[ファブリス]

"Naoki once had it all - the fast car, the executive home. Boss of his own business he lived the good-life when Japan's economy was at it's height. Then the bubble burst - and he met Yoshie."

Quite a depressing story. His English is quite good for most Japanese, so I'm quite surprised he couldn't leverage that for some kind of better position, but it seems like he's opposed to the typical Japanese business man life so that may be why.

I think the post office system was a good target to take a documentary on. They privatized the post office system and have been trying to turn it into a profitable system, but it seems pretty obvious that isn't the case. Its a good case of why postal service needs to be considered a government service.

I feel this is a real depiction of Japan today, instead of some kind of fake positiveness. The film mentions the "fragility" of the environment at the post office, but that's something I see all over Japan and I like to think of it more as 'rotting.' The country needs a shake up to change eveything.

Thanks for the link.

vix86 Wrote:I think the post office system was a good target to take a documentary on. They privatized the post office system and have been trying to turn it into a profitable system, but it seems pretty obvious that isn't the case. Its a good case of why postal service needs to be considered a government service.

So if a bloated bureaucracy isn't valuable enough to be successfully privatized (because it sucks up more value than it produces, ergo, doesn't make a profit), that proves it should be subsidized by taxpayers (or, more exactly, debt that is obtained with children and their children's children's lives offered up as leverage)?

I wanted to say something about that part too. Just because a business isn't working well doesn't mean it should be taken over by the government. It usually means either 1. another company could step in and do the job better and compete business away from them, or 2. people aren't willing to pay enough for better service. As a government service, you would probably get the worst of both worlds where you pay more for worse service.

I'm not going to start a debate on this, because its been had before. Most people think a postal system is an integral part of society, without it it would be difficult to function. Just like other things in society such as roads, police & fire, utilities, etc; the government regulates and funds it through taxes.

It's important to also note that the post office in Japan also runs a bank and sells insurance and bonds.

Thank you for the link Fabrice. One of the many reason I love the forums here.

As for the conversation going on, while I agree that it wouldn't be good to have the government just take over the postal services, that's only because it'd just be a bandaid on a festering wound. What needs to be treated here is the underlying cause; more capitalism isn't the answer, it's the disease. Isn't that one of the main points of the documentary? We are so focused on money and working (just so we can do it again tomorrow) that we've forgotten our common humanity and the (potential) community around us. But what can I say, I like to think humanity can do better...

The things you listed roads, police, and fire are public goods in the economic sense (ie not easy to exclude people who haven't paid from using). Utilities are a special case because it would make little sense for there to be 5 different companies stringing power cables and gas lines through my neighborhood. Even so, I get all of my utilities from private (heavily regulated) for-profit companies and I it's really not that horrible.

The postal service doesn't fit into any of those categories. There's no reason there couldn't be 5 different mail carriers competing for my business, trying to out do each other. Each of them would probably do their job better than a postal service run by the government because there's plenty of incentive to do a good job inexpensively.

vix86 Wrote:It's important to also note that the post office in Japan also runs a bank and sells insurance and bonds.

If that's a reason someone shouldn't be in the postal business, isn't the government also running a bank while selling bonds and insurance?

yogert909 Wrote:The postal service doesn't fit into any of those categories. There's no reason there couldn't be 5 different mail carriers competing for my business, trying to out do each other. Each of them would probably do their job better than a postal service run by the government because there's plenty of incentive to do a good job inexpensively.

If that's a reason someone shouldn't be in the postal business, isn't the government also running a bank while selling bonds and insurance?

We can speculate all day about how well a business "might" run the mail system, but the fact is that most of the public still considers the postal system a public good. If it were an issue to people that they want the postal system to be run by businesses instead of the government, then they would vote that way. Japan did this, and in recent years there has been a fair amount of backlash at the changes as it hasn't improved the system the way it was promised and has resulted in some offices being shut down.

vix86 Wrote:I'm not going to start a debate on this, because its been had before. Most people think a postal system is an integral part of society

If your argument starts with "most people think", then you're right, you shouldn't be having a debate on this.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

REH94 Wrote:we've forgotten our common humanity and the (potential) community around us.

Just based on this one post, I don't like you, and I refuse to be a part of any community you are a part of. If you want every human to be a part of that community, you're going to have to kill me first. Or at least put a gun to my head, take me prisoner and pretend that's what a community is.

Hahaha, fair enough. I'm sure you have well thought out political/economic views and I can respect that, I never said we had to be friends. I'm sure the irony isn't lost on you though, we're already a part of the same RtK community (conspicuously absent a gun to your head). Anyway, I'm curious, what did you think of the documentary Stansfield?

Oh Lordie.

Stansfield123 - please refrain from personal attacks in this thread. (Or any thread, really.)

REH94 Wrote:Thank you for the link Fabrice. One of the many reason I love the forums here.

As for the conversation going on, while I agree that it wouldn't be good to have the government just take over the postal services, that's only because it'd just be a bandaid on a festering wound. What needs to be treated here is the underlying cause; more capitalism isn't the answer, it's the disease. Isn't that one of the main points of the documentary? We are so focused on money and working (just so we can do it again tomorrow) that we've forgotten our common humanity and the (potential) community around us. But what can I say, I like to think humanity can do better...

How about I offer a differing view that doesn't involve personal attacks. Also, how do we get to capitalism by talking about government subsidies? That's not capitalism...

Lets start with a question: if you don't like capitalism, what do you like? My understanding is that the other options don't work too well (think of all the heavily regulated economies in the world and how successful they are), so what economic ideal would you like realize? Why?

While it's true that capitalism, in the purest form we can put into practice, has some problems; namely, the eventuality that one or more companies will become so powerful that they can work against capitalism while still making a hefty profit (monopolies/oligopolies).
However, our civilization depends on a capitalist-like economy in order to function; with capitalism, companies can grow to incredible sizes, allowing the majority of our obscenely large population to have some hope of employment.
It drives the need for innovation, education, and exploration. Without capitalism, there is no need to find better ways to do the same task, no need to look for resources, no need to learn anything beyond simple farming methods and how to not die (which is nearly a capitalistic venture in itself, since individuals will naturally look for ways to improve their lot via trade, stockpiling, and the hiring of others to give them the spare time to do other things).

Capitalism is what works. It's what we do as humans. It makes lives better (or do you want to be a serf working the land for your lord and paying high taxes in exchange for a wall and it's potential to protect you, assuming you can get inside the wall before you die).

I won't ramble more, I'm just really confused how you can think that capitalism is a problem; it just doesn't make sense in this world where our entire civilization is based on it. It's only because of capitalism that you can even talk about it here...

REH94 Wrote:Thank you for the link Fabrice. One of the many reason I love the forums here.

As for the conversation going on, while I agree that it wouldn't be good to have the government just take over the postal services, that's only because it'd just be a bandaid on a festering wound. What needs to be treated here is the underlying cause; more capitalism isn't the answer, it's the disease. Isn't that one of the main points of the documentary? We are so focused on money and working (just so we can do it again tomorrow) that we've forgotten our common humanity and the (potential) community around us. But what can I say, I like to think humanity can do better...

Well, I have no reason to dislike you. I don't agree with you, but that's no reason to dislike someone. However I'd really love to convince you that capitalism is not a disease.

sholum Wrote:While it's true that capitalism, in the purest form we can put into practice, has some problems; namely, the eventuality that one or more companies will become so powerful that they can work against capitalism while still making a hefty profit (monopolies/oligopolies).
However, our civilization depends on a capitalist-like economy in order to function; with capitalism, companies can grow to incredible sizes, allowing the majority of our obscenely large population to have some hope of employment.
It drives the need for innovation, education, and exploration. Without capitalism, there is no need to find better ways to do the same task, no need to look for resources, no need to learn anything beyond simple farming methods and how to not die (which is nearly a capitalistic venture in itself, since individuals will naturally look for ways to improve their lot via trade, stockpiling, and the hiring of others to give them the spare time to do other things).

Thank you for your response Sholum.

To answer your first question about my preferred economic system, I would argue that it doesn't exist yet. I do absolutely agree that (regulated) capitalism, such as the Nordic model, is currently our best system, but I would abhor the thought that because we found something less than terrible we should stop looking for better economic models. I would much prefer to see a system emerge where other living things and their ecosystems have some intrinsic value. I would also like to see a system emerge where externalities aren't dumped into nature, third world countries and subsequent generations.

I would argue that the point you raised about growth is precisely why capitalism isn't sustainable. We can't grow ourselves out of the fact that this world is finite. Eventually we will hit the limits and when that happens what then?

As for your point about how capitalism drives innovation, etc, I would agree that chasing profit may be a piece of it, especially in the past, but certainly not all of it and especially not now. Science is the primary reason for innovation, not capitalism. Funding for science isn't solely due to corporations. Research output may slow in other economic models but humanities desire for learning and experimentation won't stop as long as people exist.

You wrote "or do you want to be a serf working the land for your lord and paying high taxes in exchange for a wall and it's potential to protect you, assuming you can get inside the wall before you die" but isn't that exactly the situation that Naoki is in in the documentary? Naoki and Yoshie were working a combined 20+ hours a day and were barely hanging on. What else would you call that but serfdom? Naoki is paying taxes literally (and figuratively with his well being) all for the 'protection' of a society that couldn't care less about him. Anyway, what were your views on the documentary?

I think this is an important conversation to have, but maybe not here. You are right in that this is way off topic (and that it's largely my fault, sorry everyone). As a result I'll just end off with this: I feel we both agree that capitalism isn't perfect, so why not pursue something better?

REH94 Wrote:Eventually we will hit the limits and when that happens what then?

Then we're off to the moon!