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.
Untimely protests against state funerals - Media incitement that is getting worse - The media is not representative of the people.
The size of the opposition that makes you laugh
What is the argument that divided the nation into two?
What is the content of the poll?
I don't understand the difference from sports newspapers
Mass media turning into sports newspaper due to slump in sales
The process of dividing national opinion into two
The media does not represent the people
Report only the facts, not opinions
On the day of the demonstration by opponents of former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral, it is said that there were around 100 to 200 people, based on a partial count. Police said there were 500 people. It is said that 4,183 people attended the state funeral, and approximately 23,000 people donated flowers (as announced on the 27th).
What exactly was the debate that reportedly divided the nation into two? Kudanshita, where the state funeral was held, is close to Meiji University's Surugadai campus. The university has traditionally had a strong left-wing student movement. Of course, ordinary students have nothing to do with it, but even if left-wing activists in Tokyo gathered together, it gives the impression that there were too few of them.
What is the content of public opinion polls conducted by the media? The problem is the questions. Depending on how the question is asked, it is possible to lead the data to the result intended by the questioner. I would like all public opinion poll data to be disclosed.
It seems like all mass media are now doing what sports newspapers and other media were doing before the decline of major mass media due to the spread of SNS.
In order to sell articles with headlines, sports newspapers publish speculative information in the headlines that have not been fact-checked, and sell them at station kiosks even though they say that the information is unconfirmed by adding a question mark at the end. It will be done. The "?" part is hidden from view due to the way it is displayed.
Many people were surprised and tolerated it, saying, ``It can't be helped because it's a sports newspaper,'' but no one believed it and it was just a form of entertainment. That's what all the media are doing now.
The underlying issue is sales. Sports newspapers used to take desperate measures to increase circulation, but I wonder if many media outlets now think of this as the right way to go. What is more troubling than sports newspapers is that the major media barely have the power to stir up public opinion.
Using the current issue of state funerals as an example, when the opposition party first objects to a state funeral, the media immediately jumps in and reports on it. At this stage, the ruling party and the opposition party are in conflict, so in that sense they are theoretically divided into two parties. However, this does not mean that national opinion is divided into two.
Then, the media outlets loudly convey the opinions of the opposition parties, and the process of dividing national opinion into two begins. It is incitement. First of all, there is a process in which the media themselves agitate and increase the number of opposition parties, and then they cultivate them as if it were a big problem divided into two.
They increase sales by raising the grade of articles based on irrelevant opinions and information by several levels. The more confrontational the structure, the more sensational it is. This is a common method that the media has used in the past on various issues.
The media sometimes uses expressions such as ``representing the people,'' but it feels very strange and even unpleasant. They are just office workers, not representatives of the people. When did they receive the mandate of the people? When did he run for election and when was he elected to the Diet?
If you're an average office worker, you might go to a yakitori restaurant for a drink with your colleagues on the way home from work and talk about politics. The media are just office workers, so that should be fine. You should not express your opinion to the people as if you were a representative of the people. We need to stop privatizing public airwaves and simply collect and report the facts.
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet - clearly stated in the Cabinet Office Establishment Act, similar discussions have been made in the past and a conclusion has been reached.
Public opinion grills the perpetrator's motive
Don't politicians have freedom of religion?
State funerals are an exclusive matter of the Cabinet
Certified by Cabinet Office Establishment Act
It is the opposition members who are not based on the law
Public opinion in Japan is still agitated over the issue of state funerals. In the first place, I am appalled by the way the Japanese media is using the claims of the person who murdered former Prime Minister Abe as they are, changing it to a picture of the Liberal Democratic Party and the Unification Church. They are even using the murderer's crazy and erroneous motives to provoke the people.
Shouldn't politicians be religious? Freedom of thought and belief is a legitimate human right granted to all citizens. If there is a problem that violates the Political Funds Control Act, then that would be fine, but in that case, religious groups and companies are completely irrelevant. Former Prime Minister Abe merely offered his greetings. I tried looking for a law that says greetings are a crime, but I couldn't find anything. I would like the definition of the word "involvement" to be clear. But that's it.
The Kishida Cabinet decided to hold a state funeral, but I wonder if there is a problem. Opposition parties and the media are shouting that there is a problem with the decision-making process. Many say that at least the Diet should be involved in decision-making. For a long time after the war, there was no legal regulation regarding state funerals, and according to Yoichi Takahashi, similar points were raised and discussed at the time of former Prime Minister Yoshida's state funeral. In other words, it was not clear at the time who should make decisions, how they should be decided, and what process should be used, which was already discussed in the past.
In 1999, the Cabinet Office Establishment Act was enacted, and in the legislation that clearly stipulated matters decided by the Cabinet Office, Article 4, 3-32 states, `` Affairs related to national ceremonies and ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet.'' Regarding ”. In other words, the National Assembly, or the legislative branch, has enacted a law that states that state funerals, which are national ceremonies, are the exclusive domain of the Cabinet.
There is no problem with the process by which the Cabinet made decisions based on the Cabinet Office Establishment Act. If the Diet should be involved now, it means that all members of the Diet have already been involved, the legislative branch has enacted legislation, and the Kishida Cabinet has decided to hold a state funeral accordingly. Don't members of Congress have an obligation to obey the law?
This makes me question whether Japan really is a country ruled by law. Incendiary voices that sound like they are from a special country are corrupting a democratic society.
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.
Kinki University succeeds in completely cultivating eel for food - Is it possible to dramatically increase the calorie - based food self - sufficiency rate?
Kinki University has succeeded in completely cultivating edible eel. Previously, I was surprised to hear that eels had been successfully hatched artificially, but this time it will be completely farmed. The ecology of eels is not well known, and it was thought that eel fry hatched in the Philippines or near China, grew up, and circulated throughout the Japanese archipelago, but eels are now being farmed within Japan, including these areas.Originally, eel was a delicate species that reproduced through wide-area circulation, and was rare and expensive, but due to the cost of aquaculture, it may soon become a food that can be easily eaten. What is noteworthy is the eel protein. Eel has more protein per 100g than beef.
Originally, there were no large animals living in Japan, so people ingested protein from tofu, miso, and fish. Whaling was largely a cultural aspect and was a source of food for large animals and high protein content. If it were possible to farm eel in large quantities, it would be more efficient than other edible meats, and the result would be omega-3 fat, which is good for the body instead of animal fat.Japan's food self-sufficiency rate is announced to be 66% on a monetary basis, but the low level of 38% on a calorie basis is largely due to protein deficiency. If edible eel were easily available on the table, the calorie self-sufficiency rate would rise dramatically.
Recently, it was announced that rare earth mining will begin in 2024 in the deep sea of Minamitorishima, Japan's Ogasawara Islands. The amount of rare earths buried in this sea area is said to be the largest in the world, and is said to be enough to meet the entire world's demand for several hundred years. The underground oil reserves of the Ibaraki Prefecture Goura coast are estimated to be one of the largest in the world, based on the amount and area of gas generated on the seabed surface.
Japan has not made any progress in marine resource development. Despite the fact that there was a lack of resources as a reflection of the defeat in the war, Japan continued to engage in resource diplomacy by relying on foreign sources, and these became a conduit to oil-producing and other resource-rich countries. However, when the world becomes this unstable, it is impossible to say such things.
Japan has the 6th largest area in the world, including the EEZ.
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.
