By Well it appears the usual suspects on the Korean left are latching on to what the usual suspects in the American left are currently doing by launching their own “Occupy Seoul” protest against the FTA:
Hundreds of civic groups and labor activists held a series of rallies in the South Korean capital on Saturday under the slogan of “Occupy Seoul”, joining the Occupy Wall Street movement that started in New York and has reverberated around the world.
Demonstrators gathered to protest outside of the Financial Services Commission in Yeouido, the main financial district of Seoul, against financial inequality prevailing in the country.
They vented their anger at capitalists, financiers and economic policymakers, and called for greater financial regulation.
Mild clashes broke out between police and protesters before another massive rally which was planned to be held at Seoul Plaza in central Seoul.
Police blocked the protesters trying to march to Seoul Plaza as they had not authorized the venue to be used for the demonstration.
However, the protest continued without further violence. [Xinhua]
You can read more at the link. If anyone sees any pictures of how many people showed up for this protest please leave a link.
She hasn’t seen...
6:21 pm on October 15th, 2011 1
“Well it appears the usual suspects on the Korean left are latching on to what the usual suspects in the American left are currently doing by launching their own “Occupy Seoul” protest against the FTA…”
Oh, so the people behind the protest are North Korean sympathizers? What evidence you do have of this? I think you’re just making shit up. Hell, you’re backing your fabulous story with an article by Xinhua, which naturally puts an anti-American spin on the protests since it is one of the CCP’s propaganda arms.
PS. Not one mention of the FTA in the article, either.
6:34 pm on October 15th, 2011 2
1: Give these vermin the benefit of the doubt? No way.
6:43 pm on October 15th, 2011 3
#2,
Vermin? The economy is screwed, and it’s not unreasonable to pin some of the blame on the financial sector. I’ve lost more money over the last few weeks than you probably earn in a year thanks to their shenanigans.
6:51 pm on October 15th, 2011 4
#3 and I hope you lose more money and lose everything.
6:52 pm on October 15th, 2011 5
The “Occupy” movement has got the American government all shook up.
The Tea Party is filled with angry people who have worked hard and now see their dreams slipping away through corporate greed and government mismanagement… but many of them are established middle class and have something to lose… and are therefore controllable.
The Occupy movement is filled with angry young people who don’t have much to lose… and are starting to believe that corporate greed and government mismanagement will keep them from every having anything.
While the demonstrations are peaceful at this time, it will just take some event, accidental or intentional, to change to mood to one of violent protest.
And the government fears this… as you can’t easily control a mob driven by anger and ideology that has little to lose. This has been one of the driving motivations to create the welfare state.
The bad thing about all this is the disturbing trend to keep repeating phrases like “the failure of capitalism”… when the reality is a LACK of capitalism has caused most of the problems.
The whole Privatize Profit/Socialize Risk culture has allowed too many companies to make poor business decisions and be rewarded for them.
Further, government involvement forcing ideological decisions over business decisions has hurt entire industries.
And, government over-regulation, supported by big corporations, has done everything possible to reduce competition.
The growing, manufactured anti-capitalism tone is very dangerous… as MORE capitalism, including encouragement of small and medium-sized business, is one of the few real options to end this economic crisis.
7:00 pm on October 15th, 2011 6
One must note that when a company does well, the investors often get a dividend at the stock they own increases in value. The CEO and high level people get huge sums as well. On the other hand the people actually building the widgets or providing the service from which the company earns its profits do not share these rewards and are often told they are lucky to have a job another day. Congrats! Those same workers are then free to deposit their wages in a bank where they can expect to earn less than a paltry 1% interest while the bank in turn uses their money to earn 7, 10 even 20% returns. Of course the worker may risk his hard earned pay in the stock market. It seems the stock market seldom rewards the small investor commiserate with his risk.
7:02 pm on October 15th, 2011 7
“The bad thing about all this is the disturbing trend to keep repeating phrases like “the failure of capitalism”… when the reality is a LACK of capitalism has caused most of the problems.
The whole Privatize Profit/Socialize Risk culture has allowed too many companies to make poor business decisions and be rewarded for them. ”
It’s a biased opinion. It’s neither a failure of capitalism or a lack of capitalism. It’s debt caused by government mismanagement of its finances and its lack of control over the banking system, as seen in Greece and in the US.
7:12 pm on October 15th, 2011 8
“Those same workers are then free to deposit their wages in a bank where they can expect to earn less than a paltry 1% interest…”
Which does not encourage saving money. It’s no surprise that so many people in the US bought houses that they couldn’t afford. They thought the investment would be far more rewarding than a measly percentage point.
PS. My savings account in Canada doesn’t pay me 1% per year, but 0.25%. My term deposits there only earn 2%. In South Korea, they earn a more respectable 5% (I don’t think those rates are still available). Funds are a potentially more rewarding option (I’ve made over 10% per month with some fund investments), but the last two months have been extremely volatile. Big losses for many people who invested in funds.
7:14 pm on October 15th, 2011 9
…Luckily for me, my wife and I earn enough to recuperate our losses in just a month or so.
7:26 pm on October 15th, 2011 10
#4,
The protests turned violent in Rome.
In any case, I had to laugh when I saw a clip on CNN in which the protesters at Wall Street on one hand claimed they aren’t anarchists and on another pride themselves in not having a specific leader and being organized in a manner which suggests they are forming an anarchist community.
7:31 pm on October 15th, 2011 11
The problem with the “occupy” people is that they are so diverse in their complaints to the point that most of the younger ones don’t even know what they’re protesting. This is dangerous, as “The People NONE of Us Need To Be Involved” get a foothold. That is the problem with popular/populist movements. Great in concept, sometimes great in execution as long as the organization is not a mob sh!tting on police cars and American flags.
There are a good number of people in the current pop-mob who do indeed have legitimate gripes. But they are watered down, if not drowned out, by the usual gang of vermin/idiots who just have an axe to grind against The Man.
I have an axe to grind against The Man myself, but it sure has nothing to do with those who want a national $20 living minimum wage, free college, and so on.
Those with legitimate beefs have far more in common with the Tea Party people, as they are raising hell about crony corporation – government deals.
7:53 pm on October 15th, 2011 12
#3: Teadrinker, don’t change the subject. You berated GI Korea for assuming these scum are pro-North Korean without giving evidence. I was just making the point that such things are assumed. All liberals are pro-Communist and there is really no need to dig up a photo of some leftard with a “I love Kim Jong Il” sign.
Interestingly enough, GI Korea didn’t make any references to Communism. I suppose you must have correctly filled in the blanks for yourself.
8:26 pm on October 15th, 2011 13
“Those with legitimate beefs have far more in common with the Tea Party people, as they are raising hell about crony corporation – government deals.”
Ah! I knew you would conclude with that point. Ironically, the “Tea Party” is just like the people you describe at the beginning of your text.
“Teadrinker, don’t change the subject. You berated GI Korea for assuming these scum are pro-North Korean without giving evidence. ”
Who are the people he sees as the “usual suspects”? Anyone who’s followed his blog for more than a month knows what he means by that reference.
8:30 pm on October 15th, 2011 14
Teadrinker,
“It’s debt caused by government mismanagement of its finances and its lack of control over the banking system”
Exactly…
…which is a lack of capitalism.
Where did this debt come from?
As we have discussed before, the American government’s main expenditures are retirement, entitlements, military, and interest on debt. Everything else is miniscule in comparison.
Without decades of the bloated, non-capitalistic “entitlement” system, there would be no national debt.
While not a capitalistic institution, maintaining a military is one of the few necessary function of the State. Among other duties, it protects the structures that support capitalism.
Mandatory government retirement programs are sociialist… but support and encourage capitalism by rewarding those who work and produce.
For some things, sociialism works better than capitalism. These big expenditures are valid sociialist programs in support of a successful capitalist system… and have a net benefit to capitalism.
On the other hand…
“Entitlements” have done nothing to encourage capitalism. They have placed the government in debt with nothing to show for it but a larger, non-productive dependent population with their hands out for more.
And, of course, with no entitlement-fueled debt, there would be no interest on the debt.
This is just one aspect of what I mean when I speak of many of the current problems being associated with a lack of capitalism.
Thanks for pointing this out and reinforcing my point.
As for banks, there are a number of problems.
Government over-regulation and a general hostility to small and medium-sized business has discouraged small-town banks which knew their customers, performed a necessary service in the support of capitalism, and made sound business decisions.
Government(s) have also forced big banks to make poor financial decisions to support misguided, generally sociialist-inspired, government policy. Giving home loans to people who couldn’t afford home loans would not have been done in a more capitalist climate.
The “too big to fail” mentality has allowed large companies to do whatever they want for short-term gain. Once they failed, they got a very non-capitalistic bailout. Of course the people running these companies had already made a very capitalistic calculation that high short-term gain/high loss/bailout was a more profitable course of action than long-term sound financial management.
Companies that got bailouts simply returned to business-as-usual. In a capitalistic society, failed companies generally don’t just go away… especially those of the too big to fail size. Investors buy their assets and form a new company. Since they don’t want to lose their investments, they recognize and avoid the mistakes of previous management… making a better company and demonstrating the wonders of capitalism. In the current system, companies find it more profitable to game the bailouts and have no incentive to produce better products with more efficiency.
Once again, the solution to many of the world’s current financial problems is MORE capitalism.
And, thanks again for pointing this out with the banks.
Leon,
The key to your concerns is that employees own shares in the company they work for… which is a wonderful mixing of capitalism and socialism… where everyone has a capitalistic approach to success… yet production is owned by “the people”. Company profits are then distributed to employee/shareholders or, upon agreement, reinvested to increase production in hopes of a larger long-term gain.
Expect this arrangement to be much more common in 30 years than it is today.
In keeping with what I wrote to Teadrinker, government has stifled small business to the point that a small investor has little choice but to put his money into a bank or buy shares of a large company. Gone are the days where a worker can take his small savings and make a small company to produce a small product. The regulatory and administrative burdens are just too much.
8:32 pm on October 15th, 2011 15
…”All liberals are pro-Communist and there is really no need to dig up a photo of some leftard with a “I love Kim Jong Il” sign.”
I’m a liberal and I’ve profited handsomely from business and make not apologies for it. So, there goes your idiotic assumption that all liberals are pro-Communist.
8:33 pm on October 15th, 2011 16
My comment either vanished or ended up in the spam cue due to spelling sociialist correctly.
I hope it can be found. I would hate for that wisdom to be lost.
8:49 pm on October 15th, 2011 17
#9,
…I guess they are such anarchists that they dislike labels as these are too confining.
9:29 pm on October 15th, 2011 18
#13,
So, you agree that the social-democratic system is the system to have (or, as I’d like to see it, that Canada is a far better country than the US).
9:32 pm on October 15th, 2011 19
The unique, in the protest context, thing about the “Occupy” movement in the US is its pro-government (pro Obama Admin.) core beliefs. The demonstrators are under the loose control of the White House and US Democratic Party organizatiions. The sitting US President is a former Community Organizer, for God’s sake, can anyone expect otherwise in this political season? Among other partisan manifestations, they protest in front of opposition Party affiliated mansions in New York City while walking right past George Soro’s abode. The US vesion of Occupy believes they have their best shot at getting the free stuff they want from the present US administration and Federal Govt. The guilt for the bank crisis in the US`goes all around, from senior Democratic party banking chairs like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, to Fannie and Fredie to G.W. Bush’s failure to push his banking reform agenda against critics calling him heartless for expecting borrowers to be expected to actually qualify for loans. But is anyone not in agreement that the majority of demonstrators in any of the “Occupy” movements, from Seoul to London to New York, are Communists of some definition?
9:43 pm on October 15th, 2011 20
P.S. When did Xinhwa become a quotable news source? Were Tass and Rude Provo accorded that privilege in the
Soviet power days??
10:29 pm on October 15th, 2011 21
“When did Xinhwa become a quotable news source?”
I know. They’ve been polluting the internet in the last couple of years with pro-CCP spin on the news. They usually lay off the bellicose comments in order to be more foreigner-friendly, but if one takes the time to analyze the content of the texts, especially the connotation, the bias reveals itself.
10:44 pm on October 15th, 2011 22
[...] the article here: Korean Left Mobilizes Protesters To “Occupy Seoul” | ROK DropPublished on October 16, 2011 · Filed under: Uncategorized; Tagged as: activists-held, [...]
10:45 pm on October 15th, 2011 23
CNN is talking about “anarchists” who infiltrated the protesters in Rome…No, those are not “anarchists”, they are hooligans. They may be out of control, but that doesn’t make them anarchists. They aren’t motivated by a political agenda. They aren’t that smart. Case in point: a couple of these dimwits blew their hands off trying to throw Molotov cocktails into cars.
8:45 pm on October 16th, 2011 24
I went by Deoksugung last night, there were only 8-10 people camped out… though earlier I think there were alot of people (>300)… I have some pics I’ll post on Flickr…
8:49 pm on October 16th, 2011 25
registered group name is the National Farmers confederation…
9:01 pm on October 16th, 2011 26
The Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movement stem from the same grievances but blame different parties: the former blames government regulation and believes in corporate behavior to provide the solution, while the latter blames corporate behavior and believes in government regulation to provide the solution.
9:02 pm on October 16th, 2011 27
Not enough beef, textbooks, islets, soldiers, or school girls involved. Sorry protestors.
9:03 pm on October 16th, 2011 28
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/10/15/article-2049486-0E61F26600000578-969_634x422.jpg
Found this on the Daily mail.
later when I went by there was a small camp of 8-10 people, and four police officers garding the metro elevator.
9:16 pm on October 16th, 2011 29
Oh yeah. Leftists should have set up some speakers and music at daehanmun like they usually do and had a concert-protest but I guess they couldn’t find a catchy tune like 2002′s pucking usa about chaebols
9:20 pm on October 16th, 2011 30
# 26 is on to something. The former’s ideas would lead to broader prosperity, employment and private investment, while the latter’s would go on the proven course to rationing and ever more central government control.
9:51 pm on October 16th, 2011 31
well, here we have the stark difference of the Ideas, Would you rather live in NK or SK?
10:38 pm on October 16th, 2011 32
I never understand how there can be so many people on the internet who hear that someone wants to live in a society where being born poor doesn’t mean you will have to stay poor and just think *herp derp Soviet Korea*.
Regulation on the financial sector? Obviously these people must be authoritarian stooges! How could someone get himself across the world, and still be so ignorant of it? It’s like Germany or Scandinavia just don’t exist, only the Soviet Kim menace!
Thank god Korea actually has affordable healthcare and some level of social equality.
10:41 pm on October 16th, 2011 33
“the former blames government regulation and believes in corporate behavior to provide the solution”
That is a very biased way to put it.
How about…
The former blames selective government over-regulation which is actually corporate-sponsored and designed to stifle competition from small and medium-sized business while allowing the large corporations to become To Big To Fail… insuring that taxpayers cover any losses.
While corporate behavior IS the solution, it isn’t the corporate behavior that games the system to manufacture nothing but short-term paper profit with a known long-term loss… done with the blessing, or assistance, of bought politicians concerned only about finances and appearances before the next election… and managed by recycled CEOs who get a big payday regardless of what happens.
The solution is based on encouraging small, hungry companies that work hard and work smart to provide quality products and services to domestic and foreign customers… creating tangible wealth rather than the current trend of imagining it on paper.
The popular insincere leftist trend is to create a straw man by saying, “Stupid conservatives. They want less regulation on these companies when it is obvious they need more!”
…when the reality is they need a small amount of the RIGHT kind of regulation instead of large amounts of regulation cleverly designed for their easy compliance.
More monitored capitalism and less economic fascism is the answer. Sociialism is seldom the answer.
12:01 am on October 17th, 2011 34
Germany and the whole EU thing isn’t working out too great either, I bet they go Tilt soon.
I have never understood why some people feel they are entitled to fruits of anothers hard work. For that matter I have never understood why coporations feel that they are entitled to public bailouts, it’s the same thing. I Absolutely agree with #33, a Well monitored Free market will Give them most of the things they want, yet they resist any attempt to implement one. Lawmakers are to blame, not business. Chasing out\tearing down the Job creators, will not give us more jobs.
1:01 am on October 17th, 2011 35
ChickenHead wrote:
Biased from spending a year reading and participating in comments sections at a prominent Tea Party site.
It’s actually the Occupy Wall Street people whose motives, attitudes, beliefs, etc., I’m gleaning primarily from reading/listening to media reports.
1:05 am on October 17th, 2011 36
Why is someone called a “job creator” just because the make over a quarter million dollars each year? Seems a lot of them are creating jobs mainly in China. Others are earning fat salaries and then investing in things outside the US of A. Still others got us into a mess with exotic financial instruments, flipping houses, and investments that produced nothing tangible of real value.
Mr Chung of South Korea seems to be creating more jobs in the US than many of these “job creators.”
And I guess those who with more modest incomes who buy goods and services are the real job creators, because it’s their demand that drives our consumer economy. (Too bad so much of what they want to buy is made in China.)
3:03 am on October 17th, 2011 37
Kushibo- true dat!
I think it’s more of a twisted mess than any of us can really comprehend now.
To rephrase what you are saying- bottom line- if I own a company and want to make money for me and my stockholders, and I manufacture a product, I have to go where my $$$ gets the best return. Sadly that has caused a lot of manufacturing to go off shore over the past several decades.
How does a company stay in business making goods which cost more to make than a competitor?
I could keep manufacturing US based but it is going to be harder and harder to compete with someone who cuts his cost by going elsewhere to make the same item at a fraction of the cost, especially if he can keep a few people around to ensure that his manufacturing standards in China are kept to the same high level they were in the USA.
I think I got the essence of what you were saying above- correct me if I am off.
How do we get around that? How do we (USA) regain the ability to manufacture in the USA? I think that is a really big part of this.
6:46 am on October 17th, 2011 38
15: Making a bunch of money doesn’t make one not a Communist.
6:55 am on October 17th, 2011 39
36: I would ask how everyone who makes over $250,000.00 per year is a “millionaire” let alone a “fat cat millionaire”! Seems to me the bar should be set at $1,000,000.00.
As to creating jobs other than in the USA, what do you expect when employing someone in America is now such a pain. I’ve been self-employed twice in my life. Each time I had zero employees because all the government regulations involved in doing such a thing made it more trouble than it is worth. It can be even worse with large businesses. They’re better equipped to handle all the red tape, but they also have obligations to investors to maximize profit and to customers to make affordable products. Don’t want to outsource to India? Fine, you’re fired! Now lets work on getting back market share we lost because our stuff is so expensive…
8:29 am on October 17th, 2011 40
“Each time I had zero employees because all the government regulations involved in doing such a thing made it more trouble than it is worth.”
This is an example of government over-regulation that was encouraged by big corporations which can afford to hire an entire department to ensure compliance… but stops medium-sized business from growing and stops small business from starting.
Capitalism hasn’t failed. Regulation of the wrong parts of capitalism has failed.
Remove many of these manufactured restrictions and the economy will explode overnight.
There will still be victims… but they won’t be the people trying to get ahead by working hard, working smart, and innovating.
7:46 pm on October 17th, 2011 41
Regulations are a case in point when looking at China, a economy with heavy but well selected govt. regulation. Look at China’s minimal level of regs that could reduce productivity, i.e., environmental regs, labor regs, lack of free health care, it goes on and on. Not that the PRC should be any kind of political or economic model, but it goes to show how fast a country can advance its economy today with a harsh blend capital, labor and pro-growth Govt. regs. All those jobs everyone knows are going to China go right into that exploitive but successful machine.