How Kim Affords His Nukes

While reading "How Kim affords his nukes" by Takashi Yokota, I wonder how much money is actually sent from Japan to North Korea through revenues from pachinko parlours and other eroneous business owned or operated by ethnic Koreans living in Japan. Also I find it very difficult indeed to comprehend the local Japanese tax laws which have granted special tax free status to numerous Korean owned or operated businesses, this is just ridiculous. Not to mention the countless manufacturing, and technological companies that have been producing all kinds of equipment and tools that can be used for weapons and weapon systems. Wouldn't it be ironic if we are bombed by North Korea and find out that we have supplied them with the tools and financial means to help them? This is not something most Japanese nationals would be very proud of, the government must do something now before its too late and change some of the antiquated laws put in place years ago.

While reading "How Kim affords his nukes" by Takashi Yokota, I wonder how much money is actually sent from Japan to North Korea through revenues from pachinko parlours and other eroneous business owned or operated by ethnic Koreans living in Japan. Also I find it very difficult indeed to comprehend the local Japanese tax laws which have granted special tax free status to numerous Korean owned or operated businesses, this is just ridiculous. Not to mention the countless manufacturing, and technological companies that have been producing all kinds of equipment and tools that can be used for weapons and weapon systems. Wouldn't it be ironic if we are bombed by North Korea and find out that we have supplied them with the tools and financial means to help them? This is not something most Japanese nationals would be very proud of, the government must do something now before its too late and change some of the antiquated laws put in place years ago.

On one hand, the West can push sanctions further, forcing North Korea to sell military technology to islamic extremists.

On the other hand, the West can relax sanctions on a condition that North Korea doesn't sell military technology to anyone. Heck, $100 million is what - a routine CEO bonus these days? Why doesn't the West simply buy that technology from Korea?

This whole fear-monging about North Korea is stupid. Out of all new nuclear powers, they are perhaps the most predictable and the least dangerous. Given the right signals, in 30 years or so they can join the rank of other Asian pseudo-democratic authocraties, like South Korea, Japan or China.

I know Takashi Yokota probably does not write his own headlines, but
THE MYTH OF A FAILING ECONOMY says this exactly: The North Korean economy is not failing.

Is that really what the author intends to say with this article? Really?

I wonder what outcome of the North Korean economy would be considered successful by, well, let's use Asian standards. What country would I avoid so that I could start a business or invest in North Korea? I cannot think of one. Myanmar's numbers and outcomes have got to be better. I could think of good reasons to invest in Cambodia or Laos, even, but North Korea? They have very low growth on an agricultural, primary industry, mining base. Considering that they are doing that with something like slave labor, with people who by all accounts are near starvation, it is amazing, but it is still a failure. Are they creating new industries and training workers in new skills? No. Is their education or research and development base strong, pointing to a better future? No. Even if everyone has equal medical care, which is extremely doubtful, do they have modern medicines or medical schools? No. Power generation? No. Tourism? Almost nonexistent. Leisure? None. Private investment? None. I am just guessing now, but there are probably no private loans, no stock market, no venture capital. Do people have any need to know double entry bookkeeping, even? The people cannot even read Newsweek. How can that be success in Newsweek terms?
"Oh, but that is the result of sanctions..." Uh uh. The author clearly states that sanctions do not work. Kim would like everyone to THINK that the failures of the system will just disappear someday, but they won't.
Their growth rate is lower than any depreciation rate I can think of for agricultural machinery, automobiles... anything, ... so their equipment is actually breaking down, on an aggregate basis, faster than it can be replaced.

It is not a myth. Demonstrably, the economy is a failure. The article might explain how Kim was able to develop some nuclear weapon, but the headline is a lie.

It is no surprise, because North Korea needed some economic prowess, for China to help out economically. China cannot give North Korea goods for free, otherwise.

Your numbers are not exaclty correct. Try reading this and you might get some idea of how far off you are: http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1546 North Korea is the largest proliferator of missle technology sales in the world. Your numbers appear to be about 400 million dollars off.

You need to go back to school and recheck you information as it is a little left and not very accurate. Try reading this http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=1546 and you will see that your figures on weapon proliferation are about 440 Million dollars off. They are the largest sell of missle technology in the world today.

Why are we so surprised that people will do anything for money? Even if it means trading with satan himself. NOT a new concept.

SEND IN TEAM AMERICA!!!!! KIM IS IN CAHOOTS WITH ALEC BALDWIN!!!

There is no use in polotics, when it comes to satan!

Sorry, I have no remorse for anyone who would rather build a missle than feed his people. Why are we wasting our time with this guy? Take him out, one way or another.

I can't understand why all the nations trading with n. korea want to have anything to do with this country since it has violated the u.n. agreements. Since the u.n. is made up of the EU that belong to the u.n. it speaks sanctions on one hand and turns it's back on the other since a buck can be made.. This has to make those nations who do business with NK the biggest hippocrites in the universe.

And that is what you get from the mixed bag of carrot and stick policies used to deal with North Korea. Had it been all carrots, they would be about where China is today. Had it been all sticks, it would be where Afghanistan is today. Here it is, in between... a Stalinist state that blows its meager fortunes on the fourth largest military in the world and nukes for the cherry on top. One would think all those guns would get some respect, but although Pyongyang has embassies all over the world, presumably gathering as much information as they can, only 25 countries think that North Korea is important enough to merit an embassy. Imagine how busy those offices must be... >yawn<.

What the article seems to gloss over is that even with an economy of 40 billion dollars, with some growth, if that becomes allocated to military hardware, soldier uniforms, embassy maintenance, parade ribbons, nuclear weapons, etc., there is not a lot left over for food, medicine, textbooks, and productive investment. 40 billion dollars COULD solve a lot of problems, but it apparently will not in North Korea.

Unable to support its own technological infrastructure and military, it is still in quite a bind, trading all its butter for guns. Maybe it is hoping to trade some guns for butter in the near future? Assuming that trade is not the only answer, what vibrant sector of the economy will soak up millions of unemployed soldiers? Consumer products? Auto production? Textiles? Educational excellence? Information services? This year's outcomes aside, systemically speaking, it is hard to imagine what North Korea expects to pin its future hopes on. Disco mirror balls and bell bottom jeans, perhaps? 1--2% growth is not even matching depreciation in its manufacturing and agrarian economy, after all, so North Korea is still losing productive capacity each year as it destroys its topsoil. It is not evolving structurally, It is rusting.



The article ignores ideology in an attempt to assess North Korea's productive capabilities fairly. But because North Korea's political and economic systems ARE ideology writ large, how can such an assessment be meaningful?