Inflation - this time its different

Robert Samuelson’s article “Inflation won’t happen this time round” [p13, 30th Oct-05] gives me little comfort based on his reasoning. He asserts correctly that oil prices in themselves don’t cause inflation, but ignores the credit creation that has sparked the recent internet, equity, property booms and commodity booms. Yes the global economy is more competitive, but oil costs are inherent in every aspect of GDP, allowing business to very easily pass on costs, whether those costs are incurred in the US or China. Productivity has been strong over the 1990s, but has shown signs of abating, whilst wage growth pressures are building and corporate profit margins are being squeezed. Whilst Samuelson describes the rise of inflation in the 1970s, he gives little regard to the current economic conditions. US monetary policy is still easy, mortgage rates have yet to respond to Fed tightening (11 consecutive 25bp increases), and the US is running record deficits at a time of high national debt and low tax receipts – potentially squeezing households from all sides. Japanese & Asian (China, Taiwan, Korea) monetary authorities are equally to blame for financing the debt, and for preserving their mercantilist policies. Either way we will experience inflation or gross over-capacity. Will the Fed tolerate all this? Its too late for them to avert crisis. Isn’t it about time the media developed some analytical skills and stopped writing articles scripted by the Fed? We were feed news that oil would never breach $US40/bbl. We are told inflation is the sole measure of monetary health. Expect headline inflation to lead core inflation – just as it did in the 1970s. Expect gold to be the last bubble before the undertaker moves in.

Australian Government disintegrity

The top ranks of the Australian government are making more embarrassing blunders. The head of the Australian Federal Police would have us believe “Top Cop defends Bali 9 tip off” [27-Oct-05] that there is no contradiction between tipping off Indonesian police about Australia’s Bali 9 drug importers and its strong opposition to Indonesia’s death penalty. They could have argued that Indonesia has a right to its own sovereign laws, except for the precedence it set with its criticism of the Indonesian judiciary in the case of Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Bashir for his involvement in the Bali bomb blast. In last case the Australian government applied pressure for a longer incarceration. Of course this contradiction is easily resolved by recognizing that the AFP and Australian government have different policies. As an Australian overseas, I’m just wondering which policy applies to me.

Coral reef scare

“Half of the world’s coral reefs could die within 40 years” [27-Oct-05] according to the World Conservation Union unless measures are taken to address climate change. The reality is that the edifice of reefs is already dead, and that dying is a natural part of their evolution. There are a great many natural processes that depend on the birth & death cycle, and coral reefs are just one of them. Australian flora requires bush fires to regenerate. Whatsmore whilst death is occurring near the surface, the reef is expanded by regenerating in the sub-zone (at depth) where temperatures are compatible, but no one documents this activity because it would go against the politically-correct conclusion that the world is coming to an end due to climate change. Thus we seem to have another scare campaign by the greenies, having conceded that nuclear power is desirable afterall because it produces no greenhouse gases. I guess they needed a header for their donation campaign.

Re: Spare a thought for Japanese nags

An article on ‘retired husband syndrome’ (RHS) can hardly do justice to men without considering men’s affliction - ‘nagging wife syndrome’ (NWS). In defence of men [“Wives sick of their men in greying Japan” [p.3, 20th Oct 2005], should not Japanese women take it upon themselves to negotiate a better relationship. Isn’t each partner 100% responsible? Gender identities are so entrenched in Japan, even the youth of Japan are hard-pressed to change. Unless women are prepared to negotiate a better deal from partners then they will not be respected and they will continue to feel like victims. Victims rarely take responsibility. Certainly in a culture where men hold all the power there is a requirement from them – but why would women want to externalise responsibility. The capacity of Japanese partners to tolerate suffering is a bit self-righteous and pious. Coming from a mixed relationship, I’ve left my partner 3x in an attempt to negotiate a better deal. Each time I don’t know whether she will humbly concede or grow. Maybe she just hopes I will, or maybe the thought of being ‘emotionally’ independent is just too intimidating. I’d suggest for a culture which does not value achievement or personal efficacy as much as social harmony, there are just too many partners around who aren’t interesting enough to be married to. Unless they are prepared to grow in their relationships, partners will seek outside relationships. I suggest it’s a western stereotype that young Japanese working women are more independent. One need only look at their motive (finding husbands) and (servile) roles to see that little has changed. A women with responsibility in Japanese companies is a rare ‘beast’ indeed – pardon the pun. Lets hope they exhibit some self-control when that self-expression evolves.

My notes from original article - Japan Times
“Wives sick of their men in greying Japan” [page 3, 20th Oct 2005]. The story of Sakura Terakawa, 63yo, being wooed by her husband with love letters & flowers. The relationship however descends into ‘demands for his evening meals and nitpicking over the quality of her housework’. He would go to work at dawn, social after work, returning home late, so her & the children would rarely see each other. She wanted to divorce, as she could not bare having him around the house. Some 60% of Japanese women are regarded as having ‘retired husband syndrome’ (RHS). The problem is they feel compelled to remain dedicated to their husbands. When he left work he was virtually friendless, so stayed around the house, watching TV. He became dictatorial, and she developed rashes & polyps related to the stress. The problem is not men’s attitudes to women, as much as the nature of Japanese relationships. “Though after retirement stress is a common problem in most developed countries” its more prevalent in Japan because of aging. Although more ‘women are entering the workforce in record numbers’ older people have remained far more rigid”. He ‘demanded strict obedience’.
Why is he staying out late? She ‘had developed her own life, her own way of doing things, in the years when he was never home”. She can’t even stand to look at him across the dinner table. Its due to a lack of respect. With 7mil men set to retire in 2007-9. Men cling to the outdated notion of ‘wives as servile attendants’ leaving many elderly women to view their longevity as more of a curse than a blessing”. Japanese men are not accustomed to doing anything. He joined a support group “Men in the Kitchen”. For men, is it about respect of an intellectual nature, or being used?

WB are exponents of fascism not equality

The World Bank (WB) is misguided if they think “inequality is the biggest obstacle to economic progress” [14 Oct 05, p17]. It would be nonsense to suggest India is under-performing because its women can't get jobs, when there are millions of men facing a similar blight. Look at the rule of law and government intervention in the Indian economy. There is a whole swag of subsidies to protect ‘poor farmers’ – and that is precisely the harm that results from ‘equality’ as a political ideal. In addition, the government expropriates domestic savings through control of the banking system to finance its budget. Certainly the poor will always be potential consumers, but without deregulation and export-based industries to build domestic savings sustained prosperity will prove difficult. The protection of ‘foreign’ capital investment is the first step towards prosperity for developing nations, and a precursor to the protection of indigenous people's rights, since they have little voice/knowledge (under democracy) or capital to plunder. Sadly democracy is only able to achieve an ideological shift through pragmatic ‘carrot & stick’ policies. Notwithstanding the importance of other factors such as market size, domestic savings and infrastructure, the WB policies are inclined to achieve fascism rather than individual rights (the foundation for a truly just & prosperous society). One need only look at what the World Bank’s sense of ‘equality’ (whatever that means) has done to India. The WB needs to rethink its premises.

No Self-Motivation in Japan

Letter to Japan Times

Maiko Nonaka suggests [“Self Motivation, a tough course” letter p.16, 28Sept05] highlights an important difference between Western & Japanese values, as well as education systems. He asserts “Japanese students seem to go to university to play” and “people should not forget studying is their duty”. Obligation is a very weak motivator because its based on fear. Where is the ‘self’ (motivation) in those aspirations? Japanese are not so ambitious or goal-orientated. Neither are a lot of westerners by default, since it’s a virtue that stems from egoist values, rather than the servitude that depresses Japanese souls or the low self-esteem that undermines western ambition. If Japan is to retain the pressure (or discipline) inherent in the collectivist model, it will have to carry the cost burden of misguided and unmotivated youth. Exposure to western culture creates a new set of expectations, but sadly no methodology for achieving goals. Japanese students “end up wondering what they are studying for” at 18-25yo because they didn’t develop a sense of purpose when they were 10yo. A healthy ego is a pre-requisite. The ‘kawaii’ values instilled by the 1970s parents are only undermining their children’s intellectual development. It will no easy transition for Japan.

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ric.htm
Published: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?rc20051009a1.htm

Korean youth express ignorance over Macarthur statue

The attitudes of young South Koreans and their unions [Japan Times, 19th Sept05] to the statue of General Douglas Macarthur in Inchon are deplorable, but also symptomatic of the anti-intellectual thinking in former American Asian ‘colonies’ such as South Korea, the Philippines and Japan. They are hardly ‘symbols of occupation and oppression’ as asserted. This conflict of values is evidence that parents have a poor understanding of the political values involved, or have failed to communicate them to their children. In as much as the (South) Korean Teachers & Education Workers Union supported the anti-Macarthur demonstrations, clearly they are collectivists better re-united with their North Korean comrades. Would they prefer one statue of Macarthur or thousands of the North Korean President. They have the good fortune of having a choice.

They correctly assert that “the US participation was ‘not altruistic’ and lead to the ‘division of the Korean peninsula’, but what values would they be asserting if indeed the US was altruistic. The day that the US acts with altruistic motives is the day that the communist ideal of self-sacrifice have won. That is precisely why religious zealots like George Bush are so threatening as Presidents, because there is no greater threat to world peace than indifference and (US) hypocrisy. Global prosperity achieved under expanding free markets will only be sustained with enlightened leaders (symbols) of self-interest.

Postscript:
The 5m bronze statue of General Douglas Macarthur was constructed in 1967 to celebrate the landing of US troops at Inchon in Sept 17th of 1950, because the landing was considered to have turned the fortunes of the war by cutting off the North Korean supply lines. The protest was supported by a coalition of student & labour groups, including the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions & the Korean Teachers & Education Workers Union, all of which are politically active.

Respect for victims of war

Kumar Suresh in the Japan Times letters of 17th Aug 2005 comments on `Little Respect for the Occasion` is critical of Japanese people in Tokyo who celebrated the 60year anniversary of WWII with a fireworks festival. Its hard to disparage these celebrants without knowing their motives. Perhaps they were just pleased to have a day off work, given that labour has a servile relationship to business & government in Japan, which manifests in Japanese workers getting fewer days holiday than other nations, not to mention the hours of unpaid overtime.

Perhaps they were nationalists proud of Japan`s empire-building accomplishments during WWII. Perhaps they were celebrating the end of the war. Some cultures celebrate the death of workers rather than mourn their death.

Personally I prefer the more positive interpretation of events. Why do westerners make a virtue of mourning. Why is it better to mourn the loss, as opposed to celebrate the relationship you had. Its really a matter of `the glass half-full or half-empty`. We have the right to celebrate or mourn, but should we be reproaching people for doing either. Neither is an imposition on the other. I find it more shameful when western leaders describe the defence of their nations by soldiers as `the greatest sacrifice to nation`. If that is a soldiers motive than we have learnt nothing from WWII. The collectivist `self-sacrifice` ethos has underpinned every authoritarian regime that has coersed, suppressed or otherwise terrorised people, and that like should be recognised. Consider that religion has the same collectivist ethos of `non-self`.

Human ethics does not require the renunciaton of human values, it needs a refinement and celebration of them. I hope that was the motives of the Tokyo celebrants.

Racism in Japan

On the 1st july 2005 the UN announced that it would send an expert to Japan to assess whether foreigners and minorities were fairly treated.

My judgement is that the UN `inspector` need not leave Narita Airport if he gets an evening flight. Basically he will conclude that foreigners have the same status as cattle. Lining up for immigration at Narita Airport is like lining up to be `branded FOREIGNER` by Japanese authorities.
Why do I say this?
Because when all the Japanese nationals returning home had been processed, the airport authorities allowed them to finish work, rather than assist with the processing of FOREIGNERS. It might be argued that these `domestic` immigration authorities are not trained to process incoming foreigners, but that`s precisely the point....why aren`t they? Why are foreigners treated as secondary, forced to stay back late because the japanese government has provided only 3 immigration officials to assess imcoming passengers.

This is of course not the only evidence of racism in Japan, and neither are such sentiments universal. Japanese are themselves divided among those who embrace western values (5%) and those that don`t (95%). Its important to realise that its the majority of intellectuals and the educated classes that embrace western values, whilst the unthinking majority are insane or just collectivist sheep with the intellectual capability (far short of capacity) of an ant.　

Nor do I see this as reason to snub Japan. On the contrary, for westerners Japan is perhaps the most interesting country they should go to, if only because its so poorly understood by the western media. Some do justice to its tourist attractions, but few `get the culture`. it takes years. I`ve been here 10 times over as many years, and never cease to be bored.

There is some confusion as to what constitutes racism in Japan. Firstly we must define our terms. Racism is any act of treating or judging others on the basis of their ethnicity. Given that Japan is a pretty homogeneous population, there is some justification for doing this. Why? Because Japanese are different. Just as westerners enjoy their values (which embrace others), should not the Japanese be free to embrace their values (which exclude others). I am critical of institutionalised discrimination (as occurs at the airport) in government policy, but should not the Japanese be free to have a beer in their favourite izakaya free of foreigners - IF that policy reflects the values of the izakaya owner. Many times I have been rejected from drinking at bars (even if its contrary to government policy).

In case your wondering why some Japanese deplore western interaction - the answer is nationalistic arrogance. Back in the 1870s Japan was forced to open up to western influence. At the time they were technologically inept, but what hurt these collectivist souls more was reports that westerners regarded the Japanese as `yellow vermin`. Its no doubt such sentiments prompted the empire building of the early 1900s, and the opportunism that brought them into the war. Defeatism was short-lived after the war, during 1950s the Japanese were intent on demonstrating that they were economically and culturally superior to the West. Unfortunately that`s a difficult achievement for a collectivist country. So lets consider whether they have achieved it:

1. Economics: Japan is often perceived as an economic miracle, but really its economic progress is nothing special when you consider the support its had from the west, the benefits of low cost labour, the technology transfer from the west. Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, China have been no less impressive, just they are smaller countries or have been `economies in transition`for less time.
2. Culture: Japan does embrace the cultural institutions like the west. eg. theatre, rock n`roll. It even has its entrenched historical cultural values such as kabuki, tea ceremony. But there is very little growth in these cultural values, as there is very little originality or creativity. There is a great deal of copying western styles, though they are `fashioned` to ever greater `extremes` to impress others. eg.　Harajuku fashion is really a take on the Boy George punk styles and barbie dolls. At least Boy George had a semblance of intellectual depth.
3. Intellect: The Japanese are collectivist souls, and as such you will not get the depth of analytical debate that you get in the west. The problem is philosophical (lack of individualism), and this extends into the education system. Children are lectured to, with no opportunity to contribute, nor is there creativity encouraged. Its fair to say that criticism is discouraged, of any authority or even peers. Harmony is the greater virtue.
4. Civility: Much of Japan`s self-belief stems from government-sponsored propaganda. Its argued that Japan is the pinnacle of virtue because of its low divorce rates. Dubious statistics when women fear divorce. A great deal of many marriages are described as `domestic divorce` where the wife cooks for the husband dutifully, but will seldom talk to him. Police statistics are just as dubious. Low crime? Its true that certain crimes are less frequent, but records are misleading. A great many crimes go unreported. There are softer forms of coersion that are not even evident in the west. eg. the presence of yakuza and petty criminals soliciting money from independent women. Another perceived Japanese virtue is `consideration`. But knowing Japan as I know it, its really just selflessness (usually women) or self-delusion (men wanting to show you are beneath them). They want to show you how `civilised` they are. Never mind that a great number of the population are weird....the further you get from Tokyo the more weird they get.
5. Standards of living: Inspite of Japan`s economic assension, it is still only on-par with Australia and Switzerland in terms of purchasing power. That`s a purely economic assessment. But consider the dubious status of Japanese savings (poor return on investment), the fact that for the last 14years the Japanese have been loosing value on their housing assets, and the fact that they live in shoe-size boxes, and the fact that they work much longer working hours in a very stifling environment, and you get the impression that they are not doing so well. Their only reprieve is that they have low expectations....at least until they travel overseas.

To be fair Japan offers some great virtues....its consumer electronics designs are great (by virtue of having a frivilous consumer culture that embraces Japanese IT), food is healthy and fresh. Great service is often a myth when it becomes a virtue to show.

Limits to Asian & western integration.

The characterization of Australia’s PM John Howard [ Japan Times 7/04/05] was unfair considering the inherent philosophical differences between Asia and the West. Yet Howard has remained engaging, placing a higher value on mutual trade. He has had several triumphs in Asia – FTAs with Thailand and Singapore. A healthy Aust-US relationship is only contentious if Asia is opposed to the values of personal freedom which underpin it. Seldom do Asian leaders state their political views, but their countries at least have institutions intended to preserve personal liberties (eg. Courts), although clearly the Asian population is still reluctant to use them. Personal experience suggest coercion still undermines ‘rule of law’ in even the most modern of Asian countries (Japan). Others might rationalize that Japan has fewer lawyers per capita because they choose to settle grievances peacefully. But that’s code for subjugation (ie. voluntary or self abuse). I’m hard-pressed to think of an Asian leader who has tried harder than Howard to build relationships. Every time Howard attempts to join ASEAN, he is rebuked by ‘recalcitrant’ Malaysia. Not signing the ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation reflects the differences in values – at least at root - between Australia (pro-individual rights) and ASEAN (pro-collective ‘rights’). Since Japan, China and India are collectivist, its not surprising that they supported the initiative, whilst the US, Britain, Canada (pro-individualist countries) were politely indifferent to it. What would such an agreement achieve? Authoritarian regimes don’t respect rights. Eg. Indonesian PM Soeharto for example. Regardless, Howard is a second-rate leader, but what do you expect from ANY democracy, when reason is subjugated behind popularity, numbers, dogma, misrepresentation, context-dropping and evasion. Nevertheless his foreign policies have been principled and thoughtful. His only significant failing in Asia was not using the East Timorese intervention as a tool for redressing long-standing civil unrest in Indonesia. Clearly his advisors in the Dept of Foreign Affairs missed the bigger picture. There is no question that both Asia and the West need to change – it starts with political integrity (reason).

This letter as far as I'm aware has yet to get editorial approval.

Rights without principles

Regarding Sarah Benton's March 6 article, "Trashing liberties we die for": I'm left with the perception that voters and politicians care little about principles. Politicians care little for principles because voters don't. Concepts such as "rights" or justice raise a yawn in voters that idealize democracy (numbers) as a standard of truth rather than a method of peace. This article attempts to collectivize all liberals from different camps as contradictory, when they merely have different views.
However, in Ted Rall's article on the same day, "Property rights to the biggest taxpayer," it's a sad irony that the so-called defenders of capitalism -- big business -- are such poor advocates of it, some because of their anti-intellectual pragmatism and others because of their dogmatic idealism divorced from context. In the case presented, a homeowner in an inner city ghetto is fighting to avoid eviction by local government and big business under the "eminent domain" provisions for property redevelopment. Big business is holding the collectivist "good of society" ticket while libertarians are fighting for rights at any price.
Wilhelmina Dery is an unlikely libertarian campaigner. I suggest that, after living in the same house for 86 years, the principle she is fighting is fear of change rather than property rights. Of course she should have a voice, but without a rational argument for opposing the generous compensation, she should be evicted. I would suggest that if business executives used a bit of empathy, she might have gone willingly. I think all the highlights of my life resulted from change -- it's about time Dery experienced one.
Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?rc20050320a5.htm
ANDREW SHELDON CROOKSSaitama

Japan - No monopoly on exclusion

Regarding Jim Rion's March 20 letter, "Recourse besides racial exclusion": Rion needs to embrace the Japanese exclusionary tendency with humor because changing attitudes will take longer than his life span. I have fond memories of going to an exclusive Japanese restaurant in Sydney, only to be told it was fully booked when my eyes told me otherwise. In response, I took out my Sony digital camera to snap pieces of evidence. I just wanted to give the staff a fright, as I respect everyone's right to be stupid or not.
A similar exclusive bar around the corner catering to Asia elites had obscene cover charges to keep out the apparently uncultured gaijin Australians. (Frankly, though, given the implicit values of these people, I was pleased that they were considerate enough to hide themselves.)
Rion has to understand that Japan is a highly collectivized society. It isn't going to change overnight, and one suspects that the majority don't want it to. They have a subjective concept of truth. Comparatively, many Westerners hold an objective truth. Yet we are all humans with the same nature. Let them believe that every gaijin is an American, that all Americans are overweight, etc. But act with integrity.
You may argue for rights, but in essence you are asserting that you should have the right of access to their property. You may talk of cultures visibly holding everyone who is not a member with fear and distrust, yet your views embrace the same premise -- that rights, values and identities are collective.
A great many Japanese are sympathetic or firmly supportive of Western values. I choose to drink with them; they will give you access. Principles matter when applied consistently.

ANDREW SHELDON CROOKS, Saitama, Japan
Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ric.htm