What is worth noting here is that these numbers only cover counterfeits COMING IN. The problem is that Korea is also well known as a source of origin for high quality fakes. The real numbers could be much higher.
OK lets work the numbers. KORAIL says the plan will attract 2.5 million a year (lets set aside if that will actually happen for the moment), this works out to 6850 people per day. To do this they will need to donate a car in the train, or about 60 seats. Now lets count KTX trains, to do this lets count number of trains between two segments both ways, Seoul to Daejeon and Yongsan to Seodaejeon (this assumes that all KTX's at least stop at Seoul area to Daejeon area, and perhaps continue elsewhere). This equals 138 KTX trips a day. This also equals a loss of 8280 seats a day as per the movie theater plan.
So we have the first problem, this will give up more possible revenue seats than it will possibly gain. Or to put the problem into starker relief, this plan calls for the use of 15230 seats a day (the 8280 for the theater plus the 6850 additional seats sold) that are not currently being sold!
Or if you want to take a look at capacity, thats 60 seats a car, 18 cars a train, 138 trips, making 149040 seats. Which means this plan will hopefully call for the use of 10% of capacity unsold on a basis so regularly that they can be assured of both the space needed for the theater and the additional riders.
Now lets look past what this probably means for KORAIL's real rider-ship, and talk about this conceptually. One of the main benefits of the KTX is the shorter travel time, or about half that of the other classes. This leads to travel times currently of about three hours to Pusan and four to Kwangju/Mokpo. The problem is your average movie is about two hours or longer, so only a few people will see the entire movie. Secondly since these are first-run, or very recent, movies I am willing to wager that few people will be willing to walk in and sit on a movie already half way through.
What does all that mean? The number of people an innovation like this would attract would be very narrow. They would have to be people who:
A. Need to travel at least two hours on KTX line
B. Start from at least Seoul, Pusan, or Mokpo/Gwangju
C. Willing to pay 50-100% more over slower classes of service (or even more in the case of the bus)
or
A. A free movie is enough to lure people from Air travel which they take out of time efficency or prefernce over rail transit.
Now given that airlines have reduced Seoul-Pusan service since the KTX's introduction, you could say that those remaining loyal to the airlines need some pretty strong inducements. I wonder if a movie is enough.
Regardless, it is from these two groups that KORAIL hopes to attract 6850 per day (on average) from.
In defense, if we are generous and say that KORAIL is running at 75% KTX capacity currently on average, this leads to sales increase of about 6%. Ambitious but attainable. (Then again if real capacity is less...)
A few months ago quite a few foreigners (obviously not familar with Korea) got excited about a Chinese case that held the overall owner of a Chinese shopping center liable for rather blatant sales of counterit mechandise by tenants. The foreign companies were eager to try it here, only to be met with an amount of patronizing. If this sex law gets past, could it be possible to lobby for the same for buildings peddling fakes?
P&G Japan? P&G? Why does that ring a bell? Thats right kids, its Procter and Gamble's Japan division. I love the fact that not only the Korean press does not correctly identify the overall parent, but also the company does nothing to clarify its pedigree. Granted Tokyo sounds more of a beauty and fashion center than Cincinnati.
"II" is a tradition older than 20 years? Does this mean ten years ago the stuff was called SK-I? and twenty simply "SK"? Does global marketing in the 'natti know about this?
The comparison is so ludicrous that it almost barely worth mentioning. Then again one would think somebody like the Korean Stock Exchange would know better. Simply put you cannot make a blanket comparison like that across economies given their GDP and population. There is also a more fundamental flaw here, the idea that absolute size is a measure of worth. Data later in the article show this:
Since the ROE is much higher on Korean firms than Japanese firms, one can easily argue its the Japanese companies are actually overvalued, rather than Korean ones being undervalued. Another odd thing about this article, or perhaps even more disturbingly the report itself, is the way it treats PE ratios:
Were to start with this slaughter of stock statistics....whooo boy! First a PE ration does not tells you little about underlying value of the company. The number is used not to find value per se, but value relative to companies in the same sector. First we have not indication that the Korean top 30 are of the same industrial composition of the Japanese top 30. Another problem are discrepancies in on each local exchange that effect a PE ratio, such as the amount of shares floated in relation to volume or even more basic things like local economic conditions (ask anybody who follow ADR's on the NYSE versus stock in their home economies). Last even if a company puts in a good PE relative to its peers, it says little about things that actually effect valuation like assets, industry profitblity/potentional, and management quality.
On that last issue, management quality I love the selective memory at the end of the article:
Lets not mention that SK Networks was once guilty of accounting fraud which overstated profits, and the man convicted for fraud in the scandal is still head of SK Networks (not to mention the whole proxy fight in relation to that power struggle). I think things like that have more to do with a company valuation that some number from a stock price.
Schooling her son costs US$60,000 a year? Thats more that the US's GDP per capita! Even if you add average private school fees, the amount is unexplainable. Mater Dei, a selective catholic school around where I lived in LA, only charges about US$9,000 for the entire year.
Welcome to Korea! You just spent millions of dollars to buy a failing Korean firm. It may have been tough, but you bought the thing. Now you own it lock-stock-and-barrel. Or do you?
If all the restrictions in Korea were not enough, there is a growing movement to restrict something else, technology. Over the past few weeks, three major cases have been put in the press about foreign companies who have the gall to buy Korean companies and their Intellectual Property and then use that IP outside Korea.
I do not want to raise larger issues about property rights, the rule of law, and perhaps cultural attitudes. However these cases should be noted as it should give a foreign investor pause as to why he is buying assets in Korea and the portability of those assets once (he thinks) he has purchased them.
In perhaps the case furthest along, a NGO and related labor unions have sued Sssangyong motor for, well, making a business decision from the Joongang:
Spec Watch Korea, a civic group that monitors foreign investors, and members of Ssangyong Motor Co.'s labor union yesterday filed a lawsuit against nine directors of the Korean car maker for allegedly stealing auto assembly technology from the company for its Chinese parent firm, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp (SAIC).
In late June, Shanghai Automotive announced it will make Ssangyong Motor's sport utility vehicles in China through a licensing deal worth 24 billion won ($25 million). The pact sparked a massive protest among Ssangyong Motor workers here for "an unusually small amount of money" for a deal of its size.
Now I would assume that when SAIC bought Ssangyong for millions of dollars, part of that would include the intellectual property of the firm. This would include all plans, production methods, name plates, etc. The transfer cost of US$25 million, and whether or that is fair or not, is a bit of red herring if you ask me.
Moving on we now have the case of Daewoo Electronics. In perhaps one of the final chapters in the disintegration of the once huge Daewoo chaebol after the Asian Financial Crisis, Daewoo Electronics (a small piece of that) was sold to a consortium lead by an Indian electronics firm.
One would think this would be a cause to celebrate. This is a firm that has limped on long past the time a firm in the west would be taken out behind the barn and shot. It survived long enough to get a new life, and fresh capital. However that view is not the view shared by the CEO. The top paragraphs from his press conference announcing the deal:
There is no practical way to prevent Daewoo Electronics Co.'s technology from being leaked to India once it acquisition is final, said Lee Seung-chang, president of Daewoo Electronics.
Mr. Lee's remarks came at a press conference in Seoul yesterday. Mr. Lee confirmed that a joint consortium of RHJ International, the holding company of the U.S. private equity fund Ripplewood, and India's Videocon Industries, was selected as the preferred bidder on Sept. 8.
"After the merger, 10,000 patents that Daewoo Electronics owns may be turned over to India's Videocon," Mr. Lee said.
No granted that was not the entire content of the press conference, but one has to wonder the motives behind this comments/questioning and how it was of such import that it was dwelt on long enough to be noted.
The final case is interesting somewhat due in part by the omissions by the reporter:
Korean management at BOE Hydis requested court protection in an August 8 petition to Seoul Central District Court, saying that there was a shortage of capital at the company. BOE Hydis said its situation was in part due to parent company BOE Group failing to invest in the firm. BOE Group is a China-based firm that took over the Korean firm Hydis in 2003.
Chung Nam-il, a leader of the labor union at BOE Hydis, said that BOE Group "has not invested [in Hydis] at all since 2003 when it took over the company. BOE only has an mind to drain away state-of-the-art core technologies at an unreasonably low price."
The BOE Group lent Hydis’ Advanced Fringe Field Switching (AFFS) technology to BOE’s Chinese affiliates in 2004. This year, the group’s Chinese affiliates tried to grab experts in the technology and bring them to China. This move was strongly resisted by creditor banks and the Korea-based company’s labor union. In addition, in 2004 BOE Group paid BOE Hydis 75 billion won (US$78 million) for using the technologies for 20 years, fueling controversy that the company had in effect been sold at a bargain rate.
The history left out of this article is the fact Hydis was once Hyundai Display Technologies. In other words it was part of Hynix nee Hyundai Electronics. The sale of Hydis to the Chinese firm was actually done at the behest of Korean government owned banks in order to shore-up Hynix.
In other words, the Korean government and all the stakeholders (even union leader Chung Nam-il) knew what they were getting into. They all agreed in some measure to both the sale of Hydis and the price. But for some reason its fine to buy the company to save Chung’s ass, but no to effectively leverage their assets.
Speaking of which I remember a scare tactic used by Hynix back then. When it was all but officially bankrupt, the company was desperate to keep going somehow. Part of this effort was to get more and more favorable terms from its creditors, who by this time were all government owned banks (Korea Exchange, Cho Hung, Korea Development Bank, et. al.). One of its negotiation cards was to discuss accepting a tender offer from an overseas company (with usually “Chinese” instead of overseas). Perhaps this is not a recent worry/phenomenon.
In lieu of all the conversation and remembrances, I would like to relate a bit for my friends and regular readers. Perhaps its therapy for me as well.
I do not want to remember the 9/11 attacks. I do not want to hear the tapes. I do not want to see the TV news footage. I do not want to sit through a movie about it. Too painful.
The closest I got the attacks was a rather frantic phone call from a guy I barely knew. He was a business contact I knew from the States. We had a few good lunches together and had a great rapport. With hopes of keeping the contact I sent him my contact information in Korea.
It was sometime in the afternoon on September 12, which made it the middle of the night in the US. I got a call from him, it started off business like, "Er just thought I would call you..." but I could hear the fatigue and edge in his voice. The conversation turned, "You see what happened over here today...". The edge became sharper. "You know my brother worked in those buildings...". It clicked, in the dead of the night his options were few. My weathered contact information a lifeline to help him get through a sleepless night.
The odd thing, his distance and isolation in the middle of night neatly summed up my own isolation from the attacks. On that day, and subsequent days I never felt so alone in my life. It was a rather odd, feeling the pain every American felt yet unable to talk about it much, unable to have that community experience, unable to do anything about it. I just had to sit and watch in that odd mix of loneliness, fear, and anger. No, I do not want to remember that day.
Note used quotes on "China and South East Asia". Why? One thing not said to much is the fact North Korea produces and exports a number of fake cigarettes. Is the Customs Service and KTRA (Korea Tobacco Retailers Association) hiding something not to get the North mad?
Reminds me of a joke about the warning labels put on cigarette packs in the US. "Smoking is safe for me, becuase I am a man and I only buy the packs that say they are harmful to pregnant women."
The third round is now over, and depending who you talk to little or no progress was made. However due to all the press reports, we can now construct a scorecard on what was wanted, and how much progress was made. Lets look at things by sector. Please excuse the lack of links.
Negotiation Tactics
Before the details, I want to give my thoughts on the negotiation tactics being used by the both sides. I think part of the reason for the significant impasses in part have to do with the fact that both sides seem to have different styles. The Korean side seems to want to keep negotiations compartmentalized. Korea says “we talk about agriculture now, that’s it”, so compromises are to be very narrow in their view. The US side meanwhile seems to want to make compromises on a broad level, e.g. “We accept your position on Textiles, and you accept our position on Automobiles.”
Agriculture
Little progress was made, and I do mean little. The little progress is mainly due to both are still talking about it and the Korean government seems to agree that their list of agricultural goods could be revised by mid-September. It is a ray of light, but who knows if its light at the end of the tunnel, or an on rushing train.
To clarify the current status is the US wants every agricultural good to be imported freely by opening up the market in stages lasting 10 years. Korean meanwhile wants to protect 280+ items (284 says Joongang, 288 says Chosun) and lift what is not included in stages of 15 years.
Of those items not on the 280+ list, little of it makes sense that will take 15 years to be tariff free; there is not much sanity in my opinion. Accordingly to the Dong-A two items in debate in this area are corn and beans for animal feed. What makes Korea’s resistance a little odd is that Korea produces negligible amounts anyway. So eliminating this tariff right away will not impact farmers one iota.
Textiles
This is something the US is being hard on (perhaps to mirror Korea’s stonewalling on agriculture). Korea wants the US to eliminate all tariffs on textiles. The US basically agrees, but wants them to be phased out in 10 years (similar to their agricultural proposal, reinforcing my mirror idea). Korea finds this unacceptable and wants them phased out much faster.
For some reason the Textile issue has seemed to fixate the media. This is somewhat puzzling to me since China, India, and others are (or are set) to become booming textile importers to the US in their own right. Granted it is a big industry for Korea, but their face a very competitive market in the future in the US.
Automobiles
Basically, no change. The US wants cars to be subject to a lower tariff and a revision to the engine displacement taxes. Korea is holding firm. Korea though seems to be offering a compromise on the initial tariff and giving a two-year grace period on emissions. What this last part means is not described, however clearly Korea is holding firm in my opinion.
Despite initial word that foreign nameplate cars will be excluded from the talks, some news reports says this issue is still up in the air. Out of curiosity, I wonder how a Hyundai made at their new factory in Alabama will be taxed if brought back to Korea.
Anti-Dumping
One of Korea’s more interesting issues is their worries about US Anti- dumping and other trade protection measures. The US is firm this is not to be discussed. I wonder if again this is firmness to mirror Korean firmness in other areas.
Backing up this theory is I wonder if some of these measures can actually be placed from the executive to judicial branch of the US government. Currently once a firm is found by the Executive branch as dumping product, companies involved can sue to get compensation. Why not in turn just leave the determining and compensation to the court system? Also it the companies could conceivably be protected by anti- trust statues (granted though after Matsushita v. Zeinth this can be dicey). Anyway, there is a fall back position to this for the US which can be a good compromise.
On the other hand, the US may be linking this issue to the use of government owned banks to subsidize Korean companies. Recently government subsidies given to Hynix Semiconductor were found to violate WTO rules. Part of the Hynix case was the company was allowed to dump (sell below cost to gain market share) memory chips on the US market because of these subsidies. Perhaps if Korea would agree to change its banking sector, including the somewhat controversial Korea Development Bank, a compromise can be found here.
Finally, the time difference may make this negotiation moot. The Dong- A reports that the US side has to make reports to congress about changes in anti-dumping policy six month before signing. Keeping in mind the March to June deadline for signing (I forget the exact date), this means that an agreement on this area must be reached in the next couple months. If no progress is made the next round in Jeju, this may be a dead issue.
Pharmaceuticals
As you may recall, some progress was made in a special session in Singapore regarding Korea’s “positive list” system. In short the US was willing to accept it if other concessions were made in areas such as intellectual property rights, testing and access in relation to pharmaceuticals. This seemed to get a positive reaction initially from the Korean side.
The US likely came into Seattle ready to put this to rest. Unfortunately this was not to be so. As further details came out from both sides, negotiations seemed to have stalled. Or perhaps somebody added more restrictions. It is unclear from the media what exactly happened, but this can was kicked down the road.
Something left out of this reporting that concerns me is there is no talk of medical devices and such being included in this. Many of the complaints about barriers, such as regulation, testing, and even the positive list system (as I recall) also applies to medical devices. Is the lack of discussion simply an omission and press shorthand or does it show a quiet compromise on the issue?
Television Market
It seems some progress was made in the TV market. The US has seemed to have won some concession on laws limiting foreigners to a minority share of cable TV channels.
Intellectual Property
Both countries have made the obligatory pledge to respect and enforce IPR rights. Meanwhile the US has requested Korea to extend the time of copyright protection from 50 to 70 years. It is expected this will be a big issue the US will raise in the future.
Gaesong Industrial Complex
It stands as it always did, the US saying “Over my cold dead body!”
There is some anecdotal evidence that motorola may be behind the viral. Samsung says the phone must have been doctored due to the high quality plastic used in the Ultra phone in the viral. I have personally been unable to view it. Gotta find it.
US ROK FTA - Yehaaa! Begin the Third Round Round-up
The third round of the US ROK FTA talks are now underway, and with it a flood of news about what the Koreans are doing to “defend” Korea against the Americans in a agreement they “must” make that will cause Korea “pain and toil”. And the funny thing is this the language used by the Pro-FTA forces! Further more expect the anti-FTA forces to come out of the woodwork as the US makes further demands this round. More importantly the US’s head trade rep touches the third rail of Korean politics!
Speaking of pro and anti forces, something must said in passing about the protests in Seattle during the talks. An account from the Hani:
That must have been some protest. One person with a sign that says “FTA Takes Korean Jobs” and the other “FTA Takes US Jobs”. One has to wonder where all those jobs went. Perhaps this what Ross Perot meant by the “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving.
Meanwhile back in Korea members of the Assembly have protested in what could be described in new fashionable way in Seoul, claiming the whole FTA process is unconstitutional:
So in other words the lawmakers are saying because nobody is talking to them, their feelings are hurt, and that is unconstitutional somehow. I know it will not happen, but I hope the Constitutional Court throws the book at these guys. Any book, but preferably something big and heavy.
As expected, Korea is commenting over and over again on how rice will not be on the metaphorical table. This is part of a regime of 284 goods that they want to exclude from the treaty. As you can also expect these 248 goods happen to be exactly of the caliber that the US is eager to export, rice, beans, beef, pork, chicken, peppers, onions, garlic, fruit, etc. This impasse will likely either stall/end the talks, or if included in the pact will make it exceedingly difficult for the US senate to ratify the FTA (IMHO anyway).
Meanwhile, of the agricultural goods Korea is willing to lift the tariff on, Korea wants the tariffs lifted in 15 years not the US request of 10. All this looks somewhat silly given the Korean side also demands the US the speed up its lifting of textile tariffs to five years from the US proposed (reciprocal) proposal of 10 years.
The stalemates that hindered the first rounds, cars and drugs, are expected to continue. However, there may be a compromise in the offing in regards to drug pricing. The US recently at a side meeting in Singapore agreed to Korea’s positive list system, as long as additional steps are taken so as US drug companies are not discriminated against
(Personal note, frankly I think the US has given up the drug issue. The US proposals are laughable in that they require the cooperation of sectors of the Korean government who are not really use to cooperating with foreigners. I think it’s all a face saving measure by the US)
Remember the “Singapore plus” statement in the last round of talks? This was the Korean offer that said we will restrict 100 sectors plus a few more, same as the Korea Singapore FTA. What was outrageous about this was this was basically most of the things the US trades, services, agriculture, entertainment, etc. The issue of these services, ex. Agriculture, is finally boiling over. We start with the Dong-A:
Some of these are understandable. However it should be said that the Korean media’s ambiguity can lead to some drastic misunderstandings. For example take “postal service”, this is not get rid of the Korean Postal Service, nor allowing the US Postal Service to set up shop in Korea. It is about the domestic delivery of packages in Korea. Again from the Dong-A:
This is actually a bigger issue than it may seem. One of the largest complaints about doing business in Korea, and not just by foreigners, is the cost of shipping and logistics in country. In my opinion, allowing foreign competition and with it certain amount of consolidation for efficiency sake will drastically alter the prices of most goods in Korea.
Among the other things the US wants to talk about is the media restrictions in Korea (from the Chosun):
Wow, imagine the furor that will come from KBS after this. MBC may have done its chop piece on NAFTA. I expect the rest of the Korean media to pile on as more details of this comes out. All the major broadcasters have invested much money on TV production here, expect them to fight to protect that investment.
Another US requests you can read through the links in this post are change in the ownership rules of communication firms and openings of the Legal, Education, and Medical markets.
The biggest news though is Wendy Cutler, the head US Trade Rep, makes an admirable effort but ends up touching the third rail of Korean politics, the cheabols! From the Dong-A:
How about that for Cutler doing what I think would be diplomatic equivalent to nailing somebody’s balls to the wall. In other words Cutler is asking Korea to agree in writing to something everyone knows, the chaebols play by a different rules than everyone else.
Needless to say this does not sit will with Korean government (from the Korea Times):
And that was just the government response mind you. While a FKI statement was somewhat restrained, one can only wonder what the reaction was in the boardrooms in Korea. In case you are wondering the whole position of the FKI and the government is “Some regulations are being strictly applied, you expect ALL the rules to be applied?”. As head Korean negotiator Kim Jong-hoon notes:
What is really puzzling about all this is the language in the FTA is simply something like “Both parties agree to apply competition laws equally among US and Korean corporations”. All they would be doing is agreeing to an existing fact (a fact on paper that is). What would be so wrong with both companies confirming their respect for the rule of law? I think we all know the answer to that question in relation to the chaebols.
Actually I see Cutler working here. Time to ask for things that Korea would really be against to get concessions elsewhere. Or so I hope.
Finally as part of my mission to point out things that can sell the FTA I would like to point out to this in the Chosun:
A new korean espionage bill may be ready to clear the National Assembly. A new bill is needed (this will come to no shock to some of you) because trade secret theft in Korea was not a big issue until now. Actually the main reason is because Korean Law has very weak provisions for valuing intangible items. So if an employee steals a CD with a billion dollar production secret, technically speaking all he has stolen is a 25 cent CD (Yes, I am simplifying this somewhat to make my point).
It is worth noting that the new bill still reflects a historic dichotomy:
Lets read this another way, "If your Korean and steal another Korean's secrets, its no big deal."
Now what I really do wonder is how this dichotomy stands up when the secret is stolen from a Korean firm which happens to be owned by a foreign co. I want to read that proposed law if I have chance.
So in other words the government thought it best to press land not suited for agriculture into service. In part, you can argue, due to the artificial prices given to these products because of the tariffs.
In addition to poisoned food, we have general corruption, form the Dong-A:
Now we have improperly labeled food achieved through bribery. Again one can argue such skullduggery would not nearly pay off so well if food prices were not so artificially high due to tariffs. Further, because of the restrictions consumers have little choice but to trust, or not trust, a labeling process which is now proven to be sold to the highest bidder.
While I will not make the statement that an FTA would solve the problems immediately or make them disappear for good, I will say that if consumers are given more alternatives and price points they will have an positive impact in alleviating these problems.
Not only is this interesting since I think this is a first, but also because I own a Apple Laptop. Or more specificaly, I own an Apple Laptop who's batter was recalled. The odd thing is it was an older recall and the battery was not made by Sony. It was made by LG Chemical, and had similar problems. The paranoid in me wonders why the ban all of a sudden.
(Final funny note, the LG Chem battery was replaced with one of the defective Sony batteries...sigh!)
This little dispatch on the eve of the third round of the FTA talks is of interest to me since I did not think the US side would be pushing so hard for this:
Found this in the fancy new remodeling of Yongsan Train Station. Despite the obvious mimicry of this lingerie store, its not a case I would personally choose to prosecute in Korea unless they trademarked "secret" seperately.
The Chosun has an item of passing interest. It covers the most popular luxury brands in Korea as determined by Lotte Department Store and separate similar survey done by a website G-market. It is interesting to note that G-market is a small seller type site which is known for offering more than few luxury items of dubious origins. One must wonder how many fakes of these brands are circulating the market.
Finally, huge props to Procter and Gamble who's SK-II cosmetics line is named #2 on the Lotte list. Great brand building. Never rule out those marketing wizards from the 'nati.
I am going to refrain the more obvious pithy comments. However there is good reason for this. The inclusion on this matter into the trade talks is likely due to the Hynix subsidy matter. The dispute was basically the Korean government was using government owned banks to subsidies Hynix Semiconductor. Micron Technologies asked, and got, anti-dumping tariffs from the US government. Korea took the matter to the WTO “court” and eventually lost the case.
As a service to the woeful Korean sales technique on the FTA I want to show what the FTA may help. One of the main arguments for an FTA is that increased compeition has an the effect of making the marketplace better (unless of course you want to take a Marxist view of things, even then you are on shaky ground, however lets set that aside). Meanwhile Korea holds up as an example of a “socialy responsible” bank the Korean Development Bank (KDB).
So lets take a brief look at the recent press archives about KDB. If you ask me competition is needed here either to right a leaky ship, or root out the corruption and inefficacy here.
Well its about time if you ask me! I say that not due to the facts of the case, but rather one more dismaying things about Intellectual Property infringement in Korea is how rarely Korean firms sue other Korean firms for IPR infringement, or vice versa how unconcerned they are about ripping off another Korean firm's IP. For an example of this later phenomenon look at the heavily used GS Group logo which is currently being litigated over.
A recent Korea Times piece artfully puts this disregard in the mobile phone industry as the following:
You can translate that as "We would never sue another Korean mobile phone manufacturer". Or is that true? That same article linked above refers to a behind the scenes dispute between Samsung and LG over mobile phone designs. I am interested to see how this turns out. While I cannot point to anything specific off the top of my head, Samsung and LG have been at loggerheads for some time over things like standards and more germane over the licensing fees being charged among the companies (one, LG as I recall, is charging a normal licensing fee not the "special" one Korea firms normally charge among themselves). Things could spill out into the open sooner or later.
US: Well how about this, you take down the Agricultural Tariffs in steps of now, two, five, and ten years. Meanwhile we will do the same thing for Textiles.
ROK: We really prefer tariffs be lowered in steps of now, three, and five years.
US: Thats even better! Sounds like a deal, Agriculture and Textile tariffs eliminated in five years!
ROK: Shhhhhhhh! (Sucks air through teeth)
US: <rolls eyes knowing what's coming>
ROK: Actually we want to remove Agricultural tariffs in steps of now, five, ten, and fifteen years.
US: So you want us to accept it will take 15 years to open the Agricultural Market in Korea meanwhile you want our Textile market open in five years. That hardly seems fair, but I guess it will be fine considering we will be able to import things like rice, beef, pork, garlic, and apples tariff free in 15 years.
ROK: Shhhhhhhh! (sucks more air)
US: Now what!
ROK: Well we cannot reduce tariffs on any of those in under the 15 year program. That is to say, please look at this list of 284 Agricultural goods that we cannot reduce tariffs on what so ever.
US: So let me get this straight, we are to eliminate all Korean Textile tariffs in 5 years, meanwhile you will take 15 years to reduce Agricultural tariffs on all things except these 284 items which includes almost everything we produce?
ROK: (Big happy smile)
US: (whispers to aide) You know, I know have a new found respect for Christopher Hill.
This is more of a rant than a substantive post, but I want to record it somewhere so I can retrieve it again. If you want a good example of a journalist chopping up a study to fit a political agenda, the Dong-A has a doozy today.
It concerns the amount spent on medicine, note the second and third 'graphs:
So one looks at this an concludes this is not consumer spending on medicine but wholesale spending on medicine. However how the hell from this do they get the headline and first sentence:
There is no linkage between income and spending mentioned in the entire article. No one was polled as to their income and spending. All on can point to is a rather weak link between real estate prices in certain wards ("gu's") and their spending. However even that is pointless given the fact the author of the "study" immediately writes off some of the priciest real estate in Seoul since they have "many large pharmacies and commercial complexes". Further this assumption implies another all other districts in Seoul do not have "many large pharmacies and commercial complexes". Finaly all "gu's" are not uniform as the assumption also implies. I remember reading somewhere that Kangnam-gu, home to some of the most expensive real estate in Korea, still has shanty towns on its fringe.
Mr. Nam, what about choice "C", returning to the six-party talks and giving up there nukes? Why is that not an option? Second I am not so sure either South Korea or China would "disavow" North Korea in the event of a test. And that said, I would bet China would be more likely to do so than South Korea at this point. Just look at the logic of Mr. Nam, a famous North Korean specialist at Korea University, he is convinced the North has no other choice but to give a test. Why is it impossible to doubt that others in South Korea share this strangelove-ian sympathy.
Fun with Statistics - Maybe They Should Get Math Teachers
An article in the Korea Times describes a effort by the city of Seoul to hire more native speaking englsih teachers. To make my point, let me reorder the paragraphs of the orginal story:
OK lets do the math. 100 current plus 600 planned hires does not equal 929, or one teacher for every school as the city promises. Second the current year, 2006, with a four year plan means completion in 2010, not the stated goal of 2008.
Finally, if we were to be charitable assume the project ends in 2008 with a start date of 2004, that means that the city some how finds a way to hire 50 teachers a year (100 current teachers over two years). This makes the date all schools will have a native speaking english teacher is 2023. They better get hiring, I hear there is this guy in Colorado...
