Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!onodera-news!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!not-for-mail From: "cc" Newsgroups: fj.life.in-japan Subject: Re: I've finally figured this puppy out Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:19:03 +0900 Organization: BIGLOBE news user Lines: 117 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: coosk26ds01.osk.mesh.ad.jp Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: bgsv5648.tk.mesh.ad.jp 1069924797 12473 211.13.9.208 (27 Nov 2003 09:19:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@mesh.ad.jp NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 09:19:57 +0000 (UTC) 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:8476 "Ryan Ginstrom" wrote in message > 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. You know poors that bought cars and electronics ? I think the third world farmers are getting screwed in the deal (and not only them), but not the way you say. I went to China, and I met the people that pocketed the money from opening of Japanese market to Chinese agro-alimentary. The 2 things are unrelated...most Chinese farmers are as poor as ever. Their employers live in Kobe from where they manage at distance the sweat-shops and they share the benefits with a bunch of Chinese apparatchiks. Because it's China's politics way, because it's Japanese big business's way. I think both stink the same. > 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. I know, and not only in Japan. The facts are in the recent economical difficult times (since the WWII), most industrial countries didn't have crisis as socially destructive as 1929, because the "protected sectors" have compensated the sectors striken by international bad context. Even if economies are driven by the unprotected industries. Both are necessary. Public intervention cannot, shouldn't be universal. We have to make a choice. The intervention on local agriculture ( I think you can't put large scale agriculture in the same basket) and local services are easier, and bring more local social benefits than an intervention on internationalised sectors like car-making industry. I have seen what the creation of Swatch car factories by public initiative brought to local economy : peanuts. And what it costed to the taxpayer : the skin of the bum. You know well tax money and time/energy of civil servants are used for public intervention anyway, in Japan, in the US, anywhere. Like free trade, non-interventionism is an utopia. Now interventionism is used to favor big industry lobbies and generate pocket money for the reigning dynasties (the Koizumi klan, the Tanaka klan, the Bush klan, the Kennedy klan, the Chirac klan, the Chirac klan -yes they count twice..). > 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. I agree, and don't see any problem with that. Certain shops close, other open. That's not about maintaining businesses artificially but not letting big bucks stab them. Don't give charity to people who have been ripped off by highway thieves, get the cops arrest the thieves. The problem is a situation like my hometown. There used to be a diversified choice of small and middle sized shops all over town (not paradise, but normality). Then the big corporations came with their money, marketing and dumping power and asphixiated the others (5 hypermarkets fighting for 100 000 inhabitants, what do you think ?). Now if you want to open a little business, the entrance ticket is very expensive, as you need to rent a space in a shopping mall/street owned by the majors (they bought or obtained exclusivity on everything), and more media communication is needed (or forced on you as "inhabitant" of the mall). What is happening here in Osaka ? Exactly the same thing. Individuals can no longer raise the capital to start little businesses. When you look at my local shotengai. A part of it has been renovated (with tons of money, even disproportionate investment with certain shops completely renovated before the paint of the last revamping is dry), and contains chain shops employing only baitos, and mass-producing. A part are ruins of old shops, and the few individuals that survived. A part are trucks and stalls from which all the new individual businesses operate, on certain days, as they can no longer rent shops or expect doing that full time (they get other jobs to complete their income.), and they don't seem to last and ever generate enough money to upgrade. A couple of friends opened a restaurant 25 yr ago, something like your tempura shop, so they maintained. They say now the investment to start the same business is 10 times bigger, banks don't lend more than before, and possible income has diminuated. They wouldn't be able to restart today. They'd work for a chain. As baitos, not as owners or even employees. You'd be surprised to know how few people actually own those chain shops around here. In the first years in Japan, I made a false assumption. In France, I know most of the fast-food or other shop chains work mostly on a franchise basis, so there are local owners, the bigger local owner owns a few shops in one town. I thought that was the same here. In fact a number of Japanese chains are 100% owned by an investment company, if not one single person. Even their baito-employees ignore the big boss of their udon-ya also owns the spaghetti-ya next door and the butaman-ya and melon-pan-ya that will replace them next month. I have heard of a guy that owns over 10 different little chains (of not more than 50 shop each around Kansai). I've travelled with another that explained me he had not even bothered to visit each of his bakeries, only the 30 first ones. They both started in real estate business, in bubble era. Both take money from the banks like I take water from the tap. The same banks that won't lend 500 000 yen to your great tempura guy the day he needs to repaint his shop. The Y word came to my mind often when I was thinking of these 2 managers. I have seen that elsewhere too, in eikaiwa world. I really hope that's reversible and my children won't live in a new Middle-Age with a bunch of Bill Gates as the aristocratic caste. > 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. I've never said that was easy. CC