Watching U.S. President Barack Obama hasten his economic steps this week with stimulus and budget plans, two things appear certain.
First, the new leader of America seems to be going in the right direction with both short- and long-term national goals firmly in mind, as shown by the fact that his Republican rivals have caviled about only some minor points in Obama's stimulus package, or took mainly political offensives.
Second, despite its overall reasonableness, it will likely take considerable time for the U.S. president's economic plan to take effect, as America's economic ailments are so enormous and varied.
``Daunting'' seems to be too simple a word to describe the challenges facing Obama; he has to pull the economy out of the worst recession in a century; reduce the budget deficit by half in five years; solve major problems in the areas of medical care, education and environment; and win or at least honorably end two regional wars.
What makes Americans and other global villagers think it might not entirely be ``mission impossible,'' is Obama's prescription _ taxing the wealthy and big businesses to shift to ``green growth'' _ which could prove to be killing three birds with one stone at its best. By slapping a ``wealth tax'' of sorts on multi-millionaires and billionaires, the U.S. administration could fund key projects without denting its treasury too badly. The ``cap-and-trade'' carbon tax on big polluting businesses will also help clean up the environment and facilitate the development of its energy sector.
It has dispelled lingering suspicion on whether the new Democrat president will be able to weather the perfect storm if his remedies can't escape the basis of neo-liberalistic financial capitalism, the main culprit of the ongoing global economic tailspin.
Of course, the resistance from wealthy taxpayers and their Republican enablers will be formidable, but as the new leader said, this is no time to ``redecorate your house,'' but time to focus on ``rebuilding its foundation.''
What all this signifies for Korea's equally troubled economy should be unmistakable. Korea should not unduly dependent on one market, such as America, but diversify to other industrial countries and particularly emerging markets.
Forcing Washington to ratify bilateral free trade accords could be one means of tiding over protectionist barriers. But if that means the governing camp will have to trigger more political and social turmoil in the process, it will lose far more than it gains, particularly if excessive pressurization in Washington backfires in the form of renegotiation.
Instead, the government needs to learn from the U.S. policy switch aimed at rectifying the long-term imbalance in redistribution and introducing forward-looking industrial policies, instead of pressing toward the cliff its ally stopped at just before falling.
Sometimes, sharing the same values and policies can make better allies than always asking for something. And one good thing about lagging behind frontrunners is avoiding the trial and error they have already undergone.