--You mean like NK?--
"NK" has no:
Natural resources (gets all its goodies from China, which may be tiring of its charity)
An industrial base worthy of the name (i.e. early 50s Stalinist-style smokestack rubbish, producing nothing worthwhile)
Entrepeneurial class, "protestant ethic" (un-PC term I know), business schools etc.
Comparing North Korea to the USA is like comparing a tinker toy to a Boeing 747 (maybe this analogy isn't the best, but you get the point)
I do understand your point, I just disagree with your take on economics. the world is becoming a smaller more interconnected place every day, and those countiers that don't get on board are doomed to a Hobbesian existance.
(For what it's worth)
Before the start of WWII, what we call North Korea today was the industrial section of Korea, the southern part was the agricultural section.
"early 50s Stalinist-style smokestack rubbish, producing nothing worthwhile"> You hit the jackpot! That is one of the most vivid phrases I have read to sum up the entire iconic futility of Communism. I am going to use it and never fail to credit the name katyusha. I always wondered just what was going on in those factories, and what their purpose was besides pollution: I think they were just there for the photographs, mainly, and also to test out
the procedural complexities of smelting, refining, etc etc,
just sort of a massive photo-op for industrialization.
Those countries basically never produced anything that worked. Well, maybe samovars, and those little nesting egg-dolls.
The USSR also tried to base their economy on autarky. Are you going to tell us that the USSR had no natural resources? Autarky and planned economies go together. It is inconsistent with a free economy.