JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
0
taniwha
Mad,
Wars are good for the military industrial complex, and any industries given preferential treatment by the victors once the occupation begins. Sure all of that happens. What has also happened with the erosion of Capitalism is a clustering of wealth in the hands of a few. The notion that war is good for the economy is in any event nothing but a convenient myth. The realith is that when good economic conditions prevail those who own the means of production (factories etc) tend to be more socially aware. After all a healthy happy society equals a productive workforce.
When economic conditions turn adverse then profit becomes difficult to extract and it is always the worker that costs are extracted from one way or another. That's an economic and an historic fact. You can go back to prior to both World Wars to see how that process comes about and takes effect within a country such as say, the USA, or for that matter Germany, or Japan.
The one thing the US always had over the rest of the world's economies was a massive and advanced production base. That has been severely depleted and hollowed over the few decades. Globalization, inevitable in terms of the world economy, also contributed greatly.
Things are not as they were in the past.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
Barack Obama a moderate, hmm, perhaps I should retract that label.
Given the content and direction of Obama's recent round of speeches, squarely aimed at reassuring his corporate and reactionary overlords as they have been, he has in fact morphed from being an anti-war moderate as he initially posed, into something altogether quite different.
Posted in: Obama, McCain react cautiously to financial rescue plan
0
taniwha
McCain will be president.
Even though the polls may well favour Obama, the polls simply don't count in recent elections. No reason at all to think this one will be any different.
Barack Obama represents nothing so much as a deflection for public discontent, a safety valve to ensure the fraud of a democracy becomes overtly transparent - and really the financial crises and plan to 'solve' should have made the fraud transparent enough to everyone.
The Democrats, beyond kicking up a fuss, will not even put up a real fight. As I’ve already noted many times on JT the Dems don't have a good record in representing their supporters’ vote. The Democratic party have a dismal record of representing the interests of their support base which has time and again expressed outrage at the undemocratic domestic economic and social policies, and the war (in Iraq at least).
During the entire two terms of the Bush Administration the Democrats did all but nothing when they could have done a lot. The made noises about impeaching the president when they certainly had legitimate reasons to call for impeachment, yet they did nothing - just as I so often posted on JT would be the case.
The reality is the next president will be Republican because that faction of the Plutocracy ruling the US is the one in control. They will not let a moderate into power in what is for them, and actually for all of us, the critical moment.
Posted in: Obama, McCain react cautiously to financial rescue plan
0
taniwha
Skip,
You have it.
No. Let me clarify. The Republicans and the Democratic parties represent two separate factions within the American ruling elite. There are differences in perspective between them but nothing substantial. Both political parties after all serve the interests of the ruling elite, and not those of the larger American population. That is why no matter which is in power the general direction of US policy will not change.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
Mad I don't believe he should win, but still believe he will.
Totally agree with you, although it shouldn't be that way because the two - the American economy and America's wars - are reason for each other.
But there you go, I've been posting that the reality of what administration is in office and particularly the legislation they enact is shaped ultimately not by voters at all, however much they believe it to be. I'm sticking with that perspective, mostly because it is reality.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
Skip,
Not "ruling elites". Ruling elite. I'm only talking about one. Its not like there's a whole bunch of them vying in some kind of super league within the one country.
There is though a ruling elite in each country. That is entirely the norm. And yes, they do compete for resources. Its a zero-sum game. In other words, Capitalism has reduced down to a zero-sum game.
But in each country there is only one ruling elite, albeit a factionalized one. This is why the US is a plutocracy rather than a democracy. There is the illusion promulgated by the ruling elite that voters actually have a say in who governs them.
In reality the thin layer of extremely wealthy that make up the ruling elite have entirely all of the say. They say it through the corporations they own. The concept of 'the level playing field' and the ideology of the 'free marked', was an elaborate illusion maintained to give an appearance of naturalness to the whole construction.
The "media" is run entirely by corporations owned by the ruling elite. The manner in which they report 'facts' defines the parameters of the public (your) choice. These two candidates represent entirely the same ruling elite, albeit two factions of it. Unfortunately neither are interested at this point in social services because they are hell bent on maintaining the dominance of the dollar on the world currency market, and as that is proving impossible they are totally focused now on directly grabbing control of the world's mineral resources and means to their continued profit through war. The USA is at war, you've heard it from both candidates. This means harsh times for the American public just as it does for the victims of war abroad.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
McCain and Obama both have a plan, and its the same one. To ensure no obstacle gets in the way of business as usual/ war as usual. They do however, have entirely different personalities of course. But that just means the posturing is different.
Which ever slice you choose, it will be the same toxic pudding.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
The Democrats exist now principally to delude the people into thinking there is a democracy. They just do not represent any alternative to what the Republicans offer - a plutocracy manifesting itself nakedly at this point through the blatant dictatorship of the corporations.
McCain's plan? He hasn't really got one. It could best be summarised as 'business as usual' which also happens to translate as 'war as usual'.
The reason McCain will be president is simply because he is the nominated leader of the faction of the ruling elite that really do have control of politics and the country at this time.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
Taka,
I picked up on your post to Sarge his 'math'. I posted you on another thread suggesting you do the numbers with regard to your mention that McCain would privatise veteran's care and social security. As the facts I posted demonstrate, they have no money (at least none they will care to share) to fund those two or any other similar social services such as Medicare, or Medicaid. I mean it doesn't matter whether McCain or Obama gets elected into office, unfortunately.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
Obama represents a shift back to a ‘liberal’ posture that placates the larger American population. However, it is just a posture.
Obama couldn’t possibly deliver any real ‘change’, either economic or in terms of foreign policy. As his speeches have made clear, he represents emphatically the same corporate and military interests as does McCain. The difference if any will be in the relative youth of the president, and the baseless hope that a charismatic and eloquent president can rally Americans and the world and somehow return the US to what looks comparatively speaking like its glory days of the past.
Remember George Bush won two election in highly dubious circumstances.
The faction of the ruling elite that support Bush will not relinquish their hold on power. Just look at the fundamentally undemocratic policies they have rammed through legislation, particularly most recently.
It really hurts their supporters to admit but the truth is the Democratic Party have proven themselves to be gutless over the years of the Bush Administration, unable or just plain unwilling to stop the dismantling of the American Constitution, or to impeach Bush, unwilling to end the Iraq war. Even though Democrats made speeches that encouraged their supporters to think they actually desired those outcomes.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
Sarge
Yeah, seems so. Boy are they going to be disappointed.
Taka
Have you looked at your figures yet?
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
McCain is likely to become the next president.
I believe the NYT are fully aware of how a Republican presidency in this present political/economic climate would play out. What the newspaper may want is a return to the liberal posturing of a Democratic Whitehouse. However they contend with a Republican Party that has shifted across to the extreme right. This Party now represents the most fundamentalist religious and theo-fascist elements driving the party politics. The NYT is justafiably afraid of where that will take America and the world.
The NYT is fully complicit in the war crimes in this 'war on terror'. They fear what would happen if the country destroys itself and its ability to protect itself being subject to investigation from International war crimes trials, which any event are one day inevitable. The owners of the NYT and its editorial board want to push back that day of reckoning, which is understandable of course.
Posted in: McCain campaign savages New York Times
0
taniwha
Taka,
Both candidates back the plan by the Bush administration which means there will be little left over in the way of public funds for such things as social security, veterans funds, Medicare, Medicaid. Do the figures.
The figure of $700 billion remains a huge underestimation of what the rescue of Wall Street will actually cost the taxpayer. On Monday the New York Times noted the decision of the Bush administration to extend its purchase of securities to foreign based banks operating within the United States. This has been carried out under pressure from global institutions that hold massive amounts of US debt, and will substantially drive up the cost of the program.
Its biggest corporate bailout in world history, and it is larger than the annual budget for Social Security and the combined annual outlay for Medicare and Medicaid. Now how the heck can anyone think there will be money left over to fund social security?
They are blowing the entire allowed state budget for next year - $700 billion exceeds the total allotment for all discretionary spending, excluding the Pentagon, for fiscal year 2009!
And it is very likely that the very people in both political parties supporting this plan realise full well it is only prolonging the arrival of the inevitable. If that isn't a complete financial meltdown on a global scale (lets just hope not) it most certainly means a prolonged and profound recession.
Lets not delude ourselves into thinking one or other candidate can produce dollars out of his errr...hat.
Posted in: Bush administration urges quick action on $700 billion bailout
0
taniwha
Betzee,
I meant to address that post to you, and should add finally that the New York Times certainly does have 'liberal' pretensions. They like to be present themselves as 'politically correct' for sure. Over the years, particularly this past decade it isn't difficult to see at all the character of their editorial policy. They serve their corporate owners very well and most certainly (in the editorial room) would regard the old notion of being a part of the fourth estate as rather quaint.
Posted in: Bush administration urges quick action on $700 billion bailout
0
taniwha
Re 'principles', that's very true.
As far as your question re why would the New York Times hire Bill Kristol goes, one can only ask in reply why on earth wouldn't they? Particularly as he is a 'neo-conservative' as you noted, he was just what the newspaper would have been looking for at that time. His columns would certainly have to be completely in keeping with the character of the NYT.
The NYT might be a 'liberal' newspaper but it was a clarion call to war. and would feature and would likely be called to answer for its role in the murder of so many people to a war crimes tribunal one day. That is the same newspaper that employed Judith Miller. Miller established her reputation within an interlocking group of right-wing think tanks that have long promoted the US war against Iraq. All through the lead up to the invasion of Iraq by the US led coalition the NYT bayed for blood.
The newspaper's foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman so many times appeared to feel obliged to come to the aid of the Bush war cabal when ever it seemed war would not be sanctioned. Friedman's column endeavoured to provide a cover of legitimacy and even humaneness to Washington’s war drive. Back in 2003, he authored a column in which he urged his readers to “pay no attention” to the inspections taking place in Iraq.
This was an editorial policy at work throughout, and Bill Kristol and his perspective on the world fitted in very nicely.
Even while the editors of that paper postured as the 'responsible' allied to the antiwar movement they were performing precisely the opposite role. Their modus operandi throughout had been to castigate those elements who denounced the impending war as an act of imperialist aggression, while advocating a “healthy debate” about “nuanced” differences with the policy elaborated by Washington.
Posted in: Bush administration urges quick action on $700 billion bailout
0
taniwha
Sure does.
William Kristol, he's the guy that called for "a war on terrorisn" just 9 days before the terror Sept 11 twin tower terror attacks. He's the son of Irving Kristok too, the conservative ideologue and enthusiast of Leo Strauss. Strauss was convinced the only way to contain the irredeemable wicked human nature was through a powerful nationalist state.
"
(P.23 from Leo Strauss and the American Right, Shaida B. Drury)
The significance of Strauss's thinking was not lost on Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle either, both were prominant advocates of the Iraq war. Remember the war in Iraq? Its almost as though its been forgotten what with all the credit crises noise at home.
But back to William Kristol, I am rather surprised to see you call him 'principled'. Perhaps I've forgotten just where you stood on things since I've been absent from JT for almost two years (I think it is). I thought you were not too happy with the Bush Administration's decision to invade Iraq. Wasn't Kristol jr one of the staunchest of war advocates?
Just from the point of view of financial cost, America's adventuring in Iraq has if anything has greatly increased the pits of debt into which it has fallen. And now Kristol wants to advocate fiscal responsibility?
Posted in: Bush administration urges quick action on $700 billion bailout
0
taniwha
Points to consider re Washington's bailout of Wall Street:
-lacks any semblance of democracy in action. There has been no public debate and yet the means used has been entirely public funds, that would and should have been used for public good. No political party has even endeavored to debate the imposition of the plan.
-the plan does not address the underlying reasons for the financial crises, no bank is being held accountable, and yet it is the banks first and foremost who benefit from the handout of public funds.
-no relief is being offered to working class families across the US. Yet they will be the first to suffer from the massive allocation of government funds to Wall Street. As a result there will be nothing left to enable social services as few as they are now to continue. Goodbye to Medicare, Medicaid, and social services pretty much in general
It is unlikely this is going to work and over the next year recession will likely lead to depression. The numbers of the working class have massively increased as a result of the credit crises and will steadily continue to increase. They are already the majority of Americans. There is going to be massive public unrest, rioting, the lot. The military will be on the streets, the same military that were in Iraq. You have seen military trialed in this role in New Orleans after Katherine.
It demonstrates the class character of the government and the policies and decisions it takes, and the existence, behind the trappings of democracy, of a plutocracy—the rule of the rich."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/econ-s22.shtml
This is not going to be America only, the process will replicate across the globe. People might do well to appreciate that fact. It isn't only about America.
Posted in: Bush administration urges quick action on $700 billion bailout
0
taniwha
You know there are many many good reasons why the USA might want to invade and conquer other developing or developed economies. But that doesn't make it a good idea. The notion of ruling the world through military domination has happened before, it doesn't last all that long, and the aggressor inevitably gets crushed by some other aggressor.
What's the point of laying down the foundation of our own destruction?
Before America there were empires. China was one of them. But looking at China today, there just is no evidence that government has any evil designs. It rather appears to be focused on maintaining a grip on what it regards as traditionally its own.
I think we are in agreement over the immediate situation.
I've been arguing it on JT since 2000 is that Capitalism and Nation states are in contradiction and this is the underlying reason for all of the wars between nations in the 20th century. Now Capitalism has run its course, which means conflict between ruling elites is inevitable. With no markets left from which to profit they must necessarily take control of each others markets. If that's not possible they must simply pirate each others resources. These are desperate times, driven by pure greed.
There is no way in the world to avoid a nuclear war in the next few years. unless the means to control production are given to the people of the world. At the moment corporations control forces of production in most every country. They dictate policy to governments, there is no real democracy anymore. There is absolutely no reason why this world and all its people cannot share the resources of the planet. We all have something to share with each other. There is no reason at all why poverty should exist on the scale it does, when there is so much wealth and knowledge in this world.
Why do we allow the wealthy elites in each country and their corporations to drive us all into a world depression and then to annihilation through war. People should be beginning to realise this.
Posted in: Bush team, Congress negotiate $700 bil bailout
0
taniwha
Tony
China is carrying the West right now. It has been doing that for quite a while. Its been the sweat shop for the rich industrialised countries like the US, supplying US industry with a huge profit not through increased markets for American goods made in China, but through cheap labour. What do you think is going to happen when Chinese workers demand parity with their counterparts abroad? Not only Chinese but also Mexicans working in US factories that shifted to Mexico.
Well that is happening now. US manufacturing companies have been making less and less profit these past few years.
Another negative result of globalisation has been the hollowing out of production industry within the USA. All those factories abroad mean Americans have lost jobs. Unemployed have no money to pay mortagages, part of the reason the sub-primes finally undermined US and other banks across the globe. Look at major cities like Detroit once a production powerhouse, now virtually an industrial wasteland.
For years now the US government has de-regulated the financial industry, encouraging banks to make loans to lenders who had no hope of paying them off. All because debt packages were used as assets to leverage more profit. Endless credit fueled by endless greed, allowed by all but entirely de-regulated 'free' market.
And why wouldn't China build up its military. It now has the cash. It certainly has the incentive. Remember it was the good ol USA that first built its military into the most powerful the world has ever seen, then used it to decimate Iraq, a country already rendered defenseless by years of economic sanctions. 3 million Iraqi refugees, more than 1 million Iraqi citizens murdered, and all for what? For democracy, or to control the world's 2nd largest reservoir of oil? It was the USA that dismantled the Geneva Conventions and declared any country with the might was able to militarily attack another if it felt due justification.
Of course China would want to build up its military, so would Russia, so would Japan (encouraged by the US), and of course so would Iran. All of these countries either have oil/gas reserves to keep secure or desire to have access to them. This is the time of peak oil.
You know you might want to keep some perspective here. What this world needs to do dismantle a system that justifies profit above human life. American have as little need of a world like that as the rest of us.
Posted in: Bush team, Congress negotiate $700 bil bailout
0
taniwha
True, well, almost, because it isn't necessarily so. Capitalism as an economic and political ideology is nothing more than an article of faith, like religion. A pure concept/way that one can continue to follow blindly or choose to move on from. It hasn't worked. It has failed to deliver its promise, enunciated by world leaders for more than a century, i.e. an end to poverty, an end to war.
The Capitalist system is all encompassing to the extent that alternatives are either ridiculed or feared, and that is no accident. At this point in time the economic and political monolith is busily eating itself. The result is undemocratic authoritarian rule, by the corporations through the government. An alternative is International Socialism. We are already a step toward that state now. Globalism has united the world for better or for worse. If we stick with Capitalism and the Nation state we will find ourselves stepping back into the dark ages. As resources disappear desperation sets in amongst the ruling elites in every nation state. This will lead to war.
The process is well advanced. Right now, in both economic and political terms is precisely where the world was just before the Great Depression and World War 2.
Posted in: Bush team, Congress negotiate $700 bil bailout