What Eating the Rich Did For Japan

Yes, thank you for compressing it. They start their answer with: > Here is the answer I want to suggest: Japanese companies excel in lots of very different domains because it’s inherent in how they’re structured. Which is then backed by some economists saying something similar (generally), but all of which completely ignores Japan’s specific history. As a better example Of examining Japan, here’s a look at Japan’s monopolies, how they were broken up, and partly how that effected the future of their industry: ▶ this video

+1 Love his "What [course of action] did for [country]" videos. E.g. What eating the rich did for Japan. ▶ this video

I think Communism could have worked out in Japan post WWII .. due to the Weber-like work ethic :) link > The organization was able to mobilize a large section of white-collar workers in government and civil service sectors. Salaries in the public sectors were about a half of salaries in the private sector, a fact that enabled the public sector to become a centre of radical trade unionism link this explains why it was okay to "renazify" Japan eg Abe's granddad ▶ this video (See comments for nuance "from the ground". Fictionally, I recall that communist vs fascist sympathies were a backdrop in Murakami Haruki's earlier work.. he sneered at both) link Sorry to glaze over the cybernetics earlier here is something I revisit from time to time that you might also find interesting: link (Which points to link Rhymes with enshittification.. ) > Writing in the 1920s, Kondratiev proposed to apply the theory to the 19th century: -1790–1849, with a turning point in 1815. -1850–1896, with a turning point in 1873. As to the failure/distrust of (mature) institutions.. my latest hunch says it's somehow hard (="complex") for a bunch of hominids to collectively decide whether they want to solve a strong link or weak link problem. How does this turn into a cybernetic mechanism?