Sunday, August 30, 2015

Sanders vs. Trump - Who Would Win?

Considering my last post about Bernie Sanders, it is no secret that I have nothing but contempt for the man and his ideas.

But what about Donald Trump? Personally, I despise Trump. When it comes to immigration, his proposals are cruel, lacking in evidence, prohibitively expensive, and would hurt the American economy. He has been consistently wrong about China, wrong about Korea, and he is stupendously wrong about trade. The man is a sexist, a racist, a bully, a cry baby, a blowhard, an Internet troll, and an idiot who doesn't know what the thirteen stripes on the American flag represent.

And he is currently the candidate to beat in the Republican primaries. It speaks volumes about the Republican base.

I considered his candidacy in 2012 to be a joke and I maintain the same opinion this time around. He will NOT be the Republican nominee. Last time, I correctly predicted that Mitt Romney was going to win the nomination and lose the election to President Obama. This year, I am not quite sure who would win the Republican nomination (I am hoping for a Marco Rubio/Carly Fiorina ticket).

Image Source


Neither Sanders nor Trump will win

So why do I think that Trump will not be the Republican nominee?

Firstly, it's a mathematical question. Considering the large number of Republican candidates who are vying to become their party's nominee, one does not require a significant portion of the voters' support to become the front runner. As the campaign drags on (there's still more than a year to go!), the number of candidates will inevitably whittle down. As the voters are left with fewer choices, their support for different candidates will merge and coalesce to form larger blocs.

I'm also relieved by the fact that, like track races, whoever starts out as the front runner does not always end up being the front runner – they have more to lose than to gain.

Secondly, as I said already, it's still early in the primaries season and this is when the most partisan supporters come out to play. When less excitable voters begin to pay attention to the election process, and the primaries are no longer dominated by the extreme elements of party politics, the candidates will inevitably become more moderate as they try to move to the middle. This is known as the median voter theorem. When this happens, Trump's ability to use bombast and rhetoric will no longer be as effective as they are now.

It is for those same reasons that I can say with near certainty that Bernie Sanders will not be the Democratic nominee either. Sanders will (and already has) forced Hillary Clinton to move to the left and Trump has forced some Republican candidates (notably Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker) to become as stupid as he is. However, that will be the end of their role in this race.

Image Source


What if I'm wrong?

I doubt that I am, but I am not infallible. So, what if I'm wrong? What if things don't work out the way I think they will and both Sanders and Trump go all the way? What happens then?

Sanders has said repeatedly that he would not run as an independent and would instead support the Democratic nominee if he does not win. However, he does seem to be intent on becoming the nominee as he has just warned that the Democrats would not win the White House without him in 2016.

For his part, Trump has said that he would run as an independent if he did not win the nomination AND he has also said that he would not do so.

If Sanders is the Democratic nominee and Trump is not the Republican nominee, despite the crowds that Sanders is getting at his campaign rallies (which are not all that different from the crowds that Ralph Nader and Ron Paul were able to boast), it will guarantee a Republican victory. On the other hand, if Trump is the Republican nominee and the Sanders is not the Democratic nominee, that would ensure a Democratic victory.

So what would happen if they both become their respective parties' nominees?

Image Source


Demagogues of Different Stripes

Both Sanders and Trump are demagogues, but of different stripes. Sanders' demagoguery has almost always been tied to progressive economics (inequality, tax the rich, expand Medicare and Medicaid, support labor unions, etc.). For all intents and purposes, Sanders is an ideological demagogue. As such, there is very little support (if any) for Sanders among conservative voters.

Trump's views, however, are unprincipled and opportunist. Although he certainly commands more support from conservative voters, some of his views would gain him support from progressives. In other words, Trump is not so much an ideological demagogue, but rather a personality-driven demagogue.

For example, when you listen to Sanders, he will say things like how he would support raising taxes on top income earners up to about 90 per cent. His meaning is clear and concise. He has distinctly said what he hopes to do. As much as that pleases policy wonks, however, politically, it's not as savvy as what Trump has been doing.

Instead of going into details, Trump relies on rhetoric for mass hypnosis. His usual go-to battle cry is “take our country back” or “make America great again.” The fact of the matter is that if you leave out the details, it allows the listeners to fill in the blanks with their own imagination.

It's the same reason President Obama's mantra of “hope and change” was so effective in 2008.

Image Source

And as much as I despise Trump, credit should be given where it is due. He is a masterful salesman. One thing that you learn if you ever get a job in sales is to never talk after a customer says he or she wants to buy something. If you keep talking, for whatever reason, the buyer might change his or her mind. The rule is to persuade, stop talking, and move on to the next customer. And that's what Trump does with his battle cries.

When Trump says “take our country back,” who is he saying that Americans should take their country back from? Is it the immigrants who are not stealing Americans' jobs? Is it China despite the symbiotic relationship between Beijing and Washington? Is it the PC crowd that is supposedly destroying free speech? Or is it the Koch Brothers who are not exactly on friendly terms with Trump?

Trump never gives the answer himself. And it's brilliant. Why would he when it's so much more effective to not do so and let everyone else do it for him?

Then there's the phrase “make America great again.” Great again. What does that imply? Firstly, it implies that America is not great anymore. That is a powerful emotional tool that Trump is playing with. It instills a sense of loss in people. I imagine that it must have been the way the British felt when they started to liberate their long-held colonies. We know that this is a powerful tool because psychologists and economists have proven long ago that people are more affected by the prospect of losing something than the prospect of gaining something. But unlike the British who had no choice but to watch their once-great empire collapse, Trump dangles the word “again” like an angler fish lures its prey with a dull light in the abyss. Despite the sense of loss, the word “again” gives people a sense of hope.

Give people a faceless enemy to fear, a sense of loss to cry about, and then let them scratch their itch. It's manipulative and it's brilliant.

Mr. Burns would approve
Image Source

If the election does end up being a choice between Sanders and Trump, my guess is that, at least for the next four years, we are all going to have to get used to the idea of the White House getting plated in gold.

The one thing that gives me comfort, however, is that neither man will win their respective parties' nominations.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Bernie Sanders: Yet Another Demagogue

I am currently writing my next post for my “What Would Homo Economicus Do?” series but for personal reasons, I have not been able to spend a lot of time writing.

However, just today, a friend posted on his Facebook page an article from Occupy Democrats about a list that Bernie Sanders made. It was a list of corporations that didn't pay income taxes.

Image Source

The first thing that I thought when reading the article was that Occupy Democrats really should learn to date their articles. As Sanders' list was a response to an op-ed piece that was signed by 80 Wall Street CEOs that advocated for austerity spending in the United States, I naturally thought that this was a recent article. I searched all of the Wall Street Journal to find the op-ed piece but couldn't find it.

It was only later when I found the letter in the Journal's archives as the op-ed was published in the Wall Street Journal in 2012, making Sanders' list about three years old too.

The article was titled Bernie Sanders Calls Out 18 Corrupt CEOs For Stealing Trillions, Outsourcing Jobs, and Evading Taxes.

As much as I disagree with Sanders about almost everything, to his credit, he himself did not use the word “steal” when describing the bailouts that corporations were given by the government. Though there were corporations that were screaming to be bailed out, there were also those that didn't want the bailout money but were told to take it anyway

By definition, that cannot be “stealing” and it once again goes to show the intellectual bankruptcy of headlines.

Image Source

However, there were many other things in the article that I thought was nonsensical, misleading, and pure demagoguery. The following is my list of what I found wrong here.


1) “The Wall Street leaders whose recklessness and illegal behavior caused this terrible recession...”

Was the sub-prime mortgage crisis a result of recklessness? Without a doubt. But was it illegal? Hardly.


2) “Before telling us why we should cut Social Security, Medicare and other vitally important programs, these CEOs might want to take a hard look at their responsibility for causing the deficit and this terrible recession.”

The bailout of 2008 was approximately US$700 billion and was given out to a total of 951 recipients. Of those 951 recipients, 123 companies have so far failed to repay the government and resulted in a loss to taxpayers. However, even after including the losses incurred from those 123 companies, taxpayers have made a net profit from the bailout in total. Thus far, taxpayers have profited by US$57.7 billion.

On the other hand, how much does Social Security and Medicare cost? It depends on whom you ask. If you ask the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, the War on Poverty has cost US$19 trillion over the past 50 years.

However, the Devil is always in the details. For instance, if you ask Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a progressive think tank, the federal government spends US$212 billion per year on “what we could reasonably call “welfare.””

Even if we take the Roosevelt Institute's much lower price estimate, whereas the bailout of 2008 was a one-time payment of US$700 billion, which resulted in a US$57.7 billion profit for taxpayers, since 2008, the US government has spent a total of US$1.484 trillion on welfare.

The bailout was hugely problematic for many reasons, and it is something that everyone should have opposed from the beginning. But at the very least, it generated a profit for taxpayers. What has spending on welfare gotten people? Has it lifted people out of poverty? No, it hasn't. But wasn't that the goal of welfare?

Image Source


3) “Our Wall Street friends might also want to show some courage of their own by suggesting that the wealthiest people in this country, like them, start paying their fair share of taxes.”

“Fair” is a tricky word. It can mean different things to different people. That's why Sanders and others like him keep using that word. But let's look at the numbers, shall we?

According to the Pew Research Center, those with adjusted gross incomes of more than US$250,000 paid nearly half of all individual income taxes. In contrast, people whose incomes were less than $50,000 paid just 6.2% of total taxes.

Whether paying nearly half of the income tax is fair or not is open to debate. But people should not pretend or insinuate or otherwise that the less well-off are somehow paying more than the well-off.


4) “...at least a dozen of the companies avoided paying any federal income taxes in recent years, and even received more than $6.4 billion in tax refunds from the IRS since 2008.”

We should get the terminology right. The federal income taxes that corporations pay are called corporate taxes. And it's true that many corporations do not pay corporate taxes. That is because there are two ways to tax a corporation.

The first way is to consider the organisation as a single entity and tax it accordingly, thus taxing any surpluses or profits that the corporation makes at the organizational level. A corporation that chooses to pay its taxes this way is called a C Corporation.

The second way is to tax the individuals who get money from the corporation. A corporation that chooses to pay its taxes this way is called an S Corporation.

This is the Wikipedia entry for the difference between C and S Corporations:

An S corporation, for United States federal income tax purposes, is a corporation that makes a valid election to be taxed under Sub-chapter S of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
In general, S corporations do not pay any federal income taxes. Instead, the corporation’s income or losses are divided among and passed through to its shareholders. The shareholders must then report the income or loss on their own individual income tax returns. This concept is called single taxation; if the corporation is taxed as a C corporation, it will face double taxation, meaning both the corporation’s profits, and the shareholders’ dividends, will be taxed.

So, it is true that many corporations do not pay the federal corporate income tax. But that is because individual shareholders elect to pay the personal income tax on profits, not the corporate one.

Whether or not dividing the tax schemes this way is equitable or efficient is a different topic. However, using the fact that many corporations do not pay organizational corporate taxes to imply that that is some kind of evidence of widespread tax dodging is tantamount to lying.

Image Source


5) “They might work to end the outrageous corporate loopholes...”

The phrase “close the loopholes” is the refuge of the fool. It is easy to say “close the loopholes” and end the debate feeling like a self-righteous 19-year-old Political Science major who has discovered the Holy Grail that would cure all of society's ills. But there is a reason tax loopholes exist.

One of the reasons that corporate taxes are pernicious is that they encourage businesses to use debt finance, rather than equity finance even though debt finance makes companies riskier. That is because payments on debt are tax deductible, and dividends are not. This gives many businesses strong incentive to use debt rather than equity finance.

So why not end the deductibles on corporate debt payments? That is because if that “loophole” was closed, that would put illiquid industrial firms with heavy capital costs at a MASSIVE disadvantage.

If you think Detroit is suffering now, wait and see what would happen if Sanders and his supporters get what they want and all these pesky loopholes get closed. I'll be here with a bucket of popcorn while the Social Justice Warrior types once again claim that this hypothetical future is further evidence that The Man hates black people.

Image Source


6) “Many of the companies also have outsourced hundreds of thousands of American jobs to China and other low wage countries, forcing their workers to receive unemployment insurance and other federal benefits. In other words, these are some of the same people who have significantly caused the deficit to explode over the last four years.”

Firstly, outsourcing jobs is important to ensure that the prices of goods and services remain cheap and that businesses can remain competitive.

If Sanders could get things done his way, the vast majority of American factory workers would still have union-wage jobs because they would still be producing television sets in America. That sounds good except that those television sets would be much more expensive than television sets from, say, Korea or Thailand. American factory workers might earn a bit of coin under Sanders' economic plan, but everyone else not working in factories would see that their money buys them fewer goods and services.

There are two types of Fortress America. The first one is the type proposed by conservatives and neo-cons. A powerful American military that can eliminate threats anywhere in the world and a country that would close its borders to brown-skinned and yellow-skinned people who might want to commit acts of terrorism against Americans. Except that the US' military is already practically uncontested but it still has a difficult time trying to completely defeat illiterate goat-lovers.

The second one is the type proposed by progressives. A rich American workforce that will allow people to live as comfortably(?) as they did under the New Deal and a country that would close its borders to trade with brown-skinned and yellow-skinned people who might be able to sell things more cheaply.

Except that a choice has to be made – pursue inefficient economic policies that lead to meteoric rising prices and economic stagnation OR pursue comparative advantages and creative destruction that lead to cheaper goods and services for as many people as possible and economic productivity, which unfortunately also comes with job insecurity.

You must choose one or the other. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Image Source


7) “These are the names of TRAITORS who have forsaken their people and nation to worship at the altar of greed:”

And THIS is what it comes down to, isn't it? Occupy Democrats, the Occupy Movement in general, Sanders, his supporters, etc. do not understand economics. And even though information is free and open to all, they do not want it. They do not want the facts. After all, facts are so TL;DR.

What they want are enemies to hate and traitors to blame. Anyone to blame for all their problems aside from themselves.

Is Sanders an idiot? I think that it is easy to claim that politicians are idiots. But being able to get voted into office and maintaining an incumbency rate in the high nineties despite dismal popularity rates is not something that any fool can do. So, I think that merely saying that politicians are idiots is intellectually lazy and counterproductive.

But the likes of Occupy Democrats who chant “Go, Bernie, Go!” without actually looking into the facts? They are not nearly as smart as they like to think they are.

If you have read this whole thing and you also happen to support Sanders, believe me when I say that I am not telling you to support Marco Rubio or Rand Paul. God knows that they are lying snakes in the grass, too. I don't expect to change your opinions or your core beliefs.

But, God, I dearly hope that I have given you cause to try to see for yourselves what you are advocating.

I have here in my hand a list...
Image Source

Monday, July 27, 2015

Just Who the Hell is this Homo Economicus Guy Anyway?

Since writing my previous post about what Homo Economicus would do about North Korea, some people have written me asking questions about what Homo Economicus would do to solve other problems that are plaguing the world.

I think it's very important to get this out of the way. In most cases, Homo Economicus would do absolutely bupkis. In fact, he wouldn't even care about many of the world's big problems unless they directly affected him somehow.

So, for example, what would Homo Economicus do to help to reverse climate change? The extent of his involvement in helping to do that would probably be limited to counting his money after making a very lucrative investment in Silver Spring Networks. That's assuming that he thinks the benefits of investing in Silver Springs Network is greater than the benefits of purchasing flood insurance for the Maldives.

What Broken Window Fallacy?
Image Source

What if He were a Politician?

The next set of questions that I received was then what Homo Economicus would do about “X” if he were a political leader in a democratic republic whose job security depended on achieving results.

Unfortunately, it's still very likely that he would do nothing. That is because, according to James M. Buchanan's public choice theory, politicians and bureaucrats are also influenced by self-interest and utility maximization.

For their own purposes to maximize their own utilities, the vast majority of special interest groups lobby for the interests of minority groups rather than the public at large. Therefore, seeing how purpose-driven special interest groups tend to raise a lot more money for their preferred political candidates than the general public tends to do, and after we factor in the fact that incumbency rates tend to remain high regardless of how unpopular politicians are, politicians have a lot more incentive to favor Big Oil or Big Pharma or Big Banks or Big Telecom rather than average voters. And this is especially true if the politician in question were Homo Economicus, who is always seeking to maximize his own utility.

Image Source

Vulcan vs. Ferengi

This led one reader to question my decision to compare Homo Economicus to the Vulcan race. After all, Vulcans may be an unemotional and calculating lot but the fact remains that they tend to have goals, such as the pursuit of knowledge and other Utilitarian goals, that go beyond their own narrow self-interests. Another reader therefore posited that it would be more appropriate to compare Homo Economicus to the Ferengi rather than to Vulcans.

I thought that this was a fair criticism. Upon looking a bit deeper into Star Trek lore, I think that it is fair to say that Homo Economicus is, indeed, closer to the Ferengi than the Vulcans. However, based on my rather limited knowledge about DS9, it appears that the Ferengi can become quite emotional – often giving in to anger, envy, and excessive greed. Feel free to correct me if I got my Star Trek lore wrong again.

Homo Economicus is not only completely emotionless, he also never gives in to excessive greed. That is because Homo Economicus, being the completely rational individual that he is, would never violate the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility like the Ferengi or other intelligent beings, fictional or otherwise, would.


So, I think it would be fair to say that we would need to combine the most extreme characteristics of Vulcans and the Ferengi in order to come up with something that might resemble Homo Economicus.


In a Nutshell

Also, as I said before, Homo Economicus is not immoral. It's true that, like the Ferengi, he would sell his own mother for a nifty profit if the cost of selling his mother were not greater than the benefits he would gain (we have to keep in mind that getting arrested would be a rather large cost that Homo Economicus would have to consider if he ever decides to engage in human trafficking).

Economic rationalism says nothing about ethics. Hover, that is not to say that Homo Economicus will deliberately always seek to be unethical. Being arrested by the police or being ostracized by other members of his community, which would seriously hamper his business relations, are just some of the costs that Homo Economicus has to contend with. However, if the benefits outweigh the costs, he will not let something as trivial as ethics stop him from conducting unsavory business deals.

So there we go. In short, Homo Economicus is a supremely rational, amoral, profit-maximizing, and dispassionate sociopath whom many people in the world might become fascinated with, adore even, but would never want to meet in real life.

Image Source

So Why Bother?

If that were the case, then why would anyone bother with what Homo Economicus would do? After all, he only cares about himself and doesn't care about the interests of the public.

It is all about incentives. If Homo Economicus were a politician, he would be the last person in the world anyone ought to expect help from. If he were a private individual or just a businessman, no one ought to expect anything from him besides looking out for his own interests, as well as those of his shareholders.

However, if he were a private contractor who was paid handsomely to come up with  ideas for public policies that could effectively solve some of the world's problems, then I think we could entertain interesting, albeit often unpopular, means to resolve them.

Well, here's to the profit motive.

Image Source

Thursday, July 23, 2015

What Would Homo Economicus Do About North Korea?

Before I start, I think it is important to mention that the following blog post about the “appropriate” way to deal with North Korea is not an opinion that I personally share. Personally, every fiber in my being says that the only proper way of dealing with North Korea is to threaten it with disproportional, excessive, and over-the-top military action if the North Koreans ever threaten the safety and sovereignty of the Republic of Korea as they have in the past.

However, those are my personal prejudices at play – something that Homo Economicus would not suffer from.


What Motivates Homo Economicus?

Then where do we start? Firstly, I think it is important to define what Homo Economicus is motivated by. He is motivated by one thing only – maximizing his utility at minimal cost. This is the definition of being economically rational. It does not say anything about how a person can be rational ethically, socially, or humanely.


Image Source

Also, for this to work, I am assuming that Homo Economicus is Korean and currently lives in Korea. Interests and motivations can change depending on proximity.

So, for example, although many people think that the ideal solution for the ongoing Korean crisis between North and South Korea would be for the two countries to reunify into a single democratic republic at some point in the future, Homo Economicus would not care for that at all. Unless Homo Economicus is one of the dons CEOs of the chaebol class who would be able to purchase cheap North Korean property and assets from the new post-reunification Korean government, like they were able to purchase cheap South Korean property and assets under the Syngman Rhee administration, Homo Economicus would most likely suffer from financial hardships like the rest of the country should a sudden reunification take place.

Nor would Homo Economicus be moved by promises of future wealth, much less patriotism. Although many advocates of reunification admit that reunification will have its costs (their cost estimates tend to be comically low), they tend to sweeten the prospect of reunification by claiming that the Korean economy would enjoy an economic bonanza in the future.

Even if it were true that the Korean economy would benefit greatly in the future, Homo Economicus would still have to pay (a lot) for reunification one way or another. Besides, as the Time Value of Money has proven, ceteris paribus, having money now is always better than having money later.


Image Source

A Nuclear-Free Korean Peninsula?

So what would “maximum utility at minimal cost” look like in regards to peace on the Korean peninsula?

The end result has to be a cessation of all hostilities. However, Homo Economicus' version of “peace” is likely to be different from how everyone else perceives “peace.”

For one thing, would Homo Economicus think that denuclearization is a prerequisite condition for peace? That would seem unlikely. Assuming that Homo Economicus is Korean and lives in Korea, North Korea's nuclear weapons would pose no greater threat to him than its already existing arsenal of conventional weapons and WMDs. The only difference that North Korea's nuclear weapons make is that they will merely poison the rubble and corpses with radiation. Dead is dead. (A Japanese or an American Homo Economicus might reach a different conclusion, of course.)

So, would Homo Economicus prefer that the South Korean government adopt a more amiable position in regards to its negotiations with North Korea?


The North Wind and The Sun

We will have to look at the evidence. While the Sunshine Policy was in effect, the only time the North Koreans engaged in hostile acts was the Yeonpyeong Naval Battle that occurred in 2002. Six South Korean sailors died as a result, and the patrol boat, the PKM 357, sunk as a result of the battle. A movie about this naval battle was made just recently.

Since the Sunshine Policy was shelved, however, North Korean provocation has continued to grow. In July 2008, a few months after Lee Myung-bak had become president, the North Koreans killed a South Korean tourist, which effectively ended the Mount Kumgang tourism project. Of course, the North Koreans later sunk the ROKS Cheonan, which resulted in the deaths of forty-six sailors, and then shelled Yeonpyeong-do, which resulted in the deaths of two South Korean marines, two civilians, and millions in damages to private property.

If we look at this data, and only this data, I think it would be safe to assume that Homo Economicus would certainly prefer a return to the Sunshine Policy. However, that is not the only evidence that we ought to consider. After all, the Sunshine Policy came with its own hefty price tag, too. Case in point, the first Inter-Korean Summit of 2000 was marred by the fact that the South Korean government bribed the North Koreans with approximately US$200 million for the summit.


Image Source

So although it is likely Homo Economicus would prefer the South Korean government to adopt a friendlier tone to bring the North Koreans to the negotiation table, considering the pattern of erratic behavior that the North Korean leadership has consistently shown in the past (how's that for an oxymoron?), it is unlikely that Homo Economicus would think of the present North Korean government as a reliable negotiating partner.

Then other questions have to be asked – chiefly, if not this North Korean government, then who would Homo Economicus want the South Korean government to negotiate with?


Pay No Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain!

It is important to note that since taking power in 2011, though it remains to be confirmed independently, it is estimated that Kim Jong-un has executed seventy of his officials. For every action, there is a consequence. And one of the consequences that Kim Jong-un has had to suffer for these frequent purges and executions has been the (assumed) loss of the support of the elites.

So, in order to maximize utility, Homo Economicus would likely favor the South Korean and American governments to engage in clandestine activities to promote, empower, and enrich these elites. Flooding the China-North Korea border with cash intended to be funneled into individuals' pockets should be easy enough to do. But if there is a worry that the cash could wind up in the hands of the North Korean leadership, perhaps Bitcoins or other crypto-currencies might be alternative options to consider.

After all, one of the first lessons that people learn in Economics 101 is that people will always respond accordingly to incentives. Everything else is merely commentary.


Image Source

It is no secret that in order to retain the loyalty of the elites, the North Korean leadership spends millions to keep them pampered. The question is, can the North Korean leadership afford to continue to keep them pampered? Considering the rise of North Korea's black market and the private kickbacks and corruption that North Korean officials are able to enjoy at the expense of this slowly emerging bourgeoisie class, the North Korean leadership might already be fighting an uphill battle.

If the North Korean government is having difficulty keeping its elites in check, the South Korean and the American governments might be able to nudge North Korea toward regime change, though not regime collapse, by providing at least a large enough portion of these elites, preferably the more dovish civilian elites as opposed to those who are in the more hawkish Korean People's Army, with sources of income and wealth that are independent from Kim Jong-un's coffers.

It could be argued that a North Korean government that is not run by a progeny of Kim Il-Sung will lack legitimacy in the eyes of the North Korean people, particularly the denizens of Pyongyang. However, it is very doubtful that Homo Economicus would be overly concerned with the preferences of the North Korean people.
Assuming that the next crop of leaders who would replace Kim Jong-un are more “moderate” and are willing to cease hostilities in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and the opening of trade relations, Homo Economicus would be more than happy for the South Korean government to re-adopt the Sunshine Policy and never even breathe a word about requiring the North Korean government to dismantle its nuclear program.

This also in no way assumes that the next crop of leaders would remedy the country's dismal human rights record or pursue political reforms beyond what they think are necessary to cement their hold on power. As long as Homo Economicus' goal is merely peace between the Koreas, the topic of human rights might not even register in his mind to begin with.


Arguing With Myself

That is, of course, my take on what Homo Economicus might think about the matter. Although I have tried to remove as much of my own personal biases as possible, I recognize that I might not have been very successful.

Which is why I think it is important to note that I could be completely wrong about the whole thing.

One possible reason that I think I could be dead wrong about Homo Economicus supporting regime change in North Korea is the lack of transparent information about the political players in North Korea. There are far too many factors that remain unknown about what is going on in that country.

For example, the elites could be just as bad or worse than Kim Jong-un. Or a regime change might cause a bloody conflict between the doves and the hawks within North Korea, which could potentially spill across the border into South Korea AND China. That would certainly give pause to any of Homo Economicus' machinations.

It's entirely possible that the lack of reliable information could compel Homo Economicus to assume the position that it is preferable to deal with the devil he knows to dealing with the angels(?) that he doesn't know.

Therefore, I readily admit that Homo Economicus might simply advocate a return to the days of bribing the North Koreans for peace.

What he chooses to ultimately do will depend on cost-benefit analysis. Only after quantifying various things such as the costs of bribing the North Koreans for peace (national humiliation does not count), the financial costs of dead soldiers and sunken ships and other military expenditures, the benefits of the dividends of peace, the opportunity costs of forgoing regime change, etc. would Homo Economicus make a final decision.


Unfortunately, I do not have that data on hand
Image Source

What Do You Think?

So, here's my question to you. Do you think that any of these proposed actions would be beneficial? Are they even desirable? Would they be effective? Are they even realistic?

If you think that Homo Economicus might behave or think differently, feel free to let me know why in the comments section below.