6 ms·

The US federal gov’t overrereptesents the interests of the rural. Each state is given two senators regardless of population. Despite cities being the economic

The US federal gov’t overrereptesents the interests of the rural. Each state is given two senators regardless of population. Despite cities being the economic heart of the US and doing much better than rural areas, al of of policy making is driven by the economically backwards states.

mc32 9y ago
The same can be said of the Japanese system --but even moreso. Their rural areas have an exaggerated influence in national politics. Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages (geography, demographics, int'l politics, etc) and playing to the countryside. If we look toward Mexico, we can say the cities have an oversized influence in the politics and the frustration form the countryside can boil over into internal conflict.
- uiri 9y ago
  I feel like the Nikkei index would disagree with you insofar as a stock market index is an indicator of economic prosperity. That said, the US system was designed to protect less populous (rural) states from being bullied by the more populous (urban) states. It is hard to say that the system is not working as intended.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Their problems will be ours in 30 years' time. All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation --given their demographics, I say they are doing a pretty good job. I don't think there are many economies which faced with Japan's demographics (together with their lack of natural resources, arable land, etc) would do as well as they are doing in their circumstances. Now, work culture, that's a different topic. They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity, etc.
    - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
      > All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation We like to complain so much about automation, but I think the main driver of our current economic woes is outsourcing. When Americans have to compete against people in countries that have $1/hr minimum wage, there's no way our lower class can compete. Not everyone has the skills or aptitude to make it to the middle or upper classes. Should they see a declining quality of life just so corporations can see larger profits? > They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity Japan has a low amount of economic inequality and a high quality of life, so I see little reason why it should change. In most countries, it's still considered a fact that men and women are different. I think it may be your Western values determining what you think should change in a culture completely different from our own.
- ekianjo 9y ago
  > Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages Japan is far from doing well. It's in recession now, its demographics profile is going down the toilet, they have a massive public debt that they can never hope to repay, and a social security system that's constantly in the red. It's not going to end well no matter how optimistic you are.
  - mc32 9y ago
    There is no question they are going through a demographic restructuring and automating and becoming an elder-centered economy in the future. I don't think granting the countryside the power they have has contributed negatively to their economic outlook. What I am saying is allowing the countryside an outsized say in the politics of the country writ large does not seem to have negatively affected the economy given the structural realities. Although, granted, the countryside with their bloc keeps successfully thwarting any agricultural reforms (import tariffs). On the other hand, buy local and grow your own critical sustenance (cuz embargoes: see Qatar).
    - ekianjo 9y ago
      > Although, granted, the countryside with their bloc keeps successfully thwarting any agricultural reforms (import tariffs). On the other hand, buy local and grow your own critical sustenance (cuz embargoes: see Qatar). I'd rather have "make peace with your neighbors, promote commercial exchange instead of putting tariffs everywhere making eating fruits a luxury for 90% of your population". Seriously, agriculture in Japan is retarded. Productivity is extremely low compared to any other developed country, and they use tons of pesticides (way more than anywhere else), because JA forces folks to use them if they want to sell in their right channels. It's just a big mafia at the national level. If we were to make stuff at home, everything would be much more expensive (you would never get cheap smartphones like you have now) and the level of life would decrease sharply for everyone. Specialized regions for specific products, with proper exchange of goods is what has worked to make everyone richer in the end.
- chrischen 9y ago
  But how do you know they are doing well because of it or despite it? They're also in terms of a country more likely to live around cities, and much more densely since Tokyo is one of the, if not most, densely populated megacities. I would say any economic power they do have is because of the density and progressiveness of their cities.
OtterCoder 9y ago
Yes, cities are the heart of America, but the country produces the blood. Urbanization is only possible through hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources. We owe every technological advance, every great work of art, every soldier who defends us, to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Not being a rural guy myself, I feel like I owe them.
- forgotmysn 9y ago
  maybe 100 years ago, but not today. before the great depression, ~30% of the population worked on a farm. today, that number is closer to 3%. and most of them work on industrial farms where they can have a career. im not saying that we shouldnt be grateful, but i think folksy nostalgia of family farms and shit blind us from the realities.
  - damnfine 9y ago
    Wow dude, go outside more often. Sure there are less farmers, but they are no less important. That is ignoring the natural resources, and your disagreeable prejudices.
    - forgotmysn 9y ago
      im a self-described fat-ass, i eat constantly. im not ungrateful to people who work in the agricultural industries, but im no more grateful to them than i am to those who work in energy, water or telecomms. they are all necessities, and farmers aren't that special.
- pas 9y ago
  > hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources Can you expand on that a bit? > ... to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Why? How? What? Because food is relatively cheap? (Because supply is high?)
  - OtterCoder 9y ago
petre 9y ago
City dwellers are all getting their food from the rural, economically backwords areas, that's why. And that is precisely why floating cities are a pipe dream: no land for agriculture. They'd have to resort to fishing, clam farms and eating seaweed.
- devmunchies 9y ago
  This is the most convincing argument in the comments.
- chrischen 9y ago
  We get them from farmland, not rural people. Even if your reasoning is true it's not justification for a person living outside of the city or densely populated areas to have less of a vote in government. Everyone should have an equal vote, no?
SuoDuanDao 9y ago
It's unfortunate that urban and rural populations both see the other as parasites and themselves as the more important actors. Just as urban populations resent redistribution towards the countryside, rural populations resent what they see as city folk meddling in affairs they don't understand. This is actually a great argument for the rise of the city state - without a shared governance structure that has to balance interests of such different voting blocks, city states could set any rules they wanted within their borders and deal with the rural population strictly through the markets.

mc32 9y ago

The same can be said of the Japanese system --but even moreso. Their rural areas have an exaggerated influence in national politics. Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages (geography, demographics, int'l politics, etc) and playing to the countryside. If we look toward Mexico, we can say the cities have an oversized influence in the politics and the frustration form the countryside can boil over into internal conflict.

uiri 9y ago
I feel like the Nikkei index would disagree with you insofar as a stock market index is an indicator of economic prosperity. That said, the US system was designed to protect less populous (rural) states from being bullied by the more populous (urban) states. It is hard to say that the system is not working as intended.
- mc32 9y ago
  Their problems will be ours in 30 years' time. All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation --given their demographics, I say they are doing a pretty good job. I don't think there are many economies which faced with Japan's demographics (together with their lack of natural resources, arable land, etc) would do as well as they are doing in their circumstances. Now, work culture, that's a different topic. They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity, etc.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > All industrialized nations will face declining populations and automation We like to complain so much about automation, but I think the main driver of our current economic woes is outsourcing. When Americans have to compete against people in countries that have $1/hr minimum wage, there's no way our lower class can compete. Not everyone has the skills or aptitude to make it to the middle or upper classes. Should they see a declining quality of life just so corporations can see larger profits? > They definitely could improve their work/life balance and their gender disparity Japan has a low amount of economic inequality and a high quality of life, so I see little reason why it should change. In most countries, it's still considered a fact that men and women are different. I think it may be your Western values determining what you think should change in a culture completely different from our own.
ekianjo 9y ago
> Not saying I agree but it's proof a country can do relatively well despite many disadvantages Japan is far from doing well. It's in recession now, its demographics profile is going down the toilet, they have a massive public debt that they can never hope to repay, and a social security system that's constantly in the red. It's not going to end well no matter how optimistic you are.
- mc32 9y ago
  There is no question they are going through a demographic restructuring and automating and becoming an elder-centered economy in the future. I don't think granting the countryside the power they have has contributed negatively to their economic outlook. What I am saying is allowing the countryside an outsized say in the politics of the country writ large does not seem to have negatively affected the economy given the structural realities. Although, granted, the countryside with their bloc keeps successfully thwarting any agricultural reforms (import tariffs). On the other hand, buy local and grow your own critical sustenance (cuz embargoes: see Qatar).
  - ekianjo 9y ago
    > Although, granted, the countryside with their bloc keeps successfully thwarting any agricultural reforms (import tariffs). On the other hand, buy local and grow your own critical sustenance (cuz embargoes: see Qatar). I'd rather have "make peace with your neighbors, promote commercial exchange instead of putting tariffs everywhere making eating fruits a luxury for 90% of your population". Seriously, agriculture in Japan is retarded. Productivity is extremely low compared to any other developed country, and they use tons of pesticides (way more than anywhere else), because JA forces folks to use them if they want to sell in their right channels. It's just a big mafia at the national level. If we were to make stuff at home, everything would be much more expensive (you would never get cheap smartphones like you have now) and the level of life would decrease sharply for everyone. Specialized regions for specific products, with proper exchange of goods is what has worked to make everyone richer in the end.
chrischen 9y ago
But how do you know they are doing well because of it or despite it? They're also in terms of a country more likely to live around cities, and much more densely since Tokyo is one of the, if not most, densely populated megacities. I would say any economic power they do have is because of the density and progressiveness of their cities.

OtterCoder 9y ago

Yes, cities are the heart of America, but the country produces the blood. Urbanization is only possible through hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources. We owe every technological advance, every great work of art, every soldier who defends us, to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Not being a rural guy myself, I feel like I owe them.

forgotmysn 9y ago
maybe 100 years ago, but not today. before the great depression, ~30% of the population worked on a farm. today, that number is closer to 3%. and most of them work on industrial farms where they can have a career. im not saying that we shouldnt be grateful, but i think folksy nostalgia of family farms and shit blind us from the realities.
- damnfine 9y ago
  Wow dude, go outside more often. Sure there are less farmers, but they are no less important. That is ignoring the natural resources, and your disagreeable prejudices.
  - forgotmysn 9y ago
    im a self-described fat-ass, i eat constantly. im not ungrateful to people who work in the agricultural industries, but im no more grateful to them than i am to those who work in energy, water or telecomms. they are all necessities, and farmers aren't that special.
pas 9y ago
> hyper-efficient exploitation of rural resources Can you expand on that a bit? > ... to a farmer who refused to give up on a thankless, unrewarding career. Why? How? What? Because food is relatively cheap? (Because supply is high?)
- OtterCoder 9y ago

petre 9y ago

City dwellers are all getting their food from the rural, economically backwords areas, that's why. And that is precisely why floating cities are a pipe dream: no land for agriculture. They'd have to resort to fishing, clam farms and eating seaweed.

devmunchies 9y ago
This is the most convincing argument in the comments.
chrischen 9y ago
We get them from farmland, not rural people. Even if your reasoning is true it's not justification for a person living outside of the city or densely populated areas to have less of a vote in government. Everyone should have an equal vote, no?

SuoDuanDao 9y ago

It's unfortunate that urban and rural populations both see the other as parasites and themselves as the more important actors. Just as urban populations resent redistribution towards the countryside, rural populations resent what they see as city folk meddling in affairs they don't understand. This is actually a great argument for the rise of the city state - without a shared governance structure that has to balance interests of such different voting blocks, city states could set any rules they wanted within their borders and deal with the rural population strictly through the markets.