4 ms·

I hate to hijack this thread even further, but: losing WWII helped Japan immensely in the long run.

by veidr 11y ago

ekianjo 11y ago
This is ridiculous. They were already a powerful country before WWII, they would have become way more powerful by now if they had not got involved in WWII the way they did. They got massively destroyed and it took them a very long time just to rebuild the country. I guess you never heard about the broken window parable.
- veidr 11y ago
  They might arguably have become a more powerful country, but I don't think that necessarily equates to being better off. After renouncing (being forced to renounce) war as a mechanism of policy, Japan has enjoyed seven decades of peace and the fastest rise from bombed-out shithole full of malnourished kids to the second largest economy in the world with one of the highest standards of living. Now China has risen, and overtaken Japan in economic and military terms, and it's a good case in point: certainly more powerful than Japan as a nation, but you can't breathe the air, you don't have rule of law, you can't vote, or even reproduce as you might see fit. Not a real great outcome for the average Chinese person, though I guess it beats starving. My point was that Japanese militarist totalitarianism, awful and evil as that was, ended up being a shortcut to a level of peace and prosperity that is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    On the other hand, China did have the equivalent of losing a war and living under a foreign imposed rule, which was the aftermath of the Opium Wars. The result was about 60 million deaths, mostly due to the breakdown of law and order. Due to that, Chinese are probably a bit wary of benevolent Europeans/Americans running their country for them. The current regime has huge problems, but it is stable and not completely oblivious to the wellbeing of ordinary people.
  - nine_k 11y ago
    I remember that air quality in Tokyo was quite bad in 1960s: http://metropolitantokyo.blogspot.com/2011/09/air-pollution-in-tokyo.html http://metropolitantokyo.blogspot.com/2011/09/air-pollution-... This is more of a sign of a still-industrial economy, as opposed to a post-industrial one.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    A few corrections : > but you can't breathe the air yes you can, air is not polluted in ALL of China. > you don't have rule of law frankly examples in Western democraties where the powerful beat the small guys are numerous. And look at DMCA and shit like that constantly used with abuse. > you can't reproduce as you might see fit. you can now have more than 1 kid, if that is what you were referring to. This changed since last year if I remember correctly. And on top of that in the countryside many folks have several kids but don’t declare them. > Not a real great outcome for the average Chinese person, though I guess it beats starving. If you actually talk with Chinese people, they are actually very happy with the amount of progress most have seen in their lifetime.
    - codedokode 11y ago
      So you would prefer living in China without DMCA over a Western country?
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        Have you lived in China ? It ain't as bad as all the articles make it out to be. I would not want to live there forever, but if I have to choose between the US and China for example, I'd choose China as a first destination anytime.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    Your comments about China are just flat out wrong. You can breathe the air in 99% of the country. It's really just Beijing and some of the more industrial areas that have a problem. And guess what China has and is continuing to make huge inroads to fix this. And it's hardly the only place in the world where there is a pollution problem. You can vote in China. It's just a hierarchical system so you vote at the lower levels whose representatives in turn elect representatives further up the chain. It's a different system but there are major electoral problems in all countries e.g US (gerry-mandering) or Europe (lots of parties fighting to form coalitions). And yes there is a one child policy. But I would argue that (a) this is/was necessary and (b) it is a policy ahead of its time. We all know the world's resources can't sustain a certain number of people.

I hate to hijack this thread even further, but: losing WWII helped Japan immensely in the long run.

by veidr 11y ago

I hate to hijack this thread even further, but: losing WWII helped Japan immensely in the long run.

This is ridiculous. They were already a powerful country before WWII, they would have become way more powerful by now if they had not got involved in WWII the way they did. They got massively destroyed and it took them a very long time just to rebuild the country. I guess you never heard about the broken window parable.

veidr 11y ago
They might arguably have become a more powerful country, but I don't think that necessarily equates to being better off. After renouncing (being forced to renounce) war as a mechanism of policy, Japan has enjoyed seven decades of peace and the fastest rise from bombed-out shithole full of malnourished kids to the second largest economy in the world with one of the highest standards of living. Now China has risen, and overtaken Japan in economic and military terms, and it's a good case in point: certainly more powerful than Japan as a nation, but you can't breathe the air, you don't have rule of law, you can't vote, or even reproduce as you might see fit. Not a real great outcome for the average Chinese person, though I guess it beats starving. My point was that Japanese militarist totalitarianism, awful and evil as that was, ended up being a shortcut to a level of peace and prosperity that is, as far as I know, unprecedented.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  On the other hand, China did have the equivalent of losing a war and living under a foreign imposed rule, which was the aftermath of the Opium Wars. The result was about 60 million deaths, mostly due to the breakdown of law and order. Due to that, Chinese are probably a bit wary of benevolent Europeans/Americans running their country for them. The current regime has huge problems, but it is stable and not completely oblivious to the wellbeing of ordinary people.
- nine_k 11y ago
  I remember that air quality in Tokyo was quite bad in 1960s: http://metropolitantokyo.blogspot.com/2011/09/air-pollution-in-tokyo.html http://metropolitantokyo.blogspot.com/2011/09/air-pollution-... This is more of a sign of a still-industrial economy, as opposed to a post-industrial one.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  A few corrections : > but you can't breathe the air yes you can, air is not polluted in ALL of China. > you don't have rule of law frankly examples in Western democraties where the powerful beat the small guys are numerous. And look at DMCA and shit like that constantly used with abuse. > you can't reproduce as you might see fit. you can now have more than 1 kid, if that is what you were referring to. This changed since last year if I remember correctly. And on top of that in the countryside many folks have several kids but don’t declare them. > Not a real great outcome for the average Chinese person, though I guess it beats starving. If you actually talk with Chinese people, they are actually very happy with the amount of progress most have seen in their lifetime.
  - codedokode 11y ago
    So you would prefer living in China without DMCA over a Western country?
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      Have you lived in China ? It ain't as bad as all the articles make it out to be. I would not want to live there forever, but if I have to choose between the US and China for example, I'd choose China as a first destination anytime.
- threeseed 11y ago
  Your comments about China are just flat out wrong. You can breathe the air in 99% of the country. It's really just Beijing and some of the more industrial areas that have a problem. And guess what China has and is continuing to make huge inroads to fix this. And it's hardly the only place in the world where there is a pollution problem. You can vote in China. It's just a hierarchical system so you vote at the lower levels whose representatives in turn elect representatives further up the chain. It's a different system but there are major electoral problems in all countries e.g US (gerry-mandering) or Europe (lots of parties fighting to form coalitions). And yes there is a one child policy. But I would argue that (a) this is/was necessary and (b) it is a policy ahead of its time. We all know the world's resources can't sustain a certain number of people.