Brokers connect two parties which do not have ties between them. As we covered in lecture, brokers can enjoy one’s power when they have no competition. In real life, it is easy to find brokers in many cases, ranging from brokers involved in relatively trite issues to ones involved in international issues. In my opinion, brokers are just part of the market in most of the cases, because there are competitions between them, and they do not have such powers. For example, consider a case where one student wants to sell his laptop. In this case, there could be someone who both knows this students and other student who wants to buy a laptop. He can become a broker by connecting those two students. However, in real examples, it is rare to be only one broker. Another example could be internet auction websites. Those who want to sell and buy are connected by these websites, but there is no single website; there are many website, even though specific website can be well-known than other ones.         

   However, as the article Too many brokers shows, brokers are not limited to ones who buy and sell “goods.” In the article, there are many types of brokers involved in different issues, such as visa, money laundering, real estate, and so far. Even though I never had any personal feelings toward brokers, the article says that in Korea “calling someone a broker is almost an insult.”      

      It seems that the author of this article views brokers negatively. Considering this view, it is not strange to see how the author says about the merits of brokers; “All they have is a tongue for smooth talk and all kinds of connections to exploit even the faintest acquaintance.” However, I do not agree with the author. The author mentioned about the cases which higher class was involved with brokers. However, is it easy to access to people from high class? “A tongue for smooth talk” is not the only merit brokers have and needs. Among some merits brokers have and need, connection to various networks seems like the most important feature for me.

           Even though the author only mentioned about the “tongue” a broker has, connection to various networks are more important. Consider a case where a broker has a good “tongue,” but has no connection to various networks. It is true that he would be good at compromising and persuading people, but he possibly would not even have people to persuade. In the article, there is an example of money laundering. If the broker, who I mentioned above as an example, only knows who can do the money laundering, could he success as a broker? To success, he also has to know someone who has money that needs laundering. By knowing only one party or none at all, the broker does not even have a chance to use his “tongue.” Consider another case where a broker has a normal “tongue”, but has access to various networks. Although he might not be very good at compromising and persuading, he at least knows people who need his help. Though he could not earn much profit due to his lack of skill to communicate, he could at least gain some profit.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2647839