땩귪궬믟 맱_뷲 `긅긞긏긫깏긤깑궼궋궰귖뮝멞궻릐뚿귩몵돿궠궧궫궴뙻궋귏궥궺
궩궻뱰렄릐뚿뮧뜽귩뜧땼궢궶궕귞쁞궢귏궥궺
궢궔궢 뮝멞렄묆릐뚿궻뮧뜽궼뜂봵궸궢궲궋궫귪궳궥
볷믧렄묆렄궼뚈먒궸궢궫귪궳궥
뜂봵궼뮝멞렄묆렄릆빁뤪귒궫궋궶귖궻궳궇궯궫궕
궩궻뜝뮝멞궼_뛨롊됵궶궻궳뜂봵궕궩귪궶궸뷠뾴궳궼궶궔궯궫궳궢귛궎
뜂봵궼룮릐궫궭귘}궳믅궯궲덇붗릐궫궭궕귝궘렃궯궲믅귦궶궔궯궫궳궥
뜂봵귩뵯땵롷궚귢궽먆뗠귘똓뽴뱳뫝궋븠뭆귩렃궫궶궚귢궽궶귞궶궔궯궫궔귞궳궥
궢궔궢뚈먒궼 댾궯궫귪궳궥
뚈먒궸뱋^궸궶귞궶궘궲궇귢궽롊됵뒋벍궬궚궳궼궶궘똮띙뒋벍귖궳궖궶궔궯궫귪궳궥
뚈먒궼뱰렄뵿떗맕밒궸뱋^귩궢궶궚귢궽궶귞궶궔궯궫궳궢귛궎
궬궔귞릐뚿궕뜼궕궇귡궞궴궳
먥뫮볷믧렄묆궕쀇궘궲릐뚿몵돿궠귢궫긕긞귽귺긦궳궥
볷{귖뼀{궻릐뚿궴뼻렊댸륷댥뚣궻릐뚿귖뫝궘궻뜼궕궇귟귏궥궺
됦궕뜎궻뮝멞렄묆렄궼뜂봵궸딋귟|궔궯궫릐뚿뮧뜽궬궯궫궔귞 릐뚿궕룺궶궋궢궔궶궔궯궫궢
볷믧렄묆렄궼 뚈먒궸귝귡릐뚿뮧뜽궶궻궳 릐뚿궕몵돿궢궫궞궴궻귝궎궸뙥궑귡궬궚궳궥
돷궼 뮝멞렄묆 16띘댥뤵궻뭞궕긊깒[긙믅궯궫뜂봵 롃^ 겓

[롃^먣뼻]
뚹뢆럖뻢뗦뿳뻇벖뚹뢆럖뿧뼬뫋뵊븿듲. 뚹뢆빒돸띭럱뿿묉16뜂.
묈듰믧뜎렄묆궸볺귢뻨궳뒋뽸궢궫|봣뗠뺭멏궕럄궢궫뜂봵.
뜂봵궸듫궢궲뤬궢궋븤먣 http://100.naver.com/100.nhn?docid=171710
궴궸궔궘
뭷뜎궸맫둴궶릐뚿릶궼궋궘귞궳궥궔?
맕뱗둂둽궳맫둴궶뚈뚿뮧뜽궕맟귟뿧궯궲룺릶뼬뫎궻릐뚿귩둊봠닾궢궫궴궢궲
릐뚿궕몵돿궢궫궻궕nika???/
궩궢궲궞귢궼
뱰렄궻롰뱱@궴궔뗟묆덀둾궻뵯묪궳맊둉밒궶릐뚿빾돸릢댷궳궥
Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects, The 1998 Revision; and estimates by the Population Reference Bureau.
릐뚿몵돿궼뱰렄궻뜎띧밒궶묈맖궳궥궺
궩궎궠궸귖
20맊딬룊궼륷궢궋덀쀃궴뎢맯듡봑궶궵궻븕땩궳멣맊둉밒궸릐뚿궕몵돿궢궫렄딖궬궯궫.
1900봏, 16돪뼹귩룺궢됡궗궫맊둉릐뚿궼 1950봏궸 25돪궳몵돿궥귡.
볷믧렄묆볷{궻딯^궳궼 1910봏궸듰뵾뱡릐뚿 1300뼔, 1944봏궸 2500뼔댧귩딯^궢궲궋귡궔귞궞귪궶맊둉밒릐뚿몵돿맟귟뛱궖귩뵿뎕궥귡궴뙥귞귢귡.
뽦묋궼 1910봏궻뱷똶귏궳귖^뽦궬. 돺뚉궶귞궽 1915봏볷{뱷똶궸궼듰뵾뱡릐뚿궕}궸 1700뼔댥뤵궸뢯귡궞궴궳뙥궲궼 1910봏궻릐뚿뮧뜽궼귏궬멺륟귩맢뷈궥귡궞궴궕궳궖궶궔궯궫볷맶룊딖궻 뚮궯궫뱷똶궳궇귡둴뿦궕뛼궋.
뙅떿듰뵾뱡궻릐뚿궼볷믧렄딖궸 1700뼔댧궔귞 2500뼔댧궸몵돿궢궫궢, 궞귢귩볷맶궻벩궳궼궶궘멣맊둉밒궶맟귟뛱궖궻덇븫궻궬궚궶궻궬.
궠귞궸, 볷맶뮳뚣듰뵾뱡궕맊둉띍븂뜎궬궯궫궴궋궎럷렳궳뙥궲궼 볷{릐궫궭궻 "볷믧렄묆궼듰뵾뱡궸돳똟궻귒귩^궑궫"궼롥뮗궼귏궫뛩궑귞귢궶궚귢궽궶귞궶궋.
47295,0 1910
72764,0 1945 > 뮝멞귝귟귖궯궴몵돿궢궫뤾뜃궕뫝궋궳궥뮝멞궼빟뗉댥돷댧궳궥궺
귽깛긤긨긘귺 http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/indonesc.htm
22245,0 1945
15000,0 1910 뮝멞 ..1.7{?
http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/skoreac.htm
3423,0 1910
5144,0 1945 }깒[긘귺>뮝멞
6293,0 1910
15655,0 1945
~긿깛}[ 2{댥뤵>뮝멞 http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/myanmarc.htm
8220,0 1910
18846,8 1945 > 2{댥뤵긲귻깏긯깛 >뮝멞
http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Asia/philippc.htm 3662,0 1910
4328,0 1910
8242,0 1945 귖긾깓긞긓>뮝멞
긾깓긞긓http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Africa/moroccoc.htm
5842,0 1910
11281,0 1945 볦귺떎쁝뜎>뮝멞
볦귺떎쁝뜎http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Africa/safricac.htm
1939,0 1910
3015,2 1945 `깄긦긙귺>뮝멞
http://www.library.uu.nl/wesp/populstat/Africa/tunisiac.htm`깄긦긙귺

맊둉밒쀰럍뱷똶궻뙛댭롌궳궇귡귺깛긊긚긽긢귻깛뵊럐궕 89봏뵯뒮궢궫 "20맊딬맊둉똮띙"궸귝귢궽 1913~18봏됦궕뜎궻봏듩 1릐뱰귟똮띙맟뮮뿦궼 2%궕룺궢됡궗궫.
If Aenggeoseu Madison doctor who is authority of universal history figure depends to "20th century international economy" as long as is scarlet in 89, rate of economic growth 2% per 1913 ~ 18 year our country year 1 person exceeded a little.
궞귢궼 60봏묆댥뚣둖댴딅@궻렄귏궳럡궫궭궕딯^궢궫봏빟뗉 6%귌궵궻맟뮮뿦 3빁궻 1궢궔궶귞궶궋궻궬.
This yearly mean 6% that we record until after this foreign exchange juncture in the 60s almost of growth rate 1/3 become .
묈궖궋뜼궳궼궶궋귝궎궬궕 2%궳맟뮮궢궲룋벦궕 2{궸궶귡궞궴궸궔궔귡 36봏궴궋궎딖듩궻뭷궳 6%궳맟뮮궥귢궽룋벦궕 8{댥뤵몵돿궥귡귝궎궸궶귡궓귂궫궬궢궋롎궬.
Do not seem to be big difference, but though income becomes double because growing by 2%, income is great difference that increase more than octuple if grow by 6% during period for 36 years that take.
궩귢궠궑귖궞귢귖볷맶궸뾎뿕궶붶둹궶궻궸, 궞귢궼 30봏묆댥뚣볷믧돷궳궻똮띙맟뮮궼볷{궻믧뜎롥`밒뻙뮣궻궫귕궻먰렄똮띙뫬맕궻돷궳맟귟뿧궯궫궞궴궳땱뗂밒궸궼럛궑궕븉됀궶궞궴궬궯궫궔귞궬.
This is profitable comparison at Japanese Empire even so, because economic growth of this was thing which alimentation is impossible ultimately by thing which consisted under wartime economy system for imperialistic swelling of Japan under after this Japan-made in the 30s .
볷믧먰렄똮띙궕뺯귢궶궕귞됦궕뜎궻똮띙귖뺯됹궢궲뜎볙몟맯럀(GDP)궼 1950봏귏궳귖 38봏궻 72% 릣궸궴궵귏궯궫궞궴궕궩궻뤪땼궬.
As Japan-made wartime economy collapses, it is the evidence that GDP (GDP) stayed in 72% level of 38 years until 1950 because our country economy collapses.
궩귢궸뚹븳댥뚣륚뼬뭤랃롦돷댼맯뒋뗪궸븠궚궲둇둖궳댷뢟궢궫뫝궘궻벏뺼궕딞궯궲뿀궶궕귞 1938~50봏릐뚿궕 35%귖몵궑궫궢, 궢궫궕궯궲 1913봏궴 50봏귩붶귊귡궴뙅떿됦궕뜎궻 1릐뱰귟룋벦궼맟뮮궢궫궻궳궼궶궘봏빟뗉 0.2%궻뫊뱗궳뢁뢫궢궫궴궋궎똶럁궕뢯귡.
In addition, as many brethrens moved abroad doing not win in hardships of life under colony exploitation since revival come back, population increased 35% 1938 ~ 50 year, and therefore, if compare 1913 and 50, calculation that income per 1 person of our country contracted with the speed of yearly mean 0.2% not that grow finally comes out.
궞귪궶궸궢궕궶궋맟뮮궻됡렪귖궩귢궠궑귖뷄륂궸빺뢣궠귢귡귝궎궸빁봹궠귢궫.
Fruit of such worthless growth even so very preponderance to be done share .
볷믧렄묆됦궕뜎궻룋벦빁봹궸듫궥귡륪쒈맜궇귡럱뿿궼궇귏귟궶궋궕, 뱰렄볷{궻룋벦빁봹궕뜎띧딈궳븉빟뱳궶뺴궬궯궫귘궚궵궢궲쀞릢궢궲뙥귢궽륚뼬뭤궳궇귡듰뜎궻룋벦빁봹궼궴궲귖븉빟뱳궬궯궫궴뙥궶궚귢궽궶귞궶궋.
There is no many dependable data about income division of our country Japan-made age, but if analogize at place that income division of Japan was unequal by international standard at that time, Korean income division that is colony must see that was great unequal.
뷄똮띙밒뫀뽋궳귖륉떟궼럸궫귟딋궯궫귟궬.
Situation is resemblant in unexplored regions removal from a register side.
덇븫궳궼볷맶궕귽긎깏긚궶궵뫜궻믧뜎롥`뜎갲궴댾궋뙸묆렜떝덄귩븕땩궢궲뚣볷듰뜎궶궵륚뼬뭤궫궭궻맟뚻궸딋^궢궫궴뙻궎궕 45봏뚹븳뮳뚣럡궫궭궻빒뽗뿦궼 78%궳귽긎깏긚륚뼬뭤궬궯궫}깒[긘귺궻 62%(47봏), 긙깛긫긳긄궻 64%(45봏)귝귟궦궯궴뛼궋릣궬궯궫.
I speak that contributed in colonies" success such as the South Korea later days supplying modern style education unlike the imperialism countries that Japan-made is different such as the Britain in some, but it was higher level than Britain colony was 62% (47 years) of Malaysia, Zimbabwe"s 64% (45 years) by our illiteracy rate 78% shortly after revival 45 years.
뙅떿맠렊밒.
End, political .
빒돸밒궸궇귞귚귡뗽륥궸궇궋궶궕귞 35봏듩볷{궻륚뼬뭤뙅됈 1릐뱰귟룋벦궼륚뼬뭤궸궶궯궫렄귝귟믟궘궶궯궫궢, 궩귢궠궑귖궩궻룋벦귖뗂귕궲븉빟뱳궸빁봹궠귢궫궢, 묈븫빁궻뜎뼬궼빒뽗궳럄궯궲궋궫궴궋궎뙅_궕뢯귡.
Income per colony result 1 person of Japan became low than became colony 35 years encountering culturally every humiliation, and the income was shared as is unequal extremely even so, and conclusion that most people remained as unlettered person appears.
궞궎궳궇귡궸귖볷맶럛봹귩뛪믦밒궸뙥귞귢귡궔?
May I conduct Japan-made control positively is like this?
몧됖^궑궫긑깛긳깏긞긙묇떝롻
Cambridge professor Dae who is grand .
똮띙둾
Economics
`긅긞긏긫깏긤깑궕릐뚿귩긧깑깏깈긞_긧깛긕긞귖 `긅긞긏긫깏궻빒돸릐 덿 쓘몾쁟뗁렔댱 돶궬궴뵝궥귡돽뭠귖궶궋궕
귏궫 뭤뜓궻귝궎궶볷믧렄묆뭁룂궶 덿릐뚿몵돿궳뮝멞궕뭤뤵뒁궴궋궎`긅긞긏긫깏긤깑궻롥뮗궸뜞릐뚿몵돿뿦궕덇붥뛼궋귺긲깏긇궼뭤뤵뒁궳궥궔?
궇궯궚궶궘궲 `긅긞긏긫깏긤깑귩멣븫룷뢤궳벆귩궎궯궲궢귏궋궫궋륲륃