North Korea Changes Currency(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
North Korea Changes Currency
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125975276400572645.html
137 comments
I grew up in Costa Rica in the late 70's and early 80's. The country had massive currency devaluation because they started printing massive quantities of currency to pay their foreign debt. The exchange rate went from 8 Colones : $1 to 130:$1 in a matter of a few short years.
People started hoarding dollars and those that had commodities did very well. There was a very brisk black market trade in foreign currencies.
My father purchased a small car, at the begining of the currency crash and frove it into the ground on the terrible riural roads and then sold it 5 years later. He made a $30 profit on the deal because car prices had gone up so dramatically.
We did fine, because we got paid in dollars, but the people around us really suffered.
People started hoarding dollars and those that had commodities did very well. There was a very brisk black market trade in foreign currencies.
My father purchased a small car, at the begining of the currency crash and frove it into the ground on the terrible riural roads and then sold it 5 years later. He made a $30 profit on the deal because car prices had gone up so dramatically.
We did fine, because we got paid in dollars, but the people around us really suffered.
The hyperinflationary meltdown in Zimbabwe comes to mind as well. I bought a number of 100 Trillion zimdollar notes off ebay and handed them out at work. Each person I handed one to, I told them about how they tried to handle the inflation by chopping zeros off at the end, until this year when they cut 12 zeros off the end of numbers and shortly afterwards stopped printing their own currency.
Before my father was born, his family lived in Germany and because they had their wealth in US dollars, they were spared the trauma of the German hyperinflation of the 20s. Many of the people he knew growing up had been wiped out by that period.
What a mess. It could happen here.
Before my father was born, his family lived in Germany and because they had their wealth in US dollars, they were spared the trauma of the German hyperinflation of the 20s. Many of the people he knew growing up had been wiped out by that period.
What a mess. It could happen here.
I just spoken with a Zimbabwean (in South Africa). What happened in Zim is a fuckup. This guy's sister was raped (and eventually killed herself in South Africa).
There money is less than worthless. The only thing that saves the populace is subsistance farming and money from people working (illegally) in South Africa.
There money is less than worthless. The only thing that saves the populace is subsistance farming and money from people working (illegally) in South Africa.
Yes, you are correct in respect with local currency. However, in my country there used to be quite vibrant currency black market instead of alcohol storing. People most often replaced all excess local currency with deutsch marks. At the expense of exorbitant fees, of course. But it was still better to have some deutsch marks than none.
All of it was of course illegal, but the government wasn't too keen to penalise such behaviour. At least I don't remember anyone getting caught.
All of it was of course illegal, but the government wasn't too keen to penalise such behaviour. At least I don't remember anyone getting caught.
It depends on the country and the time period. There were stretches of time in Poland when being caught with a substantial amount of foreign currency would have meant heavy jail time (for the crime of 'speculation'). But no one in history has ever gone down for having too much hooch.
I'm talking about Yugoslavia and 80s. Borders were officially quite tight (you couldn't import anything beyond some small value), but lots and lots of people used illegally traded foreign currency to buy food, clothes, toys, computers(yes, you could not buy zx spectrum in Yugoslavia), etc. and bring it illegally over the border.
It is likely that things were different in 70s and even before that, because rules relaxed a bit in the 80s.
It is likely that things were different in 70s and even before that, because rules relaxed a bit in the 80s.
But no one in history has ever gone down for having too much hooch.
Except for the United States in the 1920s.
Except for the United States in the 1920s.
They went down on not paying income tax on the proceeds of selling that hooch. If they just had it in a closet somewhere, it is doubtful that the government would ever find out.
That's how they got the higher-ups in the organization, but lots of people were arrested for simply having it. That's what allowed a black market to form in the first place.
The automatic response of the North Korean government would be introducing a prohibition. Or maybe that already happened, who knows.
They don't even need to go that far. They can just ration supply, forbid stockpiling and fix the price to artificially low levels.
This was occurring as recently as last year all over the world when commodity/food prices spiked. Anywhere you see black markets, you can find rationing and price fixing nearby.
This was occurring as recently as last year all over the world when commodity/food prices spiked. Anywhere you see black markets, you can find rationing and price fixing nearby.
The reverse is often true as well. Anywhere you see rationing and price fixing, you can find black markets nearby, assuming the distortion is high enough.
Yes, seems like trying to stop free markets from developing is just like trying to hide information or keep a theatre free of ringing phones. It can be tried, and sometimes even successful, but gosh it's a lot of work.
Yes. Why would you need a blackmarket, if that were not the case?
According to the article, it's not illegal for North Koreans to hold foreign currency.
I was in North Korea back in August, and bought one of each denomination as a souvenir. Guess they're going to be more valuable now.
Foreigners are not allowed to spend the North Korean won within the country. Instead, you pay in RMB, EUR, USD at locations approved to take foreign currency -- so we couldn't just go buy stuff at the same stores as the locals. Now I'm wondering how much of that foreign currency makes it back to the central government, given this news.
I was in North Korea back in August, and bought one of each denomination as a souvenir. Guess they're going to be more valuable now.
Foreigners are not allowed to spend the North Korean won within the country. Instead, you pay in RMB, EUR, USD at locations approved to take foreign currency -- so we couldn't just go buy stuff at the same stores as the locals. Now I'm wondering how much of that foreign currency makes it back to the central government, given this news.
All of it. That was the exact purpose of similar measures and stores for tourists holding valuable and scarce foreign currency ("valyuta") in the Soviet Union (where I come from).
My grandma used to tell me a similar story about her old country (Burma) except they used gold jewelry.
Gold jewelry's pretty popular in India for about the same reason.
I believe German Jews bought a lot of jewelery in the late 1930's for...similar reasons. It was easier to hide than cash, and they could always try to pass it off as some family heirloom with no more than sentimental value.
Voltaire: "Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value - zero."
Voltaire would have been referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Company and John Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Law_%28economist%29
Read about it last night. The first stock market bubble. Far out... one Ken Layesque figure named John Law took over the entire French economy with his pyramid scheme, giving France its first paper money, for a while.
Read about it last night. The first stock market bubble. Far out... one Ken Layesque figure named John Law took over the entire French economy with his pyramid scheme, giving France its first paper money, for a while.
This seems like one of those hypothetical microeconomics questions... you know, the ones that are never really supposed to happen.
"It also reported instances of wealthy people from cities rushing to rural areas on Monday in hopes of buying commodities with the old currency before people in those areas heard about the exchange process."
"It also reported instances of wealthy people from cities rushing to rural areas on Monday in hopes of buying commodities with the old currency before people in those areas heard about the exchange process."
I wouldn't rule anything out in the DPRK.
As an example, here's Juche, the official state ideology, summed up in an exchange:
Peasant: "I am hungry. I need bread".
Soldier (part of the supposed "revolutionary" class): points gun at peasant. "Are you hungry now?"
Peasant: gulp "No".
Stalinism to its logical conclusion.
As an example, here's Juche, the official state ideology, summed up in an exchange:
Peasant: "I am hungry. I need bread".
Soldier (part of the supposed "revolutionary" class): points gun at peasant. "Are you hungry now?"
Peasant: gulp "No".
Stalinism to its logical conclusion.
what's happening in north korea is an abomination of human rights infringements. i think most westners, especially those who's countries never experienced communism, can't really imagine/comprehend daily life there. I watched this documentary on North Korea a while ago and found it very interesting [http://educatedearth.org/video.php?id=2642]
The background music and production reminds me of Lost. Maybe Lost is actually based on North Korea. It wouldn't be all that far fetched.
holy crap, did a government legally just steal all the money from it's people?
What if people disagree and just keep using the old currency among them ?
Yeah, I guess they'll get shot.
Also, the mention of "closed-circuit system that feeds into speakers in homes and on streets but can't be monitored outside the country" reminds me so much of Brave New World/1984/Big Brother stuff.
Yeah, I guess they'll get shot.
Also, the mention of "closed-circuit system that feeds into speakers in homes and on streets but can't be monitored outside the country" reminds me so much of Brave New World/1984/Big Brother stuff.
Re: 1984
My first thought was "How wicked!" Second thought was "Hey, but we have those thingies in Russia too!"
There is a wired radio system in Russia, established way back in the Soviet era, which transmits three radio channels. Simple receiver can consist basically of a loudspeaker and variable resistor as a volume knob, while more complicated receiver can receive one of 3 channels. There's a simple receiver on the wall next to me as I write this. Interestingly, I couldn't find any pictures of my exact model, so here's my (lame) attempt: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22022497@N04/4154137046/ There's another, 3-channel one, of the latest incarnation (late 80's or early 90's) in the kitchen. When my dad bought it, I remember everyone coming to our house thinking it's a VCR, so that should say something of its size and form factor. It still sits up there near the ceiling mainly because of its large luminiscent clock on the front panel. We don't turn these radios on except maybe twice a year out of curiosity :)
These things fit the description "closed-circuit system that... can't be monitored outside the country" if by that you mean "wired"
My first thought was "How wicked!" Second thought was "Hey, but we have those thingies in Russia too!"
There is a wired radio system in Russia, established way back in the Soviet era, which transmits three radio channels. Simple receiver can consist basically of a loudspeaker and variable resistor as a volume knob, while more complicated receiver can receive one of 3 channels. There's a simple receiver on the wall next to me as I write this. Interestingly, I couldn't find any pictures of my exact model, so here's my (lame) attempt: http://www.flickr.com/photos/22022497@N04/4154137046/ There's another, 3-channel one, of the latest incarnation (late 80's or early 90's) in the kitchen. When my dad bought it, I remember everyone coming to our house thinking it's a VCR, so that should say something of its size and form factor. It still sits up there near the ceiling mainly because of its large luminiscent clock on the front panel. We don't turn these radios on except maybe twice a year out of curiosity :)
These things fit the description "closed-circuit system that... can't be monitored outside the country" if by that you mean "wired"
Thanks for the picture. I think I saw one in Poland as well. So that's what those are for !
Also, an obvious hack to monitor this "close-circuit" system: just attach a satellite transmitter to the output of a receiver.
Even cheaper: make a web radio out of one of these. Wait, you need internet access to do that...
Also, an obvious hack to monitor this "close-circuit" system: just attach a satellite transmitter to the output of a receiver.
Even cheaper: make a web radio out of one of these. Wait, you need internet access to do that...
Thanks for the photo.
One of my earliest childhood memories is falling asleep to one of these things.
One of my earliest childhood memories is falling asleep to one of these things.
This actually happened in Iraq after the first Gulf War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Swiss_dinar . Since the government was no longer printing the older currency, it was then immune to inflation by Saddam's government. The old currency appreciated against the newer, inflated currency until we deposed Saddam. It's amazing how little you need to back a currency, and how unbacked ones can be stronger than fiat currency.
A fascinating example. I recently talked with someone about fiat currencies being backed by the taxation power of the issuing state, to get their worth. It seems that once the system is booted this help may be no longer necessary.
Not only that, but the speakers don't have an off switch either (although they do graciously provide a volume knob)
Would be scary if NK had more power. Fortunately for us (and unfortunate for their people) the country is very poor and relies almost entirely on aid from other countries (China) to keep things going.
They have nuclear weapons -- or want the world to believe they do -- and likely intend to use those weapons to ensure that they get an unlimited supply of aid from other countries.
That was all over the mainstream U.S. news not that long ago, even.
Poor? Maybe in terms of GDP. But certainly not powerless.
That was all over the mainstream U.S. news not that long ago, even.
Poor? Maybe in terms of GDP. But certainly not powerless.
I guess China could carpet-nuke NK if they ever got tired of aiding them.
But then North Korea nukes Seoul, Shanghai, and Tokyo.
Nuclear war has no winners.
Nuclear war has no winners.
Seoul, definitely. I would be mildly surprised if it actually managed to hit Shanghai or Tokyo. North Korean military hardware is not known for it's quality.
On the upside, North Korea isn't suicidal, and it's not like China was going to stop giving them aid anyway, so it probably makes little practical difference anyway.
On the upside, North Korea isn't suicidal, and it's not like China was going to stop giving them aid anyway, so it probably makes little practical difference anyway.
Much more likely is they just engineer a coup and quietly shoot Der Leader.
V for Vendetta.
legally is a funny word when talking about north korea.
legality is relative term to rules and constitution of the country. North Korea is totally dominated by the government therefore sets its own rules. Whatever government does is considered to be legal because they make it to be so.
Legality assumes that the source of the power of the government is legal. These days it is generally accepted worldwide that the only legal source of power for a government is the one that originates from the people. Most countries are democratic, at least in name. There are only a very few despotic countries left (where the source of the power is the "Grace of God" both de jure and de facto).
North Korea claims to be a democratic country, however the government is clearly not elected democratically at all so the acts of of the government can hardly be called "legal". The government of North Korea isn't fairly elected and is probably in power against its citizens' will. The only way they can remain in power is by the application of violence.
Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
North Korea claims to be a democratic country, however the government is clearly not elected democratically at all so the acts of of the government can hardly be called "legal". The government of North Korea isn't fairly elected and is probably in power against its citizens' will. The only way they can remain in power is by the application of violence.
Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
> Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
You're mixing up terminology. Legal/illegal and right/wrong are separate concepts. Legal/illegal is a system of cause and effect: The law says, "If you do X, and we can prove it to this extent, we will do Y to you." Or, "If you fail to X, and we can prove it to this extent, we will do Y to you."
Law does not make something right/wrong. For instance, alcohol is more dangerous to both the individual and society than THC - the active ingredient in marijuana and hashish. Alcohol in moderately large quantities is a poison, whereas THC isn't, it's more chemically addictive and tolerance building, it impairs judgment very similarly to marijuana but has a quality of making people think their judgment isn't as impaired as it is, and is more prone to causing aggressive/violent behavior than THC. In no sane world is alcohol relatively unrestricted and THC is completely prohibited. (For the record, I don't drink or use any recreational drugs) In the United Sates, the law says alcohol is relatively unrestricted and THC is almost completely prohibited. That doesn't get to rightness/wrongness, it just specifies cause and effect.
So law - it's not a right/wrong thing. Is what North Korea did just now wrong? By most people's ethics, oh hell yes it's terrible. But it's legal, because it was signed into law by a body with the capacity to enforce it in its jurisdiction.
You're mixing up terminology. Legal/illegal and right/wrong are separate concepts. Legal/illegal is a system of cause and effect: The law says, "If you do X, and we can prove it to this extent, we will do Y to you." Or, "If you fail to X, and we can prove it to this extent, we will do Y to you."
Law does not make something right/wrong. For instance, alcohol is more dangerous to both the individual and society than THC - the active ingredient in marijuana and hashish. Alcohol in moderately large quantities is a poison, whereas THC isn't, it's more chemically addictive and tolerance building, it impairs judgment very similarly to marijuana but has a quality of making people think their judgment isn't as impaired as it is, and is more prone to causing aggressive/violent behavior than THC. In no sane world is alcohol relatively unrestricted and THC is completely prohibited. (For the record, I don't drink or use any recreational drugs) In the United Sates, the law says alcohol is relatively unrestricted and THC is almost completely prohibited. That doesn't get to rightness/wrongness, it just specifies cause and effect.
So law - it's not a right/wrong thing. Is what North Korea did just now wrong? By most people's ethics, oh hell yes it's terrible. But it's legal, because it was signed into law by a body with the capacity to enforce it in its jurisdiction.
These days it is generally accepted worldwide that the only legal source of power for a government is the one that originates from the people.
Citation? Perhaps sociologists or philosophers accept that, but governments certainly don't. If they did, North Korea wouldn't be generally recognized as an independent country. Since it is, and since the current government there is generally recognized as such, it's legal.
Citation? Perhaps sociologists or philosophers accept that, but governments certainly don't. If they did, North Korea wouldn't be generally recognized as an independent country. Since it is, and since the current government there is generally recognized as such, it's legal.
For source, see the constitution of pretty much any country that claims to be democratic. Most of them state explicitly one way or other that the exclusive source of power is the people.
Well, here's a potentially-relevant quote from the North Korean constitution:
Comrade Kim Il Sung elucidated the fundamental principles of nation building and State activities, established the best State and social system, the best mode of politics and system and methods of administering society, and laid solid foundations for the prosperity of the socialist motherland and for the continuation and consummation of the revolutionary cause of Juche. Regarding “The people are my God” as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life for them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics. The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is the sun of the nation and the lodestar of national reunification.
Here's another:
As a veteran statesman in the world, Comrade Kim Il Sung opened up the new era of independence, carried out energetic activities for the strengthening and development of the socialist movement and the non-aligned movement as well as for world peace and for friendship among the peoples and made an imperishable contribution to the cause of human independence. Comrade Kim Il Sung was a genius in ideology and theory, a master of leadership, an ever-victorious iron-willed brilliant commander, a great revolutionary and politician and a great man.
And one more for the road:
Article 4. The sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resides in the workers, peasants, working intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise power through their representative organs―the Supreme People’s Assembly and local People’s Assemblies at all levels.
Note that this last one is phrased as a statement of fact, and not as an imperative given to the government. That is to say, "North Korea's government is derived from the public", and _not_ "North Korea's government should be derived from the public".
I will concede that these snippets are taken from the 1972 constitution, which has since been revised a couple of times. However, given the addition of an article declaring Kim Jong-Il to be Supreme Leader in the 2009 constitution, I suspect what the North Korean government is doing is entirely legal, unless you are suggesting that they are somehow bound by (e.g.) the U.S. constitution.
EDIT:
Ooh, here's another good one:
Article 11. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea.
So, it would actually be illegal for the current government to not be the current government. They are legally obligated by their constitution to maintain the dictatorship.
Comrade Kim Il Sung elucidated the fundamental principles of nation building and State activities, established the best State and social system, the best mode of politics and system and methods of administering society, and laid solid foundations for the prosperity of the socialist motherland and for the continuation and consummation of the revolutionary cause of Juche. Regarding “The people are my God” as his maxim, Comrade Kim Il Sung always mixed with the people, devoted his whole life for them and turned the whole of society into a large family which is united in one mind by taking care of the people and leading them through his noble benevolent politics. The great leader Comrade Kim Il Sung is the sun of the nation and the lodestar of national reunification.
Here's another:
As a veteran statesman in the world, Comrade Kim Il Sung opened up the new era of independence, carried out energetic activities for the strengthening and development of the socialist movement and the non-aligned movement as well as for world peace and for friendship among the peoples and made an imperishable contribution to the cause of human independence. Comrade Kim Il Sung was a genius in ideology and theory, a master of leadership, an ever-victorious iron-willed brilliant commander, a great revolutionary and politician and a great man.
And one more for the road:
Article 4. The sovereignty of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea resides in the workers, peasants, working intellectuals and all other working people. The working people exercise power through their representative organs―the Supreme People’s Assembly and local People’s Assemblies at all levels.
Note that this last one is phrased as a statement of fact, and not as an imperative given to the government. That is to say, "North Korea's government is derived from the public", and _not_ "North Korea's government should be derived from the public".
I will concede that these snippets are taken from the 1972 constitution, which has since been revised a couple of times. However, given the addition of an article declaring Kim Jong-Il to be Supreme Leader in the 2009 constitution, I suspect what the North Korean government is doing is entirely legal, unless you are suggesting that they are somehow bound by (e.g.) the U.S. constitution.
EDIT:
Ooh, here's another good one:
Article 11. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea shall conduct all activities under the leadership of the Workers’ Party of Korea.
So, it would actually be illegal for the current government to not be the current government. They are legally obligated by their constitution to maintain the dictatorship.
I can't argue with that, it seems that they actually made themselves a constitution that makes their current government legal.
... so explain Crown prerogative in the UK then.
(and don't tell me the UK has no constitution - it has no unified, codified constitution, but it sure as hell has one)
(and don't tell me the UK has no constitution - it has no unified, codified constitution, but it sure as hell has one)
The United Kingdom (and more specifically, England) is an exception. Actually, I had the United Kingdom in mind when I've said "most". The system of the government of the United Kingdom is exceptionally complex and in theory it is still ruled by the Sovereign by the Grace of God. In practice though, the Royal Prerogative is exercised by the Crown and not the Sovereign, which means the Government which is lead by the Prime Minister who is in turn the leader of the parliamentary majority which is elected by the people.
What? It's still (unfortunately) "God" for us in Canada.
Is the down vote disagreeing or my anti-religion snideness? If it's the former, quoting from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html
PART I OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982(80)
Assented to March 29th, 1982
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
...>> Of course, it is still a good idea for North Koreans to do whatever their governemnt calls "legal" given that they have to power to enforce it. But the fact that I have the power to mug the neighbour kid and I call it legal doesn't make it legal.
No, you don't have the power. You think you do, until you realise that society actually has the power to stop you, and you are powerLESS to resist. You will find society is typically happy for you to have powers over nothing but your own person and property (an oxymoronic presumption, I know, but adequate), but unfairly try to exert any power over another person and you will find a functional society will tend to react against you and rapidly demonstrate why you are deemed to have implicitly relinquished the power you're now claiming to have, by mere fact of being in your society's jurisdiction.
No, you don't have the power. You think you do, until you realise that society actually has the power to stop you, and you are powerLESS to resist. You will find society is typically happy for you to have powers over nothing but your own person and property (an oxymoronic presumption, I know, but adequate), but unfairly try to exert any power over another person and you will find a functional society will tend to react against you and rapidly demonstrate why you are deemed to have implicitly relinquished the power you're now claiming to have, by mere fact of being in your society's jurisdiction.
Well, a government has to follow its own laws. For example, the U.S. government could conceivably bring its troops into a house under gunpoint and have them sleep the night there. It wouldn't be legal, since it's directly against the Third Amendment.
That's what's called rule of law and it is, regretably, not as common as one might think.
Especially dictatorships often had and have some kind of law that allows the dictator to do anything. You could call it rule of law minus one. One person who is exempted from the rule of law is enough to bring the whole system down. Strange, how fickle the rule of law seems to be.
Especially dictatorships often had and have some kind of law that allows the dictator to do anything. You could call it rule of law minus one. One person who is exempted from the rule of law is enough to bring the whole system down. Strange, how fickle the rule of law seems to be.
A republican or democratic (small-r/d) government does. North Korea essentially has government by fiat, and its parliament is purely decorative.
I'm not sure it's that uncommon in communism. My grandparents told me that the same thing happened in Romania when it was under communist rule.
When we recently slashed a few zeros from our currency (denomination i believe it's called) they were afraid that the same thing would happen again.
When we recently slashed a few zeros from our currency (denomination i believe it's called) they were afraid that the same thing would happen again.
It isn't uncommon, FTA:
"The absence of information in official media adds to the unusual circumstances of the action. North Korea has reissued currency four times previously, all with great fanfare and explanation to the outside world."
"The absence of information in official media adds to the unusual circumstances of the action. North Korea has reissued currency four times previously, all with great fanfare and explanation to the outside world."
Unfortunately Ceauşescu's reign of terror resulted in a lot of horrible policies under the banner of "socialism" Just look at the ban he placed on abortion and the curtailing of womens rights, which is probably the most reactionary thing a government can do.
A similar theft happened in Brazil in 1990. It wasn't done by a crazy dictator. In fact it was right after the first democratic presidential election in decades.
All investments, CDs, savings accounts in excess of around U$1000 were "frozen".
It didn't affect the masses, who didn't have bank accounts anyway. But the middle-class was screwed.
All investments, CDs, savings accounts in excess of around U$1000 were "frozen".
It didn't affect the masses, who didn't have bank accounts anyway. But the middle-class was screwed.
You are right, Collor wasn't a dictator.
But he did do some things right, like starting the process of opening Brazil's economy, which in the 80's was more closed than those of the communist bloc. I wouldn't ever think of supporting him, though.
But he did do some things right, like starting the process of opening Brazil's economy, which in the 80's was more closed than those of the communist bloc. I wouldn't ever think of supporting him, though.
The North Korean weirdness differs only in degree, and not in kind, from the everyday actions of every government that issues fiat (non-gold-backed) currency.
This would work on gold-backed currency too. Stop issuing green bills-redeemable-for-X-amount-of-gold and start issuing red ones.
The only currency this wouldn't work on is actual gold, silver, etc.
The only currency this wouldn't work on is actual gold, silver, etc.
It always amuses me that some people sneer at thinking paper can have value, and point to their security blanket: magic, shiny rocks. (There are magic rocks, and shiny rocks, but duh, only the magic, shiny rocks are useful as currency. Naturally.)
You can have wild fluctuations in the supply of magic, shiny rocks -- it has happened before, and it will happen again. For example, when Spain discovered that they could kill people and take their rocks more efficiently than they could mine their own rocks. It also happens on the microeconomic level, a phenomenon known as a Magic Shiny Rock Rush.
When the supply of magic, shiny rocks increases suddenly, the amount of magic, shiny rocks you need to buy things also increases.
You can have wild fluctuations in the supply of magic, shiny rocks -- it has happened before, and it will happen again. For example, when Spain discovered that they could kill people and take their rocks more efficiently than they could mine their own rocks. It also happens on the microeconomic level, a phenomenon known as a Magic Shiny Rock Rush.
When the supply of magic, shiny rocks increases suddenly, the amount of magic, shiny rocks you need to buy things also increases.
While it's possible for gold to fluctuate in value, it's not as easy or common to change the value of gold as it is to manipulate the value of fiat currency. The whole point of a gold-standard is to make money a more durable store of value. The argument that gold is not perfect is irrelevant. It's like responding to an argument that you should stop smoking by saying that even non-smokers suffer health problems and die.
That's a good point about the risk of supply fluctuations, but there is no denying it keeps govt's in check by removing the ability to (easily) manipulate currency.
EDIT: In response to replies the above should read "govt's in check short of using force"
EDIT: In response to replies the above should read "govt's in check short of using force"
I'm going to go ahead and deny it, actually. North Korea can confiscate value pretty easily regardless of whether they use crispy paper or shiny magic rocks as currency. "Give me all your magic rocks, or I'll send men to beat you." (If that sounds far-fetched, I would note that the United States has banned private possession of gold before.)
More subtle variations on this: "We require you to pay us in shiny magic rocks, but we will only pay you in crispy paper.", "Our coins are made out of shiny magic rocks... but, haha, there is less magic in them now! Too bad you're not an alchemist and will never notice!", "These paper entitle you to shiny magic rocks. We're lying, but you don't know that.", etc, etc, etc.
More subtle variations on this: "We require you to pay us in shiny magic rocks, but we will only pay you in crispy paper.", "Our coins are made out of shiny magic rocks... but, haha, there is less magic in them now! Too bad you're not an alchemist and will never notice!", "These paper entitle you to shiny magic rocks. We're lying, but you don't know that.", etc, etc, etc.
I partially agree; that's why what I meant would be a total metal reliance, e.g. 1oz silver/gold eagles etc. where the amount of gold/silver is guaranteed and consistent. I'm not saying metal's an optimum solution, only pointing out its abilities.
Guaranteed by whom? If in 2009 the government guarantees that its mint's coins will be at least 99% gold, and then in 2010 it guarantees that they will be at least 90% gold, what are you going to do—assay each coin that comes into your hand before you put it in your wallet?
(The Israel Museum once had an exhibit on money which included a series of ancient coins, struck from exactly the same mold over a number of years. The oldest one was something like 90% gold and the most recent was something like 1%.)
(The Israel Museum once had an exhibit on money which included a series of ancient coins, struck from exactly the same mold over a number of years. The oldest one was something like 90% gold and the most recent was something like 1%.)
The metal is just the tool. Like the Constitution or anything else, it's up to the people to hold the govt. to the standard. Unlike non-backed currency, with metals any shaving of value can be detected obviously (more obviously than taxation via inflation) and quantified.
The only “value” of currency that matters to me is my ability to give it up in exchange for the things that I want and take it in exchange for the things I have. In this sense, if I don’t trust government-provided statistics, all I need to detect changes in the “value” of currency is to keep a budget. If my currency-denominated expenses have gone up and my standard of living has remained constant, that’s an obvious sign of inflation.
By contrast, if a supermarket cashier gives me a handful of coins in change and I want to know which are 90% gold, which are 95%, and which are 99%, what am I supposed to do? Carry an analytic balance into the grocery store? That would make me real popular with everyone standing behind me in line....
By contrast, if a supermarket cashier gives me a handful of coins in change and I want to know which are 90% gold, which are 95%, and which are 99%, what am I supposed to do? Carry an analytic balance into the grocery store? That would make me real popular with everyone standing behind me in line....
Detecting an unnatural decrease in the value of currency is not as simple as tracking prices and standard of living. You need to track productivity too.
Normally, in an economy that is growing in productivity, your purchasing power should be growing, not merely staying the same. If your productivity increases by 3% per year, then you should be able to buy 3% more goods and services every year (assuming you work the same hours).
If the supply of money does not change, then increases in productivity will be reflected in lower prices. If you made 100 widgets last year for $100 ($1/widget), and this year you made 103 widgets because you got better at it (productivity increase), the price of your widgets would be $100/103widgets = $.97/widget if people spent the same amount of money or portion of their income on widgets. Your goods would be cheaper for customers, or, put another way, your customers would be a little richer in widgets. If others in the economy experienced the same productivity growth, you would also be richer. The $100 you made producing widgets would buy you more of other people's goods. Your standard of living depends on your own productivity and everyone else's. If your productivity is average, and the average is growing, then your standard of living should be growing too.
Thus, if the money supply were relatively constant as it would be under a gold standard, prices should naturally fall as productivity increases, while wages should be constant (assuming no population change).
When the money supply is growing, it is a lot harder to make these calculations and know what your money should be worth. This is an irritation at the personal, consumer level, you don't know exactly how much the government is screwing you, but at the macro level, it causes bubbles. When people don't know the value of money, they spend unwisely, paying too much for a thing. The housing bubble was caused because people thought that money was worth less than it was. (They can be forgiven for this mistake because it was reasonable. If money were worth more, why were the banks selling it so cheaply?) As a result, they overpaid for houses and builders built too many of them. By the time the mistake was discovered, there were too many houses on the market and their prices dropped suddenly.
Normally, in an economy that is growing in productivity, your purchasing power should be growing, not merely staying the same. If your productivity increases by 3% per year, then you should be able to buy 3% more goods and services every year (assuming you work the same hours).
If the supply of money does not change, then increases in productivity will be reflected in lower prices. If you made 100 widgets last year for $100 ($1/widget), and this year you made 103 widgets because you got better at it (productivity increase), the price of your widgets would be $100/103widgets = $.97/widget if people spent the same amount of money or portion of their income on widgets. Your goods would be cheaper for customers, or, put another way, your customers would be a little richer in widgets. If others in the economy experienced the same productivity growth, you would also be richer. The $100 you made producing widgets would buy you more of other people's goods. Your standard of living depends on your own productivity and everyone else's. If your productivity is average, and the average is growing, then your standard of living should be growing too.
Thus, if the money supply were relatively constant as it would be under a gold standard, prices should naturally fall as productivity increases, while wages should be constant (assuming no population change).
When the money supply is growing, it is a lot harder to make these calculations and know what your money should be worth. This is an irritation at the personal, consumer level, you don't know exactly how much the government is screwing you, but at the macro level, it causes bubbles. When people don't know the value of money, they spend unwisely, paying too much for a thing. The housing bubble was caused because people thought that money was worth less than it was. (They can be forgiven for this mistake because it was reasonable. If money were worth more, why were the banks selling it so cheaply?) As a result, they overpaid for houses and builders built too many of them. By the time the mistake was discovered, there were too many houses on the market and their prices dropped suddenly.
if the money supply were relatively constant as it would be under a gold standard, prices should naturally fall as productivity increases, while wages should be constant
...which would be a bad thing, because if the purchasing power of your money grows even when it's parked under your mattress, it's a lot harder for entrepreneurs to attract investment.
I would agree that the Fed has been too loose with the money supply over the past twenty years or so, and that this appears to be a structural problem with the central banks; George Cooper makes a good case in The Origin of Financial Crises. But I don't think the solution lies in a return to the gold standard.
...which would be a bad thing, because if the purchasing power of your money grows even when it's parked under your mattress, it's a lot harder for entrepreneurs to attract investment.
I would agree that the Fed has been too loose with the money supply over the past twenty years or so, and that this appears to be a structural problem with the central banks; George Cooper makes a good case in The Origin of Financial Crises. But I don't think the solution lies in a return to the gold standard.
Will a dime buy you a gallon of gas today, as it would in the early 1900s? It would if it were a silver dime, which is roughly worth $3 now. People don't notice loss of value as easily as when it's obviously measurable, as in loss of metal. The law (hypothetically) would decree coins had that amount of metal, and discrepancies would make the news. I'm not arguing for metal, so much as pointing out its contrast with non-backed currency.
A silver Barber dime minted in 1900 was 2.5 grams and 90% silver. That gives you $1.40 as of the close of market today, so you could basically buy half as much gasoline now as you could then.
I am just barely old enough to remember the late 1970s, when US inflation went over 15% per year. People certainly noticed the inflation; it is one of the major reasons that Jimmy Carter was voted out of office. The chairman of the Federal Reserve dealt with the problem not by returning the country to the gold standard, but with the orthodox Keynesian technique of hiking interest rates, and it worked.
If gold were used as money, money would be like any other good. Anybody could produce their own coins by marking on them their brand and their content of gold. The value of coins would depend on people's ability to verify their content or the maker's reputation. The market would police the quality the same as it does any other good. If a coin maker began to produce coins with lower gold content than marked, it would be discovered, sued for fraud civilly and criminally, and shunned by the market. The same mechanism would police money as polices gas stations and forces them to use accurate measures in dispensing gas.
Good point- this was a serious problem in the later stages of the Roman Empire
Ahahahaha no. Have no never wondered why standards bodies (which decree official weights and measures) are operated by governments? Many times throughout history, measurements of everything from land area to the standard weight of coins have been adjusted by governments to suit their policies (sometimes in the interests of fairness and trade, sometimes in the interests of refilling the treasury or paying an army).
Certainly, one can turn to science and make objective statements about both mass and purity. But unless you have melting facilities and deal in raw metal (rather than stamped coins) there is no advantage in this. As a hypothetical sovereign individual, you'll lose out when trying to trade raw metal because without the word of an independent (and government-licensed) assayer the buyer will discount the value of your lump'o'gold to allow for the possible unreliability of your claims about purity and weight. Most people don't have the facilities to assay precious metals themselves, so they rely on a third party to certify such claims; the implied social contract stamped into a coin or ingot has much greater value than the actual metal itself.
Please, look into some history of money. currency abuse is not a recent phenomenon by any means.
Certainly, one can turn to science and make objective statements about both mass and purity. But unless you have melting facilities and deal in raw metal (rather than stamped coins) there is no advantage in this. As a hypothetical sovereign individual, you'll lose out when trying to trade raw metal because without the word of an independent (and government-licensed) assayer the buyer will discount the value of your lump'o'gold to allow for the possible unreliability of your claims about purity and weight. Most people don't have the facilities to assay precious metals themselves, so they rely on a third party to certify such claims; the implied social contract stamped into a coin or ingot has much greater value than the actual metal itself.
Please, look into some history of money. currency abuse is not a recent phenomenon by any means.
Any commodity approximates currency, but in practice this doesn't keep totalitarian governments in check.
The government can take away your house or any possessions you couldn't hide, ban trading of popular commodities (like foreign currencies; this drastically reduces liquidity), or, as a measure of last resort, kill you.
Former socialist countries have seen all of these after WWII.
The government can take away your house or any possessions you couldn't hide, ban trading of popular commodities (like foreign currencies; this drastically reduces liquidity), or, as a measure of last resort, kill you.
Former socialist countries have seen all of these after WWII.
Or, more subtly -- and not requiring any force at all -- a government can simply hoard any commodity or currency through a series of differences in trading other commodities or currencies, artificially inflating the value of the commodity (or currency).
Especially if certain conspiracy theories are true that some gold ingots are being discovered as gold-covered tungsten and not solid gold...
> You can have wild fluctuations in the supply of magic, shiny rocks -- it has happened before, and it will happen again.
This is not unlike eschewing seat belts because asteroids have been known to smash into the Earth.
This is not unlike eschewing seat belts because asteroids have been known to smash into the Earth.
Gold and silver are insurance against the government's behavior. Paper issued by the government cannot serve that purpose.
Don't be naive. Sure, if you have a small sum of gold buried in the yard, it can hold its value through times of political uncertainty. But to exercise any meaningful opposition to a despotic government, you need to be rich ( in order to pay people to do your will) or well-organized (in order to urge them via the media). In the former case, you can be taxed - governments levying taxes on the very wealthy usually goes down well with the much poorer majority - and in the latter, you can be declared a subversive and censored.
You might find it instructive to examine the history of ancient Rome around the time of Nero and Caligula. If you find history books dry reading, get a copy of 'I, Claudius' which presents the history of that period in narrative form and is both educational and entertaining.
This is not to say that opposition to a tyrannical government is hopeless - indeed, history with littered with examples of such leading to revolution. But currency alone is a weak check on a determined oppressor. And (as we are sadly reminded by news from Africa on a regular basis) revolutions often result only in a change of players, but the game remains the same.
You might find it instructive to examine the history of ancient Rome around the time of Nero and Caligula. If you find history books dry reading, get a copy of 'I, Claudius' which presents the history of that period in narrative form and is both educational and entertaining.
This is not to say that opposition to a tyrannical government is hopeless - indeed, history with littered with examples of such leading to revolution. But currency alone is a weak check on a determined oppressor. And (as we are sadly reminded by news from Africa on a regular basis) revolutions often result only in a change of players, but the game remains the same.
Then take paper issued either by a foreign government or by a non-government.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Don't you trust the Swiss?
The Swiss Franc used to be 100% backed by gold. No longer, they removed backing and convertibility in 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard#Gold_as_a_reserve...
Interesting. Though I don't care about gold. Just that they don't inflate their currency too much.
The point of gold-backed currency is to prevent the government from devaluing currency without the people's knowledge. When government does devalue currency by refusing to redeem, at least the people know it.
There is a continuum of choices of money in terms of preservation of value with the safest being the dealing directly in gold, next, dealing with private guarantees (the market "guarantees" value), government guaranteed (the guarantee is political action), and finally, government-issued fiat. The further down the continuum, the harder it's to determine devaluation and stop it.
There is a continuum of choices of money in terms of preservation of value with the safest being the dealing directly in gold, next, dealing with private guarantees (the market "guarantees" value), government guaranteed (the guarantee is political action), and finally, government-issued fiat. The further down the continuum, the harder it's to determine devaluation and stop it.
Yeah, but that's the US and this is North Korea. Don't you see the difference?
> Stop issuing green bills-redeemable-for-X-amount-of-gold and start issuing red ones
The green ones are no longer gold backed, in that case. Gold-backing which can be revoked on a whim is not gold-backing in any interesting sense.
The green ones are no longer gold backed, in that case. Gold-backing which can be revoked on a whim is not gold-backing in any interesting sense.
The green ones are no longer gold backed, in that case.
In other words, gold-backed currency would be completely ineffective at restraining a meat-grinder like North Korea, which is what this thread was supposed to be about.
In other words, gold-backed currency would be completely ineffective at restraining a meat-grinder like North Korea, which is what this thread was supposed to be about.
The $40 equivalent cap is the unprecedented part. I don't see how you can argue that the inflation you see in relatively free-market economies can compare with that.
It's like deposit insurance in reverse. :(
@asciilifeform, I agree with your statement, which is why I would only advocate fiat currency by a govt. such as we have in the U.S. where the will of the people is (largely, at least) represented.
"a govt. such as we have in the U.S. where the will of the people is (largely, at least) represented"
Really? The majority of the American people believe that the top two economic priorities of our nation are to perpetuate endless war and give all the rest of the money to international bankers? I reject your premise and find it has no merit.
Really? The majority of the American people believe that the top two economic priorities of our nation are to perpetuate endless war and give all the rest of the money to international bankers? I reject your premise and find it has no merit.
> The majority of the American people believe that the top two economic priorities of our nation are to perpetuate endless war
The American people elected President Obama. Did you not see his speech about Afghanistan last night? He contradicts the endless war notion directly. I've looked it up for you: (23:00 to 25:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZLVqhsLgIw
The American people elected President Obama. Did you not see his speech about Afghanistan last night? He contradicts the endless war notion directly. I've looked it up for you: (23:00 to 25:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZLVqhsLgIw
That is very sad and reminds me of Soviet Union collapse.
Old people who saved their entire lives had bags full of money that suddenly became worthless ( well some used it as a toilet paper...).
It's a recurring theme in Russian movies from 90's , bag of useless cash.
PEOPLE ! The most important thing in your life is your close ones.
PEOPLE ! The most important thing in your life is your close ones.
This reads like an Onion news story. If only it was...
Vaguely similar currency-expiring policies have been suggested for the US, as well. See this column from Harvard's Gregory Mankiw in April of this year:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/business/economy/19view.ht...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/business/economy/19view.ht...
Very similar to the Pavlov monetary reform in the Soviet Union - I was just a kid but I can remember that:
"Within hours of the stunning announcement, massive lines had formed in the bitter, early-morning cold, waiting for banks to open. "People are afraid," says Vladimir Kuzmichov, a retired engineer nervously fingering his cash notes outside a Moscow bank. The Soviet state bank had just proclaimed that all 50- and 100-ruble notes would be banned and saving accounts would be partly frozen. Each person could exchange up to 1,000 rubles, the equivalent of less than four months' average pay, for small-denomination notes."
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1991/b319837.arc.htm
"Within hours of the stunning announcement, massive lines had formed in the bitter, early-morning cold, waiting for banks to open. "People are afraid," says Vladimir Kuzmichov, a retired engineer nervously fingering his cash notes outside a Moscow bank. The Soviet state bank had just proclaimed that all 50- and 100-ruble notes would be banned and saving accounts would be partly frozen. Each person could exchange up to 1,000 rubles, the equivalent of less than four months' average pay, for small-denomination notes."
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1991/b319837.arc.htm
WTF? - "North Korea's official news agency, TV station and major newspapers, which are monitored in South Korea and Japan, by late Wednesday still had not announced the currency exchange. Instead, authorities continued to transmit information through a closed-circuit system that feeds into speakers in homes and on streets but can't be monitored outside the country."
Can we just buy the country and let the leaders go into exile?
Can we just buy the country and let the leaders go into exile?
This illustrates why government should not be trusted with the control of money. What N. Korea is doing is massive theft, but so is the issuing of any fiat currency. The Federal Reserve is just a better thief than N. Korea because it steals at a slower, smoother rate, thus not totally killing the incentive to produce.
How different is this from officially devaluing the currency in situ? This has been done more than once in the USA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_do... )
Very different. This is capping, not just devaluating. If you're devaluating, let's say, by 10%, if you had $10 you will have $9 (it will be still $10 but it will be only worth $9), if you had $100 you will have $90, if you had $1000 you will have $900, etc.
In this case, they're capping as well at $40. If you had $10 you will still have only $9, but if you had $100 (or $1000 or a million) you will only have $40. That's it. That's not just taxing wealth, it's taking all the wealth away.
In this case, they're capping as well at $40. If you had $10 you will still have only $9, but if you had $100 (or $1000 or a million) you will only have $40. That's it. That's not just taxing wealth, it's taking all the wealth away.
At the same time there was no physical destruction of physical stuff, so it was wealth transfer not wealth destruction. In theory the country should be approximately as wealthy after this action as it was before it.
PS: Ignoring the intangibles.
PS: Ignoring the intangibles.
it's taking all the wealth away
It's taking the liquidity away. People can no longer trade amongst themselves; they can only "trade" with the government.
It's taking the liquidity away. People can no longer trade amongst themselves; they can only "trade" with the government.
So it's like devaluation, but with a "progressive" twist?
Well, yeah, infinitely progressive. It's like if the tax rate above a range was 100%.
Maybe I'm totally missing something, but how exactly do they expect their citizens to buy food now? If everyone suddenly has $40 and that's it, that sounds an awful lot like an awful lot of people are going to starve to death.
Well, there are several levels of answer to your question. First of all, there are no currency exchange there and people are not allowed to have a foreign currency (USD). So this "equivalence" is established with black market exchange rate which represents not the parity of prices of commodities but the (high) value of USD for the back market participants. It is normal since the black market participants are involved into contraband and they need foreign currency badly.
So for $ 40 in black market exchange rate you can get a lot of food there.
The second level of the problem is that the food/goods market there is government-controlled and for some goods there is no market at all - they are centrally distributed by the executives. So the amount of savings is not directly connected with the consumption level.
And the next point is that the person who have a job and a regular paycheck doesn't need to have a lot of savings in order not to starve. As I can understand the social contract of the socialists' states is the lack of unemployment, so anyone is employed even if his work is not needed.
They're supposed to depend on the government. Having $40 in your pocket would force you into the bread lines pretty quick, eh? And if you're in the bread lines it becomes a lot harder to actively protest the government....
Given that it's happened before there, I'd favor commodities to currency. It's hasn't been a bad strategy when your government is creating new money at rapid rate and calling it quantitative easing either.
The hard part is choosing the commodity, and figuring out how to store it. If you really think all hell is going to break loose, to the extent that the dollar might one day lose a bunch of its value overnight, then you are limited to stuff you can store in your own house, with all the attendant security problems.
This only affects paper cash though, right? So assuming they have most of their value in a bank, savings, stock, physical assets, or whatever it is they do in "DPRK," then they should be sort of okay.
But I have nooo idea how the banking thing works in DPRK. For all I know, everyone's "bank" is a box filled with cash. Which would make this currency switch suck a lot.
But I have nooo idea how the banking thing works in DPRK. For all I know, everyone's "bank" is a box filled with cash. Which would make this currency switch suck a lot.
Stock? Bank accounts? What planet do you live on?
I live on Earth. Also, North Korea uses the Korea Exchange:
http://www.mapsofworld.com/north-korea/economy/stock-exchang...
My point is that North Koreans, like anyone else in the world, communist or capitalist, have very little of their value in the form of paper currency. Whether it be goats, rice, gold, stock, bank accounts, etc.. They may value themselves based on a nationally recognized currency (the won?), but that doesn't mean that most of their value is in the form of liquid cash.
The theory of currency recognizes the value of a currency based on its level of trust (to be paid back). Soo in a country like North Korea (ESPECIALLY), citizens probably rarely maintain their worth in the form of paper currency. Because they don't trust it (whether they consciously realize it or not). If Americans don't trust the US dollar, you can imagine that North Koreans don't trust their own currency. Educated or not, brain washed or not, that's common sense.
Another example. I personally trust the American dollar very much. But how much do I have in the form of liquid cash? About $50 in my wallet. The rest of my worth is in assets, stock, savings, 401k, car, tv, intellect, etc. Just not liquid cash. So if America changed currencies all of the sudden, I'd say, "Rats, I just lost $50."
Sooo, again, my point is that this probably doesn't change much for North Koreans. Especially since most of them probably have very little personal wealth anyway (paper cash or other forms of value).
Heavens.
My point is that North Koreans, like anyone else in the world, communist or capitalist, have very little of their value in the form of paper currency. Whether it be goats, rice, gold, stock, bank accounts, etc.. They may value themselves based on a nationally recognized currency (the won?), but that doesn't mean that most of their value is in the form of liquid cash.
The theory of currency recognizes the value of a currency based on its level of trust (to be paid back). Soo in a country like North Korea (ESPECIALLY), citizens probably rarely maintain their worth in the form of paper currency. Because they don't trust it (whether they consciously realize it or not). If Americans don't trust the US dollar, you can imagine that North Koreans don't trust their own currency. Educated or not, brain washed or not, that's common sense.
Another example. I personally trust the American dollar very much. But how much do I have in the form of liquid cash? About $50 in my wallet. The rest of my worth is in assets, stock, savings, 401k, car, tv, intellect, etc. Just not liquid cash. So if America changed currencies all of the sudden, I'd say, "Rats, I just lost $50."
Sooo, again, my point is that this probably doesn't change much for North Koreans. Especially since most of them probably have very little personal wealth anyway (paper cash or other forms of value).
Heavens.
You are partially right. Not about the banking system (which is as much a joke and tool of the NK government as the currency), but insofar as you are better off if most of your assets are in the form of rice or some other physcial commodity. On the other hand, it's pretty likely that having more than a certain quantity of any commodity outside a government-operated warehouse is classified as 'illegal hoarding' and would be grounds for confiscation and imprisonment. North Korea practices such an extreme form of socialism that private property is a meaningless concept there. For all practical purposes it is a feudal society which claims all people, land and commodities as state property.
Since it was illegal to own foreign currency, a popular solution was to buy and store grain alcohol, on the assumption that no conceivable change in political system would ever make booze lose its value.
The approach had two main drawbacks - you needed a fair amount of space to store large quantities of ethanol, and you had to safeguard the storage room against the depredations of local aficionados.