JR just thinks the old station is a wasted retail opportunity. All those young people streaming by and no one spending money on their property. I suppose that is how a stockholder corporation is supposed to think, but, but is there any such thing as the public good? If each business optimizes its own property the charm of a location as a whole, and the reason for people to go there vs. somewhere else, is lost. I won’t even get into the larger question of is a city just a big shopping mall?
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Pedestrian flow and safety are important and will be addressed, but I'm sure the awful volume of the new station is more about JR wanting to profit from in-station shops. They see all these young consumers passing through and they can hardly make a yen off them now because there is no room for shops. That's a tragedy for them. So the beautiful outside spaces and large trees behind the station will be given over to more retail.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Demanding that a rail line make a profit is a little like demanding that the sewer network in your town make a profit. It is very cheap to make a home without water and drain pipes and a town without sewers, but large, shared benefits accrue from having them -- like increased density, more efficient use of land, and general well-being. That's why zoning laws require them. The same could be said of rail, which allows increased density, better fuel efficiency, reduced pollutants and greenhouse gases, more efficient use of land, more universal access to transportation. No transportation system is unsubsidized. Fuel taxes do not fully pay for roadways. Air fares (taxes, landing fees) do not fully pay for airports and air traffic control systems. Furthermore, this article ignores network effects. The branch and short lines may not have many passengers, but how do passengers get to the trunk and long-distance lines? The system must be considered as a system.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
In a way, this is a not a bad outcome for the anti-nuclear movement. If these individuals were found liable, one might conclude that nuclear energy is safe, except for a few negligent actors, which the system is correcting. As no specific individual negligence was found, one might conclude that our social systems are not up to the challenge of safely operating multiple nuclear power plants worldwide (if anywhere). There are technical solutions for all of the problems we are aware of, but -- as demonstrated at Fukushima, Chernobil and Three-Mile Island -- it is a challenge for organizations to sustainably maintain operations flawlessly -- and there will always be unexpected events.
An even bigger challenge than operating the plants is developing a nuclear waste transportation and disposal capability that will be safe for thousands of years. Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. What evidence do we have that society is capable of meeting this challenge? To date, there is no long-term high level nuclear waste storage solution in the United States.
People on this forum know that Japan is far from perfect, but if Japan, with a relatively high level of technical ability, industrial capacity, social order, and quality control expertise cannot safely operate nuclear plants, then how will the other 30 countries with nuclear power plants fare? Several of these countries are less stable politically and have a less well-developed engineering infrastructure than Japan. Natural disasters are a threat worldwide, as are wars and terrorism.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Hiro wrote: "Currently many other countries try to build nuclear powerplants as a solution to supply their nation with cheaper cost while Japan instead is trying to scrap them. "
Most studies show that nuclear power today is not the low cost option -- only with government subsidies they receive for liability insurance. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Even the French studies (a country that is all in with nuclear power) show that nuclear is competitive in cost only with state-subsidized insurance. The Japanese study -- almost alone -- shows nuclear is cheapest -- but that is with state subsidized insurance.
And I don't think the cost of Fukushima is being factored into the cost for Nuclear. The cost of the evacuation. The decrease in the value of the land. Lost production. And now TEPCO is saying that they can't continue to store radioactive cooling water. What has been the loss in Japanese fishery exports because many countries won't import Japanese fish? What private insurance company (experts in assessing risk) is going to insure all that?
I suspect most countries subsidize nuclear energy because they want to have nuclear technology for other purposes. Some large and well-connected Japanese companies still hope to export nuclear power products. A Japanese energy policy that doesn't include nuclear will surely end these hopes.
8 ( +8 / -0 )
I think that Rakuten (a Japanese company) and Yahoo Japan (a Japanese company) will also fall within this discussion?
I agree that many of these sites have too much market power, but Rakuten, Yahoo Japan, Softbank, although Japanese, are not the same as Toyota, Toshiba, etc. in terms of influence baked into the system. Including them in the government statement gives the appearance of fairness. Rakuten was also included in the recent government raid on travel booking sites. The company being protected in that raid is JTB -- and the hotel industry. JTB's booking terms are all in favor of the hotels. Can the LDP deliver real economic innovation and reform without antagonizing their base? Or will giving establishment companies time to compete work out best for Japan?
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Nothing, and clearly you don't know either when you make claims equating trade
imbalances like debt, they are not the same thing.
Trade imbalances are part of the current account of a country. The other major component is investment. The U.S. has been able to do OK despite consistent trade deficits because of net positive investments. But a deficit is not a good thing -- in trade or investment. An absolute deficit would ordinarily put downward pressure on the value of the dollar, which would make our exports cheaper, but the U.S. benefits from (still) being a global default currency and a relative safe haven.
The fact is Americans consume more than we can make in a lot of goods.
Our only option is to import products. Otherwise, consumption falls and hello recession!
I am not arguing for it, but there is no reason why the U.S. could not manufacture enough for its own consumption. Manufacturing has been moving offshore because American companies can boost profits this way, while reducing wages paid. Boost domestic manufacturing, increase employment, support the economy. Higher prices may reduce consumption in terms of number of units, but the total amount spent need not fall, and more of the money spent would end up in paychecks of people who need to spend to live.
Anyways, why should consumers be forced to pay higher prices? If they want to pay higher
prices for American goods, they can. If they want to buy cheaper goods, they also can. Is that not fair?
That is fair, but fair doesn't always mean smart. It is a recipe for long-term economic decline, and therefor not in the long-term interest of any American. As a higher and higher percentage of Americans earn lower wages at marginal and service sector jobs, or no jobs at all, either social support services are increased (taxes) or crime and health problem burdens increase (even for wealthy people, who still have to live with, and try to sell their products/services to increasingly poor and problematic people). Also, as manufacturing moves offshore, engineering design follows, business support services follow, investment in plant and equipment follows. Ultimately, our only economic contribution becomes natural resources. Natural resource based economies tend not to do well.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Good fences make good neighbors.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Punishment for not playing nicely during their last minister interview. That's what the Japanese press fears. Lack of access.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
We who debate here are all just pawns in their game. The politicians on all sides are playing with fire for their own gain. Going along with them risks repeating the mistakes of the past. Recognize that we all have the capacity to do horrible things -- or at least look the other way -- and our only defense is to actively seek good will and reconciliation. And also be courageous enough to turn out the politicians who are inflaming passions. Not easy on all fronts as the LDP and CCP know what buttons to push. They know how to frame the debate. They know that greed -- the prospect of economic growth and wealth -- will buy off principled resistance and corrupt morals.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Who is making meth in China? And why isn't that stopped in a country with a loyal citizenry (what I gather from reading comments on a Japan Today) and watchful government?
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I have fairly modern maps that show Tibet as an independent country, and an island off China is called ROC. Is it OK to produce maps with these names today? A map's labeling can influence public opinion. And public (world) opinion is relevant.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Always fascinating debate: China's right. Japan's right. Japan is a dog (what's wrong about a dog?). Fascinating not because it's so repetitive and predictable, but because it exposes all of our fears, insecurities, injuries to our egos. The politicians who know how to play our insecurities for their own gain always appear. What if we just decided not to play the game by the rules presented to us as alternatives? Where were we all when these islands were just a few rocks? Oh yeah, money (oil and gas) complicates things -- greed. Perhaps. There is not going to be any final resolution because the rocks are just metaphors for our feelings, insecurities, fears, frustrations, bent egos, greed (which is insecurity). It is probably asking too much of ourselves to examine our feelings, to trust that we are all generous when calm, and realize we are all devils when insecure. To calm down, think and talk.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
This article is going for sensation. The reduction in budget is causing consulates to cut back on cultural events, and a whole host of other activities that help people abroad develop an appreciation of Japan. Japanese consulates are being cut. Japanese language classes are being being phased out while Chinese classes and events are becoming more frequent. An Asian Studies department at an American university these days is more likely headed by a Chinese professor than a Japanese professor. There is a battle going on for hearts and minds -- make no mistake about it. "Shrimp tempura" is a lot cheaper than stepped up patrols in the Pacific and probably more effective in swaying world opinion.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
StormR: "Samsung is miles ahead in all areas."
You should be more precise. Exactly how many miles?
0 ( +2 / -2 )
An Asian team can't beat the French team without some bizarre reference to a four-armed goalie -- never mind the Fukushima angle?
On the other hand, it shows laudable freedom of opinion to make a joke about the danger of nuclear power in France -- a country totally dependent on it.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Just Google "yuzuko horigome" and click on images, and you can see dozens of pictures of her and the famous violin. I've traveled all over with laptop computers (my tool in trade) and have never been asked for a receipt and I am not an EU resident, like Horigome san. What were they thinking? Not thinking?
7 ( +7 / -0 )
We paid taxes for these nuclear plants. Better to complete what was built than abandon all these projects and ensure that there will be enough power to cool down the plants in the disaster. The country will be entirely dependent of other countries gas and will need to pay even more if it chooses power down everything. -- HKitagawa
Are you saying that nuclear power is economical compared to alternative energy even after adding the cost of Fukushima's displacement. loss of agricultural output and loss of land? It bankrupted the largest utility in Japan and put all taxpayers on the hook. Which is the impractical source of energy? And talk about dependence on other countries. How many uranium mines does Japan have? Where is nuclear waste processed? And where will it be discrded long-term? And what is Japan's defense going to cost as nuclear weapons proliferate. When all is factored in -- nuclear energy is hardly a bargain. It seems cheap only because these costs are mostly borne by others.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
China is following a mercantilist policy, and the only reason why there has not been pushback is that so many American corporations have been profiting from the low yuan. American retail stores sell Chinese made goods at huge markups. Chinese manufacturers are not benefiting as much as they should. A change in policy to allow Chinese consumption would benefit parties on both sides.
The Chinese government knows it will need to switch to a consumption-driven economy at some point. It is very expensive for the government to keep the yuan low in the face of a massive trade surplus. There is a risk of inflation. They are waiting for the right moment. Maybe waiting for a few more American manufacturers to go under, sell their equipment and lay off skilled workers. Waiting for Chinese factories to increase their capabilities. This way they can compete even with a higher yuan.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
China is the biggest customer for Oregon (USA) products. Number one product made in Oregon and sold to China is Intel Pentium processors. Triquint Semiconductor also sells a lot there. Yes. Agricultural products. Wheat, soybeans, hay, nursery stock, grass seed. But also wine. Seafood. And air quality monitors, water quality monitors,
Benchmade knives. A model that sells for $200 in the U.S. sells for $1400 in Beijing, and they are buying them. There in lies one of the problems. Only the rich in China can afford American and European quality goods. They want them.
A Chinese friend of mine tried to start a home-building business in China. Chinese government rules would not allow him to get foreign currency to buy imported components and fixtures that he wanted for these homes. They say -- buy Chinese.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The debate here, the comments by President Bush, even the protest by the Chinese government -- all wonderful. A process going on. Chinese can't host Olympics without putting their domestic policies on stage. Bush can't make comments on human rights in another country without holding his own behavior up for examination. The dialogue, the give and take, brings out emotions, causes us to examine our convictions, even if we try not to betray our doubts in our written posts. (a lost cause because the strongest, most absolute, and provocative language betrays the greatest internal doubt and fear.) Talk on!
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I saw the national anthem video that was emailed to me from some friends. Then I went out to the news site and watched teh entire video. If you watch the entire video, you will see Obama singing along to the national anthem near the beginning (none of the other candidates were). At the end, you will also see him enthusiastically applauding. When you see the whole video vs. the carefully edited one -- the impression is exactly the opposite. In short, the edited video tells a lie. The real question for me is why people (supporters and non) have not bothered to check? The whole thing fits too neatly into the cultural divide in the US between latte sipping liberals and workin' people. Bill Clinton was framed in his first election as an elite (Rhodes Scholar) until he came out with his (genius) boy from Hope, Arkansas commercial. Hillary -- a midwesterner and a Wellesley grad -- has suddenly sprouted an Arkansas hills accent ("I'm goin' to..."). And lets not even bring up the fact that Andover - Yale - Harvard grad, grandson of a New York Senator, who's father was chauffered in a limo to Connecticut private school, George W. Bush only bought his ranch a couple of years before running for prez. Are people that naive? Or are facts beside the point?
0 ( +0 / -0 )