Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Wendover Productions" channel.

@sayainsights compared to 700 billions of the U.S. (and that is only the officially admitted number). Plus you have to consider the spending of the close NATO allies. The U.S. spending is not for "defense" it is for the profits of the contractors. And for imperialistic wars (on behalf of big biz often).
10
Japan was much more hindered by lack of disposable consumer spending. As U.S. vehicles were not affordable, way too big to be useful in Japan (and to wasteful with fossil fuel) it did not matter that DOMESTIC production was not as huge as in the U.S. If you have some market (like Germany that is smaller than Japan) you realize MOST of the advantages of economy of scale. The U.S. had marginal advantages. When you produce 100,000 vehicles the next 100,000 will not slash your costs that dramatically. The Japanese government also nudged the companies to cooperate. So all the producers may have used similar components in some cases. One advantage of have huge sales numbers is purchasing power regarding components, but the Japanese bought components made in Japan anyway, and the habit to squeeze your suppliers dry (and into bankrupcy) is not aligned with Japanese mentality. It is more a business partnership of give and take. The Toyota system was important to improve quality so they could compete with Western products, and not to save "capital" costs for higher stocks. I am sure the Japanese government knew ways around capital costs for their important industries, they control interest rates, subsidies etc.
2
The Just in Time mania came with the "free trade deals" in the 1990s and a new type of management culture (certainly in Europe) and "financialization" instead of having manufacturing. Europe kept quality manufacturing but also bought into the fad in order to cut down "capital costs". When the lawyers and bean counters took over and the engineers and BUILDERS and organizers of production had no more say. (those tend to prefer having higher stocks). When they started undermining the working class by outsourcing, less wages meant less spending power. So they made money from mergers and tweaking the financial side instead of building things. Just in Time was just the technocratic fix for people who take no pride in creating something. Managers that will maximize their bonus, buy back shares, make money by buying politicians and in a few years they "manage" a completely different company. It is not about the prodcut anymore.
2
@hardrockuniversity7283 there are no "laws of economics" comparable to laws of nature. These "laws" are not more inevitable, natural or automatic than having slavery, kings and an aristorcracy, organized religion having a huge influence on society or now democracy. These are systems and norms set up by humans. Starting with "money".
2
@hardrockuniversity7283 Capitalism obviously is no basic concept it originated in the 19th century. That is nothing in human history.
2
@donttalkcrap Companies were pressurd in the 1980s and 1990s to use more sustainable packaging. So they invented the "recycling" of plastics ruse. (Recylcling of metals, glass, paper is more sustainable and easier (if consumers sort correctly), and that is done IN the first world countries not in Asia, it also brings more money. But household appliances ? those land in developing countries and who knows what happens there. The companies want to splurge with aluminium for packaging (I would ask for a deposit / refund, having carbonated beverages in AL cans is likely unhealthy) , and a lot is dictated by marketing not by the needs of protecting and transproting the product or the needs of the machines they use for production. They also do not want to deal with glass bottles. It used to be that softdrinks were a treat and there were local companies making them. And people could drink tap water. So if the beverages were in glass bottles it was not that bad, because volume was not as large. But of course the industry wanted to sell more. They also want to sell large boxes to dupe consumers (and 30 or 40 % is air - think sweats or cereals). For "marketing" reasons.
2
hi, Raymond glad to hear that. you have an authoritarian government, but I have to give them credit they often look out for the greater good. - Also very impressed with the regreening of the desert (Great Green Wall) and the regeneration of the Loess Plateau in the 1990s (John D. Liu made a docmumentary about it). or the bullet trains. The rich nations could start taking notes.
1
in the West the fuel is tax excempt, they are propped up compared to train that must pay the taxes. And the land may cost more.
1
@jasonjohnson6344 No, the regulation protect the people that enter the job market, generation internship is already exploited as is. On the first day in the job you (or the people you put in charge to train the new staff member) ought to be able to sense if a candidate is a really bad fit. The only case where that is not the case: when the position is HIGHLY qualified. But then you go by professional training etc. If you cannot find out a fluke after one week you should not be in the business of hiring people and organizing to integrate them into the staff. If they turn out to be mediocre ... well that is life, look a the bell curve. of course a well managed company will realize that the forest is more than the sum of trees and will be able to elevate the standard / average people to excel as part of a good team.
1
@jasonjohnson6344 Incompetent or overwhelmed managers want to outsource their responsibilty and ability to recruit on the back of ALL that enter the workforce. Nothing new,it is an unversal tactic to squeeze the workforce to cut costs and there for keeping a biz alive or to increase profits. And that squeezing also happens to good, competent and diligent workers, there is no desire to treat workers fair. The desire is to get as much out of workers w/o compensating them. Small businesses are not more ethical than large ones. But even if they would care - they are often caught up in the race to the bottom where the unethical actors set the standards. ONLY regulations can prevent that and put in a floor. They wil also level the playing field for companies that want to treat their workers right, incl. the young adults they employ.
1
@rb3425 A lot of fear mongering about the productivity of an ageing society is going on - on behest of the neoliberal order and the oligarchs that NOW get most of the productivity wins - very much opposed to how it used to be in the Golden Era (in Europe: the Economic Miracle). Till the 1970s, the 70s oil price spikes were disruptive for the economies world wide. Neoliberalism hit Europe with delay in the mid to late 1990s. But it was earlier and worse in the U.K. and U.S. It is no coincidence that this was when the Soviet Union collapsed. Sure in the 1970s the ratio of employed people supporting the retired was different (the post war baby boomer before females could control their fertility. Condomes were around for much longer, but it was the pill that was the game changer - and the option to end unwanted pregnancies with legal and safe abortions). Does not matter though if you look how politicians made sure that labor would not become scarce and the post WW2 scenarios would manifest again: The workforce having negotiating power. But you also have to look at the gains of productivity since then when families had many more children than now and had the earlier (gee I wonder why people doften draw the linea t 2 and have them later in life. Couldn't have to do with economic and professional demands and realities !) Sure fewer folks with a paid job will have to provide for more retired - but you have to look at how productive they are compared to the 1970s before the "pill drop" in demographics became apparent. People live longer, they go longer to school, and modern medicine is highly effective but also costs more than in the 1970s. etc. On the other hand there are things to counteract the higher costs. Not only the productivity wins. we had many years of peace and one generation inherits property form the generation before (they do not have to start at 1950s levels, they can build. On personal property and society as a whole. For instance infrastructure, but also the technology that was developed and is now avaialbele (with or without patents still valid). All the medications where the patents have expired. Sure there may be new ones that are even more effective, but he old ones are not bad either. In the 1950s and 1960s they just got the vaccinations for measles, polio, etc. Wealth accumulates although that is not evenly distributed. That too should help a society to take care of the little ones and the elderly.
1
The "free market" means it is not "profitable" to clean up after themselves so they do not do it. It is also lucrative to release poisons and to pollute, so that is what happens. - The industry crooks kept consumers busy with recycling, with a "fake" solution. Else they would have needed to seriously restrict what kinds of plastics are used (all large industries agreeing to only use certain plastics). And / or investing in R&D for plastic that can break down. And / or burning it. problem if they get things like aluminium into it because consumers do not separate well, that will be a major burden on filters, I would not trust the U.S. providers to handle that correctly. They handle it in Europe (and complain on the strain on filters) but in the U.S. they would poison the population. If they are not cqareful they can produced Dioxin.
1
Also: In China the ability of companies to make a (small profit but over a large volume) does NOT trump the public good. For China as a nation it wasn't beneficial to get that work (sorting) and they stopped it. Lots of lessons for the U.S. here !
1
I disagree with the claims about the Toyota system (this was about quality not reducing stocks and capital costs) but else it is a good overview about our supply chains and where that can lead. And short sighted, profit maximizing Capitalism (that is built into it, it is at the core. The highes profit, the lowest costs. So squeezing workers or suppliers is also part of the package). In Japan there is a cultural push towards looking after the whole country and to have also other goals (like national independence, or keeeping manufacturing in the country). So their way to have capitalism is often less destructive and shows more wisdom.
1
@MashedPotatoes690 In Switzerland they most likely have good filters and also in Austria. problem: when people throw aluminium cans into the plastic waste, that casuses problems wih the filters. - It is critical, if the filters do not work they might release Dioxin. Those waste treatment plants usually also burn gas from sewage treatment. They create electricity for peak demand and the abundant heat that is a side product is used to help provide hot water for households - so they must be near the settlements. Those filters MUST be reliable. I would not trust the U.S. to handle that properly.
1
What rubbish: the mythical market forces will NOT solve that. Cleaning up after yourself instead of leaving a mess is ALWAYS more of a hassle / cost. And putting the burden of costs / work / avoidance on the consumers ? Who are at the END of a process and have NO say, so they de facto end up with hardly any choices of what to buy. Shopping would become super complicated, time consuming and also more expensive. Companies that are held accountable financially for their WASTEFUL packaging choice (a lot has to do with the whims of marketing) would just put the extra costs on the product prices, they would not try to avoid waste or be more sustainable. They must be forced to be responsible (And consumers tried to push them, that ended with a fake solution for decades). hey also would add the costs on paint or gas for lead damage, buying their way out (not really - they just pass on costs, it is not like they would bring a sacrifice for pollution related costs, and would accept lower profits). doing harmful things and just increasing the price to buy their way out - that is not how it works. Lead in paint has been banned for instance. We know that "consumer should make choices that nudge companies to be ethical"' does not work. It has never worked in the past. The companies do their best to circumvent, lie and spin a narrative even if they are called out. Clean Clothes and Fair Trade campaigns have been going on for decades and not much has changed, not for the mass of goods that are sold. The ethical and responsible solutions should be DEFAULT not something that consumers have to work hard for (with paying attention - and on 1000 other things, where biz also cannot be bothered, or with paying more money. There is only so much time and attention that consumers can and will invest because the lawmakers cannot be bothered to make the industries do the right thing). Not every citizen cares about the enviromentment and we should not depend on that. As we also do not depend on the masses being responsible (and aware !) regarding other things. The military draft for Vietnam was NOT voluntay, they locked people up for refusing to go to war. Paying taxes is also not voluntary. We also do not leave it to the goodwill of reasoable people if they will respect red traffic lights and we demand that people can't drive when they are not sober. That is enforced, monitored and there are fines and consequences for non-compliance - so by and large most people don't do it. Not voluntarily or because they are so attentive, enlightened and out of the goodness of their heart - but because society chose to settle that with REGULATIONS and set a NORM, a default for all members of society. THAT is effective. Putting the burden on consumers is ludicrous and is ineffective.
1
No, recycling " must not be profitable" but someone has to pay for it. The companies that chose to use a certain packaging will have to add the costs and pay for the processing when the consumers turn in the waste - (in Europe manufacturers or retailers have to declare what they use, and they have to pay into funds). in other words sales prices overall will go up. the industry will still not try to save material but will splurge for marketing reasons - and just pass on the costs. They tried the recyling ruse as a a PR gag because many consumers decades ago were willing to be responsible - even though businesses (as collective engaged in a race to the bottom regarding standards) are not responsible. At all. So they must be FORCED to be reasonable and responsible. They will clearly never voluntarily act in a responsible manner, but always cut corners, pollute and put profits / convenience over enviroment or health of humans. It is no tlike the consumers have any choice or say what companies decide to use as packaging. The effort to demand more sustainable handling in general was undermined by the industries. They could have solved that in the last 25 years, but they just could not be bothered. (If sustainable packaing costs more - so be it then ALL industries will have to add those costs). The marketers usually decide a lot (and demand unnecessary packaging) and the rest is production (and what the machines that they chose to order, can handle). Shifting the burden to the consumers is wrong, because it is de facto almost impossible to avoid the packaging (unless people live on a farm and produce their food or barter. or if they are super conscious and only shop farmer's market. But that is only possible for a slim minority AND is more expensive. So being responsible is not default it is something consumers are punished for by having to pay considerably more for products that are ALSO sustainable regarding packaging. Or are at least better). We all shop in retail, growing food or bartering is not how we organize our society for millions of people.
1
China's government had to deal with the healthcare costs caused by Western garbage, because they run mos of China's healthcare system. Note how the emerging nation has public non-profit healthcare and the U.S. hasn't.
1