3/27/2020 0 Comments
Maritime Industry - Assignment Example 5). Really, it is somewhat speculative as to who needs who in this situation. With regard to the ship type, a 65.000 tonne deadweight bulk carrier would probably be appropriate for shipping lots of heavy cargo, such as car parts. If car parts for an average car weighed 2 tonnes apiece, at least 32 cars could be assembled in Japan if the cargo were carrying that kind of weight. Japan has indicated that Indonesia is very useful for its employment of cheap labor. However, Japan, on the other hand, has noted that it is not interested in the shipment of natural persons to its country, unless they have state-sponsored tourist visas and/or visas for work or study. In this regard, Japan is very unforgiving in its assessment of who the Japanese are letting into the country and who they will not. The trading patterns eminent in Japanese-Indonesian relations seem to be that Japan, in return for Indonesiaâ€™s cheaply-produced, labor-intensive goodsâ€”requires energy from Indonesia. Since Indonesia is a larger country, it can produce power because there is more land to build factories and generators and other power-producing and energy-producing structures. There are several limitations on trade which Japan has placed on Indonesia, some of which are not immediately understandable, but which probably would make more sense if one were more informed about Japanese history, culture, and economy. One of these difficult ideas for outsiders to embrace is the idea of Japanâ€™s stricture against leather imports. Dating back from the Edo era, a people called â€œâ€¦[B]uraku-minâ€¦were engaged in occupations thought to be undesirable, including disposal of the dead, collecting garbage, butchering animals and tanning and crafting leather. The jobs of handling the flesh of four-legged animals, such as butchers and leather artisans, were thought to be something violating Buddhist strictures against killingâ€ (Hisane, 2011, pgh. 32). The type of cargoes that are restricted from being sent to Japan include any tuna or skipjack tuna, which is apparently a big market for the Japanese. Additionally, any type of footwear would be a sensitive issue to be shipped to Japan. Japan also has a variety of grain products which are forbidden or restricted severelyâ€”including barley, wheat, corn, and various other foods. Indonesia strictly has limits on the amount of soy, barley, corn, and wheat that they will allow from Japan. Obviously, both countries maintain limits on what types of products they will allow into and allow out of their respective nations. Japan also has no need for textile products from Indonesia, because obviously there are still a lot of textile industries in Japan. These industries are most likely supported by unskilled Japanese workers, and as it stands it seems like Japan does not need any more unskilled workers, as they have all the available jobs being filled right now. Japan said that it will only accept skilled workers into its country unless the people have specialized visas for specific purposes. 2- With regard to your vessel's port operation and your answer to question 1, investigate potential ports of call, cargo handling facilities and other services the vessel might require whilst in port. (500 words) Ports of call between Indonesia and Japan
It is not only unnecessary for the government to intervene to maintain a free market, it is extremely wrong. Intervention by any outside party in corporate matters is inappropriate and basically contradicts the meaning of a free market. There are some positive effects government intervention could produce. These pros are, in fact, few, and questionable, at that. Take for instance, the situation with Microsoft. The government is sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. Let's try and get passed that point for a moment and examine the good that could come out of government intervention. One possible pro to this intervention is that it would most likely create a more equal market (not "fair market.") The term "fair market" is like an oxymoron in this case because basically the government is saying, "Hi, we're the United States government and we're sorry but we cannot let you continue to run your business. Although you have spent your life working to improve and simplify the computer industry, we simply feel you have made too much money." How is this in any way fair? In some people's eyes it is for the best of the economy and the computer industry, but it is definitely not fair. For the government to break down Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company would be ridiculous. True, maybe the market would be more equal. No more mammoth company, just moderately sized companies. This could be a pro. But who is the government to decide that a company is too large? And if so where is the line drawnone billiontwo billiontwenty billion? One other possible pro to government intervention in the Microsoft case would be that smaller, newer companies would have a "fairer" shot at being recognized. Once again, the term "fair" is open to discussion. What is considered to be fair to some can be completely unfair to others. Smaller computer companies would undoubtedly have a better chance at becoming popular. However, people are free to do whatever they want. No one forces people to use Microsoft applications. They are simply put, the most user-friendly, simple but efficient programs that happen to be compatible with a great deal of PCs. Microsoft was that small, unknown company once too. They had no help from the government in their quest for fame and fortune, why should other companies? The few pros to government intervention are arguable. Now let us discuss the cons to... ...what our government basically saying. Microsoft may well be a monopoly. It is a huge powerhouse corporation that can afford to give its products away for dirt cheap to control the market. There are, however other options. There are other programs for IBM computers and there is also the option of using a Macintosh system. There are other programs that are good, and the new Macintosh computers have proven to be faster than the latest Pentiums. Why, then? Why is Microsoft the leader? The answer is Bill Gate's work is done well. It is user friendly, innovative and works with the majority of PCs. No other company's product is used more widespread than Bill Gates. Even the prosecutors putting him on trial probably use his programs. He should be left alone. He has done no one any harm. He makes life easier for the non computer literate, and has made thousands of employees and shareholders millionaires. He has used fair business practices and started from nothing. Even if Microsoft is a monopoly, it will not end the free market system. If anything, the government will ruin it. A free market should mean it is free of everything excluding commerce, including government intervention.
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.