|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I see why they hate the current setup, but if the US does end up pulling out from all or most of the bases, doesn't their already poor population just get poorer? I mean ideally they develop the vacant land and this boosts their economy, but isn't the most likely scenario that things just get worse without soldiers blowing all their cash on stupid poo poo? Chomskyan posted:I'm by no means an expert on the subject, but I believe it's a question of long-term vs short-term economic prosperity. It would hurt the Okinawans economically in the short term. However, it's believed that in the long term, the benefits of expansion and development would outweigh the losses. Of course, the land use issue is just one of many reasons the Okinawans oppose the US bases, and not even particularly the most important one.  From what I understand.I think there's an argument to be made (although I'd have to look into it more) that the U.S. bases might actually contribute to poverty. One way to think of it is like a college town. Big universities can be good for economic development -- it's not nothing. But they can also create slumming effects by taking up lots of land, and filling in the surrounding areas with poor and noisy students who rent and trash their properties. This is especially acute in smaller college towns in the U.S. (that have big state schools), as capital flows into the university and supporting businesses: pizza buffets, bars, tattoo parlors, tanning salons, etc. (Okay, small local businesses, but kind of dumpy ones.) Lots of young people in them (but watch out for young males in particular.) Housing prices stay low. Yeah, there are economic benefits, but it also artificially(?) distorts the market and pretty much turns the town into a slum. You know what has a lot in common with college towns? Military towns. And that's kind of like Okinawa from what I understand, though I've never been there. But a lot of the economy is just centered around servicing the military base rather than something else that could be more productive. Think of it like Sim City where you get a special building like a casino or military base, and you get some benefits from it, but it also drives the poverty and crime rate up near wherever you put it. Hey, that's not a bad comparison now that I think of it... Rent-A-Cop posted:That's not really true. Japan can have a "self-defense force" which is a military in all but name. The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force is one of the more powerful navies in the world and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force can give anyone in Asia a run for their money. Both rock top of the line US hardware along with some impressive domestic systems. I think in terms of interoperability with the U.S., Japan is #1. Even ahead of U.S. allies like Britain in places like Afghanistan. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Apr 1, 2015 |
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 18:13 |
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:That may be true, but I have a hard time thinking of any small military towns I've heard of in which the base was shut down and then everyone nearby saw their local economy improve. Though they may very well exists and I just don't here about them because there isn't a problem to talk about. Now, to your point, Okinawa might just get poorer if the bases leave. (Apparently it has one of the highest poverty rates in Japan.) I couldn't imagine the Hawaiian economy improving if the U.S. military withdrew - that is one of the most military heavy places I've ever been. Okinawa is more of mystery to me since I don't know a lot about the peculiarities of the place. But just for sake of argument, it might not necessarily worsen the economy. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:41 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 10:30
|
|