Politics

[Serv0]

I'm currently in Montana USA right now, but more or less I can update you fellow AMVers on my perspective of my home country, The People's Republic of China.
Unlike other governments in the west, China operates through a specific political division called levels. China has the The Constitution of the People's Republic of China provides for three levels: the province, county, and township. However, two more levels have been inserted in actual implementation: the prefecture, under provinces; and the village, under townships.

While China today is still viewed as a Communist state, the restrictions and powering rule have changed dramatically over the years since way before I was born. Today China is unique because it's literally a neo-government that still keeps the foundations of tradition, such as media control and population control. In other words, a dark world is now on the bridge between a hopeful world and an uncertain world. We just don't know where China is going. We don't know if the results are good or bad, but certainly it's different than ever before.

I was standing once again in Tiananmen Square last year in amazement at how clean the place was. How royal the place felt. It sure felt more sacred than any other capital I've seen. Especially when compared to the dirtiness and unorganized Washington D.C, a capital I visited 3 months earlier.

So my thoughts are in-depth and rather complex. But hopefully China can have a hope-full future, because it's sure capable of taking on the rest of the world.

[Kionon]

Korean politics are getting scary. They have their own evangelical Christian radical right movement going on. Five of the worlds largest Megachurches can be found in South Korea. One of them directly across from the National Assembly. They are pro-American interests, pro-American military intervention, and take a hard line with the North. My only genuine agreement is that they will protect me if I come under fire while in country: I'm an American.

The liberals, which I mostly agree with, pretty much hate America, with fairly good reason. Just as their ideological opponents love me for being American, they will hate me. My only possible defense is that I am a Roman Catholic, which is now a reactionary religion to Protestantism (mainly because the Megachurches are starting to appear to critics like hereditary fiefdoms with pastors passing the ministry fund and property onto their children). Priests are regularly cycled out, and never are in a position to amass personal wealth like in earlier Church history. Never thought you'd hear that one!

Nearly half of all Koreans believe that their current high standard of living is due directly to Christianity and its adherents, in both forms. This is very scary, and presents a problem for the continued de facto separation of Korean Church and Korean State, regardless of the legal declarations. Luckily, 60% feel the current Protestant denominations are leading the country down the wrong path, so perhaps I am overreacting to my own research.

One huge, huge development on the world stage was that both Koreas finally signed a peace accord on Oct. 4th, ending what was technically a half-century of declared warfare, held back only by a cease-fire.

[Corran]

They are pro-American interests, pro-American military intervention, and take a hard line with the North.

One huge, huge development on the world stage was that both Koreas finally signed a peace accord on Oct. 4th, ending what was technically a half-century of declared warfare, held back only by a cease-fire.

I'm not so sure about that. South Korea currently has a love/hate relationship with our military. The older generations are very grateful for our military presence as they can remember the war whereas portions of the younger generation have been calling for the military to pull out. Of course, they don't want us to leave... any such intent on our part would scare them, but they still protest our presence regardless. As a military member, I'm constantly reminded where protests are going to occur so I can avoid them. The tank accident in 2002 caused such a large anti-US movement that it is likely to have helped the current South Korean president get the edge to become elected.

A contractor I work with, who is of Korean decent but an American citizen, recently got in an accident in Seoul. He said he was hit by someone running a red light and that police were very sympathetic towards him until he produced his USFK identification. After that their tone changed and they found him partially responsible for the accident claiming "there were no witnesses".

As for the recent meeting between Kim Jong-Il and the South Korean President, the armistice is still in effect and the countries are technically still at war. All that happened at the meeting were promises to move towards peaceful relations and reunification. There was a similar summit back in 2000 and since then North Korea even went so far as to show off its nuclear capability. Hopefully the agreements are fruitful this time, though I won't hold my breath.

[dwchang]

They are pro-American interests, pro-American military intervention, and take a hard line with the North.

One huge, huge development on the world stage was that both Koreas finally signed a peace accord on Oct. 4th, ending what was technically a half-century of declared warfare, held back only by a cease-fire.

I'm not so sure about that. South Korea currently has a love/hate relationship with our military. The older generations are very grateful for our military presence as they can remember the war whereas portions of the younger generation have been calling for the military to pull out. Of course, they don't want us to leave... any such intent on our part would scare them, but they still protest our presence regardless. As a military member, I'm constantly reminded where protests are going to occur so I can avoid them. The tank accident in 2002 caused such a large anti-US movement that it is likely to have helped the current South Korean president get the edge to become elected.

A contractor I work with, who is of Korean decent but an American citizen, recently got in an accident in Seoul. He said he was hit by someone running a red light and that police were very sympathetic towards him until he produced his USFK identification. After that their tone changed and they found him partially responsible for the accident claiming "there were no witnesses".

As for the recent meeting between Kim Jong-Il and the South Korean President, the armistice is still in effect and the countries are technically still at war. All that happened at the meeting were promises to move towards peaceful relations and reunification. There was a similar summit back in 2000 and since then North Korea even went so far as to show off its nuclear capability. Hopefully the agreements are fruitful this time, though I won't hold my breath.

What Eric said.

Being Korean myself, I can tell you that 100% of the country is NOT behind the military or Pro-American and as Eric simplified...it's generally the older folks who are appreciative while the younger want them out. In fact, there are downright crazy young folks (i.e. hippies) who want to re-unify with North Korean and have North Korea be the ruling Government (i.e. Communism) since they believe it will bring economic equality (yeah it will...everyone will be poor and starving except the military).

I've witnessed PLENTY of these demonstrations in my lifetime and it's amazing that that's still a constant after visiting 4 or 5 times throughout the course of 25 years of my life. When I was a wee lad I saw them and now that I'm older, I still see them.

Also as Eric said, the two Koreas are still at war technically. I'm not sure where you got information that said otherwise. Frankly knowing the North Korean leader, I wouldn't hold your breath on this one. It's been over 50 years with no (real) progress...

As for myself, I'm not worried about the problems within South Korea (and I am not saying they are minor), I am worried about the larger problem...North Korea across the border with Nuclear Weapons, a million man army and a lunatic leader. South Korea has a far smaller military and with the (I believe) ~70,000 US troops, it wouldn't take that long for North Korea to take over. In fact, it's been argued that once things get desperate with the famine, North Korea WILL invade since wars stimulate the economy. Also Kim Jung-Il is a prideful man so I wouldn't put it past him that he'd rather go out guns blazing then surrender to the 'enemy.'

[Zarxrax]

In fact, it's been argued that once things get desperate with the famine, North Korea WILL invade since wars stimulate the economy.

http://economics.about.com/od/warandthe ... conomy.htm

[Kionon]

I should have cited my sources. Among them are the Korean Times, the Seoul Times, and The Economist.

[BasharOfTheAges]

In fact, it's been argued that once things get desperate with the famine, North Korea WILL invade since wars stimulate the economy.

http://economics.about.com/od/warandthe ... conomy.htm

Economists all deal in shady logic of one form or another (as evidenced in the fact that their theories are often heavily politically/socially biased to the economic forces that are prevalent in a given nation) - the opinion of one is really just as questionably valid as that of another.

[Kionon]

In fact, it's been argued that once things get desperate with the famine, North Korea WILL invade since wars stimulate the economy.

http://economics.about.com/od/warandthe ... conomy.htm

Economists all deal in shady logic of one form or another (as evidenced in the fact that their theories are often heavily politically/socially biased to the economic forces that are prevalent in a given nation) - the opinion of one is really just as questionably valid as that of another.

You know I just, just quoted these same quotes to my mother this morning as we discussed the claim Iraq would be over in 2 weeks.

Vyacheslav von Plehve: "What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution."

Robert Wilson Lynd: "The belief in the possibility of a short decisive war appears to be one of the most ancient and dangerous of human illusions."

[Kalium]

In fact, it's been argued that once things get desperate with the famine, North Korea WILL invade since wars stimulate the economy.

http://economics.about.com/od/warandthe ... conomy.htm

Economists all deal in shady logic of one form or another (as evidenced in the fact that their theories are often heavily politically/socially biased to the economic forces that are prevalent in a given nation) - the opinion of one is really just as questionably valid as that of another.

The broken windows fallacy is actually important. What tends to drive economies during war period is the massive government spending. It also tends to be problematic later in the form of massive government debt.

[godix]

In fact, it's been argued that once things get desperate with the famine, North Korea WILL invade since wars stimulate the economy.

http://economics.about.com/od/warandthe ... conomy.htm

Economists all deal in shady logic of one form or another (as evidenced in the fact that their theories are often heavily politically/socially biased to the economic forces that are prevalent in a given nation) - the opinion of one is really just as questionably valid as that of another.

The broken windows fallacy is actually important. What tends to drive economies during war period is the massive government spending. It also tends to be problematic later in the form of massive government debt.

The broken window fallacy is itself a fallacy. Planned obsolescence is, essentially, the broken window fallacy on a macro scale. And it works. I don't like it, but the idea does actually work. As can be witnessed by the fact that MS has had 7 major OS's in the last 12 years with lack of support for old ones to encourage upgrading.

Something else to note, social security was a program stated directly to fight a depression. Decades later it is now one of the largest single outlay categories the US has. OTOH we aren't still paying for tanks to defeat Hitler. From a cold purely economic point of view it's probably better to have massive government spending a short time rather than massive government spending which becomes an untouchable third rail and lingers around forever. Taking a more rational point of view then human life and foreign relations and so on come into the equation of course.

Which all means that war can and often does boost the economy for a short time. Over the long run it's opportunity costs and human costs overshadow that.