|
Everything is really, really expensive in Japan, but unlike what was said about Korea, Japanese products tend to be at least decent or better quality I've noticed. A lot of stuff has "Made in China" on it, but nevertheless is still marked up astronomically so its much cheaper to just import many things from the source. I kind of wonder what the hell the government was thinking on the consumption tax rate doubling though. Was that really the only "reform" they could shoehorn in without resistance from their corporate overlords or something?
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
Senkaku question for you all. I'm cursorily familiar with the history of the islands, mostly from reading articles the past two weeks and browsing Wikipedia. What's confusing me is the insistence by the Chinese that they used to be part of China at all. Am I wrong in my understanding that they used to be part of Ryukyu? And that Ryukyu was a kingdom of its own but paid tribute to both China and Japan for centuries? Then Japan annexed Ryukyu at the end of the 19th century, taking the islands from Kagoshima all the way to Senkaku. Is that right so far? Then why do China-supporters say it was taken over by Japan in WW2 and shouldve been returned? Did something happen between the annexation in 1895 and the outbreak of hostilities/expansionism that was Imperial Japan? Do I have the facts wrong or are people skewing them to make the claim?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 06:00
|
|
|
I'm not a history buff so I can't really answer the questions. But if I had to speculate, I would say what you said is true (about Ryuku kingdom and what not). China never really developed a huge navy in prior centuries. They relied heavily upon their size and majest to draw countries to them and gain their "security" and market. At one point I believe China had gotten most of East Asia to come and kowtow. You would def. need a history buff on this though in order to sift through the level of misinformation and skewing that's probably going on concerning these topics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:I kind of wonder what the hell the government was thinking on the consumption tax rate doubling though. Was that really the only "reform" they could shoehorn in without resistance from their corporate overlords or something? 5% is very low when you compare it to other G8 countries. Doubling it to 10% means it's still quite low comparitively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Kenishi posted:I'm not a history buff so I can't really answer the questions. But if I had to speculate, I would say what you said is true (about Ryuku kingdom and what not). China never really developed a huge navy in prior centuries. They relied heavily upon their size and majest to draw countries to them and gain their "security" and market. At one point I believe China had gotten most of East Asia to come and kowtow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
I think fundamentally multiple places considered them theirs, but they were completely worthless until recent gas exploration so nobody really cared that much. Nobody lived there and there's nothing special on them, why would anyone have wasted time and effort on some rocks? So the historical claims are going to be murky at best.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
CronoGamer posted:What's confusing me is the insistence by the Chinese that they used to be part of China at all. The Chinese position is that they were part of Taiwan Province since its establishment in the Qing dynasty. From the Chinese point of view, the islands went with Taiwan when it was lost to Japan in the late 19th century, and should have been returned along with all the other land Japan had to give back at the end of WWII. The treaty does not specifically mention the Diaoyus but the wording strongly implies that non-enumerated islands historically belonging to China were also to be returned. The Japanese position as I understand it is that the Senkakus were never part of Taiwan in the first place, and instead are part of Okinawa so they don't have to give them back. Naturally the Chinese are not impressed with arguments about the internal administrative boundaries of the Japanese Empire. The problem is that the islands have never been inhabited, so this ownership has always been nominal. Because they're not mentioned specifically in treaty law, and since the Qing dynasty Chinese never established settlements on them, there's really nothing for modern law to go on other than defacto administration. If China could prove that the islands were historically Chinese then their argument would be quite sound, but they can't. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:42 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
Did anyone read this hilarious article on foreigners joining the anti-nuclear rallies?http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/foreigners-join-weekly-protest-against-nuclear-energy-who-they-are-and-why-they-went posted:TOKYO — Emphasis mine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 07:34
|
|
|
A sexy submarine posted:Did anyone read this hilarious article on foreigners joining the anti-nuclear rallies? Has anybody here seen the Yasukuni documentary? There's this bizarre sequence of an American guy, white, in a bad suit and tie and dark sunglasses, showing up to support Koizumi's visit and being assaulted by a crowd of elderly Japanese men. None of the trailers seem to have the sequence, though. Edit: Wait, we're in luck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3Iwz2AFbqY&feature=channel&list=UL Starts at 4:20, subtitles in Chinese. Roadside_Picnic fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
CronoGamer posted:Senkaku question for you all. I'm cursorily familiar with the history of the islands, mostly from reading articles the past two weeks and browsing Wikipedia. What's confusing me is the insistence by the Chinese that they used to be part of China at all. Am I wrong in my understanding that they used to be part of Ryukyu? And that Ryukyu was a kingdom of its own but paid tribute to both China and Japan for centuries? Then Japan annexed Ryukyu at the end of the 19th century, taking the islands from Kagoshima all the way to Senkaku. Is that right so far? Chinese sailors were in all likelihood the first to see the Senkakus. The Chinese put the islands on their maps and claimed them as Chinese, but never developed them in any way, and probably never even set foot on them. The islands were mostly route markers for ships going to Ryukyu. The Japanese investigated the islands in the late 19th century and determined (properly) that they were terra nullis. They claimed the islands and Japanese people lived on them and developed them a little bit until WWII. 80 years after the Japanese claimed the Senkakus in the early 1970's, the Chinese finally got around to denouncing the Japanese claim. Surely the discovery of oil in the seas around the islands a couple of years before that was totally unrelated. In short: Chinese claim: We saw it first. Sure we didn't claim for 70 years and even recognized it as Japanese territory for much of that time, but it's totally an integral part of the Chinese motherland how dare you take it from us? Japanese claim: We investigated the islands and found no one using them or claiming them. Our citizens actually lived on and developed the islands and no one questioned our claim until just a couple decades ago. There is no legitimate conflict here. Few land squabbles are so black and white as this one, but in this case the Japanese are 100% in the right and the Chinese claims are 100% bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 11:50
|
|
|
That is really disingenuous or, if you're arguing in good faith, extremely biased. First, the Japanese "investigated" the islands and miraculously found that there were no legitimate claims is ridiculous on the face of it. You said yourself that the Chinese mapped and claimed them long before the Japanese ever showed up. Put this properly in the context of Japan annexing Taiwan at the time, it's pretty clear that they didn't just find the islands and politely ask the Chinese about their legal status. Second, of course the Chinese recognized the Senkakus as Japanese territory. The Chinese perspective is that the Diaoyus are part of Taiwan, which was ceded to Japan in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, to which the Qing Emperor acceded. So yes, the Chinese recognized the Senkakus as Japanese territory annexed from China in 1895. Their argument is that it should have been returned to China along with Taiwan. Third, the idea that they waited around for 70 years without lodging a protest is simply wrong. The Chinese government protested immediately. The Treaty of San Francisco, which decided how Japan would handle the dissolution of its overseas empire and was basically dictated by the U.S., was signed September 8 1951. Neither the PRC nor RoC governments were invited. The PRC published denunciations of the treaty both during the negotiations in August, and on September 18th, ten days after it was signed. Neither the PRC nor RoC ratified the treaty. The PRC's position has been that the treaty is illegal since before it was even signed. The 1970s claim was prompted by the U.S. returning Okinawa to Japanese administration, but it was hardly the first. Fourth, the only thing I can find about Japanese habitation or improvement of the islands is a WWII era lighthouse that has been abandoned far longer than it was in use. What this really turns on is whether China can prove that the Diaoyus are part of Taiwan, instead of part of Okinawa as Japan claims. Because China was in chaos during the time when modern Western treaty law took hold in East Asia, the Chinese never had a chance to establish a claim in law even though they pretty clearly arrived first and own the nearest land mass. This is why you see the Chinese throwing out "bullshit" historical claims, because their government was a total mess from 1860-1960 and they missed the window to establish a claim in Western law. Meanwhile, Japan's claim is really shaky too. The Japanese de facto claim to the islands came about basically because the Japanese told the Americans that the islands were part of Okinawa and there were no Chinese in the room to disagree. The Japanese "terra nullis" claim is obviously weaker than the Chinese claim on the same basis so the de facto claim is pretty much the important one. You can disagree about who should be administering a few rocks in the ocean, but your characterization of the issue is deeply unfair.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 13:11
|
|
|
 anime hatoyama is less impressive than anime koizumi
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 13:17
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^ what in the almighty gently caress is thatArglebargle III posted:Fourth, the only thing I can find about Japanese habitation or improvement of the islands is a WWII era lighthouse that has been abandoned far longer than it was in use. The only thing I can contribute here is that every time I've read about the "history" of the dispute in the paper, they mention that some family who owned the islands before the Kuriharas opened and were running a bonito factory there. edit: Yeah, just google "senkaku islands bonito" and you get a whole lot of links mentioning at least 40 years of inhabitation. Weatherman fucked around with this message at 14:09 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:The only thing I can contribute here is that every time I've read about the "history" of the dispute in the paper, they mention that some family who owned the islands before the Kuriharas opened and were running a bonito factory there. This was what sparked my question in the topic, actually. I read about the factory that they started in 1910 and ran up until roughly the start of the war in the Pacific and that confused me because comments I'd read from pro-China people claimed that the islands only fell under Japanese control due to WW2 landgrabs. Arglebargle, thanks for the solid posts. I'm living in Japan now so most of my sources tend to be a little skewed to say the least, so it's good to hear a differing P.O.V. Also, that first post helped a lot too because it explained a little better why Taiwan has a claim staked in this as well. Inu's argument is definitely biased, and I don't think it's nearly as 100% black and white as that, but it still DOES seem to me that Japan has the stronger claim. How far back can a land claim go and still have validity if you never settled the area? Iceland doesn't have any claim over Newfoundland even though the Vikings settled there and found it before the country that would eventually become Canada. If the Chinese never did anything besides pass the islands, say "yo dibs on these guys" and move on, and when the Japanese claimed them as part of the Ryukyus centuries ago and the Chinese didn't do anything about it, and then they actually settled on them and built things there, doesn't that make it a stronger claim for Japan
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 14:50
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The Chinese position is that they were part of Taiwan Province since its establishment in the Ming dynasty. From the Chinese point of view, the islands went with Taiwan when it was lost to Japan in the late 19th century, and should have been returned along with all the other land Japan had to give back at the end of WWII. The treaty does not specifically mention the Diaoyus but the wording strongly implies that non-enumerated islands historically belonging to China were also to be returned. Minor quibble that turned out to be longer than I expected: Taiwan was formally incorporated as a Province of Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) in 1885, 10 years before being ceded to Japan. Taiwan was never actually formally part of the Ming Dynasty (1368–1644). The first Han Chinese settlements in Taiwan were established by the Dutch East India Company in southern Taiwan in 1624, who imported laborers from Mainland China. The Dutch were driven off Taiwan near the end of the Ming Dynasty by Koxinga (a pirate turned Ming loyalist) in 1662, who eventually declared the central and southern part of Taiwan to be the Ming remnant Kingdom of Tungning. The Kingdom was wiped out in 1683 by the Qing Dynasty, who stuck Taiwan (or the parts they exercised control over... namely, about a 10 meter radius around any Qing officials sent to Taiwan) under the administration of Fujian Province. For the most part, Taiwan was a mini version of the American Wild West with the Qing court more or less ignoring it till the late 19th century. By this time, there was nominal Qing control along the western coast of Taiwan around the major cities, though the west coast and the central mountains were still considered barbarian (aboriginal) territory. The exact extent of Qing control is still debated, which wasn't helped by the fact that the imperial court had a way of changing their claims depending on what the issue was. For example, when confronted by other maritime powers about their shipwrecked sailors getting their heads chopped off by Taiwanese aborigines, the Qing had a tendency of disowning all aboriginal land. The Japanese eventually got interested in Taiwan around this time, following their absorption of the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1879. The Qing imperial court finally got it into their heads that Taiwan might be worth something, and belatedly started to send more capable administrators to Taiwan, formally incorporating it as a province in 1885. This was probably the result of the Sino-French War in 1885, where several battles took place between French and Qing troops in Taiwan. Interestingly, if you visit some places in northern Taiwan during Ghost Month (the 7th lunar month), some temples still try to appease the spirits of deceased French troops with french bread, red wine, and pizza (apparently, they're all European). No hard feelings, right? Anyhow, the Japanese won the Sino-Japanese War in 1895, and Taiwan (along with whatever outlying islands it may or may not have included) turned into a Japanese colony. Since Taiwan and the Ryukyus were both part of Japan at that point, there really wasn't any dispute in terms of fishing rights around the entire island chain stretching from Taiwan to Japan. Eventually, WWII happened and Japan ended up relinquishing sovereignty over Taiwan (although to whom is not quite clear), and the Ryukyus went over to U.S. administration. skysedge fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ After I posted I realized I had the wrong dynasty for the conquest/pacification/settlement of Taiwan but I was too lazy to change it. Sorry! The heart of the problem is the dispute over how Japan got the islands in 1895. In Japan's view, they found them unclaimed while coincidentally annexing the large inhabited island nearby through war. In China's view, they were part of the annexed territory. Because of this fundamental difference in point of view, the Japanese can argue all they want about how they found and improved and administrated the islands and the Chinese won't care; and the Chinese can argue all they want about the Treaty of San Francisco and the occupied territories and the Japanese won't care. They can just go around and around with the arguments because they fundamentally don't accept each other's interpretation of what happened in 1895. When experts call the sovereignty issue on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands "murky" or "confused" it's because it is. Personally I think Japan's original claim is sketchy as hell, but the intervening 100 years have really muddied things up. Especially the islands changing hands from Japan to America and back again. What a mess. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Sep 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Personally I think Japan's original claim is sketchy as hell, but the intervening 100 years have really muddied things up. Especially the islands changing hands from Japan to America and back again. What a mess. You'll get no argument from me there about the whole thing being a mess. Practically speaking, the crowd in Taiwan interested in Diaoyutai can basically be broken down into fisherman mostly from Ilan County (northeast Taiwan), who traditionally consider the waters around the islands to be part of their fishing grounds, and various Chinese nationalist / pro-unification (with China) groups. The distinction between the two is that the former generally are more interested in the right to fish around the disputed islands than any sovereignty argument, whereas the latter are more into the whole "LITTLE JAPAN OFF SOVEREIGN CHINESE TERRITORY, UNITED FRONT WITH THE PRC"-thing. Neither group really attracts much interest in mainstream Taiwanese opinion, but the second group less so, since they have a tendency of parading around with PRC flags and declaring Taiwan as Chinese territory, which generally doesn't go over too well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:That is really disingenuous or, if you're arguing in good faith, extremely biased. On the first point I would say that the investigation was legitimate. It probably (probably! who knows really?) was China who first found the islands, but that doesn't mean anything in international law because China never did anything with them. When Japan looked at the islands in the 1890's, they found no legitimate claim to them. China's claim was not legitimate as they had never done anything other then write them down on maps. (And keep in mind that people couldn't even measure longitude accurately at sea until the late 19th century, so non-existant islands appeared on old maps all the time.) Basically, nothing that happened before the 1890's has reliable enough records to count for anything. The Japanese did claim the Senkaku's around the same time as Taiwan, but it was a separate action from the annexation of Taiwan. China can say that they (or the Qing, rather) gave the Senkakus to Japan under duress with the rest of Taiwan, but why should they be able to determine which far-flung islands that they had no real control over were "part of Taiwan province"? That gives them ridiculous leeway to claim whatever they want on the basis that it was handed over "as part of Taiwan". The Qing didn't even control all of Taiwan for that matter! This is why I don't see that the Treaty of San Francisco even matters unless you are willing to allow China to assign whatever islands it wants to be part of Taiwan Prefecture. And for that matter, Taiwan wasn't given to China in the treaty anyway. It was freed from Japanese control and the people of Taiwan should been allowed the freedom to choose their own government under UN law. But for reasons of (mostly US) convenience, the Republic of China de facto gained control of Taiwan. But, hey, it's all a moot point since randomly assigning the Senkakus to be part of Taiwan is ridiculous in the first place! As for your fourth point, this was addressed already, but Japanese did actually live and work on the islands. There was a bonito factory. The Japanese did in fact develop the islands beyond just slapping up a lighthouse. However, even if they had done was put up a lighthouse, that would still be more than China ever did with the islands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 01:18
|
|
|
Aaand this is why the Chinese and Japanese just go around in circles about this. The Chinese don't accept the legitimacy of the terra nullius claim, and the Japanese don't accept a historical Chinese claim. Because Japan was kicking China's rear end at the time the modern Chinese understandably feel that Japan's claim is illegitimate because the Chinese couldn't contest the terra nullius claim at the time. Because Taiwan was only recently incorporated into China the Japanese don't accept that the islands were ugghaaaaaa They're such small islands. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Aaand this is why the Chinese and Japanese just go around in circles about this. The Chinese don't accept the legitimacy of the terra nullius claim, and the Japanese don't accept a historical Chinese claim. Because Japan was kicking China's rear end at the time the modern Chinese understandably feel that Japan's claim is illegitimate because the Chinese couldn't contest the terra nullius claim at the time. Because Taiwan was only recently incorporated into China the Japanese don't accept that the islands were ugghaaaaaa edit: and clearly ancient historical grievances are really REALLY profitable to the right kinds of politicians.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 03:21
|
|
|
Supposedly there is also undersea oil and gas there. I suspect that's the real reason for the dispute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
And Japan's new future energy policy (replacing the Nuclear with fossil fuels) is a bigger influence now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
LP97S posted:And Japan's new future energy policy (replacing the Nuclear with fossil fuels) is a bigger influence now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
LngBolt posted:Supposedly there is also undersea oil and gas there. I suspect that's the real reason for the dispute. Except that the dispute has been going on for decades now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:Except that the dispute has been going on for decades now. Yes, just like how it was decades ago that oil was first thought to be under those hunks of rocks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
All of these disputes are just bullshit political theater to keep nationalists busy. For politicians it's a no-lose proposition, if you win, you can grandstand about how you outmaneuvered the duplicitous [country name here], if you lose, you can grandstand about how the duplicitous [country name here] have screwed you again, and if it drags on interminably, you can drag out the dead horse for another few licks to score points with racist shitbags. Doesn't matter which country is doing what to who, there's no incentive for politicians to resolve the issues amicably.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Either way I read an article yesterday that argued that the Chinese protesters are dangerously close to going off-script and the government should start reining them in any day now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Either way I read an article yesterday that argued that the Chinese protesters are dangerously close to going off-script and the government should start reining them in any day now. They've already started, definitely. Aside from any political perspective, the Chinese public has a low tolerance for disorder. If people were out burning things every day the public would perceive it as a failure of government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:19
|
|
|
And people are finally figuring out that burning down a Japanese factory in China hurts the Chinese economy way more than the Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
Roadside_Picnic posted:Has anybody here seen the Yasukuni documentary? There's this bizarre sequence of an American guy, white, in a bad suit and tie and dark sunglasses, showing up to support Koizumi's visit and being assaulted by a crowd of elderly Japanese men. None of the trailers seem to have the sequence, though. This is amazing. What made him think that it'd be a good idea to wave an American flag around in a crowd of ultra-nationalists, who were there to commemorate dead war criminals from WWII?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
Adrastus posted:This is amazing. What made him think that it'd be a good idea to wave an American flag around in a crowd of ultra-nationalists, who were there to commemorate dead war criminals from WWII? It starts off very friendly until the police show up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Lemmi Caution posted:It starts off very friendly until the police show up. I'd actually recommend seeing the whole thing. With the pissing contest between Japan and the PRC back in action, it's sobering to see the actual human beings affected by what is, in the last analysis, pretty much the enduring presence of fascism in Japan. I saw it in Tokyo when it came out in and uyoku were calling in bomb threats to the theaters, and was emotionally gutted by the close of the film. trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YVLCaitzPg Roadside_Picnic fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
There's been big news today regarding the yen. The Finance Minister has been sacked and the Yen is apparently going to be the hot topic of discussion at the G7. This could signal a major poo poo away from the "talk the yen down" approach and hint at a far more aggressive approach to rebuilding export receipts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:There's been big news today regarding the yen. The Finance Minister has been sacked and the Yen is apparently going to be the hot topic of discussion at the G7. This could signal a major poo poo away from the "talk the yen down" approach and hint at a far more aggressive approach to rebuilding export receipts. Lol unless some country besides Japan has came out and said "we will talk about the yen," then all this is is merely Japan stating what they think the rest of the world is going to talk about at G7. Last time they went, they did the same thing, "We will talk about the high yen." and all that happened was there was a statement made uninamiously by the council that "We understand you are having a hard time with the high yen, but it is the opinion of the council that currency manipulation is "A Bad Thing." Don't do it. NEXT" It never even got a full article in a newspaper it was just like a paragraph.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 10:56
|
|
|
The thing that's ridiculous is that there isn't anything the Japanese government can do. They have two really dumb options: A) Bankroll the bailout of the Eurozone in order to stop the financial markets from throwing tons of money into yen as their last safe place. B) Peg the yen to the USD and lose all monetary sovereignty. Neither of these options are viable or make sense. The high yen has nothing to do with any policies in Japan. It's all global factors, but yet we have financial ministers stepping down over it. Ain't nothing the G7 or Diet can do about it. I understand they're frustrated by it, but it frustrates the poo poo out of me that these politicians and liaisons can be so dumb about something that seems quite obvious to me. I guess they're paid to try to act like they can fix poo poo, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
ErIog posted:I guess they're paid to try to act like they can fix poo poo, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Trying to boost the high-tech export market right now is pretty insane. China's exports are dropping like a stone; if China can't get people to buy their exports then nobody can.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
I translated a position paper for an energy policy think tank awhile back that rightly pointed out that the new solar energy subsidies are going to be mostly throwing money into a black hole, because there is no way in hell that domestic manufacturers of solar cells and whatnot will be able to compete on the international market thanks to the high yen. Stimulating that industry is pretty much pointless, since the other incentives mean that people who are trying to get the subsidies for home use are going to buy the cheapest equipment they can find, which is likely to be Chinese. Germany's solar subsidies had essentially the same problems and had to be massively restructured, yet the Diet went ahead with a plan based on the the failed policy in Germany, to no one's surprise whatsoever, I should imagine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Not every country can be a net exporter.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
ErIog posted:Neither of these options are viable or make sense. The high yen has nothing to do with any policies in Japan. It's all global factors, but yet we have financial ministers stepping down over it. Ain't nothing the G7 or Diet can do about it. Sounds sadly close to home. I suspect the end result will be the same - currency stays high until the economy can't export it's way out of paying the bills, the Balance Payments and Debt Service relative to BOP goes tits up and the currency isn't seen as such a safe haven anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2012 18:31
|
|