Ten years ago, we never had blog, twitter, facebook and youtube. Now we enjoy them everyday and, for many people, joining facebook has became part of their everyday life. Recently I've been busy dropping comments on the facebook and haven't updated this blog.
What does this change in informational technology bring to us?
While updating the blog, I am wondering if we've really changed the world view by using facebook, twitter, youtube and blog: We can so easily catch up with what is happening in the world by using them.
We don't necessarily need to find the people in other place. Use facebook to search whom you want to make friends with. We don't necessarily check up TV programs. Use youtube to find out what we want to watch most. We don't necessarily meet people at the cafeteria to chat. Use twitter to say something trivial. We don't necessarily opine to the press. Use blogger to write down what you have in mind.
Certainly we are now in the world that is different from the ten-year-ago world. Could we have imagined what this world is like ten years ago?
Now we spend our time on some activities that were never experienced ten years ago. Our society and economy must change in some different way. We never imagine what the end will be like. I don't have any pessimistic view on this technologically informational change.
Rather I would feel like writing that our future will be very bright: People talk to each other without any political constraint. In Egypt, people drew down Mubarak from the power. We never thought of it without having this informational change(How could a very large number of people get together immediately?). We now have a powerful tool to change the world view and the world itself.
I try to foresee what this technological change is bringing to us.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, February 07, 2011
Rebuild the Economy
Japan is in a government-financial problem: the government tax revenue is less than the expenditure and issues a lot of bonds to meet the deficit. Japan is in a serious debt. How to solve it?
Just only three ways to have in mind:
(1) raise the tax
(2) cut the spending
(3) boost the economy as a whole
Should try all of these? Should try two of the above? Should try one of the three? Say, if you boost up the economy and raise the tax at the same time, you should spend less and the whole economy goes bad and the tax revenue decreases. So should the economy do if you cut the spending and boost the economy. We seem to have such a trilemma.
Regarding this old and new problem, Alberto Alesina of Harvard University and Roberto Perotti of IGIER might have the hint:
fiscal adjustments
(1) which rely primarily on spending cuts and cuts in government wage bill have a better chance of being successful and expansionary.
(2) which rely primarily on tax increases and cuts in public investment tend not to last and are contractionary.
The above research is empirically derived not theoretically, but (which I think Kan's advisors know) Prime Minister Kan has to know this because he tries the latter to increase the consumption tax and to cut the public spending. Pls don't miss the coming social experiment!
Just only three ways to have in mind:
(1) raise the tax
(2) cut the spending
(3) boost the economy as a whole
Should try all of these? Should try two of the above? Should try one of the three? Say, if you boost up the economy and raise the tax at the same time, you should spend less and the whole economy goes bad and the tax revenue decreases. So should the economy do if you cut the spending and boost the economy. We seem to have such a trilemma.
Regarding this old and new problem, Alberto Alesina of Harvard University and Roberto Perotti of IGIER might have the hint:
fiscal adjustments
(1) which rely primarily on spending cuts and cuts in government wage bill have a better chance of being successful and expansionary.
(2) which rely primarily on tax increases and cuts in public investment tend not to last and are contractionary.
The above research is empirically derived not theoretically, but (which I think Kan's advisors know) Prime Minister Kan has to know this because he tries the latter to increase the consumption tax and to cut the public spending. Pls don't miss the coming social experiment!
Saturday, February 05, 2011
On Growth Strategies
Takeo Hoshi of UC San Diego and Anil Kashyap of the University of Chicago give some remedies for the stagnating Japanese economy:
They say what cause the stagnation are (1) the aging of the workforce, (2) the natural limits to export-led growth, (3) the tolerance of a dysfunctional banking system that supports 'zombie firms', (4) bad fiscal and monetary policy.
They say the policies are needed to improve growth and to raise productivity.
They recommend the following policies:
(1) accepting high-skilled foreign workers to increase the labor force,
(2) promoting more research collaboration between universities, companies and government to help technological progress
(3) enhancing free trade areas to help the industries raise productivity
(4) eliminating the regulatory separation of kindergartens and nursery schools to improve child care services and to encourage more talented people.
These suggestions are very interesting, but these have been already accepted and tried(not enough now, but gradually) by some policymakers. I think these might work if more people vote for them and believe these will help the Japanese economy revive.
The resource: 26/01/2011, WSJ
They say what cause the stagnation are (1) the aging of the workforce, (2) the natural limits to export-led growth, (3) the tolerance of a dysfunctional banking system that supports 'zombie firms', (4) bad fiscal and monetary policy.
They say the policies are needed to improve growth and to raise productivity.
They recommend the following policies:
(1) accepting high-skilled foreign workers to increase the labor force,
(2) promoting more research collaboration between universities, companies and government to help technological progress
(3) enhancing free trade areas to help the industries raise productivity
(4) eliminating the regulatory separation of kindergartens and nursery schools to improve child care services and to encourage more talented people.
These suggestions are very interesting, but these have been already accepted and tried(not enough now, but gradually) by some policymakers. I think these might work if more people vote for them and believe these will help the Japanese economy revive.
The resource: 26/01/2011, WSJ
Friday, January 21, 2011
How To Read the Income Data
The elasticity of son's income with respect to father's income is about 0.5 in the United States.
Regarding this study, Mankiw says that that 0.5 estimate is roughly the correlation between father and son income, ...and that the fraction of variance of son's income explained by father's income (R-squared) is only 0.25 and is called the "heritability" of a characteristic.
...some of the heritability of income must come not from inequality of opportunity but from the genetic transmission of talent. ...it would be shocking if we did not find some significant heritability of income. And that would be true even if equality of opportunity were perfect.
Needless to say, this low income mobility observed in the United States should be (1) the result of the tax system(Americans face lower tax rate than do Europeans) and, in my conjecture, should have been (2) an Americans' motivation to get ahead and, what's more, one of the causes of the dynamism of the American society: people work harder if they can get rewarded larger and longer. If they know they should pay more tax as they earn more, they are less likely to work harder from the outset and thus are more likely to earn at least no more than they used to earn.
I am not sure whether the above data can tell us about the heritability of character or talent(it is clear that we should research more on it to make it sure), and its resource research says nothing about the difference of race, the places where they live, career and education.
At any rate, we should be careful of the income data that we can get from some academic or official researches when we talk about the recent income gap observed in several developed countries.
Regarding this study, Mankiw says that that 0.5 estimate is roughly the correlation between father and son income, ...and that the fraction of variance of son's income explained by father's income (R-squared) is only 0.25 and is called the "heritability" of a characteristic.
...some of the heritability of income must come not from inequality of opportunity but from the genetic transmission of talent. ...it would be shocking if we did not find some significant heritability of income. And that would be true even if equality of opportunity were perfect.
Needless to say, this low income mobility observed in the United States should be (1) the result of the tax system(Americans face lower tax rate than do Europeans) and, in my conjecture, should have been (2) an Americans' motivation to get ahead and, what's more, one of the causes of the dynamism of the American society: people work harder if they can get rewarded larger and longer. If they know they should pay more tax as they earn more, they are less likely to work harder from the outset and thus are more likely to earn at least no more than they used to earn.
I am not sure whether the above data can tell us about the heritability of character or talent(it is clear that we should research more on it to make it sure), and its resource research says nothing about the difference of race, the places where they live, career and education.
At any rate, we should be careful of the income data that we can get from some academic or official researches when we talk about the recent income gap observed in several developed countries.
How To Cut the Deficit
I like Mankiw because he thinks up an interesting (ironic) analogy when he talks about difficult economic issues;
Plan to reduce the budget deficit: the federal government writes me(=health care) a check for $1 billion and increases the tax(=for fiscal sustainability) by $3 billion. This means that giving me that $1 billion will reduce the budget deficit by $2 billion.
This is not about the fiscal problem that America has, but that Japan has:
Plan to reduce the budget deficit: the federal government writes me(=child care) a check for 1 billion￥ and increases the consumption tax(=for fiscal sustainability) by 3 billion￥.
Plan to reduce the budget deficit: the federal government writes me(=health care) a check for $1 billion and increases the tax(=for fiscal sustainability) by $3 billion. This means that giving me that $1 billion will reduce the budget deficit by $2 billion.
This is not about the fiscal problem that America has, but that Japan has:
Plan to reduce the budget deficit: the federal government writes me(=child care) a check for 1 billion￥ and increases the consumption tax(=for fiscal sustainability) by 3 billion￥.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
How to Tackle Your Exam
Science 14 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6014 pp. 211-213
DOI: 10.1126/science.1199427
Writing About Testing Worries Boosts Exam Performance in the Classroom
Gerardo Ramirez and Sian L. Beilock*
Simply writing about one’s worries before a high-stakes exam can boost test scores.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1199427
Writing About Testing Worries Boosts Exam Performance in the Classroom
Gerardo Ramirez and Sian L. Beilock*
Simply writing about one’s worries before a high-stakes exam can boost test scores.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Anti-Consumptionism!?
Many young Japanese has not bought goods and service recently: they cut the spending on the fashion and food, don't buy a car, don't go on a trip, and try to save money. They are about to play a big and new role in the goods market in Japan.
Last year a book titled A Study on the Generation of Anti-Consumptionism (this title is translated by Taro and this book is published from Toyokeizai and only in Japanese), and subtitled "Stupid to buy a car, isn't it?" was released and went through several printings.
Anti-consumptionists are the young people of late 20s, and they were born after the bubble economy in late 1980s burst. They have generally a trend toward or taste for less consumption even though they have regular earnings. Interestingly, some of them are low paid part-timers and others have a regular job or full-time job and thus stable earnings.
They consume much less than older generations expect: they don't go to karaoke(to enjoy singing in a room with friends) and a restaurant without coupon, prefer eating at home to eating out and don't like a drink that is harmful to their health.
I found the article on almost the same topic and it said that some of the young people have become"grass-eating men" who prefer clothes and cosmetics to cars, and avoid life in the fast lane. (The Economist, November 20th-26th 2010, special report) So they can also tend to be "grass-eaters", but the men named grass-eaters are generally the ones who don't like making or having girlfriends.
The reason they consume less is, the article says, as follows: when they were teens, they went through the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, the subway attack in 1995, the bully in the schools and suicide, the Big Bang in Japan(the reform of financial and banking system) . Especially, they were damaged by the bully in the schools and were forced to be inconspicuous, to read the atmosphere in the schools and to make a shallow friendship with each other.
They tend to fear being made fun of and really want to look smart, which promotes buoyancy and rivalry among them, and thus makes them want to look carefully at others' face and to look nice: Such a common generational experience brings about a common generational mentality, which makes them worry about their future and thus consume less.
The above sounds reasonable, but it seems to me that it doesn't tell what makes them consume less, or what makes them worry about their future. I think there's more an economic cause behind this than a sociologistical or philosophical one.
Many business people are worried about such anti-consumptionists because they consume less and give a negative impact on the economy as a whole; They are more likely to shrink the dampening Japanese economy. However, they are reported to be attracted by the people from abroad and may turn out to be a new Japanese generation who pursues a new and different lifestyle from that of the older generations, as some optimists say.
In my view, a new generation gives a new lifestyle, and changes the structure of preference and thus of demand in the economy, say, in which they change a demand for a peaceful music to a fancy car and TV set.
But in the short term, anti-consumptionism should decrease the aggregate demand of the Japanese economy. Today's newspaper said that almost half of the child benefit offered first by the government this year goes to saving for their children. The child benefit doesn't make them save, but spend more on their children. They save more and consume less, which leads to more depressed economy which forces people to save even more and consume even less. It is called "the paradox of thrift".
Anti-consumptionism may be another or a new version of thrifty lifestyle.
We should need the policy to boost up the economic activity and to stimulate the people's spending in a weakened economy. Anyway, no wonder the Japanese economy will not soon recover from this slump. (Source: Diamond online, 08/12/2010)
Last year a book titled A Study on the Generation of Anti-Consumptionism (this title is translated by Taro and this book is published from Toyokeizai and only in Japanese), and subtitled "Stupid to buy a car, isn't it?" was released and went through several printings.
Anti-consumptionists are the young people of late 20s, and they were born after the bubble economy in late 1980s burst. They have generally a trend toward or taste for less consumption even though they have regular earnings. Interestingly, some of them are low paid part-timers and others have a regular job or full-time job and thus stable earnings.
They consume much less than older generations expect: they don't go to karaoke(to enjoy singing in a room with friends) and a restaurant without coupon, prefer eating at home to eating out and don't like a drink that is harmful to their health.
I found the article on almost the same topic and it said that some of the young people have become"grass-eating men" who prefer clothes and cosmetics to cars, and avoid life in the fast lane. (The Economist, November 20th-26th 2010, special report) So they can also tend to be "grass-eaters", but the men named grass-eaters are generally the ones who don't like making or having girlfriends.
The reason they consume less is, the article says, as follows: when they were teens, they went through the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, the subway attack in 1995, the bully in the schools and suicide, the Big Bang in Japan(the reform of financial and banking system) . Especially, they were damaged by the bully in the schools and were forced to be inconspicuous, to read the atmosphere in the schools and to make a shallow friendship with each other.
They tend to fear being made fun of and really want to look smart, which promotes buoyancy and rivalry among them, and thus makes them want to look carefully at others' face and to look nice: Such a common generational experience brings about a common generational mentality, which makes them worry about their future and thus consume less.
The above sounds reasonable, but it seems to me that it doesn't tell what makes them consume less, or what makes them worry about their future. I think there's more an economic cause behind this than a sociologistical or philosophical one.
Many business people are worried about such anti-consumptionists because they consume less and give a negative impact on the economy as a whole; They are more likely to shrink the dampening Japanese economy. However, they are reported to be attracted by the people from abroad and may turn out to be a new Japanese generation who pursues a new and different lifestyle from that of the older generations, as some optimists say.
In my view, a new generation gives a new lifestyle, and changes the structure of preference and thus of demand in the economy, say, in which they change a demand for a peaceful music to a fancy car and TV set.
But in the short term, anti-consumptionism should decrease the aggregate demand of the Japanese economy. Today's newspaper said that almost half of the child benefit offered first by the government this year goes to saving for their children. The child benefit doesn't make them save, but spend more on their children. They save more and consume less, which leads to more depressed economy which forces people to save even more and consume even less. It is called "the paradox of thrift".
Anti-consumptionism may be another or a new version of thrifty lifestyle.
We should need the policy to boost up the economic activity and to stimulate the people's spending in a weakened economy. Anyway, no wonder the Japanese economy will not soon recover from this slump. (Source: Diamond online, 08/12/2010)
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Mobile phone in Chaplin's Circus (1928) ?
Many people have been surprised at the scene. I don't think she had a cell phone to make a call.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
On Marrying Self
(Reuters Life! 22/10/2010) - Chen Wei-yih will marry herself. Uninspired by the men she's met but facing social pressure to get married, the 30-year-old Taipei office worker will hold the reception next month in honor of just one person.
"Age thirty is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven't found a partner, so what can I do?" Chen said. "It's not that I'm anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition."
Taiwanese women are marrying later and less often as their economic status advances, fuelling government concerns about a drop in the birth rate and its impact on productivity.
Some people who firmly trust tradition may say that this is not called a wedding and marriage and that she just wanted to attract public attention; Some of them may feel bad about or resist it. Marriage should come true when men and women love and agree with each other on it; Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
"Age thirty is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven't found a partner, so what can I do?" Chen said. "It's not that I'm anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition."
Taiwanese women are marrying later and less often as their economic status advances, fuelling government concerns about a drop in the birth rate and its impact on productivity.
Only 40 percent of women surveyed earlier this year by the education ministry said they imagined married people could live better than singles, local media said.
But as Chen cannot officially register a marriage to herself, if she finds a man later she will wed again."If I had a steady boyfriend, I wouldn't do this," Chen said. "it would be offensive to him, anyway."
When I read the above post, it was so interesting and I was a little surprised that we could marry ourselves: I didn't have such an idea!Some people who firmly trust tradition may say that this is not called a wedding and marriage and that she just wanted to attract public attention; Some of them may feel bad about or resist it. Marriage should come true when men and women love and agree with each other on it; Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
However, recently it has not been unusual for some men/women to get married with some other men/women and it is called the same-sex marriage. I do not say that it is good or not and I have no idea about it, but I know that some people may feel bad about it and that it is open to dispute. Self marriage might also catch public attention and new discussion.
By the way, when I studied economics, my professor said that getting married is just like finding a job. Now I see. Before getting married, we have to find a good partner; We can't marry a bad partner. It's almost the same in finding a good job: we can't work for a bad company all day long.
In my opinion, if the self marriage is a good/the best choice of life for you and it doesn't violate others' interest, health and property, I believe you can do it without any other restriction /obstruction. I don't understand those who want to marry themselves though(we can't have a good night without a good partner!), but if they are satisfied and they don't disturb others' lives, I have no reason or I can't find any reason for disagreement on it. Do whatever they want and be happy!
Monday, October 11, 2010
Nobel Prize 2010
I hope the Nobel prize of economics will go to Nobuhiro Kiyotaki of Princeton as the first Japanese Nobel winner.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Facebook Unfriending
I saw an interesting post in the newspaper. One grad student found some reasons for Facebook unfriending.
Facebook is, as you know, a worldwide social online networking where friends meet to share photos, news and gossip .
The word 'unfriend' came from Facebook and it is defined as “to remove someone as a 'friend' from a social networking site such as Facebook.”
The reasons for Facebook unfriending are as follows:
No.1: frequent, unimportant posts.
No2: posting about polarizing topics like religion and politics.
Moreover, the research found that those making friend requests stood a much higher chance of being abruptly unfriended and that at the same time, those doing the unfriending seemed to hold the upper hand in the relationship.
I think this may be something helpful for some other research on how to keep better relationship between, say, employees and employers in the labor market, men and women in the marriage market, and so on.
At any rate, Facebook itself is UNIMPORTANT. People just enjoy unimportant posts, don't they? They just break boring time. I believe in our life we sometimes need unimportant things as well as important things.
Facebook is, as you know, a worldwide social online networking where friends meet to share photos, news and gossip .
The word 'unfriend' came from Facebook and it is defined as “to remove someone as a 'friend' from a social networking site such as Facebook.”
The reasons for Facebook unfriending are as follows:
No.1: frequent, unimportant posts.
No2: posting about polarizing topics like religion and politics.
Moreover, the research found that those making friend requests stood a much higher chance of being abruptly unfriended and that at the same time, those doing the unfriending seemed to hold the upper hand in the relationship.
I think this may be something helpful for some other research on how to keep better relationship between, say, employees and employers in the labor market, men and women in the marriage market, and so on.
At any rate, Facebook itself is UNIMPORTANT. People just enjoy unimportant posts, don't they? They just break boring time. I believe in our life we sometimes need unimportant things as well as important things.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
BOJ Follows Roger Farmer?
NY times(05/10/2010);TOKYO — In a surprise move Tuesday, the Japanese central bank lowered its benchmark interest rate to a range of 0 percent to 0.1 percent, a tiny change from its previous target of 0.1 percent but a symbolic shift back into an age of zero interest rates.
The Bank of Japan (BOJ) also said it would set up a fund of ¥5 trillion, or $60 billion, to buy Japanese government bonds, commercial paper and other asset-backed securities amid concerns about weakening growth in the economy, the world’s third largest, after those of the United States and China. The bank also kept its credit facility for banks at ¥30 trillion.According to the one book written by Roger E. A. Farmer of UCLA, How the economy works,Oxford University Press, Roger says in this book,
"Control of an index fund(=mutual fund*) is the ideal way to implement this idea(=stabilizing stock market movements and preventing them from devastating the real economy),..."pp.159
*mutual fund : a basket with some stocks, bonds and other assets
"To maintain the interest rate, Fed(=US central bank) intervenes in the market by buying and selling Treasury bills(liabilities issued by government) in exchange for money,... (and at the same time) announces a price path for index funds and stands ready to buy and sell these funds each day at the announced price." pp.160
However, BOJ didn't announce the purchase of index funds/mutual funds and didn't say it follows Prof Farmer, but when I heard this news tonight I recalled Farmer; it seems to me that BOJ's announcement of purchase of Japanese government bonds, commercial paper and other asset-backed securities will have similar effects on the economy to what Prof Farmer's suggested.
I am not sure what Farmer says is going to happen in the Japanese economy when BOJ seeks the above new policy measures, but I would like to watch what's going on.
By the way, the press seemed surprised at the BOJ announcement, as Hirokata Kusaba of Mizuho Research Institute says, “The latest move gives off a much more powerful impression than past, incremental measures, which had sparked market disillusionment”
“Though there will be debate over the effects of the monetary loosening, I believe the Bank of Japan has done all it can at this time”
“despite the (BOJ's) exaggerated language claiming that this is radical,...BOJ is apparently acting reluctantly and de-emphasizing the temporary nature of the measures, which is likely to limit the impact" and “There is a stark contrast with the Fed’s ‘whatever is necessary’ approach.” **The parentheses are added by Taro.
At any rate I am sure that this BOJ's action will soon lead to a widespread debate among economists and policymakers all over the world.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Behind the Boom of Brain Training
What is called 'brain training' or 'logical thinking' is booming among the people in Japan.
I don't know whether I should say 'brain training' and 'logical thinking' in the same context (these words may be quite different to some people), but anyway I can see many books titled 'brain training' and 'logical thinking' in the amazon.com.
It shows that many people want to become more brainy/smarter than ever, doesn't it? I try questioning myself about it and it seems to me that many people, especially business people as well, think that they should be smarter on their own in their everyday life.
I don't know if it is good for them to become brainy. Let me assume some situation of chat: while we are chatting, I always try asking, "what is it?", "what do you mean by this?", "it doesn't make sense", "that part of your tale sounds illogical", and so on. It is as if we were always in a discussion/meeting in class at school. I would get tired if I were always asking and questioning while chatting.
The issue I would raise is," do we really have to be smarter/thinking logically everywhere and every time in our life?" To be honest, I am not sure if we should do.
I don't always respect people trying to be rational or logical: I would like to ask such a king of people, "what part inside you do you defend?" It seems to me that they are likely to care themselves only, or that they just try to look nice and smart. It is just as if I dressed up.
This effort for trying to be smart is a kind of the waste of the time and money. Anyway it doesn't always help.
I don't know whether I should say 'brain training' and 'logical thinking' in the same context (these words may be quite different to some people), but anyway I can see many books titled 'brain training' and 'logical thinking' in the amazon.com.
It shows that many people want to become more brainy/smarter than ever, doesn't it? I try questioning myself about it and it seems to me that many people, especially business people as well, think that they should be smarter on their own in their everyday life.
I don't know if it is good for them to become brainy. Let me assume some situation of chat: while we are chatting, I always try asking, "what is it?", "what do you mean by this?", "it doesn't make sense", "that part of your tale sounds illogical", and so on. It is as if we were always in a discussion/meeting in class at school. I would get tired if I were always asking and questioning while chatting.
The issue I would raise is," do we really have to be smarter/thinking logically everywhere and every time in our life?" To be honest, I am not sure if we should do.
I don't always respect people trying to be rational or logical: I would like to ask such a king of people, "what part inside you do you defend?" It seems to me that they are likely to care themselves only, or that they just try to look nice and smart. It is just as if I dressed up.
This effort for trying to be smart is a kind of the waste of the time and money. Anyway it doesn't always help.
Friday, October 01, 2010
What 'efficiency' means?
In bookstores, I can always see some books on 'an efficient resource management' or 'efficient corporate governance' or 'efficient blah blah blah'.
By the way, what do you mean by 'efficient blah blah blah'? I don't understand it at all! What is efficient? Are you efficient? Hmm...I have no idea.
My English dictionary tells me that it means 'working well'. It's a good answer and most people who say 'efficient blah blah blah' probably may mean so by it.
However, economics tells me somewhat different definition of it: efficient means 'happier'. It's a little ambiguous and it sounds subjective although economics deals with objective social problems, but for me it is rather a correct way of using this word.
When I think of what to change in my life, say, what to cut down on in my spending, what to throw away in my bookshelf and how much to drink in this bar and so on, I usually think of 'the Pareto-efficient' and it means 'happier', say, "if I drink a little more, to what extent will I be happier?".
Usually this word is used on the public policy conducted by policymakers and the effects on the economy and the people's lives: Assume there are two people, A and B and they try to trade each other. If A can't be better off/happier than ever unless A tries to make B worse off/less happier, A is in the 'Pareto-optimal/efficient' condition and vice versa.
Pareto is an Italian sociologist in the 19th century and the Pareto efficiency is used when economists think about the deals between some people, that is, an 'inter-personal' trades, but it's not the wrong usage when I talk of an 'intra-personal' trades between today's Taro and tomorrow's Taro on what or how much to choose to eat/drink*.
Anyway in terms of economic thinking, an 'efficient resource management' should be the one that makes the people related to it happier/more satisfied, rather than that reduces the cost and raises the profit.
*Some alert readers may say, "if you want to talk about Pareto-optimum/efficiency, you should touch on the Edgeworth box, contract curves, core and the first/second theorem of welfare economics". I know I should use these ideas if I talk about it formally.
By the way, what do you mean by 'efficient blah blah blah'? I don't understand it at all! What is efficient? Are you efficient? Hmm...I have no idea.
My English dictionary tells me that it means 'working well'. It's a good answer and most people who say 'efficient blah blah blah' probably may mean so by it.
However, economics tells me somewhat different definition of it: efficient means 'happier'. It's a little ambiguous and it sounds subjective although economics deals with objective social problems, but for me it is rather a correct way of using this word.
When I think of what to change in my life, say, what to cut down on in my spending, what to throw away in my bookshelf and how much to drink in this bar and so on, I usually think of 'the Pareto-efficient' and it means 'happier', say, "if I drink a little more, to what extent will I be happier?".
Usually this word is used on the public policy conducted by policymakers and the effects on the economy and the people's lives: Assume there are two people, A and B and they try to trade each other. If A can't be better off/happier than ever unless A tries to make B worse off/less happier, A is in the 'Pareto-optimal/efficient' condition and vice versa.
Pareto is an Italian sociologist in the 19th century and the Pareto efficiency is used when economists think about the deals between some people, that is, an 'inter-personal' trades, but it's not the wrong usage when I talk of an 'intra-personal' trades between today's Taro and tomorrow's Taro on what or how much to choose to eat/drink*.
Anyway in terms of economic thinking, an 'efficient resource management' should be the one that makes the people related to it happier/more satisfied, rather than that reduces the cost and raises the profit.
*Some alert readers may say, "if you want to talk about Pareto-optimum/efficiency, you should touch on the Edgeworth box, contract curves, core and the first/second theorem of welfare economics". I know I should use these ideas if I talk about it formally.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Fall Comes
Looking at the above picture, I feel the fall has come. The man in the picture who harvests rice for a festival is, with all due respect, our emperor. (The picture is from Jiji press.)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Money is Important, But...
In some major countries like the US, Germany and here Japan, it is not easy to get a new and good job. Many people fear that they will have no job and lower pay. Some of them may also fear that they will have no more moderate and stable life.
Everyone hopes that he or she will have a good job. What I mean by 'a good job' is, of course, high-paid job.
However, some people may say that money is not so important as we expect in our life. There are many different views on that, but to live a healthy life in our modern society, making money should be considered first like this, "how much can I earn by working for your company?"
Here in Japan, maybe, in some other countries, there's a saying: "well fed, well bred". When surfing the web, I found another saying, "manners and money makes a gentleman", "poverty is an enemy to good manners."
Our job or career should be always our major concern in our life and when thinking about living a good life not to feel poverty, we must rethink of our current job and career, "will we be able to keep it for long?".
Good job depends on what we think as a good job, but how much we earn is always first concern and we can't tell a lie on it like,"money is not important, but happiness is always important." Happiness and money must be closely connected each other(and some research prove it) and needless to say, there's no happiness in a one-dollar-in-a-day life.
However, at the same time, there's happiness in a one-million-dollar-in-a-day life, isn't there? That should be another question to think of. Personally I can't imagine what it is like to be such a life, but there may be another problem, say, on how to manage to choose what kind of assets or how to inherit their property to whom.
In my opinion, I am happy that I can eat, read and sleep in a house with a well-built roof. I don't hope too much that I will live in luxury (I would like to live in luxury, having nice dinner and drink and bedroom), but I actually hope I will live a simple and stable life. If I can't live such a life now, then I should take some action to better it and that time should make me think money important in my present life. (No inflation is considered now. If there's the fear of inflation, my above view will be quite different. Behind my view the value of money, the purchasing power of money is important, not money itself when considering what kind of life we would like to lead.)
I believe that saving money doesn't mean just cutting down on our expenditure(cutting down on our standard of living makes no sense!), but thinking carefully of what to buy.
Some commentators on TV or in today's newspapers suggest that we should save money for our uncertain future life, but our future is always uncertain and the most certain thing on the future is that the future is always uncertain. And that's why we should think carefully of what we need most in today's life.
Don't be afraid of our future life too much, yes of course, we need to think of it, but thinking too much is not so helpful when we face some difficulties in our career. We should think of what we can do now because it is clear that we can't do what we can't do now.
If we think that we need something for our current or future job, we should now be studying or preparing for it(there's no money but there's much time! Time is also as important as money in our life), and if we need higher paid job to keep our current life stable, we should be looking for it in the job advertisement on the Internet or in the newspapers.
Please don't be influenced by someone near us(otherwise, you will be hurt!), just listen to or sometimes pretend to listen to what other people mean. However, some advise should be listened to. We remember they don't always think of us or they don't always try to be helpful to us. They just talk about what they want to talk(they just break time!). We should keep in mind that finally"do it yourself". Don't take too much time to talk about ourselves to someone, take time for us to prepare for another chance in the future.
Money is important but it doesn't choose our life. Moreover other people don't choose our life at least here in Japan and in some developed and democratic countries where the law protects our freedom to choose our career. Our life chooses our money.
Everyone hopes that he or she will have a good job. What I mean by 'a good job' is, of course, high-paid job.
However, some people may say that money is not so important as we expect in our life. There are many different views on that, but to live a healthy life in our modern society, making money should be considered first like this, "how much can I earn by working for your company?"
Here in Japan, maybe, in some other countries, there's a saying: "well fed, well bred". When surfing the web, I found another saying, "manners and money makes a gentleman", "poverty is an enemy to good manners."
Our job or career should be always our major concern in our life and when thinking about living a good life not to feel poverty, we must rethink of our current job and career, "will we be able to keep it for long?".
Good job depends on what we think as a good job, but how much we earn is always first concern and we can't tell a lie on it like,"money is not important, but happiness is always important." Happiness and money must be closely connected each other(and some research prove it) and needless to say, there's no happiness in a one-dollar-in-a-day life.
However, at the same time, there's happiness in a one-million-dollar-in-a-day life, isn't there? That should be another question to think of. Personally I can't imagine what it is like to be such a life, but there may be another problem, say, on how to manage to choose what kind of assets or how to inherit their property to whom.
In my opinion, I am happy that I can eat, read and sleep in a house with a well-built roof. I don't hope too much that I will live in luxury (I would like to live in luxury, having nice dinner and drink and bedroom), but I actually hope I will live a simple and stable life. If I can't live such a life now, then I should take some action to better it and that time should make me think money important in my present life. (No inflation is considered now. If there's the fear of inflation, my above view will be quite different. Behind my view the value of money, the purchasing power of money is important, not money itself when considering what kind of life we would like to lead.)
I believe that saving money doesn't mean just cutting down on our expenditure(cutting down on our standard of living makes no sense!), but thinking carefully of what to buy.
Some commentators on TV or in today's newspapers suggest that we should save money for our uncertain future life, but our future is always uncertain and the most certain thing on the future is that the future is always uncertain. And that's why we should think carefully of what we need most in today's life.
Don't be afraid of our future life too much, yes of course, we need to think of it, but thinking too much is not so helpful when we face some difficulties in our career. We should think of what we can do now because it is clear that we can't do what we can't do now.
If we think that we need something for our current or future job, we should now be studying or preparing for it(there's no money but there's much time! Time is also as important as money in our life), and if we need higher paid job to keep our current life stable, we should be looking for it in the job advertisement on the Internet or in the newspapers.
Please don't be influenced by someone near us(otherwise, you will be hurt!), just listen to or sometimes pretend to listen to what other people mean. However, some advise should be listened to. We remember they don't always think of us or they don't always try to be helpful to us. They just talk about what they want to talk(they just break time!). We should keep in mind that finally"do it yourself". Don't take too much time to talk about ourselves to someone, take time for us to prepare for another chance in the future.
Money is important but it doesn't choose our life. Moreover other people don't choose our life at least here in Japan and in some developed and democratic countries where the law protects our freedom to choose our career. Our life chooses our money.
Monday, September 06, 2010
'Frosh' means 'Fresh'
While reading my favorite blog, I was sure I found the wrong spelling in it.
'Frosh' should spell "Fresh".
But I looked up the online dictionary, it has that word: 'frosh' means 'a freshman in a college.' My dictionary doesn't have it. Why not a freshman is 'frosh'? These sound very different. I am not so serious though, just I am wondering why.
It's an American English word. I realize that there's really a lot in the world that I don't know.
'Frosh' should spell "Fresh".
But I looked up the online dictionary, it has that word: 'frosh' means 'a freshman in a college.' My dictionary doesn't have it. Why not a freshman is 'frosh'? These sound very different. I am not so serious though, just I am wondering why.
It's an American English word. I realize that there's really a lot in the world that I don't know.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
円高、株安そして景気
2010年8月下旬の急速な円高、株安そして景気の動向が注目される。菅総理大臣、野田財務大臣の対米ドル８４．３４円、対ユーロ１０６．３５円近辺に対する「当面見守る」発言が、株式市場に失望感を与えて（同年8月24日）、さらに株値を落としている、といわれている。さて、問題は以下2点。①これらの指標、日本経済をどのように見るか。②政府・日銀は何らかの手立てを打つべきか。以上2点を考えていこう。
①日本経済の現状
まず円高である。円が外国通貨に対して高いか低いかの判断基準は「購買力平価説（PPP）」という指標を使うのが基本とされている。これは例えば、米国で売られているトマト1個と日本の1個とが、同じ大きさ、同じ重さ、同じテースト（味）であれば、同じ価値、価格を持つという仮定（一物一価の法則という）のもとで計算される対外貨為替レートのことである。
英国エコノミスト誌の有名なビッグマック指標もPPPの考えのひとつで、対米ドル：1ドル＝85.7円であり、現在（2010年8月27日6時）対米ドル：1ドル=85.24円と比べれば、ほぼハンバーガPPPが指し示す水準値である。
円高は一般的に、日本国内の製品価格が海外製品と比べて割高になるため、外国へ製品販売している業者にとっては不利である。しかし同時に、外国から製品を購入する業者にとっては、外国製品が相対的に割安となるために有利である。円高は「輸出企業には不利、輸入業者には有利」と言われる理由である。
問題は円高は日本経済・景気にとって不利、または有利なのか。日本経済の構造を見ながらそのことを考えよう。どこの国であれ、いつの時代であれ、経済活動・景気変動は、
（１） （需要）＝（供給）
の均等式が成り立つよう変動する。「需要」とは購入者（消費者・企業）であり、「供給」とは生産販売者（労働者・企業）である。 ＊労働者は労働サービスを企業など生産者に生産販売している。
もし、このとき
（２） （需要）＞（供給）
が成立すれば、需要超過と言う。このとき、購入者が経済には多く存在し、モノの値段（物価）が上昇し、利益拡大のチャンスと考える企業は生産・雇用を増やす。結果、供給が増えて、（１）式の均等式に回帰する。逆も然りで、供給が多ければ、物価が下がり、企業は生産・雇用を縮小させる。丁度（２）式が、「好景気」を表し、逆の不等号のときは「不景気」を表す。
経済は（１）式がバランスするように動くのである。
＊いわゆる「ケインズ派」の考えは、「需要が供給を生む」という「有効需要の原理」を唱え、「古典派・RBC派」は「供給が需要を生む」という「セイの法則」を唱える。どちらも正しい議論ではあるが、一部の経済学者はモノが余る「成熟社会」ではケインズ派が、モノが不足する「発展途上社会」では古典派の考えが妥当すると言う解釈を与えている。ここでは、ケインズ派の理論に則って議論を進める。
この考えをもとに経済全体の需要（GDE）の項目を詳しく見ると、
（３） （需要）＝（消費）+（投資）+（政府支出）+（輸出）-（輸入）
である。問題はこれら各需要項目の全体に占める割合である。消費（個人・政府消費）の対実質GDE比（2008年）はおよそ73％で、海外の需要項目、外需すなわち（輸出）-（輸入）は4.9％にすぎない。乱暴に言えば、マックス（最大）で１００％だけ外需が下落すれば、つまり、まったく外需がなくなったとき、日本経済の需要を約５％押し下げる計算になる。金額に換算するとおよそ27.8兆円。国内需要（内需）がおよそ95％、528.7兆円を考えるとさほど大きな数字ではない。割合だけで見ると、外需の消失はスーパーの５％還元ポイントセールが無くなったのに等しい。
＊GDEは国内総支出のことで、GDP（国内総生産）と同値である。これはちょうどGDEが「需要」に、GDPが「供給」に該当すると考えてもよいが（厳密には、これらの数字は同じものを違う面で見ているため、GDPが供給と言うのは正しくない）、これらの値は常に均衡する。また、需要項目で、なぜ「輸入」を差し引くかというと、国内の消費には外国製品の購入が必ず含まれるからである。輸出は外国への販売、すなわち外国人の需要（外需）で、輸入は日本人の購入、つまり内需である。2重計算を避けるために差し引く。また、（需要）＝（内需）+（外需）である。
なお、（３）式から
（４） （需要）-（消費）-（投資）-（政府支出）＝（輸出）-（輸入）
が成立し、（需要）-（消費）-（政府支出）＝（貯蓄）、また、（政府支出）＝（税金）、（需要）=(所得)である（GDE=GDPが成り立つから）ことを考えれば、
（５） （貯蓄）-（投資）＝（輸出）-（輸入）
が成立する。これは何を意味するか。（５）式を書き換えると、
（６） （供給）-（需要）＝（輸出）-（輸入）＝（純輸出）＝（貿易サービス収支）
であり、上記式は常に均衡が成立する。すると、（6）式の右辺の解釈は、「国内の経済・支出活動の反射鏡」であることを示す。景気が悪くなれば、需要が冷え込み、（６）式右辺はプラスになり、輸出超過、すなわち貿易黒字になる。＊財務省の「貿易統計」での貿易収支と上記の数字は一致しない。
このことから、
（７） （景気の低迷）＝（貿易収支黒字）
といえる。円高は外需の押し下げ要因、景気低迷要因であるが、たとえ外需が消失しても、日本経済には５％のマイナス影響しかない。このことより、日本経済は欧米諸国に比べても「内需主導型経済」であると言える。
＊貿易収支の黒字は、海外への販売である輸出が外国からの購入である輸入よりも多いことを意味し、この裏では外貨の受け取りが支払いよりも多くなる。国内企業は外貨を邦貨（円）に換え、決済しようとするので円のニーズが強くなり、「円高」になる。また、国内物価の下落も「円高」要因である。名目為替レート：1ドル＝E円とすると、実質為替レート：米国のトマト1個＝日本のトマトF個とすると、
E=F×（日本のトマトの値段）÷（米国のトマトの値段）
となる。日本のトマトの値段、つまり日本の物価が下がると、名目レートEは減少つまり「円高」になる。さらに、国内の資産にかかる金利上昇も「円高」要因とされるが、内外の金利差（日米間の長期国債金利）は米国金利のほうが高い。
②政府・日銀の政策
以上の５％の変動が日本の実体経済（GDE）にマイナス影響を及ぼし、日本の株価を押し下げているのだろうか。単回帰分析を使って考えたい。これは、株価（日経平均）と経済（名目GDP）との関係を
（８） （日経平均株価）＝a×（名目GDP）+b
という中学校で習った１次関数の形に直して、お互いの相関関係（因果関係ではない）を見ようということだ。データは過去１０年（２０００年～２００９年）の日経平均（終値）、名目GDPを使った。すると、
（9） （日経平均株価）＝0.225×（名目GDP）-99413.7
となる。定数項、名目GDPの係数の推定値ともに有意水準5％で帰無仮説（係数＝0）を棄却でき、日経平均の変動を説明するには、名目GDPが必要であるといえる。（相関係数＝0.84）このことから、外需の対名目GDP比は、5.3％であり、かりに外需が消滅すれば、0.053×0.225＝0.011、つまり１％だけ株価を押し下げる計算になる。
＊もちろん、サンプル数を増やす、変数を増やす、また経済の構造変化を考慮に入れるなどより細かく計算すべきだが。さらに、実質GDP(物価の変動を取り除いたGDP)を用いて、同様の単回帰を行うと、帰無仮説を有意水準５％で棄却できない。このことからも、日経平均は実体経済と強い関係があるとはいえない。また、為替レート（東京市場）でも同様の分析を行うと、これも日経平均と強い関係は確認されない。
＊＊株価には東証株価指数（TOPIX）も存在する。日経平均は日本経済新聞社が作成・公表し、東京証券取引所1部上場約1，700銘柄から代表的な225銘柄の株価の単純平均として表されるため、高い銘柄の動きに左右されやすい。そこで、高い銘柄の動きに左右されないように、上場銘柄の株式数を考慮して加重平均として表したのがTOPIXである。TOPIXは、株式数の多い大型株（資本金100億円以上）の動きが大きく投影される傾向がある。
＊＊＊日経平均の変動は輸出関連・ハイテクなどの値による影響が大きいのに対し、時価総額を基準とするTOPIXは、時価総額の大きい大手銀行株をはじめ、内需関連株による影響が大きい。
＊＊＊＊株価は一般的に「先行指標」とされ、景気に先行して動く。
直近の日経平均は８月８日以降、９５００円を割り込み、円も６月下旬以降９０円を割り込み、２７日現在株価は８９00円程度、円は対米ドル８５円程度である。
乱暴に言えば、円高により外需が消滅しても、株価は１％の下落、つまり９５００円からだと９５円程度のマイナス、９４０５円程度になることが予想される。このことからも、株は円高による実体経済、外需減少要因だけではなく、他の要因にも大きく左右されているのではないかと考えられる。
この単純計算からも、昨今の株価下落と円高の実体経済（外需）に与える影響とに大きな関連はなく、政府による為替の介入、日銀の一段の金融緩和などといった対応には注意が必要である。
そもそもこれらの政策の目的は何か。「景気対策」か、それとも「円高対策」か。たとえ、
（10） （円高対策）=（景気対策）
だとしても、円を仮に安くでき、外需が１００％増加しても（２倍になっても）、GDPにはプラス２７兆円だけの増加である。GDPギャップが20、30兆円程度だと言われているから、それを埋めるのにちょうどいいかもしれない額だが、欧米などの海外の景気が悪化している中、ありえない話である。
＊GDPギャップとは、潜在的な生産能力と需要との差で、日本経済は20、30兆円程度需要が足りないと言われている。
政府の為替介入は「円を売る」ことであり、日銀の金融緩和は「流動性（円）を増やす」ことである。どちらも市場に円供給を増やす政策で、「円を安く」させよう。ただ、仮に円を安くできても、それにより、景気にどう影響するのか。小生が示すように、外需が倍にならないかぎりGDPギャップを埋めることができないし、日銀は金融緩和を続けているし、政府財務省の円売り介入も他通貨が安いうえ、ハンバーガーPPPで見て円は適正値であり、政策効果は非常に限定的であるだろう。「何もしないこと」と変わらないかもしれない。
＊経済通なら「乗数効果」（ある需要項目の経済全体への波及効果）はどうした、と聞くかもしれない。ご承知のとおり、45度線分析で海外部門を導入（限界輸入性向）し、海外部門を考えな国内経済における政府支出の増加による経済波及効果（政府支出乗数）に比べて、外需（輸出）が増えることの乗数効果は小さくなる。
③まとめ
１、外需の内需（実質GDP）に占める割合は小さい（５％）
２、外需の低迷・円高と株安（日経平均）との関係もごくわずか
3、政策的対応は非常に限られ、その効果も非常に小さいだろう
Sunday, July 18, 2010
How To Create Jobs and Income
10/21/07 revised
The world economy has been in crisis and here in Japan some policymakers and economic policy nerds have some ideas of how to boost up the weak demand of the economy.
In my opinion (and I think many people interested in economic issues will agree with it), there're generally two kinds of the problems the economy has: the structural one and short-run business-cyclical one.
As a structural problem, the older people get, the more money they need to make a living. Thus the government should pay them as a medical insurance and national pension plan, which consequently puts the budget into deficit and thus a long-term debt. So we need much more tax revenue as resources to pay them.
On the other hand, and as a short-run problem, many young people now have difficulties in finding a good job in such a weakened economy and many (how many? ...good question, but it doesn't matter at present) of them should put up with low-paid and insecure jobs.
The Prime Minister, Kan, and his economic team seem to want to solve the above two kinds of them at the same time: raise the tax to create jobs and income. It sounds weird in a traditional economic thinking, but they are so serious that they think they can. The government raises the tax and gets the revenue, which it can use to employ the unemployed and to boost up the income and consumption in a whole economy. Now the Kan administration can solve the two problems: it can get more tax revenue to employ the unemployed (it can solve the short-run problem), and thus it can get more and more tax revenue to finance the budget deficit and to shrink the long-term debt because more people can earn income and pay the tax on it in a whole economy(it can solve the structural problem).
Yes of course, there's always a lot of jobs that need young people in the economy from the viewpoint of a whole society, but I mean these jobs may not necessarily keep them on and what's more, we are more likely to have ability-oriented or region-oriented gap: some people can complete the work they are offered, but others can't. Or, in some cities there're many jobs to take but in other cities not many. Always there're jobs that need us as long as we live on, but some of them may not make them eat enough food to live on. (Why are there some job ads that we can always see in the newspaper?)
Although the economic policy the Kan Administration sounds logically coherent, unfortunately I am not sure how successful the solution Mr. Kan proposed is in solving the two problems, and I am wondering what happens to the economy if the government tries to do it.
The world economy has been in crisis and here in Japan some policymakers and economic policy nerds have some ideas of how to boost up the weak demand of the economy.
In my opinion (and I think many people interested in economic issues will agree with it), there're generally two kinds of the problems the economy has: the structural one and short-run business-cyclical one.
As a structural problem, the older people get, the more money they need to make a living. Thus the government should pay them as a medical insurance and national pension plan, which consequently puts the budget into deficit and thus a long-term debt. So we need much more tax revenue as resources to pay them.
On the other hand, and as a short-run problem, many young people now have difficulties in finding a good job in such a weakened economy and many (how many? ...good question, but it doesn't matter at present) of them should put up with low-paid and insecure jobs.
The Prime Minister, Kan, and his economic team seem to want to solve the above two kinds of them at the same time: raise the tax to create jobs and income. It sounds weird in a traditional economic thinking, but they are so serious that they think they can. The government raises the tax and gets the revenue, which it can use to employ the unemployed and to boost up the income and consumption in a whole economy. Now the Kan administration can solve the two problems: it can get more tax revenue to employ the unemployed (it can solve the short-run problem), and thus it can get more and more tax revenue to finance the budget deficit and to shrink the long-term debt because more people can earn income and pay the tax on it in a whole economy(it can solve the structural problem).
Yes of course, there's always a lot of jobs that need young people in the economy from the viewpoint of a whole society, but I mean these jobs may not necessarily keep them on and what's more, we are more likely to have ability-oriented or region-oriented gap: some people can complete the work they are offered, but others can't. Or, in some cities there're many jobs to take but in other cities not many. Always there're jobs that need us as long as we live on, but some of them may not make them eat enough food to live on. (Why are there some job ads that we can always see in the newspaper?)
Although the economic policy the Kan Administration sounds logically coherent, unfortunately I am not sure how successful the solution Mr. Kan proposed is in solving the two problems, and I am wondering what happens to the economy if the government tries to do it.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
I am Still Alive
For more than 3 months I have not updated my blog. That doesn't mean that I have nothing to write and to update, nor that I have no time to write.
Recently I have read some books some of my favorite economists recommend, and wanted to concentrate on them carefully. Of course, while reading them, I've been busy working and teaching.
Soon I will write and discuss on the books I read.
Recently I have read some books some of my favorite economists recommend, and wanted to concentrate on them carefully. Of course, while reading them, I've been busy working and teaching.
Soon I will write and discuss on the books I read.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
On Fiscal Policy (1)
I am teaching elementary economics at school, and I touch on fiscal policy - government budget, spending, cut tax, how built-in stabilizer works, tax collection, bond issue and fiscal reform of the Japanese government.
When I think of the fiscal problems that the Hatoyama administration should solve, this report may greatly help though it is on the fiscal policy of the US.
Fiscal policy has three functions: (1) allocation of resources, (2) income redistribution, and (3) economic stabilization.
This report is almost entirely on the function of fiscal stimulus, or comment on textbook Keynesian view on fiscal policy and here's the summary of this report:
(1) On the effects of government spending
There are two effects of government spending on aggregate demand(=consumption + investment). These are positive and negative effects:
The positive effect is multiplier effect, where government purchase leads to higher income and thus today's demand.
On the other hand, the negative effects are growth-retarding effect, where government spending leads to higher taxes in the future and thus less demand today to prepare for the higher tax, and crowding-out effect, where government spending results in higher interest rate and thus less today's demand.
(2) On the effects of tax cut and spending on demand
Generally, I say that government spending is more effective on demand than is tax cut. However, some researches say that it isn't, rather it is the opposite: tax cut is more effective on demand than government spending.
Moreover, (interestingly) successful, growth-promoting fiscal stimulus is tax cut whereas unsuccessful stimulus is spending more and transfer payments, which are now (unfortunately) the Hatoyama administration's main dishes!
When I think of the fiscal problems that the Hatoyama administration should solve, this report may greatly help though it is on the fiscal policy of the US.
Fiscal policy has three functions: (1) allocation of resources, (2) income redistribution, and (3) economic stabilization.
This report is almost entirely on the function of fiscal stimulus, or comment on textbook Keynesian view on fiscal policy and here's the summary of this report:
(1) On the effects of government spending
There are two effects of government spending on aggregate demand(=consumption + investment). These are positive and negative effects:
The positive effect is multiplier effect, where government purchase leads to higher income and thus today's demand.
On the other hand, the negative effects are growth-retarding effect, where government spending leads to higher taxes in the future and thus less demand today to prepare for the higher tax, and crowding-out effect, where government spending results in higher interest rate and thus less today's demand.
(2) On the effects of tax cut and spending on demand
Generally, I say that government spending is more effective on demand than is tax cut. However, some researches say that it isn't, rather it is the opposite: tax cut is more effective on demand than government spending.
Moreover, (interestingly) successful, growth-promoting fiscal stimulus is tax cut whereas unsuccessful stimulus is spending more and transfer payments, which are now (unfortunately) the Hatoyama administration's main dishes!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
マクドへのファンメール
日本マクドナルド株式会社さんへファンメールを書いた。以下のその一文。
御社での製品(特に、マックシェイク、フィレオフィッシュ)は幼いころから楽しんでおり、「マクドファン」としてメールいたしました。
街中を歩いておりますと、御社の使用済み包装が散らばっているのを良く見かけます。包装については、衛生上の観点から必要であり、「過重包装」についても何度も御社では改善されたことを伺っております。
基本的に食後の包装の処理は消費者の責任でありますが、御社としては難しいとは存じますが、一度「デポジット制度」についてご検討されては、と存じます。例えば、お持ち帰りの包装に関して紙袋代やポテトの紙箱など一律10円を正規価格に上乗せし、店舗に持ち込めば、10円返金する、という制度です。
街中のゴミも減り、環境配慮を全面的にアピールする狙いを込めて、御社が積極的にこれに乗り出せば、更なる企業イメージアップも図れ、他社さんもこれに追随するやも知れません。
ご検討されれば、と存じます。拙文失礼致します。
御社での製品(特に、マックシェイク、フィレオフィッシュ)は幼いころから楽しんでおり、「マクドファン」としてメールいたしました。
街中を歩いておりますと、御社の使用済み包装が散らばっているのを良く見かけます。包装については、衛生上の観点から必要であり、「過重包装」についても何度も御社では改善されたことを伺っております。
基本的に食後の包装の処理は消費者の責任でありますが、御社としては難しいとは存じますが、一度「デポジット制度」についてご検討されては、と存じます。例えば、お持ち帰りの包装に関して紙袋代やポテトの紙箱など一律10円を正規価格に上乗せし、店舗に持ち込めば、10円返金する、という制度です。
街中のゴミも減り、環境配慮を全面的にアピールする狙いを込めて、御社が積極的にこれに乗り出せば、更なる企業イメージアップも図れ、他社さんもこれに追随するやも知れません。
ご検討されれば、と存じます。拙文失礼致します。
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Inequality and Education
Recently I've read the latest Mankiw's article and wondered how to solve an income (or opportunity) inequality. Not only has this problem been considered important in the US, but also in Japan.
Since around 1970s, the age of oil and dollar crisis, an income inequality has been wider in some developed countries and especially since late 1990s, when IT(information technology) revolution, the Internet, came across and changed our everyday business and life, we've got concerned about what is called "digital divide", which means that those who use IT are more likely to get higher income than those who don't.
"Kakusa society", in Japanese, means "income-gap society" and is now a well known word to a lot of modern Japanese people. Income gap leads to a wider opportunity gap; Those who get higher income are more likely to have good friends and spouses and live a better and happier life, and thus so are their children.
When Gary Becker & Kevin Murphy talk about the income inequality, they point out the role of "human capital" played in an income gap:
The initial impact of higher returns to human capital(Taro added: a higher education of college and university) is wider inequality in earnings.
...Higher returns to education will accelerate growth in living standards as existing investments have a higher return, and additional investments in education will be made in response to the higher returns.
Why is the earnings gap widening? Because (of) the demand for educated and other skilled persons (and) ...a general shift in economic activity to more education-intensive sectors, such as finance and professional services... At the same time, world demand has risen for the kinds of products and services that are provided by high-skilled employees.
They tell us that initial impact of higher education on income widens income gap, but as time goes by, it decreases and leads to higher income and benefit spilled over more people. Moreover, they criticize the usual policy response to an income inequality:
...the solution to an increase in inequality is ...to raise taxes on high-income households and reduce taxes on low-income households. .. (That is just like advocating) a tax on going to college and a subsidy for dropping out of high school in response to the increased importance of education.
They suggest that we should encourage higher education for more people. I completely agree with them.
Since around 1970s, the age of oil and dollar crisis, an income inequality has been wider in some developed countries and especially since late 1990s, when IT(information technology) revolution, the Internet, came across and changed our everyday business and life, we've got concerned about what is called "digital divide", which means that those who use IT are more likely to get higher income than those who don't.
"Kakusa society", in Japanese, means "income-gap society" and is now a well known word to a lot of modern Japanese people. Income gap leads to a wider opportunity gap; Those who get higher income are more likely to have good friends and spouses and live a better and happier life, and thus so are their children.
When Gary Becker & Kevin Murphy talk about the income inequality, they point out the role of "human capital" played in an income gap:
The initial impact of higher returns to human capital(Taro added: a higher education of college and university) is wider inequality in earnings.
...Higher returns to education will accelerate growth in living standards as existing investments have a higher return, and additional investments in education will be made in response to the higher returns.
Why is the earnings gap widening? Because (of) the demand for educated and other skilled persons (and) ...a general shift in economic activity to more education-intensive sectors, such as finance and professional services... At the same time, world demand has risen for the kinds of products and services that are provided by high-skilled employees.
They tell us that initial impact of higher education on income widens income gap, but as time goes by, it decreases and leads to higher income and benefit spilled over more people. Moreover, they criticize the usual policy response to an income inequality:
...the solution to an increase in inequality is ...to raise taxes on high-income households and reduce taxes on low-income households. .. (That is just like advocating) a tax on going to college and a subsidy for dropping out of high school in response to the increased importance of education.
They suggest that we should encourage higher education for more people. I completely agree with them.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Teach Economics
Since last year I have been given some opportunities to teach elementary economics as a lecturer to students who are thinking of entering university and working for governments.
Here in Japan before we work for governments we should take the exam on law, history, and economics and have some interviews. These subjects are, however, at an elementary level,but to teach elementary economics is not easy for me because almost all the students don't know a lot about economics.(that's why they come up to me!!)
They need good lectures and thus they paid a lot for schools. I should talk frankly about economics and watch them study hard.
During this lecture I had some lessons on giving a lecture: I found I didn't understand what I had thought I knew a lot about. Moreover, I found good lecture depends on how much I prepare for it: If I didn't read the textbook very much beforehand, I couldn't teach well and would give the students an impression in which I don't know a lot about what I am talking about. That's true but I hadn't found it until I gave some lectures.
I believe it is a good experience and I should study more on how to teach elementary economics. But at the same time I should begin to write some papers for the doctor degree.
Here in Japan before we work for governments we should take the exam on law, history, and economics and have some interviews. These subjects are, however, at an elementary level,but to teach elementary economics is not easy for me because almost all the students don't know a lot about economics.(that's why they come up to me!!)
They need good lectures and thus they paid a lot for schools. I should talk frankly about economics and watch them study hard.
During this lecture I had some lessons on giving a lecture: I found I didn't understand what I had thought I knew a lot about. Moreover, I found good lecture depends on how much I prepare for it: If I didn't read the textbook very much beforehand, I couldn't teach well and would give the students an impression in which I don't know a lot about what I am talking about. That's true but I hadn't found it until I gave some lectures.
I believe it is a good experience and I should study more on how to teach elementary economics. But at the same time I should begin to write some papers for the doctor degree.
Monday, February 22, 2010
A Love From Russia?
Recently I've got some emails from someone that I've never met. They say that they came from Russia and girls. They say that they broke their love and looked for another good love.
It looks interesting and I've tried to reply to them. After a while, they emailed me and they said they found me an ideal guy... and I continue to email her(?) and she(?) says that she wants me, needs me and loves me....(like Elvis's song?)
What is that? I have no idea. Why do they email someone that they never meet?
Anyway, if you have some idea of such an anonymous email, I would be happy to hear it.
It looks interesting and I've tried to reply to them. After a while, they emailed me and they said they found me an ideal guy... and I continue to email her(?) and she(?) says that she wants me, needs me and loves me....(like Elvis's song?)
What is that? I have no idea. Why do they email someone that they never meet?
Anyway, if you have some idea of such an anonymous email, I would be happy to hear it.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Trip to Old Japan
I found a good collection of old pictures of more than 100-year-ago Japan. Enjoy it.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Haiti Tragedy
It is a very sad news of Haiti's earthquake. What Krugman says is also what I really want to say: As far as one can tell, those with the power to help are doing all they can. One can only hope that enough help arrives fast enough to avoid the second-round calamities — deaths due to lack of food and water and/or disease — that can all too easily follow a natural disaster.
It also reminds us of the Kobe-Awaji earthquake that happened 15 years ago.
It also reminds us of the Kobe-Awaji earthquake that happened 15 years ago.
American Obesity
WSJ says on 13/01/2010 that:
WASHINGTON—One-third of American adults are obese, according to new U.S. government figures released Wednesday, but the rate of increase seen in recent decades has slowed.
Figures from the National Center for Health Statistics showed 34% of American adults age 20 and older were obese in 2007-08 while 68% were considered overweight or obese. In children ages 2 through 19, 17% were considered obese while 32% were considered overweight. Broadly, the figures are similar to rates seen in 1999-2000.
"Obesity remains high and is a significant public-health problem in the U.S.," said Cynthia Ogden, one of the main researchers involved in tabulating the data and an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's health-statistics unit.
..."I see this as relatively good news," said William Dietz, the director of CDC's division of nutrition, physical activity and obesity. "It suggests we've halted the progression of the epidemic."...."The administration recognizes that control of obesity is related to health reform," Dr. Dietz said.
The obesity figures were taken from 5,555 adults and nearly 4,000 children who are considered representative of the U.S. population. For adults, researchers looked at body mass index, a measure that estimates body fat by using a person's height and weight in the calculation. Those with BMIs of 25 to 29.9 are considered overweight and those who are considered obese have a BMI of 30 or greater. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered a normal weight for adults.
Interestingly, we can see this article in the site of Yahoo JAPAN! although it is a piece of the American news that doesn't seem to have anything to do with our own life. I'm not sure how many Japanese are obese and what growth rate of obese Japanese we have seen for the past decades, but I'm sure it is not other people's affairs.
We have already lived a civilized life here for long: the foods we eat are more similar or closer to those the American eat, and we do less exercise for long and so do they. Our life style becomes quite closer to American one. I think we need to take a good look at the data of obesity in America for good reference.
WASHINGTON—One-third of American adults are obese, according to new U.S. government figures released Wednesday, but the rate of increase seen in recent decades has slowed.
Figures from the National Center for Health Statistics showed 34% of American adults age 20 and older were obese in 2007-08 while 68% were considered overweight or obese. In children ages 2 through 19, 17% were considered obese while 32% were considered overweight. Broadly, the figures are similar to rates seen in 1999-2000.
"Obesity remains high and is a significant public-health problem in the U.S.," said Cynthia Ogden, one of the main researchers involved in tabulating the data and an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's health-statistics unit.
..."I see this as relatively good news," said William Dietz, the director of CDC's division of nutrition, physical activity and obesity. "It suggests we've halted the progression of the epidemic."...."The administration recognizes that control of obesity is related to health reform," Dr. Dietz said.
The obesity figures were taken from 5,555 adults and nearly 4,000 children who are considered representative of the U.S. population. For adults, researchers looked at body mass index, a measure that estimates body fat by using a person's height and weight in the calculation. Those with BMIs of 25 to 29.9 are considered overweight and those who are considered obese have a BMI of 30 or greater. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered a normal weight for adults.
Interestingly, we can see this article in the site of Yahoo JAPAN! although it is a piece of the American news that doesn't seem to have anything to do with our own life. I'm not sure how many Japanese are obese and what growth rate of obese Japanese we have seen for the past decades, but I'm sure it is not other people's affairs.
We have already lived a civilized life here for long: the foods we eat are more similar or closer to those the American eat, and we do less exercise for long and so do they. Our life style becomes quite closer to American one. I think we need to take a good look at the data of obesity in America for good reference.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Conscience of a Conservative
What is a conservative? I don't think I am a conservative but I sometimes wonder what the idea of a conservative is like. Let me tell you about it:
Longman dictionary says that a conservative means a person who dislikes changes. My definition of a conservative is a little different: Generally, a conservative has three principles of behavior, or beliefs.
(1) To love his or her own culture, custom and tradition
That's natural to what is called a conservative. There's always such a person no matter which part of the world he or she lives in. Such a person always says that he or she loves and tries to protect his or her own tradition.
(2) To be tolerant
When you meet someone who doesn't agree with you, if you blame him or her, you are not a conservative in my definition.
What a conservative is like is tolerance for disagreement or misunderstanding. I know if you are hard for someone to understand you feel bad with him or her. But try to keep calm and to listen to him or her because someone who doesn't agree with you probably has a different point of view from you that might sometimes help you broaden your outlook. (It is difficult to keep calm when you are harshly blamed. That's our nature!)
A conservative is basically not a violent one, rather a gentle and kind one in this way.
(3) To know that changes are sometimes needed
"Change to remain the same!" Ichiro Ozawa, a politician of the Democratic Party, now a ruling party in Japan, likes this phrase. Ozawa has been considered to be and called a neoconservative, who believes the power and dynamism of freedom. I like this phrase too.
When we see the world in which we live changing fast, we should not stick to our own opinion or idea. We should first rather learn how the world is changing and what is changing in the world. And then if we feel the need to change the way in which we behave due to changing social and economic surroundings, we should try to change our idea, or if needed, ourselves to remain the same as what we are and how we live on.
Change is not always a good choice, though. We should think of the effect of the change we make on our life and society. I know it's a difficult task. It's not a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis. It can be said that it's a great decision to make a change in our present life and society.
Longman dictionary says that a conservative means a person who dislikes changes. My definition of a conservative is a little different: Generally, a conservative has three principles of behavior, or beliefs.
(1) To love his or her own culture, custom and tradition
That's natural to what is called a conservative. There's always such a person no matter which part of the world he or she lives in. Such a person always says that he or she loves and tries to protect his or her own tradition.
(2) To be tolerant
When you meet someone who doesn't agree with you, if you blame him or her, you are not a conservative in my definition.
What a conservative is like is tolerance for disagreement or misunderstanding. I know if you are hard for someone to understand you feel bad with him or her. But try to keep calm and to listen to him or her because someone who doesn't agree with you probably has a different point of view from you that might sometimes help you broaden your outlook. (It is difficult to keep calm when you are harshly blamed. That's our nature!)
A conservative is basically not a violent one, rather a gentle and kind one in this way.
(3) To know that changes are sometimes needed
"Change to remain the same!" Ichiro Ozawa, a politician of the Democratic Party, now a ruling party in Japan, likes this phrase. Ozawa has been considered to be and called a neoconservative, who believes the power and dynamism of freedom. I like this phrase too.
When we see the world in which we live changing fast, we should not stick to our own opinion or idea. We should first rather learn how the world is changing and what is changing in the world. And then if we feel the need to change the way in which we behave due to changing social and economic surroundings, we should try to change our idea, or if needed, ourselves to remain the same as what we are and how we live on.
Change is not always a good choice, though. We should think of the effect of the change we make on our life and society. I know it's a difficult task. It's not a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis. It can be said that it's a great decision to make a change in our present life and society.
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Peter Principle
It's very interesting! The Peter Principle says that the less productive a worker, the more likely will she succeed.
...There are, though, perhaps more basic messages here. Competition needn’t necessarily yield optimum outcomes; “survival of the fittest” mightn’t be the most efficient principle. And the organization of corporate hierarchies might be inefficient, not (just) from heterodox perspectives, but from the perspective of conventional neoclassical economic theory itself.
Now might be the time for us to study such a kind of economics; Just before, Koizumi and Takenaka tried to conduct an economic policy of a traditional neoclassical version of competition and privatization(Reaganomics), in order to boost up the stagnant Japanese economy.
Recently a lot of people have doubt on an attempt to make such a policy because the Japanese economy is still stagnant. The Peter Principle would not be a key solution to the difficult problem of the Japanese economy, but greatly influence the ideas of political and business leaders.
...There are, though, perhaps more basic messages here. Competition needn’t necessarily yield optimum outcomes; “survival of the fittest” mightn’t be the most efficient principle. And the organization of corporate hierarchies might be inefficient, not (just) from heterodox perspectives, but from the perspective of conventional neoclassical economic theory itself.
Now might be the time for us to study such a kind of economics; Just before, Koizumi and Takenaka tried to conduct an economic policy of a traditional neoclassical version of competition and privatization(Reaganomics), in order to boost up the stagnant Japanese economy.
Recently a lot of people have doubt on an attempt to make such a policy because the Japanese economy is still stagnant. The Peter Principle would not be a key solution to the difficult problem of the Japanese economy, but greatly influence the ideas of political and business leaders.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Economics
Paul A. Samuelson died. (The picture is from NY times.)When I was a freshman at college, I took a course of international economics. The lecturer introduced one econ textbook to the students. That was the Samuelson's economics. Of course, it was the one written with Nordhaus and soon I dropped from this course because I felt it was enough to read it.
I can't talk about Samuelson and his work because I don't know what he really did in economics. However, he is so famous in the area of economics that most of people should find his name in any introductory econ textbook.
Of course, Japanese economists of older generation studied economics with his textbook and if they were asked who wrote a great econ text, they would definitely answer "it's Samuelson". He is certainly a brand name in Japan too and influenced them so greatly. Unfortunately, I have never read his economics (I've read Mankiw's one instead.) but I heard most of econ textbooks have followed his style of economics by introducing micro, and then macroeconomics.
Recently, I have been wondering what's the true meaning of the distinction between micro and macroecon. Well, I think it's easier for econ teachers to teach beginners economics. But as an econ beginner I struggled to understand what econ is like; Micro seems very different from macro in intro econ textbooks. To be precise, Keynes theory(AD-AS analysis) seems different from New Classical one(Demand-supply diagram).
I know Barro of Harvard tried to integrate them into one. I am not somewhat happy with the Barro's style of economics and I cannot give alternative version of econ(it's really a big task!), but I would say there's no more need than to make the distinction.
I would say macroeconomics should be described as an applied microeconomics and this trend has been already accepted. Why have many of intro econ textbooks still followed an old-fashioned Samuelson's style of econ text? It might be a stable equilibrium of econ style.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Tax Cut Or Spending?
This is one of the conventional themes in macroeconomics and most of students in introductory economics class may study which policy is more effective on the stagnant economy, tax cut or government spending.
As introductory macroeconomics(say, the Keynesian Cross) says, government spending is more influential, more likely to increase the national income(GDP).
The reason is quite simple: government does a debt-finance.
Imagine two people earn income of $100 a day, buy food from each other at a cost of $10 and the income tax imposed is $10. Thus each of them has $90 in hand and spends $10 on food a day.
In this economy, the total income (the sum of two people's incomes) is $180.
Due to economic stagnation, one of them becomes unemployed and earns $0 a day. If the government cuts income tax (-$10) to stimulate the economy, the employed will have more(she has now $100 in hand a day) but the unemployed will not. So the unemployed has no food to eat this day. (In this case the unemployed can earn money to sell food to the employed, because both eat nothing.)
In this tax-cut economy, the total income is $100.
Alternatively, if the government provides the unemployed with a job that makes him earn $10 a day, that is, increases the government spending, then the unemployed will get the benefit(he has now $10 a day in hand) but the employed will not (her income remains $90 in hand) .
In such a spending economy, the total income is $100. The same! This is not more effective than tax cut.
The reason is in government-spending economy, she is still imposed income tax of $10. The point is, in a tax-cut economy, income distribution is done through the exchange from each other, whereas in a spending economy through the government that just takes $10 from the employed and gives $10 to the unemployed.
If there were no income tax on her(government made a policy of debt-finance) in a spending economy, the total income would be $110 and thus more effective than tax cut policy (of course, later a tax increase will come). Keynesian policy is always a debt-finance policy!
As introductory macroeconomics(say, the Keynesian Cross) says, government spending is more influential, more likely to increase the national income(GDP).
The reason is quite simple: government does a debt-finance.
Imagine two people earn income of $100 a day, buy food from each other at a cost of $10 and the income tax imposed is $10. Thus each of them has $90 in hand and spends $10 on food a day.
In this economy, the total income (the sum of two people's incomes) is $180.
Due to economic stagnation, one of them becomes unemployed and earns $0 a day. If the government cuts income tax (-$10) to stimulate the economy, the employed will have more(she has now $100 in hand a day) but the unemployed will not. So the unemployed has no food to eat this day. (In this case the unemployed can earn money to sell food to the employed, because both eat nothing.)
In this tax-cut economy, the total income is $100.
Alternatively, if the government provides the unemployed with a job that makes him earn $10 a day, that is, increases the government spending, then the unemployed will get the benefit(he has now $10 a day in hand) but the employed will not (her income remains $90 in hand) .
In such a spending economy, the total income is $100. The same! This is not more effective than tax cut.
The reason is in government-spending economy, she is still imposed income tax of $10. The point is, in a tax-cut economy, income distribution is done through the exchange from each other, whereas in a spending economy through the government that just takes $10 from the employed and gives $10 to the unemployed.
If there were no income tax on her(government made a policy of debt-finance) in a spending economy, the total income would be $110 and thus more effective than tax cut policy (of course, later a tax increase will come). Keynesian policy is always a debt-finance policy!
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Money and Life
I read a comment from one of the readers of Yomiuri Shimbun, a major newspaper in Japan, and it caught my eye:
Yomiuri shimbun, 09/12/2009
A letter from a mother in her 40s says,
"I have two children, one is an elementary school student, the other a junior high school student. The older one is not good at plugging at study, but quick in understanding, and began to go to cram school and the grades are going up.
We need more money in education for my children. My husband's income was always low and due to recent recession, it is even lower. Less overwork and work on holiday made him stay longer at home. My husband is a good man and kind to our children, but his income is low!
I am working part-time and have a lot to do for children, but I am so nervous that our low income may be going to give them few accesses to good opportunities. Looking at his face, I feel hatred for him. I am worried that our conjugal life may be broken and may do our children harm. First of all, I feel so sad that I cannot give my husband a smile."(Translated by Taro)
During the economic stagnation, people feel so nervous and disappointed at their future life. "Money can't buy happiness", some people say, but nobody disagrees that money is very important for life. What is really needed for good life? Money! Probably, but probably not at the same time.
Money can buy good education and good access to good career and good life. That's why many students go to the US to get MA or PhD at higher-ranked university. However, they know that school may not guarantee happy life with good partner and children. They feel after graduation they may be unemployed or poor or alone all their life.
Some economists may say that economics gives a good hint on what and how to do for living a good life, but I don't know it clearly. I know while many people are seeking for better and happier life, very few people really know what and how to do for it.
Which is better for you in your life, a poor life with warm-hearted partner or a rich life with a cold-blooded partner? As Milton Friedman says, "free to choose!". The point is what you need most all your life. If you need a stable life, you should choose to work for government, and if you need an unstable but, if you are lucky and good at business, a rich life, you should choose to become a business entrepreneur.
If you think happiness is to put up with any hardship both for your good life and for your children's life, you should choose a partner who agrees with you. If you think happiness is not to be miserable or not to be poor, you should check your partner's bank account and payroll before choosing him or her as a lifelong partner. Anyway, free to choose, right!?
Yomiuri shimbun, 09/12/2009
A letter from a mother in her 40s says,
"I have two children, one is an elementary school student, the other a junior high school student. The older one is not good at plugging at study, but quick in understanding, and began to go to cram school and the grades are going up.
We need more money in education for my children. My husband's income was always low and due to recent recession, it is even lower. Less overwork and work on holiday made him stay longer at home. My husband is a good man and kind to our children, but his income is low!
I am working part-time and have a lot to do for children, but I am so nervous that our low income may be going to give them few accesses to good opportunities. Looking at his face, I feel hatred for him. I am worried that our conjugal life may be broken and may do our children harm. First of all, I feel so sad that I cannot give my husband a smile."(Translated by Taro)
During the economic stagnation, people feel so nervous and disappointed at their future life. "Money can't buy happiness", some people say, but nobody disagrees that money is very important for life. What is really needed for good life? Money! Probably, but probably not at the same time.
Money can buy good education and good access to good career and good life. That's why many students go to the US to get MA or PhD at higher-ranked university. However, they know that school may not guarantee happy life with good partner and children. They feel after graduation they may be unemployed or poor or alone all their life.
Some economists may say that economics gives a good hint on what and how to do for living a good life, but I don't know it clearly. I know while many people are seeking for better and happier life, very few people really know what and how to do for it.
Which is better for you in your life, a poor life with warm-hearted partner or a rich life with a cold-blooded partner? As Milton Friedman says, "free to choose!". The point is what you need most all your life. If you need a stable life, you should choose to work for government, and if you need an unstable but, if you are lucky and good at business, a rich life, you should choose to become a business entrepreneur.
If you think happiness is to put up with any hardship both for your good life and for your children's life, you should choose a partner who agrees with you. If you think happiness is not to be miserable or not to be poor, you should check your partner's bank account and payroll before choosing him or her as a lifelong partner. Anyway, free to choose, right!?
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
When Was Japan Born?
I think if you drop in at this blog, you will probably be one who may be interested in Japan or other Asian countries. I happened to see the Japan page, NY times, I knew that I hadn't known
the birth(or independence) year of Japan. Here's the page;
Japan at a Glance
Official Name: Japan
Capital: Tokyo (Current local time)
Government Type: Constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government
Chief of State: Emperor Akihito represented by Yukio Hatoyama, prime minister
Population: 127.43 million
Area: 145,902 square miles; slightly smaller than California
GDP Per Capita: $33,100
Year of Independence: 660 B.C.
Since I saw "Year of Independence" here, I haven't known what year Japan became dependent. In fact I can't remember if I learned at school when Japan appeared in the world history. At the beginning of the histry class that most Japanese people have, the origin of the Old World is first introduced and after that the dawn of Japan is introduced, but never is that Japan was born in 660 B.C. taught! We just learned that early Japanese used stone tool at that age.
What's "the Year of Independence, 660 B.C."? To be sure, it comes from part of the Nihon Shoki, and Wiki says,
"Most scholars agree that the purported founding date of Japan (660 BC) and the earliest emperors of Japan are legendary or mythical."
the birth(or independence) year of Japan. Here's the page;
Japan at a Glance
Official Name: Japan
Capital: Tokyo (Current local time)
Government Type: Constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government
Chief of State: Emperor Akihito represented by Yukio Hatoyama, prime minister
Population: 127.43 million
Area: 145,902 square miles; slightly smaller than California
GDP Per Capita: $33,100
Year of Independence: 660 B.C.
Since I saw "Year of Independence" here, I haven't known what year Japan became dependent. In fact I can't remember if I learned at school when Japan appeared in the world history. At the beginning of the histry class that most Japanese people have, the origin of the Old World is first introduced and after that the dawn of Japan is introduced, but never is that Japan was born in 660 B.C. taught! We just learned that early Japanese used stone tool at that age.
What's "the Year of Independence, 660 B.C."? To be sure, it comes from part of the Nihon Shoki, and Wiki says,
"Most scholars agree that the purported founding date of Japan (660 BC) and the earliest emperors of Japan are legendary or mythical."
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
What Makes Us Rich?
Daron Acemoglu, professor of MIT, answers a big question, "what makes us rich?".
He says incentive is the key role in what makes us rich or poor:
People need incentives to invest and prosper; they need to know that if they work hard, they can make money and actually keep that money. And the key to ensuring those incentives is sound institutions — the rule of law and security and a governing system that offers opportunities to achieve and innovate. That's what determines the haves from the have-nots — not geography or weather or technology or disease or ethnicity.
Put simply: Fix incentives and you will fix poverty. And if you wish to fix institutions, you have to fix governments.
Very simple answer!
He says incentive is the key role in what makes us rich or poor:
People need incentives to invest and prosper; they need to know that if they work hard, they can make money and actually keep that money. And the key to ensuring those incentives is sound institutions — the rule of law and security and a governing system that offers opportunities to achieve and innovate. That's what determines the haves from the have-nots — not geography or weather or technology or disease or ethnicity.
Put simply: Fix incentives and you will fix poverty. And if you wish to fix institutions, you have to fix governments.
Very simple answer!
Monday, November 23, 2009
Welcome, Anonymous!!
Recently, (it's about you, right?) an anonymous has come to my blog and post the same comment. Of course, I like to be given some comments on my blog. I always welcome you, but if you like, please read it out and then give your comment on it.
Of courese, you disagree with me and if so, I hope you'll give me the disagreement. At any rate, just I wish you enjoyed this small blog a lot.
Of courese, you disagree with me and if so, I hope you'll give me the disagreement. At any rate, just I wish you enjoyed this small blog a lot.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Soshokukei Danshi
One article in NY times tells about the Japanese men and caught my eye:
Two phrases have been coined to describe them: soshokukei danshi or “herbivorous males,” and Ojo-man – or “girly men.”
Definitions vary, but the new herbivores could be described as metrosexuals without the testosterone. Although most of them are not homosexual they have in common a disdain for the traditional accoutrements of Japanese manhood, and a taste for things formerly regarded as exclusively female. Girly men have no interest in fast cars, career success, designer labels and trophy women. Instead, they hold down humble jobs, cultivate women as friends rather than conquests and spend their free time shopping at small boutiques and pursuing in Japan what is regarded as a profoundly feminine pastime: eating cakes.
Seeking to tap into this market, Japanese manufacturers have launched underwear, cosmetics and clothing designed to appeal to herbivorous males – including bras for men and lacy male tops.
...Masahiro Yamada, a professor of sociology at Chuo University, Tokyo, believes that the new demographic is the result of economic decline: most young men in Japan simply cannot afford fast cars and designer labels, he says. Yamada also worries about the effects of soshokukei danshi on Japan’s shrinking population, noting that almost half of Japanese men aged 20–34 are unmarried and that nearly 30 percent of these have never had a girlfriend:
“I worry that herbivorous boys are the future of Japan. … As young Japanese men become more timid and more averse to taking risks, it will affect the energy and vitality of the society.”
According to a July 2009 article in The Japan Times, go-getting “nikushokukei joshi” – or “carnivorous women” – have emerged as a counterweight to soshokukei danshi.
Two phrases have been coined to describe them: soshokukei danshi or “herbivorous males,” and Ojo-man – or “girly men.”
Definitions vary, but the new herbivores could be described as metrosexuals without the testosterone. Although most of them are not homosexual they have in common a disdain for the traditional accoutrements of Japanese manhood, and a taste for things formerly regarded as exclusively female. Girly men have no interest in fast cars, career success, designer labels and trophy women. Instead, they hold down humble jobs, cultivate women as friends rather than conquests and spend their free time shopping at small boutiques and pursuing in Japan what is regarded as a profoundly feminine pastime: eating cakes.
Seeking to tap into this market, Japanese manufacturers have launched underwear, cosmetics and clothing designed to appeal to herbivorous males – including bras for men and lacy male tops.
...Masahiro Yamada, a professor of sociology at Chuo University, Tokyo, believes that the new demographic is the result of economic decline: most young men in Japan simply cannot afford fast cars and designer labels, he says. Yamada also worries about the effects of soshokukei danshi on Japan’s shrinking population, noting that almost half of Japanese men aged 20–34 are unmarried and that nearly 30 percent of these have never had a girlfriend:
“I worry that herbivorous boys are the future of Japan. … As young Japanese men become more timid and more averse to taking risks, it will affect the energy and vitality of the society.”
According to a July 2009 article in The Japan Times, go-getting “nikushokukei joshi” – or “carnivorous women” – have emerged as a counterweight to soshokukei danshi.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Next Recession
Roubini predicts that another recession is coming.
...rising fiscal deficits in most economies are now pushing up the yields of long-term government bonds. Some of the rise in long rates is a necessary correction, as investors are now pricing a global recovery.
But some of this increase is driven by more worrisome factors: the effects of large budget deficits and debt on sovereign risk, and thus on real interest rates; and concerns that the incentive to monetize these large deficits will lead to high inflation after the global economy recovers in 2010-11 and deflationary forces abate.
The crowding out of private demand, owing to higher government-bond yields – and the ensuing increase in mortgage rates and other private yields – could, in turn, endanger the recovery.
As a result, one cannot rule out that by late 2010 or 2011, a perfect storm of oil above $100 a barrel, rising government-bond yields, and tax increases (as governments seek to avoid debt-refinancing risks) may lead to a renewed growth slowdown, if not an outright double-dip recession.
...But much of the rise in asset prices is not justified, as it is driven by excessively optimistic expectations of a rapid recovery of growth towards its potential level, and by a liquidity bubble that is raising oil prices and equities too fast too soon. A negative oil shock, together with rising government-bond yields – could clip the recovery’s wings and lead to a significant further downturn in asset prices and in the real economy.
...rising fiscal deficits in most economies are now pushing up the yields of long-term government bonds. Some of the rise in long rates is a necessary correction, as investors are now pricing a global recovery.
But some of this increase is driven by more worrisome factors: the effects of large budget deficits and debt on sovereign risk, and thus on real interest rates; and concerns that the incentive to monetize these large deficits will lead to high inflation after the global economy recovers in 2010-11 and deflationary forces abate.
The crowding out of private demand, owing to higher government-bond yields – and the ensuing increase in mortgage rates and other private yields – could, in turn, endanger the recovery.
As a result, one cannot rule out that by late 2010 or 2011, a perfect storm of oil above $100 a barrel, rising government-bond yields, and tax increases (as governments seek to avoid debt-refinancing risks) may lead to a renewed growth slowdown, if not an outright double-dip recession.
...But much of the rise in asset prices is not justified, as it is driven by excessively optimistic expectations of a rapid recovery of growth towards its potential level, and by a liquidity bubble that is raising oil prices and equities too fast too soon. A negative oil shock, together with rising government-bond yields – could clip the recovery’s wings and lead to a significant further downturn in asset prices and in the real economy.
Monday, November 02, 2009
EMH Is Wrong?
Modern economists are always criticized for mainly 2 hypotheses: (1) REH and (2) EMH. The reason is easy. These hypotheses seem to be fictional, not real.
(1) REH
Rational Expectation Hypothesis - It is a very important idea in modern macroeconomics and originated from John Muth. Shortly, it says that the economic equilibrium we reach is determined by what we "expect" for the future economic behavior. That means our economy is the mirror of our expectation.
(2)EMH
Efficient Market Hypothesis - It is a very essential idea for modern financial theory and originated from Eugene Fama. Briefly, it states that the prices of securities reflect all known information that impacts their value. The hypothesis does not claim that the market price is always right. On the contrary, it implies that the prices in the market are mostly wrong, but at any given moment it is not at all easy to say whether they are too high or too low.
Many people claim that EMH is the main culprit of the Crisis, but Prof. Jeremy Siegel says in reply that the fact that automobiles today are safer than they were years ago does not mean that you can drive at 120 mph.
A small bump on the road, perhaps insignificant at lower speeds, will easily flip the best-engineered car. Our financial firms drove too fast, our central bank failed to stop them, and the housing deflation crashed the banks and the economy.
(1) REH
Rational Expectation Hypothesis - It is a very important idea in modern macroeconomics and originated from John Muth. Shortly, it says that the economic equilibrium we reach is determined by what we "expect" for the future economic behavior. That means our economy is the mirror of our expectation.
(2)EMH
Efficient Market Hypothesis - It is a very essential idea for modern financial theory and originated from Eugene Fama. Briefly, it states that the prices of securities reflect all known information that impacts their value. The hypothesis does not claim that the market price is always right. On the contrary, it implies that the prices in the market are mostly wrong, but at any given moment it is not at all easy to say whether they are too high or too low.
Many people claim that EMH is the main culprit of the Crisis, but Prof. Jeremy Siegel says in reply that the fact that automobiles today are safer than they were years ago does not mean that you can drive at 120 mph.
A small bump on the road, perhaps insignificant at lower speeds, will easily flip the best-engineered car. Our financial firms drove too fast, our central bank failed to stop them, and the housing deflation crashed the banks and the economy.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Horioka On the Economy
Why does China not like weaker dollar? Who is the next leader of the world economy? Is the world economy better? Is the rising sun already setting sun?
Charles Yuji Horioka, professor of Osaka University and known as "Feldstein-Horioka puzzle", gives a very clear explanation of these above questions.
Charles Yuji Horioka, professor of Osaka University and known as "Feldstein-Horioka puzzle", gives a very clear explanation of these above questions.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Taronomics (1)
Why Japan Is Aging?
This story was given in this blog before: The Japanese are among the world's longest-lived people, with the number of those aged 100 or older at a record 36,276, a government report shows.
Japanese women have topped the world's longevity ranks for 23 years, while men rank third after Iceland and Hong Kong. (Reporting by Chisa Fujioka; editing by Sophie Hardach)
The questions: why do many Japanese people live longer? What makes people live longer?
One day I watched TV and I heard of an interesting story: the Japanese people will live to be 150 years old! Really? Fantastic!
I am serious. I think so too. The reason is not due to nutrition:
When we retire, we live off a pension and it's a very important source for living.(Of course we have to pay some money every month to the pension fund beforehand.)
The trick is here: If a pensioner dies, normally his or her children should tell the death to the government, but some people do not tell. Why? Clearly, it's to receive their parents' pension! The government has no clue to know the death of the pensioner unless his or her children/ relatives tell it to them. As the government don't know the death of the pensioner, they continue to pay the pension to the dead.
According to the TV program I watched, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare confessed that most of those aged 100 or older may be already dead! They never know the correct number of those who are aged 100 or older and still alive.
Now you know the reason many Japanese people can live to be over 150. The Japanese economy is so stagnant that there are naturally a lot of people relying on their parents' pension to live a stable life. Is it a happy story? What do you think?
PS
Oh, that's an important question. Where's the dead pensioner? Dig up the backyard and you may find out the answer.
This story was given in this blog before: The Japanese are among the world's longest-lived people, with the number of those aged 100 or older at a record 36,276, a government report shows.
Japanese women have topped the world's longevity ranks for 23 years, while men rank third after Iceland and Hong Kong. (Reporting by Chisa Fujioka; editing by Sophie Hardach)
The questions: why do many Japanese people live longer? What makes people live longer?
One day I watched TV and I heard of an interesting story: the Japanese people will live to be 150 years old! Really? Fantastic!
I am serious. I think so too. The reason is not due to nutrition:
When we retire, we live off a pension and it's a very important source for living.(Of course we have to pay some money every month to the pension fund beforehand.)
The trick is here: If a pensioner dies, normally his or her children should tell the death to the government, but some people do not tell. Why? Clearly, it's to receive their parents' pension! The government has no clue to know the death of the pensioner unless his or her children/ relatives tell it to them. As the government don't know the death of the pensioner, they continue to pay the pension to the dead.
According to the TV program I watched, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare confessed that most of those aged 100 or older may be already dead! They never know the correct number of those who are aged 100 or older and still alive.
Now you know the reason many Japanese people can live to be over 150. The Japanese economy is so stagnant that there are naturally a lot of people relying on their parents' pension to live a stable life. Is it a happy story? What do you think?
PS
Oh, that's an important question. Where's the dead pensioner? Dig up the backyard and you may find out the answer.
The 100 Most Influential Books
I think this list is very useful when you find nice books. I didn't know that there's such a book list. It's a little pity that there's no book written by Japanese author.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Recession, Beliefs and Multiple Equilibria
...individuals growing up during recessions tend to believe that success in life depends more on luck than on effort, support more government redistribution, but are less confident in public institutions. Moreover, we find that recessions have a long-lasting effect on individuals’beliefs.
This is one of the researches which clearly show the relationship between social psychology and economic equilibria: Individuals experiencing recessions during the formative years(at the age of 18-25) believe that luck rather than effort is the most important driver of individual success, support more government redistribution, and have less confidence in institutions.
The following caught my eye: The role of economic beliefs determines the economic system and institutional outcomes; two countries with a similar starting position can converge to two very different equilibria, one based on luck and high taxes (the so-called French equilibrium) and one based on effort and low taxes (the so-called American equilibrium).
In Japan, we have long been discussing which way for the Japanese capitalist economy to take, the economy based on the Americanized market system or the one based on the Europeanized welfare-state economy. I had no idea which to take, of course, but I get to think that this is not a problem of which way we should take, but of what values we believe in and how we get to such beliefs.
...an "American" equilibrium with laissez-faire policies and just-world beliefs or a "European" one with social welfare and a more pessimistic view about how just the world is... anyway we always have the possibility of multiple equilibria in our economy and it might be difficult to expect what equilibrium to be realized at last, but we always need to take it into account when we think about the effects of public policy on our economy.
This is one of the researches which clearly show the relationship between social psychology and economic equilibria: Individuals experiencing recessions during the formative years(at the age of 18-25) believe that luck rather than effort is the most important driver of individual success, support more government redistribution, and have less confidence in institutions.
The following caught my eye: The role of economic beliefs determines the economic system and institutional outcomes; two countries with a similar starting position can converge to two very different equilibria, one based on luck and high taxes (the so-called French equilibrium) and one based on effort and low taxes (the so-called American equilibrium).
In Japan, we have long been discussing which way for the Japanese capitalist economy to take, the economy based on the Americanized market system or the one based on the Europeanized welfare-state economy. I had no idea which to take, of course, but I get to think that this is not a problem of which way we should take, but of what values we believe in and how we get to such beliefs.
...an "American" equilibrium with laissez-faire policies and just-world beliefs or a "European" one with social welfare and a more pessimistic view about how just the world is... anyway we always have the possibility of multiple equilibria in our economy and it might be difficult to expect what equilibrium to be realized at last, but we always need to take it into account when we think about the effects of public policy on our economy.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
The Age of Keynes
The picture: guardian.co.ukKeynes is the economist who has been recently talked about most frequently among modern economists. He was a British economist and is thought to be the father of modern macroeconomics.
This blog is on economics, though its topics haven't been specific to it, and sometimes looks at macroeconomics. Macroeconomics is the application to general equilibrium theory, according to Roger Farmer, a famous macroeconomist of UCLA, but to Keynes himself, it seemed that it was one of disequilibrium theory. (It is normal for modern macroeconomics to be expressed as modern terms like general equilibrium theory, so at present I don't care the difference between modern macroeconomics and Keynes's macroeconomics. )
He always said that the economy as a whole in a country was always unstable and fluctuate, so the demand and supply of goods and service are far less likely to be equal. From the above perspective, he insisted on government spending policies consisting of tax cuts and government purchases, in order to strengthen the demand side of the economy.
He thought that the main problem of the capitalist economy was weakened demand side, not supply side of the economy; People sometimes feel nervous about their future because of something uncertain in their life(I think it is rather psychological factors than malfunctioning of economic mechanism.), and so they get to consume less and the firms invest less, produce less and pay less to the workers. Thus, the less they earn, the less they consume and the more the economy shrinks.
Instead of the people, the government should buy goods and services supplied in the economy and stabilize the economy and the employment. That's what Keynes suggested around 60 years ago. Better or worse, this principle has now been the main theme of the public policy in most developed countries. Looking back on Keynes' words, I think, is necessary to us when we have some economic difficulties, but we also need to criticize them at the same time.
I do not intend to call myself Keynesian(who is Keynesian, by the way?). However, definitely to say, when we think of macroeconomic problems, we never avoid his words.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Should I Expect a New Era?
Actually I have no idea I should support a new cabinet and I guess nor do many people in Japan.
I should first know what a new Hatoyama cabinet wants to do for slumping Japan.
I should first know what a new Hatoyama cabinet wants to do for slumping Japan.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
A New Path for Japan
This is what a would-be prime minister says. Some people say this looks so anti-capitalistic, but I don't think it is so bad.
I don't know how many Japanese people have tried to talk about what they really feel since Morita-Ishihara. Japanese have been said to be "a great 'yes' man" in the world , I mean, they've seemed not to try to disagree with other people, especially, Americans.
They always smile and say nothing, but in fact they don't know how to say what to say. Japanese seem to dislike to talk about themselves and to have any discussions, but I hope this article will be a good place for many people all over the world to know what Japanese think about the modern globalized world and their country.
I don't know how many Japanese people have tried to talk about what they really feel since Morita-Ishihara. Japanese have been said to be "a great 'yes' man" in the world , I mean, they've seemed not to try to disagree with other people, especially, Americans.
They always smile and say nothing, but in fact they don't know how to say what to say. Japanese seem to dislike to talk about themselves and to have any discussions, but I hope this article will be a good place for many people all over the world to know what Japanese think about the modern globalized world and their country.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Taller People Earn More
Well, this kind of research is not old itself, "height premium": taller people earn more.
This is a new research conducted by two Australian economists.
“Using data from a nationally representative sample of Australian adults, we found that taller people earn more, with the effect being strongest for men”. “For example, the average man in our sample is 5 feet 10 inches tall,...,if he was 6 feet tall, he would earn another 1.5 per cent, or around $950 per year."
“The wage gain from another 2 inches (5 centimetres) of height is approximately equal to wage gain from one more year of labour market experience,..., This result holds constant across a number of other factors that also affect wages, such as age, race, family background, experience, and education. However, we found that the effect of height on women’s wages was smaller than for men, and not statistically significant.”
Interestingly, they also look at the relationship between wages and Body Mass Index (BMI).
In their data, 36 per cent of Australian workers were overweight, and 22 per cent were obese.
“...there seemed to be no wage penalty to being overweight or obese in the Australian labour market,...,This is in contrast with previous studies that used older data from the United States and Germany and found that people with higher BMI scores earned lower wages.
“It is difficult to know whether this is due to cross-country differences, or changes over time. Perhaps Australians are less likely to discriminate against overweight and obese workers than the other nations. Or maybe we cannot find an effect because we are using more recent data than the other studies, and the majority of workers are now overweight or obese.”
This problem, as I've ever heard, is the one related to "discrimination" in the labor market, or we could also say, employers' "preference "to employees.
This research is interesting because wage might be closely related to appearence.
This is a new research conducted by two Australian economists.
“Using data from a nationally representative sample of Australian adults, we found that taller people earn more, with the effect being strongest for men”. “For example, the average man in our sample is 5 feet 10 inches tall,...,if he was 6 feet tall, he would earn another 1.5 per cent, or around $950 per year."
“The wage gain from another 2 inches (5 centimetres) of height is approximately equal to wage gain from one more year of labour market experience,..., This result holds constant across a number of other factors that also affect wages, such as age, race, family background, experience, and education. However, we found that the effect of height on women’s wages was smaller than for men, and not statistically significant.”
Interestingly, they also look at the relationship between wages and Body Mass Index (BMI).
In their data, 36 per cent of Australian workers were overweight, and 22 per cent were obese.
“...there seemed to be no wage penalty to being overweight or obese in the Australian labour market,...,This is in contrast with previous studies that used older data from the United States and Germany and found that people with higher BMI scores earned lower wages.
“It is difficult to know whether this is due to cross-country differences, or changes over time. Perhaps Australians are less likely to discriminate against overweight and obese workers than the other nations. Or maybe we cannot find an effect because we are using more recent data than the other studies, and the majority of workers are now overweight or obese.”
This problem, as I've ever heard, is the one related to "discrimination" in the labor market, or we could also say, employers' "preference "to employees.
This research is interesting because wage might be closely related to appearence.
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Lucas on the Crisis
In macroeconomics, there are two theories(or believes?) : no policy should be done, and as many policies as should be done for the ailing economy. The difference is due to how to see the functioning of a market: a market is self-regulating or not.
Which is true? Nobody can still answer it definitely. Robert Lucas, one of the theorists who are in the former position(at least I believe so), talked about the recent crisis:
The responsibility of the Federal Reserve in this situation is to provide more cash reserves, and in that sense they are doing their job.
In my impression, textbook-version Lucas discussion is like that: nothing should be done, let it alone.
However, he doesn't think so. The lesson: we should ask the question for the right person!
Which is true? Nobody can still answer it definitely. Robert Lucas, one of the theorists who are in the former position(at least I believe so), talked about the recent crisis:
The responsibility of the Federal Reserve in this situation is to provide more cash reserves, and in that sense they are doing their job.
...But right now the recession is the more immediate problem. If inflation resumes, reserves can be taken out as quickly as they were added. This is a classic lender-of-last-resort situation and it is important to maintain focus.
In my view, these are the most important considerations for US policy today. I think if the current Federal Reserve lending policies are continued aggressively our chances of avoiding a recession larger than that of 1982 are very good. At this point, I think this is the best that can be hoped for and it is a lot better than a replay of the 1930s.
He worries about the deflation and he thinks the Fed should add more money to people.In my impression, textbook-version Lucas discussion is like that: nothing should be done, let it alone.
However, he doesn't think so. The lesson: we should ask the question for the right person!
Monday, May 04, 2009
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Fat Debtors
Ikeda,Myong-Ⅱ,Otake, of Osaka Univ., "Fat Debtors:Time Discounting, Its Anomalies, and Body Mass Index".
The above topic is on why and how debtors are more likely to be obese than non-debtors. I haven't read it yet but it looks very interesting.
The above topic is on why and how debtors are more likely to be obese than non-debtors. I haven't read it yet but it looks very interesting.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Short Visit to Kyoto
Hey, guys! That's the Kiyomizu temple, a very famous and old one in Kyoto, Japan.
Today, I'll take you to a traditional, historic and amazing part of Japan. Shall we go?
The gate,
The big bell,
The cherry blossom,
Today, I'll take you to a traditional, historic and amazing part of Japan. Shall we go?
The gate,
The big bell,
The cherry blossom,
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Japan:Still in Cold Winter
We have a useful data set to look at our economy, TANKAN, a diffusion index of "Favorable" minus "Unfavorable", %points.
This index is very clear and easy to understand and may have a great impact on the coming economic event and policy in Japan. Here's the part of it:
[Business Conditions] Dec. 2008, March 2009
[Large Enterprises]
Manufacturing -24, -58
Nonmanufacturing - 9, -31
[Medium-sized Enterprises]
Manufacturing -24 , -57
Nonmanufacturing -21, -37
[Small Enterprises]
Manufacturing -29, -57
Nonmanufacturing -29, -42
[All Enterprises]
All industries -24, -46
We can see large enterprises of manufacturing worst in the above index and they have the most sever sufferings of all.
This is because they much depend on foreign demands and so are very weak at the time of world slump as we have today.
Large enterprises have low sales and thus low profit, which brings much lower sales and profit of smaller enterprises(because they are usually given jobs from large ones) and thus lower income and consumption as a whole.
Companies cut the prices and wages more, and workers(as a result, consumers) spend less further. We are now at the edge of serious deflationary recession.
This index is very clear and easy to understand and may have a great impact on the coming economic event and policy in Japan. Here's the part of it:
[Business Conditions] Dec. 2008, March 2009
[Large Enterprises]
Manufacturing -24, -58
Nonmanufacturing - 9, -31
[Medium-sized Enterprises]
Manufacturing -24 , -57
Nonmanufacturing -21, -37
[Small Enterprises]
Manufacturing -29, -57
Nonmanufacturing -29, -42
[All Enterprises]
All industries -24, -46
We can see large enterprises of manufacturing worst in the above index and they have the most sever sufferings of all.
This is because they much depend on foreign demands and so are very weak at the time of world slump as we have today.
Large enterprises have low sales and thus low profit, which brings much lower sales and profit of smaller enterprises(because they are usually given jobs from large ones) and thus lower income and consumption as a whole.
Companies cut the prices and wages more, and workers(as a result, consumers) spend less further. We are now at the edge of serious deflationary recession.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
A Happy Marriage
Today I got married with a woman whom I've ever loved. I am so happy!! Here's the picture of the wedding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)