From: tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Turning Japanese
Date: 30 Jul 92 03:17:37 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford, CA

In article <l7ebtlINNor7@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>,
	bguest9@bsg9.Corp.Sun.COM (Kristian Skrinak) writes:
> 
> Is this group concerned at all with the topic of individualism?
> 
> I am offended by the suggestion that Japanese conformity engenders
> greater productivity. Denying that we are lagging behind the Japanese
> recognize the essence of these newspaper articles.
> 
> In article 1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu, tcox@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Tony Cox) writes:
> 
>>I'm not sure I understand you. The Japanese use a price system pretty much
>>the same way as Americans do.
> 
> Please re-read "Turning Japanese". My exact point was that in fact we both
> use the price system. My theory was that we percieve it differently,
> specifically the Japanese seem to percieve it through LTG.
> 
>>
>>Why do I hear "Japan is so clearly more productive than we" all the time?
>>The fact is that in general this JUST IS NOT SO. In certain areas like
>>cars, this may be true. But when did you last ride in a Japanese-built
>>airliner?
>>
>>All part of the propaganda to get the masses to embrace an "industrial
>>policy" I'll be bound.
>>
> 
> Hmmm. You really didn't read my post. My point was that there have been
> several articles in the press lately on the problems of individualism 
> with respect to American productivity, all concluding that individualism
> is the cause of the decline in US productivity. This is quite directly
> an argument in favor of industrial policy. I am pointing out the specious
> nature of this argument.
> 
> Do you argue that the USA is more competitive than the Japan? It would be
> pointless to site statistics. This seems more like gross denial.

I dont think there is any basic disagreement here, and yes, I did read your
article and found it interesting.

I, like you, am offended by the suggestion that Japanese conformity engenders
greater productivity. However, I dont find it specious, just plain wrong. The
fact that newspapers are trying to put this over on people doesn't surprise me.
They are trying to butter people up for an enhanced role of government in
industry. Perhaps this is too cynical for you, but it sure seems like it to me.
There is a long history of newspapers doing just this - the role of the Hearst
group in the campaign for criminalization of dope is one example.

I don't see how denial of the newspapers argument of relative productivity
somehow legitimizes it. And why is it pointless to site statistics?
One arguable measure is per-capital GDP, which "The Economist" publishes
at least quarterly. I dont have a copy here, but last time I looked Japan
was running around 85% of the US level. The RATE of productivity increase
may well be different, but that is another story.

However, if the premise of these various press articles WERE true, then
I'm sure that individualism wouldn't figure on MY list of reasons.
What has characterized the post-war era in the US is a REDUCTION of the
power of the individual to influence things, unless that individual happens to
be a politician that is. 

As for the LTG (Long term greed) differences you postulate, I'm not sure that
there is such a difference. Do you have indications that this is true? The
Japanese stock market has gone from 33K to around 15K in just a short time.
Not an indication of long-term planning.

I have often heard STG sited as a reason for government intervention (at least
in the UK), as business is perceived as always forsaking the long term for
a quick buck today. How they explain the existence of companies more than a few
years old beats me.

Tony