Jump to content

Talk:Economy of South Korea/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Une Note

Don't you think that South Korea should no longer be part of Asia's four little tigers/dragons and become one of "Asia's Three Giant Tigers/Dragons"? And, I think that this article should mention about Samsung having more .... than toshiba, sony, and Fugitsu added up all together... Orthodoxy 20:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can remember the source, put it up. Jin29 18:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

FTA between S.Korea and US

Can someone write about it in the article please? It seems a huge issue in South Korea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chulk90 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Development needed

While there has been a lot of work done on this page, it is still sadly unsatisfactory as a good description of the Korean economy. Basic information about the composition of the economy is left out, and small trinkets are used in the place of solid explanation (see tourism). It is also overly historical, which itself isn't a bad thing, but probably deserves its own page. Waygugin 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or was most of this article written in 1990? -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article was copied verbatim from a 1990's book, so yes, you're correct. -128.61.133.192 (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Moody's upgraded South Korean government bond rating by one notch - from A1 to Aa3. Please update the info box. -Plans are useless but planning is indispensable- (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a better picture suited for wikipedia for the main sidebar of this artical? CMonkey111 (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

we need some pictures

This article looks quite monotonous, mainly because there are only a couple of pictures. It's about 58 kb long. Readers would consider this article boring unless there are some more pictures like Economy of the United States does.

Any suggestions for photos? -- Chulk90 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Capitalist or corporatist?

Should South Korea's economy be described as capitalist or corporatist? I ask this question because I often hear statements in the media such as "Communist North Korea and capitalist South Korea", but it seems to me that historically South Korea has been more corporatist than capitalist, with the use of chaebeol and government direction of economic affairs. This was especially true in the past before increased liberalization. If you think that South Korea's economic system was corporatist in the early part of its post-WWII life, but capitalist now, at what point should the label change from corporatist to capitalist? --RisingSunWiki 18:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia would need to defer to notable economists, analysts, etc. -- Beland (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
South Korea has been characterized by Atul Kohli, an academic specializing in political and economic development, as having been a "cohesive capitalist" state until the transition to democracy. The characteristics of "cohesive capitalism", as defined by Kohli, include the state making economic growth the primary priority, a close alliance between state and business, a competent bureaucracy, a high degree of state autonomy from other interests, a high degree of state capacity in carrying out its economic plans, a narrow ruling coalition, repression of labor, and a highly centralized state apparatus. ironman419 (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2009

Topic

The beginning of this article spends more time noting that "this is bigger than that" (e.g GM makes more cars than BMW.... Yeah .. wow :( ), rather than summarising the actual structure, strength and history of the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.42.229 (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not remove sourced information without consensus on this page. Continued removal of sourced materials constitutes to vandalism under WP:V. If you have an issue to discuss, then do so here. Alohahell (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I already made a section further up to discuss this issue. I'm replacing sourced materials with other sourced materials and trying to balance out bias. Is that not plain to see? Also how does removing bias constitute vandalism? anawrahta 07:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Whether a sourced material is bias or not is your personal judgement - it requires consensus among other editors first before being removed. If you continue to remove them without consensus, then it constitutes to vandalism under WP:V. Also, any new discussions must be put on the bottom of the discussion page, not on the top. Please move it to the correct location. Alohahell (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:V is verifiability. NOT vandalism. Quote me where it says that removing biased information, replacing it with referenced sourced information is vandalism. Quote it. Anawrahta (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Content disputes are not not vandalism, and calling your content opponents "vandals" is never helpful. People need to focus on the issues. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


Anawrahta and other commenters who have claimed bias are correct. First, 이렇게 허풍만 하면, 신뢰성이 없으며 차라리 역효과가 있고, 대한민국에 대해 부정적인 인상을 준다. Even the briefest glance at Korean newspapers will show that the Korean economy has problems like high levels of unemployment among the young, a growing "economically inactive" population, labor relations issues, indeed most of the problems of a developed economy, and this article doesn't even touch on those at all. This article should try to be an accurate summary of the South Korean economy, not an investment prospectus for potential bond purchasers. It does not help the Republic of Korea to write an article in this manner, and creates a negative impression of the country that overshadows its real accomplishments and diminishes the genuine significance of Korea's economy.

I may try to tone down the article later, but you should realize that it is not only one "anti-Korean" foreigner that is receiving a poor impression from this article. I know you are very enthusiastic and love Korea, but you should try to temper your enthusiasm with the awareness that this has to at least try to be a real encyclopedia article and not a propaganda piece.Jayzames (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Introduction/Excessive use of pictures

I've restored the introduction to a former version I was working on from several months back. Softjuice, please stop reverting it to the even older version. The way that version reads makes the article impossible to take seriously. It should be an introduction summary to the article, highlighting the pertinent points of Korea's economy. Not a laundry list of Korea's ranking in every conceivable index. Not to mention, that original intro is extremely biased and would not qualify as WP:NPOV.

I've also removed a glut of images that are irrelevant to the subsections they are in. A subsection doesn't need 8 images stacked on top of each other that have nothing to do with the context of the section. Please refer to MOS:IMAGES and WP:IG for further explanation.

Finally, please do not accuse my reverts as vandalism. If you do not understand what vandalism is, refer to WP:Vandalism. Anawrahta (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have some consensus that the current version (pre-editing by Softjuice/Tnaiua's sockpuppets) is something to build on. The warning template should stay because it still needs lots of work. Please do not revert to the edits by the sock puppets. If there is specific things from those edits that anyone thinks is worthwhile, please talk about it here prior, as it is still pretty biased. Anawrahta (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

State of the Article

I am somewhat saddened by the turn this article has taken. Every major country that I can think of has its own "Economy of _____" page, and there is no reason why South Korea shouldn't. Was blanking and redirecting to South Korea really the best solution? I highly doubt it was. Elostirion (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Improvement

We need to increase the quality of this article...--Gniniv (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Added content for the late 2000s

I'm sure this will be an endless task, but I've decided to commit to working on this article piecemeal to try to upgrade it into something serious. I've put up some stuff on the recent worldwide financial crisis, and will get to the domestic stimulus measures in my next try.Tanpok (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Electronics

Shipbuilding and automobile industry are major industries in Korea. But no.1 industry in Korea is 'electronics'. Samsung is the world biggest electronic company and LG is the 6th or 7th. Memory Semiconductor, LCD, mobile phone, TV are main products. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.152.210.166 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

nothing about the crisis in 2008 and 2009

what a bad article its like advertisement to invest in korea, nothing about the crisis of 2008 and 2009. South korea was one of the first countries where the global financial crisis started your whole economic output devalued in these two years and not any word about it.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2010&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=542&s=NGDPD&grp=0&a=&pr.x=45&pr.y=15

here you can see if you dont believe--Venajaguardian (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Less South Korean investment to North Korea

투기자본 놀이터 된 북한, 한국 기업은 차별받고…. This is a Korean news article about the Lee Myung-bak government's decision to neglect investing in North Korea and how China and other European countries are investing in North Korea.

The Lee Myung-bak government is all about "fatten only the big South Korean companies and give them more domestic influence than the government". No wonder why it neglected North Korea and worsened the inter-peninsular relationship solely in the economic perspective. It will get worse according to this article and it will never favor the South Korean economy in the long run.

Personal note, I'm living in South Korea starting from September 2012 and despite the "South Korea is the only country that recovered from the ongoing worldwide economic crisis" news all around the country, I'm seeing average South Koreans financially poorer than the average Japanese and Chinese. How ironic. Komitsuki (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Cause of rise

The article unequivocally states that industrialization was the cause of the economic rise of the ROK. I'm not an economic historian and do not know if this is true or not, but many Koreans attribute the main role to the agricultural revolution. Can we have a more extensive discussion on this, with sources? Kdammers (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Out of date

"will reach 6.1% in 2010," -- did id or didn't it?Kdammers (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Graph please!

How can we really evaluate an economy without including a GDP graph that shows how an economy evolves over time?

Something analogous to the following?

south-korea/gdp-growth-annual at tradingeconomics dot com (range from 1971-present)

(holy freakin' cow! Economics data is now considered spam????)

Thanks70.90.204.42 (talk) 00:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access) to this country economy page that could lead directly to the online database of customs tariffs and non-tariff market requirements held by ITC. Visitors can then easily look up market access information for Korea by selecting the products of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good. 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

File:2012 South Korea Products Export Treemap.png is shit

I can't edit on wikipedia, so sorry if I destroy the talk page.

But the File:2012 South Korea Products Export Treemap.png picture is shit. There are almoste no boxes with names in them, so it realy dos not tell you much usefull of the S Korean economy. The linked page work, so if anyone can make a new new that would be great. 37.44.156.109 (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economy of South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Economy of South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Economy of South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economy of South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economy of South Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Un-cited / plaigarized information

Much of the agricultre section is copied directly from http://countrystudies.us/south-korea/52.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.7.215 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this when looking through the "Government Role" section. Much of the information has been directly copied with minor word changes. I'm working removing paragraphs/sections. SOUTH KORIA IS A DINSOUR -128.61.148.106 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I went through the article and took out plagiarized (i.e. copy-paste) passages. The plagiarized sections mainly came from: http://countrystudies.us/south-korea/, Countries of the world and their leaders yearbook. 2005. Vol. 1: Background notes: Afghanistan-Mozambique by Mary Rose Bonk [1], and http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12323.html. Many of these were removed a while back before an anonymous editor reverted it saying it was "public domain". These are NOT public domain; most of them are online versions of copyrighted books. Even if it was public domain, blatant copy-pasting is not what Wikipedia is; that's what "External links" are for. 128.61.148.106 (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Many economic article in the wikipedia uses library of congress country studies and they are not copyrighted. See the FAQ here [2]
"How can I obtain copyright permission to reproduce or use portions of the text or graphics from the Country Studies?
With the exception of some photographs, which are clearly marked in the photograph's caption, text and graphics contained in the online Country Studies are not copyrighted. They are considered to be in the public domain and thus available for free and unrestricted use. As a courtesy, however, we ask that appropriate credit be given to the series. If you or your publisher require specific written permission for the record, queries should be directed via e-mail to frds@loc.gov." 88.193.107.106 (talk) 04:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the point of Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files... Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with using public domain resources such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to add content to an article. See also Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and Wikisource's inclusion policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.148.106 (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
By all means, argue your case against project dedicated to bring as much information from library of country studies to wikipedia as possible, I think you have hundreds of more pages to update if you win the argument. 88.193.107.106 (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
That’s NOT the point. The issue here is plagiarism, which is using/borrowing (i.e., euphemisms for stealing) someone else’s ideas or significant portions of their exact wording without showing clearly (1) the source of the idea or wording and (2) clearly indicating with quotation marks/inverted commas, or by using a block quotation, which portions are direct quotations. Concerning public-domain sources specifically, WP’s policy is
A public domain source may be summarized in the same way as it is for copyrighted material (and cited in the same way as copyrighted material), but the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim. If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details). (Emphasis added. Source: Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources; note that this is an example of a block quotation, so quote marks aren’t used.)
This in no way “argues against the project.” To the contrary, properly citing sources and acknowledging that something has been copied wholesale from another public-domain source adds to WP's credibility! If that requires editors to do more work updating other pages, well, (1) that’s one of the costs of trying to create a credible reference work by using “crowd-sourcing,” and (2) that’s part of an editor’s job.
As WP:PLAG acknowledges, different people acting in good faith can disagree about how many words can be “borrowed” without indicating they’re a quotation—only 2 words? 3? 4?, etc. It’s a gray area, not a clear dividing line. But people acting in good faith can usually also reach an agreement on how to resolve most such cases. (See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Close_paraphrasing.) So cut-and-paste away; just cite your sources, acknowledge the quoted material, and abide by the WP policy noted above regarding not including the full text of lengthy primary sources.
BTW, what’s with all the unsigned comments? Isn’t that a clear violation of WP practice? --Jackftwist (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Japanese role in Korean industrialization

It should be noted that South Korean economic development did not occur by some sort of random luck -- the conditions for South Korea's economic progress were laid during the Japanese colonial era, which centralized the state apparatus, created property rights, a rational system of taxation, a professional, competent bureaucracy, infrastructure, and invested widely in industry and manufacturing. There is direct continuity between the colonial and postwar state in South Korea in areas such as business and military/governmental institutions/figures. Of course, this is a sensitive topic because of the repressive nature of the Japanese colonial state in Korea, but to adequately explain the foundations of South Korean economic success, one needs to dig back a little deeper. From the period since 1905, including since 1945, the two economic histories are heavily intertwined. Ironman419 (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Japan may have had some role, but even before 1905 the Silhak movement in Korea was intended to bring about many of the reforms you have mentioned, so it must have laid some of the foundations. --RisingSunWiki 02:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You must remember though, that all infrastructure was destroyed during the Korean War, and the little that was left was by the time Korea stabilised somewhat(if you can call mass protests and military coups stabilising :P) was outdated.

It is true during the occupation Japan introduced modern rules and regulations such as taxation and property as you have mentioned but this was a Japanese occupation, so almost no Korean (except the few Japanese sympathisers) had any idea how to run things, and the nature of the Korean War displaced a lot of people (down and up and down and up again).

Japan did contribute to the economic growth however, in the form of war reperation payments, loans and Japanese companies sharing technology. 194.81.254.12 (talk) 07:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

'silly pride is intefereing here'

The opening part of this page is ridiculous. Korea is better at this, more prepared in this etc etc. Fact is as we speak the korean economy is going down the toilet and that is not refelcted in this article (and is deficient in most 'economy' articles). btw. Milton Friedman was a bland economist and a blander human. If only he had lived to see his failure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David McIlwain (talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the intro before was probably written by a troll. Especially laughable was the final paragraph comparing it to other developed countries who were doing badly in the economic crisis, and that Korea was expected to sail right through without any problem. Well, they got hit just as bad as everyone else. Anyways, I really cleaned out the intro, and added in stuff concerning the crisis as of feb 2009. Please feel free to slim it down some more as I think it's still too big. Also if someone could write a more detailed section on exactly whats going on with the economic crisis in Korea, I would appreciate it, because thats what I was looking for when I came here in the first place.Anawrahta (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why anyone is countering the fact that the stock market LOST around 40% of it's value in 2008. 1853.45 to 1124.47 is around a drop of that much. Even the linked chart in Tnaniua's ref shows that. Also the grammar of Tnaniua's revert doesn't make any sense. Anawrahta (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

'third-largest in Asia'

I changed this to "fourth-largest in Asia" due to new figures which show India is now third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.137.216.53 (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

'History' section

What is that little 'History' section at the end of the article? seems obsolete to me. -- (unsigned comment)

I just merged it into the main history section. -- Beland (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

South Korea debt restructuring

I don't know, but i was looking for the dynamics of those involved in debt restructuring after Asian financial crisis, but i can't see anything that even mention debt restructuring. If its there, i think i am an idiot, or the article title is not intuitive enough. Anybody care to help?

Resource

An anon dropped a huge amount of text from [3] into South Korea. It didncould probably be adapted here... unlike tha -- Visviva 23:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Size of Economy

The article text claims that the Korean economy is the 10th largest in the world, but the infobox says that it's 12th. Which is it? Susan Davis 00:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like just about all the information in the infobox is overdue for an update, since just about all of it is out of synch with its reference (the CIA factbook). The article List of countries by GDP (PPP) places South Korea's economy at either 13th or 14th, depending on the source. Assuming nobody else beats me to it, I'll update the figures to bring them in line with the CIA factbook when I get the time to do so, and change the article to reflect the new information. --Zonath 00:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please see WP:LEAD. Please discuss. FrummerThanThou 17:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead could use some cleanup... but the tag says the opening paragraph is too long, and the opening paragraph of this article is only 2 sentences. Puzzled, -- Visviva 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
WP:LEAD talks about length of the lead section, not of the opening paragraph. As the template was misleading, I modifird it. --Kusunose 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

I just want to say that the picture of the gigantic apartment buildings in the box illustrates the article's point PERFECTLY. Good job! Zweifel 07:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That's supposed to be satirical, right? (Wikimachine 04:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_South_Korea/Archive_1&oldid=1136688245"