Written by 1:36 PM Politics

“Busan Citizens, Reasons Why They Don’t Need the 250,000 Won Subsidy”… Park Soo-young’s Rebuttal

Representative Park Soo-young of the People Power Party expressed opposition to the nationwide livelihood recovery support fund proposed by the Lee Jae-myung government, stating that “Busan citizens do not need the 250,000 won.” In a post on his Facebook on the 7th, titled “Why Busan Truly Wants the Korea Development Bank More Than 250,000 Won,” he argued that relocating the Korea Development Bank to Busan would have a far greater impact compared to the limited benefits of receiving local currency. He highlighted that the actual economic effects of relocating the bank to Busan’s South district would result in trillions of won in economic benefits.

Park outlined three reasons for his stance. First, he noted the significant effects of relocating the Korea Development Bank to Busan, citing a study from the Busan Institute that estimates a production inducement effect of approximately 2.4076 trillion won, added value inducement effect of 1.5118 trillion won, and an employment inducement effect of 36,863 jobs in the southeastern region of Korea. He emphasized the job opportunities for young graduates from local universities.

Second, Park critiqued that the impact of local currency is only temporary, stating that despite multiple investments, direct cash support does not match government investment and consumption in terms of GDP growth. Third, he pointed out that local currency spending does not necessarily boost extraneous consumer spending.

He concluded by questioning the financial strategy of the current administration and appealed for a more sustainable financial policy that does not burden future generations. Park also posted on Facebook a comparison to Venezuela’s economic decline under Hugo Chavez’s policies, criticizing excessive welfare programs and their consequences.

The Democratic Party responded with criticism, questioning Park’s authority and intention, while netizens were divided in their responses. Some agreed with Park’s concerns about future burdens, while others criticized him for not considering the immediate needs of citizens.

Visited 1 times, 1 visit(s) today
Close Search Window
Close