activeaero Wrote:3. Japan's GDP can fall significantly and it will still have a higher GDP than plenty of other places that people still have tons of interest in. For example if Japan's population drops to 87 million by 2060 even with a 50% fall in GDP Japan's GDP per capita will still be nearly equal to the European Union average and nearly 40% higher than South Korea.

WOW!
Nice contribution.

One of my biggest fears about learning this language is that it will die in 10 years when everyone in Japan learns English due to a high amount of exposure through the internet. It's irrational to think it will happen that quickly, but it's gotta happen sometime, right?

egoplant Wrote:but it's gotta happen sometime, right?

The only way it could possibly happen in our lifetime is if all the Japanese people were killed for some reason--nuclear war maybe.

Otherwise, Japanese will be around well after we die.

Tzadeck Wrote:

egoplant Wrote:but it's gotta happen sometime, right?

The only way it could possibly happen in our lifetime is if all the Japanese people were killed for some reason--nuclear war maybe.

Otherwise, Japanese will be around well after we die.

Well people keep saying their economy is bucked, wouldn't that be a good reason to adopt another language?

Never has been in the past.

egoplant Wrote:One of my biggest fears about learning this language is that it will die in 10 years when everyone in Japan learns English due to a high amount of exposure through the internet. It's irrational to think it will happen that quickly, but it's gotta happen sometime, right?

Almost everyone just uses Japanese websites so I don't see this happening..

egoplant Wrote:Well people keep saying their economy is bucked, wouldn't that be a good reason to adopt another language?

Anyone over the age of 16 is not learning a new language to a degree that is usable for them.

Nothing short of being conquered by another country and forced to use the language by threat of death, is going to make people start using English to any degree that will affect the country. It'll take another 50-100 years before you can even get CLOSE to saying Japan is an English speaking country.

Many people criticize Japan for being bad at English but there is a reason: they don't need to learn English.

Most Asian countries speak English better than Japan because those countries suck so its citizens learn English so that they can get away and move to a nice English speaking 1st world country where there are more opportunities.

A condition has to be met before Japan will improve their English literacy rates: the Japanese economy has to go downhill and the country transitions from a rich 1st world country to a poor 3rd world country. It is only then do the Japanese have a motivation for learning English (assuming America hasn't become the Wild West yet).

I don't see that happening soon because it's mostly rich old white guys who are screwing around with other people's money and Asians tend to save more and be isolated, just like their languages and their internet.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:a rich 1st world country to a poor 3rd world country

I don't think America needs to be opposing the communist bloc anymore either.

activeaero Wrote:2. Japan has a fairly broad income distribution/good income equality. A society with a broad income distribution handles economic downturns better than a society that doesn't. Or in other words when everyone becomes poorer together at more or less the same rate it is easier to adjust.

That's an arbitrary statement if I ever heard one. What could possibly be the logical connection between income equality and the ability to adjust to economic downturns?

What do you even mean by "adjusting" to an economic downturn? The only thing I can think of is spending withing your means. Which Japan is most definitely not doing.

Japan's problem IS the failure to adjust to economic conditions. It's been two decades of almost no economic growth and continuous deficit spending as if they're the fastest growing economy on the planet.

qwertyytrewq Wrote:Many people criticize Japan for being bad at English but there is a reason: they don't need to learn English.

Most Asian countries speak English better than Japan because those countries suck so its citizens learn English so that they can get away and move to a nice English speaking 1st world country where there are more opportunities.

A condition has to be met before Japan will improve their English literacy rates: the Japanese economy has to go downhill and the country transitions from a rich 1st world country to a poor 3rd world country. It is only then do the Japanese have a motivation for learning English (assuming America hasn't become the Wild West yet).

That's a nice theory, until you realize that 56% of Germans, 90% of Dutch, 86% of Swedes, 60% of Belgians, 50% of French, 85% of Israelis, 62% of Swiss, 90% of Norwegians (third richest nation in the world), 80% in Singapore speak English. And the list of rich countries where a majority of the population speaks English goes on and on. Japan's numbers aren't listed in the wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...population I got these from, but according to another study, they have the same scores as France (50%).

And, of course, less than 1% of China's population speaks English, less than 10% of Brazil's, less than 5% of Russians, and, AMAZINGLY, less than 5% of Mexicans. (All the figures (rich and poor countries both) use the same standards of measurement, and refer to upper-intermediate and above levels of English, not just fluency.)

Perhaps, in light of those figures, the ability to speak English has less to do with desperation, and more with the means and time it takes to learn it.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

activeaero Wrote:2. Japan has a fairly broad income distribution/good income equality. A society with a broad income distribution handles economic downturns better than a society that doesn't. Or in other words when everyone becomes poorer together at more or less the same rate it is easier to adjust.

That's an arbitrary statement if I ever heard one. What could possibly be the logical connection between income equality and the ability to adjust to economic downturns?

What do you even mean by "adjusting" to an economic downturn? The only thing I can think of is spending withing your means. Which Japan is most definitely not doing.

Japan's problem IS the failure to adjust to economic conditions. It's been two decades of almost no economic growth and continuous deficit spending as if they're the fastest growing economy on the planet.

I'm not talking in regards to being able to adjust their economic model. I'm talking in regards to descending into "social chaos". Societies that have more income equality have less division amongst themselves thus lowering the chance of some great breakdown of society when times get a little rough. Societies with great income inequality are more likely to have conflicts that arise from such divisions in society in such a situation.

And I completely agree that their economic model is severely flawed . No arguments there.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

activeaero Wrote:2. Japan has a fairly broad income distribution/good income equality. A society with a broad income distribution handles economic downturns better than a society that doesn't. Or in other words when everyone becomes poorer together at more or less the same rate it is easier to adjust.

That's an arbitrary statement if I ever heard one. What could possibly be the logical connection between income equality and the ability to adjust to economic downturns?

There can be a connection, depending on the circumstances. For example, if the problem is lack of demand. Spending patterns of the rich and poor tend to be different. In a depression, the rich tend to save more rather than investing or buying more luxury goods. But the poor don't have that option, because they still need to get by, and so are more likely to continue to spend everything they get. It's one of the reasons that raising the amount of money the average person has could help to fix the problem.

So, if there's higher income equality, what stagnation of money there is at the top will be less important, since the bottom 90% have the capacity to spend.

activeaero Wrote:I'm not talking in regards to being able to adjust their economic model. I'm talking in regards to descending into "social chaos". Societies that have more income equality have less division amongst themselves thus lowering the chance of some great breakdown of society when times get a little rough. Societies with great income inequality are more likely to have conflicts that arise from such divisions in society in such a situation.

Two points:
1. I disagree with that too. Yes, the principal cause of societal instability, for the past 100 years or so, have been socialist revolution. But saying that income inequality in turn caused those revolutions is reversing cause and effect.

In reality, the very notion that income inequality is bad for society (divisive, immoral, etc.) originated with Marxism. The fact that this ideology then went on to cause the societal breakdowns it purported to prevent does the opposite of proving that claim.

2. What are you basing the claim that Japan has "good income equality" on? The have roughly the same income disparity other developed countries have. They rank near the middle by most formulas that attempt to measure this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou...e_equality (last two tables are the easiest to navigate)

I do think Japan is one of the most cohesive nations on the planet. But that's because they have relatively little ethnic, cultural or even political disparity, compared to other nations.

IceCream Wrote:There can be a connection, depending on the circumstances. For example, if the problem is lack of demand. Spending patterns of the rich and poor tend to be different. In a depression, the rich tend to save more rather than investing or buying more luxury goods. But the poor don't have that option, because they still need to get by, and so are more likely to continue to spend everything they get. It's one of the reasons that raising the amount of money the average person has could help to fix the problem.

Right. If the problem is that people are saving too much (or rather, aren't in enough debt), then taking everything from the people who earned their wealth and giving it all to the people who haven't earned anything will cause the economy to pick right up.

It's odd, though, that this exact method of kick-starting the economy has been implemented several time, and the only thing it resulted in was starvation and gulags.

The question then becomes what it means to "earn" your money. How much does a business owner "deserve" for starting the company? 3 times what their workers earn? 300? 3000?

Honestly, i can't see any logical connection between a fair distribution of wealth, and starvation and gulags. If by "starvation and gulags" you just mean communism, we're still not even close.

IceCream Wrote:The question then becomes what it means to "earn" your money.

It means gaining it through mutually beneficial, voluntary trade with others.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:The question then becomes what it means to "earn" your money.

It means gaining it through mutually beneficial, voluntary trade with others.

i don't really call the choice between working for someone else under unfair terms and starving / being hounded on the dole until you do get a job a voluntary one.

IceCream Wrote:

Stansfield123 Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:The question then becomes what it means to "earn" your money.

It means gaining it through mutually beneficial, voluntary trade with others.

i don't really call the choice between working for someone else under unfair terms and starving / being hounded on the dole until you do get a job a voluntary one.

I do. But that's because I know that the default condition of an animal, on Planet Earth, is to struggle for survival. The only thing that elevates us from that condition is reason. And reason can only work if our choices are voluntary. A person doesn't have much use for reason if he's not allowed to make his own choices.

When you think that having to work hard to survive gives you the right to start dealing with others against their will, that's when you are nothing more than an irrational animal, and are bound to end up having to live like one too. That is why pure socialism always leads to people reverting to the natural condition of irrational animals: because it is a political system in which interaction is 100% by force. Reason is eliminated 100% of the time.

The fact that you don't want interaction to be 100% by force, you're satisfied with 50% force and 50% rational choice, does not make you any more right than a communist. In fact, to be honest, makes you even more wrong: at least the communist is following a principle he believes is right. You obviously know the principle is wrong (why else would you be against following it 100%), and yet, you want to live by it half the time.

I just think this is a false dichotomy. It's no less rational to demand a fair exchange than it is to demand an unfair one. It's simply about how to balance seperate people's interests. Power accumulates in certain places, and is transferred in an unfair manner, leading to the ability for some people to trade less fairly than they would have to otherwise. The choice is only between forcing everyone to make fair trades, or allowing those with power to force everyone else to make unfair trades.

And reason isn't the only thing that seperates us from animals either. We also have the capacity to plan, and design the kind of society we want to live in. At least part of that society will likely be determined by kindness and empathy for others, as well as fairness and justice, since these are also of humanity's distinguishing features. One way for you to look at this is to use Rawl's veil of ignorance to try to determine what society you would want to live in. Few people, when faced with a 1% chance of being super-rich, and a 99% chance of scraping along, would choose a society that looked like that over a more equitable one.

Ultimately, we have to do what is pragmatically possible, even if that isn't ideal. If some inequality is pragmatic, we may have to settle for that. I don't know if that's true. But it's almost certain that we don't have to settle for the inequality levels we have now, since they were far smaller in the past, and society also ran better that way.

Living in Japan for several years now I'd say it's not dying, but it's changing more and more. Traditions are slowly fading (very slowly).
Shougatsu (Japanese New Year's Day) is a good example!

chochajin Wrote:Living in Japan for several years now I'd say it's not dying, but it's changing more and more. Traditions are slowly fading (very slowly).

True of every culture ever, haha.

Tzadeck Wrote:True of every culture ever, haha.

Totally agree!

Tzadeck Wrote:

chochajin Wrote:Living in Japan for several years now I'd say it's not dying, but it's changing more and more. Traditions are slowly fading (very slowly).

True of every culture ever, haha.

Actually cultures differ in their rate of changing. It's actually very fortunate for those who want to experience the Japanese culture that it's slowly changing! Here, the traditional culture is fading away really fast, unfortunately.

Stansfield123 Wrote:[clearly using Objectist definitions]

IceCream Wrote:...leading to the ability for some people to trade less fairly than they would have to otherwise. The choice is only between forcing everyone to make fair trades, or allowing those with power to force everyone else to make unfair trades. [emph mine; clearly not Objectivist definitions]

So IceCream and Stansfield123 (and the others debating socioeconomic causes to potential culture decline) don't waste more time misunderstanding each other, let me just clarify a few definitions:

"Force" - Stansfield123 means threat of death by the hands of men (or something that eventually escalates to this). For example, you are "forced" to pay your income taxes because otherwise you will be fined, jailed if you refuse to pay, and finally shot and killed if you refuse arrest- as deemed the law by society (ie. man).

In constrast, IceCream is refering to something more along the lines of being exploited by man (but not harmed by another man directly). This may apply to needs- for example, you are "forced" to pay too much for bread because you are starving and will die if you don't get food (but it would be by the hand of nature, not man). This also applies to wants- for example, you are "forced" to pay a lot for an iPod because of price fixing.

"Fair trade" - IceCream means a trade where both sides give and receive something of equal value (according to a 3rd party's concept of their value). One party may feel like they're being "forced (IceCream)" into it (because they can't find a cheaper iPod for sale or because they're hungry and need food) but they are not being "forced (Stansfield123)" because no man is literally threatening them with violence or something that can escalate to it (eg. a fine).

Stansfield123 means a trade where neither party was "forced (Stansfield123)" into making the deal and instead chose to act voluntarily; even if the conditions of the deal seem highly unfavorable to a third party, the people performing the trade clearly think they are profiting from making the trade (and if not they're free to back out).


Once more:

A) A grocer is only willing to trade a loaf of bread to a starving man for one million dollars because he knows the starving man will pay any price.
B) A law is passed requiring grocers offer bread to any starving man for at most $10.

By IceCream's definitions, (A) is a forced, unfair trade. (B) is somewhat undefined but I'd wager she's okay with it.

By Stansfield123's definitions (A) is perfectly fine (even if it appears extremely unbalanced to a neutral, 3rd party) and (B) is a forced, unfair trade.

When comes to libertarianism and debates about the economy and the market, it rests on the libertarian's belief that if the "free market" exists and can continue to exist with no or little government intervention/regulation, then the "invisible hand" of the free market god will ensure that any and all transactions that take place in this market between consumers and companies are "unforced" and therefore, benefecial to everyone.

If you agree with this statement, then you're a libertarian.

If you don't, then your debates with a libertarian will never end because the libertarian has already assumed something as truth (free market is good, government is bad) before the debate even started.

To put it another way, it is like arguing with a Christian about how old a dinosaur bone is. You might say many billions of years old but the Christian will say several thousand because he already assumed something as true before the debate started: the Earth is several thousand years old. And flat.