North Korea

A Capitalist Lesson From North Korea

Does capitalism need government?

|

Five years ago in Roanoke, former president Barack Obama crystallized America's economic debate. "Somebody invested (in) roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that," he said. Elizabeth Warren, then a candidate for the Senate, made the same point the year before, when she argued, "There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own—nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."

On one level, the notion that people are interdependent is beyond dispute. Indeed, laissez-faire economists often make the same point. Leonard Read famously did so in the essay "I, Pencil," which shows how "no single person on the face of this Earth" can make a pencil—or even knows how to. The act requires a vast web of loggers, miners, shippers, investors, machinists, farmers, and countless others who do jobs none of the rest can do.

By itself, that does not make much of a case for massive government intervention in the market or massive redistribution of wealth. Those rely on a more robust case. And a big part of that case holds that government actually creates markets: The "capitalist system" is not an organic development, but the deliberate product of government policies such as contract law and property rights.

Since government created the capitalist system in the first place, the argument goes, anybody who benefits from it ultimately is benefiting from government policy. And because the government is bestowing the economic benefits, it has the rightful authority to distribute or redistribute them however it likes.

If this is true, then it demolishes any principled argument against confiscatory taxation or massive regulatory regimes. But is that account correct? Contract law, property rights, a functioning legal system and so on certainly make commerce easier. Yet the idea that they create the capitalist system in the first place goes too far—and proof of that comes from, of all places, North Korea.

The Washington Post spent six months talking to more than 25 defectors from the prison state, and published excerpts of the interviews this past weekend. "Life Under Kim Jong Un" is at turns frightening, inspiring, and astonishing.

And educational. "In theory, North Korea is a bastion of socialism," writes reporter Anna Fifield, "a country where the state provides everything, including housing, health care, education and jobs. In reality, the state economy barely operates anymore. People work in factories and fields, but there is little for them to do, and they are paid almost nothing. A vibrant private economy has sprung up out of necessity, one where people find ways to make money on their own, whether through selling homemade tofu or dealing drugs, through smuggling small DVD players with screens called 'notels' over the border or extracting bribes."

"North Korea technically has a centrally planned economy," a 37-year-old university student told Fifield, "but now people's lives revolve around the market. No one expects the government to provide things anymore. Everyone has to find their own way to survive."

One young woman found her way by doing people's hair at her house. A 23-year-old bought beans from farmers, then paid couriers to get them to an aunt who sold them in a market in Pyongyang. A 46-year-old, officially an office worker, earned his living selling drugs and smuggling antiques. A 43-year-old, officially a doctor, says the monthly salary was "less than it cost to buy one kilogram of rice. So of course, being a doctor was not my main job. My main job was smuggling at night."

Even the education system has become market-based. "Technically, you don't have to pay to go to school," said a farmer. "But the teachers tell you that you have to submit a certain amount of beans or rabbit skins that can be sold. If you don't submit, you get told off continuously, and that's why students stop going to school."

The government has legalized some markets "retroactively," Fifield reports, and even takes a cut from some private earnings. Ordinary life is improving. But, she writes: "The ability to make money, sometimes lots of money, through means both legal and illegal has led to visible inequality in a country that has long touted itself as an egalitarian socialist paradise."

The special report shows—no doubt unintentionally—that capitalism is not a system imposed from above; capitalism is simply what happens when people are left to do what comes naturally… and sometimes even when they aren't.

One day, the Kim regime will no longer be able to hold down the growing number of North Koreans made prosperous through informal trading. A full-fledged, open and free market eventually will take hold. At that point the North Korean people will be able to tell their government: "You didn't build that."

This column originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

NEXT: Statist Just-So Stories

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and gang, PLEASE move to North Korea to become re-educated! Or at least, read the above, to see how socialism does NOT work!

    1. It’s almost like they have a liltte Kim Jong in them.

      1. Ewww! Nobody wants to see their “little Kim Jong.”

        1. My Whole month’s on-line financ-ial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis. everybody will use this home profit system by this link………

          http://www.webcash20.com
          ======================

    2. Please also send Michael Moore to North Korea as well. They have Michael’s favorite gun control there.

      1. Moore would make a nice fat target for Kim Jong’s anti-aircraft guns.

      2. Moore would make a nice fat target for Kim Jong’s anti-aircraft guns.

        1. starting with the euphemisms again, I see.

    3. He’d never have them. Little Kim knows what’s up and isn’t interested in competition.

    4. Elizabeth Warren, then a candidate for the Senate, made the same point the year before, when she argued, “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own?nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.”

      But, those who got rich & built factories, etc…ALSO paid these taxes & most likely at a higher rate than the average “rest of us”!!!….Heck, a lot of the “est of us” never paid anything towards the roads!!…Pocohantas is an arse-wipe!

  2. As far as I am concerned ,libertarianism is a political belief/philosophy – and not a personal one.

    On that basis, libertarians should be supporting a free market rather than particular forms like capitalism – along with all the baggage that concept carries (whether right or wrong).
    People can state their belief as to what form of free market system would work best – but it is better not to tie that to their belief in libertarianism directly.

    1. A good case for “massive government redistribution of wealth” is the fact that most of the filthy rich got that way because of laws that were passed for the purpose of creating the filthy rich: corporation laws, intellectual property laws. This should be understandable in an article that praises “laissez-faire”.

      1. Commie-kid, your stupidity shows through regardless of the handle.
        Fuck off.

        1. Oh, you can’t say he’s a Commie. That kind of talk is also found in the Anarchist playbook. Or the Antifa playbook for that matter.

      2. A good case for capital punishment is the fact that most of them are probably guilty of something.

    2. What form of free market? What other form is there than volentary private property trade?

      1. You know, “free markets” with quotes (and a winkle) on either side.

  3. “”North Korea technically has a centrally planned economy, but now people’s lives revolve around the market.”

    And that’s how I know North Korea isn’t true Socialism.

    1. Yeah, this is clear evidence that real socialism hasn’t been tried yet. 😉

  4. The first “markets” emerged when some dude traded his extra mastodon meat for some pointy sticks. The first “capitalism” (as in investing resources today for some return tomorrow) when another dude cleared some dirt patch and planted potatoes (or maybe when somebody set up a trap hoping for another mastodon). No government present or required, though some extra effort might have been necessary to keep others from helping themselves to the potatoes.

  5. You didn’t build that! We built that! So that you wouldn’t have to pay for that!

    And now you need to pay for that!

    It just makes sense!

    1. “We, the government class, built that.” This shows that those who govern are more important than people who build factories.

      1. OK, asshat. First, name one government-built factory in the US that produced something marketable and with a sustainable (i.e. self-funding budget). Second, how did all those Soviet factories work out?

      2. Stop making Lizzie Warren sound elitist, you bastard!

  6. “You didn’t build that” is one of the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard for the social responsibility crap. Walmart’s not free-riding by using “our” roads – roads are paid for with motor fuels taxes and guess who pays more motor fuels taxes than anybody else? The government may have supervised the construction of infrastructure, but every penny they spend they first had to take from the taxpayers so the government is the one you can tell “you didn’t build that”. And what about the fact that businesses create jobs which allow people to become taxpayers? The idea that businesses are leeching off government is preposterous, it’s the government that’s leeching off businesses and their employees.

    1. Roads were built to facilitate commerce for everyone. Just because WalMart and other businesses choose to take advantage of them doesn’t mean that they owe the country any more than the freeloader who only uses them to pick up their check at the welfare office. It’s interesting that those belittling private businesses the most (Obama, Warren, and Sanders) have never owned any business but, instead, have spent their lives “community organizing” or other rabble-rousing.

      1. Obama “community organizing”: you are sixteen years old, your mother is on crack, daddy is unknown, your grandmother is in her forties, you dropped out of school, your girlfriend is pregnant, you were recently arrested for home invasion, YOUR PROBLEM IS RACISM.

        1. ALWAYS RIGHT|11.26.17 @ 1:12PM|#
          “Obama “community organizing”:”

          Slopping at the public trough forever.

    2. “The government may have supervised the construction of infrastructure,…”

      …and skimmed off a large portion for their ‘services’

  7. Telling detail about the leftist mindset in the linked article about escapees from North Korea, where the WaPo writer calls NK a “once-Communist” state because people have turned to black markets to survive. That is, goverment can only be communist when it hasn’t yet failed visibly enough that the No True Scotsman fallacy must be invoked by true believers, instead of acknowledging that the terrible outcome is the inevitable result of communism.

    1. Free black markets pop up Because the system failed!

  8. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own?nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.”

    The fundamental misunderstanding behind that is the idea that the government pays for anything.

    The guy who built that factory paid for those roads. The guy who paid his income taxes paid for those roads.

    The government doesn’t pay for ANYTHING. The government is a money losing operation.

    Telling taxpayers they should be grateful for the things they paid for is simply absurd. Telling them they should be grateful for the things they didn’t want is absurd twice over.

    Because you built roads and schools, does that mean I should be grateful for the money you spent occupying Iraq, financing the Syrian civil war, fighting the drug war, overpaying useless federal bureaucrats with fat pensions, and using the NSA to violate our Fourth Amendment rights? I’m not grateful for any of those things, and if it weren’t hot air blowing jackasses like Liz Warren inflicting their will on taxpayers like me, I wouldn’t have to pay for any of those things at all.

  9. How does Liz Warren account for the fact that tax paying factories have been driven out of Detroit by her favorite policies?

    Should those factory owners be grateful for the taxes that helped drive them overseas? Thank goodness for Detroit’s crumbling infrastructure?!

    At one point, the City of Detroit was seriously considering asking the military to come in and demolish all those old buildings–because the city couldn’t afford the demolition and the fires were costing the taxpayers so much money.

    In fact, for a long time, I don’t know whether this is still true, the Detroit fire department wouldn’t put out a fire in a factory–unless they could confirm that the building was occupied. Yeah, land can be worth less than zero–especially if the taxes, insurance, and demolition costs exceed the property’s value. But things generally only get that bad for one reason–if government policy is as dumb as Liz Warren wants it to be.

    1. Liz for Detroit mayor! (for life)

  10. “the rest of us paid for”

    Yes, Liz Warren’s voter base paid so much to help those factories get built. The factory owner didn’t pay anything, and if he doesn’t like it he should move to Somalia.

    /sarc

  11. You know what the social responsibility of wealthy taxpayers consists of, IMHO? The same as the social responsibility of all the productive taxpayers in Liz Warren’s voter base – paying equitable taxes to support the *legitimate* function of government.

    Those who think government is a warm fuzzy “us” are unclear on the concept of legitimate functions, so let me lay a few out: Suppressing murderers, rapists and housebreakers; enforcing contracts, fending off foreign foes, dealing with hazardous wastes – but even here the govt can screw up if not closely watched.

    1. This is really the underlying basis for this entire argument: what are the legitimate functions of government. That bleeds in to arguments over what government does well.

      What the definition of these various words are matter a lot too. For example, I completely agree with the statement “paying equitable taxes” – but I’m betting that what I think is equitable for rich and poor is a bit different than you.

      1. There’s virtually nothing the government does better than private markets because the former is insulated from competition. That’s the utilitarian argument for a government that does less.

      2. “This is really the underlying basis for this entire argument: what are the legitimate functions of government. That bleeds in to arguments over what government does well.”
        The government does absolutely NOTHING well. It does those things we can’t do individually, like making war, and it does so embarrassingly poorly. That’s the reason it should do nothing at all if we can avoid it.

        “What the definition of these various words are matter a lot too. For example, I completely agree with the statement “paying equitable taxes” – but I’m betting that what I think is equitable for rich and poor is a bit different than you.”
        See above, and fuck off. slaver.

        1. Well that about covers it, don’t it. Cheers.

          1. “Well that about covers it, don’t it. Cheers.”
            Why does passive-aggression suit you so well? Might it be your basic dishonesty?
            Cheers and fuck off.

            1. I’m not being passive aggressive, I’m trying to be civil. You frankly piss me the fuck off. I’ve seen you post non-flamey things like once. What are you even trying to do? Maintain a perfect reactionary echo chamber? No, YOU fuck off.

              1. mortiscrum|11.26.17 @ 6:15PM|#
                “I’ve seen you post non-flamey things like once.”

                Which is once more than anything you’ve posted has been honest.
                Fuck off.

                1. Is your imagine so poor as to not possibly conceive of someone who believes government has something to offer? That’s your problem, not mine.

                  And if you’re just going to post crap, I’ll go back to ignoring you.

                  1. “Is your imagine so poor as to not possibly conceive of someone who believes government has something to offer? That’s your problem, not mine.”

                    Perhaps I’m mis-reading you, but you seem to pretend to a platonism in argument, hoping to find by a certain cupidity, that someone has yet to consider the issue closely.
                    Perhaps I’m wrong, but if I am, it suggests that YOU haven’t considered the issue in detail, and that by your superficial attention, you propose that all others shoulder the load for some simplistic notion of ‘duty’, enforced at the end of the gun.
                    Knave or fool; either one of those rates a “fuck off, slaver”, and both are your problem, not mine.
                    cont’d

                    1. “And if you’re just going to post crap, I’ll go back to ignoring you.”

                      You are welcome to ignore whom you please; I ignore none. Not you, not Tony, not commie-kid, not SIV; not a one.
                      Every one of them (and you, too) can easily get beyond the “fuck off, slaver” rating by posting something that doesn’t approach insulting. And if you are to propose a role’ for government which isn’t insulting, you’re going to have to qualify it very carefully.
                      I’ll remind you that the first time I called you on your bullshit, you were making the specious claim that O-care would cut medical costs, since it would encourage people to go to the doctor more often (the ‘we hope people will keep from getting sick’ fallacy).
                      You started in a very deep hole and haven’t done a lot to get out of it.
                      So, please do ignore me. I’ll still call your bullshit.

      3. I used to think that at least the feds could do Navy well, but even that looks like a disaster lately.

    2. “Dealing with hazardous wastes.”

      I hope this isn’t because you think corporations and individuals should be free to pollute the commons in the first place. Even libertarians believe in environmental regulations to protect the commons (air, downstream river water etc.). If environmental regulations don’t exist at all you’ll have to wait until after people are dead from poison to clean up the hazardous wastes”.

  12. “You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.”

    Why are those ungrateful corporations always whining about the inadequate preparation of the people whose educations Warren’s taxpaying constituents paid for?

    1. Shit I’m one of Warren’s very high-tax-paying constituents. The public schools in my very high-tax-paying neighborhood are excellent and the corporations are not whining about them. The grads do as well or better than those from the private schools.

      We moved into the the very high-tax-paying neighborhood for the good public schools. One is allowed to do that. Now that we have no kids around we still pay the very high taxes and we’re not complaining.

  13. This is a bit underwhelming, honestly. It seems to me that government enforcement of property law, contract law, etc., as a basis for capitalism is still a pretty strong argument. Pointing at black market dealings in North Korea for rabbit meat and saying that’s equivalent to the dealings of multinational corporations is a bit of a stretch, to the say the least.

    I think another understated benefit of government is the way they protect a very large portion of the population from war and conflict. The more localized and fractured government is, the more small disputes will happen between them. Think warring tribes. However, if many clans are brought together under one banner to form a large, centralized government, the average citizen under that government will be exposed to much less conflict than if they were part of a tiny tribe. This means much more time for invention, collaboration (further facilitated by being part of a larger in group), and the accumulation of wealth.

    1. With the largest incarceration rate in the world, and endless wars taxpayers are subject to, it seems every American is exposed to the responsibly of mass violence and death of innocents elsewhere, whilst many being subject to it’s own Nation’s violence… And all subjet to it’s constant threats of such over personal and peaceful choices.
      Sure, if you simply ignore these facts, few are subjected to war and violence.

      1. A vastly overstated comparison. Compare the threat of violence in undeveloped parts of Africa, where people live under tribal leaders to the threat of violence in Chicago (relatively high rate of street crime) or Baltimore (recently notorious for police crime against citizens). They are simply not the same. Someone worrying about effectively their entire world (their tribe) being smashed by a raiding party from a rival tribe is just a bit more all-consuming.

        1. Or you could compare the threat of violence from the governments of the USSR, PRC and DPRK to the threat of violence in Somalia’s Xeer tribal region.

          Or we could stop cherry-picking examples and realize that decentralized governments vs. centralized governments re: threat of violence is a classic “giant turd vs. shit sandwich” debate.

          1. You’re the one cherry picking the most immoral but still powerful governments on Earth. I could counter with the dozens of others that do a fairly decent to quite good job of protecting their citizens and facilitating humans flourishing.

            And no, it’s not that debate at all. There’s a world of difference between them.

            1. “I could counter with the dozens of others that do a fairly decent to quite good job of protecting their citizens and facilitating humans flourishing.”

              And I could counter with the dozens of others that aren’t as much “household names” as the 3 I listed, but are just as awful: Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Venezuela, Vietnam, Cuba, India, Iran/Saudi Arabia/Iraq minus Kurdistan/pretty much every Middle Eastern country, Russia under Putin, and a I’m sure a whole bunch more that I’ve never bothered looking up. And between China and India alone, I have half of the world’s population to my score.

              Meanwhile, I have no other immediately available example of “peaceful tribal society” because almost every “tribal society” on Earth has had its socio-economic conditions distorted by the governments that exert suzerainty over them: First Nations, Native American/Alaskan Native, Native Siberians, Aborigines, Native South Americans, Maori… All live under oppressive, paternalistic conditions that do not tell us how they would live in those conditions’ absence. But I’m pretty sure an examination of those cultures pre-European arrival would reveal a similar mixture of peace and war to the large states that came afterward. The Xeer are somewhat unique in being free of those shackles.

    2. “It seems to me that government enforcement of property law, contract law, etc., as a basis for capitalism is still a pretty strong argument. Pointing at black market dealings in North Korea for rabbit meat and saying that’s equivalent to the dealings of multinational corporations is a bit of a stretch, to the say the least.”

      That argument makes sense for the basis of capitalism, as soon as we decide that the basis of capitalism is large multi-national corporations. Then, one wonders how young capitalism is, and how it came about in the first place.

      “I think another understated benefit of government is the way they protect a very large portion of the population from war and conflict.”

      Actually, I think that topic has received much attention for centuries (For example, see Hobbes Leviathan, or the very next Reason.com article after this one).

    3. “I think another understated benefit of government is the way they protect a very large portion of the population from war and conflict.”

      My goodness!
      I didn’t see this earlier, but I did see where mortiscrum took me to task for being rude (and replied, above). And then we have him embarrassing himself once again.
      OK, mortiscrum, show ONCE in world history were a population, absent government propaganda, was clamoring for war, and that government kept them from fighting that war.
      C’mon, slaver, I know you can’t do it.
      Oh, and fuck off.

      1. It’s not a matter of the government stopping the population at large from going to war, it’s humans being organized in to larger and larger groups, which makes it far harder to attack them, which leads to less conflict. Granted, the conflicts nations engage in are much larger, but even then the majority of the population is more or less insulated from it. It’s sort of like a nuclear deterrence principle: if a bunch of people can band together, the display of strength will be enough to end a bunch of conflicts before they even begin.

        1. And if you choose to narrowly define “conflict” as “warfare between two polities”, than that makes sense. Unfortunately, protecting people from the monsters outside, via government, exposes them to the monster *above*. Thus, Prohibition; thus, Drug War; thus, mass incarceration; thus Holocaust, Holodomor, Cambodian Genocide, and the countless tens of millions of individuals killed by feudalists, crony capitalists, socialists and nationalists everywhere. Liberal Democracies will slaughter fewer and Autocracies will slaughter more, but both are equally centralized, equally over-arching, equally expansive. And the exact same dichotomy can be seen between peaceful and warlike tribes throughout the world. The relevant metric is “individual rights” vs. “collective rights”, not “large polity” vs. “small polity”: scale of polity is irrelevant to quality of said.

          Oh, and also:

          “Granted, the conflicts nations engage in are much larger, but even then the majority of the population is more or less insulated from it.”

          Glorious citizens of Great Patriotic War would like word with you, tovarisch.

  14. Anyone who watches “The Americans” saw this same lesson play out last season. Oleg tries to do something about the black market for produce/groceries and the woman he’s investigating basically tells him “You don’t understand because you are insulated from it by your party status, but this is how people actually get fed. Good luck stopping it.”

  15. “You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate”

    Well, you billed me for doing so, but you never got around to it, Faucahantus.

  16. “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own?nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads you paid for, likely disproportionately compared to the rate at which you used them. You hired workers you paid to educate, again with an amount either equal to or disproportionately higher than the return you get on your involuntary investment.”

    FTFH

  17. “By itself, that does not make much of a case for massive government intervention in women’s sex lives or mass state-sanctioned rape. Those rely on a more robust case. And a big part of that case holds that government actually creates womens’ right to their body: The “self-ownership system” is not an organic development, but the deliberate product of government policies such as rape laws and rights of consent.

    Since government created the self-ownership system in the first place, the argument goes, anybody who benefits from it ultimately is benefiting from government policy. And because the government is bestowing the benefits of sexual self-ownership, it has the rightful authority to partake or transfer them however it likes.

    If this is true, then it demolishes any principled argument against mass breeding programs or abortion quotas. But is that account correct? Assault laws, consent requirements, a functioning legal system and so on certainly make women’s sanctity more secure. Yet the idea that they create the right to self-ownership in the first place goes too far?and proof of that comes from, of all places, 5 seconds of mild contemplation.”

    FTFY, Hinkle, you jackass.

    1. (Clarification: this sentence:

      “If this is true, then it demolishes any principled argument against confiscatory taxation or massive regulatory regimes.”

      …is what earns Mr. Hinkle “jackass” status. Being the only entity that can enforce rights does not grant said entity “droit de seigneur” with regards to said rights, even if it *really is* the only entity that can enforce them.)

  18. Just ran onto this:
    “What North Koreans Think of America [Full] | ASIAN BOSS”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXo-Vov_98Y
    Dunno when the interviewees defected, but the recording was published this Spring.

    1. From a Nork defector @20:01
      ‘Only developed countries take environmental issues seriously. Poor countries couldn’t care less about the environment’
      And you can’t get poorer than a commie hell-hole.

      1. I’d encourage all you folks to look at the YT series regarding NK.
        After 6 to 8 books on the issue so far, this much seems certain:
        It is clear that millions have starved, that starvation is still common away from the urban areas, that the Kims run a totalitarian government the likes of which the world has rarely seen.
        It is also clear that starvation has driven those who prefer to eat away from the government; the government was the source of all goods prior to 1989 (and that date needs to be remembered), but no longer has the free shit from com-symp countries to do so.
        The result predictably yields a black market economy of small traders, predictably distorted by government agents demanding baksheesh. Since the control structure of NK usually requires the male to show up for “work” in return for “pay”, it is the wife who typically finds some sort of good to trade at the market, and put food on the table, while the husband gets to suffer through ‘criticism’ sessions.
        Given that those agents also get nothing of the promised government goods, it is predictable. It it also thereby predictable that the allegiance of those agents is no longer to the government, but to those providing sustenance.
        The end of the USSR was marked by the admission by Gorby (I’d have to look for the cite) that the USSR existed only on the food provided by the black market (I think Conquest put the food delivery by the black market at 80% or so).

        1. 80% of all food delivered in the USSR? Dayum.

          1. “80% of all food delivered in the USSR? Dayum.”
            It is from memory; maybe I’m pushing some hyperbole; 70%?
            If you really want me to back that claim, I will.
            This is not a comment directed at you, but a general statement:
            I have never posted a claim here which I cannot support by a cite to at least one credible source.

            1. No big deal if you don’t want to go to the trouble, but it would be interesting to have confirmed.

        2. One of the books (and I’m not going to the book shelf tonight to cite the title) makes a credible claim (which is totally new to me): Kim Il Sung arranged for a sort of a ‘board of directors’ and they, along with the Kim offspring hold certain powers, and control of various ‘commercial’ activities which make them extremely wealthy and extremely powerful within the NK organization, and you can bet some bank somewhere is now lending that money.
          I’m hoping that all of you have read “Postwar” (Judt) at least, making clear what Euro populations will tolerate until they simply say No Mas!!!
          There is some analogy here; Norks are human who prefer eating to dying. Even that BoD will, sooner or later, have to account for its actions.
          GO NORKS!

          1. “GO NORKS!”

            I’m gonna put that on a foam finger and sell it at Berkeley’s next riot.

  19. Washington Post: Must be “fake news”.

    Sorry, just can’t resist the snark.

  20. I would oh so agree with the premise of this article if the government of NK wasn’t also murdering people and forcibly extinguishing livelihoods on a day to day basis. Capitalism cannot exist alongside murderous totalitarianism.

    Sometimes I fear fellow Libertarians forget that the small influx of free (black) market fixes that must come with living under fear and tyranny do not constitute the full breadth and meaning of Capitalism.

    1. “Capitalism cannot exist alongside murderous totalitarianism.”
      The market abides; see above.

  21. Roadzz, skoolzz, if they were built for everybody, why isn’t everybody rich?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.