I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Just because there is a labor shortage doesn't mean it's okay to collect labor from anywhere - let alone anti - Japanese countries.
Even if we overcome deflation and restore international competitiveness through the fiscal stimulus advocated by the late Mr. Abe and Mr. Takaichi, and even if the total amount of money increases and wages rise, if the economy becomes rich, this means that domestic production will rise. , it is said that even with the current production volume, it will no longer be possible to make things as the population declines, so if the production volume increases, there will be an even greater shortage of personnel.
The current dual wage structure for dispatched workers is simply a measure to compensate for the domestic unemployment rate by relocating production bases to emerging countries due to the strong yen. On the other hand, if the yen depreciates, it will become possible to move production bases back to Japan, and some companies have actually returned to Japan amid the current depreciation of the yen. If production bases return, GDP and tax revenue will increase.
In other words, this is the economic growth that the people want, but what is crucially lacking is human resources. It is difficult to believe that Japan's industrial structure, which is dominated by manufacturing, will be easily replaced by AI. While Japan's competitiveness will increase if Abenomics and Mr. Takaichi's economic policies are implemented, I imagine that it will also lead to a shortage of labor in Japan.
Although there was a shortage of soldiers during the Greater East Asia War, it is said that only about 1.6% of recruited soldiers from the peninsula were able to join the Japanese army. If they don't understand the Japanese language, Japanese culture, or the purpose of war, the entire unit will suffer. Even Japanese women were able to work under the Women's Volunteer Corps Ordinance after passing various hurdles, and those who passed were given the approval of the local governor at the time.
There are people in Europe and America who think it would be a good idea to make immigrants and illegal immigrants work, but do they want to make the same mistakes and go down the path of creating social unrest? If human resources are absolutely necessary, the host countries should be limited by considering cultural background, historical and diplomatic compatibility, and Japan should even be involved in the education of Japanese language and culture. It would be better to abandon ideas such as procuring labor from countries that provide anti-Japanese education now.
Does Japan procure labor from anti - Japanese countries? - Are you not considering the issues of immigration policy?
It is said that Europe and the United States are reconsidering their immigration policies due to failures, but the United States views immigration from South America as a problem with guns and drugs, not immigration from Canada or Europe. When considered as a white group, they tend to have a lower birthrate, and it is predicted that white people will become a minority in the United States by 2060.
If Europe is facing social unrest due to immigration from Muslim countries, it is certain that this will happen if it accepts immigrants from countries that can be described as hostile religions. In Europe, the periphery means Islamic countries or Africa due to location. However, travel and work within the EU are basically free, so EU countries accept foreigners. The reality is that the West is trying to prevent immigration from dangerous countries.
What is fatal for Japan is that historically it has not been blessed with neighboring countries. If Japan had the issue of which country to procure labor from based on this kind of thinking, then it would be a crazy idea to bring labor from a country that routinely provides anti-Japanese education to its citizens. There are members of parliament.
In Asia, at least in terms of cultural background and religion, there are countries that believe in Buddhism, countries that have an affinity with the Japanese imperial family as a kingdom, have a good level of education, are pro-Japanese countries, and have a strong acceptance of Japan. It would be desirable if there could be collaboration that would allow Japan to be involved with educational institutions in partner countries.
In any case, Japan's efforts to combat the declining birthrate will be over once the second baby boom generation fails to have children. Even if the competitiveness of Japanese companies increases due to the weak yen, they will not be able to bring their production bases back to Japan, and on the other hand, if they continue to flow to other countries, their GDP and tax revenues will simply become income for other countries.
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.
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.
Former Prime Minister Aso plans to visit South Korea and meet with President Yoon - A person who has been monitoring Japan - Korea issues from within the Cabinet
Mr. Aso visits South Korea
Mr. Aso has been observing Japan-Korea relations for a long time from within the Cabinet
The handover on the Korean side is in disarray
What will Mr. Aso offer to the South Korean regime
Former Prime Minister Aso is visiting South Korea, but the Japanese government has said that it is part of parliamentary diplomacy and not as Prime Minister Kishida's special envoy. What did Mr. Aso come to Korea for?
Mr. Aso was the prime minister who concluded the Japan-Korea currency swap during the 2008 Korean currency crisis, which occurred during the Lehman shock in the United States. After rebuilding the economy, the Lee Myung-bak administration said that Japan's aid was unnecessary. Mr. Aso subsequently served as deputy prime minister from the second Abe administration to the Suga administration. During that time, he was involved in various Japan-Korea issues, including Lee Myung-bak's landing on Takeshima, the comfort women agreement, the suspension of the Japan-Korea currency swap, the radar irradiation incident, the forced labor judgment, the comfort women judgment, and the white country issue, in his capacity as vice prime minister. Become the person you were. Like former Prime Minister Abe, he will probably be the only person who has looked at a series of issues as a cabinet member.
Meanwhile, in South Korea, the government changed from Lee Myung-bak to Park Geun-hye, and after impeachment, came the Moon Jae-in government, which removed all people who were said to be pro-Japanese from diplomatic relations. After that, he launched a series of anti-Japanese movements, leading to the current Yun Seok-Yue administration. In other words, on the South Korean side, there is no continuity in Japan-Korea relations, the handover is probably fragmentary, and it is highly likely that they do not understand anything other than symbolic concerns.
It would not be surprising if Japan-Korea relations contain a variety of other problems in addition to those that have been made public. If the problems that have come to light are just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Aso is probably the person who knows the various problems and background behind them. In other words, it is highly likely that the meaning and content of the comprehensive solution that South Korea calls and the comprehensive solution that Japan thinks of are different.
