Murray
N. Rothbard once said:
It
is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a
specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a
“dismal science.” But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud
and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this
state of ignorance.
This
maxim applies even more so
for academics, who, unfortunately, oftentimes mistakenly presume that
possessing superior knowledge in their respective fields of expertise
necessarily means that they possess superior knowledge over ALL
matters. Perhaps due to vanity, academics tend to suppose
that all of their prejudices from A to Z hold value for no other
reason than they are academics.
![]() |
Image Source |
Unfortunately,
many academics outside the field of economics who possess little
to no knowledge about even the basic fundamentals of economics
do not hesitate to make sweeping pronouncements about the subject. A
good example of this is one Robert J. Fouser, who is an associate
professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University.
Now
I have never met Professor Fouser and I have never spoken to him.
All I know about him is that he is a Korean language professor at
Seoul National University. Therefore, since all I know about him is
his occupation, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume
that he is an excellent linguist and an expert in the Korean
language. In fact, I will go further and even assume that he is a
gentleman whose only wish is for everyone in the world to be happy.
However, that does not mean that his opinions about anything outside
of his field of expertise carry any more weight than the opinions of
anyone else.
That
did not stop Professor Fouser from pontificating about the state of
the Korean economy or the need for “economic democracy” in his
editorial
in The
Korea Herald.
He
began by saying:
Talking
to ordinary people is the best way to check the pulse of a nation.
Last week, I was lucky to be able to take the pulse of Korea through
long talks with friends who also happen to be ordinary people. The
talks paint a picture of a nation deeply troubled by worry and
self-doubt. Above all, the overwhelming message is that the Korean
dream is slipping away.
What
sorts of criteria must people meet in order to be considered “an
ordinary person?” He does not say. Furthermore, assuming that
“pulse of Korea” means “the overall mood of the Korean people,”
then is talking to a few friends all that is needed to discover the
mood of this entire nation? If that's the case, I think all those
people at Pew Research Center
should quit their jobs and find more meaningful employment elsewhere.
![]() |
Image Source |
He
also adds rhetorical flair when he says, “Opportunity comes through
reforms that break down barriers and help create fair competition.”
Just
what does “fair” mean exactly? The
fact of the matter is that there is no objective standard of
“fairness.” What is “fair” tends to be strictly
in the eye of the beholder. So what does Professor Fouser mean when
he says “fair?” I guess we will never know. But even if we did
get to learn what he thinks the word should mean, would it matter? I
think not.
Just
like so many unemployed hipsters who think that they have “figured
out” what capitalism is, Professor Fouser also felt confident
enough to give his diagnosis when he said:
The
essential problem is that capitalism, particularly the variety that
developed in Korea, relies on expanding markets for its prosperity.
Where
have I heard that from before? Oh right, it was Karl Marx who said
it first
in the Communist Manifesto when he said:
The
need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the
bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle
everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
![]() |
You'd think that the Ghostbusters would have gotten around to taking care of the ghost of Karl Marx by now. Image Source |
Never
mind that capitalism is not actually a conscious living being but
merely an idea; an economic system which is defined by the private
ownership of property. Never mind that capitalism is merely an
economic system that allows people the opportunity to pursue their
desire to seek greater prosperity, which is not the same as a
need to seek greater prosperity. Never mind that prosperity
can be had even without “expanding” to new markets abroad. As
long as there are any human needs that are unsatisfied, there is no
limit to do business, even within Korea's own humble market.
But
why try to explain all that when he already knows what “the
essential problem of capitalism” really is?
Then
Professor Fouser went on to say:
A
relatively small number of nations with technological advantages
monopolized high-value goods. These nations boomed because they had
a growing consumer and production base at home and competitive
advantages in exports... Japan, once known for its massive trade
surpluses, has seen a trade deficit for 24 months in a row since June
2012.
What
does it mean to monopolize something? A
monopoly occurs when a single business entity owns all the market for
a given product or service. By definition, there can be no other
competitive agent. When was the last time any country in the world
had a monopoly on any good? I will await patiently for that answer.
Next,
is having a growing consumer and production base and competitive
advantages in exports all that are needed to get rich? They are
certainly important, but they are not the be-all
and end-all of gaining riches. If they
were, India would be one of the richest countries in the world, and
Switzerland would be one of the poorest! Professor Fouser did not
mention a single word about other necessary qualifications that a
country has to meet in order to break away from the chains of poverty
such as the supremacy of the rule of law, the reliability of
institutions, low levels of government corruption, the importance of
culture, work ethic, education levels, women's rights, the effects of
war and peace, or history.
Even
if he had mentioned all of that, he would have only begun to scratch
the surface about how some societies get rich while others remain
poor. But why worry about such fine details? It's all about the Big
Picture, I'm sure.
![]() |
It's like as though no one in the history of the world has ever attempted to study this subject before! Image Source |
And
just what the hell is wrong with trade deficits? If trade surpluses
are so great, seeing how the United States ran a trade surplus in
nine out of the ten years of the Great Depression,
the 1930s should have been a ten-year long party for Americans!
Conventional
wisdom seems to go like this – The Japanese economy's performance
has been lackadaisical.
Japan has had trade deficits for twenty-four months in a row.
Therefore, trade deficits must be bad.
Then,
using that same logic, seeing how the United States ran a trade
surplus for nine out of ten years during the Great Depression, is it
correct to say that trade surpluses must be bad?
Neither
a trade deficit nor a trade surplus means a damned thing when it
comes to the overall health of an economy. There are many reasons,
some of them known and others unknown, as to why an economy
flourishes or flounders. Trade deficits and trade surpluses are not
one of them. This may be difficult to understand for many people
but, believe it or not, economies are far too complex to draw
simplistic causal connections.
![]() |
This should be your level of skepticism when someone claims to have a simple solution to fix the economy. Image Source |
So,
after having used shoddy research methods, normative statements that
can mean anything depending on the reader, and one economic fallacy
after another, Professor Fouser finally says:
Focusing
on inequality is the first step toward restoring the Korean dream.
To do so, Korea needs to move beyond the din of petty politics and
revive the national discussion on “economic democracy.”
At
this point, I ought to explain how the entire concept of “income
distribution” is tendentious; that the concept is flawed from the
very start because it takes the existence of wealth for granted, that
wealth exists somehow – never mind how it came into existence –
meaning that the only thing that people need to be concerned about is
that it has to be distributed and apportioned among everyone. Never
mind who is going to do the apportioning or how or for whom and damn
the morals and damn the consequences!
But
nitpicking the arguments that he stated alone were exhausting enough
as it was.
I'll
say it again. I'm sure that Professor Fouser is an excellent
linguist and an expert in the Korean language and a gentleman of
noble intent. But perhaps it might be prudent for him (and others)
to stick to what he is good at and leave the subject of economics to
economists.
![]() |
Oh, wait. Never mind. Image Source |