 We are back for another spirited discussion about current events through the economic lens here with the FECAST, and we are joined again this week with our glorious, fabulous panel of content providers and distributors. We have Brittany Hunter, Dan Sanchez, and Marianne March. It's been a crazy week with news, and I think the first thing that we really wanted to dive into is the rather unexpected, maybe close to peace in North Korea. And it's kind of been a whirlwind for us over these past few months with all kinds of tweets flying from the White House, all kinds of nuclear tests that apparently aren't happening anymore. What's happening in North Korea? This seems like it's happening very, very fast. Well, on April 27th, that Friday, there was a historic summit, the first in over 10 years between North and South Korea, where Moon Jae and Kim Jong-un came together, along with other leaders, and announced that they're declaring that there'll be no more war on the Korean Peninsula. So this is after the war that kind of had a ceasefire in the 50s. There was an armistice, but there was never any formal declaration of the end of the war. And now these two leaders are coming together, crossing this really funny looking threshold on the DMZ, and they're shaking hands, and they're going to have tea with each other. And this is, again, very fast. Yeah, they had a very landmark moment where they took turns, each one crossing over the border into their respective countries, and even holding hands, like just literally holding hands. It's really, it's exciting. I think that we've been seeing little hints from North Korea for a while now that, in retrospect, now that we have that 2020 vision, that first we saw Kim Jong-un being much more accepting of black markets, for example, than his father was. And then we saw representatives from North Korea at the Olympics this year. It's exciting. And it was still, even though there have been these little hints, it's unexpected and great, great news. And of course, President Trump is set to meet with Kim Jong-un sometime later, either this month or maybe early next month. We'll see if that actually, that'll be fun on Twitter, that'll be fun everywhere that there's coverage of this sort of event. Well, Dennis Rodman be there as well. That's a big question. The main envoy. It's interesting. And I think there are lots of things that we can take from this. And one of them is just sort of a mention of one of our best articles on feed.org of all time. And in fact, it was around before feed.org even existed, is by our founder, Leonard Reid. And he was writing about a potential dialogue he was having as the conscience with his 19-year-old self as this 19-year-old self was laid dying on the 38th parallel, which was, of course, the line of demarcation between the North and the South back before the war had armistice. And this is an imaginary dialogue. It's called conscience on the battlefield. We're going to have a link to the actual article in the video. So be sure to click on it. And it goes through line by line, thought by thought. Why are you here? Why are you lying in a battlefield in a foreign land defending ostensibly your nation and your country and your people against this threat of communism? What kind of control do you, as the individual who is fighting in this war, what kind of responsibility do you have for finding yourself here in this war? And one of the things that I think is particularly salient that he talks about later on in the dialogue, he says, to fight evil with evil is only to make evil general, which means if you end up trying to fight bad ideas with force, with military means, that you are then, in turn, making those people with those bad ideas not learn from their mistakes, not understand why their ideas are bad, but you're mobilizing them against you. And so the whole idea of fighting communism preemptively in Korea, which was, of course, the reason the Americans got into the war, the reason why we still have troops there today, why South Korea and North Korea are at each other's throats when it comes to nuclearization on the peninsula, is because of American involvement going way back to the 50s. This essay goes through point by point why you cannot shirk the responsibility from the individual, the self, and say, well, it was the president of the United States who sent me here. And it was a really brave thing for Leonard Reed to write, because you might think that as anti-communist, as Leonard Reed was, and as fee it has been since its founding, that an institution that's all about defending markets, well, a lot of critics might say, well, that's what the Korean War is all about. The communists in the north of the country, that they are enemies of freedom, and so we should support the South militarily, and we should keep fighting until communism is driven out of the peninsula. But he didn't take that position, that he really thought that it would be generalizing evil, and that the way that you fight against bad ideas is with good ideas, and not through war, which is his own bad idea. And inspiring individuals to seek that personal cultivation themselves, again, not through force, but through learning. Yeah, I was going to say, in leading by example, right, you know, you look at the domino effect in that whole era, and how much could have been done if we had focused on home and showing what we can do without having to meddle, because like you said, good ideas don't require force, and trying to fight a bad idea with force is not going to help you. Right. I really like this quote from his his write up of it. He says, war is liberty's greatest enemy and the deadly foe of economic progress. And so it is the enemy in liberty-oriented countries, for one thing. So the more we have gone to war, the more that the United States has gone to war, the more central planning that we've had at home, because of that, because of the regimentation of the economy and rationing things like that. And in general, the central government getting more power because of the emergency of war. But it's also liberty's greatest enemy in countries like North Korea, because the assaults in terms of trade wars, in terms of sanctions, in terms of diplomatic pressure, in terms of military war that go against a country like North Korea, it actually strengthens the regime. Like the idea is that it's supposed to topple the regime ultimately, but it actually makes them stronger because it gives them a bigger role in society by, because the people become afraid of the foreign boogeyman, so they rally around the flag, and they give more powerful power to the dictator. Well, this was actually kind of similar to a post that we redid today, that we reposted a piece that you wrote about Venezuela, where you're talking about sanctions and how military and economic sanctions that the United States and other countries might put on these tyrannies, on these dictatorships, can actually help to embolden those very tyrannies against the US. Well, look at Cuba. Look at how long we've been at war with Cuba. And quite honestly, if you're a Cuban citizen and you're sitting over there, you're not thinking how bad your own dictator is, because one, you don't have a lot of power over that. It is so much easier to blame a foreign enemy that you can't see, but he's responsible for the reason you don't have medicine or you don't have this or that. You're rallying the people together, like Dan says, and you're making them a more formidable foe. And this is one reason, like you said, that Cuban embargo has been such a miserable failure, is it's not allowed us to raise any friends on that island. We're not leading by example. Right. And it goes both ways that we're talking about war, I mean war being bad for free trade, but actually peace is really good for free trade. And I think there's a quote that is often attributed to Bostia, but it really isn't Bostia, is it? The origins are a little hazy, but the quote is that when goods don't cross borders, armies will. And there are references even as far back as Montesquieu, but it's so true. And I think one thing that's interesting to note about differences between North and South Korea following the armistice in 1953, North Korea actually started to rebuild their economy faster than South Korea. But because they took this policy approach called Juche, which basically means self-reliance, it ended up crippling their economy. And then as we've seen, South Korea, their economy has grown much faster. And it's not just about iPhones or money in the bank. There are health implications for this. So I pulled some numbers for you as I am want. You are usually doing that for us, always giving us the fact bombs. Because I think it's important to think about some of these numbers. So for example, infant mortality rate in North Korea for every 1000 births, 22 babies die. Wow. Compare that to their neighbor to the South, three out of every 1000. And there's a height difference too, isn't there, between people in the North and people in the South. Yeah, it's a little tough to nail down some of these numbers on North Korea, because let's be honest, they're not always the most reliable. Well, you don't even need the numbers. You just need a satellite view. I mean, if you look at North Korea versus South Korea, you could tell just by the fact that North Korea is in the dark from space. Well, we're going to get back into some of these other elements of this conversation. But we're going to take a quick break and we'll be right back with the FEECAST. One year ago, over 700 students, scholars, philanthropists, and business leaders from five continents gathered in Atlanta for a brand new one of a kind event, FEECON. But get ready, this year is going to be even bigger. At FEECON, we celebrate inspiring entrepreneurs, innovators, and wealth creators while helping you set your own path to personal and professional success. And it was awesome. All around, it's been like a vacation. It will become a must attend event next year as well. I'm not going to wait for my invitation, I'm going to invite myself, I guess. With FEECON 2018, FEE is taking the conference experience to a whole new level. With eight incredible tracks, more than 50 jam-packed sessions featuring over 100 electrifying speakers and vast networking opportunities. FEECON 2018 is sure to offer an unforgettable experience for everyone. It's the must attend event this summer and it's all happening at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in beautiful downtown Atlanta from June 7th through 9th. Available tickets are going fast, so register now at FEECON.org and find out how you can set your path and change the world. And we're back to the FEECAST. One of the things we were talking about previously is you mentioned how North Korea grew a little bit faster at the very beginning of the end of the war when South Korea and North Korea were different countries ruled by different governments. And it reminds me of a quote also from that essay by Leonard Reed that we were mentioning a moment ago, Conscience on the Battlefield. He writes, let millions be free of any slave master, let their energies be released, let them work alone or competitively or cooperatively as the mutuality of their interests suggests. And many people think they observe a great chaos, but in fact he describes exactly how that chaos can become ordered. Spontaneous order. There it is again and we'll talk about that from Hayek. I think it's important to kind of mention that quickly. What is spontaneous order? Spontaneous order is the belief that we don't need central planners, that in fact central planners inhibit our ability to grow, that when people are left to their own devices and able to serve their own self-interest but also create value and serve others, peace is the default. And so instead of central planners, you have individual planners planning for themselves and their plans are actually compatible with each other because they adapt to each other, they trade with each other, they cooperate and an order emerges without having to be imposed from above. And this was pioneered in those terms by Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek but of course has been talked about for centuries by people like Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith when Adam Smith was talking about the invisible hand. The invisible hand is spontaneous order. Exactly. Actually, all these different forces coming together toward an end that they didn't individually plan that raises everyone up. But through self-interest, mutual self-interest, even if you want to call it that, we are able to serve each other's needs without authority. A lot of people realize that you can't centrally plan an economy but they think that they can centrally plan global peace and security. That's a good point. And so the idea that we can force through war and power North Korea to liberalize is really wrong. So there's this great article that we have on the site called Want Peace Promote Free Trade. And it just makes three points. It says, first, trade creates international goodwill because trade helps to humanize the people that you trade with. Unlike what we have in Cuba because of the embargo. Exactly. Yes. Second, trade gives nations an economic incentive to avoid war. Unlike with North Korea at the moment. Exactly. Because you care about your customers and humanize them. And not want to bomb them. Right. Because you need them. But you need them alive to buy your stuff. You don't want to bomb your customers and you don't want to bomb your supply chains either. Exactly. Pure self-interest. So when you guys were talking about spontaneous order, I was imagining our listeners rolling their eyes and thinking how naive are these people. But I think that it requires more faith to trust that a person or a group of people can set these things in order. I think that's a bigger leap of faith than trusting that people will dig into their humanity and will follow their own self-interest to set things in order. Just along that line, I mean that's again to quote Hayek, that's the knowledge problem, right? It's impossible for central planners to plan peace, to plan economies. They don't have all the information necessary. So to even, it's pretentious, really, to believe that you can do that. Well, Hayek said the basic unit of planning has to be the individual. But when you go a little further up that, you get the corporation, right? And this week, there's actually been some news that perhaps one of the best-known corporations in the world is planning on building one of their stores in Pyongyang. Well, they're not planning that quite yet, but there's interest from Korea, from the Korean Peninsula. And this is of course a McDonald's. That's right. The Golden Arches. And in fact, there's that theory that Tom Friedman had, the Golden Arches theory of conflict resolution, which is if there's a McDonald's in one country, it's highly unlikely, maybe even impossible in recorded history, that one country with a McDonald's has attacked another with a McDonald's. Which goes right back to that Montesquieu and Bastiat. Yeah. So to go back to the article that Dan just referenced, want peace, promote free trade, which is by Julina Dornie on the Fee website, he talks about an empirical study done by Patrick McDonald from the University of Texas at Austin, where he found that protectionism, tariffs, quotas, et cetera, actually increase conflict. For the countries that are in the bottom 10% of protectionism, they're 70% less likely to engage in new conflicts. If goods don't cross borders, armies will. There's a quote, and Broadway does not always get it right, but one of my favorites. But for you, it kind of does most of the time. I ignore a lot of it, but there's one line in a song from Rent that always struck me, and it was the opposite of war isn't peace, it's creation. And that has always stuck with me, even before I cared about foreign policy, because that's true. If you're creating wealth, if you're building a McDonald's, you don't want to create conflict with people. Right. But that's so interesting too, that the opposite of war is not peace. I guess maybe what they're saying is it's not stagnant, nothing happening, but a lot of activity in creative energy. Yeah, exactly. It's creative energy. It's exactly the Bastiat quote or what we're attributing to Bastiat. You're not going to attack someone who's creating something for you. That's right. So isolationism, if that's your only goal that like, well, the two sides are just going to leave each other alone. They're not going to trade with each other, and they're not going to fight with each other. Well, that often doesn't work out because people start to think, well, how am I going, especially because isolation breeds poverty, then they become poor, and they think, okay, the only way that I can benefit from my neighboring country is by stealing its wealth and by invading it. So you mentioned a moment ago, Dan, this notion of isolationism, which has gotten a lot of screen time lately through a movie that I think not everyone has seen, but pretty much the entire country, aside from a few people. Mary Ann and I being those few people. Black Panther. And something really special that we have coming out here in the next couple of days. Actually, by the time people watch this, this is out. It's a new episode of our Out of Frame series led by Sean Malone, our director of media, and it goes into Black Panther. And it goes into why isolationism and the fact that Wakanda, the land that they're talking about, because of course this episode is called What's Wrong with Wakanda, that Wakanda is an inconceivably advanced civilization because it's so isolated, because it has no trade. It's practically invisible from the rest of the world. And yet when you go inside of it, they've got access to this sort of mythological mineral called vibranium that allows them to create this incredibly advanced technology. But the reason that we argue in the video that Wakanda is so inconceivable is the fact that they are so isolated, that they don't have those trading relationships outside of a very small part of land that they happen to occupy. And I would recommend this video. In fact, we have a link to it right underneath the video here. And please check it out. Let us know what you think. I think it plays in really well to everything that we're talking about here today. Yeah. I mean, when you have technology, technology alone is not enough. You need trade and you need capital investment. And so you really need to be connected to a global network and so that you can not just rely on vibranium, but all the resources, the complementary resources that have to be combined with the vibranium, if that existed, to create these technological wonders. And it really, Matt Ridley calls it the collective brain, that the bigger the trade network, the bigger humanities collective brain and vice versa. And so you have really isolated, when you have really isolated countries, the collective brain is so small that it really cannot sustain economic development to any degree. This goes back to when we were talking about Tasmania last week, where the Russian happened. That's actually referenced in the video as well. So I hope everyone checks that out. No spoilers, right? No spoilers in the video. So you can actually watch it. We're going to take a quick break and we're going to be right back with the feedcast. Hi, everyone. I am Anna Jane Parrell and I'm the program manager here at the Foundation for Economic Education. We still have one amazing day camp open in San Antonio, Texas that you can register for right now. If you are a high school student ages 14 to 17, local to the San Antonio area, then check out our program, Economics in the Real World at Ronald Reagan High School. June 25th through 28th, we have four jam-packed days of educational lectures, social activities and personal development experience. If you want to discover new ideas, build friendships, and most importantly, have fun, then check out fee.org slash seminars. Welcome back to the feedcast. We were talking before we broke about various conflicts that the U.S. has been involved in and China and Vietnam and Korea as well. And it reminded me of a story that I learned when I was in college, actually. And this kind of goes to a couple of different points that we've been discussing. And I'll tell you the story. In 1792, the British were looking to expand their trading tentacles in Asia. And so they sent a very high-level emissary, an ambassador. His name was Lord McCarthy. And he arrived in the court of the Qianlong Emperor. And this was an emperor during the Qing dynasty, again, very end of the 18th century. And he presented an opportunity to the court. And he said, we would love to establish normal trade relations with you, emperor. And the emperor said, well, you know, I'll think about it. And then McCarthy ended up showing him a bunch of the wares that the British would be able to share, including compasses, including other mechanical devices. And, you know, the Qianlong Emperor was kind of looking at him very skeptically about this. And in the end, they didn't get these normalized trade relations. That's for another day as to how that actually happened. But the Qianlong Emperor wrote to George III, who was the king of Great Britain at the time. And he wrote to him the reason why he didn't want to grant these normal trade relations. And he basically said, our celestial empire, which of course was the way that he referred to himself at that point, possesses all things in prolific abundance and lacks no product that is not made within our borders. And that was one of the reasons it was this internal and basic need to make everything within that country that made them feel like they deserved and they were okay to close off their borders to any type of trade from the outside. And so this this protectionism that we're talking about is not new. And in fact, the Qianlong Emperor believed that everything that Britain had to bring to them originated originally in China. It came from China and was only now coming back to them. So it was this hubristic idea that we can make everything here. We don't have to specialize. We don't have to grow the market in order to make our people prosper. It was very hubristic. It was also making him feel very good. But it set the road and set them on the path to a much more violent and not peaceful way of trading between the West and China. So I thought that was a very interesting story to kind of set up something that's happened in the news lately, very recently in fact, whereby there's been another Twitter storm. As there always is. It seems like there always is. But yeah, so a girl from Utah, which is where I am from, so I hold that in high respect. She has been getting a lot of critiques online because she wore a Japanese style dress to her prom. Chinese style dress. So sorry about that. Chinese style dress to her prom posted a lovely picture of herself and then one person tweeted it. What was it? My culture is not your prom. And of course, this once again sparked the debate about cultural appropriation. Now, one thing I think is really important to remember, especially coming from Utah is one, she loved this dress. It had nothing to do with where it was from other than that she admired it. She thought it was beautiful. The pattern was gorgeous. But also, there's a certain modesty about it that in Utah is required for school dances. So you have to have a high neckline. You have to have sleeves. I know that my mom was rushing before my prom to sew sleeves on last minute because you can't find these dresses. But here was this gorgeous dress with a gorgeous pattern, hit all the right specs, everything was covered. She thought she had done a great job. And now she's getting all this feedback that it's just terrible. And another thing to note, she actually did research before buying the dress, found out it symbolized female empowerment. I was really excited about this. She did her research. Beautiful red dress. Beautiful red dress. And a very traditional color in China. And because it wasn't a normal prom dress, because it was this traditional Chinese color, traditional Chinese style cut everything else, she's getting this feedback. And it kind of brings up the whole conversation, like you said, of cultural appropriation all over again. Who was actually beating her up on Twitter about this? Americans. So that's the funny part about it. There have actually been some newspapers in mainland China praising her, calling it cultural appreciation, saying this is great. We love that you're sharing our culture. Indeed. We have an article on fee.org called cultural appropriation is love. And it's just making the argument that really when it's examples like this, it really is expressing affection for the culture. I mean, obviously, there are cases when people are mocking other people's cultures. And that comes from a completely different place. And it's a completely different situation. But yeah, the idea of getting offended, it kind of makes me wonder, sometimes it comes from a better place and sometimes it comes from a good place. Marianne, when it comes from a sincere place, what do you think is the motivation for people who are concerned about cultural appropriation? I'm glad you asked, because I think it's important to give a little context for what the heck is cultural appropriation? Why do people care about this? And I think that people think about cultural appropriation as being the adoption of certain heritage aspects, whether it's clothing or jewelry or language, and those things being adopted by a majority culture without a proper respect being paid to the original heritage. And people think that it's not harmless cross-pollination. People who care about cultural appropriation see it as an outrageous double standard. So I think that there's concern that when a majority culture is taking practices from another culture, that they're just taking them to seem cool. And there's not this respect being paid for people who have been marginalized in that community for the things that they wear, like hoop earrings. But to me, it seems that that would help alleviate marginalization. It seems that, like we were talking about earlier, that trade humanizes people because it familiarizes them, that it makes them seem less alien. And so it would seem to me that if there is some cross-pollination between cultures, that the differences are not so stark that, if anything, that it would help to reduce marginalization. Yeah. Personally, I agree with you. I think that when we talk about cultural appropriation, the problem isn't that this girl wore a beautiful dress. The problem isn't that white women sometimes wear cornrows. The problem is that minority cultures are demonized and they're not, and that they're held in contempt. But then people sometimes will want to use certain aspects of their culture to seem cool or to be edgy. But the people within those communities, it's just their culture. They can't, they don't have that same opportunity to be cool using those things. There's also an interesting element to this about political correctness versus politeness, right? We have a video actually on that very topic in our Common Sense soapbox series where we talk about, you know, there's a certain general politeness that we should understand and we should appreciate and we should exhibit and express by not, for example, wearing this red dress as a Halloween costume, right? Because that's a caricature, that smockery that is fetishizing this cultural element, this attire. On the other hand, wearing it in a respectful way, being polite, understanding that this is again going with the dress, something that can be worn for a formal occasion, and given the utmost respect, that doesn't necessarily take away anything from the original culture. In fact, that is then honoring it. And there are all kinds of, I think, very interesting discussions going along in this area. But the main point that I think about when I think of cultural appropriation is cultural appropriation is culture. Because there's no cultural development. There's only static culture if there's not this cross-pollination. And of course, it must be done respectfully. It must be done without engaging in mockery. But if you treat these elements with the respect that they're due, there's no removal of that element from the original culture that it came from. You're only adding to your own culture. At that point, you're just adding to your own. I don't see the harm in that. But yeah. Go ahead. I think it's really kind of zero-sum thinking because you're talking about, you know, oh, well, they want to be cool. Well, what's wrong with being cool? Is it hurting your own coolness for someone else to be cool? And I don't think so. Because like you say, it doesn't do anything to take away. And I think it gets at the heart of what property rights really are about. And that property rights really are about scarcity. And it's just the fact that certain scarce things, like this cup, I can't drink out of it. And Brittany drank out of it at the same time. So we need property rights for that. Whereas when it comes to a certain type of garb, I can wear that garb. And she can wear that garb at the same time. And it doesn't hurt each other's ability to do so. And it really reminds me kind of of intellectual property, this notion that you own a way of doing things. Yeah. And, you know, we've talked about that in the past as well. And you've got a great article describing what intellectual property is. We should put that in the comments as well. But I hope that she gets invited to China to experience that culture firsthand. It seems like she's got a lot of fans there now. So, you know, maybe this will be a good trip for her and see what China's really like. Well, unfortunately, we have to leave it here. I do want to mention one last thing. And that is an out-of-frame episode on jazz. And it's entitled How Jazz Smashed Cultural Barriers. And it's all about how this musical form that is considered quintessentially American came into being by all kinds of borrowing and remixing and appropriation appreciation. So, we'll put that in the description as well. We're going to take a break here for this week on The FeeCast. We hope that you have a fabulous weekend and a great week ahead. See you soon.