Upstream business strategically conducted by Japan.A form of processing trade in which Asian countries, including Korea, assemble and export them.
2022-01-22
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
In business, upstream is basically advantageous
upstream business used to be a common practice.At that time, supply was scarce in the balance between supply and demand and supply were in short supply.The raw material is the most upstream and the final product is the downstream.Considering distribution, retailers sell to final consumers are the most downstream.If water doesn't flow, you can't do business , but in the age of oversupply, the story will change.The downstream retail stores are more powerful than the upstream manufacturing industry.Japan's ７-Eleven is a symbolic example of this, and OEMs want large companies to build private brands, and manufacturers want ７-Eleven to sell their products.
The Japanese business should control upstream
Japan has developed its upstream business.The strategy is to start with basic research, develop industrial machinery, and manufacture things require Japanese basic technology.Regarding the revision of export conditions for three strategic substances, including hydrogen fluoride, the South Korean government's insistence on supply chain integration means downstream integration, which is intended to put pressure on upstream manufacturing.
Lawmaker Matsukawa of the Liberal Democratic Party affirmed to the world that the global supply chain will not be in trouble.As they say, The world's supply chain never collapsed .
POINT Almost all manufacturing industries in Korea are operated by Japanese industrial machinery and chemicals and parts manufactured in Japan.Currently, They are manufacturing by the basic parts imported from Japan.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, which maintained his dignity - How did the opposition party members who continued to spit on the deceased listen to it?
Speech by opposition party adviser who attended state funeral
High praise for maintaining dignity
How do future generations view it?
Listening to former Prime Minister Noda's memorial speech, I felt that he had put a little too much into it, but I got the impression that there was no lie in his words. He also said, ``Not attending a state funeral goes against my outlook on life.'' Mr. Noda may have to leave the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. Other party members are engaging in political activities that are truly vile and the complete opposite of a mourning contest, blaspheming and spitting on the victims who have been left speechless due to their selfish crimes.
Former Prime Minister Noda seemed to be trying to stop this kind of outrageous behavior by party members, but I would like to hear the opinions of Renho and Tsujimoto, who are trying to climb to the lowest level of vulgarity, regarding the speech by the top advisor of the Constitutional Democratic Party. I wanted to see it. In his speech, Mr. Noda stated that his political orientation was different from Mr. Abe, but he praised the character and achievements of the deceased to the fullest and fulfilled the role of a memorial speech.
Japanese children must have been deeply shocked by the unreasonable murder of their country's most important person. On top of that, it is easy to imagine that the members of the Diet who are riding high on the victims and claiming victory will be shocked. As a former prime minister, Mr. Noda deserves praise for at least trying to convey that this is not the case in Japan.
Yasuhiro Nakasone called the Japanese archipelago an unsinkable aircraft carrier - Japan's topography gave the US military an advantage.
Former Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone referred to former President Ronald Reagan as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." This is a metaphor for the strategic significance of Japan's topography and the presence of U.S. forces within the Cold War structure. Japan once fought a fierce war with the United States, but after the war it became a democratic nation. Conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union had already begun during World War II. It is said that the United States participated in the war in part to secure its voice within the framework of the postwar world. Both the Korean War and the Vietnam War occurred amid conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States did not want Soviet power to reach the southern tip of the Korean peninsula. It is said that an agreement on the 38th parallel was reached as a secret agreement at the Yalta Conference. In this context, Japan became a base for the US military to defend East Asia.
Japan is actually a neighboring country to the United States in the sense that there are no countries separating them geographically. It takes about 3 hours to get to Guam by air. The Japanese archipelago has a unique topography, stretching from north to south, bordering Russia to the north, Kyushu to the Korean Peninsula, China, and the islands south of Okinawa to Taiwan. For the United States, the terrain that covered the Japanese continent was attractive for the defense of Asia, and this was completely consistent with Japan's understanding of national defense. Conversely, it may be said that if the US-Soviet Cold War had not occurred, Japan-US relations would not have been able to recover to this extent. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China rose to prominence and Asia's defense lines moved significantly south. As expected, the Japanese archipelago occupies an important position in this band as well. Currently, they are working together within the framework of Quad. Japan also plays an important role in the Taiwan Strait issue, and in this way, the Japan-US relationship has developed amid changes in the environment surrounding Asia.
There was a Korean leftist presidential candidate who said that the Korean peninsula was divided by the occupation forces (GHQ), but in essence, South Korea is a country born within the Cold War structure. There was no way to stop the Cold War structure, neither in Japan nor, of course, in South Korea. I can't believe my ears when I hear statements that deny this very upbringing. In fact, if South Korea had not come under GHQ's trusteeship, it would have simply been unified with North Korea. A democratic country forms the basis of South Korea's national ideology, and even if we lament the separation from North Korea, which has a completely different social system, nothing will be achieved by blaming others. . What can we independently do for the world? That always seems to be missing.
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
maritime defense Taiwan's defense is the defense of the Senkaku Islands and is synonymous with Japan's.If China maintains its maritime routes from Japan to Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam, it will not be able to enter the Pacific Ocean and will only be able to develop strategies from the west.
Moon Jae In Korea is pro-China.Even if Korea joins forces with China, China will not actually be able to enter the Pacific Ocean.In this sense, Korea and Taiwan have different strategic meanings on Quad.
With this in mind, Moon Jae In is not flying around like a bat, but is moving in a way that you don't really understand if you don't say you're going to be left behind unless you don't actively participate in Quad.
The curse of primary balance has been lost for 30 years, and now is the time for fiscal spending.
The lost 30 years were born from the curse of fiscal surplus
Why not use fiscal stimulus to address the national crisis?
Japan used to be the same as today's China
Why did Japan go for austerity?
30 years of innovation only to be stolen
Only Councilor Sanae Takaichi answered these questions clearly
The curse of a primary balance surplus has become an excellent material for opposition parties to appeal to the government for fiscal austerity. Yoichi Takahashi has said that he does not mind fiscal stimulus, or printing money, up to the inflation target of 2%.
Both Prime Minister Abe and Policy Research Council Chairman Takaichi have set an inflation target of 2%. In the first place, the topic of primary balance became popular after the bubble burst.
As many large companies go bankrupt, the government repeatedly imposes fiscal stimulus, resulting in deficits and financial bankruptcy. The bursting of the bubble was a national economic crisis.
So when is the government going to do something about the national crisis without spending money? In 1989, 32 of the 50 companies in the world by market capitalization were Japanese companies, but by 2019, there was only one Japanese company, and that number had disappeared. Ta.
During the bubble period, Japan was to America what China is today. It is true that growth was not based on illegal business like in China, but there is no doubt that it was a threat to the American economy.
The United States should have predicted Japan's bubble would burst. Or maybe it's a country that can play a role in triggering this.
If Japan had been able to implement bold fiscal stimulus after the bubble burst, it would have been possible to quickly overcome the aftereffects and return to a growth trajectory. Japan is among 11 countries subject to currency manipulation monitoring announced by the U.S. Treasury Department on December 3 of this year.
Trade friction is at the root of the current U.S.-China relationship. In addition, the defense of East Asia was also involved, and Japan at the time was also experiencing trade friction between Japan and the United States.
Even after the bursting of the bubble economy, Japanese companies have continued to innovate in a variety of ways. i-mode was the world's first mobile phone to connect to the Internet, the all-in-one concept of integrating a camera, calculator, memo pad, etc. in a bag into a mobile phone, and mixi was the original social network.
These ideas became the exclusive domain of American GAFA. Even though Japan was in the bud of creating a new industrial structure, it ran out of water and nutrients.
So why or who put a stop to it?
Internal pressure, external pressure, various things can be imagined. Japan's balance sheet shows that its finances are sound, and fiscal stimulus will not cause a national fiscal collapse. This is exactly what was at issue in the last presidential election. There are two points: fiscal spending and national defense.
Councilor Takaichi was the only one who clearly answered that question, and I had no idea what the other candidates were saying.
Japanese economy continues to fly low. We need a rocket engine to get back on the growth track.
