As you will perhaps have read on Debito.org and other places, the Nagoya mayor has been getting into hot water over his claims that only conventional acts of warfare took place in Nanking. He is now, however, trying to douse the flames by claiming that he meant to say that there wasn’t a systematic massacre of 300,000 people, although given that translation, does he mean there was a systematic massacre, but of less than 300,000?
Anyway, the reason I posted about this is that I found that the Osaka view was missing; Kawamura and Hashimoto have appeared at hustings for each other in their respective cities, and there is talk of the mayors of Osaka, Nagoya and Tokyo forming their own national party, which might be expected to get around 200 seats at the next general election, so where does Hashimoto stand is an important issue.
Well, it seems that yesterday (Feb 27) he said that Kawamura should be more prudent and leave history to the historians.
This post needs a conclusion – it probably is that many foreign journalists, bloggers and commenters are not very good at joining the dots; Mr Arudou, for instance, (that’s your cue, Unimpressed) doesn’t make this connection, writing Kawamura off as just another old fool.
@6810
I’ve seen rally’s in the Ginza. They were well organized and orderly complete with the police clearing the route. Was it effective? It was an anti American Okinawa military base rally. The days are numbered for the American bases in Okinawa, mmm.
My “madness” was for fun, Try to show a light side after sharing my story’s of discrimination and being spat on.
Congrats on selling an apartment, was it everything the experts told me it would be, “Unprofitable”.
@Greg:
Thanks, But I personally don’t feel the need to change the system.
The way I see it, Reikin is not bribe. As Taurus said, it’s part of the fee that you pay to live in the room/house. You know the the term before the contract.
You don’t have to enter into the contract or you can negotiate to change the term.
上のほうで、lenawashさんでしたか、礼金について、知っている日本人はみんなおかしい、と言っている、というようなのもありましたけど、これは、たぶん、家賃、その他の費用は安ければ安いほどがいい、という意味だろう、と思います。
The dude さんも指摘していましたが、同じ部屋で、例えば、
A 敷金 礼金 一ヶ月 家賃 月 ５万
B 敷金 礼金 なし、 家賃 月 ５万５千円
どっちが、いいか、というと、賃貸住宅の契約というのは大体２年ですから、契約期間のトータルでいうと、
A ５＋５＋５×２４＝１３０
B ５.５ × ２４ ＝１３２
敷金礼金がついた前者Aのほうがいいわけです。
The problem that often happens is rather about the deposit money. Some landlord won’t return the money at the end of contract, saying that the damage was done despite the fact that there was no damage and the landlord won’t spend the money on repairing.
そこで、これに関連する裁判も増えている。
もうひとつは、更新料ですが、ググルと、最高裁は、
と見ているようです。
The renewal fee is a part of the rent but if the renewal fee is too expensive beyond the fair and equitable principle, the term has no effect.
というような決着が司法でつき始めています。
因みに、どうも、家主さんが身分制の暴君のように想像されているようですが、しかし、日本の判例・借家法はかなり借主有利の傾向もある。だからこそ、どなたかが指摘されていましたけど、借り手は追い出すというのはかなり大変なんです。裏からいえば、借り手はかなり法的にも保護されている面もある。そこで、不動産の流動性を高めるため、定期借家法などが最近制定されたわけです。
もうひとつ、政治的活動についてですが、ぼくは基本的に活動家ではない。誰かさんのように、活動して名前を売ろうとも思わないし、ましていわんや、有道氏のように活動しないで、活動家と思ってもらおう、とも思わない。
ただ、何かの縁で、問題を抱えている人と出会ったら、自分のできる範囲でお手伝いをしますよ、ということです。
社会的不当なことでも、基本的には問題の当事者が改善を主張・先導すべきである、というのが僕の意見です。
いずれにせよ、問題の性格を理解することが重要だろう、と思います。
@Jerry:
You’re right, you can’t even legally take their stuff, though I’ve heard of it happening, especially with some of the 保証会社.
The lack of protections afforded to owners is the real reason for the selectivity of landlords. Right or wrong, it also is a very real problem for young Japanese, especially those of lesser social/economic standing.
@Greg:
Rallies of a few hundred people are useless.
Only if they happen to be speaking for a huge block of voters who already exist anyway do they have any sort of “power”.
The Okinawan anti-American movement is a coincidence of anti-gaijin media “gaijin crime wave” propaganda, anti-American radicals including them damn Commies
, “concerned parents”, naive peaceniks, everyone on Okinawa who has a friend of a friend who has an anecdote about some perceived slight by a US servicemember which they would ignore if it were done by a Japanese, and a few people who have actually been harmed by a US servicemember and have an only human response.
But you don’t see many (any?) protests about the “noise” and “danger” of JSDF bases. There wasn’t a march of concerned parents demanding an airfield near me be closed when one of their helicopters fell from the sky and crashed onto train tracks (killing all aboard), luckily missing the surrounding residences.
Why not? We know why. Anyway..
So many factions add up to a huge chunk of voters. And that’s how a protest ends up seeming effective…
even though it isn’t. Decades of protests and probably a billion man-hours of activism and the bases are still there. Don’t count chickens before they hatch.
The reikin issue is slowly being solved by the market. At least in Kansai.
But smart landlords will still get the same profit, by just reducing reikin and increasing rent. Unfair that the rich property owners can screw the renter and not even have to hold down a job to make a living?
Yup. Life ain’t fair.
What are you going to do? Seize all their stuff and divide it up among “the people” while keeping a nice cut for yourself? Been tried. Doesn’t turn out well.
Maybe there should be a “Life Isn’t Fair!” protest march. Just as futile as any other.
@Level3:
This is essentially the problem. Obama was not the leader of a movement, he was a candidate selected at pretty much the last minute. He’d never had to get things done within the American system (arm-twisting, pork barrel etc.). Hashimoto at least has executive experience, but still, that’s not the same as being able to lead a political force that will help you push through difficult reforms. Reports of his working style suggest he’d struggle to build coalitions.
@George:
Whatever happens, reform won’t happen unless it comes from within the Diet, and reflects a coherent and shaped political mood. The one person who seemingly had the ability to get things to happen in politics, Ozawa, has busted his own flush. He could have achieved a whole lot more, but chose to play politics instead, and is still doing so. As far as I can see, he has something of a cancerous effect. He’d rather split his party than get things done.
The frustrating things is, what needs to be done is becoming more and more obvious. The population crisis must be addressed by immigration and support for working parents. Business licensing has to be liberalised and cleaned up. Taxes have to go up. Free trade agreements are unavoidable and in the long term interest of the economy. These are all obvious, concrete and explainable, with clear scare stories about what will happen if we don’t do these things. They can be brought under a single label of “responsible internationalisation” or whatever. It’s doable.
I would prefer there were not just politicians being forthright about these challenges but whole parties, who can spend time persuading, speechifying and explaining. Instead we have people being cynically oppositional (such as over the increase in sales tax, – Ozawa, and particularly Tanigaki), gibbering meaninglessly about being the Tea Party for Japan (Kawamura), or anguishing about the moral state of the nation, which is Ishihara’s specialty.
If Hashimoto can move beyond local constitutional reform, and distance himself from conservative forces in Ishin no kai (and the surreal grunts of historical revisionism issuing from the long penumbra of the far right) and if he can put assemble a centrist genuinely popular movement (rather than focus on a highly mobilised conservative fringe), then he might make a big difference.
There will never be any serious campaign to boost immigration. We just barely got the pretty cynical “Point system for suckers who are highly talented and rich and would have gotten PR anyway”, vague ideas about getting more foreign students but not actually doing much to make Japan more attractive while simultaneously cutting aid programs for foreign students over the past years, and maybe get a up to a few thousand foreign nurses someday.
Don’t you know the pipe dream is that millions of robots will do all the KKK jobs? (while not paying taxes)
I really hope Hashimoto can ride this wave and start getting the ridiculous civil servant salaries cut, mainly as a way to get people focused on cutting spending as an alternative or companion to raising taxes. No spending cuts and it won’t matter how high you raise taxes, there’ll never be enough money.
Wonder at what point we are on the Laffer Curve right now.
@Level3:
Laffer curve? Very probably way below the peak both on personal and consumption taxes – it really isn’t an issue here (Laffer is a buzzword that some free-market radicals throw around, but the evidence even at much higher levels of taxation than Japan of increasing revenue through cutting tax is pretty mixed.). As for immigration – high level bureaucrats are interested in increasing it, so it may happen even without much party political will. Once the shortage of nurses and care workers is felt, pressure will build even on the LDP.
Ozawa is a criminal. Look up political corruption in your dictionary and his picture is sitting there right next to the definition. And he may have had a lot of influence in politics, but it was ALL based on how much money he gave or withheld for your support. If that is the only hope for remaining for Japan, I’d much rather have Loopy McPopo come back and conquer the country with Yuai power.
And personally, I don’t want Hashimoto to move up to the big leagues. I would much rather have him stay at the local level where he can make a difference where it really counts. The national government is full of crooks and phonies who are just trying to lock up their plush pensions and find their next job before they ‘retire’ from politics. And it’s a given if he moves to the Diet he’s not going to make a difference because the whole system is set up prevent making a difference. It wouldn’t matter if every citizen felt the exact same way – their opinion has never been reflected in any meaningful way to the betterment of the country. The post-tsunami efforts are pure proof of that.
@VK:
I think the Laffer curve was meant to apply to income tax, not to consumption tax. There is no theoretical “maximum” consumption tax from which to construct the curve. Set the consumption tax to 500% and people will stay pay, especially for essentials like food (see Japanese rice prices).
Sure, the Laffer curve is much more “bumpy” than the nice parabola that simple explanatory graphs show, but the endpoints of the function are almost certain. It’s the middle parts that are up for debate. Then there’s that whole complication of what services the taxed “get back” from their government so they don’t “need” the remaining income as much. Can range anywhere from Scandanavian style to North Korea.
If I could get everything I wanted for free by paying 90% tax, sign me up – I’ll get some easy bank-hours job, have fun, and use the remaining time and money to study the language of the country I will eventually have to retire to when the system collapses.
I just think there are a not a few on the left who would rather have 50% tax taken from 1 million dollars than 25% tax taken from 10 million dollars (figures exaggerated to make the point) because;
A: They don’t bother to do the math.
B: The 50% “hurts” the rich more.
@George:
Ozawa may be a crook, but that’s something of a separate issue. Many of the most successful politicians in moern history in terms of achieving change are at least a bit crooked: alas, it’s what helps them get things done. It’s so disappointing that Ozawa has used his influence to split the governing party rather than be part of something that would improve his legacy (and politicians love a good legacy). It would be better for there to be a rather cleaner politician with his level of influence, but there isn’t.
@Level3: Of course, your fine example of a strawman ignores tax brackets and the fact that one does not make the choice between “x% of a” and “y% of b” — it’s always “x% on income between 0 and a” and then “y% on income between and b”. This is an important consideration which laffo curve proponents and tea partiers often either overlook or ignore.
@Level3:
The Laffer curve in principle applies to all taxation – and the tax rises being discussed in the diet at the moment (when you brought up the Laffer curve) are consumption tax rises. An increase in the informal economy would be one Laffer effect helping to produce a curve for consumption taxes. (Focusing on the “theoretical” while neglecting how economies actually work is one of the biggest curses in economics education.)
@VK: You must to referring to a different Ozawa than the one I’m familiar with. He goes way beyond crooked. He threw 3 of his personal staffers under the bus to avoid jail time, and he’s dividing his party to spite the very people that took him to task for being such a criminal bastard. He is the complete opposite of what this country needs, and his power was never about anything other than improving his power in the central government.
Calling Ozawa crooked is like calling John Edwards is a philanthropist.
But I agree, this is a separate issue, which is why I want Hashimoto to stay far away from Nagatacho.
@Level3:
You forgot some information. In your tax example, how many people are earning 10m compared to 1m? Without that, I don’t think anyone could the maths for tax take.
@George:
On this we can agree 100%. As I said, he’s cancerous, when he had it in his abilities to make something happen. The sooner he goes, the better.
@Simon:
Multiple tax brackets do not disprove Laffer. It just makes the math a bit more complicated. If you can’t handle basic algebra without accusing people of building up straw men and deploying the tired TeaPartyLooney meme, that’s your problem.
@VK:
Valid point about the number of people 1 million vs 10 million. As I said, it was just an example with easy math (imagine there’s only 1 rich person in either option) to make a point about the almost reflexive tendency of some to want to have a high tax rate, especially on the rich, or at least those richer than themselves, regardless of the tax revenue based on feelings rather than reason.
Anyway, the typical supply-sider will say that lower tax rates not only can mean more tax revenue due to Laffer, but also due to more people getting richer as economic activity increases. There would be more millionaires to tax at the low rate, thus more revenue. The devil is in the details and all those complicated interrelations with other policies.
At least Laffer theory admits there must be a level where “too low” rates can yield less tax revenue. Laffer denialists will uncompromisingly try to claim higher tax rates will always yield more tax revenue, no matter what.
Really? Just look at the very basic policy of the marriage penalty. Wives will choose to not work, or work only a minimal part time job, because if they work full time, a disproportionate chunk of that money will be taken by the government. (add in child care, clothing, transport, restaurants, becoming ineligible for government aid if they had been receiving it, etc. and can become a money-losing choice) Incentive to earn more is lost because the policy yields say, 10% on the part time + 30% of nothing instead of 10% on the part time + 10% on the additional time. Your mileage may vary.
)
Now, either side can come up with numbers to “prove” their point and say the other side is cherry-picking. Which one is closer to the truth? When one side admits to both ends of the spectrum, and supporters of the other side seem to claim the spectrum only goes in 1 direction… I tend to believe the former and will view the latter as the extremists.
If only economics could be divorced from politics.
).
Send the people who don’t understand high-school calculus out of the room. Send those who have an agenda out of the room. Send those who take bribes out of the room to a special area and have them shot (after taxing them at 100%
Then set the goal. Do the math. Account for likely error. Err towards the side of caution. Enact the policy.
Too bad it won’t happen.
Right, but is 妻 derogatory or not?
@Taurus: Depends.
最愛の妻 = not derogatory, unless perhaps said in a particularly sarcastic voice while doing an eyeroll.
バカ妻 = likely derogatory
Context is everything.
家内 = generally considered to be more-or-less demeaning nowadays. Not so a generation or two ago.
嫁 = open to interpretation, but some women bridle at the word. Carries the implicit meaning of a woman who was “called” and brought into a household, rather than an equal of her husband. But again, something of a generational thing.
@Level3:
The problem with so-called supply-siders who obsess about Laffer is that they don’t mean it. They assume we’re on the wrong side of the peak no matter the tax rate. It’s all technical sounding words to support an ideological position that is not backed up by evidence. The “math” in the real world does not add up for you. That’s why you’re forced to resort to odd imaginary situations such as a country where as many people earn $10m as $1m, and invoke legions of straw men out of 40 year old stereotypes such that anyone to the left of Glenn Beck is a nationalising Soviet Communist. We all get the Laffer curve. It’s just not where you say it is.
The same goes for your marriage example where higher tax rates are somehow completely independent of the level of public services or transfers between childless and those with children. The real issue (and this is important for Japan) is the ability to combine motherhood and a career, and this depends on childcare availability and cost, maternity and paternity rights, gender equality in the labour force, and levels of child benefit. That’s the difference, in various combinations of the above, between developed countries with higher birth rates (which include both the US and high tax Sweden) and others. Tax rates themselves have little to do with it.
I’ll let you have the last word as we’re cluttering up the thread – but I did find “Send those who have an agenda out of the room” quite cute.
Sorry off the topic
http://www.debito.org/?p=9919#comment-315672
”
– Reading comprehension please. The entire point of this blog entry was not to say that things are better or worse in Japan or the US. It was to point out the ignorance and irony of a) some Japanese TV panelists thinking that they would not be foreigners in a foreign country, and b) the program not even bothering to mention that the shock-horror Arizona laws being cited are all that much different in tone (and, I believe, enforcement, though you probably don’t) than what’s been done to NJ in Japan for generations ”
All Debito said apply to the posters on Debito org.
It is ironical that Debito and his followers ARE ignorant about racism and what’s been done to immigrants in their own country.
They should know Japanese or non-Japanese, people from the mainstream tend to be unconcerned about minority issues.
People on Debito org are just as ignorant about racism as some Japanese they are accusing of.
They should realize that clueless Japanese panelists are the images of the Debito followers in the mirror.
As for “gaikokujin” and “gaijin” ,in one of the usages, gai(koku)jin is a set of people with nationality different from the person at stake.
Since I am Japanese wherever I am, non-Japanese are gai(koku)jins wherever they are. At the same time, for a non-Japanese person, I belong to a set of people with nationality different from him/her, I am gai(koku)jin (for him/her).So it makes sense for amerikajin to say “bokuni tottewa, kimi ga gaijin da” to a Japanese person and it makes sense for a Japanese to say, “kare ni totte wa boku ga gaijin da” in talking about an non-Japanese.
Debito and his followers are just insensitive to the different usage. They just simply assume the usage of the words always overlap but it is not.They are simply replacing Japanese word with an English word just like learners at the intermediate class.
@空:
Sora, you’ve missed the point here. The fact that so many members of the master race don’t get the fact that they are the foreigners when out of Japan shows shocking racial arrogance and shocking ignorance.
It always amuses me going through immigration in places like Korea, China and Taiwan, as the kanji characters for foreigner are up there in all places. There are always Japanese people there who are confused by this.
@Laxman Sivaramakrishnan:
“Sora, you’ve missed the point here. The fact that so many members of the master race don’t get the fact that they are the foreigners when out of Japan”
You’ve missed the point here. But it is inevitable because you are not proficient in Japanese.
Assuming you are gaijin, in one sense, you are gaijin to me in Japan and in your own country just as you are non-Japanese in Japan and in your own country.
That is how people use the word, “gaijin” “gaikokujin” “non-Japanese”,
Just as it is not a mistake to use the word “non-Japanese” to you in Japan and in your own country, it is not wrong to use the word “gaijin” to you in Japan and in your own country.
This is the problem of the word’s usage and Master Debito and his discipline Lax are not so proficient in Japanese that they can’t understand the usage .
You are amused and perhaps offended by a Japanese person who uses the word “gaijin”to a non-Japanese/gaijin abroad because you don’t pay attention to actual usage and simply replace the “gaijin” with the word “a foreigner”, but it is like you are amused and offended by the usage in which the word “non-Japanese” is applied to you in your own country.
You are stuck in your own framework and superimpose it on another system and when you find the difference, you think it is a misuse, a mistake, and wrong and blame the natives. That is the typical attitude master race holds—Can’t accept and respect the difference as difference.
@空:
貴様！
I have had significant contact with the Japanese community in my country of origin and none of them are stupid enough to openly refer to the locals as ‘外人’
All you are trying to do is justify the racial ignorance of your countrymen. Give it a rest, dickhead.
@Laxman Sivaramakrishnan:
“貴様！”
See, you are not proficient in Japanese: you don’t know how to use the word or you are proficient but you are like チンピラ with low intelligence.
”I have had significant contact with the Japanese community in my country of origin and none of them are stupid enough to openly refer to the locals as ‘外人’”
It might be but it is also possible they were referring to you as gaijin in your absence, besides, you have hard time in catching up with what native Japanese are speaking.
In addtition, you also met ” so many members of the master race” who ” don’t get the fact that they are the foreigners”
It is a contradiction. But I don’t deny your experience.
Because both are possible.
As I explained, in one usage, in view of your nationality you are not gaijin but I am .
In another usage, in view of my nationality, you are gaijin to me wherever you are.
It is just that master race who are so lazy that they don’t bother to learn the local language and who find no problem in making the locals speak and write Master Race’s language in talking about the natives’ country in their own native country might find it hard to understand.
@空:
Here you go again with that you don’t speak Japanese thing. I called you kisama because you deserve to be referred to in that way.
@Laxman Sivaramakrishnan:
“I called you kisama because you deserve to be referred to in that way.”
Oh, okay so you are chinpira with low intelligent type; you can’t discuss in a civilized way—or is that western traditional way dialogue and debate are performed?
Now if that is the way you use word “kisama”, it is most likely that Japanese people keep away from you, in the belief that you are scary gaikokujin.
And if you are proficient, 日本語でどうぞ。
英語だと時間かかるし、疲れちゃうんですよ。
How cute! Laxman thinks cussing in a foreign language makes him appear cool and proficient!
“I can prove I’m fluent because I know the words they don’t put in textbooks!” He’s like a gaijin bar Charisma Man cliche!
He reminds me of the foreigner in this video: http://youtu.be/ilNyyfDf_xE#t=51s
@空: Sora, I’m only responding to this point and am not in any way supporting what Laxman is going on about:
“Just as it is not a mistake to use the word “non-Japanese” to you in Japan and in your own country, it is not wrong to use the word “gaijin” to you in Japan and in your own country.”
I see where you’re coming from but this argument pretty big problem. You’re conflating use of the relative term “gaijin/gaikokujin” (foreigner, not from here [wherever "here" is]) with the absolute term “non-Japanese” (not Japanese).
“Non-Japanese” has a reference to a specific ethnic group. It is the opposite of “Japanese”. However, “foreigner” just means “not from here”, and the person using it/person being referred to can change depending on where the conversation is taking place.
You’re suggesting that “gaijin” solely means “not Japanese” — however, if this is the case, why do Japanese newspapers use 外国人 when talking about , say, other countries’ immigration policies? Wouldn’t they need to find a different word, since by your definition 外国人 includes that country’s own citizens, given that they aren’t Japanese either?
You could make the case that as it happens, the Japanese language is used only by Japanese people as a native language and as such, the language is pretty tightly tied to the culture, and I would agree with you, but I think it’s not a good idea to depend on that to justify how things should be in the future.
@Simon:
Thanks
You are right that while “non-Japanese” is the absolute term while gai(koku)jin is the relative term and they are not equivalent.
“You’re suggesting that “gaijin” solely means “not Japanese” ”
No. I am suggesting, to quote, “gai(koku)jin is a set of people with nationality different from the person at stake.”
I know this is an awkward formula but what I wanted to say is that “gai(koku)jin” logically means a person/people (人） with a different (外）nationality/outside of (外）the nationality from the person from whose nationality the speech is made—(this might be more awkward,though)
So assuming that John is an American, from his point of view, from his nationality, since I am Japanese and Japanese are different nationality from American, I am gaijin (for John.) At the same time he is a gai(koku)jin from my point of view, from my nationality.
The word “foreigner” may be relative to the place in which the speaker is speaking while the word “gai(koku)jin” is relative to the viewpoint/nationality of the people from whose viewpoint the speech is made.
Does that make sense?
“why do Japanese newspapers use 外国人 when talking about , say, other countries’ immigration policies?”
Because from the viewpoint of the government in question, the immigrants are gaikokujin/foreigners.
” by your definition 外国人 includes that country’s own citizens,”
From the country’s point of view, by definition, by my explication, their own citizen can never be 外国人.
Lastly the point of taking up “non-Japanese” is to point out that it is a matter of the usage; the word “gaijin” has a different usage from the word “foreigner” just as the word “non-Japanese” has a different usage from “foreigner”"
@Simon:
ちょっと英語もめちゃくちゃでわかりにくいっすかね。
要するに、
外国人とは当人・当国の国籍以外の国籍保持者
ということなわけで、
Gai(koku)jin is a person/people with citizenship which is other than the citizenship of the person・the government in question.
といったら少しわかりやすいかな？
この当人・当国あるいは、the person/the government in question というのが誰か、どの国か、というところが問題で、
日本人の当人からすると、ある意味では、アメリカ人はどこでも、外（国）人なわけです。
だから、日本人の団体がハワイに行って、（当たり前なわけですけど）「外人多いなあ」というのは事実としても用法としても間違いっているわけではない。
と、同時に、その日本人がハワイでアメリカ人から、you are a foreigner here「お前、ここでは、foreigner だろ」と言われてそれもわかる。なぜなら、そのアメリカ人にとっては、その日本人たちは外人である、からです。
用法に違いがあるわけです。
To sum up,
Suppose Sora is Japanese. John is American.
In Japan,
John is a foreigner.
Sora is not a foreigner but Sora can be seen as gaijin from American perspective.
In the U.S.
Sore is a foreigner.
John is not a foreigner but John can be seen as gaijin from Japanese perspective.
@VK:
I’ll just say my original point, which was
“No spending cuts and it won’t matter how high you raise taxes, there’ll never be enough money.
Wonder at what point we are on the Laffer Curve right now. ”
I also think it’s probably likely that a slight increase in taxes will yield increased revenue. But probably not as much as projected. Teh historic examples used by free-marketers to “prove” the Laffer concept involve huge changes which are hard to confuse with other influences, a la the Reagan tax cuts.
Anyway, the main point is tax increases will be meaningless unless spending is also cut. Didn’t this year mark the first time that over half of Japan’s budget was funded by borrowing? Doesn’t this mean taxes would have to be doubled (and Laffer means that all tax rates would have to be increased even more than 100% to get double the revenue) while just freezing spending, just to balance the budget. not good enough.
@空:
I am not French. To me the French are foreigners.
If I am in France, to me the French are still foreigners.
To themselves, the French are never foreigners.
But, if the French refer to me as an etranger (foreigner), I am not surprised…
@iago:
Looks like foreigners act just like gai(koku)jin.
@空:
That’s my subjective view…