Trusts, oligopolies and price-fixing the norm in Japan OFFTOPIC about England & Canada

[Nefelia]

FYI, Japan's population density is lower than England's, England is 3x smaller, and England has many discount airlines (the most famous being EasyJet). Don't make me laugh abot Japan's lack of suitable areas for airports ! Almost every city, even small, has an airport in Japan. What's more land prices in Japan are also lower in average than in England, even Tokyo compared to London.

Japan's population density is 337 inhabitants/square km, ranking as the 30th most crowded location. The UK, ranking at 50th place, has 243 inhabitants/square km.

Area of the UK: 244,820 square km.
Area of Japan: 377,835 square km.

List of countries and dependencies by population density - Wikipedia

Here's another interesting article: Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos

Tokyo is still the most expensive city to live in. Followed by London, and then Moscow.

World's most expensive cities led by Tokyo, London - Jun. 14, 2004

I remember an acquaintance once telling me that 70% of Japanese land is mountain/lake, and therefore uninhabitable. Or at least it can't be developped profitably. Is that true?

Another good question: why does a quarter of the Japanese population live in Tokyo?

Anyway, sorry for dragging this a little off topic, but I am a curious cat.

 

[Maciamo]

Japan's population density is 337 inhabitants/square km, ranking as the 30th most crowded location. The UK, ranking at 50th place, has 243 inhabitants/square km.

Area of the UK: 244,820 square km.
Area of Japan: 377,835 square km.

Wow you really amaze me. Considering your arrogance in another thread, I am really surprised that even being Canadian you don't know the difference between England and the UK (England+Wales+Scotland+Northern Ireland) !

Tokyo is still the most expensive city to live in. Followed by London, and then Moscow.

Listen, I have lived in both Tokyo and London, and I know very well that restaurants are 2 or 3x more expensive in London, the cheapest underground ticket is exactly twice the price of Tokyo's (1.6 pound vs 160yen), and accommodation prices are at least twice higher in London nowadays (no wonder, with an increase of 100% in the last 5 years, while land prices have been falling for 15 consecutive years in Tokyo).

I have a few Japanese acquaintances (from Tokyo) who are dismayed at the prices in London every time they go there on a business trip (a few times a year). Maybe that is because imported products (brand clothes, food, cars...) are so much more expensive in Japan that it raises the average. But if you don't have a BMW, eat Italian parmiggiano and dress with European designer clothes, Tokyo is definetly cheaper.

I remember an acquaintance once telling me that 70% of Japanese land is mountain/lake, and therefore uninhabitable. Or at least it can't be developped profitably. Is that true?

If that is true, we could say that a smaller percentage of Switerland or Norway are inhabitable. It doesn't mean much. That's already more than enough space. Just the Kanto plain is already about 1/3 of England's area, and Hokkaido (mostly plains) is the size of Scotland.

Another good question: why does a quarter of the Japanese population live in Tokyo?

Well, the same is true in England 12 million people live in London, out of 49 million inhabitants.

 

[Nefelia]

Considering your arrogance in another thread,

Hmm, seems somebody doesn't like me. Not surprising, really, since I tend to come on strong in my arguments and I enjoy quibbling over detail. If you don't like that, feel free to rip my argument appart, leave the pot-shots out of it.

When I Speak of 'England' in an international context or hear of it in such a context, I tend to think 'UK', since Wales, Scotland and North Ireland fall under British parliament. Thats actually a reasonable habit since the differences between 'England', 'Wales', 'Scotland', and 'North Ireland' don't trancend the regional. When England acts internationally, it acts as the UK. Understand that outside of the EU, confusion and indifference abounds.

But if you want to limit the comparison to England, so be it.

Japan's population density: 337
England's population density: 383

So you are correct that England does have the higher population density. But regionalism works both ways. After all, Japan has a lot more free 'uninhabited' land than does England:

London's population density: 4,699
Tokyo's population density: 13,416

Which is the most expensive to live in? Well, we can rely on anectdotal evidence, which you have provided, or we can stick to statistics and research.

2004 Mercer cost of living rankings - popup
Finfacts: Irish business, finance news on economics
http://www.ired.com/news/mkt/eu-expensive.htm
City Mayors: Cost of living - The world's most expensive cities 2012

Feel free to search yourself. As of the latest surveys (2004), Tokyo is still the city with the highest cost of living in the world. London may surpass it in 2005, though more likely it will happen in 2006, but as of not, the facts cannot be ignored.

I may be 'arrogant', but I tend to know my ****, and I am willing to back it up. On the other hand, I am willing to be corrected when I am wrong, as long as he doing the correcting doesn't take it personally.


Edit: How about we both chill?

 

[cicatriz esp]

When I Speak of 'England' in an international context or hear of it in such a context, I tend to think 'UK', since Wales, Scotland and North Ireland fall under British parliament. Thats actually a reasonable habit since the differences between 'England', 'Wales', 'Scotland', and 'North Ireland' don't trancend the regional. When England acts internationally, it acts as the UK. Understand that outside of the EU, confusion and indifference abounds.

Edit: How about we both chill?

It's easy to see why people can't chill when such statements as this are made. No, it's not a "reasonable habit", it's actually quite ludicrous. Those four areas are different countries, with different languages, customs, and cultures. It's as offensive to us as colluding Koreans and Japanese would be to those countries.

 

[Nefelia]

It's as offensive to us as colluding Koreans and Japanese would be to those countries.

Umm, no. In fact, absolutely not.

England = England.

Britain = England + Wales + Scotland.

U.K. = England + Wales + Scotland + N. Ireland.

Of all of these 'nations', the U.K. (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is the obnly one to enjoy full nation status, and the only one to be easily recognized by foreigners with little interest in the internal affairs of the U.K. (assuming the foreigner doesn't just call the whole collection 'England' and wash his hands of the details).

Japan, North Korea, and South Korea are all fully independent nations and not merely members of a larger political entity. As such, comparing them to Wales, England, or Scotland is inappropriate and out of context.

The not-so-simple system of unions employed by the U.K. (ie, why have two seperate systems: the U.K and Britain?) is far from common. Although, upon further thought America (with territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, etc) also has a similarly complex system. Maybe its related to imperialism? Maybe not.

The fact remains that Wales, England, Scotland, and N. Ireland are not fully independant countries. They are territories belonging to the greater whole of the United Kingdom. Similar (yet not identical to) provinces or states within any other kingdom. That, for me, is enough to view these four entities as 'regional players' who act under the umbrella of the United Kingdom, which acts as a global player.

Feel free to attack my logic in continuing to view England, Wales, etc as 'regional' distinctions, but at the very least you should concede that from the outsider's point of view, the political situation within the U.K. is not self-evident, and hardly the matter of global discourse. I'd expect the average foreigner to know the details of the U.K. political situation as much as I would expect the average Japanese (or American for that matter) citizen to know the 10 provinces and 3 territories of Canada off-hand.


Edit:

Thats actually a reasonable habit since the differences between 'England', 'Wales', 'Scotland', and 'North Ireland' don't trancend the regional.

Apparently I didn't express myself correctly. When i say the differences between these four entities don't transcend the regional, I mean the knowledge of the differences (whether it be cultural/linguistic/traditional or simply political) between these entities does not transcend the regional. Public interest in the matter drops sharply once outside the region (The U.K. and possibly the EU).

 

[Maciamo]

Apparently I didn't express myself correctly. When i say the differences between these four entities don't transcend the regional, I mean the knowledge of the differences (whether it be cultural/linguistic/traditional or simply political) between these entities does not transcend the regional. Public interest in the matter drops sharply once outside the region (The U.K. and possibly the EU).

Few people in Europe (or in English-speaking countries I assume) wouldn't know the difference between England and the UK. You also don't seem to know that Scotland has its own parliament, and that Wales and N. Ireland have their own seprate political parties and education systems. I think many Scottish or N. Irish people would be offended to be called English (or vice versa). I am actually surprised (to say the least) that a citizen of Canadia, a country part of the Commonwealth, which head of state is still Elizabeth II, would be so ignorant of the UK. You can argue that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not fully independent, but we could as well argue that Canada also isn't to a certain extend, as they all share the same queen.

 

[Nefelia]

I am actually surprised (to say the least) that a citizen of Canadia, a country part of the Commonwealth, which head of state is still Elizabeth II, would be so ignorant of the UK.

Ah, and here you show great ignorance of Canada (I'll let the spelling error slide). Its easy to be judgemental, no? ;p

You are wrong to assume that English speaking countries would automatically be well informed or even moderately informed about the inner composition of the United Kingdom. By such skewed logic, I would expect Japanese to have intimate knowledge of Pakistan since both are major rice producers.

I can not speak for the state of the Commonwealth outside of Canada, but here it is viewed as merely a symbolic relic of history. WWI basically marked the end of British influence over Canadian political policy.

There is one thing you should consider: you have lived in the U.K. and as such have a rather intimate knowledge of the nation. What gives you the right to scold people for not having a similarly intimate knowledge of the nation? We can't all have lived in the U.K. and we can't all have studied their political system. It is apparent to me that you are making way too many assumptions about the breadth of international knowledge about the U.K. If you can be so far off about the level of common knowledge Canadians have of the British, how far off are you about the rest of Europe?

Also, you still haven't addressed the issue of anecdotal evidence versus researched opinion. You are throwing off statements such as "I am actually surprised (to say the least) that a citizen of Canadia...would be so ignorant of the UK" without apparently knowing much of Canada and Canadians.

You can argue that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not fully independent, but we could as well argue that Canada also isn't to a certain extend, as they all share the same queen.

You truly do not realize how ridiculous a statement this is, do you? You scold me for being ignorant, while diplaying your own.

But I tire of this. I came to these forums to get to know the Japanese side of international politics, not to get caught up in silly spats.

 

[Maciamo]

Ah, and here you show great ignorance of Canada (I'll let the spelling error slide). Its easy to be judgemental, no? ;p
...
You truly do not realize how ridiculous a statement this is, do you? You scold me for being ignorant, while diplaying your own.

Shoganai na. Check this on Wikipedia about Canada :

Canada is a federation under a system of parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. Its sovereign and Head of State is the monarch Queen Elizabeth II, who holds the title of Queen of Canada. The prerogatives of the Head of State are exercised by the Governor General, who is generally a retired politician or other prominent Canadian appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister of Canada. The Governor General is a non-partisan figure who fulfils many ceremonial roles including providing Royal Assent to bills passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, reading the Speech from the Throne, signing state documents, formally opening and ending sessions of Parliament, and dissolving Parliament for an election.

The Queen and the Governor General are primarily figureheads, with little real power as they almost always act on the advice of Canada's Head of Government, the Prime Minister.