![South_Korea's_GDP_(PPP)_growth_from_1911_to_2008[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/PBpz5G3.png "South_Korea's_GDP_(PPP)_growth_from_1911_to_2008[1].png")
Is south korea the only country that managed to go from colonized to first world economy ? Their growth is really impressive
>>1364340
>Their growth is really impressive
at what cost though?
>>1364341
Please elaborate
>>1364340
No, other asian tigers like Hong Kong, Singapore, etc.
>>1364340
Ireland.
>>1364340
Arguably, Finland was also colonized. And settling colonies (usa,aus,nz,can) have also been very succesfull
>>1364340
Because they didnt give a shit about human rights and the people didnt complain because they knew that they were making a better place for their children.
>>1364342
There's still massive wealth inequality problems. You have people living in squalor not far from the rich who live in nice houses.
They have a strict education system where their students basically have no fun and a fair amount of them end up being rather suicidal because of how nasty their schooling system is.
People end up killing themselves because they didn't do well enough to end up working for a major chaebol. It's seen as the only option they have as they'd end up living a nasty life otherwise. For those that do make it, it's fine. But for a large number of them, it's not.
>>1364351
>Because they didnt give a shit about human rights
Many other countries give far less shit about human rights and yet don't achieve first world status.
>>1364353
Oh wow that sounds terrible wtf I hate capitalism now I'm going to read Marx
>>1364349
I'm talking about 20th century colonies, not the eternal anglo commiting acts of genocides against the natives and stealing all their ressources anon
>>1364351
To elaborate on colonies like nz, and Aus, US and Canada. They treated the natives like animals and as such prospered. Make your own opinion on the morals of this but you cant deny the results.
>>1364358
>not the eternal anglo commiting acts of genocides against the natives and stealing all their ressources anon
>>>/reddit/
>>1364359
>They treated the natives like animals and as such prospered
I can't tell if you're serious or not.
You think that killing cannibalistic stone age tribes makes industries and infrastructure pop out of the ground?
>>1364355
That's not really my point.
Lots of places in Asia were rather backwater, but they've suddenly become economic powerhouses very quickly, which means that some of their population gets left behind which isn't ideal.
Sure it's like this in any other capitalist country, but the issue is somewhat worse in these asian countries that used to be third world and have now become first world rather suddenly.
>>1364354
Yeah you are prob referring to nigger countries. Disreggarding human rights was half it, having willing workers was the others. You also need good leaders like the chink that ran South Korea at the time (dont remmeber his name, his daughter is running the country at the moment).
Most of the time nigger countries dont have good leaders who can force the niggers to actually work, exception was south africa before aparthiad and rohdesia.
Aid from Japan made south Korea better economy.
>>1364364
>Sure it's like this in any other capitalist country, but the issue is somewhat worse in these asian countries that used to be third world and have now become first world rather suddenly.
I'm sure they're devastated that they can't enjoy a life of leisure and luxury like the north vietnamese, the cambodians under the khmer rouge, the chinese and the north koreans.
>>1364365
No, what was "half of it" was an intelligent hardworking people, the other half being free market capitalism.
>>1364361
Obv not the whole reason but imagine where those countries would be if the abos were in charge. Fucking abos
>>1364368
They would still be in the stone age.
My point being that the continent of Australia would've been successfully colonized even if no abos lived there. Abos didn't make australia rich, white australian settlers did.
>>1364376
>free market capitalism entails lack human rights.
On the contrary, it's the only economic system compatible with human rights
Kill yourself you braindead commie nigger.
>>1364373
Yeah but the question is about other colonies and what makes one successfull. I think that not letting coons to have a say allows prosperiety
No one has any idea what they are talking about and barely making points related to the Op.
>>1364381
Oh okay I had misunderstood your point.
>>1364379
Bra you serious? You say that south korea allowed free market capitalism (well known that working conditions were shit at this time) but then say its the only system compatiable with human rights.
>>1364390
>Bra you serious?
Yeah I'm serious.
Let's compare south korean and north korean working conditions, eh?
>>1364398
Just because you think i am a commie doesnt mean i am one.
Just because one place is worse doesnt make the other any less shit
>>1364364
>>1364353
well, in asian countries it seems this is the best they can do - it's either this or massive poverty with a small rulling elite controlling everything and hoarding all the resources (china, best korea and all the small and also worthless ones around)
and of course poverty will always exist, but at least south korea doesn't use the same basic plan china did to be wealthy, which revolved around having slave labour producing bootlegged shit for the west (or even worse cases: countries whose national economy is based on underage prostitution and/or gambling)
japan in the 80's/90's and south korea in the 2000's and 2010's at least focused on technological advances to get where they're today
>link unrelated: http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/japan
it just werks so fuck it anyway
>>1364365
>Most of the time nigger countries dont have good leaders who can force the niggers to actually work, exception was south africa before aparthiad and rohdesia.
Blacks do work though.
South Africa during Apartheid all the government organizations said the country would collapse if it completely seperated because the huge loss of black labour and Rhodesia kept it's Black education utter shit to have a pool of dirt cheap laborers who would not compete with whites in white collar jobs.
>>1364411
Tottally agree. Pussies think that all cultures and races should be treated the same. When in reality they all have different ways to get the best out of them.
>>1364415
That not what I was saying (not sure how you got that from my post) and both countries systems were unsustainable and fucked themselves up because it made pretty weak in the long run if the policies were extended to modern times.
>>1364423
Ahahahaha
I dont understand how it unsustainable. But i assume you think that having a large uneducated workforce would spell disaster. Maybe you are right. I feel that the white hieracy could have sustained the status quo
>>1364398
Both extremes are shit. Just because one is slightly better than the other doesn't make it not shit.
>>1364449
Because other places would have a much bigger pool of educated people and skilled laborers.
Also the whole middle class being very low in the population really takes a toll in consumption which drives the economy.
>>1364453
>both extremes are shit
>one is a rich nation where some people are miserable but certainly can depend on both the government, which is rich due to taxation and charity that can exists due to the already mentioned overall prosperity
>the other one is pretty much a teocracy where famine is a permanent condition
oh gee
ITT: people who believe in the Idea of Progress
>>1364477
2nd highest suicide rate in the world goes quite a bit further than "some people are miserable but certainly can depend on both the government, which is rich due to taxation and charity that can exists due to the already mentioned overall prosperity"
>>1364469
Like why go to Rhodesia or South Africa completion wise?
The whites want to be paid western wages and the black underclass laborers are unskilled and the governments don't want to invest in that labour because in Rhodesia's cade building a semi-skilled trade school triggered white unions.
Other places do cheap or higher end stuff better.
>>1364484
>a 26 suicides per 100k rate is the same as widespread famine, political persecution and slavery
This is what lefties actually believe.
>>1364495
Your reading comprehension is shit and you should kill yourself, faggot.
>>1364484
Yeah, I'm sure people are way happier in north korea. The north korean government released the official suicide statistics, and there were 0 suicides in the past year! Clearly communism is superior!
>>1364497
>both extremes are shit, one because suicide rates and the other because of famine
That was your argument. He addressed it
>>1364407
>which revolved around having slave labour producing bootlegged shit for the west (or even worse cases: countries whose national economy is based on underage prostitution and/or gambling)
South Korea did both those things.
>>1364495
I think the defining characteristic of the leftist is their complete inability to compare and contrast.
You'll say "well the capitalist system is pretty good at creating prosperity" and they'll say "yeah but there are still homeless people!" If you answer "well compared to communist countries were gulags and starvation are the norm, that is still pretty good" they'll say something in the lines "but some people still don't have health insurance!!"
Then they'll usually repeat memes about Cuba having a good healthcare system or the USSR being a livable place.
When they're thoroughly debunked by facts they'll start posting meme images they got from /leftypol/ while repeating the word "spooky" over and over.
I'm not him but I'm just gonna say workers rights and the work culture in Korea is utter shit.
>>1364511
Ok, now compare a country like South Korea to Finland or Sweden. Communism and free market are not the only options, retard.
>>1364517
Sweden was literally the richest per capita country in the world when it enacted its welfare laws in the 1960s. They had reached that stage after 100 years of free market capitalism.
Let me guess you're a Bernout who read about "le swedish socialism" on reddit.
>>1364524
You forgot Finland.
Anyone saying it's culture should be ignored as a no-brain idiot.
>>1364538
It's heavily based on the human capital.
Japan had a literate and educated one.
So didn't but acquired one overtime with assistance of Japan and America.
>>1364543
Also Sk was a colony of Japan but it was different compared to the standard late 19th to 20th century colonies.
>>1364524
You're such a clown. Those 100 years of free trade weren't doing it any good, it was the accidental mercantilist period due to Sweden's neutral status between the turn of the century and the 50's(two world wars that required steel imports) they suddenly shot up and being the richest per capita when half of Europe was just decimated is a fucking stupid measure and comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Sweden#1890-1950_-_Second_industrial_revolution
>>1364407
China is booming aswell what are you talking about
>>1364543
>>1364550
Literacy is important but Japan had huge amounts of US Aid and they used industrial policy, technological espionage and high tariffs which is why they developed.
>>1364340 South Korea also had huge tariffs and state subsidised industry, their policy was probably the most paranoiac and explicitly mercantilist ever.
>>1364579
and where did i write the opposite of that?
what i meant is that both of them are economically flourishing but using different strategies: one uses slave labour and dooms the majority of the population to eternal poverty and the other is ridding the wave on technological advances
>>1364543
Human capital is preserved and engender by the ability to use it. Rather we should focus on the existence and development of productive forces.
>>1364359
>How can anyone own the land, white man?
>H-hey, stop stealing my resources!
Reddit logic
>>1364340
They're basically the jews of asia.
>>1364340
usa, canada, aussies, the sheep fuckers, south africa during the apartheid,
They had a long period of relatively free markets, free trade, and a healthy banking system. This rapid growth wasn't exclusive to them however, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan (before their banking fuck ups and deflation and the Nordic countries before the 1980s and after the 2000s when they liberalized their market again.
>inb4 Le Nordic countries have always been socialist! Dont you watch the young turks you racist?! Socialism is the answer and makes us rich!
>>1364340
USA
>>1364340
Israel.
>>1364528
You mean the one province of the Russian Empire where the Bolsheviks were defeated by the White Army?
Still not a good case for communism.
>>1364358
they truly used all those resources to their full capabilities but the damn eternal anglos!!! >:^(
>>1364340
>SK
>first world
Taiwan did the same, alongside Singapore and arguably the Czechs.
>>1364407
China is literally booming.
And SK did exactly those horrible things in 1940-1970.
>>1364593
Where exactly in China is this slave labor?
>>1365990
Foxconn factories senpai
>>1364790
Only the small rich parts.
Vast majority of the population was poor as fuck with basically being a different country.
>>1365965
It is first world in literally every metric you can think of senpai
>>1365990
pathetic 3rd world tier wages, plainly offensive work hours along with a normalization of mental abuse over the employees by their overseers are pretty much what makes china a slave labour paradise; they're not shackled to physical chains but if they stop being abused this much and claim any kind of rights they will be fired and someone else will quickly take their place, meanwhile the fired person and his/her family will literally starve or go back to the rural areas and live like a medieval peasant.
and i haven't even mentioned child labour, which is still taboo in china and the government puts a lot of effort trying to hide this
>>1365982
not as much as they did before; although like i said their economy is sturdier than most super-power economies since it relies mostly on people instead of resources, they are growing so much year after year that it is impossible to keep this growing rate without completely changing the country status quo [cont.]
>>1366552
[.cont]
and the rulling elites don't want this, because if this happens the middle classes will actually be a real thing and in a matter of decades they will start to claim rights that china's elites simply aren't ready to give away
