Experts' Analysis from 10 People... "Only Strategic Vote-Gaining Answers" "Caught Up in Fragmented Clashes Without a Big Picture"

Summary of the First Court Debate on the Night of the 21st and Evaluation by Sector
Sharp Positions on 'Deficit Bonds,' 'Roosevelt Model,' and 'Multiplier Effect'
Lee Jae-myung's Economic Direction, Yoon Seok-yeol's Lack of Depth in Knowledge
Negative Attitudes from Both Sides, Ahn & Shim "No Progress"

[Asia Economy reporters Chae-eun Koo, Jun-yi Park, Young-won Kim] Ten economic and political experts analyzed the first official presidential candidate debate hosted by the National Election Commission on the previous day (21st), stating that "only vote-winning strategic answers were seen" and "there was no depth in economic policies." The economic policy brains of each candidate's campaign headquarters showed clear differences in perspectives regarding the candidates' economic views on ‘deficit bonds,’ the ‘Roosevelt model,’ and the ‘crowding-out effect.’

Regarding Yoon Seok-yeol, the People Power Party presidential candidate, mentioning to Lee Jae-myung, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, that "although you said national bonds are just figures on the books, if many national bonds are issued, credit ratings can fall and foreign debt interest rates can rise," the logic of both sides sharply diverged.

Kang Sam-mo, a professor of economics at Dongguk University and a member of Yoon Seok-yeol’s campaign policy advisory group, pointed out in a phone interview with this paper, "Candidate Lee defended in yesterday’s debate that it would be fine if the currency becomes a key currency, but that is just a hope. If the debt ratio rapidly increases, a crisis could occur in the overall macroeconomy." He added, "The logic that it does not matter if the debt ratio relative to GDP increases is not agreed upon by mainstream economists." Kim So-young, a professor in the Department of Economics at Seoul National University and secretary of the economic division of Yoon’s campaign policy advisory group, also criticized, "There were many logical flaws in Candidate Lee’s economic analysis. The statement that the country will soon become a key currency country was particularly shocking."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

On the other hand, Kang Nam-hoon, a professor of economics at Hanshin University and chairman of the Democratic Party’s campaign basic social committee, diagnosed, "In a situation where household debt is high, obsessing over fiscal soundness and keeping national bonds at a rate too low compared to the OECD average is rather problematic." Professor Kang pointed out Yoon’s argument that "if it is not a key currency country, there should not be many national bonds," saying, "If there are many foreign currency-denominated bonds, it is problematic if the country is not a key currency country, but for won-denominated bonds, it is money that can be repaid with the country’s own currency, so it does not matter. It seems Yoon did not distinguish between the two."

Candidate Lee’s policy direction of expanding Roosevelt-style ‘government investment’ is also a point where the economic views of both sides sharply clash. Regarding this, Ha Joon-kyung, a professor of economics at Hanyang University and chairman of Lee Jae-myung’s campaign transitional fair growth strategy committee, said, "The argument that government investment crowds out private investment refers to the ‘crowding-out effect,’ but it shows a misunderstanding of Candidate Lee’s economic policy direction, which focuses on concentrated investment in science and technology, research and development (R&D), and human resource development."

However, Sung Tae-yoon, a professor of economics at Yonsei University, said, "In a situation where inflationary pressures are rising, government investment can crowd out private investment. However, when inflationary pressures are low, the Roosevelt model can be valid." Professor Sung, who is currently not affiliated with any specific presidential campaign, gave an overall assessment of the debate, saying, "In economic policy, words are not important; direction and vision are. Overall, it was difficult to find that part, and it felt like they were stuck on fragmentary aspects."

[Image source=Yonhap News]

Regarding Yoon’s demand for an apology over Lee’s remark that ‘structural gender equality does not exist,’ Lee’s camp voiced criticism for not responding. Park Sang-chul, a professor at Kyonggi University Graduate School of Political Studies and head of Lee Jae-myung’s campaign political innovation special advisory group, said, "Gender equality is a goal and an unresolved issue, but Yoon’s vague answer seemed to indicate that he would only stick to the ‘young male strategy.’ It seemed like an answer solely based on vote-winning strategy."

Political commentators had mixed evaluations of the rhetoric and attitudes of the two leading candidates, Lee and Yoon. Generally, they agreed that both candidates failed to fully demonstrate their capabilities and showed disappointing debate attitudes.

Park Sang-byeong, a professor at Inha University Graduate School of Policy, evaluated Lee’s remarks as "showing a clear understanding or thoughts on policy due to experience," but also pointed out, "His attitude was rigid and he seemed quite dissatisfied, which was disappointing." On the other hand, he held a negative view of Yoon both in attitude and content. He said, "Yoon passed the answer by saying ‘there is no time,’ but TV debates have the obligation to explain any issue repeatedly so that all citizens who have never watched before can understand. It was an inappropriate attitude." Regarding the content of the remarks, he criticized, "There is a severe lack of understanding of economic policy and he does not grasp the concepts. He exposed his limitations as they are."

Lee Jae-myung of the Democratic Party of Korea, Ahn Cheol-soo of the People Party, Sim Sang-jung of the Justice Party, and Yoon Seok-youl of the People Power Party, the presidential candidates from both ruling and opposition parties, are posing ahead of the first debate hosted by the National Election Commission held at MBC in Mapo-gu, Seoul on the 21st. Photo by the National Assembly Press Photographers.

Political commentator Lee Jong-hoon expressed regret over Lee’s debate attitude, saying, "Candidate Lee should have shown something but focused too much on defense. He should have aggressively probed economic issues and targeted Candidate Yoon, but he did not."

There was also criticism that the debate atmosphere was harmed by focusing only on negative exchanges rather than policy discussions. Choi Chang-ryeol, a professor in the Department of Liberal Arts at Yongin University, said, "It was an economic issue, but they only focused on negative exchanges. It was disappointing to see only continuous confrontations." He added, "It seems unlikely that voters will change their preferred candidate after watching this debate." There were many evaluations that Sim Sang-jung, the Justice Party presidential candidate, and Ahn Cheol-soo, the People’s Party presidential candidate, did not stand out significantly compared to Candidates Lee and Yoon. An economic expert from Yoon Seok-yeol’s campaign policy headquarters, who requested anonymity, said, "Candidate Ahn was frustrating as he only maintained a fundamental stance on data economy, and Candidate Sim did not seem to have made much progress from five years ago."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.