Wharton Global Alumni Forum - Day 2

The second day of the Forum opened with a keynote address by Choongsoo Kim, the Governor of the Bank of Korea. He briefly described the state of the Korean economy during and after the financial crisis, and the monetary and fiscal policies that were enacted to induce quick recovery of the economy.

The next keynote speech was by Yungro Yun, Chairman and CEO of Industrial Bank of Korea. I always thought that Industrial Bank was government-owned and operated, and was not aware of the fact that IBK manages finances for mostly small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Yun said that the rapid recovery of the Korean economy can be attributed to the fact that SMEs were given priority when it came to government assistance during the financial crisis. (SMEs are approximately 85% of businesses in Korea)

The keynote speeches were followed by another panel discussion, and this time, I attended 'New Economic Leadership of Asia.' The panelists were Taesik Ahn, the dean of SNU's Business School, Junichi Endo, Snr VP of Nissan, Charles Tseng, President of Korn/Ferry Int'l Asia Pacific, and Ken Yun, CEO of Samjong KPMG. This was, by far, the best discussion, and numerous topics ranging from social responsibility to education were discussed. Dr Ahn focussed on business education reform, which aims to nurture more ethical and socially responsible businesspeople. Although his philosophy is true and justified, a lot of what he said was very abstract and he neglected to provide specific directions for the future. For example, he argued that 'greed' is largely responsible for the recent financial crisis, and that the way to distinguish 'self-interest' from 'greed' needs to be taught not only at business schools but also at home. Throughout his speech, the same question kept popping into my head: 'HOW?' Most students and parents wish to be compensated for the fortunes they paid on expensive business school education with high income upon graduation. I, for one, feel this way, although I resent the popular stereotype of avaricious and competitive business school students.

Endo's proposed technological improvement, innovation and free trade as important factors that will allow Asia to rise as a new economic leader of the world. On the other hand, Tseng talked about financial reforms. The last speaker was Ken Yun, who stressed the importance of social responsibility. I really appreciated his choice of topic and was very impressed with the way he incentivizes his employees to focus on vision as opposed to compensation. One particular statement he made was so effective and it has not left my head since. It goes: "You cannot succeed in a society that fails." Yun emphasized the need to seek collective welfare and amend socially irresponsible actions. If Asia wants to become the next leader of the global economy, we must think of a way to educate such values and to reform our financial, educational and technological systems.

The final event of the Forum was Master Class teachings by Wharton Faculty. I decided to attend a class called 'Is Africa Good for Asia?' I was looking forward to learning about political and economic exchanges between Africa and Asia, but was disappointed because too much time was spent discussing and justifying corruption. Nevertheless, it was a great opportunity for me to experience how a master class is taught and run, and Prof Nichol's stories of his expeditions in Africa were fascinating.

Wharton Global Alumni Forum - Day 1

When I received the e-mail about Wharton GAF, I was excited because this year's Forum was being held in my hometown - Seoul! The ticket to the Forum costs $750 for alumni and general audience but as a current student, I was able to receive a free ticket which included entry to the Forum as well as four meals over the duration of the forum. Without hesitation, I decided to take advantage of this perk and attend the Forum as an observer.

The fact that the Forum was held in Seoul this year was significant yet somewhat amusing because last time Seoul hosted this conference was in 1999, just after the Asian financial crisis. Since the event was held upon the world's (well, at least most part of its) exit from one of the gravest financial crises in recent history, the Forum was titled "Where do we go from here?"

The first day opened with the Prime Minister Chung (정운찬)'s address. As one of the most influential political leaders of Korea, his speech mostly revolved around Korea's economic development since the post-Korean War era. He spoke eloquently of the dramatic progress Korea made economically and socially over the past half a century. There are a few things that I recall more clearly from his speech. One of them is a newspaper headline that PM Chung read which went, 'Gold Collecting KOREA vs. Stone Pitching GREECE,' which succinctly summarizes the contrasting reactions of Koreans and Greeks upon their countries' bankruptcy. Another memorable thing was the three factors that made such quick growth possible in Korea, which are: 1) Economic assistance from our friends and allies; 2) Korean's zeal for education; 3) The "Can-Do" spirit

I'm not quite sure if his speech was appropriate for the occasion, but nevertheless, he left many native Koreans including myself feeling very patriotic.

I then attended a panel discussion which was titled, 'Creating A New World - Greenomics.' The discussion was rather disappointing and the panelists from Korea seemed neither knowledgeable nor passionate about Greenomics. The second panel I observed was called 'The Future of Finance,' and this was equally unhelpful for me because the discussions were overflowing with financial jargons and theories that I am not yet familiar with.

The first day of the Forum was jam-packed with some very heavy technical discussions, and I wished I was more prepared for them. The Forum served as an intersection between the academia and the business world, whereby the two communities were brought together through discussions about the recent financial crisis.

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman

Last summer, I read another book by Friedman called Free to Choose, and was rather unconvinced by his ultra-liberal economic and political viewpoint. I was left with the impression that he deemed almost all government intervention unnecessary and even disruptive of the market, which he thinks is perfectly capable of readjusting itself. I felt that the recent crisis demonstrated the disastrous implications that the lack of government moderation can have on the global economy, and thus Friedman's argument seemed problematic to me.

Capitalism and Freedom differs from the previous book in that it summarizes Friedman's economic and political philosophy in a more logical manner. His argument is still extremely liberal and even though I consider myself both fiscally and politically liberal, I could not help but disagree with some of his ideas. For example, he lists some of the activities/role of government that most liberals consider unacceptable that he feels are unjustified:

1. Parity price support programs for agriculture

2. Tariffs on imports or restrictions on exports

3. Government control of output such as through the farm program

4. Rent, price and wage control (such as during and after WW2)

5. Legal minimum wage rates

6. Detailed regulation of industries such as transportation

7. Control of radio and television

8. Social Security programs

9. Licensure provisions

10. "Public housing" and other subsidy programs that foster residential construction

11. Military conscription

12. National parks

13. The legal prohibition on the carrying of mail for profit

14. Publicly owned and operated toll roads

His list includes a handful of public goods and social welfare policies, except for maybe, education. In the subsequent chapter, he argues against such practices undertaken by the current US government. The overarching premise for his argument is that "my freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin." In other words, men's freedom can conflict and that one man's freedom must be limited to preserve another's. Is he trying to suggest that increased authority bestowed upon government will always limit people's freedom? It seems like he is forgetting one key role of government: income distribution.

He then goes onto argue that government should have less control over foreign exchange, monetary and fiscal policies. He supports free trade unhampered by any type of trade barrier, even exchange rate adjustments; argues that inflation control gives individuals "an incentive to misuse and misdirect resources and distort the investment of new savings"; he claims that Keynesian multiplier effect is an erroneous concept.

On the issues of education and income distribution, Friedman comments that government administration creates more harm than benefit. He believes that income inequality itself is a product of imperfections of the market (i.e. monopoly power of government).

I find a lot of his arguments a bit too far-fetched and overly optimistic about market forces. Not all economies are identical in terms of the natural resources, demographics and fiscal history. Each one has different economic goals and therefore must implement different methods in order to achieve those goals. The role of government is crucial in that it directs, not controls, the allocation of certain resources and implements policies which facilitate such process. What kind of government deliberately makes its citizens and economy worse-off? More often than not, government intervention expedites an economy's growth, and does its best to arrive at equitable income distribution.

Schumpeter's 'Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy' - Parts 1,2 and 3

This was my first time reading a book by a textbook economist. (I never got beyond the second page of Smiths's The Wealth of Nations...) After learning that this book was first published in 1942, I was expecting it to contain a lot of outmoded Economic concepts and observations of nascent capitalism. But I must say, I was delightfully surprised. What really struck me was how the macro/micro-economic theories and concepts we learn in class have actually been in application and been debated since decades ago. A lot of the basic concepts I learnt in Econ class was mentioned or introduced in this book. Also, (maybe it's just me) I've always associated capitalism with post-WW2, and thought that the domineering political ideology was communism.

Schumpeter summarizes Marx's major arguments and points out a few logical and conceptual errors in Marxism that he believes will prevent Marxism from perpetuating. Because I never formally studied Marxism but only Leninism and Stalin's Russia, I naturally equated Russian communism (Bolshevism) with Marxism. I was duly flabbergasted when I learnt that they are not the same. Marx argues that when an economy has accumulated a sufficient amount of capital (thus becomes a capitalist economy), the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat. Then 'Class Struggle' takes place whereby the proletariat seize political power and "expropriate the expropriators." The difference between this and Bolshevism is that Russia up till that stage was not a capitalist economy, and that Bolshevism tried to overthrow Tsarism, not capitalism (or bourgeoisie).

In his discussion of capitalism, he provides some directions for capitalist economies. He argues that the biggest challenge for capitalist economies is the friction between public and private spheres. I am yet to finish this book, but I am currently also reading 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman, and it is quite fascinating how the two economists differ in their perspectives. Schumpeter sees that there are ideas that we can adopt from Marxism and socialism and that capitalism "will not last." (However that doesn't mean that he is Marxist either.) Milton Friedman on the other hand, is a firm believer in liberalizing the market and minimum government intervention.

(Still in progress of reading both books)

국가의 부와 빈곤 (The Wealth and Poverty of Nations) David S. Landes 저

이 책의 표지를 처음 보았을 때 나는 현대의 빈곤과 빈부격차의 사회적 문제를 다룬 책인줄 알았다. 평소에 아프리카 빈곤문제에 관심이 많았던 나는 한껏 기대를 하고 이 책을 펼쳤는데 저자소개에서 Landes가 사학자라는 것을 보고는 솔직히 다소 실망을 했다.(!!! 제목이 misleading 했던거 같다) 게다가 엄청난 책의 부피와 이 책에서 작가가 다루고 있는 방대한 양의 역사적 타임라인이 조금 부담스럽기도 했다. 그러나 읽으면 읽을수록 작가의 역사적 통찰과 각각다른 역사적 사건들 속에서 패턴과 연관성을 찾아내는 능력에 대해 감탄하게 되었다.

Landes는 거의 1000년에 가까운 세계사(mostly Euro-centric but also covers Asia and Africa occasionally)를 800페이지로 요약을 하면서 역사학자의 시점에서 지리, 문화, 사회 그리고 경제적인 영향이 어떻게 세상의 흐름을 바꾸어 놓았는지 상세히 설명하고 있다. 문명의 시초에는 지리적, 기후적 영향이 매우 중요했지만 산업과 무역과 교통이 발달함에 따라 점점 문화(민족성)와 정치가 차지하는 비율이 커지는 것을 볼 수 있다. 이집트 문명의 시발점이었던 이집트는 왜 지금 전세계 빈곤국가 중 하나고, 황하문명이 발생한 중국은 왜 16세기부터 문화적, 경제적으로 퇴보하였으며, 반면 자원도 풍부하지 않은 영국은 경제적으로 번창하였는지가 Landes를 비롯해 Smith, Jevons, Malthus등 여러 사학자와 경제학자들의 관점에서 풀이된다.

한국에서 그리고 뉴질랜드에서 세계사를 드문드문 배운 나에게 이 책은 인류역사를 포괄적으로 간추려 볼수 있는 좋은 기회를 주었고, 또한 거시경제시간에 배운 여러 컨셉들이 세계사 속에서 어떻게 활용되었는지도 공부할 수 있었다. 한가지 안타까운 점이 있다면 너무 세계사의 시점이 유럽에 치우쳐져 있다는 것이었는데, 유럽사를 공부한 학자가 저술한 책인만큼 그 정도는 감안하고 읽어야 할 듯 하다. 한국어 번역판이라 단어가 좀 난해한 부분도 몇군데 있었지만 저자의 의도를 이해하는데 큰 방해가 되지는 않는다.

The Importance of Being Earnest

My "Bibliophile Summer," kicked off with a book from my own collection: The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde. I've always been a huge fan of plays and dramatic literature, and I figured that in preparation for some heavy academic reading over the next four months, I could use a dramatic piece. The play mainly talks about fitting into moral standards and expectations mandated by society, and two men's struggles to escape from them through "bunburying." "Bunburying" refers to Jack and Algernon's creation of a non-existent brother and an equally fake friend, who bear the name Earnest and Bunbury, respectively. Through these fictional characters, Jack and Algernon are able to adopt alternate identities in the city and in the country, putting on a facade that pleases the women they love. For the two men, it is important being Earnest because Cecily and Gwendolen (the two women they are in love with) are fascinated by the name 'Earnest.' The two women presume that a man with such a name is sure to be true and sincere - hence 'earnest.' Although the name 'Earnest' becomes a center of admiration and idolization, 'earnest-ness' is not significantly talked about or exemplified by the main characters. Therefore the name 'Earnest' serves as a clever pun and a metaphor, and Wilde uses such to express his satire of hypocrisy and moral paradox. The fact that Victorian England is the background does not make this play antiquated, but rather, it makes us wonder about modern pressure on morality - or lack thereof.

The List

So this is the complete list of books that my dad drafted for me about a month ago. The list has been categorized into: Science Philosophy, Economic History, Philosophy, "Additional Issues" (which seems to encompass Politics, Psychology and History), Linguistics/Literature and Other.

You can click on the image to view it full-size.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I wish to do over the next 4 months!

Happy reading! :)

The End of Freshman Year!

10:16am Friday May 7, 2010 Officially marks the end of my first year at Wharton.

Next time I land in Philadelphia, I will be a Sophomore. This is a very scary thought. Scarier than the 130 books that await me and my summer.