Okay first of I'm just commenting on the first chapter. For those who are not familiar with all the big financial words I'll sum it up. The South Korean Nation is undergoing a crisis where people that have worked for their entire lives and retired from work are not getting paid how they should be (a pension is a payment for someone who has retired, especially from a government position or job that the government helps support, which is called subsidizing). Old people who are retired cannot pay their bills, so the president is saying that it's not his fault because pensions (The retirement payments) are actually funded by people who are working the jobs they retired from now. So he's saying there's not enough people in the job force earning a wage, where a portion of their wage can be set aside to pay (as taxes) for the the pension for those who have retired. A few notes as an American reading this (who has some knowledge of politics, not a whole lot). 1. The IMF's conditions for a loan do not make sense to me. Stifling Korean businesses would not help them to pay the loan back to the IMF (a fund paid into by several nations for bailouts and to be used during crisis). 2. Approval rating. It's nearly impossible for 79% or 1% of voters to hate or like a candidate (or person in political power). Those numbers are crazy. Even the most hated US politician can attain like 43% favorability with the people. To say someone is at 79% is to say that they have only one rival, because realistically if there are three people trying for one position and everyone liked them equally than they would all have 33% approval rating. It's a ratio. (This number can be fluffed if you only sample people that like one candidate however for the survey to see who they approve of). 3. Venezuela did not collapse because they gave tax breaks, it's quite the opposite. They taxed people to death and then the people who were skilled in manufacturing (drilling oil, running a factory etc) all were fired so they lost their main manufacturing and therefore their economy (The money the nation brought in that ultimately provided jobs and fed people) collapsed. The president in this stories' tax break would have absolutely boosted the economy and brought jobs back. The three people the Korean president is being compared to here. All seem to be dictators, not Democratic or leaders of free people. It's not a fair comparison so his political rival here is being underhanded in his comparison. Hope this helps and I didn't complicate anything more for anybody
Okay first of I'm just commenting on the first chapter. For those who are not familiar with all the big financial words I'll sum it up.
The South Korean Nation is undergoing a crisis where people that have worked for their entire lives and retired from work are not getting paid how they should be (a pension is a payment for someone who has retired, especially from a government position or job that the government helps support, which is called subsidizing). Old people who are retired cannot pay their bills, so the president is saying that it's not his fault because pensions (The retirement payments) are actually funded by people who are working the jobs they retired from now. So he's saying there's not enough people in the job force earning a wage, where a portion of their wage can be set aside to pay (as taxes) for the the pension for those who have retired.
A few notes as an American reading this (who has some knowledge of politics, not a whole lot).
1. The IMF's conditions for a loan do not make sense to me. Stifling Korean businesses would not help them to pay the loan back to the IMF (a fund paid into by several nations for bailouts and to be used during crisis).
2. Approval rating. It's nearly impossible for 79% or 1% of voters to hate or like a candidate (or person in political power). Those numbers are crazy. Even the most hated US politician can attain like 43% favorability with the people. To say someone is at 79% is to say that they have only one rival, because realistically if there are three people trying for one position and everyone liked them equally than they would all have 33% approval rating. It's a ratio. (This number can be fluffed if you only sample people that like one candidate however for the survey to see who they approve of).
3. Venezuela did not collapse because they gave tax breaks, it's quite the opposite. They taxed people to death and then the people who were skilled in manufacturing (drilling oil, running a factory etc) all were fired so they lost their main manufacturing and therefore their economy (The money the nation brought in that ultimately provided jobs and fed people) collapsed. The president in this stories' tax break would have absolutely boosted the economy and brought jobs back. The three people the Korean president is being compared to here. All seem to be dictators, not Democratic or leaders of free people. It's not a fair comparison so his political rival here is being underhanded in his comparison.
Hope this helps and I didn't complicate anything more for anybody
Ty, ur explanation was really helpful (≧∀≦)