What Happens Now the Dear Leader has Gone to Hell?

January 24, 2012

Despite the obvious failings of a formerly imperious system, communism, North Korea persists with it flying in the teeth of all logic.

I really doubt that North Korea has – or ever had - much to do with communism. It was the same in North Vietnam. The movements led by Kim and Ho were primarily and essentially nationalistic - a desire to be rid of colonialist masters. But because of overseas intervention – the US in Korea and the French and later the US in Vietnam - both came to depend on the Soviets for training, supplies and a great deal of international support. So toeing a sort of communist line made sense. And it suited the western powers to attach the (at the time) much-feared communist label to each. But I think history shows that both regimes were essentially nationalist.

North Korea now is, pure and simple, a family dictatorship propped up by a massive army and a propaganda machine the likes of which the world has hardly seen before, even in Nazi times. It is no more communist than China is communist. Both perhaps have some similarities to communism, but not a great deal. Besides, I doubt if Marxist-Leninist dogma plays much part in either nation. But then again, it suits the west to use the communist label.

North Korea is surely more like a much ghastlier version of Libya under Gaddafi and Syria under Assad, neither of which one would call communist.

As for Kodak, what makes their head-in the-sand mentality so stupid is the company was one of the first to develop digital imaging!

January 25, 2012

The Chinese policy of non-interference should not be lightly dismissed. Had the US adopted such a policy during its period of hegemony the world might be a happier place.

pong · January 25, 2012

The answer to that is fairly obvious - a rate set by the free market versus one artificially established by the Bank of China. Not letting the currency float artificially keeps the price of exported goods low and keeps the Chinese economy humming along.

There are no 100% set rules for that anywhere: just look at how the SDwiss are also partly suffering now due to the fera for (our) Euro and the transfer of far too much money to that valuta-so that its now even so overpriced that their HTLs and skiing etc are only open to the superrich.

Compared to TH, Indo etc when I travelled in China i did not found it extremely cheap-in fact TH is cheaper. Thus that Baht (to which all of you are ever complaining about being too highly valued) is also undervalued?

Come on-its only that USA that keeps on moaning about the rate of the CNY. Must mean something-even lower prices in Walmart? (which is BTW the biggest and even best retailer in CN-with shops that are far superior to those in that USA). Parrots- anyone who just repeats things from his local newsppr without thinking.

IMHO the main culprit is not the rate, but the astronomous amounts of money going at breakneck speed around this world en threatening any valuta deemed to be too weak or whatever in a few seconds. THAT has to be curtailed- bring in an even higher tax as proposed by now (tobin tax or so). No-thats not your precious pension investent-thats just crooks and Chinese type unscurpulous money-gain chasers. A weird sprout off of the free capitalism.

Bob · January 25, 2012

Come on-its only that USA that keeps on moaning about the rate of the CNY. Must mean something-even lower prices in Walmart?

First, no, it's not only the US complaining about the Chinese not allowing their currency to float in the free market. And, yes, everybody ought to play by the same currency rules - having one country artificially set their exchange rate while others let their currencies go up and down as the free market dictates will create an imbalance/unfairness somewhere.

You also have it backwards with regards to what happens if the Chinese currency would appreciate if allowed to float in the free market. The cost of Chinese exported goods would increase to the importing nations, not decrease.

Bob · January 25, 2012

The Chinese policy of non-interference should not be lightly dismissed. Had the US adopted such a policy during its period of hegemony the world might be a happier place.

While I'd even join you with criticizing many of the US actions over the years, that's perhaps best left to another thread. The issue, as you somewhat note, is the effect of the Chinese policy of non-interference with the internal affairs (that's the lingo, I think) of other nations.

While China no doubt adopted the notion as a defensive measure (to try to prevent the world from criticizing China itself when it stepped over the line), my bigger complaint is how the policy prevents the world from effectively changing the horrid behavior of some nations that border (and are supported and coddled by) their giant asian neighbor. Had China alone or in concert with other nations pursued a serious effort to change the ways of the North Korean regime, my guess is that the North Koreans would not now have nuclear weapons but, even more important, a lot of North Koreans who have starved to death over the last decade would still be alive today.

Nobody necessarily has to live up to any fixed "western" standard such as that found in the UK, the US, or elsewhere; however, I see nothing wrong with using what pressure nations can bring to bear in an attempt to force other nations to live up to the basic human rights adopted by the United Nations. Last I knew, China was a member of that body and even agreed to adopt those standards both for itself and for application to other countries.

January 25, 2012

No question about it. There are a lot of And, of course, there are those who argue that China is a special case and/or for some unknown reason shouldn't be held to any standards (for example only, the United Nations charter obligations such as those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Having just re-read the thread, there is one issue which has not yet elicited a repsonse. So, here is one that will be fairly contentious!

I’m not going to defend abuses of human rights anywhere. And China does certainly need to improve its record. I am appalled by the repression in Tibet and some other regions – especially in the Muslim north west – and I believe the opening up to the wider world needs to be speeded up.

But whatever is really happening in China, throwing out the human rights card is one thing. The record of the countries (and there are many) doing the throwing is hardly free of disgrace.

For example, poverty. The US Census Bureau’s own statistics show that poverty generally increased from 14.3% of the population to 15.1% between 2009 and 2010. For African Americans, it increased from 25.8% to 27.4%. For Hispanics, it increased from 25.3% to 26.6%. Perhaps not surprisingly, for Asians it decreased from 12.5% to 12.1%.

http://www.census.go...2010/table4.pdf

Whilst the poverty rate has hovered in the region of roughly 15% since 1970, the numbers of people below the poverty level has risen from around 25 million to 46.2 million in 2010.

http://www.census.go...010/figure4.pdf

Thus about one person in seven receives food stamps!

http://blogs.wsj.com...ve-food-stamps/

And the USA is far from alone. The UK figures are even worse, with roughly 22% of the population below the poverty line in 2008/9.

http://www.poverty.o...y%20facts.shtml

Compare that with the massive reduction in poverty rates in China over the same period, and the Chinese could throw quite a few brickbats in the opposite direction.

I could go on. Western (I won't lay it all on the USA!) interference in Cambodia, East Timor, Bangladesh/East Pakistan, Chile etc. resulted in many millions of deaths and massive human rights abuses. But because this was all in the west's interest, did anyone raise an eyebrow? Those who live in glass houses, beware . . . !

Before the avalanche of criticism starts, let me add I fully accept two blacks don’t make a white, I am also not comparing like with like. But the degradation of human poverty and a level which keeps rising is hardly something for any nation to trumpet. 46.2 million people endure such misery in the US. In percentage terms that equates to 200 million+ people in China. Not even Amnesty International’s guesstimates of human rights abuses are even a small fraction of that figure.

January 25, 2012

it's not only the US complaining about the Chinese not allowing their currency to float in the free market.

This issue has been dealt with in at least one other recent thread. In that I pointed out the Japanese example, which, certainly in the medium-term, did virtually no good whatever in terms of reducing Japanese competitiveness. And I believe this bears repeating, for reducing imports from another country and increasing exports to it will not necessarily follow a currency appreciation - even though that's what the textbooks say should happen!

In the early 1980s, US$1 stood at around ¥260. The Reagan administration cried “currency foul” and used its might to force that currency down. By 1990 when I moved to live in Japan it was around ¥160. Two years later it was around ¥120. Now it is closer to ¥77.

So the currency fell spectacularly. And what happened? Let’s take an example. Upvaluing the Yen was one thing; opening markets to US goods was another (how many times have we heard that politically charged phrase in recent years?)

Well, the innocent (in this case, read – ‘mindless’) US auto industry lobbyists successfully got agreements to sell many more of their vehicles in Japan. So Chrysler, Ford and GM quickly opened up brand new showrooms (one was a stone’s throw from my Tokyo office) and proudly showed off their latest models for the eager Japanese to buy. Problem was: the Japanese didn’t want them! And when you consider how the car manufacturers went about selling to Japan, is it any wonder that US car exports to that country took more than 15 years to take off?

First off, Japan drives on the right, as in the UK and Thailand. Did US car-makers alter their cars for this new market. Nope! They trundled out exactly the same left-hand drive ones they sold in the USA!

Second, anyone with any experience of Japan knows full well that the vast majority of its streets are tiny and extremely narrow. Did the US introduce any new models capable of being driven on Japanese streets without always being scraped and dented? Nope! They once again just assumed that the Japanese would go crazy for their large gas guzzlers.

And that was the third problem. By the beginning of the 1990s, Japan’s bubble had burst and most Japanese found themselves having to economise. Why should they buy cars they’d have difficulty driving and which were too big for their streets and their small garage parking spaces, when they’d also have to lash out a lot more on expensive fuel than for the cars being made in their own country?

At least not all was lost. When the Chinese had started driving, the US makers had learned their lesson, and now US cars are relatively popular in China!

So yes, pressure a country to open markets. But at least do your research! Send your people to that country first to immerse themselves in the local conditions and cultures, to learn what works and what doesn’t, to study local sales techniques – and only after that extensive exercise export products that you know the citizens of that country actually want, and might even buy!

And even before that happens, just wait for the country whose currency has been upvalued to switch a great deal of its production to countries with cheaper standards of living offshore - as happened with Japan and later South Korea. "Upvalue your currency and play by the rules" sounds great in theory. In practice, it will not always have the results that are hoped for.

Bob · January 25, 2012

Before the avalanche of criticism starts, let me add I fully accept two blacks don’t make a white,

No criticism but some comment. I think you're comparing things that aren't all that logically comparable.

While I too am concerned about the massing of wealth in many/most countries in the hands of a very few (yes, it's bad and even getting worse in many countries including the US, the UK, Thailand, etc.),we might start out paraphrasing (I say "paraphrasing" as I'm too lazy to look up the actual quote) Mark Twain's: "There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics!"

I believe the US government (using god only knows what standards) sets its own definition of what constitutes "poverty" level and to use US statistics to compare to what the Chinese relates to its own citizens might actually lead somebody to believe that somebody below the "poverty level" in the US is actually worse off (economically in terms of basic access to food, decent housing, and health care) than somebody at or above the "poverty" level in China. Apples and oranges in my view.

But, let me ask you a question or two: Do you believe that exchange rates for the various currencies ought to be set by the governments of the individual countries or by the free market? If for any reason you believe it's okay for individual nations to individually set the exchange rates, don't you believe that such a course of action actually leads to problems (even harm) to other economies?

January 25, 2012

Apples and oranges in my view

I was basically trying to quote statistics relatively. Being poor in the US, the UK or wherever, is not the same as being poor in China. That is for sure. What people sometimes forget, though, and what I have trotted out before, is that China’s economic policies have dragged 200 million (maybe 300 million) plus out of poverty, the most number in the shortest time in history. How “poverty” in China is defined, I do not know. It is clearly not being as well off as a poor person in the USA. But during that same period, the US and the UK have seen more people fall into what is determined by those countries as poverty. So I do not quite see it as you do, as “apples and oranges”.

As for exchange rates, frankly I do not know enough about economics and international trade to answer your questions. I only know what I have seen and what I have experienced.

You ask about the “free” market. I am not sure anything is truly “free’ these days. I am presently reading a wonderfully written book on the roots of the 2008 economic crisis: “All the Devil’s Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis” by Bethany McLean, and it is clearer than ever to me that Free Markets are anything but free. Sure, they’re free-ish if you are controlling them – if you head up a hedge fund, or controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or indulged in the shenanigans of those at Citibank and their ilk, or were Alan Greenspan or any of a multitude of other manipulators, lobbyists and so-called regulators. But for the average man in the street, they are as rigged as an 18^th century schooner.

Likewise, how free is an exchange rate when, as the US and the UK have done, money is printed left, right and centre with the result that currencies automatically fall – even though that was not the primary purpose? How free is it when the international currency system actually encourages one country to build up vast amounts of another’s debts through trade – and then the other accuses it of manipulating its currency? What is one major use of interest rates if it is not one means of manipulating a currency?

Without really racking my brains, I cannot recall any major example in my lifetime of upward/downward currency movements being anything other than a very short-term fix! The Wilson government in Britain devalued in the mid-1960s – to no lasting effect. Japan started upvaluing in the early 1980s – to no lasting effect on the rest of the world. The Thai Baht remains at 31-32 compared to 25 pre-crisis., and has seen no lasting effect (apart from a strengthening of its basic financial system).

So I look at the word “free” with a huge pinch of salt!

January 25, 2012

 Had China alone or in concert with other nations pursued a serious effort to change the ways of the North Korean regime, my guess is that the North Koreans would not now have nuclear weapons but, even more important, a lot of North Koreans who have starved to death over the last decade would still be alive today 

'Ifs' don't make for reality, alas. China was a developing nation with a whole host of problems within its own borders to deal with. It was also intent on developing its own nukes. Technically it was enemies with South Korea until just before the Seoul Olympics - less than 25 years ago. Until then, North Korea was essentially an ally. I'm not sure the North Koreans even trusted the Chinese after they switched sides.

In Post #15, Bob, you suggested we read an article by Michael Green in which he argues for more pressure on North Korea. I think – hope – I demolished his arguments -

 Michael Green was Senior Director for Asia on the NSC during the Bush administration, so it would be really surprising if he trotted out anything other than the Bush party line – which was to slam shut the door Clinton had opened. 

When Green talked about the fear of those who daily pop across the border “that border guards might catch you bringing a bible back from China!”, that showed for me how pathetically little he knew about the North Korean situation!

I stand by what I said earlier in this thread: that progress was being made in the direct talks between the US and North Korea at the end of the 1990s. It was George Bush and a cabinet with little experience of the Korean issue that killed it through a stupid insistence on six-party talks. Not only did those talks achieve zero progress; everything went into reverse gear. You can not blame China for North Korea going back to the development of nukes.

Bob · January 25, 2012

But for the average man in the street, they are as rigged as an 18^th century schooner.

..............................So I look at the word “free” with a huge pinch of salt!

An apt description (the rigged 18th century schooners). The rich and elite have bought and paid for their privleges (whereby they ride the elevator to further riches and, of course, the rest of us simply get the shaft).

And I suppose I agree that there are no absolutes when it comes to describing free markets; however, some markets and economies are freer than others? That's rhetorical, no need to answer.

January 25, 2012

The human rights issue ought to be very simple – if you see human rights abuses you should try to put a stop to them. But it’s not that simple. One problem is that if you’re going to interfere, where do you stop? Speaking sharply to the offender may have no effect. Sanctions, if not just for show, may or may not. (They might have had some effect in Burma, buy it remains to be seen whether, having acquired some western friends as a counterweight to China, things go forwards or backwards.) Military invasion can wotk – Tony Blair’s in Sierra Leone – but tends to be disastrous (Iraq). Another problem is the interferer’s credibility: the US (sorry to bring them up again) has used human rights as a cudgel to bash countries they don’t like, while ignoring the often equally nasty behaviour of their friends (eg General Pinochet, the Shah, the Argentine military, the man in Uzbekistan who boils peole alive, etc). We recently have the farcical situation of their criticizing Cuba when the worst offences perpetrated on the island are probably at Guantánamo. Chinese criticisms would also fail the credibility test of course, but their non-interference policy at least exempts them from accusations of double standards and hypocrisy. I’m not sure that’s the reason for the policy though; I suspect it’s an old Chinee custom going back to their former heyday. To revert to the thread (at last!) I agree with FH that Chinese interference in N Korea would not necessarily have done any good, and could have had dangerous outcomes for China. And as he also points out, they had a lot of other things to think about.

Bob · January 25, 2012

In Post #15, Bob, you suggested we read an article by Michael Green in which he argues for more pressure on North Korea. I think – hope – I demolished his arguments -

You can not blame China for North Korea going back to the development of nukes.

Sorry but while Green might share some neocon thinking that neither you or I would agree with, I was hoping that you'd see that my position is that the only way North Korea is going to fundamentally change is to apply more pressure (and mainly from China). Talking sweet to them hasn't gone anywhere and anybody that thinks just trying to be nice to them or talk in a level-headed manner with them is going to accomplish anything is dreaming and ignoring history. The Clinton foray back in the early 90's was admirable in intent but, as we know, led to total violation by North Korea of the accords they signed. That history and the results of the sporadic talks over the last 6 years have led to one result - nothing.

Yes, I can and do blame China for part of the present day nightmare in North Korea and I take that position for the same reasons previously stated. China "telling" North Korea how life was going to be would have made a huge difference. At least that's my opinion (and well worth what you've paid for it!).

January 25, 2012

 1. I was hoping that you'd see that my position is that the only way North Korea is going to fundamentally change is to apply more pressure (and mainly from China)

2. The Clinton foray back in the early 90's was admirable in intent but, as we know, led to total violation by North Korea of the accords they signed. 

We have fundamentally different views, and I reckon neither is going to persuade the other!

1. The situation now is quite different from 15 or so years ago. Not only is there a new untested leader in the North, nuclear weapons are now a fact. What would have worked before, ain't going to work now! China may well be in a position to exert more pressure, but that country knows that pressure won't work with such a dyed-in-the-wool totalitarian regime. I don't doubt the North Koreans have all been brainwashed to believe that death is preferable to invasion. And that's what most North Korans believe: that the US will eventually invade - unless there is first a peace treaty signed between them and the US. And that is why Bush's policy totally failed. Have a non-aggression pact signed, and then use whatever carrot and stick you want. I believe it will be a totally new ballgame.

2. I need to brush up a bit more on my facts. But the Clinton foray spread through several years, right up to the end of his Presidency when Albright made her famous trip to meet Kim Jong-il in October 2000 following overtures from the South Korean President. Here is part of what she said to Jim Lehrer on Newshour -

he (Kim) basically, I think, is prepared to take some important steps. We have to test it. We have to make sure that these aren't just words . . . I think we have thought we had a problem with their potential of the nuclear programs and through the agreed framework that we worked out in '94, we were going to freeze their fissile material programs. And now we have had a missile test moratorium with them for the last months. And we want to now make sure that we can significantly reduce the threat in a more permanent way . . . it wasn't until Kim Dae Jung went and said that he had some very important discussions with him and found him to be somebody that he could talk to, that was rational, pragmatic. I found the same thing. Basically, you know, we've had such weird stories about him, but it turns out that we had very good discussions . . .

he listened very carefully. He didn't lecture me. I went through all my talking points with him. And he gave rational answers. And he seems pragmatic. Now, I think that he clearly has some very serious economic issues, and I think it's worth us probing and testing. I made a big point of saying that these glasses that I have are not rose-colored.

http://www.pbs.org/n...ight_10-30.html

She found Kim far from the grandiose idiot most made him out to be. And, rightly or wrongly, she felt further discussion, especially bringing in the South Koreans and the Japanese – not, you’ll note, the Chinese! – could be productive. And an arms moratorium was in place at that time. Once Bush and the neocons entered the scene and changed the ground rules, that moratorium disappeared.

You cannot bully nuclear bullies. Kruschev backed down over Cuba in 1961 only after Bobby Kennedy had come up with a face saving formula to put to him. But compared to the North Korean regime, Kruschev was a reasonable man - too reasonable, as it turned out, when he lost his job soon afterwards. The 'stick' won't work, I fear.

Bob · January 25, 2012

"Democrats attacked President Bush for his North Korean policy. And Bush said, 'Gotcha. I don't have a North Korean policy.'" --Jay Leno

I always liked Albright but I sincerely wonder when she made those (and only those) statements - was it before or after we found out she and the US were totally snookered by the deal made in the 1990's?

The concept of you "can't bully bullies" is beyond my comprehension as that's often the only language they understand. On the opposite end of the spectrum, we do have proof that sitting down with them directly and making deals doesn't work. I have no problem with direct talks but we're not going anywhere without a huge (Chinese?) stick threatening to strike or at least threatening to withdraw all support.

The emergence of Baby Kim at least rekindles some hope that things will change for the better. We shall see.

January 25, 2012

1. The concept of you "can't bully bullies" is beyond my comprehension as that's often the only language they understand.

2. The emergence of Baby Kim at least rekindles some hope that things will change for the better. We shall see.

Albright made her trip during the last week of October 2000. The quotes are from the transcript of an interview with Jim Lehrer on Newshour immediately after her return.

1. I did stress "nuclear bullies". Push North Korea to the brink and Seoul and its 10.5 milliion inhabitants are wiped out within minutes! It is after all only 120 miles from Pyongyang - although I do not know the distance from the North's nuclear sites. If the North strikes first, the US will soon follow. But in those few minutes, can the 28,500+ US troops stationed close to Seoul wipe out the North's nukes? Damned if I know, but I doubt it. If North Korea is going to go down, it will make sure the bonfire is a big one! You will no doubt say I am being sensationalist. But are you prepared to take the risk? For I am certain the powers-that-be in North are ready for annihilation rather than submission.

2. I think the opposite. Baby Kim is untried and untested. The army commanders will be unsure of how he will react. There must be intense pressure on him. In such a situation, like his father before him, he may be forced into some rash action to prove he is his father's son.

Diplomacy and dialogue, spun out over time, have a far better chance of working. And I'll bet you a vast majority of South Koreans agree. This after all was the door that President Kim Dae Jung opened in the 1990s and believed had the best chance of success. But then in came Bush!

January 25, 2012

1. I did stress "nuclear bullies". Push North Korea to the brink and Seoul and its 10.5 milliion inhabitants are wiped out within minutes! It is after all only 120 miles from Pyongyang - although I do not know the distance from the North's nuclear sites.

All this assumes the North Koreans can deliver those nuclear warheads and are dumb enough to do it.

They have nuclear weapons and missiles, but it's not clear if they have nuclear warheads on missiles.

If the nuclear warheads are on planes & the US is awake, US air superiority should mean those weapons are never delivered.

Then, do the North Koreans understand that a nuclear attack on the south must mean the end of North Korea as it stands? Would they really be that dumb?

January 26, 2012

Then, do the North Koreans understand that a nuclear attack on the south must mean the end of North Korea as it stands? Would they really be that dumb?

I fear so, but it is clearly a highly debatable point. The North Koreans do not reason as the west does.

Rogie · February 27, 2012

Ultimately a bit of a non-issue, and badly written, but see what you think:

U.S. negotiators are heading into a second day of what have been dubbed "serious and substantial" talks with North Korean officials. Yet amid all the discussion of how the U.S. will attempt to work with Kim Jong Un, there has been little (open) speculation as to whether Dear Leader Junior might crank up production of $100 and $50 bills. No, not North Korean 100- or 50-won banknotes, worth about as much as old tissues. I’m talking about fake greenbacks — or as the U.S. Secret Service has dubbed them, “superdollars.”

These ultra-counterfeits are light-years beyond the weak facsimiles produced by most forgers, who use desktop printers. As an anticounterfeiting investigator with Europol once put it, “Superdollars are just U.S. dollars not made by the U.S. government.” With few exceptions, only Federal Reserve banks equipped with the fanciest detection gear can identify these fakes.

Sign In

What Happens Now the Dear Leader has Gone to Hell?

Recommended Posts

Guest fountainhall

Guest colinr

pong

Bob

Bob

Guest fountainhall

Guest fountainhall

Bob

Guest fountainhall

Guest fountainhall

Bob

Guest colinr

Bob

Guest fountainhall

Bob

Guest fountainhall

Guest

Guest fountainhall

Rogie

Rogie

Guest fountainhall

Bob

kokopelli

Guest thaiworthy

Guest fountainhall

Join the conversation

Announcements

Browse

Activity