Economic Illiteracy and How Japan is Responsible for the Destruction of the Western Economies

The things that get printed in the Western press about Japan never ceases to amaze me. The most recent article that made me smirk and roll my eyes came out on the Washington Post Blog the other day...  I guess there's a good reason that articles like this make it to a blog and not the actual newspaper; maybe someone is paying attention at the editorial desk at the Washington Post after all...

Get this: The story claims that Japanese people not having sex is going to be responsible for the destruction of the western economies.

That's right. Because the Japanese do not have enough sex (trust they do - they pay for it), and therefore they don't have enough children, this supposedly will result in the collapse of the western world economies. This article is currently doing the Internet rounds and I have been asked to comment many times. So, since my comment is the same every time, I thought I'd save myself some effort and just blog my response to this. My response is below the article quote... So, first, kindly, read a bit on this interesting economic theory.

From the Washington Post Blog: Japan’s sexual apathy is endangering the global economy:

Because Japanese people aren't having kids – which is both partially a product of, and perhaps driven by some of the same factors as, their relative disinterest in sex or sexual relationships – the population is shrinking. It's shrinking very, very fast. The Japanese population dropped by 212,000 people last year, the largest decrease on record. The birth rate is still falling, with only 1.03 million live births last year, a record low and dramatic decrease from 1.21 million the year before... 

This isn't just bad because it means the Japanese economy will have fewer workers and thus be less productive. It's setting up an economic time bomb that will go off before long... For any economy to stay healthy, there need to be enough taxpayers to support all the retirees. But Japan's population is shrinking and aging simultaneously, which means that the number of old people is skyrocketing just as the base of taxpayers shrinks.

Here is my response to this article: 

1) Japan is too crowded as it is. Japan is the size of California yet it supports a population that is 1/2 the size of the US population. 

2) Who cares about the world economy? I don't. I am worried about my own and my immediate family; I don't give a rat's ass about the USA or the EU or people living 6000 miles on the other side of the earth. 

3) Here's my vote for Idiot Statist Quote from the article: "For any economy to stay healthy, there need to be enough taxpayers to support all the retirees." Why? What kind of economic theory is this? Why should I pay taxes to support people I don't even know? (All the while the government takes a cut off the top). And why should other people pay to support me? What happened to individual responsibility? Why is the government even in the business of social security? The government should serve one function and one function only (if that): To protect the nation from foreign invasion. Where in the constitution of Japan or the USA does it say that the government should run a retirement Ponzi scheme (or run national parks, roads, airport security, farm production, dictate how large colas can be at fast food restaurants, what you can and cannot eat or drink, etc...) If big government were the answer to our problems, then the Soviet Union would have been a very successful nation. But it wasn't. 

We don't need more taxpayers; we need to shrink the government (and its out of control spending) and get it out of the health insurance business, the food safety business, the retirement fund ponzi business, the business of "Morality Police" (gambling, drugs, prostitution), giving tax monies to foreign governments in foreign aid, on and on and on.... Phase out Social welfare programs and cut government spending.... If we do so (we won't) then this population "problem" and lessening tax revenues are no longer a problem. Problem solved!

PS: History shows that the government built on fiat currency and deficit spending will out spend revenues in every case; Increasing revenues will only serve to prolong the inevitable collapse of this corrupt fiat Ponzi scheme that we have built today. The sooner the Japanese (and USA) government collapse into bankruptcy and new management takes over, the sooner we can try to make a system that can be sustained; it's obvious to anyone paying attention that this system is NOT sustainable. 

We have been mortgaging our children's and our children's children's future for decades. This shit has got to stop. "What cannot continue, won't." (Can't remember who said that!) 

This photo is not from the Washington Post Blog. These are some girls I took a photo of in Osaka at Nanba station (I think it was). If you like this photo, please use as you wish (Credit Mike in Tokyo Rogers, please!) 

------------------

NOTES: So, you say you want these people taking care of your welfare and your life and your families well-being?! You have got to be kidding me!

And while I am railing on government over-reach, you folks know that right now there is a butter shortage in Japan? That's right. It's hard to find, and if you do find it, it's being rationed to one block per customer.

Yes, I do have butter. I always keep extra on hand. I have to; after three years in a row of not having butter because of shortages (and being a guy that likes to cook and bake) I decided not to get short handed again.

The world's third largest economy and we can't keep butter on the shelves? And this has happened now for 3 years in a row. Why is that? Because the morons running the government control milk and butter production. 

These assholes can't even handle making butter and people want them to control their lives and health and the nation's prosperity???? 

Incredible!

---------------

For an easy to read and simple to understand explanation of how the economy works, may I recommend: Henry Hazlitt - Economics in One Lesson

Propaganda and Russia

The propaganda coming out of the mass media is ridiculous. Recent news stories appearing on all major US news sites continually speak of "Putin's global territorial ambitions." So, suddenly, Putin is the new "Hitler" is he?

Here's a funny one from ABC: 

Hillary Clinton told the audience that "if this sounds familiar, it's what Hitler did back in the '30s".

Really? Total bombast. This stuff would be laughable if these people wrote for Mad Magazine... But, no! Alas, they have a government to feed and an agenda (and you are not part of it!)

For another example, here's a recent Washington Post article: 

Vladimir Putin’s speech Tuesday — disavowing Russia’s Soviet past, glorifying its Orthodox roots, decrying the unjust price paid by Russians when the Soviet Union collapsed and condemning the West’s hypocrisy — upended the foundations of the post-Cold War narrative. The widespread idea that Crimea could be ceded without cascading consequences arose from the erroneous belief that Putin is reconstituting the Soviet Union. The Soviet past was never his frame of reference. 

Putin’s expeditionary wars are fueled by Russian exceptionalism: a vision for a renewed union based on a common Russo-Orthodox destiny. In other words, Putin’s ambitions range beyond the boundaries of the former U.S.S.R. and into Europe.

"Putin’s ambitions range beyond the boundaries of the former U.S.S.R. and into Europe!!!" Horrors! I guess if we don't stop him now; if we don't fight them over there; we'll all be speaking Russian... Ha! Half of all of today's American high school grads can't even speak proper English!

What a bunch of self-serving selective memory recall! Right! At least they did get the one part about "west's hypocrisy" correct. I'd like to point out that this article was written by Molly K. McKew and Gregory A. Maniatis who were advisers to Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and his national security adviser during and after the 2008 war with Russia.... As if they don't have an agenda! Ha!) Please refer to: The Real Aggressor by Justin Raimondo

"Putin's territorial ambitions"? Let's not mention US and NATO breaking the deal and pushing a territorial expansionist policy in Eastern Europe right on Russia's doorstep as that would be 'inconvenient!'

The USA and NATO are the true root cause of all of what is going on. 

When the Soviet Union fell, then US president Reagan promised then Soviet leader Gorbachev that NATO would never move into Eastern European countries. But, that was Reagan, every US president since then has pushed the envelope and driven NATO (an alliance against Russia and the former Soviet Union) all the way up to the very borders of Russia.

Gee, who'd a thunk the Russians wouldn't like that?

Of course the Russians don't like it when we talk about a military alliance AGAINST them (NATO) coming to Georgia, Ukraine, etc... Militarist right wing military-industrial complex morons in USA.

It's obvious that Russia is going to lash out when we surround them with a military alliance that goes right to their borders. This isn't rocket science. 

The USA and NATO are nothing but bad news for everyone. What business it it of ours if people on the other side of the world want to be a part of this country or that? 

Who cares? Let them decide by themselves.

Before WWII, the Brits and the French guaranteed the Polish government that they'd go to war to protect them if the Germans invaded. So the Polish government became intransigent in negotiations with Hitler (see: Churchill, Hitler and the Uneccessary War by Patrick Buchanan) and wouldn't deal with Hitler on the return of former German territories. This lead to World War II. (And the loss of Poland anyway!)

If the people of eastern Ukraine want to be a part of Ukraine, or Russia, or Disneyland, let them vote and decide (I hate voting too, but that's a different story). There is absolutely NO NEED for the military to decide this. 

Remember when Vaclav Havel allowed Czechoslovakia to be dived by peaceful secession? That was smart. 

Think about it, folks, we don't care if, say, Texas wants to be a part of Mexico or USA or an independent nation. Let those people decide by themselves. It is their land. It is none of our business!

Peace! No military. Why is it our business what those people wish to do or what abstract national boundaries they want to live in? If they have peaceful relations, then they can live their lives as they wish and go where they want to go.

As for me, I am only concerned with keeping peace and what goes on in my own neighborhood!

We should have dismantled the US and NATO war machine in 1991. That we didn't and the going's on today just go to show that the US empire and the military machine needs war to survive. War is truly the health of the state.

We have zero business in this mess. We never had any business in this European mess. Even in World War I! What business of ours was it if Europe is run by a king or a kaiser? (Of course, yes, I know, big western banks don't like it - they lose money.)

The people do not want this war. The government's do. Government is an abstract, so are national boundaries.

We should try to make peaceful relations and free trade with everyone. 

-------------------

Inevitably, some statist will complain about what I wrote here as "unrealistic" and ask what I would do.

Here's what I would do and how I see the situation:

I think those people in the Ukrainian government might be a bit more friendly and smarter in negotiations with Russia if they didn't think NATO or the EU or USA was going to back them up (see above).

If they are not careful, the Russians might invade them and kill a bunch of people (as well as killing those in the Ukraine government).

So, if the Ukrainian government were smart (and wanted to save their lives), they'd do like Vaclav Havel did in the former Czechoslovakia and allow the people in all regions decide - not globalist expansionary countries who are actually run by big international banks and monetary systems. 

That's EXACTLY what I would do. 

Half a loaf of bread is better than war or no bread.