Economic War

[Poke78]

So which approach really works for you?

This one where historical analysis has some value:

I look forward to seeing some unbiased analysis of recent history. Something tells me I will have to take your word for it being unbiased.

If Trump makes it works, it will deserve to be "The Trump Doctrine" unless your unbaised academcians and media pundits can find a way to poision public perception.

OR this one where a look-back means nothing?

I suggest keeping a hopeful eye open to see how it may unfold rather than looking into the rear-view mirror.

Personally, I'm going with the approach where we learn from the past and try to be smarter in the future rather than just having "a hopeful eye open" and always wondering how/why something happened the way it did. Having hope is what keeps humans going through bad situations however it's a poor substitute for having a sound strategy that has some basis in applied learning.

 

[Dale00]

So which approach really works for you?

This one where historical analysis has some value:


OR this one where a look-back means nothing?


Personally, I'm going with the approach where we learn from the past and try to be smarter in the future rather than just having "a hopeful eye open" and always wondering how/why something happened the way it did. Having hope is what keeps humans going through bad situations however it's a poor substitute for having a sound strategy that has some basis in applied learning.

Recalibrate your sarcasm detector.

 

[davek]

I doubt economic war will work on the DPRK. I think Kim Jong Un has let us know exactly what he is going to do unless stopped by death, be it natural or unnatural. An unnatural death would probably trigger a war anyway.
That is:
1) get a nuclear deterrent in place
2) invade ROK with the intention of re-unifying the peninsula to cement his legacy.
3) dare anyone to stop him

If it's true that the DPRK produces all of the weapons materials and components within the country then economic warfare won't have any effect.

 

[donner]

I look forward to seeing some unbiased analysis of recent history. Something tells me I will have to take your word for it being unbiased.

If Trump makes it works, it will deserve to be "The Trump Doctrine" unless your unbaised academcians and media pundits can find a way to poision public perception.

i have never claimed anything about bias. you said it was 'points of view without a solid base'. That is not true. There are examples out there of economic sanctions that have been used before Trump, even targeted economic sanctions.

In fact, we've used them against Puton, Iran, North Korea, and even Cuba. You can read about the 1996 Helms-Burton act that extended the Cuba embargo to private companies.

"Economic embargo, any non-U.S. company that deals economically with Cuba can be subjected to legal action and that company's leadership can be barred from entry into the United States. Sanctions may be applied to non-U.S. companies trading with Cuba. This means that internationally operating companies have to choose between Cuba and the U.S., which is a much larger market."

This is not new and the effectiveness of these sanctions depends on a lot of things (see my previous post). These aren't yes/no outcomes and are always subject to interpretation (which some will always assume is bias if it disagrees with their position). Immediate outcomes of the sanctions might be different than the longterm outcomes since the process remains fluid. What we do the North Korea today might work as intended for a week until they adapt or change their approach.

One thing that is different here, and does play to your point, is that Trump is more willing to go after those 3rd parties that try to go around the sanctions. But the hard part is that this approach relies on other countries being on board. Will china let the US 'punish' it's banks or citizens for doing business with the North Koreans? If not, then the stuff Trump is trying to do will have less teeth than it sounds on paper.

I haven't received specific articles for you, but was told that the this is a great place to start (and interestingly, deals directly with the EO you're discussing). The author is a political economist with a reputation as a leader on the NK sanctions issue. The site that hosts it, the Peterson Institute has been studying sanctions for something like 30 years i believe.

NORTH KOREA: WITNESS TO TRANSFORMATION
Sanctions: Things Are About to Get Interesting. Really Interesting.

And

This link will take you to a page with other articles in the series 'North Korea: Witness to Transformation'. It will give you a lot of backstory and analysis of topic.


But to take your approach, something tells me you wont believe something is unbiased, no matter what i post.

 

[Dale00]

i have never claimed anything about bias. you said it was 'points of view without a solid base'. That is not true. There are examples out there of economic sanctions that have been used before Trump, even targeted economic sanctions.

In fact, we've used them against Puton, Iran, North Korea, and even Cuba. You can read about the 1996 Helms-Burton act that extended the Cuba embargo to private companies.



This is not new and the effectiveness of these sanctions depends on a lot of things (see my previous post). These aren't yes/no outcomes and are always subject to interpretation (which some will always assume is bias if it disagrees with their position). Immediate outcomes of the sanctions might be different than the longterm outcomes since the process remains fluid. What we do the North Korea today might work as intended for a week until they adapt or change their approach.

One thing that is different here, and does play to your point, is that Trump is more willing to go after those 3rd parties that try to go around the sanctions. But the hard part is that this approach relies on other countries being on board. Will china let the US 'punish' it's banks or citizens for doing business with the North Koreans? If not, then the stuff Trump is trying to do will have less teeth than it sounds on paper.

I haven't received specific articles for you, but was told that the this is a great place to start (and interestingly, deals directly with the EO you're discussing). The author is a political economist with a reputation as a leader on the NK sanctions issue. The site that hosts it, the Peterson Institute has been studying sanctions for something like 30 years i believe.

NORTH KOREA: WITNESS TO TRANSFORMATION
Sanctions: Things Are About to Get Interesting. Really Interesting.

And

This link will take you to a page with other articles in the series 'North Korea: Witness to Transformation'. It will give you a lot of backstory and analysis of topic.


But to take your approach, something tells me you wont believe something is unbiased, no matter what i post.

The bias I perceive in the article is towards negotiations and away from military action. This is typical for academic experts. Few have a broad enough perspective to fairly take in the military perspective on conflict resolution. Academics are as a rule, peaceniks.

The article does not display, in any overt way, partisan political bias.

I remain skeptical about the insights of "experts" even those with 30 years of experience and who enjoy respect in academic and related circles. Why? The fall of the Berlin wall and associated events were not predicted by any "experts". Seldom do you see experts discuss the probability that they are wrong - yet their knowledge and skills are fallible. They are in the business of promoting themselves as wise ones.

The article points out that the executive order has some new and powerful features that will potentially enable economic war to be more effectively conducted than in the past.

Should we trust the judgement of the President and his team of advisors or the judgments of "experts" based elsewhere? What is the basis for deciding between the two?? I lean toward trusting the judgement of the man voted into office. I believe him to be rational, intelligent, unconventionally and effectively provocative against his domestic opponents and the foreign enemies of this county. Our policies in dealing with NK, Iran, ISIS and other enemies has been a slow motion disaster over recent decades. The voters realized this and voted for change in the form of Trump.

 

[dennishoddy]

Targeted economic sanctions is nothing new. In fact, Obama used it against Putin during the unrest in the Ukraine. I believe they froze the assets and visas of individual near Putin and leveled other sanctions on russian companies (i believe several were in the energy sector).

Back up those statements with links so we may all view them from an objective view?

 

[dennishoddy]

I look forward to seeing some unbiased analysis of recent history. Something tells me I will have to take your word for it being unbiased.

If Trump makes it work, it will deserve to be "The Trump Doctrine" unless your unbaised academcians and media pundits can find a way to poision public perception.

If there is unbiased analysis of recent history, It won't come from Google or the typical search engines.
I wish somebody would start a real search engine that is unbiased and actually report on the facts.

 

[Pokinfun]

dale,
Trump is doing nothing new. we teach about economic foreign policy in high school, google global meliorism.

 

[Dale00]

dale,
Trump is doing nothing new. we teach about economic foreign policy in high school, google global meliorism.

You could be entirely right ....only time will tell. Meanwhile consider the need and for and wisdom of economic war and the new angle to it that he is positioning himself to pursue as detailed in the article linked by Donner.

If you disagree with this approach to dealing with NK, how would you proceed instead? Negotiate with someone who has made a fool out of a series of U.S. presidents in which they gave NK something in order to receive a phony, feel-good agreement? Massive military strikes with the loss of hundreds of thousands of allied lives?

 

[Pokinfun]

I do not disagree because everything else has been tried. I do not thin Little Rocket Man is rational. The sad part is, he will just let his people starve.