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.

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.

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.

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!

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!?

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."

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Age of Keynes

The picture: guardian.co.uk

Keynes 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.

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.

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'm Still Alive!

I am still alive, just no time to update this blog!

Econ101