certain improvement to the status quo.

    "Spends a ton of money?" Have you any idea how much money that would be? To spend that money would bankrupt South Korea. It doesn't have enough money to stabilise North Korea by itself. It probably doesn't even have it with mass international support. Take out massive loans? Yeah, again, the sheer amount needed is incredible, the country's debt would skyrocket.

    ...

    ... yes. Yes, it would. But why is that a problem? Development loans so large that they can only be paid off over the better part of a century are hardly unknown.

    Don't get me wrong here, it would take decades for quality of life to catch up. If you expect it to happen in a matter of years, you're going to be disappointed. But it would still be a dramatic improvement over what would otherwise occur, namely a postponement of the inevitable problem.

    e: I agree with Loren's argument; Solar, if it were the case that South Korea had to rely on its own domestic saving to fund North Korean development, yes, it would find that difficult. But there is no need for it do so. It can borrow from other countries as well.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Just for fun, can I get a citation for that precedent?

    Taiwan and for that matter South Korea were both dictatorships not too long ago. But perhaps Solar was thinking of the PRC's Deng. Insofar as we agree that peaceful reunification (not takeover by the South) is problematic primarily due to North Korea's insularity and poverty, there is plenty of precedent for economic growth and relative openness under dictatorial rule.

    But wishing for a benevolent dictator is nigh useless anyway.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    That graph isn't that surprising if you've ever actually looked at the South Korean leadership through much of its history. People in North America tend to assume South Korea had a society as open as say that of Japan in the period after the first two post-war decades--that's just incorrect (indeed, we tend to overestimate how open Japanese society was due to the systematic white washing of the Allied occupation by the post-War government).

    What South Korea had was a brutal military dictatorship comparable to that of Taiwan at the same time or Argentina decades earlier. The ruling junta probably wasn't full of as many brazen robber-barons as that of Taiwan, but even still it was, at times, extremely corrupt (that shouldn't be a surprise), and not particularly conducive to foreign business investment. It's also suggested that, while they promised to carry it out, they were still opposed to crucial measures like Land Reform and slowed its implementation.

    The lines diverge in the last one to two decades of the South's military dictatorship (and a decade before the assassination of President Park Chung Hee by the director of the Korean CIA), suggesting that they finally demonstrated they could be competent when they put their minds to it.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Just for fun, can I get a citation for that precedent?

    Taiwan and for that matter South Korea were both dictatorships not too long ago. But perhaps Solar was thinking of the PRC's Deng. Insofar as we agree that peaceful reunification (not takeover by the South) is problematic primarily due to North Korea's insularity and poverty, there is plenty of precedent for economic growth and relative openness under dictatorial rule.

    But wishing for a benevolent dictator is nigh useless anyway.

    Oh it is totally a pipe dream. It's not going to happen.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Synthesis wrote: »
    That graph isn't that surprising if you've ever actually looked at the South Korean leadership through much of its history. People in North America tend to assume South Korea had a society as open as say that of Japan in the period after the first two post-war decades--that's just incorrect (indeed, we tend to overestimate how open Japanese society was due to the systematic white washing of the Allied occupation by the post-War government).

    What South Korea had was a brutal military dictatorship comparable to that of Taiwan at the same time or Argentina decades earlier. The ruling junta probably wasn't full of as many brazen robber-barons as that of Taiwan, but even still it was, at times, extremely corrupt (that shouldn't be a surprise), and not particularly conducive to foreign business investment. It's also suggested that, while they promised to carry it out, they were still opposed to crucial measures like Land Reform and slowed its implementation.

    The lines diverge in the last one to two decades of the South's military dictatorship (and a decade before the assassination of President Park Chung Hee by the director of the Korean CIA), suggesting that they finally demonstrated they could be competent when they put their minds to it.

    There was no continuity of government between Rhee and Park; Rhee was replaced with a democratic government which Park then overthrew. Rhee was a strongman who basically continued US military occupation practices; his formal authority was never total and de facto power only established by continually killing members of the opposition - it was a dictatorship, but an illegal one by its own rules; Rhee never consolidated enough power to rewrite them.

    Park's ascension to president came with the nominal promise of restoring democracy and economic growth; it was less murderous than Rhee's; instead, Park maintained power by appointing cronies to favored industries (and it is there that the Park government's incentive to generate growth came from). This was helped along by the Park government establishing much more formal powers than Rhee's had.

    I daresay it was less "Park was competent where Rhee was not" and more "opposition to Rhee's government was able to prevent him from claiming formal powers, but not able to stop him from having armed thugs shoot them, while opposition to Park's government was more able to protect themselves but unable to prevent Park from gaining formal powers in every aspect of government - and so Park maintained his dictatorship using those powers, staying within nominally democratic rules". And it is the latter which is conducive to growth, even if only because it allows crony-capitalist robber barony. There must be growth before cronies can benefit from it, and patronage of cronies is necessary to maintain grip of a nominally democratic system.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Who stands to benefit from a unified, democratic Korea?

    -Countries with an interest in keeping nukes off the black market
    -Countries that have to spend militarily to keep Bad Korea in check (primarily SK and USA, but Japan as well)
    etc.

    If it would be as simple as some people are suggesting to topple Kim and start rolling out economic initiatives, $50-100B doesn't even seem expensive, if stakeholder countries contribute.

    It doesn't seem that wages would have to rise to even 60% SK over any short period of time. As long as living conditions are measurably and steadily improving, donated food and supplies are still flowing so that people aren't starving to death, etc, then people will be complacent until you can open the borders to immigration.

    eokNV.jpg
  • gtrmpgtrmp Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Who stands to benefit from a unified, democratic Korea?

    -Countries with an interest in keeping nukes off the black market

    The fall of North Korea won't necessarily end the passage of nuclear materials into the black market - if anything, it could actually increase the flow of nuclear material out of NK. In the decade following the collapse of the USSR, the former Soviet states lost at least 40 kilograms of weapons-usable radioactive materials to theft alone. Black marketers interested in radioactive materials (and in the scientists trained in their refinement) will be waiting in the wings once the DPRK shows signs of collapsing. If the DPRK does collapse at any point in the foreseeable future, then during the span of time between the Kims' ouster and full reunification, it will be much more chaotic and prone to looting from within than the post-Soviet states were. The only way to avoid (or, more realistically, minimize) nuclear dissemenation from North Korea is via open and peaceful reunification.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    If it would be as simple as some people are suggesting to topple Kim and start rolling out economic initiatives, $50-100B doesn't even seem expensive, if stakeholder countries contribute.
    I don't think you realize how far in the hole NK is. Simply dealing with Easter Germany cost Germany a shitload of money and was a pain in the ass. NK makes East Germany look like a wonderland.

    http://www.economist.com/node/16847156
    Speculation over the likely cost of uniting the North with the South (which enjoys an income per head 15 times greater) runs into a trillion dollars or more. The difference in living standards between the two Koreas is much greater, for example, than the gap between East and West Germany at the end of the cold war.

  • AtomikaAtomika (citation needed)Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Really NK needs a benevolent dictator. If you could get someone in there who decided they were going to emulate China's modernization, then hey - problem fucking solved. You can't ignore a massive consumer market that's just next door.

    Right now this would probably be the best thing for North Korea yes. A benevolent dictator who slowly but surely decreases totalitarian aspects of the regime and eventually leads to a dismantling of the North Korean state and a move in by the South, giving them time to take over the reigns.

    Just for fun, can I get a citation for that precedent?

    Taiwan and for that matter South Korea were both dictatorships not too long ago. But perhaps Solar was thinking of the PRC's Deng. Insofar as we agree that peaceful reunification (not takeover by the South) is problematic primarily due to North Korea's insularity and poverty, there is plenty of precedent for economic growth and relative openness under dictatorial rule.

    But wishing for a benevolent dictator is nigh useless anyway.

    I do think that much the same could be accomplished by a rotating appointed body of leaders picked by South Korea or a consortium of UN interests that would govern until a set period when North Korea would be back on its feet.

    North Korea, as it stands, is not a culture where any kind of meaningful democracy should be expected until the population is better educated and has a working economy. Forcing one at this point would only worsen the situation, not too unlike Hamas in Gaza.

  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The way I see it is:
    -The current situation in NK is awful
    -Leaving it that way is an awful thing
    -Changing it will be awful, but it's the only way to have a hope of stopping the awfulness at some point in the future
    -Nobody outside NK really has the ability to change it (when you include political will as a measure of ability), and nobody with power inside NK wants to change it.

  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    If it would be as simple as some people are suggesting to topple Kim and start rolling out economic initiatives, $50-100B doesn't even seem expensive, if stakeholder countries contribute.
    I don't think you realize how far in the hole NK is. Simply dealing with Easter Germany cost Germany a shitload of money and was a pain in the ass. NK makes East Germany look like a wonderland.

    http://www.economist.com/node/16847156
    Speculation over the likely cost of uniting the North with the South (which enjoys an income per head 15 times greater) runs into a trillion dollars or more. The difference in living standards between the two Koreas is much greater, for example, than the gap between East and West Germany at the end of the cold war.

    It doesn't matter; there is no need to equalize income per head in anything less than several decades.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • kaliyamakaliyama Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    ronya wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    If it would be as simple as some people are suggesting to topple Kim and start rolling out economic initiatives, $50-100B doesn't even seem expensive, if stakeholder countries contribute.
    I don't think you realize how far in the hole NK is. Simply dealing with Easter Germany cost Germany a shitload of money and was a pain in the ass. NK makes East Germany look like a wonderland.

    http://www.economist.com/node/16847156
    Speculation over the likely cost of uniting the North with the South (which enjoys an income per head 15 times greater) runs into a trillion dollars or more. The difference in living standards between the two Koreas is much greater, for example, than the gap between East and West Germany at the end of the cold war.

    It doesn't matter; there is no need to equalize income per head in anything less than several decades.

    The reason it has to equalize fast is that otherwise norks vote with their feet and look for work in Seoul and southward.

    fwKS7.png?1
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    And the problem with that would be?

    We can have people from the South move north, too - drop industrial parks in Pyongyang and encourage South Koreans to be employed, as likely, as managers and higher-level staff.

    The sheer amount of basic infrastructural upgrading that will occur will entail moving skilled employees northwards anyway, at least initially.

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I was refreshing myself on Park Chung-Hee and found this bit on Wikipedia:

    On January 21, 1968, the 31-man Unit 124 of Korean People's Army special forces commandos attempted to assassinate Park and nearly succeeded. They were spotted by four South Korean civilians out cutting wood. After spending several hours trying to convince the civilians of the benefits of communism, the commandos let the civilians free with a stern warning not to notify the police. However, the civilians informed the police that very night.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • CadeCade Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Forgive me if this has been posted yet but footage from North Korea has been released here showing how bad things really are and how some are starting to stand up for themselves:

    Footage smuggled out of North Korea.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cade wrote: »
    Forgive me if this has been posted yet but footage from North Korea has been released here showing how bad things really are and how some are starting to stand up for themselves:

    Footage smuggled out of North Korea.

    It is always depressing as hell seeing life in North Korea.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
Sign In or Register to comment.