Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 November 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 16

Counterfeiting coins of The Islamic State

I should preface this by saying I'm not taking this as legal advice -- I can daydream, but I have no experience in minting and no connections in IS-held territory to even see samples of the coins. (The best proof that I'm serious in not intending to do this is that I'm talking about it here!)

The question: is there any law against someone intentionally making coins that are as indistinguishable as humanly possible from the new Daesh currency, and selling them to whoever purchases them, provided you do not lie to your customers about what the coins are? (The customers presumably might at times be collectors who simply want a coin for their albums, but purchases by those living near the border of Turkey or Jordan who can pose as smugglers with coin to dispose of would seem to overshadow any benign end-users) (The Daesh currency will/would be gold, silver, and copper; I assume the silver is easier to counterfeit than gold due to hardness, color, and lower density)

I assume there is some law (though I know not what it is) in most countries against counterfeiting currencies of other countries, at least those on good terms. There are some countries far on the outs with the U.S. that apparently turn a blind eye to counterfeiting of dollars, but I don't know if the U.S. gives any reciprocal liberty - I have a feeling that if you make a mint and start churning out even North Korean coins that someone will come bashing on the door. But Daesh isn't a country; it's not recognized by anyone. Conceivably it could register a trademark and claim trademark infringement like counterfeiting of fashion products, but I suspect (don't know) that this is a privilege that might be denied to Daesh.

On the national scale, I assume there must be treaties where countries agree not to counterfeit each other's currency, but I suspect Daesh isn't covered by those either. While we're at it, would it be viewed as an acceptable strategy for a NATO country to systematically counterfeit the Daesh coins, perhaps not with lower value replacements but with coins that contain uniquely trackable microwave resonance chambers, RFID electronics, or whatever in order to collect intelligence data?

Despite all these things I have a nagging feeling that in practice it is likely to be punished if done, because anything that isn't commonly done generally ends in jail, or because it would interfere with the spying I suggest above, or because somebody with better connections is doing it, or because it is simply lese bankers. But has there been any discussion anywhere of whether anyone would do it, or is thinking about it? Wnt (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the Liberty Dollar case, privately minting anything in the US that resembles coinage is liable to get you arrested, jailed, and stripped of your assets. See also Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress upon which this dubious policy is based. μηδείς (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Liberty Dollar is a useful example, but I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. Regardless of how people may feel about the case, in the Liberty Dollar case it seems clear that the coins being minted were intended to function as a currency/money even if a "voluntary barter" one that wasn't legal tender. It's easy to see why it's said to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 486 regardless of how people may feel about the law, and the constitutionality of it.

As I mentioned below, the OPs case is somewhat unclear. If the coins are low value replicas and sold as such, it's possible 18 U.S.C. § 485 would come in to play. Perhaps 18 U.S.C. § 371. Could be other laws relating to assisting in fraud etc. The problem for our hypothetical minter is that mentioned by the OP namely how to get around the fact you coins, even if your intention is to only sell them as replicas to collectors, will likely be used as counterfeit money, probably no matter how hard you try to avoid this (e.g. by restricting quantities). The way the law is worded and I suspect if you look at case law, all strongly suggests (and I don't think this is surprising), no one is going care whether you're genuinely not trying to help defraud anyone, if it's the end result which you resonably should have known. The fact that the people most likely to be defrauded may be living under and using the currency of a entity the US considers terrorist is not likely to make a difference.

Now if the OP is referring to situation where the coins are minted as indistinguisable "replicas" (i.e. made of the same material etc), I imagine 486 is likely to come in to play, again regardless of whether you only want to and attempt to sell them to collectors rather than for use as currency/money which was clear in the Liberty Dollar case (although you may at least have a better argument). It's possible 485 will come in to play but I think it's harder to say. For starters, I'm not actually sure that ISIS will even care if you are minting equal value coins, particularly given the problems they face at the moment or to put it a different way, are these even really replicas or genuine articles? While it did come in to play in the Liberty Dollar case, which may seem a bit odd, our article gives some reasons such as "Coming in denominations of 5, 10, 20, and 50, the Liberty Dollars also featured a dollar sign, the word "dollar" and the motto "Trust in God," similar to the "In God We Trust" that appears on U.S. coins", which aren't likely to apply here. That said, such a scenario poses further problems, whatever people may think of the domestic terrorism allegations in the Liberty Dollar case, it's easy to imagine the US will consider aiding ISIS by effectively minting coins for them is going to be considered assisting a terrorist organisation (even if someone will still need to buy the coins and bring them in to circulation).

Oh I forgot to mention, but none of these laws say anything about "good terms" (although some do refer to circulating in the US). I strongly suspect there are laws against counterfeiting in North Korea, and they likewise don't say anything about the governmental relationships. Whether the laws in North Korea apply to the government, who I believe were or are the largest counterfeiter in North Korea (of Superdollars) at least according to some in the US government, I don't know. But the point remains, there biggest difference tends to come in enforcement, not the laws themselves.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your smuggler argument. Since it seems you know we're not talking about fiat currency here but commodity currency, a coin which is as indistinguishable as humanly possible from the real ones will need to be made from the same material and weigh the same so unless the coinage has a value beyond the material value which could happen but likely only due to collectors so is really a self defeating prophecy, are not going to be useful to smugglers since they will cost the same. Do you actually mean low value counterfeits or replicas which are otherwise as indistinguisable as possible? Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nil's longer post above, and given that the coins to be minted are copper, silver and gold, i.e., hard currency (funny that terrorists realize minting in precious specie will set them free from the central banks of the West, but we don't), I think they would both become extremely popular with hard monetarists in the US and bring down the wroth of the feds quite quickly. That sounds like a great name for Star Wars #8: The Wroth of the Feds. μηδείς (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's just setting them free from the central banks of the West although I'm sure it is a big factor (or probably "Jewish bankers" too), but also a belief that the fiat currency is incompatible with Islam (or at least not preferable) for religious reasons beyond the alleged evils of bankers (even if these religious beliefs may mostly arise from that). While it's not covered very well, you can get an idea from our articles Modern gold dinar and Islamic banking. Or plenty of discussions arshadmajid.hubpages .com/hub/Is-Paper-Money-Islamic, [1], [2]. These are self reenforcing, i.e. the idea that fiat money is an unIslamic idea invented by non Muslim (or in particular "Jewish" for some) bankers and that the gold dinar and other commodity currencies are the ideal, as shown by the Islamic golden era that should be returned to. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I meant externally indistinguishable counterfeits (per the title) - i.e. a coin which has the same weight and feel as an ISIS silver dinar, but which internally contains base metal, microphones, GPS, RFID chip, whatever. Creating fake coins of this type wouldn't exactly be what I'd call helping ISIS.  :) I don't really understand the relevance of Liberty Dollar because, as strange as it sounds given the illustration, I'm seeing the line in that article that "Federal prosecutors successfully argued that von NotHaus was, in fact, trying to pass off the silver coins as U.S. currency." Clearly this doesn't apply to ISIS. Also, some of the statements above seem to be suggesting that it would be illegal to mark up defined weights of gold bullion, but surely that isn't the case because there are many ways this is actually done; one need only watch one of those "gold rush" shows to see actual commerce done in gold dust in parts of Alaska. This isn't the Nixon administration!

Anyway, If ISIS in fact receives no recognition as a state, then to me the case would seem no different than that of printing fake Monopoly money, i.e. someone could make a copyright claim, except in the case of ISIS I suspect an official representative would encounter troubles at the courthouse unrelated to the case. An aspect of the question is to see whether the legal response to a situation like this would reveal some effective recognition of ISIS as a state, despite the official statements against it. Wnt (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Liberty Dollars case is completely irrelevant. Other than providing some of the codes that may be used, it also establishes how the government may be able to convince a jury regardless of how you may feel it's wrong. The facts are different, as I mentioned above 486 seems to me unsurprising in the Libery Dollar considering the details of the case. 485 seems more surprising. I'm not saying it's wrong, more that (and I admit I wasn't so clear earlier) I wouldn't be surprised if the government can convince a jury that you had an intent to defraud, even if you present a fair amount of evidence you didn't. This may not have been the case for the Liberty Dollar example since it sounds like the aspect of 485 that came in to play was the alleged similarity to the US dollar. Alternatively, it could be the government would suggest the coins are "foreign gold or silver coin current in the United States or in actual use and circulation as money within the United States", despite the goverments view on ISIS. (Notably while the government may take a dim view of people using ISIS currency even if it's a hard currency, this doesn't mean they would argue it's in use or "current".) Of course as illustrated below there may be better laws. In case it wasn't clear, I do agree with the other comments namely I'm quite sure the government will try to stop this somehow. (It's perhaps worth remembering that while this may have a negative effect on ISIS, and even if it's something a US intelligence agency themselves may consider doing, the US government doesn't generally like others assisting in fraud even if unintentionally, and that the people effected will also be those living in those areas who may have little choice in what currency they can use and may not support ISIS so there are reasons why the government may be unhappy.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, most fake US gold coins came from the Middle East where the religious ruling was that as long as the copy had at least the proper amount of gold in it, that it was legal to make such copies, but shortchanging the amount of gold was theft. Collect (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm that would seem to support my idea that ISIS may not care provided the replicas were precise replicas. Now we've established this wasn't what Wnt was asking, my point's of course irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the above, 18 U.S.C. § 488 applies to the manufacturing equipment for foreign coins. 18 U.S.C. § 11 contains the all-important definition of "foreign government" for the purposes of that and the other counterfeiting statutes (the important condition is that the United States is "at peace" with that government, even if they aren't recognized). The main case on point that I found is United States v. Gertz, 249 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1957), which dealt with the owner of over 3800 replica Hawaiian dollar coins, though the facts are quite different than the suggested fact pattern in this question. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Impressive answer! To link these, a web search tossed me 18 U.S.C. § 488, 18 U.S.C. § 11, and United States v. Gertz. But does this really mean that it would have been truly legal to start running off Saddam Hussein banknotes the moment that the Iraq War was declared in 2003? And legally speaking... are we at peace with ISIS? Wnt (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. § 478 might be relevant to your fact pattern: "intent to defraud" is an essential element of the offense of making the currency/obligation/etc. of a foreign government. This statute was considered in the case United States v. Arjona, 120 U.S. 479 (1887). Interestingly it suggests that counterfeiting foreign currency goes against the law of nations... which suggests to me a country that allows counterfeiting activity to go on in its territory might be held accountable for it in international law. Cf. Corfu Channel case (which has often been cited for the contention that one state may not allow its territory to be used to harm the rights of other states). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is unlawful to make a die or mold "for the coining of the genuine coin of any foreign government" or to allow such a die or mold "to be used for the counterfeiting of any foreign coin." 18 U.S.C. § 488. It is also unlawful to make or possess counterfeits "of any foreign country issued as money . . . under the authority of any foreign government." 18 U.S.C. § 489. As Mendaliv points out, a "foreign government" is defined as "any government, faction, or body of insurgents within a country with which the United States is at peace, irrespective of recognition by the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 11. So your plan would be illegal in the United States if the United States is at peace with the Islamic State. Inasmuch as the U.S. is currently attacking the Islamic State, there is probably not such a state of peace, so your plan appears to be legal, assuming that the coins are sold with full disclosure. John M Baker (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As others have said above, you are very likely to run into legal trouble if you attempt something like this. Even if you don't have an intent to defraud, and are selling solely to collectors, there would certainly be trademark issues... though the idea of IS bringing a trademark suit in US court at the moment is a bit amusing. Anyway, the whole discussion made me think of David Farnsworth (ehh, wha?). In the event that IS becomes something like a formally recognized nation-state with a functional border, economy, etc., I could easily see the minting and injection of counterfeit money into IS territory becoming a viable strategy at undermining their infrastructure. It is interesting that, as far as I know, most economic case studies in the wider effects of counterfeiting—as well as the theoretical underpinnings of, e.g., the Farnsworth plot and the above-mentioned Superdollars—seem to assume a fiat currency rather than hard specie. In theory the effect should be similar or identical, though the finished product may be harder to detect, and thus take longer to have its full impact in undermining economic confidence, if done properly. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely: regardless of the legalities, I would fully expect the federal government to at least try to stop a plan like this. Whether it's treasury or the SEC, they've got some damn good lawyers and agents. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarity you mean that fiat currency counterfeiting would be harder to detect? I'm not sure from your statement but I presume so as it seems hard specie counterfeiting would generally be easier to detect as ultimately you can just verify that the currency contains the correct amount of the expected metal. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was making certain assumptions based on the different contexts in which you'd be likely to find this hypothetical counterfeit IS currency and the counterfeit money we're familiar with. The Superdollars are devilishly ingenious pieces of work, and pass routine counterfeit checks with ease. Compare this with a hypothetical counterfeit IS coin, which is extremely unlikely to run into anyone with a reasonably high-power loupe. Until fraud is suspected, the most thorough examination one ought to expect is a simple scale check, which would be easy enough to fool for anyone familiar with the relative density of the metals involved. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And keep in mind that, given current technological capabilities, counterfeit coins could likely be made to be totally indistinguishable from the real thing. Given enough funding, you could produce replica IS coins with the same base metal and thus avoid detection even under magnification. This would be much more expensive than using, say, nickel or copper, but would ensure that thousands of coins could be dumped into IS territory, resulting in hyperinflation with almost zero chance of detection before the currency is permanently undermined. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That would work with a fiat currency, but one made from precious metals can never drop below the value of those metals. And dropping gold coins in IS territory would be just giving them money, in the form of gold. Selling them to collectors, on the other hand, would deprive IS of the opportunity to do so, at a premium, and make a profit. Also, you would need millions of coins to satisfy the collector market, not just thousands. StuRat (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd thought that through before posting. Admittedly I am no economist, but surely precious metals can be subject to something akin to inflation in a local context, no? The idea of counterfeit dumping as being akin to "giving them money" assumes that they have some way of trading with the outside world. Which, apparently, they do, as I keep hearing about all the money they're making from oil sales (who is buying oil from them, exactly?). An embargo would be a necessary part of any operation like this, but... if gold were as plentiful as sand, I find it very hard to believe its value in IS-held territory would not greatly diminish, even if its worldwide price did not. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If you could somehow prevent IS from trading with the outside world, then yes, that would be true. But you can't stop them from trading, as you'd need stable borders on all sides that you could man with guards, to do that, an they would immediately come under fire. And if you could totally isolate IS, say if it was on an island, then the price of gold wouldn't much matter, as they couldn't use it to buy weapons, etc., from the outside world. StuRat (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Large scale counterfeiting of IS currency is a good idea, to create a glut and make it of no more value than the metals it contains. This would prevent IS from making money by selling them, when rare, to collectors at a premium. StuRat (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

For clarity, you're referring to replicas with the correct weight etc rather than clear counterfeits with some other base metal which Wnt referred to? In that case, as I said above, I'm not entirely sure whether ISIS will be against the idea. It's true they could try making money by selling them to collectors, on the other hand, while they still need to somehow afford to buy them, it would seem that you're reducing their workload by helping them mint their coins which considering their current limitations, is probably no small task. So they may be happy for you to get involved. Nil Einne (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• In response to Nil above, you don't have to be an islamist to realize that fiat currency is evil. See Weimar Germany, Hyperinflation, Devaluation, Inflation, Currency debasement, and [www.capitalism.net George Reisman's Capitalism], a free pdf textbook. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but I suppose I should wade into various underlying assumptions. First, there's the question of the ISIS currency's purpose. Some sources suggest they would like to isolate themselves from the global economy, but I think such reports are balderdash: clearly, the whole world is either sanctioning their state or likely to do so, while what the regime really does is smuggle out oil in exchange for goods. Not using another country's currency with its own serial numbers, outside of ISIS' control, seems like a step to make it harder to stop smuggling; making their own currency bullion means that any resident who can sneak, swim, or tunnel into a neighboring country finds his currency instantly desirable no matter what the politics of it.

Now the purpose of the counterfeiting would seem to me to be obviously hostile - one goal is to make the currency not instantly desirable because it might be a fake, or even a surveillance device (or radioactive [see below], but we'll leave that part out because we're only considering one law of nations at a time here...) The more serious goal would of course be to make a profit, shared between the counterfeiter and the person passing the money, and the source of that profit would be intended to be ISIS itself, because the value of the bullion should, if people are worried about counterfeits, be more than the value of the currency.

Regarding the radioactivity ... I recognize that counterfeiting gold ISIS currency would be extremely difficult because there's nothing I can think of that is cheap and suitably dense to use to replace it... except depleted uranium, which would be exposed by a Geiger counter.

I still don't know how "peace" is determined; the U.S. makes such a habit of bombing countries we're at "peace" with that it has become officially No Longer Weird. But when a regime is unrecognized, a declaration of war isn't even to be expected; if it is a faction, then U.S. participation in an internal conflict might mean it is an enemy? I don't know how anyone would determine whether we are at war with ISIS.

Even the dumbest news reports say that ISIS coining its own currency is meant to give it legitimacy as a state. This begs the question of whether other countries will treat it is a currency, for example by prohibiting counterfeiting. Mendaliv wrote above that the law of nations could be involved, but that would imply ISIS is a nation. Often, rhetoric about them, based on their illegal status and heinous showmanship, would seem to suggest that they are more akin to the "enemies of man", as Jefferson called the somewhat comparable Barbary pirates (we don't have an article for it; I think there's some fancy Latin term... we should have one). But it seems like this issue is something of a bellwether; if U.S. and other countries' law formally protects ISIS as a "non-recognized" faction, it can only be a matter of time until it is well established on the map, with only token embargoes, inquisitions, and censorship to mark the nominal dispute. On the other hand, if a fundamental departure is made here, and the usual rules are off, there's no telling what might happen. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hostis humani generis, incidentally. Worth a redirect? Tevildo (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, honestly, it might not actually rate. Searching "hostis humani" and "enemies of man" on Google, I only came up with a few hits where it was "man- kind", hyphenated. Apparently "enemies of mankind", "enemies of humanity", and even longer-winded phrases are more popular in translation. Wnt (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Rabbi Kook and Heter Mechirah

Did Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook zt"l eat Shemittah Heter Mechirah vegetables? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It would seem likely, since he instituted the practice under the British Mandate, see Shmita#Heter_mechira. Abraham Isaac Kook provides the names of several biographies. μηδείς (talk) 08:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Simonschaim (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Domestic Partnerships in District of Columbia

Are Domestic Partnerships currently legal in the District of Columbia or did the same-sex marriage bill "sunset" them? Prcc27 (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

See Same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia. Both same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships are currently legal in the District. Unlike marriage, domestic partnerships can be entered into by close relatives, and are not restricted to people of the same sex. Tevildo (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that gay marriages are limited to people of the same sex? That sounds rather bigotted. (Not of you, of the lawmakers.) μηδείς (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Did I, or the legislature, use the word "gay"? I think not. The case of Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle illustrates this issue, but they were overtaken by circumstances (viz, the abolition of civil partnerships supersession of civil partnerships by same-sex civil marriage in the UK England and Wales) before they could get to court. I'm sure other jurisdictions have similar examples. Tevildo (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Civil partnerships have not been abolished in the UK. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I've amended my response accordingly. My apologies. The legislative position would therefore appear to indicate that the case is (potentially) still on foot, although there isn't anything more recent about it in the media that I can find. Tevildo (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In NZ, civil unions remain an option for same sex and different sex couples, as they were before Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 introduced same sex marriage in New Zealand. Although providing an option for formal recognition for same sex couples was on reason cited for civil unions (legal recognition already existed in the form of de facto relationships), providing an option for different sex couples who didn't like the idea of marriage for whatever reason (e.g. the association with religion) was another reason cited so I don't think it's surprising they were kept. The numbers aren't that high (IIRC less then 25% of civil unions involved different sex relationships) but enough that people may suggest it's worth it. This has probably changed now as I imagine a number of same sex civil unions were changed to marriages (with the above act, changes in both directions regardless of sex are now possible [3] [4]). The prohibitions on close relatives appear to apply to be about the same [5] [6] and both include prohibitions relating to civil union or spousal relationships (but not de facto ones). As our article mentions, a couple in a civil union adopt as a couple but one in a marriage can.

BTW although μηδείς's actual comment was silly, they perhaps had a point. Your comment could be read to mean "Unlike marriage, domestic partnerships are not restricted to people of the same sex" whereas I presume you were trying to say something like "domestic partnerships are not restricted to people of the same sex (so there was no direct reason to sunset them with the introduction of same sex marriages)".

Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is North Korea poor while South Korea is developed?

Topic says it all. 2601:C:3400:73:5872:4B6:7C90:BD50 (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Communism versus capitalism. You have to give people an incentive to work efficiently, to get them to work efficiently, which is needed for a nation to develop. In North Korea an entrepreneur would be more likely to be executed than get rich. For a similar comparison, look at the economies of the former West Germany and East Germany. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

However, South Korea doesn't fit that model. In fact, the transformation of the South from “the hell-hole of foreign assistance” in the mid-1960s to the "Miracle on the Han River" in the 1970s was directed with a firm hand by the government's Economic Planning Board by a series of Five-Year Plans. See also Economy of South Korea and FROM AID DEPENDENCE TO AID INDEPENDENCE: SOUTH KOREA by Irma Adelman. I do agree though, that Marxism–Leninism has rarely proved to be a formula for economic growth and prosperity. Alansplodge (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Capitalism is necessary, but not alone sufficient, for economic prosperity. For example, you also need a strong work ethic and the rule of law. StuRat (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far. Capitalism is one good system of distributing resources where they generate the biggest short-term profits (externalities not included). But I've always been impressed by the Soviet Union, which developed from a beaten, backwater peasant state to a an economy that could stand up (with some help, but still...) to Hitler's Germany in only 20 years, despite the additional burden of the red-vs-white civil war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If it was as simple as communism vs capitalism then we would be needing reasons for why there are nearly 100 undeveloped capitalist states. Instead of listening to theories of comparitive advantage, South Korea decided to invest heavily in heavy industries, educate its population and wait for the day those industries, with massive subsidies, finally became profitable, selling high profit boats and electronics to the USA with no tariffs. Sierra Leone however listens to comparitive advantage and produces low-profit raw cocoa. The USA has high tariffs on high profit goods, like chocolate, coming out of Sierra Leone so even if they tried following South Korea by heavily investing in high-profit industries they would have no international market to sell their goods in due to politics. 99.224.235.86 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So logically, the best way to motivate people to work is to pay them dirt and give all the profits to the people who don't work.

You may find http://www.globalresearch.ca/understanding-north-korea/3818 to be a useful resource. North Korea is a product of its history. →Σσς. (Sigma) 19:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Which are these 100 underdeveloped capitalists states you mention, 99? StuRat's given the correct answer, and I would just add that a large, internally tariff-free market helps. The USA had the biggest economy in the world due to these four factors. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I smell a no true Scotsman coming up here. The economic position of the US may also have something to do with the fact that it basically inherited (or stole ;-) the better part of a continent whose resources had not been seriously tapped, and that it could develop with the European level of technology, but so far from other powers that serious threats to the nation only became possible in the second half of the 20th century. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed you smell. Perhaps you can explicitly explain what you fear, rather than using innuendo, Stephan? μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If all it took to be an economic superpower was to inherit (or steal) a continent then Russia ought to be the most economically powerful country in the world. From the end of Napoleon to WW I Russia had no serious outside threats. The Crimean War and the defeat to Japan were no more serious threats to its existence than the war with Mexico, with Spain or the 1812 war were threats to the existence of the US. On the contrary something on the scale of the American Civil War was not experienced by Russia until 1917. Yet despite having the largest and richest area on the planet Russia never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Besides, some of the most prosperous areas of the world (Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan for example) are resource poor relatively speaking (Norwegian oil and gas having arrived pretty late in the day). So how can one seriously argue that the economic and social system of a country are not the most important factors that influence its prosperity? All I'm saying is economic and social systems matter most. How that works is probably most usefully discussed on a case by case basis, taking into account historical and actual circumstances, both local and global, free of ideological preconceptions. Talking of which, one of the most simplistic explanations seems to be that in terms of "work ethic": give those people education, resources, health, the rule of law and a free market, but they're so lazy they're always gonna stay poor. At most "work ethic" can be a result of other factors, otherwise what would the cause of a "strong work ethic"? Race? Contact Basemetal here 06:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There's definitely a difference in work ethics in different places. Look at the amount of vacation given in different nations, for example. And putting value on things other than work, like family, isn't laziness, it's just different priorities. As for why this varies by culture, part of it is from their religious background, such as the Puritan work ethic. Climate also had an effect, with it historically being impossible to work during the heat of the day in some nations. They may have A/C now, but the culture of taking several hours for lunch breaks remains. StuRat (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You miss the (admittedly intentional sneaky ;-) "better" part of the continent. Russia is huge, but large parts of it extremely inaccessible even with modern technology, and basically just a barrier to communication with 19th century technology. On the other hand, the southern parts are quite open to horse nomads, and needed defending. Russia always had long and hard to defend borders. It also had few good harbours - indeed, the quest for a year-round usable harbour was a major theme in Russian expansionism. I'll grant you the Netherlands, but Germany (including Austria) and Scandinavia had significant amounts of the resources that mattered for 19th century industrialisation - consider e.g. the Ruhr, Saar, and Silesia industrial centers. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed here before (see here). The short answer is that North Korea was ahead of the South by many measures until ca. the early 1970s. That was about the time that most of the economically-useful tasks that the northern system was relatively good at (reconstruction of war damage and organization of heavy industries) were more or less accomplished, or started to approach a point of diminishing returns. Since then, the south has displayed an economic dynamism and trade savvy that the north has not been able to match, while the north has been dragged down by the rigidities and brutalities of its political system... AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not so much whether the nation is internally capitalist or communist, but whether they engage in trade with other nations (still waters are stagnant waters), and whether the nation focuses on lifting up their common workers or some other part of society. North Korea's doctrines of Juche and Songun result in a lot of isolation from the rest of the world (in the name of "self-reliance") and the military soaking up most of what few resources they do scrounge up. Juche required North Korea to accept a lot of help (not as much trade as handouts) from Russia and China, but they've lost that over the past few decades because of those countries' willingness to co-exist with the US.

The economies of South Korea, Japan, and Hong Kong may be characterized as a mixture of socialism and capitalism (at least in comparison to America), and their economies boomed thanks to increased external trade. China's economy also began expanding after Nixon's visit opened up trade relations, not so much due to decades-later internal adoption of some capitalist practices (which are not necessarily helping the economy so much as causing economic inequality that creates the appearance of increased GDP, as in the US). Meanwhile, the Philippines have only slowly grown at about half the rate of other comparable Asian economies, despite (or rather, thanks to) being the US's capitalist little buddy (restricting their external trade even if they were internally capitalist).

• "North Korea's strict concept of self-reliance in an interdepedent world is a prescription for its continuing isolation and poverty." - Towards a Northeast Asian Security Community, Bernhard Seliger and Werner Pascha, Springer Science & Business Media, 2011, p. 93
• "The central doctrine of Juche, or self-reliance, appealed in an extreme and, ultimately, absolutely paranoid way to the long-standing Korean concern about foreign domination, even as North Korea became increasingly dependent on Soviet and, to a lesser extent, Chinese economic and political support." - "North Korea" by Martin Kich, in Encyclopedia of World Poverty, Volume 1, ed. Mehmet Odekon, SAGE Publications, 2006, p.616
• "North Korea's slide into economic disaster is due in no small part to the insistence of the DPRK government on "self-reliance," or Juche" - Tyranny of the Weak: North Korea and the World, 1950–1992, Charles K. Armstrong, Cornell University Press, 2013, p. 53

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Some not so prosperous capitalist countries: Haiti, Jamaica, Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Albania, Kosovo. There doesn't need to be a hundred of them to show that capitalism by itself does not automatically guarantee prosperity. Contact Basemetal here 09:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The key might be in the comment about how North Korea was once stronger - that it had a national purpose, of rebuilding after war. Once that was done, the primary national purpose became submitting to and worshiping the Kim dynasty - a purpose rather less likely to inspire economic growth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is far too narrow to analyze this purely in terms of capitalist and communist doctrine; after all, "Communist" China has sure been sticking it to the capitalist countries for some time now. And I've seen people say that North Korea actually bears as much if not more comparison with Imperial Japan as with Stalinist Russia. I think there has to be some analysis of how many resources are put into militarism and totalitarianism per se - how much of the economy is diverted to everything from their army to mass surveillance in North Korea. Also, totalitarianism has a direct toxic effect when people are afraid to try something new lest their family be sent to a concentration camp. And then of course there are the sanctions and the corresponding doctrine of self-reliance, limiting the range of what is possible to do. Wnt (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Songstress on the red side in the Spanish Civil War

In Hemingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls," there was some female singer on the red side who inspired the troops with radio appearances. The book refers to her as "La Something" rather than by name, where "Something" here might be a Spanish adjective or a noun. Does this ring a bell? Edison (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Dolores Ibárruri, known as "La Pasionaria", is mentioned in the book, but she wasn't a singer as such. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There's La Pasionaria (a fiery speaker, though not a singer, who unfortunately became pretty much an NKVD shill by the end of the Spanish Civil War...). AnonMoos (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"La Pasionaria" is it, exactly!! Trying to think of the name was like trying unsuccessfully to sneeze, an example of the "tip of the tongue" phenomenon. I remember the novel speaking of her 'being on the radio" and i assumed she had some talent other than just speaking. I was listening to Edith Piaf singing "La Marseillaise" and wanted to hear someone singing a Spanish patriotic song. Too bad she was just a speaker. My wife guessed it would take someone only 10 minutes to answer the query. Thanks so much. Edison (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)