Japan's Asahi newspaper recently reported the results of a Ministry of Internal Affairs government survey that found 38% of Japanese inns and hotels reported no foreign guests in 2007, and of those, 72% hoped no foreigners would come (thus 27% of the total). Multiple reasons were elicited for shunning foreign guests: "no expertise with foreign languages" (76%); "unsuitable facilities for foreigners" (72%); "uncertainty if a problem were to arise" (63%). The report was published a week after the newly-founded Japan Tourism Agency began promoting a Visit Japan Campaign to raise the number of international visitors from 8.35 million for 2007 to 20 million by 2020 (and 10 million by 2010).
Asahi (2008) "National Survey 2007: 30% of hotels & ryokan don't want foreign lodgers." (9 Oct 2008; in Japanese) 朝日新聞社. (2008) "「外国人泊めたくない」ホテル・旅館３割 ０７年国調査" asahi.com (朝日新聞社).
http://www.asahi.com/national/update/1009/TKY200810090312.html
Thursday, October 16, 2008
What If?
The financial meltdown is trashing the legacy of the Bush Presidency. A lot of people are finding: "Golly, they sure were wrong with their economic policies and oversight."
Diverse citizens are confronted with misperforming products, and think "Damn! It's all wrong, but consumer protection's been gutted. They got my money -- I'm left with the trash."
Many people are also starting to recognize: "Gee - maybe our government was also wrong in leading the USA into war in Iraq... perhaps those nations that wouldn't participate weren't simply cowards..."
Some Americans are just now beginning to wonder: "Maybe our leaders have been wrong in torturing and imprisoning so many people for years without proper review or trial..."
A few Americans believe these are not problems of error; they are deliberate crimes.
Diverse citizens are confronted with misperforming products, and think "Damn! It's all wrong, but consumer protection's been gutted. They got my money -- I'm left with the trash."
Many people are also starting to recognize: "Gee - maybe our government was also wrong in leading the USA into war in Iraq... perhaps those nations that wouldn't participate weren't simply cowards..."
Some Americans are just now beginning to wonder: "Maybe our leaders have been wrong in torturing and imprisoning so many people for years without proper review or trial..."
A few Americans believe these are not problems of error; they are deliberate crimes.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Down but Not Out
You've seen the movie:
Demonic creep is injured
Hero feels relief
Don't relax so soon!
Evil will attack your back!
Prepare to get bit...
Demonic creep is injured
Hero feels relief
Don't relax so soon!
Evil will attack your back!
Prepare to get bit...
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Myku by Genki
Failed politicians...
Bankers in Treasury jobs...
Pick market winners
Housecleaning ignored
Gamblers keep their pay & jobs
Financial flim-flam!
Bankers in Treasury jobs...
Pick market winners
Housecleaning ignored
Gamblers keep their pay & jobs
Financial flim-flam!
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Opinion Leaders or "Fringe People?"
The Washington Post reports: "Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects..." State Police Superintendent Terrence B. Sheridan, speaking of the program operated by his predecessor, told the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee: "The names don't belong in there... It's as simple as that."
How bad is it to be labeled a troublemaker, or a terrorist?
It ain't good.
"The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins... said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists "fringe people.""
It is horribly wrong to label those working peacefully for a better society as terrorists. This seems a solid step toward cleansing the community of people questioning authority.
Remember past tyranny (or risk a repeat!):
When the USSR occupied eastern Poland in 1939, they took prisoner many local leaders, military officers and cultural people. In March of 1940 they decided to summarily execute 22,000 of these people in secret (memorialized as the Katyn massacres, after the first burial site discovered). The goal was to purge the region of potentially-troublesome future leaders / enemies.
When the Japanese occupied Malaya - Singapore in 1942, they tried to purge the region of "undesirables" -- community leaders featured on prepared lists of hundreds of people rounded-up and murdered (Sook Ching killings).
How bad is it to be labeled a troublemaker, or a terrorist?
It ain't good.
"The former state police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins... said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the activists "fringe people.""
It is horribly wrong to label those working peacefully for a better society as terrorists. This seems a solid step toward cleansing the community of people questioning authority.
Remember past tyranny (or risk a repeat!):
When the USSR occupied eastern Poland in 1939, they took prisoner many local leaders, military officers and cultural people. In March of 1940 they decided to summarily execute 22,000 of these people in secret (memorialized as the Katyn massacres, after the first burial site discovered). The goal was to purge the region of potentially-troublesome future leaders / enemies.
When the Japanese occupied Malaya - Singapore in 1942, they tried to purge the region of "undesirables" -- community leaders featured on prepared lists of hundreds of people rounded-up and murdered (Sook Ching killings).
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Citi Blues
The FDIC brokered Citigroup a sweet deal for Wachovia last Monday, but on Friday Wells Fargo jumped in with an agreement some seven times bigger. It's a good lesson that values change day to day (in a few days $2.2 billion became $15.1 billion). But the lesson is much more complex.
This was the first time the FDIC (Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation) used official fiat power to demand such a sale. A thus-far unused 1991 law required the concurrence of the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the US President; the US government forced Wachovia's sale to Citigroup.
The plan provided government bailout money for Citigroup losses above a certain limit. It provided a foundation for Wachovia to survive the week, and subsequently to find a sweeter deal.
Wachovia is the 4th biggest financial group in the USA. Why should government be ordering their sale to a rival? Exactly who in the government was the driver for this plan? At this moment it's unclear, but they've egg on their face(s).
(CEO Bob Steel joined Wachovia from the US Treasury Department last July; he & Treasury Secretary Paulson earlier were colleagues at Goldman Sachs; now reportedly Secretary Paulson subsequently is recusing himself from further involvement).
Government interference at this level is worse than confiscation - they forced a transfer, perhaps to cronies, with no transparency and at a value far below what the market clearly could offer.
Perhaps Citigroup is victimized as well. Already Citigroup reportedly is claiming $60 billion in damages. What a week's work! (thus financiers are under criticism)...
This is a lesson that politicos shouldn't be allowed to mess with individual firms.
This was the first time the FDIC (Federal Depositors Insurance Corporation) used official fiat power to demand such a sale. A thus-far unused 1991 law required the concurrence of the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the US President; the US government forced Wachovia's sale to Citigroup.
The plan provided government bailout money for Citigroup losses above a certain limit. It provided a foundation for Wachovia to survive the week, and subsequently to find a sweeter deal.
Wachovia is the 4th biggest financial group in the USA. Why should government be ordering their sale to a rival? Exactly who in the government was the driver for this plan? At this moment it's unclear, but they've egg on their face(s).
(CEO Bob Steel joined Wachovia from the US Treasury Department last July; he & Treasury Secretary Paulson earlier were colleagues at Goldman Sachs; now reportedly Secretary Paulson subsequently is recusing himself from further involvement).
Government interference at this level is worse than confiscation - they forced a transfer, perhaps to cronies, with no transparency and at a value far below what the market clearly could offer.
Perhaps Citigroup is victimized as well. Already Citigroup reportedly is claiming $60 billion in damages. What a week's work! (thus financiers are under criticism)...
This is a lesson that politicos shouldn't be allowed to mess with individual firms.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Why Help the Flawed Bailout?
Why were Democrats so eager to help Bush and the bigwigs of finance with $700 billion dollars in bailout assistance? Much is wrong with the new act, and with the people who'll implement it. What's happening?
The original plan can best be remembered as Treasury Secretary Paulson's supreme act of chutzpah -- "give me the money; hurry up; forbid in advance any review of what I'll do."
This was not Mother Theresa asking for alms. Paulson is an extremely wealthy financier whose former firm (Goldman Sachs) is poised to benefit greatly from bailout funding and a revised rulebook. It's a cozy deal too much like the government insider relationship of VP Cheney & Halliburton...
I'd call Paulson a weasel and partly responsible for the financial mess and bad economy, but it's foolhardy to rile a dude with hundreds of billions of dollars in his pocket...
These economic troubles are foremost an indictment of the poor governance of President George W. Bush and his minions. Senator Obama's presidential campaign has been strengthened. So why the hurry among Democrats to assist the President? Why bailout Bush & the Republicans so near the election? Why not let him sink in his own excrement?
The Democrats use the word "bipartisan" and speak of helping America. I wonder if they are simply shortsighted: too-kindly fools who let the monster live (surely it thus will rise again).
It is tempting as well to imagine these politicians are corrupt, and that the rich financiers will fashion them a future payback. But truly I don't believe this is the main driver.
Perhaps the prospect of inheriting a greatly-damaged economy is too dire. Perhaps they are seriously concerned about the exposure of the most disadvantaged citizens (though they could help directly, instead of persisting with 'trickle down' schemes).
Perhaps they look forward to replacing Paulson with their own Treasury Secretary (a brief 108 days from now) and inheriting these new powers.
Perhaps "key allies" elsewhere are being fueled.
Perhaps Democrats don't like the plan, but figure some good will come of it (the revised act included $150 billion of assorted sweeteners), and anyhow it ain't their personal money.
Perhaps politicians fancy themselves financially astute. But top financiers have created an ungainly house-of-cards; it's now already falling apart.
Perhaps thus none of this will work -- they've simply wasted huge funds and made the nation weaker.
Perhaps they've been outmaneuvered strategically...
The original plan can best be remembered as Treasury Secretary Paulson's supreme act of chutzpah -- "give me the money; hurry up; forbid in advance any review of what I'll do."
This was not Mother Theresa asking for alms. Paulson is an extremely wealthy financier whose former firm (Goldman Sachs) is poised to benefit greatly from bailout funding and a revised rulebook. It's a cozy deal too much like the government insider relationship of VP Cheney & Halliburton...
I'd call Paulson a weasel and partly responsible for the financial mess and bad economy, but it's foolhardy to rile a dude with hundreds of billions of dollars in his pocket...
These economic troubles are foremost an indictment of the poor governance of President George W. Bush and his minions. Senator Obama's presidential campaign has been strengthened. So why the hurry among Democrats to assist the President? Why bailout Bush & the Republicans so near the election? Why not let him sink in his own excrement?
The Democrats use the word "bipartisan" and speak of helping America. I wonder if they are simply shortsighted: too-kindly fools who let the monster live (surely it thus will rise again).
It is tempting as well to imagine these politicians are corrupt, and that the rich financiers will fashion them a future payback. But truly I don't believe this is the main driver.
Perhaps the prospect of inheriting a greatly-damaged economy is too dire. Perhaps they are seriously concerned about the exposure of the most disadvantaged citizens (though they could help directly, instead of persisting with 'trickle down' schemes).
Perhaps they look forward to replacing Paulson with their own Treasury Secretary (a brief 108 days from now) and inheriting these new powers.
Perhaps "key allies" elsewhere are being fueled.
Perhaps Democrats don't like the plan, but figure some good will come of it (the revised act included $150 billion of assorted sweeteners), and anyhow it ain't their personal money.
Perhaps politicians fancy themselves financially astute. But top financiers have created an ungainly house-of-cards; it's now already falling apart.
Perhaps thus none of this will work -- they've simply wasted huge funds and made the nation weaker.
Perhaps they've been outmaneuvered strategically...
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
House Resolution 3997
The U.S. House of Representatives defeated H.R.3997 on Monday, 29 Sept. 2008 by a vote of 205-228 under Roll Call 674. The (claimed-to-be "bipartisan") resolution would have pumped $700 billion of citizen's money to those same bankers and financiers who caused the ongoing credit crunch.
Looking into the actual text of the bill, what did I find? The cagey politicians threw a basket of bric-a-brac around the guts of their proposal. Citizens might be surprised to read the first lines: "BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes" What the hell is this?
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as far as I can see, was thrown together with a bunch of other gunk. While seeking to spend a huge amount of taxpayer money to bailout the banks, officially they voted on the "Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007." Couldn't such a momentous effort have been better managed? This is a very shady Congress and not forthright.
From the Congressional Record Daily Digest for 29th September:
"Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: The House failed to agree to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment made in order by the rule and printed in H. Rept. 110–903, to H.R. 3997, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, by a recorded vote of 205 ayes to 228 noes, Roll No. 674."
Pages H10334–35, H10337–H10411
Yes (no?), that is: "...failed to agree to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment made in order by the rule...to amend..." Of course a typical person would just love to throw these bums out.
Reading the Congressional Record (which ain't easy) and as far as I can tell: Rep. Gohmert tried to adjourn the House at about 9:10 AM, it went to a vote and was defeated 8-394 (three Reps. after voting for holiday changed their votes to no; see page H10336). This was followed by reading H.R.3997 which talked of Peace Corps benefits, leaky underground storage tanks (SEC. 6430), parity in application of certain limits to mental health benefits, and by the way, a $700 billion subsidy to financiers (about $2000 per citizen). Nearly five hours of discussions followed, with highlights including Rep. Broun (R-Georgia): "this is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle of it, and I'm not going to eat that cow patty." After using all time for debate, an effort was made to declare the motion passed ("the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it...). But when a proper vote was demanded, the count was 205-228 and the bill was defeated.
Since the start of his administration nearly eight years ago, President Bush and his VP Cheney have sought to hamstring Congress and other checks on their executive authority, consistently treating all with contempt. The Treasury Secretary echoed this attitude with his original demands for huge rescue funding, which he himself would administer without oversight. Though there were great efforts (notably by Rep. Barney Frank) toward adjusting the demands of the President and his financiers, and toward increased transparency, the bill still failed. Now the real fireworks begin...
Looking into the actual text of the bill, what did I find? The cagey politicians threw a basket of bric-a-brac around the guts of their proposal. Citizens might be surprised to read the first lines: "BILL TITLE: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes" What the hell is this?
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as far as I can see, was thrown together with a bunch of other gunk. While seeking to spend a huge amount of taxpayer money to bailout the banks, officially they voted on the "Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007." Couldn't such a momentous effort have been better managed? This is a very shady Congress and not forthright.
From the Congressional Record Daily Digest for 29th September:
"Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008: The House failed to agree to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment made in order by the rule and printed in H. Rept. 110–903, to H.R. 3997, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, by a recorded vote of 205 ayes to 228 noes, Roll No. 674."
Pages H10334–35, H10337–H10411
Yes (no?), that is: "...failed to agree to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment with an amendment made in order by the rule...to amend..." Of course a typical person would just love to throw these bums out.
Reading the Congressional Record (which ain't easy) and as far as I can tell: Rep. Gohmert tried to adjourn the House at about 9:10 AM, it went to a vote and was defeated 8-394 (three Reps. after voting for holiday changed their votes to no; see page H10336). This was followed by reading H.R.3997 which talked of Peace Corps benefits, leaky underground storage tanks (SEC. 6430), parity in application of certain limits to mental health benefits, and by the way, a $700 billion subsidy to financiers (about $2000 per citizen). Nearly five hours of discussions followed, with highlights including Rep. Broun (R-Georgia): "this is a huge cow patty with a piece of marshmallow stuck in the middle of it, and I'm not going to eat that cow patty." After using all time for debate, an effort was made to declare the motion passed ("the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it...). But when a proper vote was demanded, the count was 205-228 and the bill was defeated.
Since the start of his administration nearly eight years ago, President Bush and his VP Cheney have sought to hamstring Congress and other checks on their executive authority, consistently treating all with contempt. The Treasury Secretary echoed this attitude with his original demands for huge rescue funding, which he himself would administer without oversight. Though there were great efforts (notably by Rep. Barney Frank) toward adjusting the demands of the President and his financiers, and toward increased transparency, the bill still failed. Now the real fireworks begin...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
