A Day in the Life of the DPRK
Renowned Russian art director and web designer Artemy Lebedev (of Optimus Keyboard fame) recently took a trip to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and came back with a surplus of surprising photos. Many of them forbidden by authorities (don't miss page 2). It is a photo journal full of evidence of the depravity of communism, dictatorship, and the devastation due to the lack of free market policies. Here is the original Russian text.
Comments (23)
I wonder what kind of rates I can get on a time-share there.
Published: June 14, 2006 11:28 PM
Tim - the rates are going to be good... in fact, free. The only problem is that the timeshare is going to be a bare metal-spring frame cot in a dirty cell -- sharing it with another prisoner or two.
Do not forget that these photos are of their most decent-looking places; the foreighners are never allowed to deviate from prescribed routes.
Published: June 15, 2006 3:05 AM
While quite interesting, a similiar portfolio, maybe not Quite as bleak, could be successfully assembled right here, Made in the U.S.A.
While, I'm sure, viewing the decreptitude of obviously bankrupt regimes give, the viewers, some relief, in as much as, they can continue to conivince themselves that: "things aren't that baa-d Here, afterall...".
The difference, in reality, is but of small degree.
That a similiar portfolio, cooked up Homestyle, be proffered, it may have a more edifying effect.
Published: June 15, 2006 3:12 PM
The only problem with your point M E Hoffer is that poverty, starvation, and the denial of basic human rights is not built into the economic system here. The difference is but of small degree? Did you enjoy your tree bark soup today? I also wouldn't go around assuming the response of others.
Published: June 15, 2006 3:25 PM
BA,
Just for clarification: How would you, exactly, describe "the economic system here" ?
Published: June 15, 2006 5:36 PM
Sure, you can come up with similiar photos in the US, but those photos are the best NK has to offer. The difference between NK and SK is striking, let alone the US.
Published: June 15, 2006 7:26 PM
M E Hoffer,
What do you think would happen if you took the very best pictures that you can of domestic life in NK and followed that with a fair 'average' of American pictures (houses, cities, parks, etc). The result of such a project venture seems intuitivey obvious to me, but perhaps America is the land of poverty. . .and I'm missing it.
The degree to which our economic system is free (despite its flaws) has clothed the naked, fed the hungry, and provided bathrooms for those with. . .*ahem* certain needs. The best that NK has to offer shows that they are utterly incapable of doing these things well--if at all!
Published: June 16, 2006 8:56 AM
Dan,
you're proving my point.
"While, I'm sure, viewing the decreptitude of obviously bankrupt regimes give, the viewers, some relief, in as much as, they can continue to conivince themselves that: "things aren't that baa-d Here, afterall...".
Better yet, why not take a swing at this: "Just for clarification: How would you, exactly, describe "the economic system here" ?
Published: June 16, 2006 9:32 AM
M E Hoffer wrote:
"While, I'm sure, viewing the decreptitude of obviously bankrupt regimes give, the viewers, some relief, in as much as, they can continue to conivince themselves that: "things aren't that baa-d Here, afterall...".
Your point relies an intuitive belief that the US economic system is in terrible shape. I disagree with that claim.
I'm assuming that you didn't compare the Korea pictures to your perception of the US in order to form an opinion of just how bad our system is. Likewise, I also had a belief on our economic system before I looked at the Korea pictures. Your implicit claim that I'm using Korea as a guide to my perception of the US either (a) applies just as strongly to your position, invalidating your argument, or (b) is false.
As for this:
"Just for clarification: How would you, exactly, describe "the economic system here"?
This is the subject of a book and a half, but for our purposes I'll buy something along the lines of "an economy rooted in capitalism but riddled with interventionism and federal distortions to the money supply." How does that sound?
Published: June 16, 2006 11:01 AM
Dan,
How, praytell, does this: "federal distortions to the money supply"--occur?
Published: June 16, 2006 11:07 AM
How, praytell, does this: "federal distortions to the money supply"--occur?
. . .through the Federal Reserve?
Are we going somewhere with this? If so, let's simply go there rather than through small questions aimed at leading me to an epiphany--it's very patronizing.
If you really are interested in economic questions, I will be the first to admit that I am not your ideal guide to introductory questions. As for questions with money and the money supply, I'd recommend these works:
http://www.mises.org/money.asp
http://www.mises.org/econsense/econsense.asp
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/moneyback.asp
http://www.mises.org/tradcycl/econdepr.asp
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/genuine.asp
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/msTContents.html
Published: June 16, 2006 11:14 AM
Dan,
Then you better re-read them, because I'm sure that none of those links will tell you that the Federal Reserve is of the Federal Government or, even, that the FedRes has much, if anything, in the way of reserves.
That the whole of our Financial life, and a great deal of our Economic activities our denominated by a unit of account, issued without our contol, by a Private Bank, aka the Federal Reserve, strikes me as similiar to the state of affairs, that you are so readily decrying, found in the DPRK.
Do me a favor: Come up with a list of activities, that you can partake of, that are not regulated in any way by the State we currently deal with--Should be easy, right??
Published: June 16, 2006 11:34 AM
Then you better re-read them, because I'm sure that none of those links will tell you that the Federal Reserve is of the Federal Government or, even, that the FedRes has much, if anything, in the way of reserves.
"Hence the drive by the bankers themselves to get the government to cartelize their industry by means of a central bank. Central Banking began with the Bank of England in the 1690s, spread to the rest of the Western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and finally was imposed upon the United States by banking cartelists via the Federal Reserve System of 1913."
"In modern central banking, the Central Bank is granted the monopoly of the issue of bank notes (originally written or printed warehouse receipts as opposed to the intangible receipts of bank deposits), which are now identical to the government's paper money and therefore the monetary "standard" in the country."
"Central banks are often nominally owned by private individuals or, as in the United States, jointly by private banks; but they are always directed by government-appointed officials, and serve as arms of the government."
"It should be clear that the point of the government's having the power to print money is to monopolize that power. It would simply not do to allow every man, woman, and organization the right to print dollars, and so the government invariably guards its monopoly jealously."
Maybe we're talking past each other. . .it seems to me like the Federal government has quite a share in our money supply and its manipulation.
Do me a favor: Come up with a list of activities, that you can partake of, that are not regulated in any way by the State we currently deal with--Should be easy, right??
"In any way" is quite the qualifier, and this is therefore an unfair question. I see a qualitative difference between the US and Korea. If we disagree on that point, I don't know how much I'm going to be able to do for you in terms of persuasion (nor you me).
Published: June 16, 2006 12:21 PM
Dan,
It is quite right that the FedGov has, in concert with "Private Banking", handed control of "monetary affairs" To the "Private Banks".
This: "It should be clear that the point of the government's having the power to print money is to monopolize that power. It would simply not do to allow every man, woman, and organization the right to print dollars, and so the government invariably guards its monopoly jealously."--is, in reality, no longer the case. While the FedGov operates the Bureau of Printing & Engraving, its issuance is at the the behest of the FedRes.
see: "In modern central banking, the Central Bank is granted the monopoly of the issue of bank notes (originally written or printed warehouse receipts as opposed to the intangible receipts of bank deposits), which are now identical to the government's paper money and therefore the monetary "standard" in the country."
btw, if "their" product was any good, Legal Tender laws would be beyond moot.
This: "Central banks are often nominally owned by private individuals or, as in the United States, jointly by private banks; but they are always directed by government-appointed officials, and serve as arms of the government."-- We, by deign of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, cannot even assure ourselves of "Who" owns the FedRes. Nor, are we privy to Any auditing of its activities.
We, get, merely, to Hope & Pray until, after the fact(long after), we can figure out how much the private CB & its Gov't cohorts have debased our currency.
And, as far as my Q goes, suit yourself, feel free to make a list of activities you can partake that are not regulated by the State we deal with...Right? no objectionable qualifier, Should be a simple task...
Published: June 16, 2006 1:05 PM
M E Hoffer,
I am not clear on what you are even arguing in your post. You started by claiming that the Federal Reserve was not "of" the Federal Government. I think that it's pretty clear that it is.
Is it not agreed upon that the government has had a profound impact on our money? Whether or not you agree with this statement, the works that I refered you to are very clear on this matter--something that you disputed.
As for activities not regulated by the government. . .now the question is wide open to interpretation. Depending on how we define "regulated," it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%-98% of my activities.
[And remember, my only claim (which apparently started this argument) is that the US has a substantial qualitative advantage in our economic system over the social organization of NK.]
Published: June 16, 2006 1:18 PM
Dan,
from : http://www.mises.org/rothbard/moneyback.asp
But in that case, what are we to say when the government seizes control of the money supply, abolishes gold as money, and establishes its own printed tickets as the only money? In other words, what are we to say when the government becomes the legalized, monopoly counterfeiter?
Not only has the counterfeit been detected, but the Grand Counterfeiter, in the United States the Federal Reserve System, instead of being reviled as a massive thief and destroyer, is hailed and celebrated as the wise manipulator and governor of our "macroeconomy," the agency on which we rely for keeping us out of recessions and inflations, and which we count on to determine interest rates, capital prices, and employment. Instead of being habitually pelted with tomatoes and rotten eggs, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, whoever he may be, whether the imposing Paul Volcker or the owlish Alan Greenspan, is universally hailed as Mr. Indispensable to the economic and financial system.
I think Rothbard does a pretty good job in drawing the similiarities between our "schema" and that of the DPRK... Replete w/ kow-tow-ing and "tickets".
To further draw this out for you, how is our position--We, get, merely, to Hope & Pray until, after the fact(long after), we can figure out how much the private CB & its Gov't cohorts have debased our currency--superior to that of the peasants in NK?
My friend, you may be correct that there are "qualitative" differences between Allenwood( aka Club Fed ) and Sing Sing, but they are Both jails.
Published: June 16, 2006 1:54 PM
M.E. -- That the whole of our Financial life, and a great deal of our Economic activities our denominated by a unit of account, issued without our contol, by a Private Bank, aka the Federal Reserve, strikes me as similiar to the state of affairs, that you are so readily decrying, found in the DPRK.
Well, you should try actually living and doing business in a socialist country some time.
The communist-socialist monetary system is radically different from the capitalist -- the unit of account itself is nearly worthless and in most cannot be directy used to acquire goods. To do that one needs permissions - in form of the "money" being allocated into designated "funds", or in form of coupons or letters issued by the bureaucratic organizations. In a sense, there's no single unit of account, it is a pure formality, but, rather a huge number (about 10000 in the USSR) of the various pseudo-currencies created and withdrawn as a result of a complicated political dances and favor-trading between different parties. Because this systems is clearly unworkable, the economy is sustained with help of widespread semi-official barter.
In the Soviet Union the most coveted specialists were barter deal-makers ("snabzhentsy"), who had to fly back and forth, drink inordinate amounts of vodka with Party and factory bosses, and often did deals which were, strictly speaking, illegal.
The funds were mostly industrial currencies, issued top-down by ministries and central planners (Gosplan); the coupons and letters were issued to individual employees by trade unions and the local Party organizations.
The whole system is incredibly Bysantine, depending on ever-shifting web of alliances and personal contacts. The money itself was only a secondary consideration.
Even for consumers the issue mostly was not to find some money but to find the goods to purchase - with prices in farmers markets and black-market sellers being an order of magnitude higher than prices for the same goods in the official stores. The wealth was measured not in having money, but in having "blat" - the web of contacts with people who dispense or can aid in getting some priority in dispensing of the actual consumer goods.
During economic liberalization of Gorbachev's era, some controls on money transfers between different funds (and between funds and the cash ("nalychka")) were relaxed, thus allowing some flow of virtual money from the funds ("beznal") into the cash -- which was exploited by a lot of entrepreneurs to jump-start their businesses; in fact it was common for state-owned factories to search for some private company to "convert" money from designated funds into cash (with appropriate kickbacks, of course).
This actualization of money predictably caused hyperinflation (which effectively wiped out old Soviet cash, along with all savings, in the series of monetary reforms). I still remember having a large box full of paper money at home...
The interesting thing is that the very same form of non-monetary pseudocurrencies can be found inside large corporations. Which explains Dilbert's experiences - and which allowed me to successfully build the (then) fastest-growing business line in a large transnational corp - when I came there and found how it worked, I simply applied my practical knowledge of a socialist economy. My boss, though, got into habit of asking me every morning - "well, what did you do yesterday which can get me jailed?" :)
A socialist country can be seen as a single large corporation. A company's country.
Published: June 16, 2006 5:28 PM
averros,
I hear you. Though, you should realize that everything you mentioned as being "Soviet" is alive and kicking here in the U.S.--well beyond the offices of, mere, "large businesses".
This: "The whole system is incredibly Byzantine, depending on ever-shifting web of alliances and personal contacts. The money itself was only a secondary consideration." -- Seriously, why do we see the majority of the S&P 500 donate to Both parties? What function do you believe K Street serves? Or, our post-"Election Reform" friends, the 527s?
In a simpler Time, a simple saying: "a penny saved, is a penny earned." If we were to update Poor Richard, 21st C. estilio, we get: "A "dollar" saved, is U$D 1.47 earned."
Added only to give a facet of the magnitude of the warping that "our Gov't" puts on the frame of our daily lives.
This: "This actualization of money predictably caused hyperinflation (which effectively wiped out old Soviet cash, along with all savings, in the series of monetary reforms). I still remember having a large box full of paper money at home..."--
I imagine, would be akin to the repeal of Legal Tender laws, here in the U.S., if so, I also imagine that results would be quite the same.
This: "The wealth was measured not in having money, but in having "blat" - the web of contacts with people who dispense or can aid in getting some priority in dispensing of the actual consumer goods."-- Here, in the U.S., it is understood, at least among those with 1/2 a clue, that the "money" is mere means and that Wealth, like where $Billionaires come from, flows from the Gov't and/or "ties" to the FedRes--in other words, as close to the Source of Inflation as possible.
The great many, often heard called: "Those that work hard and play by the rules", in reality, get Worked and Played much in the same fashion as the peasants of NK, or the former "proles" of the Soviet.
I wonder if any other "readers" of your post saw the similiarities between what you were describing re: old "Soviet"-land, and the U.S., today.
Published: June 16, 2006 6:14 PM
Interesting how these wretched Communist concentration camps in the guise of "countries" are always so afraid of invasion. They have NOTHING that anybody would want or could ever possibly use! Their governments are even more extravagant with their militaries than is the government of the USA, (if that's possible).
These so-called "countries" are only object lessons in the loathsomeness of socialism, the absurdity of government "planning", the even greater absurdity of trusting any politicians and bureau(c)rats anywhere with anything more important than low comedy or theatre of the absurd, and the filthy contemptibility of egalitarianism as an ethical theory! Yet how often do we hear about so-called market failure or injustices attributed to "capitalist greed"?
How much should you bet that he returned back home to Russia to hear some imbecile cuckoo reminiscence fondly of Stalin and the "good old days" there?
I believe that it was Thomas Jefferson who said "What a bedlamite is Man".
That was during the age of Reason; he just wouldn't have any IDEA of the 20th Century!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
Published: June 17, 2006 11:48 AM
Being new to this, I can only hope that I am proceeding in the proper manner.
Thank you for your kindness.
Just one thought at this moment, the supposed disconnect between economics and morality.
To the contrary, the economic demonstration that redistribution does not reduce but increases inequality demonstrates, not just that it is immoral, by the Left's own moral standard, but the ultimate unity of economics and morality.
I am 75 years old, and for fully half my life have been trying to get libertarians and Austrian School economists to discuss this, but, to no avail.
I have spent thousands of dollars advertising the idea in libertarian journals, currently in Liberty, under Calling All Economists, and my web site, Intellectually Incorrect at intinc.org, have offered valuable prizes for refuting the idea, have begged my betters for guidance, and been completely ignored.
Think of that, having to pay for attention to such an issue, offer prizes in connection with it, and still unable to even ripple the surface.
But perhaps God will grant me nine lives, like a cat, for apparently it will take all of that to get through to libertarianism and the Austrian School.
DG Lesvic
Published: October 14, 2007 3:28 AM
Being new to this, I can only hope that I am proceeding in the proper manner.
Thank you for your kindness.
Just one thought at this moment, the supposed disconnect between economics and morality.
To the contrary, the economic demonstration that redistribution does not reduce but increases inequality demonstrates, not just that it is immoral, by the Left's own moral standard, but the ultimate unity of economics and morality.
I am 75 years old, and for fully half my life have been trying to get libertarians and Austrian School economists to discuss this, but, to no avail.
I have spent thousands of dollars advertising the idea in libertarian journals, currently in Liberty, under Calling All Economists, and my web site, Intellectually Incorrect at intinc.org, have offered valuable prizes for refuting the idea, have begged my betters for guidance, and been completely ignored.
Think of that, having to pay for attention to such an issue, offer prizes in connection with it, and still unable to even ripple the surface.
But perhaps God will grant me nine lives, like a cat, for apparently it will take all of that to get through to libertarianism and the Austrian School.
DG Lesvic
Published: October 14, 2007 3:30 AM
Being new to this, I can only hope that I am proceeding in the proper manner.
Thank you for your kindness.
Just one thought at this moment, the supposed disconnect between economics and morality.
To the contrary, the economic demonstration that redistribution does not reduce but increases inequality demonstrates, not just that it is immoral, by the Left's own moral standard, but the ultimate unity of economics and morality.
I am 75 years old, and for fully half my life have been trying to get libertarians and Austrian School economists to discuss this, but, to no avail.
I have spent thousands of dollars advertising the idea in libertarian journals, currently in Liberty, under Calling All Economists, and my web site, Intellectually Incorrect at intinc.org, have offered valuable prizes for refuting the idea, have begged my betters for guidance, and been completely ignored.
Think of that, having to pay for attention to such an issue, offer prizes in connection with it, and still unable to even ripple the surface.
But perhaps God will grant me nine lives, like a cat, for apparently it will take all of that to get through to libertarianism and the Austrian School.
DG Lesvic
Published: October 14, 2007 3:30 AM
I am not sure what you mean Lesvic. Rothbard made attempts to combine Austrian economics with an ethical system, but it doesn't change the fact that economics on its own is a wertfrei discipline.
Published: October 14, 2007 9:34 AM