Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (204556)	9/28/2006 3:25:37 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

Thanks for that CB. Facts are always enlightening. No doubt the grants were at a fairly desperate time for Japan. But as you can see, they were tiny in the grand scheme of things in Japan's economic system, even back then, being only $15bn 2005 dollars with $4bn 2005 dollars in loans repaid. No doubt they were vital for stabilization and initiation of clean-up and a restart of government and economic activity. In the good old days, after an invasion, the males would all be killed and possession of everything taken by the conquerors. Even in modern times, such as in Tibet, Timor, Taiwan, Kuwait, invasion and conquest is not intended to remove a threat, but to take over, take possession and be the boss, permanently. Though outright genocide isn't so common these days [Srebenica and Rwanda notwithstanding]. <Total U.S. assistance to Japan for 1946-1952 was roughly $15.2 billion in 2005 dollars, of which 77% was grants and 23% was loans. Most of these funds were provided through GARIOA grants. Japan repaid $490 million of the total postwar assistance. Of the $2.2 billion in total aid, an estimated $655 million, or almost a third, went to categories that would mostly contribute directly to economic recovery (industrial materials, including machinery and raw goods; petroleum and products; and transportation, vehicles, and equipment). Most of the rest went for agricultural equipment, foodstuffs, and food supplies with smaller amounts spent on medical and sanitary supplies, education, and clothing. > On the change of Japan's character, I don't believe the USA invasion caused a major change though they seem to think baseball is a good idea. They seem to be a culturally distinct and stable crowd, like Britain was, left to their own devices largely, with no land borders to be over-run, or to go adventuring over. They certainly didn't start speaking English or American which would show a major cultural shift as a result of the invasion and conquest. The political and constitutional change has made a significant change in how they do things. But it's still Japan through and through from what I see of them. I think the similarity to Britain preceded World War II and the USA redesign of the political system and occupation. Mqurice