🚀 go-pugleaf

>  I will repeat my contention.  You listed several scenarios.  In your
>scenario #2, you listed several rather siginificant economic changes that
>were not listed elsewhere, thereby implying that these siginificant economic
>changes would not occur for the other scenarios.

Of course the result varies with the reaction...

>I am asking you to justify
>this.  I have never said that `real world examples don't mean a thing,' etc.
>although you seem to enjoy implying that I have.  So, here we go again: explain
>why the above conditions harmful to Japan don't apply to a future Japan that
>knuckles under to American unilateral demands and why those conditions would
>apply to a future Japan that stood up to unilateral American demands.

I said that Japan was in for some rough weather no matter what they did.  My
 contention is that they should just get it over with as soon as possible.

>  You,
>Eric, were the one who originally posted these scenarios, which seem untenable
>to me.  I kindly ask that you defend them.

I'm repeating myself here.  I apologize to other members of the list.  The high
 yen is not good for the Japanese economy.  I contend that market restrictions
 are play a role in the high yen.  If Japan gets its way, the government will
 see this as a chance to continue the policies that protect the Japanese market.
  The trade surplus would go up and the yen would continue to rise -- which I
 mentioned is bad for the economy.

Perhaps we should also review the meaning of the word "scenario."  A scenario
 isn't something that has to happen.  It's something that might happen.  I don't
 have to prove something will happen -- if I could do that I'd be making a
 bundle on the stock exchange instead of farting around on this list...  From
 where I sit, the Japanese economy has more to gain from cutting down on
 restrictions than perpetuating them.  Do you agree?  If not, by all means, give
 your reasons.  If so, I hope for just a moment you will entertain the thought
 that if denying the need for market reforms could have broader policy
 implications in the future.  That is conservative polititians could see denying
 market reform as a way to pick up votes, and a conservative stance toward
 market reform could become a matter of policy.  Would this be good for the
 Japanese economy?  What would happen?  What has been happening the last four
 years, to the stack market and the surplus while Japan has been dragging i!
 ts feet on market reform?

I'm really getting tired of repeating myself, though.  How about this.  Why
 don't you tell us all how continuing to protect its markets will help Japan.
 Or how Japan can have the most open markets in the world and still have such a
 big trade surplus.  My question to you is what good for Japan do you see coming
 out of the current trade problems.  In my mind there are two possible outcomes:
  Japan gives in or the US gives in.  What happens in either case?  Is it good
 for Japan?  Is it good for the world economy?  Why?  Why not?  I've re-stated
 my case about a million times, and I'm not going to re-state it again.  If you
 don't find my explinations adequate, there's not much I can do, really.  I'm
 not going to re-state my case again, though, and if you answer to this post
 asks for yet another re-statement, I'll assume that you're just trying to wear
 me down or something instead of having some sort of discussion

>You're again answering a different question.  I did not ask whether price
>differences inside and outside of Japan exist.  They surely do in, say, Canada
>as well.  I will repeat my question.  Why do you believe that the Japanese
>aren't `dealing with reality'?  (Your words, not mine.)

First comparing the price differences of the US and Canada and the US and Japan
 is not in line here at all.

"Dealing with reality"  would be an opened market where Japanese companies would
 have to compete on equal footing with foreign companies.  This isn't the case
 at the moment.  For instance, in the car industry, I heard about one study that
 found that there should be about 3 auto makers in Japan, instead of However
 many there are (eight or twelve?).  I realize the lack of scources is pretty
 bad here, but I can say that I heard it in a lecture here...  But think about
 it, is there some reason that Japan with half the people of the States would
 naturally -- without government intervention -- have three or four times as
 many car makers?  If so please tell me the reasons.  My opinion is that the
 government is controling the market in order to keep the weaker companies from
 going under, and I've mentioned how I think they do it in other posts.

>BTW, if you
>carefully note what these ministers from around the world say, they tend to
>agree that the US is in flagrant violation of the WTO treaty.  This agreement
>is somewhat obscured by the tendency of said ministers to sugar-coat these
>words (for the benefit of US ears) that they also agree the Japanese auto
 market
>tends to be closed.  Unfortunately for the US, it is the WTO violation that
>matters in the upcoming decision.

The same ministers also say that the Japanese auto market is closed, so it comes
 down to what you think the centeral issue is:  Free trade or the imortance of
 the WTO.

>>As to how melodramatic scenario 2 is, I suggest you keep a little more abreast
>> of economic developments in Japan.

>You posted a scenario.  You are unable or unwilling to defend it, so you are
>asking *me* to defend your scenario for you?

No.  I'm just asking you to read the paper.  The Economy over here isn't doing
 too well.  I mentioned unemployment before, but stocks are headed for a post
 bubble low and the government is issuing statements hinting that the recovery
 might be off because of the high yen.  As you will recall, the high yen was
 part of the infamous Scenario 2.

>>This depends on how effectively the WTO deals with Japan.  The Japanese
 economy
>> is too big to be closed.  If the WTO were to sit on it's hands and take no
>> action on the subject, I would say unilateral action would be in order.

>Fine, let's say you're right.  Why, then, can't the US wait and see how the WTO
>acts BEFORE making unilateral decisions that undermine the WTO structure?

I agree, and I've said before I agree, and I'll say again that I agree.  But, as
 I said, a person's judgement on this issue depends upon where he or she sees
 the main issue.  For me it's an open market in Japan and free trade.

>Nope, I didn't.  Why?  Two reasons.  1) I don't know.  2) Regardless of the
>answer, it still doesn't make sense for the US to act unilaterally before
>giving the WTO a chance.

It really nice to see a diverse discussion degenerate into both parties simply
 repeating themselves over and over again.  Well, I've already stated my
 position... So here's a question:  Does Japan have a responibility to enact
 market reforms?

>`According to Mickey Kantor, the actions are totally legal.'  You know, this
>isn't very informative.  I suspect that, for example, if you picked a random
>court case, you might find: 1) according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's
>actions are totally legal 2) according to the defendant, the defendant's
 actions
>are totally legal.  Do you understand `self-interest', Eric?

I agree with you 100% here.  But does this mean the Hashimoto is acting without
 self-interest?

Eric Martin

University of Osaka