Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!onodera-news!Q.T.Honey!enews.sgi.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!61.196.175.23!not-for-mail From: "Ryan Ginstrom" Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: I've finally figured this puppy out Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:17:16 +0900 Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <3FC0A9FA.18DA4237@yahoo.co.jp> <3md1svo5irh80rphon12f3mnl68e19aint@4ax.com> <3FC224F2.26BA5A9B@yahoo.co.jp> <3FC34410.B4ABB722@yahoo.co.jp> <3FC36EB4.8FF7BD8@yahoo.co.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.196.175.23 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1069863441 64697104 61.196.175.23 ([101276]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.life.in-japan:8434 "cc" wrote in message news:bq2br8$mmr$1@bgsv5647.tk.mesh.ad.jp... > > "Ryan Ginstrom" wrote in message > > > Buying locally produced goods can be good for the local economy (though > not > > always), but I don't think it is right to force people to do so, which is > > what the massive tarrif/import restriction scheme does. It is basically > > making the people pay to prop up inefficient industries. > > Yes it is. I don't think free trade can be fair. In the current world situation, I agree with you. Or rather I would say that free trade is not possible. But the ones getting screwed the most by so-called free trade are the poor countries, who opened up their markets to imported manufactured goods, on the promise that they could sell their agricultural products in return. What happened is they bought all the cars and electronics, but the rich countries subsidize their famers and keep food imports out of the country. > My position is not to > instaure a communist system, but to allow a part of agriculture/industry to > be more protected. How should it be protected? You already said, tarrifs are a bad idea. As for protection from the lying, cheating megacorps, that's a more endemic problem in Japan and not limited (or even primarily confined) to agriculture and retail. But even if we hypothetically prevent corporations from performing unethical or illegal actions, the mom and pop stores will still surely die unless they can somehow convince their customers that they offer something different and better. I.e. differentiate. This basically boils down to service, knowing the customer base better than some far-removed corporate executive can, and offering a different product set. One good example is a tempura# shop near my house. Someone walks into the shop, the owner looks them in the eye and says "irasshaimase." In other words, he actually greets his customers. You walk into a combini or chain restaurant, and the staff say "irasshaimase" to the ceiling on reflex when they hear the door jingle, as they continue to wipe the table or whatever they were doing. It's like they're thanking the gods of Commerce for bringing them another sale, but they certainly aren't greeting the customer. You make your purchase at the counter in the combini, and you get an "arigatou gozaimashita" like some kind of mantric chant, the phrase is totally devoid of meaning. Meanwhile, at the tempura shop the owner thanks each person genuinely, even if it's some kid who bought a piece of tempura for 50 yen. Plus it tastes awesome. You could open a megacorp tempura mart next door to this guy's shop, and he won't be in any trouble. He has differentiated his product, and it's something no chain store can duplicate. But the surly old dude at some other little shop who just sulks behind his counter and exhibits the worst of the shokunin attitude is going to be looking for a new line of work. # Okinawan tempura is quite different from Japanese tempura, it's probably better to think of it as Okinawan fish and chips. > There is no "good trade relations with China" possible. China is not a > country, it's a world. A wild one. Tarrifs was not the good solution, on > that I agree with you, but complete opening is much worse. That can lead to I see nothing wrong with stipulating that imports must meet domestic regulations, including in their production. However, this type of rule is ripe for abuse, and has been abused in the past. Plus it's hard to enforce. -- Regards, Ryan Ginstrom