Two characters for the word "station"

I recently realized that 站 in Chinese means station(火车站). The character is made up of two parts: standing(立) and occupying(占); I don't know how the character is pronounced. (Does Zhàn show its pronunciation?)
One the other hand, 駅(えき) is used for the English word in Japanese, and the left part of this kanji means a horse(馬). I suppose that before steam locomotives(蒸気機関車) were invented, you could see horses at 駅, which can refer to a town along highways(街道, 幹線道路) as well as a railway(鉄道) station.

| | Comments (0)

Trade is not a "welfare operation" nor a zero-sum game.

Trade is not a "welfare operation" nor a zero-sum game. With regard to economic protectionism, I take it for granted that economically less-developed countries should protect their infant industries and the people who work in these industries through industrial policies.

Free trade was, and is still, beneficial to any economy of the world. The principle of free trade, which was championed by two Agro-Saxon economies, was always forced on less-developed economies.

If the globalization of economy is hurting the "rust belt" region in the US, and the gap between the rich and the poor in the country is widening, some feasible industrial policies and social programs should be adopted in the country. Crony capitalism is not the answer.


Donald Trump doesn't understand the difference between foreign direct investment and trade.

Trump is stupid. He doesn't understand the difference between foreign direct investment and trade. Japanese car manufacturers are employing a lot of American workers in the US. Many of the "Japanese" cars are made in the US. Speaking of trade, Japan does not have any arbitrary procedures that work against US car makers when they sell vehicles in Japan.

His slogan "America First" does not work. His "protectionism" does not protect workers nor consumers in the US. This slogan is based on his ignorance and unfairness.


About protectionism

The US should join the Commonwealth of Nations. Or, is the U.K. going to become the 51st state of the "Divided" States of America? Both options are not impossible. Are we going to see the collapse of "globalism" imposed by the two Anglo-Saxon empires in history on economically-less-"developed" countries of the world?

I wonder how the ex-empires can become "great" again without the benefits attributable to the process of globalization of economy that they championed.

I am not against "moderate protectionism" of any country for the purpose of protecting their infant industries and the workers who belong to them, although this means the sacrifice of the rights of consumers in the country.

| | Comments (0)

"Right-wing political correctness"

Political correctness can take the form of "right-wing political correctness". I think that Trump and the people around him demand this. He is too thin-skinned to accept critical comments on his inconsistent "policies" and probable conflicts of interest. He may become the most irresponsible and corrupt president in the history of the US.


Who are "conservatives"? Who are "liberals"?

Many people in the US think that the antonym of "conservative" is "liberal". I think that this dichotomy is strange.

I think that if "conservative" means trying to preserve or protect something, its antonym should mean "changing" something. On the other hand, what is the antonym of "liberal"? If it means freedom of something, its antonym should mean "restriction" or "ban" of something.

Conservative are liberals, and liberals are conservatives.

Environmental protection, gun control, ...
I think that people who call themselves "conservative" in the US tend to want more climate "change" and looser "restrictions" on selling guns. I don't think they are entitled to be called "conservatives".


It is not easy to prove that the hacking activity had "no effect" on the election.

"The report, reflecting the assessments of the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the National Security Agency, stopped short of backing up Mr. Trump on his declaration that the hacking activity had no effect on the election.
'We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election,' the report concluded, saying it was beyond its responsibility to analyze American 'political processes' or public opinion."
‪Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds‬

It is not easy to prove that the hacking activity had "no effect" on the election. You need to analyze the entire political process and public opinion in detail, which is next to impossible.
One the other hand, logically speaking, it is easier to prove that the hacking activity had some effect on the election.



If the word "terrorism" means "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims", I wonder what the political aims of the "terrorists" are.  Are their aims being realized, or not? Terrorists do not employ weapons of mass destruction, and their tactics are intended to arouse "terror" among you. You should not fall prey to terrorism. You can kill terrorists, but you cannot eradicate their ideas by killing them.

You tend to classify people into "we" and "they" without justifiable criteria. The point is that "we" tend to fall prey to "our" ethnocentrism as well as "their" ethnocentrism. I think that the purpose of terrorists is not killing as many people as possible, but arousing "terror" among you to accomplish their goals. What are their goals? You should not fall prey to terrorism. Indiscriminate bombing, for example, kills not only "terrorists" but also local people and "prisoners of war."


The truth does not necessarily lie in the middle of two opposed arguments.

"An example of the argument to moderation would be to regard two opposed arguments—one person saying that slavery is always wrong, while another believes it to be legitimate—and conclude that the truth must therefore lie somewhere in between."(Wikipedia)

As the above excerpt from a Wikipedia article shows, the truth does not necessarily lie in the middle of two opposed arguments: "climate change is real" and "climate change is a hoax." I assume that you don't have to be a climate scientist in order to understand that climate change is not a hoax, unless you happen to agree that "the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."


Due process

What do I think about the president of the Phillipines? I don't know much about him. Did he really major in law?  Does he really know what criminal law stipulates about the rights of "suspects"? Was he mayor of a city somewhere in that country?
I wonder how many people who are not drug dealers have been killed by the authorities without due process after he became president. I wonder how they differentiate between drug dealers and the others because I don't think that drug dealers wear a specific uniform.

There are several famous online English courses in Japan that employ teachers from the Philippines. I hear that they have been a very successful business model. However, I imagine that Rodrigo Duterte's lack of understanding about "due process" and his outrageous remarks about US President Barack Obama are causing damage to the image of the state, which may have a lot of competent English teachers. Who would want to talk with teachers from Rodrigo Duterte's country? Can they talk freely about their president? I feel sorry for the Filipino teachers.


«Is climate change a Chinese hoax?