唐突だが、経済経営系の大学院進学を希望する人々へ４点だけメッセージを送りたい。
小生は２００３年から２００５年まで、旧帝大の経済学研究科へ進学した。将来は学者になろう、またシンクタンクへ就職しよう、といった希望はなく（厳密にはシンクタンク希望だったが、競争が激しかった）、ただ「経済学を学びたい」という素朴な思いからであった。
だが、進学して思ったのが、まず授業について行けない。学部は経済学部であったが、それと全く違う。準備不足もあり、大学院への進学理由が、今から思うと幼稚だった。斯様な反省も踏まえ、以下思うところを述べた。
教訓１：入念な準備をすること
（１）英語
大学院の経済学は英語を使う。専門洋書に基づき授業が行われる。英語が読めないと、教科書が読めない。教科書が読めないと、授業について行けない。
幸い、私の通った大学院はmicroはVarian(1992), microeconomic theory, macroはBlanchard and Ficsher(1989), lectures on macroeconomics or Romer, advanced macroeconomicsで、邦訳がそろっていた。 英語が苦手でも救われる。が、しかし、英語を読む力は、大学院での学習度合いを左右する。洋書の方が良書が多いのは事実で、和書も良い本が増えてはいるが、選択肢は大幅に狭まる。
（２）数学
経済系学部以外からの進学者を想定して、近年ではmath campなるものが授業開始前に行われ、数学の基礎が教えられる。しかし、経済学の学習には３つの数学的素養が欠かせない。
①等号/不等号制約条件付き最適化（ラグランジェ/クーン・タッカー）
②動的計画法（ＤＰ）と最大値原理（ハミルトニアン）
③位相数学の初歩
①はVarianに載っている。②は近年関連書籍が本当に充実してきた。しかし、これらはできれば入学前に習得した方が良い。入学後、大学院生から教わるのも手だが、多くは望めない。ある程度自分で勉強したうえで、年長の大学院生または先生から教わる方が良い。話もうまく運ぶはずである。小生は残念ながら、これらを全く知らずに授業を受け痛い目にあった。
③は、私が大学院を出た後に重要であることを実感した。③は高校数学でいう論理集合である。とくにコンパクト集合上における点列収束など、最適解を割り出す前提条件を知ることは、理論系・実証系・政策ビジネス系問わず等しく重要である。
もし、経済の数学をもう少し基礎から勉強したいなら、高校数学 第４巻 数研出版 がおすすめである。
そもそも理論系であろうがなかろうが、「大学院で経済学を学びました」というならば、分離超平面定理について、証明はともかくも簡単に説明できることは必須であり、専門書に載っていることは、一通りある程度の水準で解説を行うことができるようになることが重要である。
世間の人は、「●●大学経済学修士号取得」という肩書を見て、経済学の見識があると見る。
当然のことだが、そこで深刻な誤り（誤りは学者研究者にも付き物だが）を犯せば、修士号とそれを与えた大学の名誉が傷つく。
以上、２点は留学を考える人にも同様に当てはまる。
教訓２：相談できる人を持つ
どこの世界も重要なのは人間関係である。我々は社会的な生き物であるのだ。
（１）話ができる人を持つこと
確かに「大学の先生になる」という共通目的があれば周りとすぐに仲良くなれるが、小生にはそれがなく、サラリーマンになるという人とも仲良く振る舞えなかった。
日本の大学院は現状「大学教員養成大学」である。さもなくば「職業人養成大学」である。いわゆるＭＢＡ大学院などは後者に該当し、科目も資産税法基礎などかなり実践的なラインアップである。しかしながら、旧国立大学院は、たとえ後者のような大学院を装っていても前者である。
よく考えると、教員がほとんど企業官庁出身ではなく大学の先生ならば、「職業人養成」なんてそもそも無理である。「料理評論家に寿司を握れ」と言っているようなものである。寿司職人になりたいなら、すし屋に修行するのが筋である。この観点から言うと「職業人養成」とはそもそもおかしい話である。
もし、目指す方向が大学教員でも職業人でもなければ、私は大学院での生活は非常に窮屈だと思うが、その窮屈な思いに耳を傾けてくれる先輩なり同僚なりがそばにいれば、それは非常に救いである。しかしそれは逆に自分がほかの院生の話を聞くことができる器量があってほしいことをも意味する。
また、これが重要なのだが、勉強で分からないところがあれば、まずは人に聞くことが重要である。ある企業の社長が「仕事ができる人」とはどんな人かについて話していた。「分からないことを本で調べる人」は落第である。「周りの人から上手く聞き出す人」が「仕事ができる人」だという。これは院生の出来不出来にも大いにあてはまる。
（２）いろいろなバックグランドを持った人がいることを理解する
フリーターをやって進学している人、会社員・公務員だった人など、大学院への進学者はさまざまである。それなりの理由を持って勉学に励んでいる。
彼らは決して自分に対して当たりはよくないかもしれないが、一人でも多くの院生が「人それぞれ色々な背景と事情を持つ」ことを理解していれば、院生を取り巻く雰囲気は多少変わってくる。研究や勉学にも幅と奥行きが出てくる。何事も大きな気持ちが必要だろう。
教訓３：授業に集中する
授業の進度は一般にすごく速い。授業シラバスに則り予習を進められるならよいが、そんな余裕はないだろう。宿題をとにかくこなし、復習をし、中間・期末試験を落とさないよう日々訓練することが重要である。そのためには２点必要である。
（１）先生の話をよく聞く
基本的だが、失敗する人の多くはできていない。皆さんの受ける授業が、分かりにくく回りくどい解説の授業かもしれない。教科書の文言を復唱する授業かもしれない。とにかく速い口調で追いつかない授業かもしれない。
いい先生に出会うことほど幸運なことはない、と実感することがしばしばだが、その授業で単位をとるなら、授業を統括・運営する先生の言うことに従わなければ、単位は取れない。
先生のお勧めする教科書と違う本を読んでいては成功はしない。副読本ばかり眺めていては、理解は深まらない。授業が理解できなければ、周りの院生か、先生に質問すればよい。
何を質問してよいか分からないという人は、そもそもその授業が何を教えているのかを把握できていない証拠である。先生が話している単語、数式、定理などをメモし、自分なりに「今日は選好理論の…の定理についてだな」と理解し、その要点がかわからないならそこで先生に質問すればよい。
（２）教科書は読むな
逆説的だが、教科書が指定されているならそれを読むべきかもしれない。が、授業では先生の話をまず第一に聞くべきである。また、資料・レジュメがあるなら、それを優先して目を通し、理解に努めることが肝心である。
よく授業に出ないで、教科書をひたすら丹念に読む学生がいるが、失敗する可能性は大きい。本当に教科書通りでやる先生なら良いが、たいてい院生への授業は論文などが与えられるのが普通で、教科書は一般的な概要（つまり底が浅いか、幅が狭い）しか説明されていない。
自分の理解を先生の理解にできるだけ近づけるようにすることが必要である。先生が重要だということよりも、重要だと主張する理由は何かに耳を傾けよう。高い授業料を払って大学院に入っているなら、とにかく先生の言葉、理論への理解、授業を優先せよ。課題を優先せよ。レジュメを優先せよ。教科書の読解は時間がなければ不要だ。
教訓４：選択肢を持つ
小生は現在予備校講師、フリーター生活である。男一匹なら十分に食えるだけの収入はあるので、今は困っていない。それって不安でしょ？って聞かれることがあるが、近年会社勤めしても不安定である。一部上場または官庁に勤めていた方がよっぽど収入も生活も楽でしょう？って言う人もいるが、自由で気ままな生活を好む小生にとって、時間も余裕もあり、今の身分は「それなりのコストを支払った上での」身分である。他人がとやかく言う問題ではない。
しかし、考えてみれば稼ぎを得る仕事をするうえで、「選択肢を持つ」ことは非常に重要ではなかろうか。「何か得意なものがある」といってもよい。職業的な技術だけではなく、何か好きなことがあることは重要である。自分は経済学と英語の両方を駆使して講師家業を営んでいて、大学院で学んだことは必ずしも無駄にはなっていない。むしろ、大学院を出て証券会社に就職した人よりも大学院で学んだことは糧になっている。
決して高い学費を溝に捨てていない。 しかし、もう少し上手く大学院での勉学を進める方法はあったのではないかと悔やんでいる。
時間を有効活用できなかった、準備不足、分からないことをとことん突き詰めて考えるエネルギーに欠けていた、など反省点は目白押しである。
何者になるかよりも、何をしたいか。この点を良く考え、選択肢を持っておく。大学教員を目指すあなたも、それは悪くないが、他の選択肢を持っていた方が良かろう。
夢や希望は持っておくべきである。それは追いかけるものではなく、日々の生きる糧である。金を稼ぐことも重要だが、生きていることの実感も重要であるし、それは宝である。何をしたいかを考え、大学院での勉学に励まれたい。そして、その勉学を十分に生かすべきである。その気持ちは自己の研究にも影響を与えよう。
以上は、何よりも私自身に向けたメッセージでもある。勉学する心を忘れてはならない。新しい見方を切り開くという、大それた思いを抱き続けることは重要だと思う。
２０１３年１月１３日改
Sunday, January 06, 2013
Sunday, December 30, 2012
On Abenomics
Right-Wing Hours?
At the end of this year we had the new Prime Minister (PM) Shinzo Abe, who was once the PM, and it's time to talk about his politics. Mr. Abe is said to seek for two kinds of economic policy: monetary expansion and large public spending, which they call grossly "Abenomics".
I would like to focus on what is called Abenomics, what it is and what and whom we think it will affect. However, I don't focus on his political philosophy, especially on his view of the territorial and historical issues that Japan is now having with China and Korea, which has also been paid attention to.
For almost 20 years the Japanese economy has been stagnant and the people, especially the young people, have been said to be getting insular and narrow-minded; They are seeking for relatively stable and secure job like the government and for a relatively calm and quiet life. They don't like luxury but moderation. They don't want any promotion and advance in their workplaces.
They are sometimes called the "Grass-eating people", which may imply what is behind the "Japan Moving Right", or what made Japan conservative, as once the Washington Post and Times reported.
For those who stick to the golden memory, JAPAN AS NO 1, once a byword of the 20-years-ago booming Japan, this time should be the one to be beaten and broken up. Mr. Abe looked like a hero to play such a role whereas the ex-PM of the Democratic Party, Mr. Noda, didn't seem to be able to propose any concrete and effective economic policy to get the economy recovered.
Monetary Expansion: Inflation Targeting
Before the General Election, then the President of the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party: a relatively conservative party in Japan, but not like the Republicans in the US), Shinzo Abe, expressed his new idea on the economic policy to cure the ailing Japanese economy, aiming for the return to power. The press took it up as an intriguing topic, which led yen to depreciate and the Nikkei Average (the stock prices) to appreciate. The idea is inflation targeting. It sounded new to many Japanese.
Stagnating economy has already been a synonym for now the Japanese economy: decreasing prices and lower employment and production.
Lower prices might sound good for us consumers, but it also means decreasing payroll for us workers; We like lower prices but don't like lower pay.
Inflation targeting is thought to be one of the key solutions to such a deflationary stagnation. Here I try describing what it is like.
Banks Create Money
Where does money come from? Money comes from two kinds of banks: (1)commercial banks, (2)central banks.
Central banks were born only less than 100 hundred years ago mainly in developed countries. The role of them is to print paper money and pour it out to commercial banks, through the operations, or by buying and selling the government bonds. Commercial banks pour out money to firms and households by lending it to and borrowing it from them.
Banks create money and increase or decrease it in the economy as a whole. If banks increase money, then the prices go up because the people now have more money to spend and the goods sold in the economy get fewer: More money chases fewer goods in the economy.
Higher prices lead the producers to increase more goods because they find it profitable to sell more. And thus they hire more workers. To lure more workers they need to provide them with higher wages, and higher wages lead the workers to spend more and more. However, in the longer run, the producers cannot produce more than how much they used to produce, only the prices go up.
Abe's Illusion?
The above is called the"transmission mechanism" in the economy. It came originally from the Quantity Equation that the 18-century British economist, David Hume introduced, with which now most economists in the world agree.
Imagining that money flows through every household and firm and that the economy will get well, he proudly promised that he would ask the central bank (BOJ: Bank of Japan) to keep increasing money until the level of inflation,the growth of the prices, reaches 2%. By setting up such a target central banks conduct monetary policy. This is called the "inflation targeting".
This policy has already been conducted by the New Zealand central bank to stop the inflation. Since then many central bankers and economists have been discussing it. Some prominent economists say, no central bank took up the inflation targeting to deal with the deflation and they fear the risk of the inflation targeting and there are still a lot of pros and cons.
Mr. Abe might have had some suggestion from those who know more about economic policy and he tried announcing this policy. At first he said in public that he would try to target 4% of inflation, and later withdrew it.
Though he doesn't seem to be familiar with economic policy, those engaged in the marketplaces reacted to his announcement, and as a result yen depreciated and the stock values appreciated. It was before the General Election that Mr. Abe made this announcement, and it might have led many voters to hope that he should be better as the new PM and to vote for LDP after all.
However, only the monetary expansion cannot increase the aggregate demand and boost the economy. Another policy that stimulates the demand should be needed, which is called fiscal policy.
Public Spending: For Another Pork Barrel
Mr. Abe tried to spend more on social infrastructure and to strengthen the land of Japan as a whole. The eastern and northern part of Japan that was hit by the Great Earthquake in March 2011 has not still recovered at all and the victims have been still forced to live at temporary houses whose walls are so thin that they feel chilly in winter.
The recovery should be quick as soon as possible. Mr. Abe should tackle this task first of all, proposing the 10 billion supplementary budget to build new houses and roads and to create the new local jobs in the area, where the local general contractors are now hoping that they will receive a lot of orders.
Nevertheless, some people get afraid that this large public spending will be for the sake of the vote to LDP not of something necessary to build and create. This is to a point because LDP has been very good at scattering a lot of money in the name of the public works to collect the local votes for LDP, and this is the source of the power that LDP has had as a ruling party since 1955. It is now being criticized as a revival of the old politics that many Japanese have ever been tired of.
Public spending should not be cut off, and is certainly necessary for the victims and the economy as a whole to get recovered. Many people cannot rely any more on Mr Noda who seemed so irresponsible for taking the challenges. They are obliged to expect Mr. Abe to do it instead of him even though they fear that the tax revenue will be spent on unnecessary buildings.
Can't Avoid Increasing Taxes
The 20-century great British economist, John Maynard Keynes said, "people are dead in the long run". Economists usually focus on the longer-run issues than the laymen such as the effects of fiscal deficit and debt and the welfare spending for the elderly.
More than 1/4 of the Japanese are now above 65 and less that 3/4 should support their livings by paying higher taxes and the insurance premium. Every developed country has now the similar problem, and we now face the situation where we cannot say any more that longevity is a very good aim in life.
One of the reasons the Japanese economy is stagnant is that there are more aged and less young working people in the society: the aged retire jobs and spend less and save more for their living, whereas less young people work full-time and well-paid, being single and having no child. As a result, more of the spending as a whole would decrease.
For the above reason the Japanese economy has been shrinking for almost 20 years, and we can say that the deflationary stagnation is rather a structural problem than a demand-side one. In this point Mr. Abe may be unable to get the economy recovered well only by stimulating the demand. He should also plan a structural reform to build a new country suitable for the above new situation.
On Consumption Tax
Ex-PM, Mr. Noda decided to increase the consumption tax by 5% in 2015 and accepted severe criticism because it wasn't written in his pledge.
In Japan, for more than 30 years the reform of the tax system has been conducted. The tax system is originally from what the US proposed after WW2, what is called Shoup taxation, and depends more heavily on the direct taxes like corporate and payroll tax.
The aim of the reform is to correspond to the coming aging society. The reform has progressed by changing the taxation into that depending more on the indirect taxes like alcohol, cigarette and consumption tax, which are relatively independent of the economic fluctuation and the stable revenue can be expected from now on.
Mr. Noda tried to raise the consumption tax to make up for the loss of the revenue for the welfare spending rather than the budget deficit. However, the budget deficit cannot be ignored too because it should be covered by the tax that we and our children pay in the future. The deficit will become the debt of the government and the debt will accumulate. Repaying it someday in the near future cannot be avoided and reducing the deficit and debt is of high priority.
Tax Increase Is A Hard Choice
Mr. Abe should increase public spending to create new jobs, while increasing the consumption tax. But he announced that he would never increase the tax unless the economy recovers.
This announcement has some dilemma: if the people expect for raising tax they get ready for it by saving more and spending less, and thus the economy doesn't get recovered. In Japan the benefit was tried twice, given to the family who has children, but the spending didn't increase because, the research says, they saved half of the benefit. They seemed to expect the forthcoming tax hike.
Thought tax hike in the future is more likely to reduce the present spending, Mr. Abe and the Japanese as well should know that postponing the timing of raising the tax is not a right choice. Mr. Abe needs to get ready for accepting harsh criticism for raising the consumption tax as did Mr Noda.
Spending Cut Is Also A Hard Choice
Tax increase is not popular among voters whether in the US or in Japan. Here in Japan the successive PMs tried to reform the government spending. They cannot raise tax, and how about cutting the spending? But it is also very difficult to do.
Certainly, cutting the government spending, as Alesina of Harvard University goes, is better at stabilizing the economy as a whole than increasing taxes.
Politics is full of bitter choices rather than full of sweet cakes: If they cut off the government employees' pay, the other people should be happy with it because they don't need high tax. Politics is such a kind of a cake-cutting problem: If your piece of cake is larger, I get angry!
It seems to me that Mr Abe is just only thinking of how to win the Election for the Upper House next year: Voters usually dislike high tax and his followers dislike spending cut. A good politician sometimes need to play a role to be hated and it is the problem whether he can do it.
Mr Abe should spend more on something effective enough to stimulate the economy and increase the tax at the same time. Increasing the tax and the same amount of spending, theoretically, creates the same amount of the income we gain(*): If the government collects 1 billion yen and spends it on the public works, then it can create new jobs that are worth just the 1 billion yen.
This elementary accounting doesn't seem to make us fear too much the risk of increasing the tax. But in the point of creating new jobs, it should be worth considering. I hope that Mr Abe will announce when to increase the tax and where to spend it on, and that he will show the plan to cover the expenses necessary for us in the near future.
(*) The effect of the consumption tax depends on the (Marshallian) demand function, but it is homogeneous of degree 0, which means rather NO CHANGE than decrease in the demand when the tax is higher. However, raising it will decrease the welfare of the people.
At the end of this year we had the new Prime Minister (PM) Shinzo Abe, who was once the PM, and it's time to talk about his politics. Mr. Abe is said to seek for two kinds of economic policy: monetary expansion and large public spending, which they call grossly "Abenomics".
I would like to focus on what is called Abenomics, what it is and what and whom we think it will affect. However, I don't focus on his political philosophy, especially on his view of the territorial and historical issues that Japan is now having with China and Korea, which has also been paid attention to.
For almost 20 years the Japanese economy has been stagnant and the people, especially the young people, have been said to be getting insular and narrow-minded; They are seeking for relatively stable and secure job like the government and for a relatively calm and quiet life. They don't like luxury but moderation. They don't want any promotion and advance in their workplaces.
They are sometimes called the "Grass-eating people", which may imply what is behind the "Japan Moving Right", or what made Japan conservative, as once the Washington Post and Times reported.
For those who stick to the golden memory, JAPAN AS NO 1, once a byword of the 20-years-ago booming Japan, this time should be the one to be beaten and broken up. Mr. Abe looked like a hero to play such a role whereas the ex-PM of the Democratic Party, Mr. Noda, didn't seem to be able to propose any concrete and effective economic policy to get the economy recovered.
Monetary Expansion: Inflation Targeting
Before the General Election, then the President of the LDP (Liberal Democratic Party: a relatively conservative party in Japan, but not like the Republicans in the US), Shinzo Abe, expressed his new idea on the economic policy to cure the ailing Japanese economy, aiming for the return to power. The press took it up as an intriguing topic, which led yen to depreciate and the Nikkei Average (the stock prices) to appreciate. The idea is inflation targeting. It sounded new to many Japanese.
Stagnating economy has already been a synonym for now the Japanese economy: decreasing prices and lower employment and production.
Lower prices might sound good for us consumers, but it also means decreasing payroll for us workers; We like lower prices but don't like lower pay.
Inflation targeting is thought to be one of the key solutions to such a deflationary stagnation. Here I try describing what it is like.
Banks Create Money
Where does money come from? Money comes from two kinds of banks: (1)commercial banks, (2)central banks.
Central banks were born only less than 100 hundred years ago mainly in developed countries. The role of them is to print paper money and pour it out to commercial banks, through the operations, or by buying and selling the government bonds. Commercial banks pour out money to firms and households by lending it to and borrowing it from them.
Banks create money and increase or decrease it in the economy as a whole. If banks increase money, then the prices go up because the people now have more money to spend and the goods sold in the economy get fewer: More money chases fewer goods in the economy.
Higher prices lead the producers to increase more goods because they find it profitable to sell more. And thus they hire more workers. To lure more workers they need to provide them with higher wages, and higher wages lead the workers to spend more and more. However, in the longer run, the producers cannot produce more than how much they used to produce, only the prices go up.
Abe's Illusion?
The above is called the"transmission mechanism" in the economy. It came originally from the Quantity Equation that the 18-century British economist, David Hume introduced, with which now most economists in the world agree.
Imagining that money flows through every household and firm and that the economy will get well, he proudly promised that he would ask the central bank (BOJ: Bank of Japan) to keep increasing money until the level of inflation,the growth of the prices, reaches 2%. By setting up such a target central banks conduct monetary policy. This is called the "inflation targeting".
This policy has already been conducted by the New Zealand central bank to stop the inflation. Since then many central bankers and economists have been discussing it. Some prominent economists say, no central bank took up the inflation targeting to deal with the deflation and they fear the risk of the inflation targeting and there are still a lot of pros and cons.
Mr. Abe might have had some suggestion from those who know more about economic policy and he tried announcing this policy. At first he said in public that he would try to target 4% of inflation, and later withdrew it.
Though he doesn't seem to be familiar with economic policy, those engaged in the marketplaces reacted to his announcement, and as a result yen depreciated and the stock values appreciated. It was before the General Election that Mr. Abe made this announcement, and it might have led many voters to hope that he should be better as the new PM and to vote for LDP after all.
However, only the monetary expansion cannot increase the aggregate demand and boost the economy. Another policy that stimulates the demand should be needed, which is called fiscal policy.
Public Spending: For Another Pork Barrel
Mr. Abe tried to spend more on social infrastructure and to strengthen the land of Japan as a whole. The eastern and northern part of Japan that was hit by the Great Earthquake in March 2011 has not still recovered at all and the victims have been still forced to live at temporary houses whose walls are so thin that they feel chilly in winter.
The recovery should be quick as soon as possible. Mr. Abe should tackle this task first of all, proposing the 10 billion supplementary budget to build new houses and roads and to create the new local jobs in the area, where the local general contractors are now hoping that they will receive a lot of orders.
Nevertheless, some people get afraid that this large public spending will be for the sake of the vote to LDP not of something necessary to build and create. This is to a point because LDP has been very good at scattering a lot of money in the name of the public works to collect the local votes for LDP, and this is the source of the power that LDP has had as a ruling party since 1955. It is now being criticized as a revival of the old politics that many Japanese have ever been tired of.
Public spending should not be cut off, and is certainly necessary for the victims and the economy as a whole to get recovered. Many people cannot rely any more on Mr Noda who seemed so irresponsible for taking the challenges. They are obliged to expect Mr. Abe to do it instead of him even though they fear that the tax revenue will be spent on unnecessary buildings.
Can't Avoid Increasing Taxes
The 20-century great British economist, John Maynard Keynes said, "people are dead in the long run". Economists usually focus on the longer-run issues than the laymen such as the effects of fiscal deficit and debt and the welfare spending for the elderly.
More than 1/4 of the Japanese are now above 65 and less that 3/4 should support their livings by paying higher taxes and the insurance premium. Every developed country has now the similar problem, and we now face the situation where we cannot say any more that longevity is a very good aim in life.
One of the reasons the Japanese economy is stagnant is that there are more aged and less young working people in the society: the aged retire jobs and spend less and save more for their living, whereas less young people work full-time and well-paid, being single and having no child. As a result, more of the spending as a whole would decrease.
For the above reason the Japanese economy has been shrinking for almost 20 years, and we can say that the deflationary stagnation is rather a structural problem than a demand-side one. In this point Mr. Abe may be unable to get the economy recovered well only by stimulating the demand. He should also plan a structural reform to build a new country suitable for the above new situation.
On Consumption Tax
Ex-PM, Mr. Noda decided to increase the consumption tax by 5% in 2015 and accepted severe criticism because it wasn't written in his pledge.
In Japan, for more than 30 years the reform of the tax system has been conducted. The tax system is originally from what the US proposed after WW2, what is called Shoup taxation, and depends more heavily on the direct taxes like corporate and payroll tax.
The aim of the reform is to correspond to the coming aging society. The reform has progressed by changing the taxation into that depending more on the indirect taxes like alcohol, cigarette and consumption tax, which are relatively independent of the economic fluctuation and the stable revenue can be expected from now on.
Mr. Noda tried to raise the consumption tax to make up for the loss of the revenue for the welfare spending rather than the budget deficit. However, the budget deficit cannot be ignored too because it should be covered by the tax that we and our children pay in the future. The deficit will become the debt of the government and the debt will accumulate. Repaying it someday in the near future cannot be avoided and reducing the deficit and debt is of high priority.
Tax Increase Is A Hard Choice
Mr. Abe should increase public spending to create new jobs, while increasing the consumption tax. But he announced that he would never increase the tax unless the economy recovers.
This announcement has some dilemma: if the people expect for raising tax they get ready for it by saving more and spending less, and thus the economy doesn't get recovered. In Japan the benefit was tried twice, given to the family who has children, but the spending didn't increase because, the research says, they saved half of the benefit. They seemed to expect the forthcoming tax hike.
Thought tax hike in the future is more likely to reduce the present spending, Mr. Abe and the Japanese as well should know that postponing the timing of raising the tax is not a right choice. Mr. Abe needs to get ready for accepting harsh criticism for raising the consumption tax as did Mr Noda.
Spending Cut Is Also A Hard Choice
Tax increase is not popular among voters whether in the US or in Japan. Here in Japan the successive PMs tried to reform the government spending. They cannot raise tax, and how about cutting the spending? But it is also very difficult to do.
Certainly, cutting the government spending, as Alesina of Harvard University goes, is better at stabilizing the economy as a whole than increasing taxes.
Politics is full of bitter choices rather than full of sweet cakes: If they cut off the government employees' pay, the other people should be happy with it because they don't need high tax. Politics is such a kind of a cake-cutting problem: If your piece of cake is larger, I get angry!
It seems to me that Mr Abe is just only thinking of how to win the Election for the Upper House next year: Voters usually dislike high tax and his followers dislike spending cut. A good politician sometimes need to play a role to be hated and it is the problem whether he can do it.
Mr Abe should spend more on something effective enough to stimulate the economy and increase the tax at the same time. Increasing the tax and the same amount of spending, theoretically, creates the same amount of the income we gain(*): If the government collects 1 billion yen and spends it on the public works, then it can create new jobs that are worth just the 1 billion yen.
This elementary accounting doesn't seem to make us fear too much the risk of increasing the tax. But in the point of creating new jobs, it should be worth considering. I hope that Mr Abe will announce when to increase the tax and where to spend it on, and that he will show the plan to cover the expenses necessary for us in the near future.
(*) The effect of the consumption tax depends on the (Marshallian) demand function, but it is homogeneous of degree 0, which means rather NO CHANGE than decrease in the demand when the tax is higher. However, raising it will decrease the welfare of the people.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
新政権に期待する経済政策
12月16日の衆議院総選挙が近い。どのような経済政策が望ましいのか。
政策にはコストが伴う
忘れてはならないのは、「万人を幸せにする経済政策はない」ということである。「フリーランチは存在しない」という格言があるが、「政策には必ずコストが伴う」ことを認識せねばならない。
たとえば、失業者への失業手当。
失業手当を増やせば、失業保険の財政を圧迫する。保険が破たんしたときは国庫（税金）の投入が必要だ。その税金は勤労者の負担によりまかなわれ、結局多くの勤労者の労力と時間（＝勤労報酬）により、失業者を手当てすることになる。
政策には「トレードオフ（こちらをたてれば、あちらがたたず）」が必ず伴うのである。
日本経済の現状：デフレ経済
さて、簡単に日本経済の現状を振り返ろう。以下、内閣府の資料。
http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/menu.html
経済成長率は、実質：0.3％、名目：-1.4％
この数字の意味について、実質とは、日本で生産したモノの数が去年に比べて0.3％しか増えていない、ということ。一方、名目とは、生産したモノを金額で表したもので、それは-1.4％。つまりモノの値段が去年に比べて1.4％下がっているという意味である。
また、ＧＤＰの水準は、実質：513兆円、名目：473兆円
これは、実質では生産したモノが513兆円の価値があるけど、今年の価格で見ると（名目）、473兆円しかない。つまり、約40兆円だけ物価が下がった、という意味である。
40兆円。 これはほぼ日本政府の国家予算の半分に匹敵する。
もし、この物価下落（デフレ）を止めれば、40兆円の税収を回復することができる。
今の日本経済において、行政サービスを維持するためにもデフレ対策は必須なのだ。 さて、このデフレを克服する手段には伝統的に2つある。
金融緩和策
インフレターゲットの設定を日本銀行（日銀）に進言するという話がある。インフレターゲットとは、たとえば年率２％というインフレ率（物価上昇率）の目標を設け、２％になるまで日銀がお金を市場にばらまく政策のことである。
もともとはインフレを止めるためにニュージーランド中央銀行が世界で最初に導入したのが始まりで、「デフレ（物価の下落）」を止めるために採用されたことは世界ではない。
さて、この政策は功を奏するか？
答えは、ＮＯ。または、ＹＥＳである。
功を奏するには条件がある。それは「一般の人々が来年物価が上がるという期待を持つ」ということ。「期待形成」とも言われるが、これが必須である。
そもそも、物価とは、世の中で販売されるあらゆる商品・モノの量と出回っているお金の量とのバランスで決まっている。これは18世紀以来の考え方である（貨幣数量説という）。デフレとは、
モノの量＞お金の量・・・・・（１）
の状態のことである。このとき、なぜモノの量が多いのか？
それは、人々があまりモノを買わないから。モノを買わないからお金の出回る量が減少し、モノの販売量がダブつくことになる。気を付けたいのは、上記（１）式は、デフレの原因でも結果でもあるということ。
では、デフレの原因は？ おそらく現代経済学の解答は、人々の「期待」にあるといっていい。
期待の形成
人々が物価が下がるのを期待すると、本当に物価が来年下がってしまう。これを自己実現というが、その理由は、値段が下がるのをひたすら待つ人々の購買活動にある。 閉店前のスーパーで値段が下がるのを店内で待つ人々を見かけるが、彼らが店内の割引を促しているともいえる。
では、デフレを止めるためには、「一般の人々が来年物価が上がるという期待を持つ」ことが必要条件なら、どうすればその「期待」を形成することができるのか。これが難しい。
（１）式より、お金の量を増やせばよいのでは、という人もいよう。しかし、世の中のお金の量を増やすには、お金が「人手」に渡らねばならない。いつまでもポケットにお金が入っていても、世の中のお金は増えない。（その意味で、定額給付金政策は全く効果がない。）
物価を上げるには、（１）式より、
①世の中で販売される商品の品数を抑える
②人々に購買活動を促す施策を施す
①の策は現実的ではない。②の策は考慮に値する。そこで登場するのが財政の出動である。
財政出動
（１）式より、市場で販売されるモノを、人々から徴収した税金で政府が購入する。
これが20世紀に入って英国の経済学者ケインズが考えた妙案である。
政府がモノを購入すれば、モノの生産が増え、雇用が生まれる。雇用が生まれれば、所得が生まれ、人々の購買力が上昇する。いわば、財政出動は「呼び水」となる。
この意味では、政府が税金を上げるという施策は、政府がその財源で購入を増やすので、景気を冷え込ませるよりも景気を安定化させる効果がある。多くの人はこの点を無視している。
しかしながら、財政出動を税収ではなく、日銀による国債（政府の借金）の買い上げ（日銀の引き受け）により賄って、物価を引き上げるという話がある。これはどういうことなのか。
無税国家の誕生
日銀が政府が新規に発行した国債を政府から直接買い上げるのは、日銀法・財政法で禁止されている。その理由は「無税国家」が誕生するからである。
誰だって税金は払いたくない。政府は日銀に国債を買ってもらうことで財源を調達できれば、「徴税」の手間が省ける。このお金で政府がモノを買えば、世の中にお金があふれ、そのお金で人々も購買活動を活発化させる。これは世の中に「モノ不足」をもたらし、貨幣を「紙切れ」にしてしまう。すなわち、
モノの量＜お金の量 ・・・・・（２）
が実現してしまう。ここでモノがなくなるのは、人々の勤労意欲も低下することに起因する。税金のない皆平等な社会主義国家では、 実際これが起こった。
このような事態を防ぐために、法律で日銀による既発国債の購入は原則国債市場で行う（市中消化の原則）ことが義務付けられている。これは無税国家の誕生を防ぎ、お金の価値も担保している。
デフレの克服は可能か
しかしながら、デフレを克服するには（２）式の条件が成り立つことが必要だ。政府が財政出動を税収ではなく、日銀による国債（政府の借金）を買い上げることにより賄うことで、政府によるモノの購入を増やし、人々の購買を促す。よって、物価上昇の機運を上げ、人々にさらなる購買意欲を喚起し、モノの生産が増え、雇用が生まれ、所得が生まれ、人々の購買力がさらに上昇する。よって、デフレを脱却できる。これはかの昭和恐慌を克服した方法でもある。
ただ、このような日銀引受による財政出動は実際にはできない。ならば、人々の「物価上昇への期待」を生むような別の政策が必要である。
ポイントはコミットメント
このような期待を生むには、非常に強力な政府による「コミットメント」、すなわち、政府が約束通りに金融の緩和、財政の出動をしなければ、責任者を「絞首刑に処す」ぐらいの「自己強制力」が必要である。
ある政権が「定額給付金を配りますよ」と言っておきながら配らなかったら、例え次回にちゃんと配られても、「また配られなくなる」ことを期待し、その時に備え、貯蓄を増やすことになる。結果、思うように消費は増えない。
定額給付金を配ると言って配らなかった時は、その責任者を「絞首刑」にすることが多くの人に知られていれば、つまり「コミットメント」がしっかりされれば、人々にとって定額給付金が配られることが期待でき、貯蓄を増やす必要がなくなる。ここがポイントだ。これぐらいのコミットメントができなければ、人々の期待を変化させ、デフレを克服することは全く望めない。
財政出動にはコストと覚悟が伴う
最後に、やはり政府与党、または野党も国民有権者に事実を伝えなくてはならない。国債の発行は政府の借金、つまり将来の税金であるということ。政府は国債保有者から借りたお金を税金で返さなければならない（国債の償還）。国債の償還は「将来の課税」により行われる。
景気を拡大することは、将来の所得（の割引価値）を犠牲にすることでもある。この不都合な事実を伝えることも政府の重要な仕事の一つである。
デフレの克服は急務ではある。が、デフレを絶対克服するという「覚悟」と克服するための「コスト（将来の税金）」が同時に伴うことを、各候補者が有権者にしっかり伝えているかを見極めなくてはならない。有権者にとって甘い公約ほど高くつく公約はないのである。
政策にはコストが伴う
忘れてはならないのは、「万人を幸せにする経済政策はない」ということである。「フリーランチは存在しない」という格言があるが、「政策には必ずコストが伴う」ことを認識せねばならない。
たとえば、失業者への失業手当。
失業手当を増やせば、失業保険の財政を圧迫する。保険が破たんしたときは国庫（税金）の投入が必要だ。その税金は勤労者の負担によりまかなわれ、結局多くの勤労者の労力と時間（＝勤労報酬）により、失業者を手当てすることになる。
政策には「トレードオフ（こちらをたてれば、あちらがたたず）」が必ず伴うのである。
日本経済の現状：デフレ経済
さて、簡単に日本経済の現状を振り返ろう。以下、内閣府の資料。
http://www.esri.cao.go.jp/jp/sna/menu.html
経済成長率は、実質：0.3％、名目：-1.4％
この数字の意味について、実質とは、日本で生産したモノの数が去年に比べて0.3％しか増えていない、ということ。一方、名目とは、生産したモノを金額で表したもので、それは-1.4％。つまりモノの値段が去年に比べて1.4％下がっているという意味である。
また、ＧＤＰの水準は、実質：513兆円、名目：473兆円
これは、実質では生産したモノが513兆円の価値があるけど、今年の価格で見ると（名目）、473兆円しかない。つまり、約40兆円だけ物価が下がった、という意味である。
40兆円。 これはほぼ日本政府の国家予算の半分に匹敵する。
もし、この物価下落（デフレ）を止めれば、40兆円の税収を回復することができる。
今の日本経済において、行政サービスを維持するためにもデフレ対策は必須なのだ。 さて、このデフレを克服する手段には伝統的に2つある。
金融緩和策
インフレターゲットの設定を日本銀行（日銀）に進言するという話がある。インフレターゲットとは、たとえば年率２％というインフレ率（物価上昇率）の目標を設け、２％になるまで日銀がお金を市場にばらまく政策のことである。
もともとはインフレを止めるためにニュージーランド中央銀行が世界で最初に導入したのが始まりで、「デフレ（物価の下落）」を止めるために採用されたことは世界ではない。
さて、この政策は功を奏するか？
答えは、ＮＯ。または、ＹＥＳである。
功を奏するには条件がある。それは「一般の人々が来年物価が上がるという期待を持つ」ということ。「期待形成」とも言われるが、これが必須である。
そもそも、物価とは、世の中で販売されるあらゆる商品・モノの量と出回っているお金の量とのバランスで決まっている。これは18世紀以来の考え方である（貨幣数量説という）。デフレとは、
モノの量＞お金の量・・・・・（１）
の状態のことである。このとき、なぜモノの量が多いのか？
それは、人々があまりモノを買わないから。モノを買わないからお金の出回る量が減少し、モノの販売量がダブつくことになる。気を付けたいのは、上記（１）式は、デフレの原因でも結果でもあるということ。
では、デフレの原因は？ おそらく現代経済学の解答は、人々の「期待」にあるといっていい。
期待の形成
人々が物価が下がるのを期待すると、本当に物価が来年下がってしまう。これを自己実現というが、その理由は、値段が下がるのをひたすら待つ人々の購買活動にある。 閉店前のスーパーで値段が下がるのを店内で待つ人々を見かけるが、彼らが店内の割引を促しているともいえる。
では、デフレを止めるためには、「一般の人々が来年物価が上がるという期待を持つ」ことが必要条件なら、どうすればその「期待」を形成することができるのか。これが難しい。
（１）式より、お金の量を増やせばよいのでは、という人もいよう。しかし、世の中のお金の量を増やすには、お金が「人手」に渡らねばならない。いつまでもポケットにお金が入っていても、世の中のお金は増えない。（その意味で、定額給付金政策は全く効果がない。）
物価を上げるには、（１）式より、
①世の中で販売される商品の品数を抑える
②人々に購買活動を促す施策を施す
①の策は現実的ではない。②の策は考慮に値する。そこで登場するのが財政の出動である。
財政出動
（１）式より、市場で販売されるモノを、人々から徴収した税金で政府が購入する。
これが20世紀に入って英国の経済学者ケインズが考えた妙案である。
政府がモノを購入すれば、モノの生産が増え、雇用が生まれる。雇用が生まれれば、所得が生まれ、人々の購買力が上昇する。いわば、財政出動は「呼び水」となる。
この意味では、政府が税金を上げるという施策は、政府がその財源で購入を増やすので、景気を冷え込ませるよりも景気を安定化させる効果がある。多くの人はこの点を無視している。
しかしながら、財政出動を税収ではなく、日銀による国債（政府の借金）の買い上げ（日銀の引き受け）により賄って、物価を引き上げるという話がある。これはどういうことなのか。
無税国家の誕生
日銀が政府が新規に発行した国債を政府から直接買い上げるのは、日銀法・財政法で禁止されている。その理由は「無税国家」が誕生するからである。
誰だって税金は払いたくない。政府は日銀に国債を買ってもらうことで財源を調達できれば、「徴税」の手間が省ける。このお金で政府がモノを買えば、世の中にお金があふれ、そのお金で人々も購買活動を活発化させる。これは世の中に「モノ不足」をもたらし、貨幣を「紙切れ」にしてしまう。すなわち、
モノの量＜お金の量 ・・・・・（２）
が実現してしまう。ここでモノがなくなるのは、人々の勤労意欲も低下することに起因する。税金のない皆平等な社会主義国家では、 実際これが起こった。
このような事態を防ぐために、法律で日銀による既発国債の購入は原則国債市場で行う（市中消化の原則）ことが義務付けられている。これは無税国家の誕生を防ぎ、お金の価値も担保している。
デフレの克服は可能か
しかしながら、デフレを克服するには（２）式の条件が成り立つことが必要だ。政府が財政出動を税収ではなく、日銀による国債（政府の借金）を買い上げることにより賄うことで、政府によるモノの購入を増やし、人々の購買を促す。よって、物価上昇の機運を上げ、人々にさらなる購買意欲を喚起し、モノの生産が増え、雇用が生まれ、所得が生まれ、人々の購買力がさらに上昇する。よって、デフレを脱却できる。これはかの昭和恐慌を克服した方法でもある。
ただ、このような日銀引受による財政出動は実際にはできない。ならば、人々の「物価上昇への期待」を生むような別の政策が必要である。
ポイントはコミットメント
このような期待を生むには、非常に強力な政府による「コミットメント」、すなわち、政府が約束通りに金融の緩和、財政の出動をしなければ、責任者を「絞首刑に処す」ぐらいの「自己強制力」が必要である。
ある政権が「定額給付金を配りますよ」と言っておきながら配らなかったら、例え次回にちゃんと配られても、「また配られなくなる」ことを期待し、その時に備え、貯蓄を増やすことになる。結果、思うように消費は増えない。
定額給付金を配ると言って配らなかった時は、その責任者を「絞首刑」にすることが多くの人に知られていれば、つまり「コミットメント」がしっかりされれば、人々にとって定額給付金が配られることが期待でき、貯蓄を増やす必要がなくなる。ここがポイントだ。これぐらいのコミットメントができなければ、人々の期待を変化させ、デフレを克服することは全く望めない。
財政出動にはコストと覚悟が伴う
最後に、やはり政府与党、または野党も国民有権者に事実を伝えなくてはならない。国債の発行は政府の借金、つまり将来の税金であるということ。政府は国債保有者から借りたお金を税金で返さなければならない（国債の償還）。国債の償還は「将来の課税」により行われる。
景気を拡大することは、将来の所得（の割引価値）を犠牲にすることでもある。この不都合な事実を伝えることも政府の重要な仕事の一つである。
デフレの克服は急務ではある。が、デフレを絶対克服するという「覚悟」と克服するための「コスト（将来の税金）」が同時に伴うことを、各候補者が有権者にしっかり伝えているかを見極めなくてはならない。有権者にとって甘い公約ほど高くつく公約はないのである。
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Whole Foods
Here's a little old article
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/11/5/mankiw-one-here-over/
What’s in the fridge? “Nothing special, standard junk. We love Whole Foods, so most of our food is from there. Here we have some yogurt, some chicken breast...a lot of stuff is organic,” Mankiw says.
I love Whole Foods too, except for high prices.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/11/5/mankiw-one-here-over/
What’s in the fridge? “Nothing special, standard junk. We love Whole Foods, so most of our food is from there. Here we have some yogurt, some chicken breast...a lot of stuff is organic,” Mankiw says.
I love Whole Foods too, except for high prices.
Friday, November 09, 2012
David Wessel On the Long-Term US Economy
David Wessel, economics explainer of WSJ, talks about what Mr. Obama should do for tackling the problems lying ahead of the US economy and the world economy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578104464153878672.html
Mr. David has three points on fixing the US economy:
1) Human and physical capital that will pay off
Government spending ought to be focused on investments in human and physical capital that will pay off—which means spending less than projected on retirement and health benefits.
In regard to upward mobility,
The next four years would be more productive if they began with an acknowledgment that the gap between winners and losers in the U.S. economy has been widening.
....the distance between the penthouse and the ground floor is growing yet the escalators of mobility—such as education—haven't improved commensurately.
Mr. David says that Mr.Obama needs to improve the education in the US, which is closely related to the accumulation of human capital.
2) Expansionary fiscal and monetary policy that will decrease unemployment
Fiscal and monetary policy should be calibrated to get more of them working before they become permanently unemployable.
3) Climate change that should be tackled soon
"Our climate is changing," New York Mayor Bloomberg wrote,"And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be—given this week's devastation—should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."
...this will be hard for a political system that finds it difficult to look beyond the short term and the next election.
Mr. David says that it is not only Mr. Obama but also the future Presidents that should take the action for the climate change, but the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
What will the US do for the climate change? I think it is most difficult for the US to tackle of all the issues that the US now face.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578104464153878672.html
Mr. David has three points on fixing the US economy:
1) Human and physical capital that will pay off
Government spending ought to be focused on investments in human and physical capital that will pay off—which means spending less than projected on retirement and health benefits.
In regard to upward mobility,
The next four years would be more productive if they began with an acknowledgment that the gap between winners and losers in the U.S. economy has been widening.
....the distance between the penthouse and the ground floor is growing yet the escalators of mobility—such as education—haven't improved commensurately.
Mr. David says that Mr.Obama needs to improve the education in the US, which is closely related to the accumulation of human capital.
2) Expansionary fiscal and monetary policy that will decrease unemployment
Fiscal and monetary policy should be calibrated to get more of them working before they become permanently unemployable.
3) Climate change that should be tackled soon
"Our climate is changing," New York Mayor Bloomberg wrote,"And while the increase in extreme weather we have experienced in New York City and around the world may or may not be the result of it, the risk that it might be—given this week's devastation—should compel all elected leaders to take immediate action."
...this will be hard for a political system that finds it difficult to look beyond the short term and the next election.
Mr. David says that it is not only Mr. Obama but also the future Presidents that should take the action for the climate change, but the US didn't sign the Kyoto Protocol to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
What will the US do for the climate change? I think it is most difficult for the US to tackle of all the issues that the US now face.
John Lott On Mr. Obama's 4 More Years
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/what-can-expect-for-america-economy-in-second-obama-term/
Obama doesn't believe in incentives, and penalizing Americans for working hard and taking risks means that the US rank will slip further behind the rest of the world.
Obama doesn't believe in incentives, and penalizing Americans for working hard and taking risks means that the US rank will slip further behind the rest of the world.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
New Words on Macro-economy
Recently I have seen new words in the newspaper related to macro-economy. This is a reminder for myself:
1)Austerity
It is a time of bad economic conditions where the government cuts its spending or increases taxes to reduce its budget deficit and debt.
2)Credit Crunch
As creditors become unwilling to lend money to businesses or individuals because debtors increase the risk of default due to the economic and political conditions.
3)Fiscal Cliff
In the US, Bush tax breaks end and the tax increases and spending cuts begin at the end of 2012, which could push the US economy back into recession.
4) Operation Twist
In an attempt to lower long-term interest rates with central bank's balance sheet unchanged, central bank buys long-term government bonds and sells short-term bonds.
Reference: http://lexicon.ft.com/
1)Austerity
It is a time of bad economic conditions where the government cuts its spending or increases taxes to reduce its budget deficit and debt.
2)Credit Crunch
As creditors become unwilling to lend money to businesses or individuals because debtors increase the risk of default due to the economic and political conditions.
3)Fiscal Cliff
In the US, Bush tax breaks end and the tax increases and spending cuts begin at the end of 2012, which could push the US economy back into recession.
4) Operation Twist
In an attempt to lower long-term interest rates with central bank's balance sheet unchanged, central bank buys long-term government bonds and sells short-term bonds.
Reference: http://lexicon.ft.com/
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
On the Work of Shapley
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2012/
Shapley and Roth won the Noble Prize in economics for the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design.
I am now studying matching and search theory and it is a good timing. This is a focus on the work of Dr. Shapley and a reminder for myself; the below largely depends on Wiki, Nobelprize.org, and the article of the Washington Post(2012.Oct.15),
(1)Shapley Value(1953)
In a game where n players play cooperatively, how important is each player to the overall cooperation, and what payoff can he or she expect? The Shapley value provides one possible answer to this question.
(2)Shapley-Shubik power index(1954)
In a voting game, players with the same preferences form coalitions. Any coalition that has enough votes to pass a bill or elect a candidate is called winning, and the others are called losing. Based on Shapley value, Shapley and Shubik concluded that the power of a coalition was not simply proportional to its size.
The power index is normalized between 0 and 1. A power of 0 means that a coalition has no impact at all on the result of the game; and a power of 1 means a coalition brings the outcome of the game.
(3)Gale-Shapley deffered-acceptance algorithm(1962)
This is the reason Dr. Shapley won the Prize: In a large group of men and women considering marriage, both partners feel that they have gotten the most attractive possible match; Shapley and his colleague David Gale developed a process for ensuring that those matches are as stable as possible.
In the process, there are a series of rounds in which men and women rank potential mates, and matches are made until everyone finds a spouse and the system is stable.
Here's the excerpt:
The Gale-Shapley algorithm can be set up in two alternative ways: either men propose to women, or women propose to men. In the latter case, the process begins with each woman proposing to the man she likes the best. Each man then looks at the different proposals he has received (if any), retains what he regards as the most attractive proposal (but defers from accepting it) and rejects the others.
The women who were rejected in the first round then propose to their second-best choices, while the men again keep their best offer and reject the rest. This continues until no women want to make any further proposals. As each of the men then accepts the proposal he holds, the process comes to an end. Gale and Shapley proved mathematically that this algorithm always leads to a stable matching.
The specific setup of the algorithm turned out to have important distributional consequences; it matters a great deal whether the right to propose is given to the women – as in our example – or to the men. If the women propose, the outcome is better for them than if the men propose, because some women wind up with men they like better, and no woman is worse off than if the men had been given the right to propose.
Indeed, the resulting matching is better for the women than any other stable matching. Conversely, the reverse algorithm – where the men propose – leads to the worst outcome
from the women’s perspective. (Nobelprize.org)
This idea is based on the idea of market/mechanism design and actually applied to how to match doctors and hospitals, students and public high-schools and kidney donors and patients.
Shapley and Roth won the Noble Prize in economics for the theory of stable allocations and the practice of market design.
I am now studying matching and search theory and it is a good timing. This is a focus on the work of Dr. Shapley and a reminder for myself; the below largely depends on Wiki, Nobelprize.org, and the article of the Washington Post(2012.Oct.15),
(1)Shapley Value(1953)
In a game where n players play cooperatively, how important is each player to the overall cooperation, and what payoff can he or she expect? The Shapley value provides one possible answer to this question.
(2)Shapley-Shubik power index(1954)
In a voting game, players with the same preferences form coalitions. Any coalition that has enough votes to pass a bill or elect a candidate is called winning, and the others are called losing. Based on Shapley value, Shapley and Shubik concluded that the power of a coalition was not simply proportional to its size.
The power index is normalized between 0 and 1. A power of 0 means that a coalition has no impact at all on the result of the game; and a power of 1 means a coalition brings the outcome of the game.
(3)Gale-Shapley deffered-acceptance algorithm(1962)
This is the reason Dr. Shapley won the Prize: In a large group of men and women considering marriage, both partners feel that they have gotten the most attractive possible match; Shapley and his colleague David Gale developed a process for ensuring that those matches are as stable as possible.
In the process, there are a series of rounds in which men and women rank potential mates, and matches are made until everyone finds a spouse and the system is stable.
Here's the excerpt:
The Gale-Shapley algorithm can be set up in two alternative ways: either men propose to women, or women propose to men. In the latter case, the process begins with each woman proposing to the man she likes the best. Each man then looks at the different proposals he has received (if any), retains what he regards as the most attractive proposal (but defers from accepting it) and rejects the others.
The women who were rejected in the first round then propose to their second-best choices, while the men again keep their best offer and reject the rest. This continues until no women want to make any further proposals. As each of the men then accepts the proposal he holds, the process comes to an end. Gale and Shapley proved mathematically that this algorithm always leads to a stable matching.
The specific setup of the algorithm turned out to have important distributional consequences; it matters a great deal whether the right to propose is given to the women – as in our example – or to the men. If the women propose, the outcome is better for them than if the men propose, because some women wind up with men they like better, and no woman is worse off than if the men had been given the right to propose.
Indeed, the resulting matching is better for the women than any other stable matching. Conversely, the reverse algorithm – where the men propose – leads to the worst outcome
from the women’s perspective. (Nobelprize.org)
This idea is based on the idea of market/mechanism design and actually applied to how to match doctors and hospitals, students and public high-schools and kidney donors and patients.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
神経経済学事情(Recent Trend of Neuroeconomics)
神経経済学。人が意思決定する際、または公平感、幸福感、またはある種の熱狂が起こっているとき、脳の中でどのようなことが起こっているのかを考える分野、かな（？）
日本語でもすでに教科書が売られているが、まだまだ染みは薄い感がする。
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Marketplace-in-Your-Brain/134524/
この記事の最後の付録を見て思ったのは、北海道大学の論文引用数がカルテック（カリフォルニア工科大）に次いで多い、ということである。
この10年を採れば、日本は神経経済学大国？と言える（？）かもしれない。神経経済学の拠点（核）を今作っちゃえば、日本に優秀な研究者を呼び込み、さらなる経済学研究を盛り上げるチャンスだと思うのは、少々楽観的だろうか？
日本語でもすでに教科書が売られているが、まだまだ染みは薄い感がする。
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Marketplace-in-Your-Brain/134524/
この記事の最後の付録を見て思ったのは、北海道大学の論文引用数がカルテック（カリフォルニア工科大）に次いで多い、ということである。
この10年を採れば、日本は神経経済学大国？と言える（？）かもしれない。神経経済学の拠点（核）を今作っちゃえば、日本に優秀な研究者を呼び込み、さらなる経済学研究を盛り上げるチャンスだと思うのは、少々楽観的だろうか？
John Lott on Recent Slow Recovery
Americans have suffered two very slow recoveries – during the Great
Depression and now. The most obvious common factor in both has been the
Keynesian policies and massive regulations used to “cure” those
downturns. Clearly, “financial crisis” can’t explain the current slow
recovery.
Thursday, November 01, 2012
On Dr Boskin's View on Debt and Deficit
Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth
disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and
tragically anemic recovery.
Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression.
Boskin's recent report is quite to the point. It seems that large deficit and debt are closely related to lower economic growth rate.
See the Japanese economy: Sony, Sharp, Toshiba and Panasonic are all representative Japanese manufacturing giants and it has recently been reported that they all have a large deficit.
Hearing the news, I am wondering how the Japanese government's large deficit and debt caused the loss of these companies. Of course, yen appreciating is the major culprit and it may be one of the results of the deficit and debt.
I think that the yen appreciation is directly caused by the money supply increased by FRB(QE1&2) in the US. Can we think that it is also caused by the large deficit and debt?
The prospect and then reality of higher tax rates, plus increased uncertainty about future fiscal policy, slows growth..., which might sharply raise interest rates.
Theoretically, higher interest rate could make the currency appreciate more. In this point the recent yen appreciation may imply the tax increase and spending decrease expected in the near future. Tax hike and spending cut should make the people spend less and less and save more and more. They should think that they should prepare for the tax increase and the future burden. It may be one of the reasons the Japanese economy has been stagnant for almost two decades.
Higher debt ratios eventually crowd out investment, as holdings of government debt replace capital in private portfolios.
I don't know if Dr Boskin implies, but reading his report I can't help wondering if the Japanese government knows what to do first to make the economy up. I might have heard of such a warning many times from many economists, but, as far as I can see, the Japanese government does nothing to do with the large deficit and debt.
Boskin's report:
http://siepr.stanford.edu/?q=/system/files/shared/pubs/papers/briefs/pb_11_2012.pdf
disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and
tragically anemic recovery.
Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression.
Boskin's recent report is quite to the point. It seems that large deficit and debt are closely related to lower economic growth rate.
See the Japanese economy: Sony, Sharp, Toshiba and Panasonic are all representative Japanese manufacturing giants and it has recently been reported that they all have a large deficit.
Hearing the news, I am wondering how the Japanese government's large deficit and debt caused the loss of these companies. Of course, yen appreciating is the major culprit and it may be one of the results of the deficit and debt.
I think that the yen appreciation is directly caused by the money supply increased by FRB(QE1&2) in the US. Can we think that it is also caused by the large deficit and debt?
The prospect and then reality of higher tax rates, plus increased uncertainty about future fiscal policy, slows growth..., which might sharply raise interest rates.
Theoretically, higher interest rate could make the currency appreciate more. In this point the recent yen appreciation may imply the tax increase and spending decrease expected in the near future. Tax hike and spending cut should make the people spend less and less and save more and more. They should think that they should prepare for the tax increase and the future burden. It may be one of the reasons the Japanese economy has been stagnant for almost two decades.
Higher debt ratios eventually crowd out investment, as holdings of government debt replace capital in private portfolios.
I don't know if Dr Boskin implies, but reading his report I can't help wondering if the Japanese government knows what to do first to make the economy up. I might have heard of such a warning many times from many economists, but, as far as I can see, the Japanese government does nothing to do with the large deficit and debt.
Boskin's report:
http://siepr.stanford.edu/?q=/system/files/shared/pubs/papers/briefs/pb_11_2012.pdf
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
デフレは不況の原因か（２）
「デフレは不況の原因ではない」とするデフレと不況の因果関係論について、「デフレは不況の原因である」を仮に真とすると、
命題１：「物価が下がると名目賃金も同じだけ下がるので（マークアップ率＝１）、実質賃金は変わ
という論を論破することはできない。これが「反例」
になっているので、違うのではないかという「背理
「実質賃金の下落の原因がデフレ」という人は、じゃあ名目賃金はなぜ下落するのか。答えは「物価が下がるから（デフレ）」。じゃあ、
物価下落率＝名目賃金下落率
なら「実質賃金一定」なりますよね。いやいや、実質賃金
名目賃金はなぜ大きく下がったのか。物価がさがったから。
命題１：「物価が下がると名目賃金も同じだけ下がるので（マークアップ率＝１）、実質賃金は変わ
という論を論破することはできない。これが「反例」
になっているので、違うのではないかという「背理
「実質賃金の下落の原因がデフレ」という人は、じゃあ名目賃金はなぜ下落するのか。答えは「物価が下がるから（デフレ）」。じゃあ、
物価下落率＝名目賃金下落率
なら「実質賃金一定」なりますよね。いやいや、実質賃金
名目賃金はなぜ大きく下がったのか。物価がさがったから。
なんか、おかしいことが起こっています。
デフレが不況の原因か？
デフレが不況の原因だという。これは本当か？
いいえ、風呂桶は「経済の生産能力」、水は「経済の総需要」
つまり、デフレが不況の原因というなら、「水不足は水位が低いの
デフレが不況の原因。ならばその対策は簡単。デフレを解消すればよい。そのた
ここに「風呂桶」がある。この中に水を入れたら、風
いいえ、風呂桶は「経済の生産能力」、水は「経済の総需要」
すなわち、「水を入れる」ことが「水位を上げる」ための必要条件になる。
そう、需要を増やすことがインフレになるための必要条件となる。
では、「デフレが不況の原因」という主張をこの「風呂桶」の議論で見てみよう。
先ほどの文章を逆さにすればよい。「水を入れる」ためには「水位を上げる」ことがまず
実は、「水を入れる」ことは「水位を上げる」
実は、「水を入れる」ことは「水位を上げる」
つまり、デフレが不況の原因というなら、「水不足は水位が低いの
ダムの水位を上げるに
は、別に「水を入れ」なくてよい。需要を増やさなくてもよい。「ダムを小さく」してもよいだろう。そう、経済の需要が一定なら、経済の生産能力を小さくす
れば（石油コンビナートを破壊するなど）、「水位は上がる」（インフレになる）。
デフレが不況の原因。ならばその対策は簡単。デフレを解消すればよい。そのた
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Spend More Now!
I found a new book written by Paul Krugman, "End This Depression Now" in the book store on my way back home. Iｔ had been four years since I met Krugman in his book, "The Return of Depression Economics".
I am not going to write this new book review, but after reading it and seeing the recent news about the stagnant economies of EU and, of Japan, my home country and the third-largest country in terms of GDP, I feel like writing about what I think about how to end this recession.
My view on how to get the economy right sounds Keynesian, but my point is not that of what Keynes and Keynesians tell:
(1) Spend money
Who should spend money? That sounds a good question, but that doesn't matter at all. If you are one of so-called Keynesians, you should insist that the government should spend much money to strengthen the aggregate demand in the economy. But I wouldn't think so: It is good for the government to spend the money to build new houses, schools, hospitals and roads in the east-northern part of Japan that was hit by the earthquake last year. It is also good for the general people not to worry about what to spend on, but to buy what they need now (I need new shoes and trousers for business now.) Who spends the money doesn't matter. That's my point of this article.
If you don't have any money, you can't buy anything you want (but I would ask you how you make a living now with no money at all. You should have some money in your bank account and, I mean, if so, don't be thrifty with your money. Don't keep it in the drawer and use it to believe that it should return back to us. That's what money is like. )
Money is not what we should save, but what we use to buy something necessary for you to enjoy your life. To the best of my knowledge, Keynes (maybe Marx too) must have warned us against stocking money.
(2) BOJ should buy more long-term government bonds
A little technical, but a basic idea on how the money circulates in the economy. BOJ, the Bank of Japan, equivalent to FRB in the US and ECB in the European countries, buys the bonds issued by the government from the private commercial banks, and then the money is paid to the banks and they get the money. The commercial banks will lend the extra money to someone else who needs most to build a new house or a new plant, and if he or she can borrow the money, he or she will spend the money on building a new house.
The question is, are the private banks going to lend the money to someone? I know that a lot of professional economists cast doubt on this point and that it is BOJ that insisted that the money wasn't spent as the theory says.
In the case of the Japanese economy, the private banks actually have bought a lot of the government long-term(10-year) bonds, not to lend the money to someone. The banks don't want to take any high risk and don't want their balance-sheets downgraded. Not to have bad loan, they usually buy safe and low-risk government bonds and don't lend the money to someone. (Yes, buying the government bonds is equivalent to lending the money to the government. The banks believe that the government should never go bankrupt and that the bonds are thus safe to buy. I don't know if the government bonds are really safe for sure. )
That's why some critics, as does BOJ itself, insist that BOJ's buying the bonds doesn't make any sense.
(3) Don't worry about the government budget deficit and debt
My opinion is, the government should have as many bonds bought by BOJ and the private banks as they can. The money the government borrowed from them should be spent on some necessary public programs. If the money spent on such programs circulates in the economy as a whole, the production, employment, national income and thus the tax revenue should increase. The government doesn't have to worry about the large budget deficit and debt because it will be able to decrease the deficit and debt with tax revenue increasing. Sounds nice. It's like a dream.
However, does BOJ buy as many bonds as it can? That's the problem. The private banks buy the bonds because they don't want to run high risk to lend the money to someone. I don't think BOJ is likely to buy much more bonds than it has bought now.
(4) Forced saving and Forced spending
Furthermore, if BOJ buys much more bonds as they can, what should happen in the economy? Yes, inflation. According to some textbooks, it sounds true. But is that truly true? As long as the general people keep spending the money, inflation is likely to come, or the prices are going up in the economy. But, this is an important point in this context, if they don't spend the money at all and save all the earnings they get by working, inflation won't come at all. The money stays in the drawer or in their bank accounts.
The important question is, should the money be spent if BOJ buys the government bonds from the private banks? No one knows. Just the government's issuing and BOJ's buying the bonds don't make the money to be spent.
There has been an idea called 'forced saving'. It sounds like the government forces us to save money. Right, but the saving also means an involuntary one(it is saving that occurs due to no available goods to buy.) and there seem to be some definitions. As far as I know, forced saving means that real income, real consumption decrease, and thus real saving(=income-consumption) increases as the prices go up.
At any rate, what does saving work for our economy? I would think of it as short-term and long-term; In the relatively poor society, as people earn more than they spend, the remaining should be saved in order to rebuild their house or pay the tuition for their children in the near future. In the economy as a whole, more saving leads to more physical or human capital accumulation and thus to more production and more employment. More saving means that people get richer in the long run though they get poor in the short run. Actually, decades ago Japan promoted saving by cutting the tax on it and increasing saving was the one of the important policies conducted for high economic growth.
But now there are a lot of stuff in the economy and much is unsold. That's why the prices are going down because stores can't help cutting their prices to have people buy their products. In Japan deflation stays alive and the value of the money people have is going up gradually, which makes it better for people to wait for the money to increase its purchasing power.
People save more due to deflation, though the original definition says that it is caused by inflation.This time needs somewhat a challenging policy that has so a great impact on the behavior of such people that it can stop them from saving their money: Now it is the time for them to spend more, not to save more. As I get a hint from 'forced saving', I would call this policy, "Force People to Spend", or "FPS".
In the well-developed economies, should less saving lead to less physical or less human capital accumulation? and thus to less production? In the long run it is true. But such rich economies are capable to produce more than the people need. In contrast, poor economies (I would call "Malthusian/Ricardian economies". Malthus and Ricardo are the economists who lived the 18th-century Britain. The then Britain saw the age of "Industrial Revolution" in the late 18th century and thus the dawn of the modern "Affluent Society", where goods are going around and their standards of living are becoming on average higher. So decades ago, Japanese economy was the Malthusian/Ricardian one and promoted saving for high economic growth.
Rich economies(I would call Keynesian/Galbraithian economies. Galbraith is my favorite economist and wrote an influential book, "The Affluent Society".), we can easily see a lot of stuff being sold and at the same time being unsold in the store/shopping mall. The prices should be going down(yes, yen is appreciating as of 05/June/2012, which is likely to make prices down.) and thus the real value of the money people have in their pockets is going up, where people think they should spend less to hold more money. Thus less money circulates in the economy and thus less should be spent. That should be called "recession" and should be the problem to solve quickly. What should we do? Government should do something for people to spend more, not to save more, yes "FPS".
(5) Learn Mr. Ikeda's double income policy*
In 1960 then the Prime Minister of Japan, Hayato Ikeda, declared the policy called "double national income" in the newspaper, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 09/March/1959. He identified himself strong in economics and finance, and he talked to the general people in the newspaper about what he thought about how to do for increasing the standards of life. What was "double national income"? What did he do? In fact, there was no concrete item in this policy. Mr. Ikeda did nothing but declared, (as Mr. Ikeda said in the Nihon Keiza Shimbun) "if there is the wise political leadership that induces you to work hard, it won't be impossible for you to double or triple your monthly pay in five or ten years."(Taro translated.)
Certainly that time was clearly booming: The Japanese economy, as well as the American economy, was growing fast, 10% average every year(This growth rate leads to double national income in around 7 years). In 1968 the GNP(Gross National Product) became the second-largest in the world and this (golden?) record hadn't been cracked until 2010. That time was bright, nothing was scared. That is what the Golden Age was like.
What Mr. Ikeda did is that he talked to the general people about how bright their future life will be and encouraged them to work, earn and spend more. His speak was very easy to understand and, say, one of his words was, "Poor people, eat barley. (It was then what poor people ate)!"
(6) Self-fulfilling Economy
Mr. Ikeda himself didn't seem to be Keynesian, because in his duty, he didn't increase fiscal spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Rather, he was said to believe that that "the private companies should not be expected to ask the government for help but to take their own responsibility for the production activities."(Taro translated)
Of course, the government should play a big role to get the economy better: the government should take any possible action to induce the people to work, spend more. Mr. Ikeda's policy is one of the successful announcement policies and now I think we should follow his policy.
The economy(and we ourselves) is what is self-fulfilled: if we think we can do it, we can really do it. It sounds like Placebo effect, but something like Placebo should have caused the economy to move. It was Mr. Ikeda's double income policy: It wasn't based on any reasonable fact or data. Certainly, he had some great economists in his arm and they gave some advice to him, but double income policy itself didn't depend on any serious mathematical economic model because it was in the 1960s.
"Force people to spend"(FPS), as I insist, is not as it sounds like: Each one is induced to spend more, not forced to spend more by the fearful central planner. The government should do something to induce people to spend more and, in this point, the government's role is not so small. Just only cutting tax or great public programs won't get the economy better, but the strong leadership(not dictatorship!) that seems like it gives birth to something new will get the stagnant economy right: Something will change. Something will happen. Such kind of bright expectation(belief or trust), though it isn't based on any reasonable fact, should induce the people to move forward, work more and spend more.
It is not so easy for the government to build such an environment, but we have a success story. Some pundits might say that their believing such a past success story has made Japan mad and stagnant ever, but I don't think so. The more people believe their future is bright or isn't necessary to worry about, the more money will run around. The economy will get recovered soon. Why not think so?
*Reference: Yomiuri Shimbun, 08/October/2011
I am not going to write this new book review, but after reading it and seeing the recent news about the stagnant economies of EU and, of Japan, my home country and the third-largest country in terms of GDP, I feel like writing about what I think about how to end this recession.
My view on how to get the economy right sounds Keynesian, but my point is not that of what Keynes and Keynesians tell:
(1) Spend money
Who should spend money? That sounds a good question, but that doesn't matter at all. If you are one of so-called Keynesians, you should insist that the government should spend much money to strengthen the aggregate demand in the economy. But I wouldn't think so: It is good for the government to spend the money to build new houses, schools, hospitals and roads in the east-northern part of Japan that was hit by the earthquake last year. It is also good for the general people not to worry about what to spend on, but to buy what they need now (I need new shoes and trousers for business now.) Who spends the money doesn't matter. That's my point of this article.
If you don't have any money, you can't buy anything you want (but I would ask you how you make a living now with no money at all. You should have some money in your bank account and, I mean, if so, don't be thrifty with your money. Don't keep it in the drawer and use it to believe that it should return back to us. That's what money is like. )
Money is not what we should save, but what we use to buy something necessary for you to enjoy your life. To the best of my knowledge, Keynes (maybe Marx too) must have warned us against stocking money.
(2) BOJ should buy more long-term government bonds
A little technical, but a basic idea on how the money circulates in the economy. BOJ, the Bank of Japan, equivalent to FRB in the US and ECB in the European countries, buys the bonds issued by the government from the private commercial banks, and then the money is paid to the banks and they get the money. The commercial banks will lend the extra money to someone else who needs most to build a new house or a new plant, and if he or she can borrow the money, he or she will spend the money on building a new house.
The question is, are the private banks going to lend the money to someone? I know that a lot of professional economists cast doubt on this point and that it is BOJ that insisted that the money wasn't spent as the theory says.
In the case of the Japanese economy, the private banks actually have bought a lot of the government long-term(10-year) bonds, not to lend the money to someone. The banks don't want to take any high risk and don't want their balance-sheets downgraded. Not to have bad loan, they usually buy safe and low-risk government bonds and don't lend the money to someone. (Yes, buying the government bonds is equivalent to lending the money to the government. The banks believe that the government should never go bankrupt and that the bonds are thus safe to buy. I don't know if the government bonds are really safe for sure. )
That's why some critics, as does BOJ itself, insist that BOJ's buying the bonds doesn't make any sense.
(3) Don't worry about the government budget deficit and debt
My opinion is, the government should have as many bonds bought by BOJ and the private banks as they can. The money the government borrowed from them should be spent on some necessary public programs. If the money spent on such programs circulates in the economy as a whole, the production, employment, national income and thus the tax revenue should increase. The government doesn't have to worry about the large budget deficit and debt because it will be able to decrease the deficit and debt with tax revenue increasing. Sounds nice. It's like a dream.
However, does BOJ buy as many bonds as it can? That's the problem. The private banks buy the bonds because they don't want to run high risk to lend the money to someone. I don't think BOJ is likely to buy much more bonds than it has bought now.
(4) Forced saving and Forced spending
Furthermore, if BOJ buys much more bonds as they can, what should happen in the economy? Yes, inflation. According to some textbooks, it sounds true. But is that truly true? As long as the general people keep spending the money, inflation is likely to come, or the prices are going up in the economy. But, this is an important point in this context, if they don't spend the money at all and save all the earnings they get by working, inflation won't come at all. The money stays in the drawer or in their bank accounts.
The important question is, should the money be spent if BOJ buys the government bonds from the private banks? No one knows. Just the government's issuing and BOJ's buying the bonds don't make the money to be spent.
There has been an idea called 'forced saving'. It sounds like the government forces us to save money. Right, but the saving also means an involuntary one(it is saving that occurs due to no available goods to buy.) and there seem to be some definitions. As far as I know, forced saving means that real income, real consumption decrease, and thus real saving(=income-consumption) increases as the prices go up.
At any rate, what does saving work for our economy? I would think of it as short-term and long-term; In the relatively poor society, as people earn more than they spend, the remaining should be saved in order to rebuild their house or pay the tuition for their children in the near future. In the economy as a whole, more saving leads to more physical or human capital accumulation and thus to more production and more employment. More saving means that people get richer in the long run though they get poor in the short run. Actually, decades ago Japan promoted saving by cutting the tax on it and increasing saving was the one of the important policies conducted for high economic growth.
But now there are a lot of stuff in the economy and much is unsold. That's why the prices are going down because stores can't help cutting their prices to have people buy their products. In Japan deflation stays alive and the value of the money people have is going up gradually, which makes it better for people to wait for the money to increase its purchasing power.
People save more due to deflation, though the original definition says that it is caused by inflation.This time needs somewhat a challenging policy that has so a great impact on the behavior of such people that it can stop them from saving their money: Now it is the time for them to spend more, not to save more. As I get a hint from 'forced saving', I would call this policy, "Force People to Spend", or "FPS".
In the well-developed economies, should less saving lead to less physical or less human capital accumulation? and thus to less production? In the long run it is true. But such rich economies are capable to produce more than the people need. In contrast, poor economies (I would call "Malthusian/Ricardian economies". Malthus and Ricardo are the economists who lived the 18th-century Britain. The then Britain saw the age of "Industrial Revolution" in the late 18th century and thus the dawn of the modern "Affluent Society", where goods are going around and their standards of living are becoming on average higher. So decades ago, Japanese economy was the Malthusian/Ricardian one and promoted saving for high economic growth.
Rich economies(I would call Keynesian/Galbraithian economies. Galbraith is my favorite economist and wrote an influential book, "The Affluent Society".), we can easily see a lot of stuff being sold and at the same time being unsold in the store/shopping mall. The prices should be going down(yes, yen is appreciating as of 05/June/2012, which is likely to make prices down.) and thus the real value of the money people have in their pockets is going up, where people think they should spend less to hold more money. Thus less money circulates in the economy and thus less should be spent. That should be called "recession" and should be the problem to solve quickly. What should we do? Government should do something for people to spend more, not to save more, yes "FPS".
(5) Learn Mr. Ikeda's double income policy*
In 1960 then the Prime Minister of Japan, Hayato Ikeda, declared the policy called "double national income" in the newspaper, Nihon Keizai Shimbun, 09/March/1959. He identified himself strong in economics and finance, and he talked to the general people in the newspaper about what he thought about how to do for increasing the standards of life. What was "double national income"? What did he do? In fact, there was no concrete item in this policy. Mr. Ikeda did nothing but declared, (as Mr. Ikeda said in the Nihon Keiza Shimbun) "if there is the wise political leadership that induces you to work hard, it won't be impossible for you to double or triple your monthly pay in five or ten years."(Taro translated.)
Certainly that time was clearly booming: The Japanese economy, as well as the American economy, was growing fast, 10% average every year(This growth rate leads to double national income in around 7 years). In 1968 the GNP(Gross National Product) became the second-largest in the world and this (golden?) record hadn't been cracked until 2010. That time was bright, nothing was scared. That is what the Golden Age was like.
What Mr. Ikeda did is that he talked to the general people about how bright their future life will be and encouraged them to work, earn and spend more. His speak was very easy to understand and, say, one of his words was, "Poor people, eat barley. (It was then what poor people ate)!"
(6) Self-fulfilling Economy
Mr. Ikeda himself didn't seem to be Keynesian, because in his duty, he didn't increase fiscal spending in an attempt to stimulate the economy. Rather, he was said to believe that that "the private companies should not be expected to ask the government for help but to take their own responsibility for the production activities."(Taro translated)
Of course, the government should play a big role to get the economy better: the government should take any possible action to induce the people to work, spend more. Mr. Ikeda's policy is one of the successful announcement policies and now I think we should follow his policy.
The economy(and we ourselves) is what is self-fulfilled: if we think we can do it, we can really do it. It sounds like Placebo effect, but something like Placebo should have caused the economy to move. It was Mr. Ikeda's double income policy: It wasn't based on any reasonable fact or data. Certainly, he had some great economists in his arm and they gave some advice to him, but double income policy itself didn't depend on any serious mathematical economic model because it was in the 1960s.
"Force people to spend"(FPS), as I insist, is not as it sounds like: Each one is induced to spend more, not forced to spend more by the fearful central planner. The government should do something to induce people to spend more and, in this point, the government's role is not so small. Just only cutting tax or great public programs won't get the economy better, but the strong leadership(not dictatorship!) that seems like it gives birth to something new will get the stagnant economy right: Something will change. Something will happen. Such kind of bright expectation(belief or trust), though it isn't based on any reasonable fact, should induce the people to move forward, work more and spend more.
It is not so easy for the government to build such an environment, but we have a success story. Some pundits might say that their believing such a past success story has made Japan mad and stagnant ever, but I don't think so. The more people believe their future is bright or isn't necessary to worry about, the more money will run around. The economy will get recovered soon. Why not think so?
*Reference: Yomiuri Shimbun, 08/October/2011
Saturday, May 05, 2012
The Jazz Age 1920s
Sunday, January 22, 2012
良い税制
ハーバード大学マンキュー教授は、良い税制の特徴を４点挙げる：
（１）課税ベースを広げる＋税率を下げる：各種控除をなくす
（２）所得ではなく、消費に課税する：消費税を活用
（３）バッズに課税する：ガソリン税を活用
（４）税制を簡素化する
（１）課税ベースを広げる＋税率を下げる：各種控除をなくす
（２）所得ではなく、消費に課税する：消費税を活用
（３）バッズに課税する：ガソリン税を活用
（４）税制を簡素化する
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Have Fight With Me
(Caution) Not ill-intentioned, parodies Prof Mankiw's announcement:
To walkout ec 10 students (only):
I will take up to ten walkout students out to fight after Wednesday's lecture at my favorite Harvard Boxing Club. Join me if you are interested in the group. First come, first beaten!
To walkout ec 10 students (only):
I will take up to ten walkout students out to fight after Wednesday's lecture at my favorite Harvard Boxing Club. Join me if you are interested in the group. First come, first beaten!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Monday, November 28, 2011
新しい政府
民主主義を問い直す
戦後、我々は学校で「民主主義は良いこと」、「民主主義ありき」と教えられ、私も「民主主義こそ人類が求めてきた約束の地」だと考えてきた。しかし、結局のところ社会科の教科書には「民主主義が何たるか？」が書かれていないし、「良いもの」とだけしか教えられていない。戦後民主主義とは何だったのか？
いまこそ、問うべきときはないのではないのか？
戦後世界の幻影
戦前、世界は「失業」と「デフレ」に悩まされ、これが帝国主義的な軍事的覇権主義の台頭を許し、「戦争」という「恐怖の公共投資」で解決してみせた。戦後世界はこの教訓からアメリカでは「雇用法」（1946）が成立、日本では３大民主化改革（1946-7）により、「失業」と「デフレ」は政府により解決されるべき社会的課題として認知されていく。これが高度成長の基盤になり、「中産階級」（村上泰亮）を生み、巨大な消費社会が誕生した。
しかし、この「豊かな社会」（ガルブレイス）の代償として「財政赤字」と「インフレ」（ブキャナン＝ワグナーはこれは「民主主義のコストである」とした）を招聘し、１９７０年代以降フリードマンらの理論的支援もあり、「レーガニズム」、つまり「小さな政府」によって解決できると反駁したかに見えた。８０年代の中曽根行革にもその思想は受け継がれた。
高齢化は財政破綻を招く？
先進国は「インフレ」こそ解決できたとはいえ、「デフレ」、されに「高齢化」こそが次代の課題として台頭している。「高齢化」は福祉財政の拡張を招来し、「財政赤字」の拡張をことごとく許している。民主主義社会では福祉予算のカットは受け入れられにくい。議員も選挙で争点の対象にしたくない課題としてしる。
モディリアーニのライフサイクル仮設によれば、福祉予算の膨張は将来増税の期待を生み、これが現在の消費を減らし、貯蓄を増やしている。貯蓄の増加は有効需要を冷やし、生産・雇用・所得を減らす。当然、税収も減少するなかで、行政コストの切り詰めは遅々として進まず、歳出だけが増えていく。結果財政赤字と、その結果として政府債務の累積である。
今必要なのは税収に見合った規模の政府であるのだが、それができない。いまこそ「高齢化時代」の「政府」を作るべきである。
景気対策より成長戦略を
３つ提案がある。まずは税収が増えないので、
（１）政府活動を小さくする。
公務員の数とその給与を減らし、福祉予算も減らす。年金の給付も引き下げる。かわりに高齢者に雇用の機会を提供する。退職年齢の引き上げ、賃金の年功スライドを抑制するのも一つである。しかし、人口構造が高齢者に偏る現代ではこれは難題であることは明白である。
（２）解雇規制の撤廃
何より問題なのは「正社員の解雇が難しい」ということである。ホワイトカラーの正社員は生産性が低い上に、生産性以上の給金を得ている。これは問題なのだが、労組の力や社員の勤労意欲向上もあり、なかなかホワイトカラーのクビ切はできない。まさに「社内民主主義」が「低生産性」と「報酬インフレ（デフレ時代では実質報酬は増えている）」をもたらしている。今必要なのは民間企業の構造改革、すなわち生産性の低い部門を切り捨て、経営資源（ヒト・モノ・カネ）を生産性の高い部門へのシフトである。
（３）高等教育の改革
有望な人の育成が急務である。初等教育の充実も必要だが同時に高等教育、大学、専門学校、大学院大学、研究所の研究活動も必要である。すべて学生には貸与でいいので無利子の奨学金を与え、有能な教員を充当し、勉学に集中できる環境を作ることが必要だ。怠惰な学生には退学勧告を行い、有能な学生には報奨金を与える。これは研究者も然りだ。勉学や研究が社会に役立てるよう奨励することがなによりも必要である。
ただ大学の研究者や学生を増やすのではなく、大学行政も取捨選択が必要である。学生や教員への評価を大学や外部機関が行い、この評価に基づく支援制度が必要である。評価の低い学生教員に退場を願うのは至極当然である。学生・研究者たちの反論があるかもしれない。しかし、自分の研究勉学に高い自信があるなら、自分で基金を募って研究すればいい。それだけのことである。
戦後、我々は学校で「民主主義は良いこと」、「民主主義ありき」と教えられ、私も「民主主義こそ人類が求めてきた約束の地」だと考えてきた。しかし、結局のところ社会科の教科書には「民主主義が何たるか？」が書かれていないし、「良いもの」とだけしか教えられていない。戦後民主主義とは何だったのか？
いまこそ、問うべきときはないのではないのか？
戦後世界の幻影
戦前、世界は「失業」と「デフレ」に悩まされ、これが帝国主義的な軍事的覇権主義の台頭を許し、「戦争」という「恐怖の公共投資」で解決してみせた。戦後世界はこの教訓からアメリカでは「雇用法」（1946）が成立、日本では３大民主化改革（1946-7）により、「失業」と「デフレ」は政府により解決されるべき社会的課題として認知されていく。これが高度成長の基盤になり、「中産階級」（村上泰亮）を生み、巨大な消費社会が誕生した。
しかし、この「豊かな社会」（ガルブレイス）の代償として「財政赤字」と「インフレ」（ブキャナン＝ワグナーはこれは「民主主義のコストである」とした）を招聘し、１９７０年代以降フリードマンらの理論的支援もあり、「レーガニズム」、つまり「小さな政府」によって解決できると反駁したかに見えた。８０年代の中曽根行革にもその思想は受け継がれた。
高齢化は財政破綻を招く？
先進国は「インフレ」こそ解決できたとはいえ、「デフレ」、されに「高齢化」こそが次代の課題として台頭している。「高齢化」は福祉財政の拡張を招来し、「財政赤字」の拡張をことごとく許している。民主主義社会では福祉予算のカットは受け入れられにくい。議員も選挙で争点の対象にしたくない課題としてしる。
モディリアーニのライフサイクル仮設によれば、福祉予算の膨張は将来増税の期待を生み、これが現在の消費を減らし、貯蓄を増やしている。貯蓄の増加は有効需要を冷やし、生産・雇用・所得を減らす。当然、税収も減少するなかで、行政コストの切り詰めは遅々として進まず、歳出だけが増えていく。結果財政赤字と、その結果として政府債務の累積である。
今必要なのは税収に見合った規模の政府であるのだが、それができない。いまこそ「高齢化時代」の「政府」を作るべきである。
景気対策より成長戦略を
３つ提案がある。まずは税収が増えないので、
（１）政府活動を小さくする。
公務員の数とその給与を減らし、福祉予算も減らす。年金の給付も引き下げる。かわりに高齢者に雇用の機会を提供する。退職年齢の引き上げ、賃金の年功スライドを抑制するのも一つである。しかし、人口構造が高齢者に偏る現代ではこれは難題であることは明白である。
（２）解雇規制の撤廃
何より問題なのは「正社員の解雇が難しい」ということである。ホワイトカラーの正社員は生産性が低い上に、生産性以上の給金を得ている。これは問題なのだが、労組の力や社員の勤労意欲向上もあり、なかなかホワイトカラーのクビ切はできない。まさに「社内民主主義」が「低生産性」と「報酬インフレ（デフレ時代では実質報酬は増えている）」をもたらしている。今必要なのは民間企業の構造改革、すなわち生産性の低い部門を切り捨て、経営資源（ヒト・モノ・カネ）を生産性の高い部門へのシフトである。
（３）高等教育の改革
有望な人の育成が急務である。初等教育の充実も必要だが同時に高等教育、大学、専門学校、大学院大学、研究所の研究活動も必要である。すべて学生には貸与でいいので無利子の奨学金を与え、有能な教員を充当し、勉学に集中できる環境を作ることが必要だ。怠惰な学生には退学勧告を行い、有能な学生には報奨金を与える。これは研究者も然りだ。勉学や研究が社会に役立てるよう奨励することがなによりも必要である。
ただ大学の研究者や学生を増やすのではなく、大学行政も取捨選択が必要である。学生や教員への評価を大学や外部機関が行い、この評価に基づく支援制度が必要である。評価の低い学生教員に退場を願うのは至極当然である。学生・研究者たちの反論があるかもしれない。しかし、自分の研究勉学に高い自信があるなら、自分で基金を募って研究すればいい。それだけのことである。
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
大恐慌、インフレ、そしてデフレ
ケインズは１９３０年代、大恐慌を解明するためマクロ経済学を作った。（経済学第１の危機）
１９７０年代、世界はインフレに見舞われ、フリードマン・ルーカス・サージェントはインフレと経済政策の役割を明らかにするため、新しいマクロ経済学（動学的一般均衡モデルにつながる）を作った。（第２の危機）そして、サージェントは今年ようやくノーベル賞を取った。
そして、いま、世界はデフレ+財政赤字（日本経済化？）に見舞われようとしている。今だよい解決策は得られていない。この第３の危機をいかにして乗り切るのか。
以下、３点が問題である。
（１）デフレは何が原因か？
（２）金融政策はデフレを止められるか？ 財政政策はいまやデフォルトの危機を抱えている以上無理。
（３）デフレが人々の間の「自信のなさ」から来るとすると、
どのように「自信」を生み出すのか？ そして、それは可能なのか？
１９７０年代、世界はインフレに見舞われ、フリードマン・ルーカス・サージェントはインフレと経済政策の役割を明らかにするため、新しいマクロ経済学（動学的一般均衡モデルにつながる）を作った。（第２の危機）そして、サージェントは今年ようやくノーベル賞を取った。
そして、いま、世界はデフレ+財政赤字（日本経済化？）に見舞われようとしている。今だよい解決策は得られていない。この第３の危機をいかにして乗り切るのか。
以下、３点が問題である。
（１）デフレは何が原因か？
（２）金融政策はデフレを止められるか？ 財政政策はいまやデフォルトの危機を抱えている以上無理。
（３）デフレが人々の間の「自信のなさ」から来るとすると、
どのように「自信」を生み出すのか？ そして、それは可能なのか？
Monday, November 21, 2011
On Econ Study
It is not easy for grad econ students to find out the themes of research. They are so busy in teaching that they can't study as they want.
I graduated from a graduate school of economics in 2005 and I re-started studying economics in 2007 and flied to a graduate school in the US, but returned here in 2008. Now I am in a teaching position at some private schools(not college or university) and trying to continue to study economics.
Recently I found a microeconomics book written by Takashi Negishi(1989), a worldly pioneer of general equilibrium theory: It has less than 250 pages and every item is written so shortly that I can follow. I try to read Chapter 4 on general equilibrium.
Until now I have tried several economics books and I found it difficult to understand economics by using them. Professor Maddala of Ohio State, they say, once said, "you can't learn anything from a fat book", and now I should completely agree with him.
I have tried to select a couple of econ texts(Micro: Varian(1992) and Dixit(1990), Macro: Barro&SalaiMartin(2004),Romer(2006)) and to focus on them to study micro and macro. I had a lot of macro texts, Blanchard&Fischer(1989), Obstfeld&Rogoff(1996), Sargent(2004),Farmer(1993) and so on, but it was too much for me to study the basics of macroeconomics. At last I decided to sell all these books and said to myself, "don't read too much and think more yourself first".
Before I went to the US, I had an interest in international finance, currency union, exchange rate fluctuation and open-macroeconomic policy. But reading the related research papers, I found it important to study macroeconomics and tried to study Ramsey model(optimal growth theory/RBC model). And then continuing Ramsey model, I found it more important to study general equilibrium model and studied basic micro theory, consumer-producer theory and Walrasian competitive equilibrium. Finally studying general equilibrium, I found it much more important to research 'equilibrium' and '(static&dynamic) optimization', of which modern microeconomics consists.
One day I was told one book by Prof Drewianka of Wisconsin Milwaukee and I tried to read it after I came back here. It was Schelling(1978), Micromotives and Macrobehavior, that I found interesting: Not too much but should be careful to read in order not to miss important ideas. It researches individual optimizations and social equilibria, and more on the related socio-economic matters. Reading it, I found it much more important to study the inter-relationship between micro optimizations and macro equilibria(phenomena) when I try to research some basic but difficult-to-understand macro issues, the determinations of interest rate, prices, exchange rate and national income.
Now I try to write plainly the interaction of agent behaviors and macro phenomena by using two key elements of modern economics(optimization and equilibrium) by using some related researches, Becker&Murphy(2000) and modern classics Akerlof(1984). Through basic study on economics, I would like to understand macro behaviors that have attracted social interests among people. I don't know how many years it takes to write it but I believe it is very important to keep trying.
I graduated from a graduate school of economics in 2005 and I re-started studying economics in 2007 and flied to a graduate school in the US, but returned here in 2008. Now I am in a teaching position at some private schools(not college or university) and trying to continue to study economics.
Recently I found a microeconomics book written by Takashi Negishi(1989), a worldly pioneer of general equilibrium theory: It has less than 250 pages and every item is written so shortly that I can follow. I try to read Chapter 4 on general equilibrium.
Until now I have tried several economics books and I found it difficult to understand economics by using them. Professor Maddala of Ohio State, they say, once said, "you can't learn anything from a fat book", and now I should completely agree with him.
I have tried to select a couple of econ texts(Micro: Varian(1992) and Dixit(1990), Macro: Barro&SalaiMartin(2004),Romer(2006)) and to focus on them to study micro and macro. I had a lot of macro texts, Blanchard&Fischer(1989), Obstfeld&Rogoff(1996), Sargent(2004),Farmer(1993) and so on, but it was too much for me to study the basics of macroeconomics. At last I decided to sell all these books and said to myself, "don't read too much and think more yourself first".
Before I went to the US, I had an interest in international finance, currency union, exchange rate fluctuation and open-macroeconomic policy. But reading the related research papers, I found it important to study macroeconomics and tried to study Ramsey model(optimal growth theory/RBC model). And then continuing Ramsey model, I found it more important to study general equilibrium model and studied basic micro theory, consumer-producer theory and Walrasian competitive equilibrium. Finally studying general equilibrium, I found it much more important to research 'equilibrium' and '(static&dynamic) optimization', of which modern microeconomics consists.
One day I was told one book by Prof Drewianka of Wisconsin Milwaukee and I tried to read it after I came back here. It was Schelling(1978), Micromotives and Macrobehavior, that I found interesting: Not too much but should be careful to read in order not to miss important ideas. It researches individual optimizations and social equilibria, and more on the related socio-economic matters. Reading it, I found it much more important to study the inter-relationship between micro optimizations and macro equilibria(phenomena) when I try to research some basic but difficult-to-understand macro issues, the determinations of interest rate, prices, exchange rate and national income.
Now I try to write plainly the interaction of agent behaviors and macro phenomena by using two key elements of modern economics(optimization and equilibrium) by using some related researches, Becker&Murphy(2000) and modern classics Akerlof(1984). Through basic study on economics, I would like to understand macro behaviors that have attracted social interests among people. I don't know how many years it takes to write it but I believe it is very important to keep trying.
我が経済学研究
最近、天牛書店（古本屋）で根岸隆『ミクロ経済学講義』を見つけ、３０歳にして始めて読んだ。現段階では読破していないが、非常にスマートで、読みやすい本である。僕向きの本に久々に出会った気がする。もちろん他のテキストでミクロ経済学に習熟していることが、この本の内容を理解するための必要条件になる。
アマゾンのレヴューで、小生はかつて西村清彦氏の『経済学のための最適化理論入門』、成生達彦氏と岸本哲也・吹春俊隆氏の『ミクロ経済学』を評したが、西村本は、勉強を進めるうちにDixitのOptimization in Economic Theoryに代替できると考え、古本屋へ売却した。成生＆岸本・吹春『ミクロ』本はまだ手元にあるが、「そろそろ卒業しなければ」と思いきや記述が簡潔で、教えられることが多く、今だ捨てられないでいる。
西村和雄氏の『ミクロ経済学』（東洋経済）は大学院へ入る前に使っていたが、VarianのMicroeconomic Theoryに代替できると考え、古本屋へ売却。いろいろあたらずに、少数のテキストをじっくり読んで身につけようと考え、他の経済理論本も売却し、ミクロはVarian（1992）とDixit（1990）、マクロはBarro=Sala-i-Martin（2004）とRomer（2006）、斎藤誠『新しいマクロ経済学』（ただし、前の版、1996版）（最近は加藤本も加わった）に絞って集中的に勉強している。２００７年から取り組んで早４年。「大きな本から何も学べない」という加藤涼氏の『現代マクロ経済学入門』（2006）の序文ではないが、小生も全く同感している。いろいろ寄り道せず、最初から上記に絞って勉強すればよかった。
今だよくわかっていない項目もあり、経済学の勉強は平坦ではない。小生は経済学に向いているとはやはり思わないが、それでも続けることに意味があると考え、時間を見つけて勉強に集中するようにしている。
大学ではなく民間の専門学校で経済学を講ずる今の身分は決して安定ではないが、この機会を大いに利用し、更なる経済学研究にまい進していきたい。
ちなみに今の研究テーマは「ミクロの意思決定とマクロ現象ならびに政策の関連性」。
過去は国際金融を勉強しようと考えていたが、これはマクロ経済学の周辺領域であると考えるようになり、マクロを勉強しなおそうとRamseyモデルからやり直した。やがて、マクロ経済学を勉強するうちにこれは「（動学的な）一般均衡理論の応用」だと考えるようになり、ミクロ経済学を消費者⇒生産者⇒市場均衡と順番に勉強しなおした。
そして、ミクロ経済学は「最適化」と「均衡」という２つの要素で構成されていると考え、最適化理論（Maximum Principle&Dynamic Programming）を勉強し始めた。これら現代経済学の根幹（最適化と均衡）について、簡潔に触れているのがSchelling（1978）本だと思うようになった。これはゲーム理論本ではなく、経済と社会現象の見方を論じた社会科学の経典である。もうすぐ日本語訳が出るらしいが、何故３０年もの間翻訳されなかったのが不思議である。しかしながら、Strategy of Conflicts(1960)はまだ読んでいない。（関連本にAkerlof（1984）があるがこれも優れた古典であるが、まだ読破していない。こちらは日本語訳がある。）
非常に大きな研究テーマであるが、小生の中では現代の経済学を「最適化」・「均衡」の観点から簡潔にまとめた文献がないと思う。広くミクロ経済学本ではいくつかあるが、どれも総花的な観が否めず、面白くない。大学院教科書のMasColell（1995）が最たる文献である。
SchellingのMicromotives and Macrobehavior(1978)やBecker&MurphyのSocial Economics（2000）で扱われたテーマを自分なりに解読し、modelを組み、個々人の選好の変化、社会的な好みがマクロ経済にどのような影響を与えるのかを、学部ミクロ＆マクロの知識でも読み解けるぐらいに簡潔にまとめていきたいと思っている。現実に起こっている経済の均衡を理解するためには、ミクロ経済学、マクロ経済学の違い、古典派・ケインズ派の相違を超えて、社会学や心理学といった周辺領域をも統合化しないといけない。
「選好」の研究は決して新しい分野ではなく、既に多くの先行研究が存在している。しかし、少しでも現実社会への視座を広げようとするとき、古いテーマを洗い出すことが必要だと考えている。いまはそのための貴重な時間である。
アマゾンのレヴューで、小生はかつて西村清彦氏の『経済学のための最適化理論入門』、成生達彦氏と岸本哲也・吹春俊隆氏の『ミクロ経済学』を評したが、西村本は、勉強を進めるうちにDixitのOptimization in Economic Theoryに代替できると考え、古本屋へ売却した。成生＆岸本・吹春『ミクロ』本はまだ手元にあるが、「そろそろ卒業しなければ」と思いきや記述が簡潔で、教えられることが多く、今だ捨てられないでいる。
西村和雄氏の『ミクロ経済学』（東洋経済）は大学院へ入る前に使っていたが、VarianのMicroeconomic Theoryに代替できると考え、古本屋へ売却。いろいろあたらずに、少数のテキストをじっくり読んで身につけようと考え、他の経済理論本も売却し、ミクロはVarian（1992）とDixit（1990）、マクロはBarro=Sala-i-Martin（2004）とRomer（2006）、斎藤誠『新しいマクロ経済学』（ただし、前の版、1996版）（最近は加藤本も加わった）に絞って集中的に勉強している。２００７年から取り組んで早４年。「大きな本から何も学べない」という加藤涼氏の『現代マクロ経済学入門』（2006）の序文ではないが、小生も全く同感している。いろいろ寄り道せず、最初から上記に絞って勉強すればよかった。
今だよくわかっていない項目もあり、経済学の勉強は平坦ではない。小生は経済学に向いているとはやはり思わないが、それでも続けることに意味があると考え、時間を見つけて勉強に集中するようにしている。
大学ではなく民間の専門学校で経済学を講ずる今の身分は決して安定ではないが、この機会を大いに利用し、更なる経済学研究にまい進していきたい。
ちなみに今の研究テーマは「ミクロの意思決定とマクロ現象ならびに政策の関連性」。
過去は国際金融を勉強しようと考えていたが、これはマクロ経済学の周辺領域であると考えるようになり、マクロを勉強しなおそうとRamseyモデルからやり直した。やがて、マクロ経済学を勉強するうちにこれは「（動学的な）一般均衡理論の応用」だと考えるようになり、ミクロ経済学を消費者⇒生産者⇒市場均衡と順番に勉強しなおした。
そして、ミクロ経済学は「最適化」と「均衡」という２つの要素で構成されていると考え、最適化理論（Maximum Principle&Dynamic Programming）を勉強し始めた。これら現代経済学の根幹（最適化と均衡）について、簡潔に触れているのがSchelling（1978）本だと思うようになった。これはゲーム理論本ではなく、経済と社会現象の見方を論じた社会科学の経典である。もうすぐ日本語訳が出るらしいが、何故３０年もの間翻訳されなかったのが不思議である。しかしながら、Strategy of Conflicts(1960)はまだ読んでいない。（関連本にAkerlof（1984）があるがこれも優れた古典であるが、まだ読破していない。こちらは日本語訳がある。）
非常に大きな研究テーマであるが、小生の中では現代の経済学を「最適化」・「均衡」の観点から簡潔にまとめた文献がないと思う。広くミクロ経済学本ではいくつかあるが、どれも総花的な観が否めず、面白くない。大学院教科書のMasColell（1995）が最たる文献である。
SchellingのMicromotives and Macrobehavior(1978)やBecker&MurphyのSocial Economics（2000）で扱われたテーマを自分なりに解読し、modelを組み、個々人の選好の変化、社会的な好みがマクロ経済にどのような影響を与えるのかを、学部ミクロ＆マクロの知識でも読み解けるぐらいに簡潔にまとめていきたいと思っている。現実に起こっている経済の均衡を理解するためには、ミクロ経済学、マクロ経済学の違い、古典派・ケインズ派の相違を超えて、社会学や心理学といった周辺領域をも統合化しないといけない。
「選好」の研究は決して新しい分野ではなく、既に多くの先行研究が存在している。しかし、少しでも現実社会への視座を広げようとするとき、古いテーマを洗い出すことが必要だと考えている。いまはそのための貴重な時間である。
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Thief, Liar and Killer
Why is thief and robber criminal? Because it's the against the law. (Right! but why does the law prohibit it?)
The proper answer is that "if thief is permitted, soon there'll be nothing to steal in the world".
If you can jump a restaurant bill, there'll be no restaurant that serves you in the world. If you can always tell a lie, no one trusts you anymore. If you can kill someone you hate, you'll be killed someday and should be careful!
The point is not because it's against the law, but why it is against the law. The point is not how much you should be punished for thief, but what kind of punishment affects your behavior: If you don't want to be killed, killing should necessarily be prohibited and the killer should be forced to be in jail.
Reference: Schelling(1978), Micromotives and macrobehavior, pp33, "woodcutter and bystanders"
Friday, November 04, 2011
Walkout and Sit In
I've never seen such a students' walkout or sit in in Japan. For me, it is very, very good for students to think about their politics, to discuss the political/social problems, and to do something related to their society even though it actually doesn't change the society at all.
I welcome walkout and sit in. But you guys should attend the class and ask Prof Mankiw to discuss. This is the first task that you should do(even though I missed class as a student and I have no qualification to give such advice).
Anyway I envy you because here in Japan there are (said to be) too many grass-eating young students( those who don't work hard, have no girl/boy friend, and no hope/dream for their future) . It seems that I can't have anything to expect them to make "the second Japan's miracle" come true.
However, I will struggle to study economics in order to have them think about how their society really works and how they should play an important role in the society.
I welcome walkout and sit in. But you guys should attend the class and ask Prof Mankiw to discuss. This is the first task that you should do(even though I missed class as a student and I have no qualification to give such advice).
Anyway I envy you because here in Japan there are (said to be) too many grass-eating young students( those who don't work hard, have no girl/boy friend, and no hope/dream for their future) . It seems that I can't have anything to expect them to make "the second Japan's miracle" come true.
However, I will struggle to study economics in order to have them think about how their society really works and how they should play an important role in the society.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
On Talk with Communist
Taro: Hey, man! This is my pen, don't take it!
Communist: No, it's not only yours, it's mine also.
Taro: OK...., give it to me, please.
Communist: No, it's mine....
Communist: No, it's not only yours, it's mine also.
Taro: OK...., give it to me, please.
Communist: No, it's mine....
Wanna Be Rich?
As an old lesson goes,
getting rich is more often the result of patience than of good luck.
getting rich is more often the result of patience than of good luck.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
カネ儲けについて
民間企業はもっと「社会貢献」すべきである。しかし、企業はもっと「カネ儲け」をすべきである。「カネ儲け」をもって「社会貢献」とする。これが企業の存在理由である。
近年の不況は東北の震災の影響もあり、長期にわたって続く見込みである。その中で「カネよりも大事なものがある」と言う世の言説に多大な共感と同情が寄せられている。
しかし、我々の生活の中で、企業は「カネ儲け」をすることで、人を雇用し、生産活動に専念し、所得を生み、結果、豊かな消費生活が実現する。それが資本主義経済である。それゆえ、民間企業は「カネ儲け」に専心することがまずもって第一である。
たとえるなら、「カネ」は資本主義経済を動かす「ガソリン」である。ガソリンがないと、車は動かない。同様に、カネがないと我々の生活も立ち行かない。経済にカネが回って初めて世が豊かになる。資本主義こそが、我々に与えられた最後の「生きるための手段」であるのだ。
近年の不況は東北の震災の影響もあり、長期にわたって続く見込みである。その中で「カネよりも大事なものがある」と言う世の言説に多大な共感と同情が寄せられている。
しかし、我々の生活の中で、企業は「カネ儲け」をすることで、人を雇用し、生産活動に専念し、所得を生み、結果、豊かな消費生活が実現する。それが資本主義経済である。それゆえ、民間企業は「カネ儲け」に専心することがまずもって第一である。
たとえるなら、「カネ」は資本主義経済を動かす「ガソリン」である。ガソリンがないと、車は動かない。同様に、カネがないと我々の生活も立ち行かない。経済にカネが回って初めて世が豊かになる。資本主義こそが、我々に与えられた最後の「生きるための手段」であるのだ。
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
安物買いの銭失い
安物買いの銭失い」という諺がある。
その意味は、「安いものは品質が悪く、すぐに壊れて買い替える必要があるので、高いものを買うより損だということ。」
しかし、もう一つ意味があるように思う。「安いものはたくさん買ってしまい、後で不要不急であることに気がつき、結局使わずに捨ててしまうということ。」
１００円ショップ、９９円ショップで買い物するときは要注意。
その意味は、「安いものは品質が悪く、すぐに壊れて買い替える必要があるので、高いものを買うより損だということ。」
しかし、もう一つ意味があるように思う。「安いものはたくさん買ってしまい、後で不要不急であることに気がつき、結局使わずに捨ててしまうということ。」
１００円ショップ、９９円ショップで買い物するときは要注意。
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
今年５月自殺者が増えた
今年５月に自殺者が急増したのは、女性タレントの自殺の影響だった――。清水康之内閣府参与（ＮＰＯ自殺対策支援センター・ライフリンク代表）が４日、内閣府の自殺対策会議でそう報告した。
減少傾向にあった月別自殺者数が５月、前年比１９．７％増と急伸したため、当時の担当大臣だった蓮舫氏が東日本大震災との関連を含めて内閣府に分析を指示していた。
その結果、今年初めからの自殺者数は１日平均８２人だったが、人気女性タレントの自殺が報じられた翌日の５月１３日から１週間は１日平均１２４人に増え たことが判明。増加分の半数以上を２０～３０代が占め、女性の伸び率が高かった。清水氏は原因として「女性タレントの自殺と関連報道が考えられる。政府と してはメディア各社にガイドラインの策定を呼びかけるべきだ」と指摘した。
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Dynamic Scoring
If you cut the tax, how much income could you increase? This is the theme of this article. This is not only so an interesting, but also a practical issue.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Culture of the Tea Party
Everyone doesn't like tax. Tax has really a great political power; brought the American Revolution, caught Al Capone and caused the World War Two(Hawley-Smoot Tariff).
Happiness Needs Trust
The recent development in economic research tells of what is different from the usual textbook of economics:
(Trust) will have an extra contribution to human welfare because happier societies are ones where people trust each other and spend a fair amount of time catering to social needs.”
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Still Support Mr. Kan
Prime Minister Naoto Kan survived a no-confidence vote in Parliament on Thursday in the 480-seat lower house by a margin of 293 to 152. He could keep power from reverting to the oppositions, Liberal Democratic Party, Komei Party and Your Party, which sponsored the no-confidence vote. (06/02/2011, The New York Times)
At first, some members (faction) loyal to one of the Democratic Party’s heavyweights, Ozawa Ichiro, appeared to vote for the no-confidence measure. But before the vote Mr. Kan implied that he would step down after fulfilling his political duties, and then many of them decided to vote against it.
Yomiuri Shimbun, the leading newspaper read in Japan, summarized that his winning the vote meant a “life-prolonged treatment” for the Kan Administration. However, I guess it meant rather a “unique choice” left available to the ruling party and the oppositions, and the Japanese people.
If Mr. Kan had lost the vote and dissolved the lower house and held a general election, the Democratic Party might lose and the oppositions might win it, but do they have a stronger leadership than does Mr. Kan to take over him? No! No one knows what will happen “after Kan”.
Should Kan Step Down?
There has been a growing tendency to hope that Mr. Kan will leave the office. But I can’t find the clear reason for his leaving the office and can’t understand the people who request him to leave. Yomiuri Shimbun also agrees to his resignation, and reasons that he hasn’t took the leadership to deal with the Big Earthquake disaster on 11 March, and the nuclear power crisis that the quake caused. However, I can see the reasoning as rather the disguise that the oppositions use to draw him out of the office.
What Kan Faces Now
I reduce the political challenges into three that the Kan Administration should tackle: (1) reconstruction of the disaster area, (2) fiscal reform on tax system and social welfare for the coming aging Japan, (3) negotiation for EPA with EU and TPP with the US. And then I would ask you: could someone else solve the problems? Or help the victims better their situations? First of all, we have to ask these questions for those who agree. It is the voters’ right.
If the Democrats (especially faction closer to Ozawa) requested Mr. Kan to step down, they would have to explain to us who will take over him and what better will happen to us. Moreover, if the oppositions requested that (as Mr.Oshima of the LDP did), and then they promised to cooperate with the Democrats to vote for the government budget, the Democrats would have to ask the explanation for who they think will take the next leadership and what they plan to do for the recovery of the disaster and the large budget deficit. (as Mr.Yamai of the Democratic Party did) That should be the responsibility of the ruling party.
What is a True Leadership?
Kakuei Tanaka, now the legendary ex-prime minister of Japan, the accused in the Lockheed Scandal in the late 1970s, and the father of Makiko Tanaka, Democrat, once said to a reporter for the Mainichi Shimbun, “your job is to accuse me, my job is to be accused by you”, and accepted a dinner with him. This is the episode, an old-timer political pundit, Hisaichi Miyake, introduced on a TV program.
Many blame Mr. Kan for his lack of the leadership, but some years ago, ex-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, whom now many appraise for his strong leadership, was blamed and cast doubt on by the press.
Needless to say, a leader always faces a fierce conflict of interests in his leading party and Parliament, and has hardship in making an important political choice and decision that may have a great influence on many people’s everyday life and status. The larger his party and Parliament, the more time it takes to harmonize the Diet members’ interests and to get his or her to understand and to pass the budget in Parliament. That is what keeps Mr. Kan inactive and slow to tackle the nuclear crisis. Yes, of course, Mr. Kan should have the responsibility to ask the opposites to pass the bills much more quickly.
It is so natural to blame him for his slow action, unclear statements, and weak leadership that might bear a great risk of a political vacuum. In the background of saying that “a leader should be one accused and criticized”, there should be a political responsibility he should take by completing a careful verification and confirmation of whether the decisions he takes a lot of time to make is really consistent to his belief and idea of politics he talks to the people or the pledges he commits. And this is the leadership that we need now and that we ask Mr. Kan to take.
People usually need a leader like “a knight in a white horse”, which means the leader who leads them to the right direction that they really need to take. However, that’s untrue and, we should note that the best friend of decision-making and action in a parliamentary democracy is “time” itself.
It is natural to ask Mr. Kan to take the action much more quickly for the victims who have no house, but his slow decision and action cannot be the critical reason for his resignation. Not only Mr. Kan but all the Diet members should also tackle and solve the problems at the same time. (How many bills have they submitted since the 3.11 crisis? )
Your Platform, Your Trust
Yomiuri Shimbun suggests that the ruling party completely revise the Democratic Party’s platform, what is called “the Manifesto”. We could remember the very hot summer when the Democratic Party won the general election. It was on 30, August in 2009. It won more than half the seats in the House of Representatives.
The reason is not only that people got rid of the political show of alternating Prime Ministers directed and produced by the LDP, but also that the pledges the Democratic Party committed seemed so new and fresh: for example, the restructuring of civil service, monthly allowance to a family with children (¥26,000 per child), cut in gas tax, free tuition for public high schools, banning of temporary work in manufacturing, and halting of increase in sales tax for the next four years and so on. (Democratic Party of Japan; Wikipedia) These had so a large impact on voters that the LDP, ex-ruling party lost the election.
In the background of the birth of the now Kan Administration, there was the irresponsibility of Mr. Hatoyama, ex-Prime Minister (now a harsh critic of Mr. Kan) who promised to draw the US Army Air Forces (USAAF) out of Okinawa, which I think had much more impact on the Japanese people, but later broke this promise and left the office, and of the factions of the Democratic Party who criticize Mr. Kan just as a TV show pundit without regarding themselves as the leaders belonging to the ruling party.
The Manifesto is a promise to the national people. Some of them vote not for the Democratic Party, but for the Manifesto itself. If they would try to revise it, they should ask the will of the people. That’s the way they can keep themselves trustful. Mr. Ozawa insists that he fulfill the Manifesto, and it is worthwhile praising. Politics should be on the base of a “promise to the people” and begins to have the raison deter by fulfilling it. In the case of breaking it, distrust of politics begins to spread among people, and leads them further into the depth of the political chaos, “the merry-go-round Prime Minister”.
Yes, Kan “Kan”.
Politics builds on the basis of the mutual trust between leaders and the people. Some political philosopher might say it is the “contract” between them. That is why the leaders can lead the people. A true leader is not a knight in a white horse, but one who can face harsh critics sincerely. If you request Mr. Kan to step down, you should post what you think to do next beforehand. The press, I think, should also show the public who will be the next possible Prime Minister, and what he or she should do as a good opinion leader in Japan, even though it is so ridiculous.
In conclusion, I support Mr. Kan.Who is better than him as a Prime Minister to tackle the post-crisis political and fiscal problems? Some pundits predict that it will be much more difficult for Mr. Kan to pass the bills because the oppositions will not support him in Parliament. But who can get the support easier? No one can. Only can Kan, right?
Mr. Kan should pass the budget for the reconstruction of the disaster area first and tackle the related problems. That’s the best (or the only) way to avoid a political vacuum in Japan many fear most, and to help better the victims’ health and welfare.
Friday, June 03, 2011
私はそれでも菅首相を支持する
内閣不信任案
菅内閣に対する不信任決議案は２日午後、衆院本会議で採決され、賛成１５２、反対２９３（投票総数４４５、過半数２２３）で否決された。
不信任案は自民、公明、たちあがれ日本の野党３党が共同提出した。菅首相の政権運営や党運営に批判的な小沢氏支持議員らが、野党に同調して賛成する動きをみせた。５月３１日夜に会談した鳩山由紀夫前首相が首相に退陣を要求。小沢氏は１日夜、不信任案に賛成する意向を表明するなど造反の動きが広がり、不信任案可決の公算が大きくなっていた。（産経新聞、６月２日木曜日）
読売新聞（６月３日）の玉井政治部長は、不信任案の否決は「菅内閣の『信任』」を意味しない、という。「期限付きの延命措置」だという。しかしながら、それは、「延命措置」というより「残された唯一の選択」ではなかったか。このまま総選挙をやれば、民主党は負け、自民党が与党になるかもしれない。しかし、その自民党、又は公明、みんなの党に後を引き継ぐだけの指導力を発揮する者がいるだろうか。いなかった、のではなかったか。
何故菅首相はやめなければならないか
「菅首相退陣」、そして「ポスト菅」の期待が高まっている。しかし、私はどうも菅首相がやめるべき理由が見えない。「菅退陣」を声高に言っている人々を正直理解できない。読売新聞は６月３日の社説で「政府与党が一丸となった機動的な震災対応ができない」ことを「菅首相の責任」とし、「首相退陣」の具体的な理由に掲げるが、理由にはなっていない。むしろ、「3.11」が「首相退陣の理由」として、政治利用、つまり与野党の政局に利用されているように見える。
「ポスト菅」の姿とは
今我々が考えるべき政治課題を３点にまとめよう。①震災復興、②税・社会保障の改革、③TPP・EUとのEPA交渉。そして、こう問いかけよう。「菅首相の退陣」によってこれら３点の問題が早く解決するのか。さらに、「菅首相の退陣」はより多くの国民、特に震災の被害者の理解と福祉向上に役立つか。
この点を我々は真剣に政権与党ならびに野党議員に問わなくてはならない。これは有権者たる我々の責任と義務でもある。
そして、民主党内部の一部（小沢グループ他）が「菅首相の退陣」を要求するならば、「ポスト菅」の具体的構想と、「ポスト菅は菅首相よりもいい政権運営ができること」を早急に国民の前に示すことが必要である。「・・・レポート」でもいい。西岡議長による「西岡論文」はただの「首相退陣要求」に過ぎず、「首相退陣後のヴィジョン」を示さなければならない。
さらに、野党が首相の退陣を要求し（自民大島氏）、その引き換えに予算関連法（特例法）案の成立に協力する、というのであるなら、政権与党である民主・国民新党は「ポスト菅」についてどのように考えているのか、対案を示すように野党側に強く要求すべきである（この点は民主山井氏が指摘している）。これこそ、政権与党の責任である。
指導力とはなにか
昔田中角栄元首相は政治記者に「あなたは批判するのが仕事、私は批判されるのが仕事」と言って、政治記者との会食に快く応じた、というエピソードを政治評論家の三宅久之氏が語っていた。
「指導力のなさ」が菅首相に対して言われるが、強力なリーダーシップを評価される小泉首相もかつて「丸投げ」と揶揄され、そのリーダーシップにマスコミは疑義を投げた。指導者は常に様々な利害調整の場に立たされ、難しい選択とその政策実行を迫られる。指揮する組織が大きければ大きいほど、その調整と意思決定には時間がかかる。国会・党・政権内部での見解・意見の相違も当然でてくる。法案成立のため、協力を仰ぐのに時間がかかる。菅首相の法案成立の「鈍さ」はそこにあるのではないか。もちろん、菅首相は野党に早期に協力をしてもらうことを嘆願すべきである（自民谷垣氏に入閣要請しているが、谷垣氏は断っている。）
とにかく、リーダーに対する「対応が遅い」、「発言がはっきりしない」、「政治空白だ」といった非難・批判は、当然のことである。「指導者は批判されるもの」と言う言葉の背景には、なによりも時間のかかる意思決定が、野党との調整もさることながら、常に自らが信条としてきた政策理念または、国民に約束した公約（マニフェスト）と果たして整合性があるのか、という「周到な検証と確認作業」を常々やり通さなければならない政治的責任を背負っていることがある。この政治的責任を全うすることこそ、「指導力」ではないか。菅首相にそれがあるのか問わなければならない。
人は「白馬の騎士」のようなリーダーを求めるが、議会制民主主義における意思決定と実行の最高の友人は「時間」なのである。「時間がかかる」事を理由に「首相退陣」を求めることは、3.11の対応を早くして欲しいと言う世情から当然ではある。が、3.11の対応は、首相だけの問題でなく、全国会議員の政治責任の下で果たされるべき問題であるはずだ。（国会内で、予算関連・震災復興のための議員立法がこれまでいくつ出ただろうか？地元の後援会の写真ばかりHPに載せてる議員の先生方が多いように思うのは私だけだろうか。）
マニフェストの大きさ
ところで、「首相退陣」とならんで、マニフェストの「大胆な見直し」を読売新聞は唱えるが、２００９年８月３０日に第一党として、衆議院議員総選挙で勝ったのは、首相交代劇に明け暮れる自民党政治への苛立ちもあったが、なによりも「子供手当て」に代表される「民主党のマニフェスト」も大きい。そのマニフェストの政策原資は、特別会計などの霞ヶ関「埋蔵金」でまかなうとし、徹底した「無駄の排除」を掲げて「事業仕分け」にも、ややパフォーマンスであったかもしれないが、着手するとした民主党の意思表明は，国民に自民党にはない「新鮮味と爽快感」を与えたのではなかったか。
しかしながら、「普天間基地問題」について自ら責任を取り辞任した鳩山首相に代わり、菅首相が政権運営するにいたった背景には、そうしたある種の国民に与えた「新鮮味と爽快感」を踏み潰した鳩山首相の、思いつきとしかいえない発言の転換と、自分たちが政権を担うと言う気概に欠如し、評論家郡と化した「（小沢系）民主党議員」がいたのではないだろうか。
マニフェストは国民との約束である。民主党よりも、そのマニフェストに票を投じた人もたくさんいよう。もしこれを変更するのなら、民意を問わなければならないのではないか。マニフェストを何が何でも実行する、という小沢氏の姿勢は評価に値する。政治は「国民との約束」の上で成り立ち、それを果たすことこそ政治の存在理由である。これを裏切れば、政治不信は深まり、日本人はさらなる混迷の淵に突き落とされよう。
嘘つきはあなただ！
そう、政治は「信頼」なのであり、「約束」なのである。政治哲学者なら「契約」と言うかもしれない。その時々の情勢で、もしその契約を変更するのなら、事前に報告し、民意を問うのが、政治の信頼を損なわない良策である。
そして、その「約束」に基づき、信任された松木議員の「造反」についても疑問がわく。松木氏に問いただしたい。「先生、『造反』を国民と約束してきましたか」と。横粂議員について、「先生、民主党を離党すると約束されましたか？」と。そして、いささか政治家として「発言の重み」を自覚しない「不信任案に賛成するといって反対に転じた」民主党議員の方々に「あなたがたこそ、嘘つきだ」と。「あなたがたこそ、政治不信の元凶だ」と。
評論家をしたいのなら、議員バッチをはずし、私と同じように民間で活動すべきだ。税金で評論家活動をしないでいただきたい。政治家の仕事は、「菅辞めろ」などという「評論」ではなく、日々日本を取り巻く環境を研究し、関係者のヒアリングを重ね、法律を作り、実行に向けたスキームを国民に示し、国民と対話することである。それができないであるなら、議員辞職すべきである。
菅首相のやるべきこと
真のリーダーとは「白馬の騎士」ではなく、「厳しい批判に真剣に直面できる」人である、と私は考える。メディアのいっていることはやはり間違っているように思う。「菅首相退陣」を求める読売新聞も、「ポスト菅」を示していない。「世論形成」に値する誠意と責任ある報道をやるならば、多少ばかげた空論でもいいから、「ポスト菅」を示すべきだ。
しかし、私は菅首相は辞めるべきでない、と考えている。「第２次予算案・特例法案を成立させ、３．１１対応に全力を尽くすべきである。」この一言に尽きる。誰かもっといい首相候補がいるだろうか。誰が、何を、どのようにするのか。ちゃんと示してから、「首相退陣」を論じるべきだ。菅首相は今ただやるべき上記のことを実行すればよい。これこそが、政治空白を防止し、国民の福祉に寄与する唯一の残された良い選択なのである。
菅内閣に対する不信任決議案は２日午後、衆院本会議で採決され、賛成１５２、反対２９３（投票総数４４５、過半数２２３）で否決された。
不信任案は自民、公明、たちあがれ日本の野党３党が共同提出した。菅首相の政権運営や党運営に批判的な小沢氏支持議員らが、野党に同調して賛成する動きをみせた。５月３１日夜に会談した鳩山由紀夫前首相が首相に退陣を要求。小沢氏は１日夜、不信任案に賛成する意向を表明するなど造反の動きが広がり、不信任案可決の公算が大きくなっていた。（産経新聞、６月２日木曜日）
読売新聞（６月３日）の玉井政治部長は、不信任案の否決は「菅内閣の『信任』」を意味しない、という。「期限付きの延命措置」だという。しかしながら、それは、「延命措置」というより「残された唯一の選択」ではなかったか。このまま総選挙をやれば、民主党は負け、自民党が与党になるかもしれない。しかし、その自民党、又は公明、みんなの党に後を引き継ぐだけの指導力を発揮する者がいるだろうか。いなかった、のではなかったか。
何故菅首相はやめなければならないか
「菅首相退陣」、そして「ポスト菅」の期待が高まっている。しかし、私はどうも菅首相がやめるべき理由が見えない。「菅退陣」を声高に言っている人々を正直理解できない。読売新聞は６月３日の社説で「政府与党が一丸となった機動的な震災対応ができない」ことを「菅首相の責任」とし、「首相退陣」の具体的な理由に掲げるが、理由にはなっていない。むしろ、「3.11」が「首相退陣の理由」として、政治利用、つまり与野党の政局に利用されているように見える。
「ポスト菅」の姿とは
今我々が考えるべき政治課題を３点にまとめよう。①震災復興、②税・社会保障の改革、③TPP・EUとのEPA交渉。そして、こう問いかけよう。「菅首相の退陣」によってこれら３点の問題が早く解決するのか。さらに、「菅首相の退陣」はより多くの国民、特に震災の被害者の理解と福祉向上に役立つか。
この点を我々は真剣に政権与党ならびに野党議員に問わなくてはならない。これは有権者たる我々の責任と義務でもある。
そして、民主党内部の一部（小沢グループ他）が「菅首相の退陣」を要求するならば、「ポスト菅」の具体的構想と、「ポスト菅は菅首相よりもいい政権運営ができること」を早急に国民の前に示すことが必要である。「・・・レポート」でもいい。西岡議長による「西岡論文」はただの「首相退陣要求」に過ぎず、「首相退陣後のヴィジョン」を示さなければならない。
さらに、野党が首相の退陣を要求し（自民大島氏）、その引き換えに予算関連法（特例法）案の成立に協力する、というのであるなら、政権与党である民主・国民新党は「ポスト菅」についてどのように考えているのか、対案を示すように野党側に強く要求すべきである（この点は民主山井氏が指摘している）。これこそ、政権与党の責任である。
指導力とはなにか
昔田中角栄元首相は政治記者に「あなたは批判するのが仕事、私は批判されるのが仕事」と言って、政治記者との会食に快く応じた、というエピソードを政治評論家の三宅久之氏が語っていた。
「指導力のなさ」が菅首相に対して言われるが、強力なリーダーシップを評価される小泉首相もかつて「丸投げ」と揶揄され、そのリーダーシップにマスコミは疑義を投げた。指導者は常に様々な利害調整の場に立たされ、難しい選択とその政策実行を迫られる。指揮する組織が大きければ大きいほど、その調整と意思決定には時間がかかる。国会・党・政権内部での見解・意見の相違も当然でてくる。法案成立のため、協力を仰ぐのに時間がかかる。菅首相の法案成立の「鈍さ」はそこにあるのではないか。もちろん、菅首相は野党に早期に協力をしてもらうことを嘆願すべきである（自民谷垣氏に入閣要請しているが、谷垣氏は断っている。）
とにかく、リーダーに対する「対応が遅い」、「発言がはっきりしない」、「政治空白だ」といった非難・批判は、当然のことである。「指導者は批判されるもの」と言う言葉の背景には、なによりも時間のかかる意思決定が、野党との調整もさることながら、常に自らが信条としてきた政策理念または、国民に約束した公約（マニフェスト）と果たして整合性があるのか、という「周到な検証と確認作業」を常々やり通さなければならない政治的責任を背負っていることがある。この政治的責任を全うすることこそ、「指導力」ではないか。菅首相にそれがあるのか問わなければならない。
人は「白馬の騎士」のようなリーダーを求めるが、議会制民主主義における意思決定と実行の最高の友人は「時間」なのである。「時間がかかる」事を理由に「首相退陣」を求めることは、3.11の対応を早くして欲しいと言う世情から当然ではある。が、3.11の対応は、首相だけの問題でなく、全国会議員の政治責任の下で果たされるべき問題であるはずだ。（国会内で、予算関連・震災復興のための議員立法がこれまでいくつ出ただろうか？地元の後援会の写真ばかりHPに載せてる議員の先生方が多いように思うのは私だけだろうか。）
マニフェストの大きさ
ところで、「首相退陣」とならんで、マニフェストの「大胆な見直し」を読売新聞は唱えるが、２００９年８月３０日に第一党として、衆議院議員総選挙で勝ったのは、首相交代劇に明け暮れる自民党政治への苛立ちもあったが、なによりも「子供手当て」に代表される「民主党のマニフェスト」も大きい。そのマニフェストの政策原資は、特別会計などの霞ヶ関「埋蔵金」でまかなうとし、徹底した「無駄の排除」を掲げて「事業仕分け」にも、ややパフォーマンスであったかもしれないが、着手するとした民主党の意思表明は，国民に自民党にはない「新鮮味と爽快感」を与えたのではなかったか。
しかしながら、「普天間基地問題」について自ら責任を取り辞任した鳩山首相に代わり、菅首相が政権運営するにいたった背景には、そうしたある種の国民に与えた「新鮮味と爽快感」を踏み潰した鳩山首相の、思いつきとしかいえない発言の転換と、自分たちが政権を担うと言う気概に欠如し、評論家郡と化した「（小沢系）民主党議員」がいたのではないだろうか。
マニフェストは国民との約束である。民主党よりも、そのマニフェストに票を投じた人もたくさんいよう。もしこれを変更するのなら、民意を問わなければならないのではないか。マニフェストを何が何でも実行する、という小沢氏の姿勢は評価に値する。政治は「国民との約束」の上で成り立ち、それを果たすことこそ政治の存在理由である。これを裏切れば、政治不信は深まり、日本人はさらなる混迷の淵に突き落とされよう。
嘘つきはあなただ！
そう、政治は「信頼」なのであり、「約束」なのである。政治哲学者なら「契約」と言うかもしれない。その時々の情勢で、もしその契約を変更するのなら、事前に報告し、民意を問うのが、政治の信頼を損なわない良策である。
そして、その「約束」に基づき、信任された松木議員の「造反」についても疑問がわく。松木氏に問いただしたい。「先生、『造反』を国民と約束してきましたか」と。横粂議員について、「先生、民主党を離党すると約束されましたか？」と。そして、いささか政治家として「発言の重み」を自覚しない「不信任案に賛成するといって反対に転じた」民主党議員の方々に「あなたがたこそ、嘘つきだ」と。「あなたがたこそ、政治不信の元凶だ」と。
評論家をしたいのなら、議員バッチをはずし、私と同じように民間で活動すべきだ。税金で評論家活動をしないでいただきたい。政治家の仕事は、「菅辞めろ」などという「評論」ではなく、日々日本を取り巻く環境を研究し、関係者のヒアリングを重ね、法律を作り、実行に向けたスキームを国民に示し、国民と対話することである。それができないであるなら、議員辞職すべきである。
菅首相のやるべきこと
真のリーダーとは「白馬の騎士」ではなく、「厳しい批判に真剣に直面できる」人である、と私は考える。メディアのいっていることはやはり間違っているように思う。「菅首相退陣」を求める読売新聞も、「ポスト菅」を示していない。「世論形成」に値する誠意と責任ある報道をやるならば、多少ばかげた空論でもいいから、「ポスト菅」を示すべきだ。
しかし、私は菅首相は辞めるべきでない、と考えている。「第２次予算案・特例法案を成立させ、３．１１対応に全力を尽くすべきである。」この一言に尽きる。誰かもっといい首相候補がいるだろうか。誰が、何を、どのようにするのか。ちゃんと示してから、「首相退陣」を論じるべきだ。菅首相は今ただやるべき上記のことを実行すればよい。これこそが、政治空白を防止し、国民の福祉に寄与する唯一の残された良い選択なのである。
Monday, May 16, 2011
Worry Makes Us Happy!?
...worry about success causes students to study harder to gain admission to better universities. It makes assistant professors work harder to earn tenure. It leads film makers to strive harder to create the perfect scene, and songwriters to dig deeper for the most pleasing melody. In every domain, people who work harder are more likely to succeed professionally, more likely to make a difference.
Good post! If we face difficult situations to tackle, we should remember that this is the next step we should take.
Good post! If we face difficult situations to tackle, we should remember that this is the next step we should take.
自殺について
自殺についての詳細なデータである。
（１）自殺死亡率の年次推移をみると、明治32年の5,932人から昭和11年の15,423人までは増加傾向を示しているが、昭和12年から戦時中まで減少傾向となっている。戦後についてみると、ドッジライン以降のデフレ不況（1949～1950）、なべ底不況（1957～58）と第１次平成不況（1991～93）、第２次平成不況（1997～2000）では特に高い推移を示しているように見える。明治以降一貫して、自殺率は増加しているように見える。
（２）性・特定年齢別自殺死亡率をみると、自殺死亡率は男性の方が多く、男性の５０～５４歳台の自殺率の増加が目に付く。
（３）性・年齢階級別死亡数に占める自殺死亡数の割合、自殺の死因順位をみると、平成15年の自殺死亡数の総死亡数に占める割合は、男女とも「25～29歳」が最も高くなっている。
（４）死亡曜日別にみた自殺をみると、月曜日が多く、死亡時間別にみた自殺では、男は「０時台」「５時台～６時台」が多くなっており、女は「５時台～６時台」「10時台～12時台」が多い。月別にみた自殺では、多くの年で４・５月がピークになっており、配偶関係別にみた自殺では、男は平成７年・12年ともに「離別」がすべての年齢階級で高く、女は40歳以上については、「未婚」が「離別」と同程度となっている。
（５）都道府県別にみた自殺では、 最高は男女とも秋田県、手段別自殺死亡数割合では、「首吊り」が最も多く、男女ともに14大都市では「飛び降り」が多くなっており、郡部では「縊首」「薬 物」が多くなっている。
（６）職業・産業別にみた自殺では、「就業者総数」では男32.9、女8.9、「無職」では男70.8、女21.9となっており、特に男の「無職」が高くなっている。また、就業者を職業別にみると、男女ともに「第１次産業」が高くなっている。男では特に「サービス職業従事者」が高くなっている。
非常にラフなまとめであるが、「男で、２０歳代後半、未婚か離別、無職または第１次産業かサービス産業従事者、秋田県在住で、４月か５月の月曜日の明け方５時ぐらいに自殺しやすい」と言う結論が得られる。これが何を物語るのかは分からないが、傾向として見られるようだ。
（１）自殺死亡率の年次推移をみると、明治32年の5,932人から昭和11年の15,423人までは増加傾向を示しているが、昭和12年から戦時中まで減少傾向となっている。戦後についてみると、ドッジライン以降のデフレ不況（1949～1950）、なべ底不況（1957～58）と第１次平成不況（1991～93）、第２次平成不況（1997～2000）では特に高い推移を示しているように見える。明治以降一貫して、自殺率は増加しているように見える。
（２）性・特定年齢別自殺死亡率をみると、自殺死亡率は男性の方が多く、男性の５０～５４歳台の自殺率の増加が目に付く。
（３）性・年齢階級別死亡数に占める自殺死亡数の割合、自殺の死因順位をみると、平成15年の自殺死亡数の総死亡数に占める割合は、男女とも「25～29歳」が最も高くなっている。
（４）死亡曜日別にみた自殺をみると、月曜日が多く、死亡時間別にみた自殺では、男は「０時台」「５時台～６時台」が多くなっており、女は「５時台～６時台」「10時台～12時台」が多い。月別にみた自殺では、多くの年で４・５月がピークになっており、配偶関係別にみた自殺では、男は平成７年・12年ともに「離別」がすべての年齢階級で高く、女は40歳以上については、「未婚」が「離別」と同程度となっている。
（５）都道府県別にみた自殺では、 最高は男女とも秋田県、手段別自殺死亡数割合では、「首吊り」が最も多く、男女ともに14大都市では「飛び降り」が多くなっており、郡部では「縊首」「薬 物」が多くなっている。
（６）職業・産業別にみた自殺では、「就業者総数」では男32.9、女8.9、「無職」では男70.8、女21.9となっており、特に男の「無職」が高くなっている。また、就業者を職業別にみると、男女ともに「第１次産業」が高くなっている。男では特に「サービス職業従事者」が高くなっている。
非常にラフなまとめであるが、「男で、２０歳代後半、未婚か離別、無職または第１次産業かサービス産業従事者、秋田県在住で、４月か５月の月曜日の明け方５時ぐらいに自殺しやすい」と言う結論が得られる。これが何を物語るのかは分からないが、傾向として見られるようだ。
Thursday, May 12, 2011
On Suicide
I am used to watching the newspaper reporting the suicide of the well-known in Japan. I am interested in this social problem because there are some people who don't want to live longer even in one of the economically well- developed countries in the world, Japan.
The Economist seeks the cause a little bit, though it seems to be somewhat frequently pointed out by western people:
The samurai tradition views suicide as noble (though perhaps out of self-interest, since captured warriors were treated gruesomely). Japan's main religions, Buddhism and Shintoism, are neutral on suicide, unlike Abrahamic faiths that explicitly prohibit it.
As is known in Japan, Japanese people have not been more religious. Rather, that may be possible to think of as one of the causes: they are less likely to think that life is something blissful given to us from the heaven, or, that committing a suicide is morally a bad thing as the above excerpt implies.
The Economist goes, Financial concerns are cited in one-fifth of suicide notes; almost half of all suicides are unemployed.
However, the unemployment rate is much higher in France(7.4%) and Germany(7.5%) than in Japan(4.0%). (Data is as of 2008, OECD) It seems to me that unemployment is not so closely related to suicide rate. Economic reason is one of the influential, but is not most influential in the suicide behavior. Anyway, this suicide rate tells that something is wrong with the Japanese society.
The Economist seeks the cause a little bit, though it seems to be somewhat frequently pointed out by western people:
The samurai tradition views suicide as noble (though perhaps out of self-interest, since captured warriors were treated gruesomely). Japan's main religions, Buddhism and Shintoism, are neutral on suicide, unlike Abrahamic faiths that explicitly prohibit it.
As is known in Japan, Japanese people have not been more religious. Rather, that may be possible to think of as one of the causes: they are less likely to think that life is something blissful given to us from the heaven, or, that committing a suicide is morally a bad thing as the above excerpt implies.
The Economist goes, Financial concerns are cited in one-fifth of suicide notes; almost half of all suicides are unemployed.
However, the unemployment rate is much higher in France(7.4%) and Germany(7.5%) than in Japan(4.0%). (Data is as of 2008, OECD) It seems to me that unemployment is not so closely related to suicide rate. Economic reason is one of the influential, but is not most influential in the suicide behavior. Anyway, this suicide rate tells that something is wrong with the Japanese society.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Facebook, Blogger, Twitter, and Youtube
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.
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.
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)