Kapitalizam 101

Mr.Pink wrote:nije vladao balkan nego istocna despotija

Michael Newman, an Australian-born demographer with the Tokyo-based research house, Custom Products Research Group points out that the "measly" basic state pension in Japan is very hard to live on.

In a paper published in 2016 he calculates that the costs of rent, food and healthcare alone will leave recipients in debt if they have no other income - and that's before they've paid for heating or clothes. In the past it was traditional for children to look after their parents, but in the provinces a lack of economic opportunities has led many younger people to move away, leaving their parents to fend for themselves.

The pensioners don't want to be a burden to their children, and feel that if they can't survive on the state pension then pretty much the only way not to be a burden is to shuffle themselves away into prison," he says.

The repeat offending is a way "to get back into prison" where there are three square meals a day and no bills, he says.

"It's almost as though you're rolled out, so you roll yourself back in."

Newman points out that suicide is also becoming more common among the elderly - another way for them to fulfil what he they may regard as "their duty to bow out".

ontheotherhand wrote:To je taj napredni Japan.

Sotir wrote:Овај текст није ништа ново, пензионери у Јапану иду на село јер су трошкови живота у граду превелики.
И не знам шта је лоше у томе, на селу је свакако пријатније, а имају тамо и добар превоз, лекаре и радње. Код нас то и да хоћеш да урадиш, не можеш. Они који то и раде се на зиму враћају у станове код деце.

ontheotherhand wrote:In a paper published in 2016 he calculates that the costs of rent, food and healthcare alone will leave recipients in debt if they have no other income - and that's before they've paid for heating or clothes. In the past it was traditional for children to look after their parents, but in the provinces a lack of economic opportunities has led many younger people to move away, leaving their parents to fend for themselves.

Spoiler:

yoyogi wrote:Glupavi googlatoru, to što si našao Kinezi lansiraju, kao kada bi Hrvati puštali iza leđa kako se srpski  penzioneri zbog bede bacaju sa zgrada a mlad majmun kao ti to dovuče sa neta kao on nešto ima da kaže. U jaram bre, za bolje nisi!

KinderLad wrote:To nije religija. To je filozofija. E sad, u kojoj meri filozofija moze igrati ulogu religije to ostavljam strucnijima (odgovor na prvi citat)

Gargamel wrote:

ontheotherhand wrote:In a paper published in 2016 he calculates that the costs of rent, food and healthcare alone will leave recipients in debt if they have no other income - and that's before they've paid for heating or clothes. In the past it was traditional for children to look after their parents, but in the provinces a lack of economic opportunities has led many younger people to move away, leaving their parents to fend for themselves.

preleteo na brzinu, i analiza koju je odradio Newman je go qrac. pun đavo korelacija kojima se ne može dokazati uzročnost.

to obično znači nekakvo muvanje. the ‘Old-age Basic Pension’ nets an individual ¥780,000 annually from age 65. If one’s spouse dies, that gets boosted to ¥1,004,600 per annum... A on dokazuje da 700K nije dovoljno da pokrije osnovne troškove? Ako samac ili samica dobiju milionce, onda imaju taman dovoljno da (po njegovom proračunu) pokriju osnovne troškove.

čemu ovakvo muljanje?

kuku wrote:yoyo jesi gledo Tsumetai nettaigyo?
odlican film a posebno sisata Megumi Kagurazaka!
kome ruka nije skliznula u gace nije covek

The corollary, though, is that you have to grow so fast that you get to be the winner. And for that you need money, tons of it, which you have to spend like water to undercut incumbent firms that you plan to disrupt and eliminate. In that quest, you need to be both ruthless and profligate, because those incumbents are normal firms that have to make profits – a tiresome obligation that does not trouble you. So the deal you offer to investors is this: you give us shedloads of money and stick with us until we get to be the winner that takes all. And then you can cash out.
And that, in a nutshell, is what is happening. In the process, incumbents are wiped out, because they cannot match your predatory pricing. In some cases that may be a good thing because incumbents can sometimes be lazy or corrupt. But in other cases the collateral damage – in terms of jobs, social dislocation and tax revenues – may be terrible.
Kenney and Zysman are too judicious to claim that the unicorn investment racket is definitely a bubble. My guess is that it is, which means that it’s worth thinking about what happens after the bust. What will be its legacy?
And here’s where the Cheshire Cat comes in. When the dotcom bubble burst, one of the things it left behind was the colossal fibre-optic communications infrastructure that had been built at the height of the frenzy. This was what enabled the ensuing rollout of wired and wireless broadband and the exploitation of smartphone technology. So something good emerged from the madness.
But when the unicorn bubble bursts? Since it hasn’t built much, all that will be left is... the grin. Just like in Alice in Wonderland.

Anduril wrote:Zanimljiv tekst o spekulacijama investitora kada pokusavaju da guraju "winner takes it all" monopole:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/03/if-silicon-valleys-unicorn-bubble-bursts-what-legacy-will-it-leave

The corollary, though, is that you have to grow so fast that you get to be the winner. And for that you need money, tons of it, which you have to spend like water to undercut incumbent firms that you plan to disrupt and eliminate. In that quest, you need to be both ruthless and profligate, because those incumbents are normal firms that have to make profits – a tiresome obligation that does not trouble you. So the deal you offer to investors is this: you give us shedloads of money and stick with us until we get to be the winner that takes all. And then you can cash out.
And that, in a nutshell, is what is happening. In the process, incumbents are wiped out, because they cannot match your predatory pricing. In some cases that may be a good thing because incumbents can sometimes be lazy or corrupt. But in other cases the collateral damage – in terms of jobs, social dislocation and tax revenues – may be terrible.
Kenney and Zysman are too judicious to claim that the unicorn investment racket is definitely a bubble. My guess is that it is, which means that it’s worth thinking about what happens after the bust. What will be its legacy?
And here’s where the Cheshire Cat comes in. When the dotcom bubble burst, one of the things it left behind was the colossal fibre-optic communications infrastructure that had been built at the height of the frenzy. This was what enabled the ensuing rollout of wired and wireless broadband and the exploitation of smartphone technology. So something good emerged from the madness.
But when the unicorn bubble bursts? Since it hasn’t built much, all that will be left is... the grin. Just like in Alice in Wonderland.

Anduril wrote:But when the unicorn bubble bursts? Since it hasn’t built much, all that will be left is... the grin. Just like in Alice in Wonderland.

Impressive record on the new pick to head the World Bank. https://t.co/S6AikqwHpy pic.twitter.com/whqilB3yEw

— Quinn Slobodian (@zeithistoriker) 5 February 2019