Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die • Hacker News Board

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#71

Post by hkmurakami » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 10:31 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #60

orangecat wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the goal of Japanese policy makers is to boost demand, and that does seem like a wise goal, then keeping 50,000 workers employed at Sharp seems like a smart bet, compared to keeping 100 people employed at some nimble, fast-moving startup. If you want to make sure people have money so that demand is increased then just give them money, don't keep useless jobs around. the USA was able to sell its stake in GM at a pr…

> If you want to make sure people have money so that demand is increased then just give them money, don't keep useless jobs around. Ideally yes, but that's politically difficult.

Also something about the commonly held belief in the dignity of having employment (especially in a culture like Japan's) and supporting the family.

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#72

Post by hkmurakami » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 10:34 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #64

lkrubner wrote: post #10

The above article is best understood as a political piece, rather than a business story. Every single sentence in this article can be picked apart, but doing a line-by-line critique would miss the larger problems with the article. The author assumes that more productivity is always good, even though Japan has been suffering a lack of economic demand for most of the last 26 years. Big gains in productivity would only…

>>"If Japan’s bailouts remind you of the U.S.'s rescue of its auto companies, you’re not alone. There is a strong argument that the auto bailouts only delayed the day when General Motors and Chrysler lose out to nimbler competitors like Tesla Motors." > >Right, but the USA bailout of the auto companies seems to have been a good bet. There's also the fact that Toyota was initially perpetually bailed out by the Japanes…

I once asked why the Japanese govt didn't do more to help the auto industry, compared to say Germany (this was 2010 when I worked in the Toyota group in Aichi). What I didn't know was what parent refers to -- that the Japanese govt went way too far in supporting its industries back in the day, and getting backlash for it politically.

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#73

Post by hkmurakami » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 10:36 AM UTC

gizi wrote: post #12

lkrubner wrote: post #10

The above article is best understood as a political piece, rather than a business story. Every single sentence in this article can be picked apart, but doing a line-by-line critique would miss the larger problems with the article. The author assumes that more productivity is always good, even though Japan has been suffering a lack of economic demand for most of the last 26 years. Big gains in productivity would only…

It is not 50,000 versus 100 but 50,000 versus 500,000 or even 5,000,000. Most people (in advanced economies) work for family businesses. The government would never bail them out. It only bails out large interests. That is unfair, because the government also collects the same taxes -- if not more -- from these small and medium sized companies and their employees, but it will only bail out large companies with that ver…

If you don't bail out the big ones, hundreds if not thousands of the family owned suppliers to the Japanese big business will go under.

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#74

Post by nandemo » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 10:50 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #67

simonh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...then keeping 50,000 workers employed at Sharp seems like a smart bet, compared to keeping 100 people employed at some nimble, fast-moving startup. Where does the money to subsidize those jobs come from? Are you seriously suggesting that sucking subsidy money out of the productive economy to pay for those jobs is not depressing demand? All our economies could do with some of this magic money, it sounds like it wou…

>Are you seriously suggesting that sucking subsidy money out of the productive economy to pay for those jobs is not depressing demand? Which part of giving people money do you think would reduce their tendency to spend it?

Presumably, the implication is that the government must first excise taxes from the public, thereby depressing demand.

The alternative is to borrow money by issuing bonds, but that's just a way of postponing the problem, eventually the government has to excise more taxes to pay the debt.

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#75

Post by icebraining » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 11:09 AM UTC

mattlutze wrote: post #70

ihsw wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rationale is that the more successful divisions of corporations support the existence of less successful divisions, and more successful corporations support the existence of less successful corporations. This is socialism -- social ownership of risk. The rising tide lifts us all. There are fewer winners and fewer losers, and it's only sustainable when everybody buys into it and nobody gets greedy or envious. Such…

> Conversely, this is the reason for Europe's clinging to socialism for the better part of the last century (homogeneous society) Europe is a continent with 50ish countries and dozens of widely spoken languages. It is in no way a homogeneous landmass. > a melting pot of sorts Which it has been since folks started invading, warring and immigrating across the continent thousands of years ago. > maintaining a Euro-centr…

  Martin: Yes, [the Napolean prize] is a NATO award given once every
          five years: gold medal, big ceremony in Brussels, £100 000. The
          PM's the front runner this time. It's for the statesman who's
          made the biggest contribution to European unity.
  Sir Humphrey: Since Napoleon. That is if you don't count Hitler.

It's a joke, but has some truth to it: there isn't a single homogeneous society, but each country did become much more homogeneous in the post-war, after millions were "returned" (often against their will) to their countries of origin. And social democracy was and is the de-facto model in most countries, even if occasionally threatened.

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#76

Post by simonh » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 11:12 AM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #67

simonh wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...then keeping 50,000 workers employed at Sharp seems like a smart bet, compared to keeping 100 people employed at some nimble, fast-moving startup. Where does the money to subsidize those jobs come from? Are you seriously suggesting that sucking subsidy money out of the productive economy to pay for those jobs is not depressing demand? All our economies could do with some of this magic money, it sounds like it wou…

>Are you seriously suggesting that sucking subsidy money out of the productive economy to pay for those jobs is not depressing demand? Which part of giving people money do you think would reduce their tendency to spend it?

Productive companies and organisations generate demand for the things they need in order to be productive. Unproductive ones generate less demand per worker. Yes those workers still need to pay for things, but if they are sitting around at work not doing much their work activity is a waste. Building a bridge to nowhere only creates demand for concrete and steel and goods for the workers. A useful heavily used bridge can generate demand from the economic activity it enables. An efficient factory producing goods generates the same demand as an inefficient one producing the same goods, but the inefficient one consumes money that could otherwise be invested in more demand producing factories, employing workers in demand producing activities.

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#77

Post by nandemo » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 11:13 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #61

tempestn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could this situation create an opportunity for North American VCs to fund Japanese startups? Obviously it would be a lot more logistically difficult than working domestically, and would presumably carry a number of new risks, but if it's really that bad, presumably you could give significantly more lucrative opportunities as well. (And I assume for the startup, the details of getting a bank account and such would be…

Maybe. But you'd be funding people to live in the most expensive country in the world and where there's hardly any startup infrastructure. Even if you have funding, can you rent an office? Can you furnish it without paying for 100 people's worth of office furnishing? If there's a hardware element, are there businesses that will produce a prototype quickly? Can you recruit people? What are you going to do about series…

Exaggerate much?

Tokyo might not have the SV's startup "scene" but apart from funding, it has pretty much all infrastructure a software startup needs, just like any large city in a developed country does: fast, reliable internet connection, a functioning legal system, and enough qualified labor.

Generally speaking, Tokyo is considerably cheaper than San Francisco or NYC at the current exchange rate (rather, at the exchange rate of the past 2 years or so). Crucially, salaries are much lower, and compensation is often the bulk of expenses in software startups.

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#78

Post by captaindiego » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 11:38 AM UTC

kagamine wrote: post #66

captaindiego wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even getting a basic credit card in Japan as a foreigner can be a real pain. If you work for a big company and can get some oomph behind your application you're fine. But if you're a foreign student you're probably going to have trouble.

From numerous YT videos of well-established foreigners in Japan I understand that just moving house and being accepted for a rental contract is very difficult. Often foreigners are asked to pay higher deposits even though their income is from Japan and have lived there for years, and have rented without problem elsewhere. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odahzHioQQ4

Yup that is spot on. My company wouldn't act as a guarantor for me so the only way to get a rental contract was to pay an additional $800 (and $100 per year after) for a special company to act as my guarantor. This is with a good salary and pay stubs to match.

Don't even get me started on the rental company that takes a 1 month rent cut... or 2-3 months rent for "key money"... or ...

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#79

Post by klibertp » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 11:41 AM UTC

cturner wrote: post #42

jljljl wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly do you judge a malinvestment if you don't measure its effects?

So the issue is - is it possible to produce a valid measurement? In scientific method, part of an experiment involves a control. There's no way to produce one in economics - the systems are too complicated. You can't know whether measurements you take are the result of your change directly, or caused by network effects of the change as part of other things going on, or just weather from unrelated things happening in…

> Austrian instincts are partly about [...]

Am I the only one who finds the word "instincts" used in this context deeply disturbing? We've got many well-intentioned people in history who acted according to their instincts and beliefs. Some of these invented and practiced eugenics, others tried to create an "agrarian communist society" while killing off some 2 million people in 4 years (I read about Khmer Rouge regime recently) and there are many, many more examples.

My question is: what is the difference between modern economics and, for example, eugenics? What protective mechanism have we created to make sure no economist attempts to make as all into farmers, killing off all the people who can read and write? Isn't "democracy" alone a bit weak as a guarantee here?

Re: Japan Must Let Zombie Companies Die

#80

Post by unscaled » Mon, Jan 25, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #35

A couple of flaws in the article: >That will keep the market flooded with artificially cheap Sharp products -- mobile phones, solar panels, air conditioners, printers, microwave ovens Sharp doesn't dominate any of those markets. If it went bust people would buy them as cheap pretty much from other Asian manufacturers. >The bank bailout does nothing to improve Sharp’s corporate strategy Sharp seems about to be bought…

>That will keep the market flooded with artificially cheap Sharp products -- mobile phones, solar panels, air conditioners, printers, microwave ovens

Besides, as a domestic consumer, sharp products are not necessarily cheaper than competitor's offers. Nor do they seem less innovative. This is all from a consumer perspective, but while the bailouts are real, the "stop innovating and flood the market with cheap products" strategy the author describes just isn't there. Sharp is keeping the same Kaizen-style innovation, slightly improving their models every year. It's debatable whether these small improvement warrant buying a new model, but the same could be said for all of their competitors as well.