From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Re: DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN? - Off track!!
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:55:37 GMT

In article <23078@venera.isi.edu> jlacoss@paddington.isi.edu (Jeff LaCoss)
writes:
>You aren't watching "Frontline" on PBS. Or reading any newspaper
>business section. "Alleged" is quite incorrect.  "Proved" is closer to
>the mark.

Very few people actually disagree that the Japanese gov't is screwing
not only their own citizens but us as well.  Where the "free traders"
and the "protectionists" (quotes intended) disagree is whether we Americans
should do anything about it.

>...
> THEIR government allowed THEIR industries to place an economic burden
>on THEIR consumers to subsidize predatory pricing, or "dumping."

I recommend the recent episode of "Firing Line" where a debate between
the "free traders" (FTs) and the "protectionists" (PRs) were held.  The
FTs pointed out that the average Japanese consumer spends about 22%
of her salary on food; the average American spends 6%.  This is directly
the result of the Japanese gov't's inaction to correct structural barriers
or action to setup barriers.

By the way, the FTs were Jack Kemp, William F. Buckley, and 2 others.
The PRs were Lester Thurow (spelling?) (MIT economist), James Fallows,
Richard Gephardt, and 1 other.

>...
> However, the US continues to just point the finger. Me, I would have
>cut their economic nuts off. I still would:

I've talked to several Japanese about the inequitable trade situation,
and I have come to one conclusion:  tit-for-tat retaliation.

I have the utmost respect for Japan; it is the finest nation in E. Asia.
Having said that, I find that discussing international relations with
the average Japanese to be fruitlessly frustrating.  The standard line
of reply is either (1) "That's the way the gov't wants it so we can't do
anything about it" or (2) "Nobody would buy American products anyhow."
When I try to explain that consumers should have the right to decide
whether they want to buy a product and that it should not be up to the
Japanese gov't to decide (or even you to decide) whether they would
buy American products or not, #1 and #2 are just repeated ad nauseum.

What further suggests to me that tit-for-tat retaliation will work is
that in the summer of 1991, when the Japanese gov't was whining that
it just could not get rid of the red tape blocking the bidding by
American firms on Japanese public works projects, the Bush administration
immediately halted the acceptance of any bids by Japanese firms on 
American public works projects.  Oh sure.  The Japanese were whining
about how horrible Americans were, despite the fact that France and much
of Europe treats Japanese trade far worse.  About 1 or 2 days, lo and
behold, all the red tape vanished, and American firms finally got access
to Japanese public works projects.

Imagine that!  After years of polite verbal requests that didn't do
crap, a little bit of tit-for-tat seemed to have cleared all the red
tape up.  Amazing!

> - 15% tariff on all consumer entertainment electronics. Being able to
>   buy cheap new VCRs isn't really that important considering
>	- how many people are unemployed
>	- how many working people are on a survival basis in the US
> - have an industrial policy: use the bucks to fund consumer-product
>   R&D just the way good ol' MITI does.
>

President Clinton should send a formal request to Japan, demanding that
formal and/or informal barriers to trade be removed.  No more $24,000
Pontiac Grand Ams in Japan.  If they don't comply within 30 days, there will be
an across-the-board 10% additional tariff that will slapped on all Japanese
imports for _each_ month that there is no compliance.

> Yes, but...
> - the PROFITS (wealth) created by the products leave the US
> - jobs that manufacture goods generally pay better than jobs that
>   sell or distribute goods

Remember early 1980's?

That was the year when Silicon Valley firms were touting themselves as 
invincible against Japanese trade barriers; they claimed that they were
so competitve that they could beat 'em Japanese even with the barriers.
They claimed that all this hollering about barriers (from Detroit) was
much too much noise about nothing at all.

The American automobile companies were viewed rather haughtily by 
"mighty" Silicon Valley.

Well.  Well.  It's 1990.  I recall that several Silicon Valley companies
endorsed President Clinton because he is willing to save them from the
onslaught of unfair Japanese competition.

That pretty much sums things up.  People don't complain about trade
barriers and loss of jobs until they are in the hot seat.  Those people
who defend Japan at all costs often discuss job dislocation/loss as
if it was an unfeeling data point on a graph until they themselves lose
their jobs or become dislocated for the "greater economic of good".

------------------------------------------------------------------+------------
Jinsei no imi wa nan desu ka.                Sister, can you      |   \|  |`
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.           spare a coin?        |    | -+-
                                                                  |   /| / \
Copyright 1992.  Disclaimer:  1 + 1 = 3                           |
------------------------------------------------------------------+------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.japan