Josh Posted July 22, 2023 Posted July 22, 2023 54 minutes ago, Strannik said: Do you know anything about Plaza accord and it's consequences to Japan? Nothing more than Futon previously discussed.
Strannik Posted July 22, 2023 Author Posted July 22, 2023 16 minutes ago, Josh said: Nothing more than Futon previously discussed. It was a big one of the several reasons why Japan crashed. Vassalage at work.
futon Posted July 22, 2023 Posted July 22, 2023 17 minutes ago, Strannik said: It was a big one of the several reasons why Japan crashed. Vassalage at work. https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/40753-the-middle-east-war/&do=findComment&comment=1534708
Strannik Posted July 22, 2023 Author Posted July 22, 2023 3 hours ago, futon said: https://www.tanknet.org/index.php?/topic/40753-the-middle-east-war/&do=findComment&comment=1534708 Sorry, don't buy that. As I said - not the only, but the major one.
Josh Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 11 hours ago, Strannik said: It was a big one of the several reasons why Japan crashed. Vassalage at work. Perhaps Japan crashed because of that policy (a quick google search reveals opposing views) but it suffered lost decades because its labor force peaked in 1997. The working population was in decline and never recovered to this day. GDP is tied to the labor force size and productivity per capita. The Japanese workforce peaked shortly after their crash and they were already at incredibly high productivity per worker with practically nowhere to go in terms of efficiency. US vassalage wasn’t going to change that outcome in the long run, and one could argue US vassalage was necessary for security reasons. In any case, they could always have said no. That would obviously have consequences too, but the US was hardly going to invade over the issue.
Strannik Posted July 23, 2023 Author Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Josh said: Perhaps Japan crashed because of that policy (a quick google search reveals opposing views) but it suffered lost decades because its labor force peaked in 1997. The working population was in decline and never recovered to this day. GDP is tied to the labor force size and productivity per capita. The Japanese workforce peaked shortly after their crash and they were already at incredibly high productivity per worker with practically nowhere to go in terms of efficiency. US vassalage wasn’t going to change that outcome in the long run, and one could argue US vassalage was necessary for security reasons. In any case, they could always have said no. That would obviously have consequences too, but the US was hardly going to invade over the issue. You don't think there is a problem with the "but anyway their population..." argument - that if there was no crash then perhaps population aging would take a different trend? I don't disagree that insular character of Japanese society, hostile to emigration is a permanent constraint on their growth, but your "quick google search views" are basically self-serving. Edited July 23, 2023 by Strannik
Strannik Posted July 23, 2023 Author Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Josh said: US vassalage wasn’t going to change that outcome in the long run, and one could argue US vassalage was necessary for security reasons. In any case, they could always have said no. That would obviously have consequences too, but the US was hardly going to invade over the issue. This is just preposterous. The Japan's ruling party was as basically a US client or as close as a definition of it. Edited July 23, 2023 by Strannik
futon Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 13 hours ago, Strannik said: Sorry, don't buy that. As I said - not the only, but the major one. Pardon me for not taking your disagreement as not shallow in unrevealed thought. Edited July 23, 2023 by futon
futon Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 6 hours ago, Strannik said: This is just preposterous. The Japan's ruling party was as basically a US client or as close as a definition of it. When GHQ over through the Imperial Japanese government, they carried out "freedom" by releasing political prisoners. A small group though, and of communists sort. A few years go by, and the communists started gaining influence in Japan. Seeing Korean population fracturing at the communists/non-communists cuts, so too it would look to be so for Japan. GHQ did not so much request but rather simply rolled back on full freedom and didn't stop the group which had many former Imperial Japanese officials remove the Japanese communists from positions. That would go on through the 1950s. Receiving CIA money doesn't mean they were doing so on CIA's requests. It only enabled them. In essence, both Imperial Japan and the US were anti-communists, until FDR, and thus the SU pack got a positive from that way of things. Out goes FDR and along with the SU the only remaining rival, US anti-communists aspects takes prominant role, and backs many of the people who worked in the former Imperial government (in Japan, and to mention again, South Korea as well mind you silent readers). Now if only FDR and company's influence wasn't so much as even to the extent of requesting the SU to invade Manchuria with having half of Korea on top of it). Can still draw the line of lucky at keeping Hokkaido away from the reds. Or how DPRK couldn't get the rest of Korea in 1950. How much more unlucky can it go? Well, letting the Japanese communists have a free hand maybe would be start for that. A lot of criticism can be directed at the US in this period immediately after the war. But fundamentally, the top security concern had been communism on the Asian mainland that have now transitioned into somewhat different forms (PRC and DPRK) but left unchange the security concern, not so with the basic characteristic US in general. The criticism at the US is for the handling of the situation involving these two fundamentally primary security concerns. So that's how maybe it appears that Japan just complies with much US desire. It's because the originating interest inside the Japanese conincide. Obviously there are some differences where some Japanese (informed ones, onlong with the nuts.. not just the nuts) *cough* Yasukuni Shrine *cough*. Maybe CIA money went into that too (/sarc). Well a buck's worth actually wouldn't be that surprising given how knotty things can become, but that point is there. The PRC could change some things to get trust from Japan but CCP is as it is so its a long path. Sentiment on US bases in Okinawa was particularly low in the 1990s and 2000s. If PRC presented itself not so threatening, then the though of do we still need the bases there in Okinawa keeps going. That could very well have changed. Maybe Hu Jintao was a possible start for a more trustworthy PRC. Afterall it was also when Ma from Taiwan was taking so closer steps. Senkaku islands situation in 2010-2012 or Liu Xiaobo's imprisonment could have been just a hiccup. But then Xi came in at 2012 and that ended for sure any prospect of the PRC being a possible alternative to the US so long as not losing in deterrance against might makes right predicament. Edited July 23, 2023 by futon
urbanoid Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 7 hours ago, Strannik said: You don't think there is a problem with the "but anyway their population..." argument - that if there was no crash then perhaps population aging would take a different trend? I don't disagree that insular character of Japanese society, hostile to emigration is a permanent constraint on their growth, but your "quick google search views" are basically self-serving. You see the same demographic trends in other East Asian countries - ROK, Taiwan, even China - is the US responsible for all of those too? Hell, India just recently fell below the replacement level. Japan was simply first and if you look up the charts their TFR was already on a downward spiral long before Plaza Accords.
Strannik Posted July 23, 2023 Author Posted July 23, 2023 3 hours ago, futon said: ... ended for sure any prospect of the PRC being a possible alternative to the US so long as not losing in deterrance against might makes right predicament. Not even funny. But Japan's actions in the expected future US/China conflict will cause the change.
Strannik Posted July 23, 2023 Author Posted July 23, 2023 1 hour ago, urbanoid said: You see the same demographic trends in other East Asian countries - ROK, Taiwan, even China - is the US responsible for all of those too? Hell, India just recently fell below the replacement level. Japan was simply first and if you look up the charts their TFR was already on a downward spiral long before Plaza Accords. Don't twist my words. Do you see ROK (who has larger negative population trend than Japan last year) crashing? Not everything is due to a single factor.
Strannik Posted July 23, 2023 Author Posted July 23, 2023 And it's a beautiful morning in Germany I hear.
urbanoid Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 1 minute ago, Strannik said: Don't twist my words. Do you see ROK (who has larger negative population trend than Japan last year) crashing? Not everything is due to a single factor. Maybe not really crash, but it's likely going to bite them in the ass in the future. While the trend in ROK is even worse (Japan stabilized at TFR 1,3-1,4, in ROK it already fell below 1), they still haven't really suffered from the shrinking workforce yet. Their share of citizens older than 65 is substantially smaller than Japan's, IIRC ~20 vs ~30%), so the pension system also isn't that costly - yet. Of course with the 30 years of technological progress it might be somehow easier to alleviate the problem with automation than it was for Japan in the 90s.
futon Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Strannik said: Not even funny. But Japan's actions in the expected future US/China conflict will cause the change. Which brings up the other matter is that it's centered on Taiwan more than anything. Taiwan, whose first democratically elected president once served in the IJA and many years later after serving his term as president, has visited Yasukuni Shrine to pray for his brother lost in the war. A man who US and other western media have been very shy about giving credit to playing a big role guiding and leading the country to democracy after decades of dictatorship. But to not play that too far, it was US carriers that stood by Taiwan as the PRC was throwing a fit and shooting off lots of BMs and rockets into the nearby sea during that first election. Taiwan has a strong and great Chinese influence heritage and has an inheretance from the Nationalists Chinese and its history which includes its war history however it is also so with Japan and often shown and so with many things consider, there's more than just strategic interest in defending Taiwan. As far as the talking head patriots go, Japan must defend Taiwan. Whether or not the rest of the masses feel so is the balancing matter and can be the ultimate determining factor, but inside the core where these international affair literate people are, the desire to keep Taiwan safe is very strong, so it can't be counted out. If the PRC wants to blockade Taiwan, it has to send its forces through Japanese islands where anti-ship and air defense missiles have been deployed. If the PRC wants to target US base assets, it'll likely have to go through not just US patriots but also Japanese defenses. If the PLAN wants to send a sub through the first island chain, there's a fleet of JMSDF anti-sub nessels and MPAs to take into account. If the PRC wants to surround Taiwan with mines, there's JMSDF's minewarfare fleet to take into account. Taiwan is in limbo sort of "part of China". But in the whole history of Taiwan, it has never been part of the PRC. That's really the perspective the PRC probably should get used to and accept. If they don't like that big radar on Taiwan, than they can focus their diplomacy on just the radar, not the whole "Taiwan is run by renegade, national rejuvination will happen one way or the other". Edited July 23, 2023 by futon
Strannik Posted July 23, 2023 Author Posted July 23, 2023 52 minutes ago, Strannik said: And it's a beautiful morning in Germany I hear. And the insult to the injury: WSJ: "Germany Is Dragging Down Europe's Economy" Politico: "Europe’s economic engine is stalling: Germany deindustrializes" FT: "Germany's economic model needs updating"
Josh Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 11 hours ago, Strannik said: You don't think there is a problem with the "but anyway their population..." argument - that if there was no crash then perhaps population aging would take a different trend? I don't disagree that insular character of Japanese society, hostile to emigration is a permanent constraint on their growth, but your "quick google search views" are basically self-serving. I think GDP is literally tied to productivity and that reductions in work force require a increase in productivity per capita (actually per worker) to even maintain current levels. So yes, I think sans decreasing work force, the Japanese economy would have recovered per the normal behavior of a western economy. 11 hours ago, Strannik said: This is just preposterous. The Japan's ruling party was as basically a US client or as close as a definition of it. So? I'm not seeing the issue. It was an elected government. The US didn't hold a gun to Japan's head. It's not like the US seized an outlying island or funded and equipped two proxy rebel countries inside the home islands, and then invaded when all of that didn't work to their satisfaction. Edited July 23, 2023 by Josh
Josh Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Strannik said: Don't twist my words. Do you see ROK (who has larger negative population trend than Japan last year) crashing? Not everything is due to a single factor. The issue isn't absolute population; the issue is labor force number. Different countries skew to different demographics age wise and produce different labor imbalances (see China having massive youth unemployment while also having a labor shortage of skill workers - that is work force imbalance). Yes, I fully expect the ROK to hit a hard wall in the next decade or so. That it hasn't yet isn't proof that population has no bearing on economics. Modern economics are based on the assumption of a rising population. The idea of "investment" and especially state sponsored retirement plans are explicitly tied to the notion that there will always be an increasing labor force and there will be a ratio of workers to retirees that heavily favors the workers such that paying for the retired isn't a burden. Global flatlining population growth is going to force the entire developed world to rethink its finances (or potentially immigration policies) given that assumption will no longer apply in many countries. Edited July 23, 2023 by Josh
futon Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 Other sub-sections in the population matter to the economy as well, not just the workforce size. There are many jobs that can function with same workforce but have reduced size of market size to sell to. That means less profit than otherwise. For example, many Japanese movies get most revenue in the domestic market. Some food like the instant noodle type can be massed produced easily with few workers. The greater the consumer market, the more revenue. Probably the same for Japanese mini cars such as Daihatsu brand. I can't recall seeing a Daihatsu car when In the US. It's for narrow Japanese neighborhood roads. Education is a big one. Some schools have shut down not due to shortage of teacher labor but due do fewer kids in a giving school zone. Domestic consumer market size matters as well.
Strannik Posted July 23, 2023 Author Posted July 23, 2023 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Josh said: Modern economics are based on the assumption of a rising population. The idea of "investment" and especially state sponsored retirement plans are explicitly tied to the notion that there will always be an increasing labor force and there will be a ratio of workers to retirees that heavily favors the workers such that paying for the retired isn't a burden. Global flatlining population growth is going to force the entire developed world to rethink its finances (or potentially immigration policies) given that assumption will no longer apply in many countries. Just two examples: NY workforce labor decreased in last 10 yrs, while it's GDP increased. US as a whole country growth isn't a linear function of the participating workforce either. Your arguments are simplistic and solely rely on the extensive model of economic expansion. But enough of all this derailment. Edited July 23, 2023 by Strannik
Josh Posted July 23, 2023 Posted July 23, 2023 21 minutes ago, Strannik said: Just two examples: NY workforce labor decreased in last 10 yrs, while it's GDP increased. US as a whole country growth isn't a linear function of the participating workforce either. Your arguments are simplistic and solely rely on the extensive model of economic expansion. But enough of all this derailment. I'm sure exceptions can be cherry picked, and NYC has a weird economic dynamic since it is the financial capital of the US. I can certainly cite numerous examples of cities losing population and losing economic growth at the same time. If you think GDP is divorced from the size of the labor force, we'll agree to disagree and move on.
Strannik Posted July 23, 2023 Author Posted July 23, 2023 3 minutes ago, Josh said: If you think GDP is divorced from the size of the labor force, we'll agree to disagree and move on. Let's move on. I am not fighting your reductio ad absurdum lines.
Strannik Posted July 26, 2023 Author Posted July 26, 2023 (edited) Macron, despite the ask, (as any other G7 leader) will not be invited to the BRICS summit Edited July 26, 2023 by Strannik
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now