Can pol answer this?

does south korea btfo libertarian economics?
>The whole of South Korea is a giant middle finger to the libertarian economic theory that government actions are bad and free market must reign supreme. In the last 60 years, Korea went from being one of the poorest countries to one of the richest, all under careful planning by the government that engaged in aggressive economic planning. Having experienced this, few Koreans are doctrinaires about laissez-faire economy in the domestic sphere. For just about any issue, Koreans expect the government to take an active lead in addressing the problem.
askakorean.blogspot.com.br/2017/04/korean-politics-viewers-guide-i-lay-of.html

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

They're a satellite economy of the US, just like Japan and many others. After a major catastrophe we swoop in, help construct their country, put some military bases there, then become permanent close trade partners. Nothing that happens is natural. It's an old Roman strategy, soft imperialism.

What imperial power builds up a vassal economy while allowing its' own industry to die?

Yeah, that and the history of corporate/government collaborations during the industrialization of sweden and japan.

Libertarian economics are retarded for the most part and BTFO themselves, but that being said there are numerous countries with freer economies than South Korea which are also noticeably better and more prosperous for their inhabitants, like Singapore and Hong Kong. South Korea actually has somewhat low living standards for most people and in many ways is a somewhat totalitarian state with limited freedoms.

It's not though?

non whites dont have inclination for free markets or western ideals, they have to be trained first like in japan and korea, and china.

South korea rely on western gibs because of the pissing contest with north korea.

Also Korea is an ethnostate. There is no such thing as economic policy when you're literally all one family.

>Why is a whole country less prosperous than a small city unencumbered by years of war on its' soil?

It must be libertarian economics.

South Korea are the worst kind of crooks, cowardly ones.

After getting trounced by North Korea in the '90s, they paid a literal ransom as part of a deal to prevent the North from developing nuclear weapons. Then the North proceeded to use that huge bribe (about a billion dollars) to fund the festering catastrophe we see today.

I wouldn't take South Korea's advice on what to order at a fucking restaurant, let alone economics. Between their shit plastic society, feminist government cults and total lack of balls a nuke might be the best thing to happen to them in fifty years.

I think africa and South America are over represented on that list

Nearly every country richer than South Korea has a much freer economy than it does. Libertarian economics is wrong/retarded not because of the limited government involvement stuff but because of other things.

All this is proof of is that national socialism works.

This is very important

Pretty much this. People don't understand that once you achieve racial homogeneity 95% of the problems just disappear and even the system of government becomes relatively irrelevant.

Byzantines?

Is that also why they are a corrupt 3rd world country that is ruled either by an insane mystic of a military occupation?

>What imperial power builds up a vassal economy while allowing its' own industry to die?

One that realises that heavy industry isn't the most important economic sector anymore and that doing this maximises profits.

>like Singapore and Hong Kong

Being a city-state that sits right on one of the largest maritime trade routes in the world is playing easy mode no matter what you do politically short of you deciding to go full North Korea.

Why would you assume that Koreans are successful because of central planning and not in spite of it? They already have a higher IQ than most western nations so they are bound to be more successful by default.

If I enter an average man and a proffessional juggler wearing a blindfold into a juggling contest and the latter wins, one would not say that being blindfolded makes you better at juggling. Their success was a result of preconceived skill which outweighed their added disadvantage.

so why was it piss poor before park chung-hee?
why was it poor just 70 years ago? poorer than latin america
why is north korea a shithole?

why were they always poor before the 60s if is all about IQ and not policy?
>national socialism
>korea
what things?

Gold standard, not accounting for externalities, not realizing that market failure is a thing, not realizing why subsidies are often necessary, not accounting for spending contractions and the necessity of government spending to alleviate them in many instances, sticky prices, etc.

>why were they always poor before the 60s if is all about IQ and not policy?
koreans are extremely prideful. Once they found out about a nation that were doing far better than them (america), it really activated their almonds and motivated them to try to be among the best.
High IQ is required but not sufficient for a prosperous society. As some IQ researchers would say, you need a lot of grit to tap into their potential.

How are they wrong there?

Is it not self-evident?
> Not accounting for market failure
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

economics is 90% a meme. You have a country of homogenous whites or asians you're going to have a good economy whether you're laissez fairez (USA), or socialist (Scandinavia)

In every topic. And no, not self-evident.
>A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its part
^ this is self-evident

Not really. Their economy is pretty much a 3 company oligarchy. Like Japan or Russia, South Korea is not what we would classify as a working democracy. Wealth effect in Korea is pretty low and most salarymen lead a miserable, childless life.

>The whole of South Korea is a giant middle finger to the libertarian economic theory
wtf I love being controlled by a secret matriarchy!

all that link says is that statism is market failure in and of itself?

but there are no socialist states in scandinavia