How Does North Korea Make Money

For us in the West, North Korea is a rather mysterious country in many aspects. A combination of government secrecy (very few updates on the nation are publicly released), strict control over entrance into the nation by foreigners and Western dislike of the DPRKs authorities mean that we know very little for certain about the country.
One of the enigmas surrounding the nation lie in its economy. While its economy is pretty much in dire straits (its annual growth of 0.8% is deemed as stagnating, per capita income is estimated to be $1-2k per year), the country continues to maintain a huge military expenditure (as evidenced by the recent reported hydrogen bomb tests). The DPRK spends around $10bn, according to International observers, on its military- a quarter of the total national GDP, among the highest rates in the world. North Korea must be getting some reliable income to be able to maintain this spending, but where from? How does the DPRKs economy function with its doors of trade largely closed to todays globalised world?

1. (Narrow) International Trade

Textiles constitutes a significant part in the North Korean
economy, but is secondary to commodities.

North Korea exports roughly $2.7bn worth of materials every year, a notably large proportion of these exports being derived from primary industry. Mining in particular plays a massive role in keeping North Korean trade afloat, with coal and iron constituting over 46% of the nations exports. Other products exported from the DPRK include clothing, molluscs (according to the OEC North Koreas 6th most valuable export, no kidding) and fur.

Nevertheless, it is evident that North Korea is heavily dependent upon its primary sector, on the commodities (coal, iron, etc) whose prices are constantly fluctuating. The impact of these fluctuations on North Korea is amplified by this dependence, meaning their economy would be far more damaged by a fall in coal prices, for example, than other nations whose economies are far more diverse. NKs exports have given them a tightrope to walk upon- as opposed to the kind of solid, wide platform most countries would ideally like to have.

But not only does North Koreas product lack diversity, but its list of trade partners does as well. The countrys lack of extensive diplomatic ties with other nations has resulted in China receiving 84% of NKs exports, followed far behind by Indonesia, which receives just 2%. This is the same when you look at North Koreas imports. 84.5% of NKs imports come from China- India follows with just 5%.

So not only are North Korea extremely sensitive to global commodity prices, but also to the performance of China. Currently the Chinese economy is relatively stable, but could a catastrophe hit, North Korea would see a severe lack of supplies, one even more deadly than it is experiencing right now.

But it would be foolish to put this off as a long-term economic problem. Kevin Stahler from the Peterson Institute of Economics claims the countrys lack of economic diversity is already hitting growth. "Just as it [North Korea] rode the resource boom to its apex in 2011, it is now the victim of a steady and steep decline in world prices."

2. Tourism

North Koreas state tourism is becoming more popular to
travellers from outside the region.

Its reputation in the West has written off to many the idea of ever travelling to North Korea, but it is indeed possible, and its not even that complicated. You just need to have two guides prepared to accompany you on a pre-planned tour, which can be organised via a number of online tour operators. It may not be totally convenient ("Its not possible to travel independently in North Korea", according to tour operator Gill Leaning), but it is an opportunity available to those who wish to take it.

Its easy to travel to North Korea because the authorities there see tourism as a potential source for a great amount of income and economic activity. Their increased efforts particularly in the past few years have seen the number of visits to DPRK growing. For example, Leaning claims to have received a 400% increase in booking enquiries in 2012, largely thanks to the nations 100 year anniversary and the governments heavy publicity of the occasion.

It is difficult to attain the precise figures for how much income tourism brings, but what is more certain is that, currently, the majority of the DPRKs 100,000 guests a year are Chinese. "About 80% of the tourists who come are from neighbouring countries," says Kim Sang Hak, a senior North Korean economist. "Its normal to develop tourism within your region... but we are also expanding to European countries as well.". In explaining his countries target to increase tourism to two million people a year by 2020, Hak affirms that "Tourism can produce a lot of profit relative to the investment required, so thats why our country is putting priority on it."

3. The Black Market

The North Korean-built African Renaissance
Monument in Senegal.

While the North Korean economy does produce something, looking at figures such as the GDP per capita earlier mentioned, it is evidently not performing particularly well. It is widely believed that the DPRK has been and still is involved in some more questionable dealings to try to further boost its revenues. The governments sale of labour workers to Russia and China has been relatively well documented. While exporting labour itself is not something unusual, the taking of up to 70% of the workers earnings as loyalty payments by the North Korean government makes this dealing particularly shady. This exporting of workers not only brings North Korea revenue, but it brings revenue in the form of US Dollars, providing the government with a far safer, stable currency than its own Won.
North Korea also exports monuments and statues of national leaders to other countries. These can be seen throughout Africa, in countries such as Senegal (pictured), and the Mansudae Art Studio, the Pyongyang-based company responsible for most of these works, had even created one for Germany in 2005.

However shady one might consider these deals to be, they are technically legal- and according to NPR, they brought in around $2bn in 2009. But there is a darker side to the North Korean economy, that involves drugs, counterfeit money, and weaponry.

According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2001 North Korea made somewhere between $500m and $1bn from illegal drug sales. The late 20th century saw growing opium exports from the DPRK, but more recently crystal meth has been growing in popularity, not just outside the country but internally, where "People with chronic disease take it until theyre addicted," according to an NGO worker in an interview with journalist Isaac Fish. "They take it for things like cancer. This drug is their sole form of medication."

Counterfeiting money has also been a tactic used by the North Korean government, usually of the dollar in attempts to destabilise the American economy. Making the government up to $25m a year, the USA has actively moved to stop this, by introducing a new $100 bill in 2013 specifically designed to prevent further North Korean counterfeits.

Read More..

5 Reasons To Be Worried About The Next 5 Years

Hes done it. David William Donald Cameron and the Tory party have successfully gained a majority in a shock result to an election that was hyped up to be the closest in recent memory. Much of the country will of course be celebrating, but perhaps Britain should be cautious about how these next 5 years of Conservative government (potentially more) will pan out to be. Here are 5 major causes concern for Camerons next term in government.


EU 
A significant point of discussion over the next couple of years will certainly be that of Britains European Union membership. Cameron and the Conservatives, influenced no doubt by the wind of Euroskepticism on the right (à la Nigel Farage), have pledged to hold a referendum on EU membership by 2017. Of course, the public could vote yes and perhaps little will change, but should a no vote be the result, we could see some devastating results.

3,445,000 British jobs are dependent upon exports to the European Union, and many of these will come under threat as a result of the decrease in trade with the EU that an independent Britain would experience.. Of course trade with EU countries would not totally cease should Britain leave the EU, but we would become a far less attractive trade partner if we could not be a part of the EU trade concessions programme. As a non-EU country, it would cost more for France, Germany and the rest of Europe to trade with us; making us a less attractive trade partner. Furthermore, the price of our imports from Europe would be very likely to increase.

Camerons consideration of an EU exit poses a real threat to the Britain, not just economically but socially. Britain enjoys numerous privileges as a result of its EU membership- such as the freedom of movement it grants and the advantages it brings for students wishing to study abroad. And lets not forget the clout of the EU on the global stage. We are no longer the Empire that the Sun never sets on- Britain would lose a great deal of global prominence should it leave the European Union.

Green Troubles
The Tories dont have the greatest record on Green energy, and it seems that environmentally the next five years may not be all rosy for Britain. David Camerons reported remarks from 2 years ago that he wanted to get rid of the "green crap" that are the green levies on energy bills pretty much sums up the partys attitude to the environment.

Goodbye Wind Power- hello Fracking?

The Conservative Party Manifesto, however, tells us more about the energy policy Cameron seeks to pursue in office. Despite the partys pledge to invest in green energies that "represent value for money", plans to scrap subsidies for onshore wind farms (the cheapest form of carbon-neutral energy) are soon to go forward. The controversial fracking program is also to continue, despite the possibility it brings of contaminating water supplies and also releasing harmful methane and ozone gases.

Britain has seen terrible flooding problems in the past years, and many have claimed this to be partly attributable to a lack of spending on the part of the government building sustainable flood defences. Despite, this, the Conservative government have already cut spending on flood defences, and are seeking to further minimise spending on the flood issue in their next term- meaning parts of Britain are likely to suffer hugely yet again next time the flooding comes.

Cuts, Cuts and More Cuts
A signature of post-Thathcher Conservatism, we will undoubtedly see in the coming years a series of ruthless cuts made to government spending made in the name of streamlining the economy, reducing dependency on the government and cutting this deficit that Chancellor George Osbourne has often milked for political points in the past 5 years.

In the past 5 years, many of the governments austerity plans (such as scrapping housing benefits for young people) have been opposed and thus halted (or at least watered down) by the presence of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition.

With the Conservatives now in command of a majority in the House of Commons rather than being in coalition, they hold almost total autonomy over government policy. Now, they are set to go on an aggressive slimming down of public spending, according to the Office of Budget Responsibility, with a rollercoaster ride of £30bn of cuts lined up for the next five years.

These cuts include a reduction of the annual benefits cap by £3k to £23,000 and a removal of the youth housing benefits (the ones eanumber of food bank users doubling to 2 million a year.
rlier mentioned, that the Lib Dems prevented being passed through). In total, the Conservatives have £12bn of welfare spendings cuts planned out that will hit the working class, poorest of society almost exclusively. The impact will be devastating: an Oxford University study claims this £12bn of social welfare cuts will result in the

Austerity arguably doesnt even work- the Economic Policy Institute (see graph) are just one of numerous organisations that have highlighted that Austerity impedes economic growth. Thats primarily because austerity increases poverty, meaning demand is also shot down. Think of economic growth as a table, supported by consumer spending. Squeezing the public squeezes consumer spending, effectively chopping of the legs of the table and leading the whole thing to collapse.

Flexible Hours

The government have claimed to reduced unemployment during their last five years in office, which is in fact true: but as with most things, when it comes to jobs quality is just as important as quantity. According to the ONS, between October and December 2014, 697,000 people were working on zero-hour contracts- a highly controversial form of employment in which there is no guarantee whatsoever of the employee being able to work a certain number of hours. People have often described turning up to work to find out they arent needed, before having to head back home for a day without pay.

The uncertainty of a zero-hour contract creates problems for workers- not only does it waste time that could be spent being productive, but it creates huge instability for families that are most likely already riding the poverty line. It leaves hundreds of thousands of people unsure whether they will be able to afford their housing, their heating for the winter, or even their food.

Labour promised to put a ban to zero-hour contracts, and so did the Tories. Well, kind of- Iain Duncan Smith, the Tory Work and Pensions Secretary promised simply a paltry rebranding, to call them flexible hours. So on this front we will see change- but unfortunately where it really matters to the poorest in Britain the status quo will continue under the Conservatives. 

A Government Run for the Wealthy, By The Wealthy

Amidst all the cuts that will devastate the poorest in British society, the following 5 years will probably be rather rosy for the upper-middle and upper class of British society.

£1.2bn could have been raised by a Mansion Tax that would increase the contribution of the wealthiest to society, but it was ignored by the Tories, who chose to instead tax people on welfare with spare rooms in their house. This is just one of the many examples of the Conservative Party working for the wealthy elite, against the interests of the impoverished in Britain, those who really need the governments help.

This is where we come to the National Health Service, where perhaps the Conservatives will have the most devastating effect. Areas of the cherished national institution are already losing funds and being privatised. In the past five years, payments from the government to the NHS for each patient that is treated has been cut in effect by 10%, leading to problems that have already arisen such as a lack of beds and the infamous A&E waiting times. The governments response to this is, rather than taking the blame, often to criticise these areas of the NHS and push for their sale to private more efficient hands. Just in the past month, the Tories signed off a £780m sale to a group of private companies that with dubious past records. 

Take one of these companies, Vanguard, that was previously given the responsibility for eye treatments in Musgrove Park Hospital, Taunton. The contract was terminated just 4 days after beginning, with HALF of the 60 patients it had treated facing post-treatment complications as severe as a complete loss of sight. 

This highlights the illusion that private companies provide the best results for the consumer. Of course, this is indeed often the case (no one would argue to nationalise Apple, for example), but health is a completely different ball game. As is clear in the United States, a profit-driven health sector is against the publics interests, but it is indeed in the interests of those big businesses that these services are handed to. 

And these are just a few of the results of the Tory squeeze on the NHS. Between 2010 and December 2014, 4000 nurses had lost their jobs. Those who havent lost their jobs to the cuts have seen their pay frozen for a number of years. For the patients and the staff of the NHS, the next few years are not looking rosy. 

Read More..

Still Not Sure About My Advertising Pays Look For Social Proof!

Still Not Sure About My Advertising Pays - Look For Social Proof. 

Its everywhere! 

If after all this time you still have your doubts that you really can make money with My Advertising Pays, then the place to look is on Social Media.

    It goes without saying that Facebook is the number one place to go to find loads of MAP related pages, groups and posts. 

Not only do they install a sense of proof and reliability in the business, and show that it quite obviously is not a scam,
but theyre also the place to ask questions like minded people and members.

It also makes sense to join the groups, or be invited by an existing member so that you can see the day to day results and comments, advice and general good will that goes hand in hand with the whole My Advertising Pays community.

You can check out my Facebook page here.

But why not have a look at some MAP Groups such as this Scottish one:

My Advertising Pays Scotland or perhaps one of the main UK groups here.

And it doesnt stop there. Theres more social proof to be found on sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, Digg, Stumbleupon, YouTube and many more.

So dont just sit on the fence. Check out the wealth of positive, proactive success stories from some of the (almost)
  200,000 My Advertising Pays members!  
 

Read More..

Economic Sanctions on Iran Have They Worked

A massive moment in international relations today saw an agreement settled between Iran and the P5+1, that accepts (though limits) Irans right to nuclear energy, while lifting the economic sanctions placed upon the Middle Eastern power for the past decade.

There is much debate over whether the sanctions placed on Iran were effective. The American government has been a champion of economic restrictions, believing that causing economic troubles could pressurise the Iranian government into giving in over its nuclear energy program- and, from a rather cynical point of view, perhaps in the long term even stir up public resentment of the government to the point of its toppling. It wouldnt be surprising- for the US of course was a major force behind the 1953 coup of Irans first ever elected authority.

But back to the point, there are numerous critics of the sanctions. A primary argument on this side has been that the sanctions have simply been a form of collective punishment, that has stirred resentment among Iranians not for their own government as intended, but rather the Western governments imposing these sanctions that are having crippling effects on their lives.

 _________________________________________________________________________________

SANCTION EXPANSION- The 5 most significant bans enforced by sanctions put on Iran
- The sale of weaponry and nuclear technology to Iran (enforced by the United Nations)
- The purchasing of arms from Iran (UN)
- The import of Iranian oil and gas (European Union)
- Any dealing with Iranian banks and financial institutions (EU)
- The freezing of assets* of individuals and organisations believed to be supporting the nuclear 
program, and where applicable a ban on their entering the EU. (EU)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Iranian business did suffer as a result of the sanctions- Irans oil exports fell by almost two-thirds in the two years following the first sanctions put on them in 2011, costing the country from 4 to 8 billion dollars according to Irans oil minister. Oil revenue provided for almost half of Irans government expenditure, meaning that such a hard hit on the Iranian oil industry, combined with Iranian exile from many of the worlds financial institutions, translated into a weak currency, leading to inflation reaching as high as 40%. This high inflation has been the primary source of many of the economic hardships faced by the Iranian people in the past decade.

A Gallup poll from 2012 reflects particularly well the suffering faced by Iranian society since the first round of sanctions in 2006, and how this has translated into staunch opposition of Western powers. The poll, which followed EU sanctions banning oil imports from Iran, found that 48% of Iranians had experienced a lack of money to purchase food supplies for their families in the past year, a strong contrast to just 15% in 2005. There is no doubt that this has contributed to the US government having an approval rating of just 7% among Iranians.

In a climate in which many are already disillusioned and frustrated with Western (primarily American) foreign policy in the Middle East, many Iranians see these sanctions as an extension of their interference in the region, an attempt to punish Iran for often vocally opposing the West.

So it seems evident that sanctions have done little in their objective to stir up significant Iranian resentment against their own government; in fact it appears they have worked against western interests.

But what about pressure on the Iranian government? Has the sanctions program played a leading role in finally drawing Iran and the West to an agreement on the negotiations table?

One could conclude that sanctions were effective in pressurising the Iranian government by going straight to the end result. Iran agreed to limiting its nuclear activity, in exchange for removal of economic sanctions- so the sanctions worked, right?

But it could also be argued that there were numerous other motivations for Iran to come and agree at the negotiating table. Arguably even more important than the removal of sanctions, the deal can potentially put to rest a lot of the diplomatic tensions between Iran and the West. Previous negotiations have centred largely around total deactivation of Irans nuclear facilities, a compromise too far for the Iranian government seeking to diversify its domestic energy production away from oil and gas.

This agreement allows Iran to continue pursuing its nuclear energy production targets. Though production is likely to be far more restricted and monitored under this agreement, the sacrifice is arguably worth the opportunity to redevelop both political and economic relations with the West. This is the issue that has generated the major threat of war in the region, particularly with Netanyahus zeal for military conflict. "The agreement... removes Irans nuclear programme from the danger list," says BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen. "Two years ago, as Israel threatened to bomb Iran, it looked likely to lead to a major Middle East war. That in itself is a major diplomatic achievement."

Hassan Rouhanis foreign policy is proving to be one
of wider diplomatic relations with the West
than his predecessors.

The Iranian government has received international recognition of its right to develop nuclear energy, something that undoubtedly played a significant role in motivating the Hassan Rouhani, as a President seeking to rebuild some of Irans relations with the rest of the world.

So, it could be said indeed that the economic sanctions played a role in bringing around this agreement on Irans nuclear program, but it would be perhaps too simplistic to conclude from this that the sanctions were successful on the whole. No doubt, those in Iran who suffered because of them are unlikely to forget soon, and furthermore the political implications of the agreement strongly suggest the sanctions may not have played the greatest role in bringing Iran to the table.

*The freezing of assets is when an individual or organisations assets (whether its a property, a business investment or bank accounts) are regulated to prevent the owner from selling or withdrawing them. For example, Irans Central Bank is believed to have up to $10bn in European central banks that is frozen- currently they cannot withdraw it.

Read More..