economics as a field seems to be poisoned with fuzzy thinking. this guy says that the division of korea is an experiment that shows the results of communism vs

economics as a field seems to be poisoned with fuzzy thinking. this guy says that the division of korea is an experiment that shows the results of communism vs capitalism, essentially, and then concludes that the lack of a free market in NK is the reason that it is very poor. is it not relevant that north korea is currently and has been for quite some time the target of heavy sanctions by the united states and its allies? a centralized economy is perfectly capable of performing as well as a decentralized one, provided that it is centralized well. pointing to this implementation of a centralized economy does nothing to advance the argument against the viability of centralized economies. this guy says that the output of people is what determines the wealth of a country. this confuses me a little because isnt it true that if all the countries in the world were filled with productive people, there might not be enough demand for all of their services? would a large chunk of people not be left behind? and, according to my introductory economics textbook, if such demand exists that every person on this earth can be employed at a high salary, would that demand not have already been naturally met in this global free market of nations that has existed for some time now? and lastly, here in the united states, a very rich country, most people have relatively meaningless jobs. people are wildly overpaid for the work that they do here in many cases. there are professors of womens studies and social network or engagement experts who are paid a lot of money to essentially do nothing. i would be happy to be corrected.