Well, press about the DPRK is very polarized. While I think it’s worth seeing what the DPRK itself says, I think it’s usually a bit polemical and undetailed (not devoid of details, just often missing things one might want to know) even before getting into motivations, so then you go look at what almost anyone else says, and aside from a small number of fan clubs that may as well also be DPRK publicity outlets, it’s all just people who want to see Pyongyang in flames. It can be very difficult to get good answers on anything because that latter group will eat up almost any lie that comes out of South Korea, at least for a short time before silently moving on to the next lie.
Anyway, my personal feeling on it is that the DPRK would be more like you describe if it wasn’t building these huge ridiculous resort structures and focused more on developing the rest of the country (also not counting the SEZ). I don’t think you should need to travel across the country to see something in the realm of an arcade cabinet (like, not any specific thing, but to just have something). It’s totally possible that there are other cities that are more developed than the press lets on (this is almost certainly the case) so there are probably lots of counterpoints that I’m unaware of.
Maybe dprk considers this an investment to generate money to develop the rest of the country more quickly, and keep revenue incoming, but I really don’t know. I do think after all the literal physical and economic violence done to dprk, let Western aligned states’ people contribute to the betterment of their economy and people.
A lot of their tourism is from China, though of course they get western tour groups too. I feel like I personally haven’t seen it remarked on much, but I guess it’s a trait of absurdly sanctioned countries that they might over-rely on tourism, since Cuba also does that, because it’s difficult to sanction that away.
My hope is that with the undermining of those sanctions, the DPRK finds more useful ways to support their economy, though it could be more difficult than it would be for other nations given that the most central dogma of the state is autarky (Juche), which in this scenario would mean constraining the degree to which they can invest in what’s profitable for them because they have committed much of their workforce to making sure that they are prepared if their borders slam completely shut or their partners are toppled.
My hope is that with the undermining of those sanctions, the DPRK finds more useful ways to support their economy…
I definitely agree with that. A service/hospitality economy is subject to too many external variables, and I’d like to see academic investments, and farming.
though it could be more difficult than it would be for other nations given that the most central dogma of the state is autarky (Juche), which in this scenario would mean constraining the degree to which they can invest in what’s profitable for them because they have committed much of their workforce to making sure that they are prepared if their borders slam completely shut or their partners are toppled.
Which seems wise, all things considered.
I don’t really know much about econ though.
I don’t either, but apparently it’s time for Western economists to rethink themselves. I never read Pickett’s book, but I imagine he’s getting some vindication, although maybe not satisfaction.
I’ve really enjoyed this exchange and regret my battery is dead, so I can’t give more thoughtful replies. Thanks for engaging.
No problem. btw I am pretty sure they already invest a lot in farming because of autarky, the proportion of farmland they have is huge. The one thing I would say is that they aren’t usually cash crops for the same reason, but perhaps there’s a pivot available based on their existing investments in farming.
Hi, yes, I’ve read quite s few articles about construction projects. I’m also pretty sure farming is a big investment, I just don’t want it to go anywhere.
Well, press about the DPRK is very polarized. While I think it’s worth seeing what the DPRK itself says, I think it’s usually a bit polemical and undetailed (not devoid of details, just often missing things one might want to know) even before getting into motivations, so then you go look at what almost anyone else says, and aside from a small number of fan clubs that may as well also be DPRK publicity outlets, it’s all just people who want to see Pyongyang in flames. It can be very difficult to get good answers on anything because that latter group will eat up almost any lie that comes out of South Korea, at least for a short time before silently moving on to the next lie.
Anyway, my personal feeling on it is that the DPRK would be more like you describe if it wasn’t building these huge ridiculous resort structures and focused more on developing the rest of the country (also not counting the SEZ). I don’t think you should need to travel across the country to see something in the realm of an arcade cabinet (like, not any specific thing, but to just have something). It’s totally possible that there are other cities that are more developed than the press lets on (this is almost certainly the case) so there are probably lots of counterpoints that I’m unaware of.
Maybe dprk considers this an investment to generate money to develop the rest of the country more quickly, and keep revenue incoming, but I really don’t know. I do think after all the literal physical and economic violence done to dprk, let Western aligned states’ people contribute to the betterment of their economy and people.
A lot of their tourism is from China, though of course they get western tour groups too. I feel like I personally haven’t seen it remarked on much, but I guess it’s a trait of absurdly sanctioned countries that they might over-rely on tourism, since Cuba also does that, because it’s difficult to sanction that away.
My hope is that with the undermining of those sanctions, the DPRK finds more useful ways to support their economy, though it could be more difficult than it would be for other nations given that the most central dogma of the state is autarky (Juche), which in this scenario would mean constraining the degree to which they can invest in what’s profitable for them because they have committed much of their workforce to making sure that they are prepared if their borders slam completely shut or their partners are toppled.
I don’t really know much about econ though.
I definitely agree with that. A service/hospitality economy is subject to too many external variables, and I’d like to see academic investments, and farming.
Which seems wise, all things considered.
I don’t either, but apparently it’s time for Western economists to rethink themselves. I never read Pickett’s book, but I imagine he’s getting some vindication, although maybe not satisfaction.
I’ve really enjoyed this exchange and regret my battery is dead, so I can’t give more thoughtful replies. Thanks for engaging.
No problem. btw I am pretty sure they already invest a lot in farming because of autarky, the proportion of farmland they have is huge. The one thing I would say is that they aren’t usually cash crops for the same reason, but perhaps there’s a pivot available based on their existing investments in farming.
Hi, yes, I’ve read quite s few articles about construction projects. I’m also pretty sure farming is a big investment, I just don’t want it to go anywhere.