• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.171-209
• /
• 2008

The Great Depression is one of the most important economic incidents in the twentieth century. A significant and long-lasting impact of this event is the rise of the government intervention to the economy. Under the catastrophic downturn of the economic condition worldwide, people required their government to play an active role for economic recovery, and this $mentalit{\acute{e}}$ prolonged even after the Second World War. Social science textbooks taught at Korean high schools mostly referred to the Great Depression for explaining the reason of government intervention in economy. However, the mainstream view commonly found in the textbooks provides a misleading theological interpretation. It argues that inherent flaws of the market economy causes over-production/under-consumption, and that this mismatch ends up with economic crisis. The chaotic situation was resolved by substitution of the governments for the market, and the New Deal was introduced as the monumental example ('laissez-faire economy ${\rightarrow}$over-production${\rightarrow}$the Great Depression${\rightarrow}$government intervention${\rightarrow}$economic recovery'). Based on economic historians' researches for past three decades, I argue that this mainstream view commits the fallacy of ex-post justification. Unlike what the mainstream view claims, the Great Depression was neither the result of the 'market failure', nor the recovery from the Great Depression but was due to successful government policies. For substantiating this claim, I suggest three points. First, blaming the weakness or instability of the market economy as the cause of the Great Depression is groundless. Unlike what the textbooks describe, the rise of the U.S. stock price during the 1920s cannot be said as a bubble, and there was no sign of under-consumption during the 1920s. On the contrary, a new consensus emerging from the 1980s among economic historians illustrates that the Great Depression was originated from 'the government failure' rather than from the 'market failure'. Policymakers of European countries tried to return to the gold standard regime before the First World War, but discrepancies between this policy and the reality made the world economy vulnerable. Second, the mainstream view identifies the New Deal as Keynesian interventionism and glorifies it for saving the U.S. economy from the crisis. However, this argument is not true. The New Deal was not Keynesian at all. What the U.S. government actually tried was not macroeconomic stabilization but price and quantity control. In addition, New Deal did not brought about economic recovery that people generally believe. Even after the New Deal, industrial production or employment level remained quite low until the late 1930s. Lastly, studies on individual New Deal policies show that they did not work as they were intended. For example, the National Industrial Recovery Act increased unemployment, and the Agricultural Adjustment Act expelled tenants from their land. Third, the mainstream view characterizes the economic order before the Great Depression as laissez-faire, and it tends to attribute all the vice during the Industrial Revolution era to the uncontrolled market economy. However, historical studies show that various economic and social problems of the Industrial Revolution period such as inequality problems, child labor, or environmental problems cannot be simply ascribed to the problems of the market economy. In conclusion, the remedy for all these problems in high school textbooks is not to use the Great Depression as an example showing the weakness of the market economy. The Great Depression should be introduced simply as a historical momentum that had initiated the growth of government intervention. This reform of high school textbooks is imperative for enhancing the right understanding of economy and history.

• Journal of Internet of Things and Convergence
• /
• v.9 no.6
• /
• pp.57-62
• /
• 2023

This research is a comparative analysis of the U.S. S&P 500 index using the volatility breakout strategy against the Buy and Hold approach. The volatility breakout strategy is a trading method that exploits price movements after periods of relative market stability or concentration. Specifically, it is observed that large price movements tend to occur more frequently after periods of low volatility. When a stock moves within a narrow price range for a while and then suddenly rises or falls, it is expected to continue moving in that direction. To capitalize on these movements, traders adopt the volatility breakout strategy. The 'k' value is used as a multiplier applied to a measure of recent market volatility. One method of measuring volatility is the Average True Range (ATR), which represents the difference between the highest and lowest prices of recent trading days. The 'k' value plays a crucial role for traders in setting their trade threshold. This study calculated the 'k' value at a general level and compared its returns with the Buy and Hold strategy, finding that algorithmic trading using the volatility breakout strategy achieved slightly higher returns. In the future, we plan to present simulation results for maximizing returns by determining the optimal 'k' value for automated trading of the S&P 500 index using artificial intelligence deep learning techniques.

• Economic and Environmental Geology
• /
• v.2 no.3
• /
• pp.1-25
• /
• 1969

In considering the mining industry, it is necessary to study the production, consumption and price of ore and metals in every country of the world in order to determine the trend of the industry in the present and for the future. This study is necessary especially for exporting domestically produced are which is in excess of domestic consumption and for importing are, or metal where local production does not meet domestic demand. It will be treated of Au, Ag, Cu, Pb, Zn, W, Mo, which are the most important non-ferrous metals, and which greatly affect the mining industry of Korea. The presentation will concern itself only with the free world. About 1, 200 ton of gold are produced annually with little fluctiation in recent years. Most of the gold produced is consumed by advanced countries for industrial uses as well as for producing precious objects. The U.S.A. expends yearly about four times its domestic production and Japan about three times its domestic production for industry and arts. Because of the instability of the currency of the U.S.A., England and France, recently, the price of gold has been $ 41-42 per ounce, whereas the official price is $35.00 per ounce. It will be expected that the official price will be raised in the near future. As for silver, about 6,500 tons are produced annually with no special fluctuation change in recent years. However, the annual consumption is about 14,000 ton, so the supply and demand is extremely unbalanced. The shortage is made up by the sale of the U.S. treasury's reserve stock and the reclaiminig of silver from coins and other scrap. As the Treasury'S reserves will be exhausted in a year or two, the price of silver which is $1. 64 per ounce, will go up drastically in about a year. As for copper, 5,257,000 ton's were mined in 1966. It's production is being increased about 5% annually. However, consumption exceeds production by about 100,000 ton a year. The recent Foreign refinery copper price in the U.S.A is $ 60 per pound. The supply of copper being insufficient to meet international demands, the price will go up and with no prospect of being lowered in the near future even with the slight annual increase in production. About 2,100,000 to 2,200,000 tons of lead are produced annually. Consumption exceeds production by about 50,000-60,000 tons annually. The current price of lead in New York is $ 155 per pound. As the supply of lead is internationally stable, It will be believed that there will be no significant change in its price in the near future. In 1967, 3,926,000 tons of Zinc were produced. There is annual increase of 4-7% in production. The annual consumption exceeds production by 100,000 to 200,000 tons. The current zinc price in the St. Louis market inthe U.S.A. is $ 145 per pound. Even though its supply is stable and sufficient world wide, the consumption rate will increase at a faster pace than before; hence, the price will slowly go up. Tungsten mines yield about 11,000 tons a year. Its production has been relatively constant in the past few years. The amount of its consumption increases slowly world wide, but in the free world· there has been a slight annual decrease. However, since Red China has not been exporting their tungsten to other countries for several months, the price on the London market of S.T.U. of $Wo_3$ has increased to $ 44~46. Should Red China begin to export actively again the price will drop to $ 40~42. In 1967, 56,000 tons of Molybdenum were produced. Production exceeds consumption by 200,000 -30,000 tons annually. The current price in the U.S.A. is $ 1.72 per Mo pound. Since the rate of production in the U.S.A. is on the increase with large amounts of ore reserve, the price of molubdenum should not go up.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.291-314
• /
• 2011

We examine the motives of foreigner's investments in the Korean bonds by maturity and try to prove that market impacts are different by their investment maturity. Foreign investors initially focused on short-term bonds, but have expanded to mid- to long-term bonds since 2010. The previous studies found that covered interest arbitrage was the main reason for foreign investment. However, there should be some other reasons as their investment in mid- to long-term bonds might have nothing to do with arbitrage. In the empirical analysis, we found that foreign investment in bonds with less than 2 year maturity is driven by arbitrage as previous studies. However, investment in bonds with 2-5 year maturity is sensitive to the FX volatility and the stock market performance compared with the U.S. and investment in bonds with more than 5 year maturity is driven by the CDS premium differential between Korea and PIIGS countries. The more foreigners have invested mid- to long-term bonds, the stronger downward pressure has been on the bond yields. In addition, foreign investors indirectly affected the spreads. Meanwhile, the government should prepare some policy measures since concerns over side effects such as the Korean won appreciation and an abrupt capital outflow are arising.

• Korean small business review
• /
• v.41 no.1
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2019

This study investigates how SMEs' (small and medium-sized enterprises) financing strategies affect firm valuation. Given that information asymmetry is engaged in firm valuation in the stock market, investors interpret the meanings of debt financing depending on how SMEs construct the portfolio of financing strategies (retained earnings vs debt financing), thereby making investment decision. Specifically, given that SMEs' debt financing has two meanings in the market signals, called "benefit" and "cost", this study postulates that firm valuation will be differently made by investors, depending on how they interpret the meanings of debt financing under choice competition between retained earnings and debt financing. In this study, we argue that under choice competition, as a SME's debt proportion increases, the "cost" signal outweighes the "benefit" signal, thereby decreasing firm valuation. Moreover, the effect of such signal can be contingent on the SME's characteristics-firm visibility. These ideas are examined using 363 U.S. SMEs ranging from 1971 to 2010. The fixed-effects models estimating Tobin's q show that under choice competition, a SME's debt proportion has a negative impact on firm valuation and that the firm's high visibility mitigates the effect of "cost" signal. In conclusion, this study sheds new light on how investors' interpretations of SMEs' financing strategies affect firm valuation.

• Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.1-13
• /
• 2019

As a way to find new and innovative technologies, many companies have invested in and acquired skilled startups. Because startups are usually small in size and have a small history of past business experience, there are many risks involved in acquiring them as they have limited technical skills and business feasibility verification methods. Thus, venture capital plays an important role in discovering and investing competitive startups. While Independent Venture Capital generally values financial returns, Corporate Venture Capital, which plays investment roles in the firm, values business synergies with the parent company from a strategic perspective. In an industry sector where development of technology is rapid and whether new technology is held determines a company's competitiveness, existing companies incorporate startups with innovative technologies into their investment portfolios, collaborate together, and take over for comprehensive cooperation. In addition, new investments and acquisitions are carried out through the management of portfolio companies to obtain and utilize industry information. In this paper, major U.S. companies listed in the U.S. verified their investment activities through corporate venture capital and their impact on parent companies and startups through regression, while the parent company's acquisition performance was analyzed through an event study based on a stock price analysis. The criteria for startup were defined as companies with less than 12 years of experience, and the analysis showed that the parent companies with corporate venture capital with a larger number of investments actively take over startups. In addition, increasing corporate venture capital's financial investment activities shows a negative impact on the parent companies' acquisition activities, and the acquisition performance increased when the parent companies took over startups in its portfolio.