Let’s Not Follow the Japanese Example, Okay?

by Will Wilkinson on March 2, 2009

Masaru Tamamoto’s NYT op-ed is brutal:

There can be no justification for all those mostly unused airports. Or for roads that lead nowhere. Or for the finance minister who appeared to be drunk at the Group of 7 meeting this month in Rome. Our problem is so deep that it sometimes seems that no political party can tame the bureaucracy and put in place a coherent national agenda.

But what most people don’t recognize is that our crisis is not political, but psychological. After our aggression — and subsequent defeat — in World War II, safety and predictability became society’s goals. Bureaucrats rose to control the details of everyday life. We became a nation with lifetime employment, a corporate system based on stable cross-holdings of shares, and a large middle-class population in which people are equal and alike.

Conservative pundits here like to speak of this equality and sameness as being cornerstones of “Japanese” tradition. Nonsense. Throughout much of its history, Japan has had social stratification and great inequality of wealth and privilege. The “egalitarian” Japan was a creature of the 1970s, with its progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, subsidies and the dampening of competition through regulation. This all seemed to work just fine until our asset-price bubble popped in the 1990s. Today, the hemmed-in Japanese seem satisfied with the knowledge that everyone around them is equally unhappy.

[...]

Japan desperately needs change, and this will require risk. Risk-taking is not common among the bureaucratically controlled. You won’t find many signs on Japanese beaches saying, “Swim at your own risk. No lifeguard on duty.” If that sign were to appear, many Japanese would likely ask the authorities to tell them if it is safe to swim. This same risk aversion translates into protectionism and insularity.

My greatest worry is that as we have become wealthier, we have also become more risk-averse, and that, basically, the U.S. will end up like this.

  • the last 28 years were full of increasing risk taking (globally - i e S&L's, LTCM, Enron & the current financial mess). Now we will be more conservative (fiscally), frugal & prudent and growth will be managed (on purpose and systemically).
  • Yeah, I know corporate suicide happens in Japan, which is why I mentioned the country’s high suicide rate overall. But my point, and what griped me about Grassley’s reference, is that it’s a kneejerk pop-culture image of Japanese that has persisted for a long time in the US, and it’s sad to hear a politician perpetuate it.
  • Bruce
    yeah i agree with you..there are many dis advantages of using their products..thanks for the writing up..
    good credit score
  • DMonteith
    Dude, between our non-functional financial system, diminishing energy supplies, and the numerous ecological catastrophes confronting us, risk aversion has nothing to do with it. Risk is coming to us whether we like it or not. No doubt this will gratify all the conservatives who feel we're all just too wussy and degenerate, but the old "careful what you wish for" adage strikes me as an appropriate response.
  • dude
    the last 28 years were full of increasing risk taking (globally - i e S&L's, LTCM, Enron & the current financial mess). Now we will be more conservative (fiscally), frugal & prudent and growth will be managed (on purpose and systemically).
  • huadpe
    Well, in expected value theory, the more utility you have, the more risk averse you become. It's not irrational to be risk averse either.

    I'm sure you're well aware of the immense impact that a small change in growth rate can have, but a corollary of increasing absolute wealth is an increase in absolute risk taking required to achieve wealth.

    For example, if you double the size of the economy, and the risk-taking factors required to grow the economy stay the same, then you have to take double the absolute risk needed to have the same growth.

    Your argument seems to rest on the idea that we should treat risk as relative and not absolute. You may be right, but it's not obvious that you are, and some explanation of why we are (or at least ought to be) relative risk takers would be appreciated.
  • TJ
    "End up like this"? I'm not sure we're not there already.
  • JB
    But, but, but risk is scary! It hurts democrats in their sensitive places. Like with risk, there might be like poor people and stuff.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: