G8 Protests In Tokyo

[Mulboyne]

Agencies: Japan anti-G8 summit protesters scuffle with police
Anti-G8 summit protesters marched down the streets of Tokyo on Sunday, accusing the Group of Eight nations of causing worldwide poverty. More than 1,000 people gathered in two separate rallies in Tokyo, white hundreds of anti-riot police guarded the streets. At least two people were arrested when protesters scuffled with police, Japanese broadcaster TV Asahi reported. "Issues like environmental destruction and poverty in Africa, these are all caused by the G8 governments," said Yu Ando, a government worker. "I can't stand that they are proclaiming to solve these issues." Protests are expected near the summit venue at Lake Toya, north of Tokyo, as well as in Tokyo and Sapporo, capital of Hokkaido...more...

[jim katta]

Totally by accident I actually saw this in event take place today. Me and a friend were strolling out of Yoyogi Park and suddenly saw all these riot police completely geared out with armor and stuff, very unnerving. We watched some of the protest and it was frankly somewhat impressive to see Japanese people get out in the rainy streets and protest. Not sure if I know all their issues specifically, but just seeing a protest in Japan by Japanese people was a new and eye opening experience. Not everyone here is a complacent robot.

[wuchan]

accusing the Group of Eight nations of causing worldwide poverty.

This line always makes me laugh. I have seen it before and I am sure that I will see it again.

Capitalism can not work without poor people. Large corporations outsource the jobs that no one wants to do to places where people are desperate enough to do anything for very small amounts of money. Japan was one of these places after the war then the began to out source too, they used china and other poor asian countries. Now that china and india are going the capitalism route and their people don't want to work in shitty conditions for almost no money so they need to rob and pillage poorer countries. This is an endless cycle that will only continue.

[Luciddreamer]

A little off topic but.....thats gotta be the coolest fecking riot gear I've ever seen,they look super bad ass :P I definately wouldn't want to feck with them man

[Hamaki]

Most of the people in Africa wouldn't know they where poor, but sombody had to go and tell them.

[kurohinge1]

A little off topic but.....thats gotta be the coolest fecking riot gear I've ever seen . . .

I love the white gloves.

Perhaps they're in case they have to drive a taxi out of the combat zone, or something.

[Cyka UchuuJin]

Most of the people in Africa wouldn't know they where poor, but sombody had to go and tell them.

you got that right. and even better, thanks to bono and his self serving 'charities', the world can't see anything BUT africa as being poor. i hate that fucker.

i wonder how many of the rioters in tokyo are unemployed. and what is this 'workers yes, G8 no' supposed to mean?

[Choeki]

A little off topic but.....thats gotta be the coolest fecking riot gear I've ever seen,they look super bad ass :P I definately wouldn't want to feck with them man

I imagine it will probably make the next cover of ARMS magazine... Prepare to see replica sets for sale on Yahoo Japan Auctions and at S&Graf.

[SIZE="1"]Judging from the last photo, they make the official sets in XXXL to boot.[/SIZE]

[hundefar]

This line always makes me laugh. I have seen it before and I am sure that I will see it again.

Capitalism can not work without poor people. Large corporations outsource the jobs that no one wants to do to places where people are desperate enough to do anything for very small amounts of money. Japan was one of these places after the war then the began to out source too, they used china and other poor asian countries. Now that china and india are going the capitalism route and their people don't want to work in shitty conditions for almost no money so they need to rob and pillage poorer countries. This is an endless cycle that will only continue.

Nobody is robbing and pillaging poor countries. Poor countries need more capitalism, not less. The people in poorer countries are willing to work cheaply because it is an advantage to them, so it is hardly robbery. As you yourself mention, in China and India people are getting richer. That is because of capitalism. According to the lates figures from the world bank, 600+ million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty because of more capitalism. I find it ridiculous to see commies and socialist protesting against capitalism every time there is some G8 meeting or similar. They should be in the street demanding more capitalism and more free trade. Because that is what the poorer countries need. Socialism has never been the road to freedom and fortune. Capitalism might not be perfect, but is is the best we've got.

[Greji]

Capitalism might not be perfect, but is is the best we've got.

[wuchan]

Nobody is robbing and pillaging poor countries. Poor countries need more capitalism, not less. The people in poorer countries are willing to work cheaply because it is an advantage to them, so it is hardly robbery. As you yourself mention, in China and India people are getting richer. That is because of capitalism. According to the lates figures from the world bank, 600+ million Chinese have been lifted out of poverty because of more capitalism. I find it ridiculous to see commies and socialist protesting against capitalism every time there is some G8 meeting or similar. They should be in the street demanding more capitalism and more free trade. Because that is what the poorer countries need. Socialism has never been the road to freedom and fortune. Capitalism might not be perfect, but is is the best we've got.

You are right capitalism is not perfect but is the best we have. Socialism leaves too much room for corruption. But the fact still remains, there can not be rich without poor.
As China grows and their people become more comfortable they will need to find people to do the shit work. The better of China's people are the less they will be willing to put up with people being treated like slaves. They will end up outsourcing to other poorer countries.

They should be in the street demanding more capitalism and more free trade. Because that is what the poorer countries need. Socialism has never been the road to freedom and fortune

Freedom? Have you confused Capitalism with Democracy? The two are not the same.

[hundefar]

there can not be rich without poor.

If you have inequality, some people could be richer than others without anyone being poor. Instead they would just not be as well of as the richest among them.

As China grows and their people become more comfortable they will need to find people to do the shit work. The better of China's people are the less they will be willing to put up with people being treated like slaves. They will end up outsourcing to other poorer countries.

Who will then become richer. In the end the living standards of the whole world will be elevated. There will still be inequality, but that is not really a problem, as the important thing is that individuals have the possibility to do something to change their conditions.

Freedom? Have you confused Capitalism with Democracy? The two are not the same.

No, the two are not the same. However, if people live in poverty under socialism or other restrictive economic regimes, they will have less opportunity to become independent of the state. If they wish to purchase tools of communication such as printing presses or computers, they can accumulate the money to do so under a capitalist economy. It is much harder to do so under communism. Having that kind of possibilities makes it easier for people to organise themselves, and can pave the way to a more free society. Though economic freedom does not necessarily guarantee other freedoms, it can empower the individuals and thus bring societal change in the long run, as economic power shifts from centralised government to citizens.

[xenomorph42]

Most of the people in Africa wouldn't know they where poor, but sombody had to go and tell them.

Are you trying to be smart-ass?

[wuchan]

Who will then become richer. In the end the living standards of the whole world will be elevated. There will still be inequality, but that is not really a problem, as the important thing is that individuals have the possibility to do something to change their conditions.

In an ideal world, yes. This is not an ideal or perfect world. In theory communism works perfectly, in the real world there is way too much grey area for the people in power to become corrupt. The problem with capitalism is the economic fact that there has to be a winner and a loser. Sometimes the loser loses due to bad luck. The winner has to have connections, talent, "game", be in the right place at the right time and do it all at the same time (luck involved here too). Unfortunately when a person gets ahead he has the capital to invest in new ways to get even richer and things begin to get out of hand. Example: Warren and Bill both have well over 40 billion. Do they need that much? No. Do they want more? Yes. Why? Because they can...... Maybe if there was some kind of personal wealth cap, but then it would no longer be capitalism.

There can not be rich without poor, and since we have done away with slavery the rich have to be richer to pay their "servants".

Few random facts about africa:
Western nations pay african countries to burry "e-waste"
Arab nations eradicate locals to access natural resources, and china helps pay for it. (eastern africa)
Western companies run farms for rubber and pay the locals next to nothing.
same with diamond, sulfur, and iron mining.
If it were economical to pay western wages to laborers to do this work there would be no problem......... then again Debeers would not be what it is if they had to pay fair wages.

[hundefar]

In an ideal world, yes. This is not an ideal or perfect world. In theory communism works perfectly, in the real world there is way too much grey area for the people in power to become corrupt. The problem with capitalism is the economic fact that there has to be a winner and a loser.

Actually communism does not even work in theory, as proven by Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.

You are wrong when you say that capitalism requires a winner and a loser. You are assuming that the economy is a zero sum game, which is it not. I recommend that you brush up on economic theory (and I don't mean Marx).

[Visitor K]

A little off topic but.....thats gotta be the coolest fecking riot gear I've ever seen,they look super bad ass :P I definately wouldn't want to feck with them man

i think the peruvian riot gears got those beat:

[Hamaki]

Are you trying to be smart-ass?

Smart yes, ass always.

Poor is a relevant term.

I am extremely poor compared to Bill Gates, but I don't think I will be on the G8 agenda.

[maraboutslim]

You are wrong when you say that capitalism requires a winner and a loser. You are assuming that the economy is a zero sum game, which is it not. I recommend that you brush up on economic theory (and I don't mean Marx).

This is the biggest load of crap ever. Economists get away with saying it only because they don't measure everything. We live on a planet with finite resources and a growing population. it is simply not possible for everyone to "win".

The terms "poor" and "rich" only makes sense when viewed in real time. Don't be fooled by greed apologists who say that today's poor aren't really poor because they are better off than people were 50 years ago. It makes no sense to view life that way. To say that today's "poor" aren't really poor because they have more money then people used to would be like saying that, despite being shorter than the current average height, a Japanese woman who is 155cm is "tall" because she's taller than women were in Japan 50 or 100 years ago. It does her absolutely no good when competing against other currently living women for mates, money, etc. The same goes for being "poor". You're not competing for resources and services against people from 50 or 100 years ago: you're competing against today's "rich". So you're still screwed.

[kurohinge1]

. . . We live on a planet with finite resources and a growing population. it is simply not possible for everyone to "win".

The terms "poor" and "rich" only makes sense when viewed in real time.

. . . You're not competing for resources and services against people from 50 or 100 years ago: you're competing against today's "rich". So you're still screwed.

How do we win?

What's the prize?

And who decides all this?

[Gilligan]

Freedom? Have you confused Capitalism with Democracy? The two are not the same.

Economic arrangements play a dual role in the promotion of a free society. On the one hand, freedom in economic arrangements is itself a component of freedom broadly understood, so economic freedom is an end in itself. In the second place, economic freedom is also an indispensable means toward the achievement of political freedom.

From Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom.

[maraboutslim]

On a percentage of population basis, clearly more people have economic freedom in near-socialist Norway than in capitalist USA. Japan falls somewhere in the middle.

[Hamaki]

How do we win?

What's the prize?

And who decides all this?

first send me money

Then I send you half back, the winnings (kinda like a Japanese wedding)

I decides all of this, now send me your money and you are guaranteed to win;)

[Greji]

[quote="Hamaki"]first send me money

Then I send you half back, the winnings (kinda like a Japanese wedding)

I decides all of this, now send me your money and you are guaranteed to win]

What a great deal. BTW, what part of Nigeria do you live in?

[Gilligan]

On a percentage of population basis, clearly more people have economic freedom in near-socialist Norway than in capitalist USA. Japan falls somewhere in the middle.

Yes, they're free to give anywhere from 28% to over 50% of their income to the government, along with another 7% or so for social security. And whenever they buy anything, they're free to give the government 25% of the cost of whatever it was they bought.

[maraboutslim]

They aren't "giving" it to their government. They are simply paying for services they will receive. In the USA, we pay less in taxes, but get (much) less in return. For example, I'd be happy to pay another 15-20% of my income to the USA in taxes (i.e. increase my tax bill by about $12k a year) if my families health care would be covered: because it costs me more than that to buy it on the private market. On balance, I'd rather being paying Norway's rates and getting Norway's benefits.

[Greji]

Yes, they're free to give anywhere from 28% to over 50% of their income to the government, along with another 7% or so for social security. And whenever they buy anything, they're free to give the government 25% of the cost of whatever it was they bought.

Whadda ya mean "they" Gil? There are a bunch of us that are in that goat fuck as well!

[hundefar]

They aren't "giving" it to their government. They are simply paying for services they will receive. In the USA, we pay less in taxes, but get (much) less in return. For example, I'd be happy to pay another 15-20% of my income to the USA in taxes (i.e. increase my tax bill by about $12k a year) if my families health care would be covered: because it costs me more than that to buy it on the private market. On balance, I'd rather being paying Norway's rates and getting Norway's benefits.

Er..I live in Denmark, which is quite similar to Norway (where I have worked many times), though here the taxes are the highest in the world now (officially by last week!). There is a tremendous amount of work going on in the scandinavian countries which are done without paying taxes, simply because nobody would be willing to do it or it would be too expensive if they paid taxes. So the state are losing a lot of tax money that way. Also social mobility is really low in scandinavian countries, because it is very hard to gather enough money to actually do something about ones situation. The 'services' by the state are often monopolized and of a poor service. People are dying here because the treatment of cancer is so bad, and the goverment is hesitant to allow private hospitals to compete in the are of cancer treatment because of egalitarian ideology. I guess that is more important than people's lives, huh? And then there's the schools. I don't send my kids to public schools here, that would be insanse. They are the most expensive in the world, but sadly not the best. Doctors and other well educated people are fleeing the country to avoid taxes, so there's a real shortage. And I could go on and on. The point is that scnadinavian welfare models might look good on the outside, but the reality is different. They are not functioning very well, and the government are really intrusive in the lives of the citizens. There are thing that are working well here, but these are the same things that has always gone well, the things that made these countries rich so they could afford to have welfare states. You see, a country such as Denmark had low taxes until the mid sixties and build their economy during that time. After 65 we started having the welfare state, and it has produced more problems than it has solved. It wasn't like Denmark was a poor country and people were dying in the street. We have more homeless people, losers that can't work, crime and beggars than ever before.

We were speaking of economic freedom. Well, you are saying that economic control by the government is economic freedom. By your standards Eastern Germany must have been a haven of economic freedom. I am sorry, but it really doesn't make sense to view a place where the governments takes most of your money and takes most of the choices for you as a place of economic freedom.

What you would be willing to do is really besides the point. Here and in Norway there is no CHOICE. In many other countries you can spend as much as you like on getting the benefits that you speak so highly of. But it is done voluntarily. BTW, here and in Norway we pay 50-60% in taxes. Then you have to remember that the general level of prices are really inflated because of the Tax Wedge, so when looking at how much you need to pay extra, bear in mind that this means that people in scandinavia in many ways has a lower standard of living than in the US (there are some comparative studies out there).

Scandinavian countries do have some good things in their economy. It is relatively easy to start a business here compared to other European countries. However, smaller businesses tend to close because of the high taxes and the massive bureaucracy they have to deal with in form of tax authorities, so the rules work mainly for larger companies. But really, you should be careful to sing the praises of the Scandinavian welfare model. Lately it has been falling apart in both Denmark, Norway and Sweden. You should also consider how you can equal economic freedom with a certain form of economic control by the government. Even though you might like it, it removes power from the individual.

[Greji]

But really, you should be careful to sing the praises of the Scandinavian welfare model. Lately it has been falling apart in both Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

hundefar, thank you, thank you and thank you for that excellent post. I get brickbats lobbed in on me from all around my work place when I even hint that the Scandinavian welfare model is not all a bed of roses. We do a lot of work in that area involving extensive funding throughout Japan and it is always an on-going topic if not an all out battle.

Japan, probably from its coming out age in the 1950-60's has developed this unshakable axiom that only Scandinavia and especially, Sweden can be the poster children for social welfare in the world and it is only truly done right in those countries. Woe by the person that questions this message received from the Gods.

We still send people to Sweden for training, but if these trainees on their return, or someone from Sweden comes to Japan and starts to tell just how much trouble they are having in those countries, it falls on deaf ears, because no one can accept that this perfect Nirvana that they have learned about since childhood, could possibly be flawed.

[Behan]

Without prying too much, Greji, what kind of work do you do? OK, I admit I am prying and being nosy, but I also remember you saying you deal with famous people at your job.

[CrankyBastard]

Without prying too much, Greji, what kind of work do you do? OK, I admit I am prying and being nosy, but I also remember you saying you deal with famous people at your job.

I think he runs a knocking shop!