(The north-west end of the Kanto Plain toward the volcano Asama, 200km from Tokyo)"Ten, Twenty, Thirty, Forty, Fifty or More"
("Dix, vingt, trente, quarante, cinquante ou plus")
SECTION 1: Snoopy Challenged the German to a Real Dogfight
A Japan's late-night news program presented, last night, a very rare report on the training of Japan's Air Self-Defense Force with F-15s.
However, it is not a paradigm of the 21st century's air battles they are engaged in, in my view.
In this century, the air defense should not rely on fighter planes but surface-to-air missiles, air-to-air missiles, or antiaircraft laser guns.
You can fire an intelligent missile that can fly fast over a 100 km distance or so with a speed and a size that never allows itself to be shot by an enemy plane invading each of which will be targeted at by several missiles, since we will have plenty of them.
Another point is that a cost of one missile will be small, since we will deploy 10,000 missiles along the coast lines. If China, North Korea, Russia, and even South Korea know that Japan has 10,000 of such intelligent, high-precision, high-speed, and long-range anti-aircraft missiles, they will never challenge Japan.
With a budget for one F-15 jet fighter, 100 new missiles will be purchased if they tackle the cost reduction with a skill, a system and enthusiasm Toyota has exercised to compete with American car giants, since the core of the missile is electronics, a kind applied to cars.
(A large airship floating or halting in the air equipped with 100 missiles will be enough to turn enemy planes back at the distance of 150km, for example.)
Anyway, I think the era of Snoopy and Baron von Richthofen is over.
http://kids.niehs.nih.gov/lyrics/snoopyred.htm
And, remember to have Air Self-Defense pilots wear a lucky charm for avoiding an accident.
SECTION 2: Financial Times Economists
A Japanese veteran engineer referred to a FT economist, Mr. Martin Wolf.
(http://www.randdmanagement.com/c_econom/ec_134.htm )
So, I also checked his writing on Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, since this incident could be used to test economists.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/11e10c3c-0893-11dc-b11e-000b5df10621.html?nclick_check=1
Mr. Wolf wrote:
"As Nouriel Roubini of New York University’s Stern School of Business argues, the Asians did not learn the lessons most western economists thought they should..."
Financial Times looks very biased to the eye of some Japanese.
Financial Times lives in the paradigm of the era of colonization in the 20th and the 19th century.
They have no love and friendship to Asians and Asian countries.
Any Western economist who never focuses on Japan's contribution to relief and rescue of Asian countries that faced the catastrophic economic and financial plight in late 1990's are a kind of colonists who do not love Asians but are still trying to exploit Asia and holding Asians in derision, since they cannot even respect and admire Japan.
(They like China, since there are no problems for them about China, specifically, as to respecting or admiring.)
In this context, even English Wikipedia is not sound.
"Another longer-term result was the changing relationship between the U.S. and Japan, with the U.S. no longer openly supporting the highly artificial trade environment and exchange rates that governed economic relations between the two countries for almost five decades after World War II. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Asian_Financial_Crisis
As it writes such a way without understanding the truth of the Plaza Accord in 1985, the writer shows that he/she doesn't understand it was Japan that supported the U.S. through adjustment of the Yen/Dollar exchange rate, while Japan helped Asian countries in the crisis in terms of not only money supply but also restructuring their economic and social structure to cope with another attack from US and UK financial mafias.
You had better translate and read the Japanese version of Wikipedia on the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A2%E3%82%B8%E3%82%A2%E9%80%9A%E8%B2%A8%E5%8D%B1%E6%A9%9F
Anyway, Snoopy should shoot down such economists in the sky of the Indochina Peninsula.
SECTION 3: John Maynard Keynes
What is the difference between spending on "measures to deal with unemployment" and "implementation of public-works projects" when a nation is in recession or depression?
Keynes said that there is a big difference in a multiplier effect (which is not Keynes' original idea), so that a government should spend the budget for public-works projects instead of direct financial support for the unemployed.
But, Mr. Yoshiyasu Ono, Osaka University, clearly argued that the Keynes' claim based on the multiplier effect of public-works projects is immature and misleading, which I agree on.
( http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4480064001?ie=UTF8&linkCode=as2&tag=blogsofdankog-22 )
The issue is that what matters is not the quantity of the public-works budget but the quality and contents of public works, since effectiveness of the multiplier effect depends on the quality and contents.
But, to check or plan effective public works of high quality requires hard work of officials and politicians as well as businesses all concerned.
Keynes said that if the public work was just digging holes not for any purposes, the budget should be used for the work, since it would have the multiplier effect on the whole economy of the nation.
Keynes does not seem to have loved poor people; he also looks like having held poor people in derision, since an increase in the amount of circulated money without improvement of the society in terms of quality is just making some more people richer while making some more people poorer.
(That may be rather called "anti-Christ.")
We need economists who can do away with Keynes like a new artist who can do away with Leonardo da Vinci. In other words, we need another Snoopy the hero in every field.
Snoopy should shoot down such economists in the sky over the Ministry of Finance.
* * *
Of course, the sin of economy is in interest.
If you lend something or some money to somebody, you must not claim it back, as Jesus Christ has ordered so.
Anyway, giving is happier than receiving. This must be a basic principle of a new theory of economy.
(See you, soon, high in the aerial domain or on the territorial sea, since our men are so trained with EEE Report.
Or, do we still have to deal with 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or 80 daredevil rivals in economy or, say, in love?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak4JgrNPwIc
"Be on Watch and Pray that You will Have the Strength..."
(Seien Sie auf der Watch und beten, dass Sie Haben die Stärke)