Comments by "David Ford" (@davidford3115) on "How does SOUTH KOREA hope to be the most PROSPEROUS COUNTRY in ASIA? - VisualPolitik EN" video.

Same here. The Korean Tiger is not to be taken lightly. I for one welcome the competition.
11
@sharwama992 Yup, foreign men can't resist the charms of Korean women. There is a reason why Chinese Emperors and Japanese noble lords often took Korean spouses. Though their descendants would never publicly admit it (and Akahito cause quite a stir when he admitted to being related to King Muryeong of Pakeje).
7
I think what you need to be considering is the difference in what constitutes wealth. Cash on hand (liquidity) or assets (property such as land, farming equipment, manufacturing machinery, etc.) Most of the super wealthy have much of it stored in assets. Maybe the thing to differentiate is that stocks and bonds be differentiated from physical assets such as property.
6
Do you even understand what goes into being a rental property owner? They are entirely responsible for facility maintenance, which is often not cheap. Roof leaks? That is the property owner's responsibility. Pipes burst? Also, property owner's responsibility. HVAC breaks down? That is also up to the property owner to fix. Renters are not obligated to pay for any of those fixes as rental costs are supposed to factor that in on the front end. There is a reason why they say being a homeowner is more of a curse than a blessing.
5
@Eric-jh5mp "A fool and his money are soon parted" -proverb. There is a very good reason why wealth generally doesn't last beyond three generations. Yes, the first generation busts their butt creating it. The second generation maintains it, but don't usually expand it, while the third generation squanders it. It kind of goes to the Strauss-Howe Generational Theory, also known as the fourth turning. "Hard times make strong men, strong men make good times, good times make weak men, and weak men bring about hard times".
4
Yeah, I kind of got that vibe as well.
3
LOL! Seriously though, South Korea is indeed dominated by the Chaebols. Those thirteen families are the real power behind the throne.
3
Indeed, on all points. Shalom and blessings on you, my brother from the lands of Judea.
3
@jolp9799 I guess you need context, huh? Ming Dynasty China often demanded tribute from Choseon Dynasty, with the most beautiful noblewomen of Korea being part of the demanded treasure. It was not uncommon for one of those women to give birth to the emperor's heir to the throne. Then you have Japan's numerous invasions of the Pennesula. Every time, the Samurai would carry off Korean women to be their concubines or just as often, their full status wives. This was well documented in the Imjin War. Then there is the issue that one King Muryeong of Pakeje originally grew up and lived in Japan before taking the throne as 25th monarch. One of his daughters later married into the Japanese royal family.
3
South Korea under the Chaebols system IS neoliberal capitalism (ie corporate oligarchism). What Yoon is proposing is more akin to classical free market capitalism which the West hasn't seen since the 1950s.
2
@YouYou-sm8tf The problem is that in the West where single parent families due to divorce is on the rise, they are becoming more and more unstable both socio-politically and economically. There is a reason why Confucius said, "The strength of the nation is derived from the integrity of the family".
2
Indeed. Korean men marrying foreign spouses (typically Vietnamese, Filipino, Thai, and Indonesian) is still something of a culture shock. And this is DESPITE there being a history of their nobles and monarchs bringing home foreign brides (notably Heo Hwang-ok or Suriratna of India).
2
What ship? My father loved when his, the USS Elliot pulled into Pusan.
2
East Asian counties very much consider ethnic identity to be a part of what constitutes a citizen of their country. That is why they are so averse to immigration. Which is sad, because if they were more open to allowing citizenship to the mixed children of one of their citizens and a foreign spouse, that could go a long way towards fixing their demographic problems.
2
@aoh4905 Funny how greed gets blamed for the evil of GLUTTONY. Consumption culture isn't greed, it is gluttonous. And for those who don't know the difference, the greedy tries to maintain value so will eat the oldest product first (even if it really should be thrown out). Gluttony hoards to the point of allowing perishables to go to waste (rot) just because they can.
1
@Eric-jh5mp Fair point. And I agree that a good patriarch (or matriarch is she was the brains behind the business) should teach their heir how to property manage the system. Even better when it is the grandchildren who are trained to run it and eventually inherit it directly.
1
There are benefits as well as drawbacks to a parliamentary system which you advocate. One only needs to look at the fiascos of Canada recently under Pretty boy Trudeau to see how a Parliamentarian fails spectacularly.
1
@YouYou-sm8tf You completely missed the point. It isn't about foreign vs native. The issue is that government subsidies is NOT the correct answer to single mother's financial problems. It only encourages MORE of them. And there IS a measurable correlation to single parent children and higher rates of poverty and crime in adulthood. This isn't new; it has been well known since antiquity.
1
@YouYou-sm8tf The US National Park service warns NOT to feed the wildlife for it makes them dependent on humans and both a nuisance as well as a danger to themselves and the park guests. Same logic applies to welfare programs.
1
Clown show on the US right? Surely you jest. Most of these economic policies are what the GOP BASE actually supports. It is the GOP establishment who is economically left-wing along with the Dems.
1
@YouYou-sm8tf Putting forward proposals that only exacerbate societal problems is NOT the answer; it only doubles down on those problems. Stop making excuses for policies that make the situation worse.
1
@CoreIation The problem is that most Asian countries still hold ethnic identity as defining part of what it means to be a citizen of that country. Years ago, there was a push in South Korea to adopt military service for citizenship, which the Korean population balked at. Even if you married a citizen of that country, there is no guarantee of citizenship. For my own part, they need to get out of the ethnic purity garbage and embrace the mixed children of their citizens who procreate with foreign spouses. Let the children born to a member of the US military and a local citizen have the choice of becoming a citizen of said country.
1
@craigkdillon Devil is ALWAYS in the details. Infantilizing them like that is exactly how socialist utopias degenerate into kleptocratic banana republics.
1
Indeed. The US needs to return to the tax rates John F. Kennedy advocated.
1
@lukabosanac2671 Funny, because the Japanese and South Koreans actually like the US. Unlike the Chinese, the US is the only country that came in to fight a war, and then went home. Even the Japanese were shocked at the magnanimity of the US, having helped to rebuild them after practically bombing them back to the stone age.
1
Bourgeois capitalism is what created the computer you are using right now. Bourgeois capitalism expanded on the DARPA program to give you the internet you are enjoying. If you hate capitalism so much, I invite you to move to North Korea where the ruling Worker's Party shares your ideology.
1
@jwillsher80 Well, President John F. Kennedy disagree with you on corporate rates. And most HONEST economists agree with him and Art Laffer.
1
@jwillsher80 Keynesian economics is NOT honest, nor is anyone who claims to subscribe to it. It is very much a form of top-down economics of the Soviet Command-control type that pretends to be market driven. Austrian economics, conversely, disproves the false assumptions of Keynesian. Carl Menger, Ludwig von Misses, Milton Freidman, Fredric Baistat, and Fredrick Hayek have all been proven right time and again.
1
@bourbon4033 That isn't an argument, it is an emotional outburst. Also, you clearly don't understand the Laffer Curve which proves that raising taxes ALWAYS decreases revenues. It becomes something of an economic deathspiral when you try to raise taxes.
1
@bourbon4033 Yes, seriously. And your three posts one right after the other just further prove it. You are desperate and it shows.
1
@bourbon4033 Wow, accuse me of what you did previously? You are only digging yourself into a deeper hole and convincing nobody. Now you try to act morally superior by saying you won't waste any more time. You are showing classic sour grapes.
1
All part of John F. Kennedy's push for reducing taxes. He famously said that cutting taxes now will paradoxically raise future revenues.
1
@YouYou-sm8tf Your proposals are not actually solving the problem, just putting a new bandage on top of the dirty bandage. It isn't solving the underlying societal problem. If anything, it is at best treating the symptom. Worse, it is only covering up the problem.
1