"Ryan Ginstrom" <ginstrom@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> 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.

Yes, but that was never the deal you describe. They'd have imported those
goods anyway, as they can't manufacture them themselves...and the rich
countries do a too little part of their business with poors to really take
the pain to give something important in exchange of their markets. Most
countries are invited at WTO meetings as spectators.
At best, the big ones pretend to discuss with them by politeness.

> Do you think all the major Japanese manufacturers are shifting their
> factories to China out of a desire to help the Chinese people?

I don't think manfucaturers are philanthrops with anyone, compatriots or
foreigners.

>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.

That was the pronostic 15 years ago. So now they already have all the
technology of the world....and should be smart enough to get electricity all
day and hot water. They are fearsome the way USSR was fearsome. If China
became really economically performant without breaking into parts, that
would be very positive for Japanese economy as increasing competition would
come with increasing opportunities. The fear is more about
a failure like that of North-Korea.

> 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.

I was not talking about transitions from old to new industries. I consider
that shoganai.

"Protected sectors" is certainly not the term in English, sorry I have
forgotten how to say that, but that's an American concept at the start
(Porter ?). Understand sectors of employement more than of activity, it's
protected versus exposed to global competition
and price fluctuation. The "protected" ( Isolated ? ) ones are
administration, public services, army and possibly research and industry
depending of State/army (like the NASA). It's admitted to add agriculture
for local market
 and local services -especially professions, local transportations-in
context of fixed/guaranted pricing.
Normally you don't need to be French to see difference of effect of public
help/intervention on the 2 sorts of sectors. Companies in exposed sectors
are more and more multinational, if you give them tax money, you can't
prevent them from taking it out of the country and putting it on Swiss bank
accounts or wherever else they prefer to relocate....instead of reinvesting
locally.
In fact, my country has traditionnally done the contrary of what I suggest,
during decades that was the policy of "champions" with the State trying to
built plane makers (concorde), computer makers (thomson), and helping many
others that were supposed to compete internationnally. That was considered a
good idea, then criticised, and the next generations will talk about it as
we talk about colonisation.

> 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.

That will revolutionate everything.

CC