This idea is batted around in terms of Japan's economic stagnation. If ONLY those pesty (dare I say racist?) Japanese would open up the doors to the hoards of us Gai-jin all would be right in the world. They'd go from economic stagnation to boom-times.... J-pop here we come Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 1) The first question to ask is does population growth have an upper limit? If so, what happens after you reach this upper limit? Maybe 120 million IS Japan's natural upper limit. If that is the upper limit what's a comfortable population density? Perhaps 80 million (which they're projected to stabilize at) is a comfortable population density. 2) Why are Japanese having so few children? They've been in a stagnate GDP growth for 25 years, who needs to 'import' labor from elsewhere when they could have had a few generations born in that time. Why didn't and don't they? Again, perhaps they've reached "the" limit in population growth? Also, this same problem is affecting Italians, S. Koreans, Australians, and now Americans. Why? As an example: you may have noticed more South Koreans living amongst you. S Korea is pretty much at the wall. You probably can't drive children in a public school system any harder then what they do. It's punishing. Yet, for most, the small sacrifice called childhood is all for naught. Their economic means seems to have maxed out... at least from the peon's POV down below. Little opportunity and hellish competition for the few good jobs available. Oh, and no time for babies either. Not when you gotta pay for them free roads. SO, just as the Irish are doing again - they leave family and friends and immigrate. 3) Assuming the immigrants did come, wouldn't they face the same problems as Japanese Nationals face and in response to this pressure also have fewer children - and then what? You'd end up with even MORE older people to support with relatively less children to sell-out... errrr bonds.... ERRRR..... I mean, to Productively support the Nation with their Nationalistic Ferver and Happy Can-Do Labor. Is the solution to more old immigrants also more immigration as well? (see question #1) It doesn't seem like immigration is solving the problem it's only masking the problem and could possibly end up creating different problems (actually from my experience it is and does and will). I do think it can postpone problems (See Australia circa 1990-2010). But, in the end, you will have the very same problems ONLY you'll also have ghettos and all sorts of associated problems with people not wanting to become 'Japanese' (See: Greece 2012, Germany 2012, Australian 2012, any American inner city: 2012). I think the problem is a little more fundamental than just importing cheap labor. Importing cheap low-skilled labor is a the quick dishonest way of not dealing with the underlying structural and social problems that would require serious introspection and a generational approach to solve. Which isn't going to happen any time too soon, but, is happening - - slowly.
Good OP Michael! The birth rate has both economic and cultural consequences. Most nations of the western world and Japan have a birth rate below 2.1...which is the minimum to sustain a continuous population. Less than 2.1 means a falling population in which the younger generation will always have to financially support a *larger* older generation of retirees. To get around this problem, immigration is necessary, except this eventually results in the replacement of the original culture with the culture of the newcomers. This is what happens when the free market takes over a civilization...the people lose their real values and eventually no longer care whether they live or die as a people. Citizens devolve into faceless consumers, and start mumbling things like "whats the use...whats the point...whatever?"
Doesn't it seem a little off that we've seen over 500% increases in productivity and yet somehow we still can't manage to set aside the resources to care for the elderly. Oddly indeed - given we took care of them prior to working our arses off AND being 500% productive. It's also odd given we have so many people wanting work. And so many people who are generational welfare recipients. That's pretty much what we did, and now it's happening to us.... Karma? Actually, here I disagree. Replace free-market with "fascist corporatism" (which is the basis of our economy and society) and then I totally 100% agree. There are no free-markets left in this world. Only regulated-markets with rent-seeking career licences and debt based 'money'. Too true... Things are changing though....
How do you define 'fascist corporatism'? Are Singapore and Hong Kong the best examples of fascist corporatism? These are the two economies topping the 'ease of doing business index'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ease_of_Doing_Business_Index#Ranking
Every single State is both Fascist and practices Corporatism. Fascism in the sense the State steps in to pick winners and loser instead of the Free Market (see: GM, all Banks, and everything else from farming to education....) Corporatism is a legal entity that shields the business leaders from losing his or her person wealth when the company goes belly up. You know, because there's no way anyone in the world would ever even THINK of creating a business unless they could hide their personal wealth. Nope, not a single business ever was created until the advent of the corporation.
It seems like a lot of CEOs prefer to get paid in their company's stocks...while their salary can be as low as $1 to avoid paying income tax. I thought you were going to define corporatism as spelled out in the Charter of Carnaro...which provided the blueprint for Mussolini's ideal state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Carnaro
Interesting Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I wonder if D'Annunzio wasn't a natural anarchist? He was a poet afterall. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
He wanted mandatory membership for everyone in a corporation or guild of some sort...which is a very coercive compartmentalization of the whole society. My idea of an free market would involve three core commandments. 1. Thou shall not allow the government to control the supply of monetary units. 2. Thou shall not allow the government to set interest rates. 3. Thou shall not allow the government to exact monetary units from citizens by force. Number 3 has been possible throughout most of history...when governments were able to raise all necessary revenue by using prisoners of war/slaves/convicts to mine precious metals. Of course, all mines were owned by the state. A good example of a pure free market guru is Doug Casey. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryD5lqRM-Tw I disagree with most of his ideas, but I enjoy his interviews nevertheless for the wealth of historical insight. He describes the scenario of self destructive governments as being like a snowball rolling down a hill towards the valley below. For a while, the snowball can be stopped by a few forward looking critics, but once it reaches a critical mass there is nothing anyone can do about it, except try to protect themselves when it finally reaches the bottom and smashes into the village...either by taxing everything to death, or printing the value of the currency away to nothing.
Sounds pretty good to me Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Add to this, 4. Government shall not restrict voluntary exchange between willing capable human adults including occupation and drugs.
