NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/environm/14159

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-31 | 4.1 KB

Xref: sparky sci.environment:14159 talk.politics.misc:65870 alt.activism:19939
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!mips!suntory.mti.sgi.com!mpolen
From: [e-mail] (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: sci.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Idiotic Japan Bashing
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Dec 92 17:41:28 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 83
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Michael Friedman) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|>
|> >|> So?  That does not mean that they can plan 100 years in advance.
|>
|> >Sure it does.  They can say:
|>
|> >    We will defeat the americans in basic manufacturing, even if
|> >    it takes 100 years.  We will enact special legislation, interfere
|> >    with their governmental and commercial organizations, undercut
|> >    them, steal their patents, and take advantage of their stupid
|> >    ideas about free international trade.  We will continue
|> >    to do this even if it takes 600 years until we beat them.
|>
|> >That is a 100+ year plan.
|>
|> Mike, please try to think things through.  It's not that tough and it
|> will prevent you from posting stupid things on the net.

Obviously "stupid" is a value judgement based upon your opinion, not
facts.
|>
|> You might begin by learning to read the posts you respond to.  The
|> original argument was about corporate plans, not national plans.

Japan is a highly nationalistic company.  Corporations and the
government work hand in hand.  Unlike the US, you can not draw a
distinctions between the two.  If a company or an industry wants the
government to support their plans against outsiders, they've got it.
|>
|> >I am not saying this happened, but there is not reason to believe it
|> >couldn't happen.
|>
|> Sure there is.
|>
|> 1.  When do you think they came up with this 100 year plan?  Some time
|> after WWII?  In that case, what happened to the previous 100 year
|> plan?

Do you read?    A:  we bombed the hell out of the old companies.
        B: having a long range plan does not mean the plan is
           static, but changes to it still consider the long term.
|>
|> 2.  Who, exactly, are the champions of this plan within Japan?  The
|> Liberal Democratic Party?  If so, then how will they convince
|> the political opposition to support this plan, or do you think they
|> intend to remain in power for the next 100 to 600 years?  If not, then
|> how, exactly, did they negotiate this with the other parties?

Little conflict occurs in dealing with the outside world.  Japanese are
united against outsiders.
|>
|> 3.  Is this plan written down anywhere?  If so, then how do they plan
|> on keeping it secret for 100+ years?  If not, then how do they plan to
|> make sure that future generations understnad and follow it?  Word of
|> mouth?

Who said its a secret.  Only you seemed to have missed the point that they
have adopted strategies that run for decades.  In the US, long-term means
till the end of the fiscal quarter.  In Japan it means till the objectives
are achieved.
|>
|> 4.  Many economists (we can argue over whether or not it is a
|> majority) honestly believe that the US ideas about free international
|> trade are more beneficial to us, in the long run, than any form of
|> protectionism can possibly be.  How do the people who made this 100
|> year plan intend to make sure that this view does not come to prevail
|> in Japan?

The Japanese are uniniterested in views.  Protectionism will be supported
as long as it works, and if it stops working they will adjust their long-
term plans to fit the what works.
|>
|> 5.  Please define "Japan".  Does it include Okinawa?  What about the
|> NICs?
|>
Japan:  Any country in which a) corporate strategy is not driven
by short term economic goals and b) government support is available
for eliminating the effects of competition by the outside world.

--
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.