"cc" <cpasuneadresse@spam.com> wrote in message
> 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.

Of course the poor farmers didn't buy the stuff. They were supposed to gain
a cash market for their crops, in exchange the country would let in
manufactured goods and services. Even in poor countries they drive cars, use
software, etc.

> I went to China, and I met the people that pocketed the money from opening
> of Japanese market to Chinese agro-alimentary.

Do you think all the major Japanese manufacturers are shifting their
factories to China out of a desire to help the Chinese people? It's all
about the bottom line. But the Chinese are smart -- they make the foreign
companies give something up to move in -- technology, training, etc. That's
why everybody is sure China in the future will be a fearsome economic beast.
Watch out then, 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.

There's a lot of room for opinion on this one. There are prices and balances
for everything. Artifically keeping manufacturing jobs in the country will
just prolong the inevitable, while hurting the rest of the economy. On the
other hand, just cutting people loose could have a severe impact, especially
on local economies. It seems to me that the ideal solution would be
protection with a policy of transition to other industries, rather than
maintenance. But that never seems to happen.

> 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.

Sounds very French!

> What is happening here in Osaka ? Exactly the same thing. Individuals can
no
> longer raise the capital to start little businesses.

A lot of this is also because the banks are very leery about handing out
cash these days.

> 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.

There is no doubt that Japanese entrepreneurism is hurting badly. Not enough
new businesses are opening. The government knows it's a problem, that's why
they have a special program to let people create yuugen gaisha, and postbone
the 3 million-yen bond for 5 years.

> 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.

Especially Osaka and Nagoya...
Also where do you think all those huge public works spending contracts go?
Well, Japanese corruption and cronyism are well known phenomena, no need to
go into it here.

> 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.

Potecting industries won't do it, it will only entrench the ones in power.

> > 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.

No, but I agree that it's necessary.

-- 
Regards,
Ryan Ginstrom