Korean Hugfest

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK.
User avatar
Neodoxy
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:05 am

Korean Hugfest

Post by Neodoxy » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am

Why isn't there already thread on this?

Image

Will North and South Korea be on lasting good ties?

Is the Donald a help or hindrance to these events?

Can the North Korean State remain intact?

Why don't the United States, South Korea, and Japan literally buy North Korea from Kimmy Un and the top brass of the country for a small amount of the cost of maintaining defensive procedures against NK and the potential costs of conflict?

Does China have an incentive to keep up distrust between the two areas?

Will the Korean Peninsula ever be reunified?

Will the events of the shitty video game "Homefront" come to pass?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront_(video_game)

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Tom Rogers » Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:42 am

Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am
Why isn't there already thread on this?
You're right, I should have started one.
Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am
Will North and South Korea be on lasting good ties?
To be fair, I think they've always been on better ties than the official positions have implied. I think the prospects are good for still better ties.
Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am
Is the Donald a help or hindrance to these events?
I would say he is a great help, in that he has achieved the right balance between, on the one hand, confronting North Korea with a show of strength when needed (essential), and on the other hand, allowing his officials and area specialists to work behind the scenes to bring North Korea on peacefully and constructively (equally essential).
Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am
Can the North Korean State remain intact?
Potentially yes, but the regime depends on support from China, with whom relations have become strained while, at the same time, the dependence has grown.
Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am
Why don't the United States, South Korea, and Japan literally buy North Korea from Kimmy Un and the top brass of the country for a small amount of the cost of maintaining defensive procedures against NK and the potential costs of conflict?
Good idea, but the United States' presence in the South has more to do with containment of China than the particular issues of the Korean Peninsula. A denouement would remove America's pretext for being there at all and, if anything, strengthen China's hand as there would then be pressure for the Americans to withdraw.
Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am
Does China have an incentive to keep up distrust between the two areas?
For the reasons given above, I would argue that the division of the Peninsula actually suits the United States more than China. Despite impressions sometimes given to the contrary, I suspect China wouldn't care much if the North was 'democratised', liberalised and commercialised in the Western sense and became a northern version of South Korea, with or without the formality of reunification. To the contrary, a liberalised North Korea would benefit China economically and strategically. On the other hand, the United States has an interest in maintaining the divide due to the need to contain China as close as possible to the Asian mainland. That raises the question of what the United States is up to. I suspect what we're seeing is the Americans using their leverage to gain as much control over the process as they can, maybe in the hope that they can then militarise and nuclearise North Korea against China in spite of the explicitly-claimed agenda of the parties. I don't believe China will tolerate this, but at the same time, it looks to me like China is playing its hand carefully.
Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am
Will the Korean Peninsula ever be reunified?
Probably. I think it's down to the wishes of the two sponsors, China and the United States. It may happen very quickly, as was the case with the two Germanys. My suspicion is that China flatly doesn't care one way or the other about reunification, but if given the choice, would prefer a somewhat liberalised and Westernised North Korea as that gives stability and opens up economic possibilities. Some people would reject this strategem on the grounds that China would not want another recalcitrant Hong Kong-style government on its doorstep, but I think that factor is exaggerated. I don't believe the Chinese government is ideological, its concern is power and the nationalist interests of China. What I'm suggesting is a chess move along the same lines as the one that China played with Hong Kong. If North Korea becomes Westernised, then the pretext for American intervention disappears and the Chinese sphere of influence then potentially expands into the South. From there, the Chinese may be able to dictate a reunification agenda. The Americans, for their part, probably are now trying to take control of the agenda and dictate the direction things go, but I don't see how they will be able to retain a military presence in the Peninsula if the trajectory is reunification.
Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 9:01 am
Will the events of the shitty video game "Homefront" come to pass?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homefront_(video_game)
Never heard of it, sorry.

User avatar
Physiocrat
Site Admin
Posts: 166
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:25 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Physiocrat » Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:01 am

Before I saw who posted this thread I thought it was going to be spam.

I'm really not sure what to make of the current situation. I think you're right though, just buying out North Korea makes the most sense from a financial point of view although as Tom said, having the tensions between North and South do justify US presence there.

Whatever happens, unification is a very bad idea. It will likely cause the South to be economically drained by the North,just how East Germany leeches of the West. Rather an independent non-communist republic (unfortunately probably democratic but I don't see an viable alternative unless Kim wants to turn Pinochet) which has to stand on its own two feet would be far more preferable as it would encourage relatively more liberal policies to be pursued in the North. A unified democratic Korea is a just asking for the Northerners to vote for a Bernie/Corbyn figure who will give them free stuff at the expense of the South Koreans.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 144
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Tom Rogers » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:04 pm

Physiocrat wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:01 am
Before I saw who posted this thread I thought it was going to be spam.

I'm really not sure what to make of the current situation. I think you're right though, just buying out North Korea makes the most sense from a financial point of view although as Tom said, having the tensions between North and South do justify US presence there.
PRK China's internal doctrine on the Peninsula has changed. In the past, China was very pro-North Korea on the premise that the Peninsula would follow a similar path to Vietnam and could be 'Koreanised' by a dominant nationalistic-statist-Bolshevist North, which in turn would be a puppet state of China. As it became clear this would not happen because both the South and the Americans were standing firm, China evolved to a more ambiguous position in which there was encouragement behind the scenes for economic liberalisation. North Korea has duly attempted to introduce meaningful market reforms, but these have been halted by the Jong-un regime due to structural difficulties. I suspect that the moves we are now seeing from North Korea have been planned and scripted as part of a series of subtle chess moves instigated by China behind the scenes, which sees the strategic benefits: a 'liberalised' North Korea would remove the rationale for U.S. intervention and all American troops would have to leave, opening the way for Chinese domination.
Physiocrat wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:01 am
Whatever happens, unification is a very bad idea. It will likely cause the South to be economically drained by the North,just how East Germany leeches of the West. Rather an independent non-communist republic (unfortunately probably democratic but I don't see an viable alternative unless Kim wants to turn Pinochet) which has to stand on its own two feet would be far more preferable as it would encourage relatively more liberal policies to be pursued in the North. A unified democratic Korea is a just asking for the Northerners to vote for a Bernie/Corbyn figure who will give them free stuff at the expense of the South Koreans.
Actually the above could be the basis of a neo-liberal argument FOR reunification. It depends on how you look at it. In some ways I quite like the North Korea regime because, for all its faults (which I don't underestimate), it maintains a commitment to traditional Korea - that's why neo-liberals don't like it, as traditionalism, and its conceptual adjuncts, patriarchy, hierarchy and authoritarianism, are not conducive to the full political expression of a market economy.

The geopolitics of the Peninsula reveals an important strategic and ethnic split in the neo-liberal camp. On the one hand, you have the Han chauvinist neo-liberals who now control China under a red flag of convenience. They want rid of their counterparts in the American neo-liberal camp so that they can exploit the Peninsula as a 'liberal democratic' market state, just as they exploit Nèidì China itself, Hong Kong and Maucau and other spheres of influence, stretching now as far as Africa and even Europe. On the other hand, you have the Western neo-liberals who want to contain China to its immediate north-eastern Asian mainland and whose interests are best-served by maintaining North Korea as a ethno-nationalist outcast. Ironically, North Korea serves more as a buffer state for the West than China.

User avatar
William
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by William » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:46 pm

Physiocrat wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 10:01 am
. A unified democratic Korea is a just asking for the Northerners to vote for a Bernie/Corbyn figure who will give them free stuff at the expense of the South Koreans.
Is that the trend in East/West Germany and other similar countries. I was talking to a German, he said that to this day East Germany is underdeveloped
I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term 'social justice'.
F.A Hayek

User avatar
Neodoxy
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:05 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Neodoxy » Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:52 pm

I realize that it's partly semantics but I don't think that the kind of redistribution we're talking about from SK to NK can fairly be likened to Sanders or Corbyn figure. At that point we're not talking about redistribution within a first world country, but redistribution from a first world to a third world country. I don't think you can cut the figures or be generous in such a way that the normal South Korean ISN'T at least twenty times better off than a normal North Korean. I am quite sympathetic to the plight of North Koreans, not nearly so much to the other groups. At any rate, if one Korean nation is going to exist policies to try and economically even out the country are going to have to happen, but I think that we all agree that full integration for economic reasons alone isn't viable, although I do find that very unfortunate.

Man would that kind of integration be fascinating for economic research though.

User avatar
Jon Irenicus
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Jon Irenicus » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:44 pm

It’s tricky because it’s not the fault of South Koreans that the North Korean govt kept the latter population in penury. So it’d be a hugely unfair imposition on them, to enact any kind of redistribution policy. Possibly why they won’t accept reunification if it were on offer.
Former overlord of the original Mises forum.

User avatar
Neodoxy
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2018 4:05 am

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Neodoxy » Mon Apr 30, 2018 3:53 pm

It's not really the South Korean's fault they're wealthy and it's not really the North Korean's fault they're poor (speaking in collectivistic groupings). I can't really blame people trying to vote their way out of true abject poverty when given the chance. I certainly can't blame anyone for not wanting to immediately put their own money on the line to level such an awesome wealth disparity (although man is it fun to suggest such a thing to a champagne socialist!).

This is why statist politics are terrible.

At any rate, I agree that the only sensible solution would be some kind of partial union, and I would hope the South Koreans would be wise enough to realize this.

User avatar
Jon Irenicus
Posts: 92
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by Jon Irenicus » Mon Apr 30, 2018 4:39 pm

I think the other issue is, even if they were to unite and say institute some redistributionist policy, it would set a precedent and potentially further animosity between the two groups, both on the side of the donor and the recipient. A better strategy for South Korea might be to encourage its northern neighbour to institute free market reforms and invest in it. Ultimately it might be a cheaper price to pay. To this day, east Germany lags behind west Germany, and we're talking about relatively homogeneous populations, as would be the case with the two Koreas.

Another aspect is whether competition between two separate governments may work to the benefit of Koreans as a whole, seeing as it may encourage them to enact more beneficial regulatory and tax policy.
Former overlord of the original Mises forum.

User avatar
William
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:11 pm

Re: Korean Hugfest

Post by William » Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:44 pm

Neodoxy wrote:
Mon Apr 30, 2018 2:52 pm
I realize that it's partly semantics but I don't think that the kind of redistribution we're talking about from SK to NK can fairly be likened to Sanders or Corbyn figure. At that point we're not talking about redistribution within a first world country, but redistribution from a first world to a third world country. I don't think you can cut the figures or be generous in such a way that the normal South Korean ISN'T at least twenty times better off than a normal North Korean. I am quite sympathetic to the plight of North Koreans, not nearly so much to the other groups. At any rate, if one Korean nation is going to exist policies to try and economically even out the country are going to have to happen, but I think that we all agree that full integration for economic reasons alone isn't viable, although I do find that very unfortunate.

Man would that kind of integration be fascinating for economic research though.
There has to be some precedence for this stuff though. I was just wondering what some examples were. But intuitively I would think there would at least at first have to be a kind of "Korean Confederacy" or "Two Crown" system because the two countries are so dramatically different
I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term 'social justice'.
F.A Hayek

Post Reply