Korea JoongAng Daily - Daily News from Korea

Chun Young-paik

The author is a professor of art history and visual philosophy at Hongik University.

Jealousy has a powerful, destructive force. At times, it is strong enough to shake not only an individual's life but even the history of a nation. A similar but distinct concept is envy. Unlike jealousy, with its aggressive impulse, envy carries a more inward anguish and, depending on how it is used, can become a creative force. In Latin, it is called invidia, a word that first appeared around the fifth century in Augustine's "Confessions." Augustine illustrates the prototype of envy in this way: It is like the feeling of an older brother who looks on from a distance as his nursing baby brother rests in their mother's arms, their eyes locked as if they were one.

The psychological mechanism behind this concept, then, lies in the older child's realization that the sense of unity and fulfillment he once shared with his mother is no longer his alone. Etymologically, invidia combines "videre", meaning "to see," with the negative prefix "in". It represents the wounded heart of the older brother who looks upon the younger sibling in his mother's arms with a "bitter look."

Among Impressionist artists less familiar to the general public is the American painter Mary Cassatt. Her work "Baby's First Caress" (1891) fits the example above perfectly. The gaze between the baby and the mother responds deeply to the other, forming what appears to be a small universe of unity. Yet the protagonists I wish to focus on here are not the two figures inside the painting, but the baby's older brother outside the frame — and, by extension, the viewer looking at the painting. The core of the work lies in the emotion the older brother feels at the intersection of these gazes: the happy exchange between his younger sibling and their mother, and his own gaze upon them.

In the painting, the baby and mother display a perfect unity without the intervention of any third party. This unity, in which the boundary between subject and other disappears, is the true prototype of love. For this reason, Jacques Lacan believed that once a child leaves the mother's embrace and acquires language, the child has already entered a paradise lost. From then on, human beings desire the lost unity and struggle to fill the lack left behind.

The pale-faced older brother who sees his younger sibling in his mother's arms witnesses that lost "paradise" before his eyes and becomes keenly aware of his own "lack." It is something he longs for so desperately precisely because he does not possess it. The ultimate object of that desire is the unity we call "love." Lacan explained the structure of this feeling by saying that "desire has a structure inseparable from lack," focusing in particular on the act of "seeing." The unity of the gaze shared with the maternal figure is both the object desired by the subject and the essence of a love that can never be fully realized. And because vision precedes language, painting can be understood as expressing something primordial that language cannot yet articulate.

Cassatt, a leading member of the Impressionist group in Paris, is estimated to have painted about 140 works depicting mothers and children. She is also known as one of the artists who most frequently painted mothers and children in 19th-century art history. She succeeded in capturing the deep, subtle psychology of the relationship between maternal figures and young children through precise depiction and delicate color. Surprisingly, however, she never had children of her own and remained unmarried throughout her life. What was Cassatt longing for as she observed and painted this subject again and again? Perhaps it was the emotional intimacy and bond between baby and mother that she herself never actually had. Or perhaps it was the close relationship she shared with her own mother, who moved from distant Philadelphia to Paris to accompany her daughter in her pursuit of becoming an artist...

The author is a professor of economics at Seoul National University and a former vice chairman of the Financial Services Commission.

Whenever tensions between the United States and Iran have escalated recently, major asset prices, including stock prices, have reacted immediately and shown sharp volatility. Such abrupt price swings had already been common in the virtual asset market long before the Iran war. Bitcoin, which began a bull run after U.S. President Donald Trump returned to office and surged to the 170 million won ($123,000) range in the second half of last year, plunged earlier this year to the 80 million won range — less than half that level — before rebounding to nearly 120 million won as the possibility of an end to the war emerged. In other words, its price halved and then rose 50 percent again within six months.

The volatility of virtual assets is far greater than that of stocks. Over the 10 years since 2016, the average standard deviation of daily returns for shares of Samsung Electronics, SK hynix and Hyundai Motor stood at 0.294 percent, 0.414 percent and 0.355 percent, respectively. For Bitcoin, Ethereum and Ripple — with Ethereum and Ripple calculated from Nov. 12, 2017, and converted into Korean won — the figures were much higher, at 0.666 percent, 0.853 percent and 1.065 percent, respectively.

Why do virtual asset prices fluctuate more sharply than stock prices? More basically, how are virtual asset prices determined? The defining characteristic of virtual assets is that the fundamentals that determine their prices are unclear. Owning shares of Samsung Electronics is tantamount to owning a stake in the company, and the price will change depending on how well Samsung Electronics performs in the future. But if one owns Bitcoin, what does that mean beyond the fact of holding Bitcoin itself? A common misunderstanding about owning virtual assets is the belief that ownership of a virtual asset means ownership of the technology embedded in it. The technology embedded in a virtual asset belongs to the person or entity that created it. Simply owning the virtual asset does not mean the underlying technology itself belongs to the holder.

Where does the value of virtual assets come from?

Virtual assets have no intrinsic value, but existing research suggests that value may arise for several reasons. First, although they may be more limited than ordinary currencies, virtual assets can serve as a medium of exchange and may generate utility in that capacity. Second, like other assets, virtual assets can be used as a store of value and as a hedge against inflation. In this sense, they are sometimes called "digital gold." Third, some argue that virtual asset prices depend on production costs and, in particular, converge toward marginal production costs. Fourth, the value of a virtual asset is said to be proportional to the value of the network that holds and uses it. Fifth, virtual assets can be used for money laundering or to bypass capital controls, and value may arise from that function.

These are various explanations for how virtual assets may acquire value, but it is not easy to reach a clear conclusion on which explanation is correct. As with other assets, bubbles can also emerge regardless of fundamentals, driven simply by the expectation that prices will rise. Some analyses suggest that virtual assets are especially prone to large bubbles because of the uncertainty surrounding their fundamentals, the absence of circuit breakers, the inelasticity of supply and their stronger sensitivity to popularity and investor attention.

In addition to the difficulty of predicting prices and their high volatility due to unclear fundamentals, virtual assets also differ from ordinary financial products in ways that investors should keep in mind.

First, transaction costs are higher than in traditional financial markets, meaning frequent short-term trading can cause costs to accumulate and make it difficult to earn profits. The...

Cho Min-geun

The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.

"The defining feature of this administration is that it does not hesitate or look over its shoulder. It does not dwell on precedents. It simply looks for the most effective method."

That was what a senior government official said shortly after the decision was made in March to impose a ceiling on oil prices. It was an answer to the question of whether the measure was not excessively unconventional. The official did not go out of the way to deny that the decision had been made in a top-down manner. But then again, this was hardly limited to the oil price ceiling. This administration has shown a particularly strong preference for bold, decisive measures when responding to current issues. A representative example was its decision to place the entire city of Seoul under the land transaction permit system after home prices began stirring, particularly in the Gangnam belt.

Such measures are difficult to produce through the normal policymaking process of the bureaucracy. That is probably the context in which Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jung-kwan defended the oil price ceiling's effect on stabilizing prices while saying that he personally found it "unappealing." In the case of the resource security crisis alert issued by the Industry Ministry, there are four stages: attention, caution, alert and serious. Internally, the ministry has a manual of policy options corresponding to each stage. An oil price ceiling is a measure that can be considered only at the "serious" stage, the worst-case scenario. There is a reason for that. Direct government intervention in prices has an immediate effect, but its side effects are just as large. It is a kind of drastic prescription used only when there is no other option. The cost of compensating refiners for losses is one issue, but it also makes demand management — which should be the most important task in the early stage of a crisis — more difficult. Why, then, do such bold measures keep coming? The likely reason is that, with the June election approaching, political effect has been prioritized over policy cost-effectiveness.

One of the places watching this policy clock most closely is the stock market. The Kospi, which was in the low 4,000s at the start of the year, has surged even amid the Middle East conflict and is now nearing the 8,000 mark. The biggest driver has been the remarkable performances of Samsung Electronics and SK hynix, which have ridden the boom in AI data centers. But another factor lies beneath the surface: a "government that does not hesitate." Among many investors, a kind of belief — if not quite a belief — has taken hold that the government will somehow support the stock market until the election. A number of government policies to boost the market, along with the National Pension Service (NPS), have helped create this mood.

The NPS manages target allocations for asset classes such as domestic and foreign stocks and bonds under a mid-to-long-term asset allocation plan decided by its Fund Management Committee. When the share of a particular asset deviates significantly from the target, the fund sells it, and when an asset is underweight, it buys more. This is called "rebalancing." Through this process, the fund realizes gains when the market is overheated and buys undervalued assets to pursue long-term returns and stability. At the start of the year, the Fund Management Committee raised the target allocation for domestic equities and temporarily suspended rebalancing — even though its domestic stock holdings had already reached the upper limit. Investors welcomed the move immediately.

But concerns were also raised that such erratic management could shake the stability of the pension fund. Korea accounts for only the high-1-percent range of global stock market indexes. As the pension fund has grown in size, it has naturally reduced the domestic share of its portfolio and increased the sha...

Park Sang-hoon

The author is a political scientist.

At the Cabinet meeting on May 6, President Lee Jae Myung said, "Anyone who opposes constitutional revision is an apologist for illegal martial law." There are several points worth considering carefully.

First, the Constitution's purpose is to protect the free will of each citizen. We accepted the rule of a lawful government over anarchy because we judged it to be a wiser way to safeguard freedom. In doing so, we delegated power and, in return, came to possess "inviolable fundamental rights." The Constitution is the public document that guarantees those rights. Citizens are free to criticize and oppose. They are not persecuted for criticizing the administration. They are not punished for preferring a system other than democracy. They may oppose the Constitution itself, and of course, they may oppose amending the Constitution. This is the constitutional democracy we have chosen.

Third, it is also worth reflecting on the act of defining the other side as evil rather than simply saying that one disagrees. For generations that experienced past military regimes, there is a familiar logic of rule. It lies in equating criticism of the administration with "acts that benefit North Korea." The Democratic Party must avoid the language of governance that mobilizes fear. One can oppose illegal martial law and still oppose constitutional revision. If opposition to an amendment is equated with apologism for illegal martial law, that too can become a form of repression. No one has the right to brand someone a bad person simply because that person holds a different opinion.

Fifth, the Constitution is a public document that cannot be changed frequently. President Lee used the analogy that "if the body grows and the clothes no longer fit, the clothes must be changed." But reflecting changes in the times or in society is the role of ordinary laws. The very essence and character of a Constitution is that it cannot be changed often. Moreover, our Constitution is a rigid document that is designed to be difficult to amend. If one seeks to change such a difficult-to-amend Constitution, efforts to build a political consensus close to unanimity must come first. Looking back at how electoral reform without opposition consent led to extreme political polarization, constitutional revision is all the more an issue that urgently requires consensus.

Sixth, it is also worth considering that the president made such an excessive remark one day before the National Assembly was scheduled to vote on the constitutional amendment bill on May 7. The Cabinet meeting was hardly an appropriate venue for it. A presidential Constitution is based on the separation of powers in order to restrain "arbitrary rule." Our Constitution is structured that way as well. Although the president represents the state externally, domestically, he is only the head of the executive branch and has no authority to oversee the legislature or the judiciary. It does not conform to the Constitution for the head of the executive branch to pressure the National Assembly with forceful language. Presidential instruction at a Cabinet meeting on an agenda item that is not subject to Cabinet deliberation or resolution is inappropriate.

Seventh, some may counter that if everyone is free to express an opinion, the president must have that right as well. In a democracy, the delegation of sovereignty entails an exchange of power and rights. Those entrusted with power have their rights restricted. They must disclose and be scrutinized over their personal history and information, including how they built private wealth. They must also promise not to use public authority for their own rights or freedom. We must understand that it is not "What can the president not do?" but rather "Because he is president," he cannot do such things. As John Locke said long ago, a ruler is a special being who has legitimacy only when devoted to the rights and freedom of t...

This article is by Sarah Chea and read by an artificial voice.

Hyundai Motor unveiled a face-lifted Grandeur sedan on Thursday, featuring a large, newly developed Tesla-like screen.

It marks the model's first partial revamp in three and a half years and now offers a hybrid variant.

The most striking change is a softened front fascia, adopting what Hyundai calls a "shark nose" design, paired with a thinner, elongated seamless horizon lamp and sleeker headlamps.

Along the sides, Hyundai has replaced the conventional shark-fin antenna with a hidden-type unit for the first time on a sedan, eliminating any external protrusion to achieve a cleaner, more refined silhouette.

The central display is divided into two primary zones.

The information panel on the left functions like a traditional instrument cluster, showing speed, warnings and efficiency data at all times. It also renders surrounding vehicles, objects and pedestrians in 3-D to enhance situational awareness while driving or parking.

The panel on the right handles navigation, media and other vehicle settings. Drivers can run two apps side by side or expand one to fill the screen.

At the bottom of the screen, Hyundai has reinstated physical buttons to improve safety and usability on the move, addressing widespread customer complaints about the shift toward fully touch-based controls.

The Grandeur is primarily tailored to the Korean market rather than to overseas markets. In the United States and Europe, Hyundai's Pleos system is expected to reach customers through the Ioniq 3, slated for release in the second half of the year.

The sedan also became Hyundai's first model to feature a "Smart Vision Roof," which replaces mechanical blinds with a polymer-dispersed liquid crystal film, allowing drivers and passengers to freely adjust the roof's transparency across six independently controlled zones.

Its Pedal Misapplication Safety Assist system detects unintended accelerator input, such as when the driver mistakenly presses the throttle instead of the brake while stationary or at low speeds, and intervenes by limiting power output and applying braking force to help prevent collisions.

A hybrid variant is also planned, though it is still undergoing government certification for fuel efficiency.

Pricing starts at 41.9 million won ($28,110), with the hybrid version priced from 48.6 million won.

This article is by Shin Ha-nee and read by an artificial voice.

"I'll have to think of 80 different closing comments for our shows, so I've been thinking about how I should approach them," V said at the end of BTS's second "Arirang" world tour concert in Goyang, Gyeonggi, on April 11. "So I decided to share how I've been doing."

It was an offhand remark — casual onstage banter that made the stadium concert feel, at least briefly, like a conversation with fans.

At the same time, his words hinted at the rigor of the group's current schedule.

BTS is back as a septet after a nearly 4-year hiatus, with its first full-fledged tour in more than six years. The tour spans over 80 shows across dozens of cities and is expected to run for at least a year, marking K-pop's biggest tour yet — but for fans, the scale of the tour may also mean another form of waiting.

Unlike a conventional album promotion cycle, a stadium tour does not guarantee a steady stream of television appearances or weekly music show performances. Instead, once the initial burst of promotions passes, an artist's activity becomes more sporadic and intensely focused on touring.

That is where "Run BTS" (2015–) comes in.

BTS was one of the acts that pioneered "self-produced content," which refers to regular video content, often in a variety show format, produced and distributed by agencies rather than through traditional broadcasters.

Such shows, usually released on YouTube, are not merely a way to fill the time between official activities. They help both fans and nonfans alike stay engaged by forming a continuous narrative that people can easily grow attached to and turning the group's chemistry into content that lasts well beyond its time on stage — especially since some moments become viral memes.

But at what cost?

Friendly neighborhood BTS

BTS began releasing episodes for "Run BTS 2.0" on April 23, starting with a special trip, in which the members played games and spent time together away from a crowd. The first episode garnered over 10 million views in the first 10 days of its release.

First launched in 2015, "Run BTS" went on hiatus alongside the band. The original 155-episode run, which continued through 2021, has accumulated a total of 140 million views, while the 10 special episodes released through 2023 have drawn 130 million.

Variety shows centered on idol groups existed before, but BTS was among the acts that pushed the format outside the boundaries of traditional broadcasting.

And for the septet, "Run BTS" was not a mere side project; it served as a core tool for expanding its reach and communicating with a broader audience.

"In our early days, we really made a lot of content," said V during a 2023 appearance on the tvN talk show "You Quiz on the Block" (2018–) when asked what he thought helped BTS become the global superstar that it is today.

"Back when no one [in K-pop] was doing behind-the-scenes videos on YouTube, we did that and more," he continued.

No rest for idols

BigHit Music uploaded the series to YouTube in 2022 after initially only releasing episodes on the fan platform Weverse. This move transformed the show into an accessible gateway, introducing the band to casual viewers and turning them into committed fans.

Self-produced content has since become a key method for fans to connect with their idols in a personal way.

For example, Seventeen has had runaway success with its own self-produced series, "Going Seventeen" (2017–), which became an online sensation among the global K-pop community. Each episode easily draws millions of views, with some of its most popular videos surpassing 20 million.

In a 2023 survey of Seventeen's fans conducted by the fandom platform blip, 59.5 percent of respondents named "Going Seventeen" as what led them to be fans of the group, compared to the 10.8 percent who cited music and performance videos.

While such content fills the gaps between official promotional cycles — previously a period of time during which ...

This article is by Sarah Chea and read by an artificial voice.

한국의 대표 영어신문, 코리아중앙데일리가 특종과 단독 인터뷰, 주요 기사를 한글로 요약해 드립니다. 독자들의 많은 성원 바랍니다.

삼성SDI와 제너럴모터스(GM)가 미국 인디애나 뉴칼라일에 추진 중이던 35억 달러(약 5조2000억원) 규모 배터리 합작 공장 프로젝트가 중단된 것으로 확인됐다. 글로벌 완성차 업체들이 국내 배터리 기업들과 설립하기로 한 합작 공장을 잇달아 철회하는 가운데 전기차 수요 둔화에 따른 투자 속도 조절이 본격화하는 양상이다.

인디애나 경제개발공사(Indiana Economic Development Corporation)는 최근 코리아중앙데일리에 이 JV 프로젝트가 "중단(paused)" 됐다고 확인했다. 마이크 브런 인디애나 주지사가 의장으로 이끄는 IEDC는 인디애나주의 경제 개발과 투자를 촉진하기 위해 세워진 정부 기관이다.

이번 중단으로 당초 2027년 가을로 예정돼 있던 양산 일정도 지연될 전망이다. 이 공장엔 약 35억 달러가 투자돼 연간 최대 36GWh 규모의 고성능 하이니켈 각형 배터리를 생산할 예정이었다.

합작 공장은 리튬인산철(LFP) 배터리 생산으로의 전환, GM의 합작법인 철수 등 복수의 방안이 논의되고 있는 것으로 전해졌다. 삼성SDI는 이에 대해 "GM과 지속적으로 협력하고 있으며, 미래 협력 방안도 계속 논의할 것"이라고 밝혔다.

합작공장 프로젝트는 전기차 수요가 앞으로 얼마만큼 살아날지에 달려 있는 것으로 전문가들은 본다. 만약 중동 전쟁이 계속돼 유가가 더 오르면 프로젝트가 재개될 가능성이 있다는 것이다.

GM은 지난해 LG에너지솔루션과 합작한 얼티엄셀즈(Ultium Cells) 미시간 3공장의 지분을 정리했다. 이 공장 역시 건설이 중단된 후 여러 차례 공사 재개를 연기, 지난해 5월 GM이 보유하고 있던 지분 50%를 LG에너지솔루션에 약 21억3800만 달러(3조2000억원)에 매각했다. 얼티엄셀즈는 GM과 LG에너지솔루션이 2020년 설립한 50:50 배터리 합작사로, 오하이오와 테네시에 공장을 갖고 있다. 그러나 두 공장도 전기차 수요 둔화로 인해 올해 1월부터 가동이 중단된 상태이다.

GM은 지난해 10월 전기차 생산 능력과 제조 거점 전반에 대한 대대적인 재검토 방침을 밝힌 이후 전기차 전략을 전면 재조정하고 있다. GM이 미국 증권거래위원회(SEC)에 두 차례 제출한 공시 자료에 따르면 이 회사는 지난해에만 전기차 사업 축소 비용 총 76억 달러(11조3000억원)을 장부에 반영했다. 이 가운데 3분기에 반영한 전기차 투자 관련 계약 해지 수수료 및 상업적 정산 비용으로 4억 달러도 포함돼 있다. 4분기에는 공급업체 정산과 계약 해지 비용 등을 포함해 42억 달러의 추가 비용을 책정했다.

글로벌 완성차 업체의 이런 움직임은 전기차 시장의 불확실성이 커지는 와중에 생산 물량과 투자 운용의 유연성을 확보하려는 전략의 일환으로 해석된다. 이호근 대덕대학교 미래자동차과 교수는 "합작 구조에 묶일 경우 일정 물량에 대한 의무 구매가 발생하고, 합작법인에 손실이 발생하면 그 또한 공동으로 떠안아야 한다는 부담이 있다"며 "완성차 업체 입장에서는 합작 법인을 정리하고 단기 공급 계약 체계로 전환하는 편이 더 효율적이라고 판단할 수 있다"고 분석했다.

포드 역시 지난해 SK온과 함께 추진해 온 합작법인 '블루오벌SK(BOSK)'를 청산했다. 이는 켄터키 공장 두 곳, 테네시 1곳 등 배터리 공장 총 3곳을 운영해 온 합작사다. 현재 SK온이 테네시 공장을, 포드가 켄터키 공장을 각각 독자적으로 운영한다. 포드는 중국 배터리 업체 CATL과 기술 제휴를 맺어 켄터키 공장에서 ESS용 LFP 배터리를 생산할 것으로 알려졌다.

도널드 트럼프 행정부는 지난해 9월 전기차 구매자에게 신차 최대 7500 달러, 중고차 최대 4000 달러의 세금 공제를 해주는 전임 바이든 정부 정책을 종료했다. 이에 따라 미국 전기차 수요는 빠르게 위축되고 있다. 자동차 시장 분석업체 콕스오토모티브에 따르면 올 1분기 미국 전기차 판매량은 21만 3000대로 지난해 같은 기간보다 약 30% 감소했으며, 전기차 점유율은 전체 신차 판매의 약 5.8% 수준에 그쳤다.

삼성SDI는 지난해 영업손실 1조7224억원, 순손실 5849억원을 기록하며 적자 전환했다. 다만 올해 1분기에는 영업손실 1556억원으로 전년 동기(4341억원)에 비해 적자 폭이 크게 감소했다.

채사라 기자

영어 원문

A $3.5 billion battery project led by a joint venture between Samsung SDI and General Motors (GM) in New Carlisle, Indiana, has been put on hold, as the U.S. automaker recalibrates its EV strategy amid moderating demand.

"The project is being paused," a spokesperson for the Indiana Economic Development Corporation told the Korea JoongAng Daily recently. The agency, chaired by Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, handles investments in the state.

The suspension will inevitably delay the project's original timeline, which called for mass production to begin in the fall of 2027 with an annual capacity of up to 36 gigawatt hours, enough to make around 300,000 EVs.

Several options are reported to be under discussion, including a potential shift in battery chemistry to lithium iron phosphate units preferred by automakers, as well as GM's potential withdrawal from the joint venture, similar to its decision last year regarding a third battery plant in Michigan in a 50:50 project with LG Energy Solution called Ultium Cells.

On the matter, Samsung SDI commented that it and GM "continue to work together and will discuss future plans."

The uncertainty comes as GM undertakes a sweeping reassessment of its EV capacity and manufacturing footprint, seeking to align its operations with softer-than-expected consumer demand on the back of rolled-back U.S. EV incentives.

The Detroit-based automaker reflected a total of $7.6 billion in expenses related to production cutbacks across its EV and battery operations last year alone, including a substantial fourth-quarter write-down.

Of them, around $400 million in third quarter charges tied to "contract cancellation fees and commercial settlements associated with EV-related investments," followed by an additional $4.2 bi...

This article is by Sarah Chea and read by an artificial voice.

A $3.5 billion battery project led by a joint venture between Samsung SDI and General Motors (GM) in New Carlisle, Indiana, has been put on hold, as the U.S. automaker recalibrates its EV strategy amid moderating demand.

"The project is being paused," a spokesperson for the Indiana Economic Development Corporation told the Korea JoongAng Daily recently. The agency, chaired by Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, handles investments in the state.

The suspension will inevitably delay the project's original timeline, which called for mass production to begin in the fall of 2027 with an annual capacity of up to 36 gigawatt hours, enough to make around 300,000 EVs.

Several options are reported to be under discussion, including a potential shift in battery chemistry to lithium iron phosphate units preferred by automakers, as well as GM's potential withdrawal from the joint venture, similar to its decision last year regarding a third battery plant in Michigan in a 50:50 project with LG Energy Solution called Ultium Cells.

On the matter, Samsung SDI commented that it and GM "continue to work together and will discuss future plans."

Whether the project moves forward will depend largely on how strongly EV demand recovers. A prolonged Iran war that drives oil prices higher could make that scenario more likely.

The uncertainty comes as GM undertakes a sweeping reassessment of its EV capacity and manufacturing footprint, seeking to align its operations with softer-than-expected consumer demand on the back of rolled-back U.S. EV incentives.

The Detroit-based automaker reflected a total of $7.6 billion in expenses related to production cutbacks across its EV and battery operations last year alone, including a substantial fourth-quarter write-down.

Of them, around $400 million in third quarter charges tied to "contract cancellation fees and commercial settlements associated with EV-related investments," followed by an additional $4.2 billion in fourth quarter charges stemming from "supplier commercial settlements, contract cancellation fees and other charges," according to regulatory filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In fact, GM last year sold its entire stake in Ultium Cells' third Michigan plant to LG Energy Solution for $2.14 billion. The venture, established in 2020, runs two plants in Ohio and Tennessee that have also been shut down since the beginning of the year due to weak battery sales.

LG Energy plans to independently operate the Michigan facility, producing batteries for energy storage systems (ESS) as well as EV batteries destined for Toyota Motor.

Global automakers are increasingly pulling back from battery joint ventures with Korean firms, in a bid to regain flexibility over production planning and capital deployment.

Stellantis has already stepped back from a plan to build a battery plant in Canada with LG Energy Solution by selling its 49 percent stake for just $100, despite already racking up $980 million in investment in the project. LG Energy intends to convert the facility into a production site for ESS batteries.

The outlook for the $3.2 billion No. 2 battery plant by Stellantis and Samsung SDI also remains uncertain, after Bloomberg reported that the automaker is seeking to exit the venture.

"Automakers are bound by joint ventures to take offtake volumes, and when those volumes fall short, they are left with the burden of sharing the resulting losses," said Lee Ho-geun, an automotive engineering professor at Daeduk University. "To regain flexibility, they are willing to absorb near-term financial pain to unwind these structures."

"From an automaker's perspective, withdrawing from joint ventures and shifting to short-term supplier contracts is a more effective approach."

Ford had plans to operate three battery plants in partnership with SK On — two in Kentucky and one in Tennessee — under a joint venture, BlueOval SK. However, the two compani...

Kim Sung-jae

The author is a business administration professor at Furman University and author of "The Story of Tariffs" (2025).

On Monday, Oct. 19, 1987, the S&P 500 plunged 22 percent in a single day. It was "Black Monday," the steepest one-day fall in history. The shock was all the greater because the index had risen more than 120 percent over the previous three years.

At the time, the U.S. economy in then-President Ronald Reagan's second term was enjoying solid growth. It was expanding at around the mid-3 percent range, and productivity gains in information technology and finance were striking. Intel's 386 CPU, Microsoft's MS-DOS and IBM's modular PCs combined to send the computer market surging. IBM's share price soared, making it a bellwether of the stock market. At the time, IBM accounted for roughly 10 percent of the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The financial market was also undergoing a seismic shift. Investment banker Michael Milken aggressively invested in the junk bond market, the market for high-risk corporate debt, while leveraged buyouts, or LBOs, funded by junk bonds became all the rage. Computer-based program trading was also spreading rapidly.

That August, Alan Greenspan took office as chair of the Federal Reserve. Although he held a doctorate in economics, he had made his career in consulting, without experience in academia or at a central bank, and markets were uncertain about him. Conscious of that skepticism, Greenspan raised the discount rate — the Fed's benchmark lending rate — by 0.5 percentage points. It was the first tightening in nearly three years, and the stock market tumbled in response. Shaken by the shock, Greenspan issued a powerful message the day after Black Monday, saying the Fed would serve as a source of liquidity to protect the system. The market quickly stabilized and resumed its upward rally.

Greenspan is also a role model for Kevin Warsh, who is soon expected to take office as the new Fed chair. Coincidentally, today's AI revolution and digital financial innovation recall the period when Greenspan took the helm. It is hardly surprising that Warsh — a Wall Street figure and son-in-law of a billionaire family, chosen by U.S. President Donald Trump as he pressures the Fed to cut interest rates — is facing intense scrutiny.

Warsh, too, is likely to face challenges similar to those Greenspan confronted when he takes office. With stock prices having risen for a long period and economic growth remaining solid, inflationary pressures are still strong, while hawkish voices inside the Fed that favor tightening are more powerful than ever. It would not be surprising if Warsh were to play the tightening card to defend the Fed's independence and assert his presence. If Warsh, a traditional fiscal conservative, moves to shrink the Fed's balance sheet through quantitative tightening, long-term interest rates could surge. The sharp rise in long-term rates was one of the main causes of Black Monday in 1987.

Greenspan made a mistake, but he moved immediately the next day to contain the damage. Warsh will need the same agility. Trust that dispels chairmanship risk is not proven in an inaugural address, but during the first crisis.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.

John Everad

The author is a former British ambassador to North Korea.

For decades, one of the most striking characteristics of North Korea, officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), has been its exaggerated rhetoric: utterly improbable stories about its god-king leaders and their astonishing achievements, and wildly extravagant claims of domestic well-being and prosperity. It was, it claimed, a society with nothing to envy. Ordinary DPRK citizens knew grimly that this was not true, but the regime myths, enshrined in the DPRK constitution, continued.

However, the revisions to the DPRK constitution approved by the Supreme People's Assembly on March 22 and 23 took a major step toward dismantling this rhetoric. Formal changes to the country's relationship with South Korea were widely expected because North Korean leader Kim Jong-un had announced them in December 2023. Indeed, Article 9 of the former constitution, which committed the DPRK to striving for peaceful reunification, was removed so that the constitution recognizes the fact that the Korean Peninsula is divided into two states. But we can now see that this change was just one aspect of a wide-ranging effort to bring the DPRK's constitution more closely into line with reality.

So, at last, the revised constitution recognizes that the DPRK's huge welfare ambitions for its people no longer bear any relation to real life. They have been quietly abandoned — the very word "socialist" has been dropped from the title of the constitution. For example, it has been a long time since the constitution's former claim that DPRK citizens "did not know unemployment" (Article 27) meant anything in practice. In fact, for many decades, many, even those with a formal job in state structures, have had to work in the DPRK's burgeoning private sector — and in particular in its free markets — in order to make ends meet.

The newly revised constitution drops that claim. Similarly, the DPRK's state health care sector has long been dysfunctional. Although competent nursing is often available, medicines have long been in short supply and often unobtainable (when I traveled from Pyongyang to Beijing, my DPRK friends would always ask me to bring medicines back). Conditions for surgery are frighteningly bad. The revised constitution drops claims to provide free universal health care. Also, although the regime has long implicitly recognized the DPRK's acute housing shortage — leadership speeches often refer to the need to build more accommodations — the state remained constitutionally committed to providing housing (Articles 22 and 25). But that commitment, too, has been dropped. (On the other hand, the state's obligation to provide free education — which, by and large, it does — remains in the constitution.)

More striking still are the changes to the regime's claims to legitimacy. The revised constitution deletes the previous extensive references to the almost supernatural feats of the ancestors of Kim and refers to him no longer as "supreme leader" but simply as "head of state," stating that this status derives from his position as chairman of the State Affairs Commission.

Since its foundation, one of the most striking characteristics of the DPRK has been its extraordinary political mythmaking and claims to legitimacy by its leaders — not by reference to a modern political process but through heredity in the Paektu bloodline, a system more associated with traditional monarchies than modern states.

The supreme leader was, in effect, a modern version of the old kings of Korea. But the term "head of state" is widely used and recognized in many modern states. The change means that the leader of the DPRK now derives their legitimacy not from their ancestry but from a formal position. This is a very significant political modernization.

These changes have numerous major implications.

Firstly, they have major implications for society. The immense gap between the inflated claims of the re...