Ten years ago, we never had blog, twitter, facebook and youtube. Now we enjoy them everyday and, for many people, joining facebook has became part of their everyday life. Recently I've been busy dropping comments on the facebook and haven't updated this blog.
What does this change in informational technology bring to us?
While updating the blog, I am wondering if we've really changed the world view by using facebook, twitter, youtube and blog: We can so easily catch up with what is happening in the world by using them.
We don't necessarily need to find the people in other place. Use facebook to search whom you want to make friends with. We don't necessarily check up TV programs. Use youtube to find out what we want to watch most. We don't necessarily meet people at the cafeteria to chat. Use twitter to say something trivial. We don't necessarily opine to the press. Use blogger to write down what you have in mind.
Certainly we are now in the world that is different from the ten-year-ago world. Could we have imagined what this world is like ten years ago?
Now we spend our time on some activities that were never experienced ten years ago. Our society and economy must change in some different way. We never imagine what the end will be like. I don't have any pessimistic view on this technologically informational change.
Rather I would feel like writing that our future will be very bright: People talk to each other without any political constraint. In Egypt, people drew down Mubarak from the power. We never thought of it without having this informational change(How could a very large number of people get together immediately?). We now have a powerful tool to change the world view and the world itself.
I try to foresee what this technological change is bringing to us.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, February 07, 2011
Rebuild the Economy
Japan is in a government-financial problem: the government tax revenue is less than the expenditure and issues a lot of bonds to meet the deficit. Japan is in a serious debt. How to solve it?
Just only three ways to have in mind:
(1) raise the tax
(2) cut the spending
(3) boost the economy as a whole
Should try all of these? Should try two of the above? Should try one of the three? Say, if you boost up the economy and raise the tax at the same time, you should spend less and the whole economy goes bad and the tax revenue decreases. So should the economy do if you cut the spending and boost the economy. We seem to have such a trilemma.
Regarding this old and new problem, Alberto Alesina of Harvard University and Roberto Perotti of IGIER might have the hint:
fiscal adjustments
(1) which rely primarily on spending cuts and cuts in government wage bill have a better chance of being successful and expansionary.
(2) which rely primarily on tax increases and cuts in public investment tend not to last and are contractionary.
The above research is empirically derived not theoretically, but (which I think Kan's advisors know) Prime Minister Kan has to know this because he tries the latter to increase the consumption tax and to cut the public spending. Pls don't miss the coming social experiment!
Just only three ways to have in mind:
(1) raise the tax
(2) cut the spending
(3) boost the economy as a whole
Should try all of these? Should try two of the above? Should try one of the three? Say, if you boost up the economy and raise the tax at the same time, you should spend less and the whole economy goes bad and the tax revenue decreases. So should the economy do if you cut the spending and boost the economy. We seem to have such a trilemma.
Regarding this old and new problem, Alberto Alesina of Harvard University and Roberto Perotti of IGIER might have the hint:
fiscal adjustments
(1) which rely primarily on spending cuts and cuts in government wage bill have a better chance of being successful and expansionary.
(2) which rely primarily on tax increases and cuts in public investment tend not to last and are contractionary.
The above research is empirically derived not theoretically, but (which I think Kan's advisors know) Prime Minister Kan has to know this because he tries the latter to increase the consumption tax and to cut the public spending. Pls don't miss the coming social experiment!
Saturday, February 05, 2011
On Growth Strategies
Takeo Hoshi of UC San Diego and Anil Kashyap of the University of Chicago give some remedies for the stagnating Japanese economy:
They say what cause the stagnation are (1) the aging of the workforce, (2) the natural limits to export-led growth, (3) the tolerance of a dysfunctional banking system that supports 'zombie firms', (4) bad fiscal and monetary policy.
They say the policies are needed to improve growth and to raise productivity.
They recommend the following policies:
(1) accepting high-skilled foreign workers to increase the labor force,
(2) promoting more research collaboration between universities, companies and government to help technological progress
(3) enhancing free trade areas to help the industries raise productivity
(4) eliminating the regulatory separation of kindergartens and nursery schools to improve child care services and to encourage more talented people.
These suggestions are very interesting, but these have been already accepted and tried(not enough now, but gradually) by some policymakers. I think these might work if more people vote for them and believe these will help the Japanese economy revive.
The resource: 26/01/2011, WSJ
They say what cause the stagnation are (1) the aging of the workforce, (2) the natural limits to export-led growth, (3) the tolerance of a dysfunctional banking system that supports 'zombie firms', (4) bad fiscal and monetary policy.
They say the policies are needed to improve growth and to raise productivity.
They recommend the following policies:
(1) accepting high-skilled foreign workers to increase the labor force,
(2) promoting more research collaboration between universities, companies and government to help technological progress
(3) enhancing free trade areas to help the industries raise productivity
(4) eliminating the regulatory separation of kindergartens and nursery schools to improve child care services and to encourage more talented people.
These suggestions are very interesting, but these have been already accepted and tried(not enough now, but gradually) by some policymakers. I think these might work if more people vote for them and believe these will help the Japanese economy revive.
The resource: 26/01/2011, WSJ
Friday, January 21, 2011
How To Read the Income Data
The elasticity of son's income with respect to father's income is about 0.5 in the United States.
Regarding this study, Mankiw says that that 0.5 estimate is roughly the correlation between father and son income, ...and that the fraction of variance of son's income explained by father's income (R-squared) is only 0.25 and is called the "heritability" of a characteristic.
...some of the heritability of income must come not from inequality of opportunity but from the genetic transmission of talent. ...it would be shocking if we did not find some significant heritability of income. And that would be true even if equality of opportunity were perfect.
Needless to say, this low income mobility observed in the United States should be (1) the result of the tax system(Americans face lower tax rate than do Europeans) and, in my conjecture, should have been (2) an Americans' motivation to get ahead and, what's more, one of the causes of the dynamism of the American society: people work harder if they can get rewarded larger and longer. If they know they should pay more tax as they earn more, they are less likely to work harder from the outset and thus are more likely to earn at least no more than they used to earn.
I am not sure whether the above data can tell us about the heritability of character or talent(it is clear that we should research more on it to make it sure), and its resource research says nothing about the difference of race, the places where they live, career and education.
At any rate, we should be careful of the income data that we can get from some academic or official researches when we talk about the recent income gap observed in several developed countries.
Regarding this study, Mankiw says that that 0.5 estimate is roughly the correlation between father and son income, ...and that the fraction of variance of son's income explained by father's income (R-squared) is only 0.25 and is called the "heritability" of a characteristic.
...some of the heritability of income must come not from inequality of opportunity but from the genetic transmission of talent. ...it would be shocking if we did not find some significant heritability of income. And that would be true even if equality of opportunity were perfect.
Needless to say, this low income mobility observed in the United States should be (1) the result of the tax system(Americans face lower tax rate than do Europeans) and, in my conjecture, should have been (2) an Americans' motivation to get ahead and, what's more, one of the causes of the dynamism of the American society: people work harder if they can get rewarded larger and longer. If they know they should pay more tax as they earn more, they are less likely to work harder from the outset and thus are more likely to earn at least no more than they used to earn.
I am not sure whether the above data can tell us about the heritability of character or talent(it is clear that we should research more on it to make it sure), and its resource research says nothing about the difference of race, the places where they live, career and education.
At any rate, we should be careful of the income data that we can get from some academic or official researches when we talk about the recent income gap observed in several developed countries.
How To Cut the Deficit
I like Mankiw because he thinks up an interesting (ironic) analogy when he talks about difficult economic issues;
Plan to reduce the budget deficit: the federal government writes me(=health care) a check for $1 billion and increases the tax(=for fiscal sustainability) by $3 billion. This means that giving me that $1 billion will reduce the budget deficit by $2 billion.
This is not about the fiscal problem that America has, but that Japan has:
Plan to reduce the budget deficit: the federal government writes me(=child care) a check for 1 billion￥ and increases the consumption tax(=for fiscal sustainability) by 3 billion￥.
Plan to reduce the budget deficit: the federal government writes me(=health care) a check for $1 billion and increases the tax(=for fiscal sustainability) by $3 billion. This means that giving me that $1 billion will reduce the budget deficit by $2 billion.
This is not about the fiscal problem that America has, but that Japan has:
Plan to reduce the budget deficit: the federal government writes me(=child care) a check for 1 billion￥ and increases the consumption tax(=for fiscal sustainability) by 3 billion￥.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
How to Tackle Your Exam
Science 14 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6014 pp. 211-213
DOI: 10.1126/science.1199427
Writing About Testing Worries Boosts Exam Performance in the Classroom
Gerardo Ramirez and Sian L. Beilock*
Simply writing about one’s worries before a high-stakes exam can boost test scores.
DOI: 10.1126/science.1199427
Writing About Testing Worries Boosts Exam Performance in the Classroom
Gerardo Ramirez and Sian L. Beilock*
Simply writing about one’s worries before a high-stakes exam can boost test scores.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Anti-Consumptionism!?
Many young Japanese has not bought goods and service recently: they cut the spending on the fashion and food, don't buy a car, don't go on a trip, and try to save money. They are about to play a big and new role in the goods market in Japan.
Last year a book titled A Study on the Generation of Anti-Consumptionism (this title is translated by Taro and this book is published from Toyokeizai and only in Japanese), and subtitled "Stupid to buy a car, isn't it?" was released and went through several printings.
Anti-consumptionists are the young people of late 20s, and they were born after the bubble economy in late 1980s burst. They have generally a trend toward or taste for less consumption even though they have regular earnings. Interestingly, some of them are low paid part-timers and others have a regular job or full-time job and thus stable earnings.
They consume much less than older generations expect: they don't go to karaoke(to enjoy singing in a room with friends) and a restaurant without coupon, prefer eating at home to eating out and don't like a drink that is harmful to their health.
I found the article on almost the same topic and it said that some of the young people have become"grass-eating men" who prefer clothes and cosmetics to cars, and avoid life in the fast lane. (The Economist, November 20th-26th 2010, special report) So they can also tend to be "grass-eaters", but the men named grass-eaters are generally the ones who don't like making or having girlfriends.
The reason they consume less is, the article says, as follows: when they were teens, they went through the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, the subway attack in 1995, the bully in the schools and suicide, the Big Bang in Japan(the reform of financial and banking system) . Especially, they were damaged by the bully in the schools and were forced to be inconspicuous, to read the atmosphere in the schools and to make a shallow friendship with each other.
They tend to fear being made fun of and really want to look smart, which promotes buoyancy and rivalry among them, and thus makes them want to look carefully at others' face and to look nice: Such a common generational experience brings about a common generational mentality, which makes them worry about their future and thus consume less.
The above sounds reasonable, but it seems to me that it doesn't tell what makes them consume less, or what makes them worry about their future. I think there's more an economic cause behind this than a sociologistical or philosophical one.
Many business people are worried about such anti-consumptionists because they consume less and give a negative impact on the economy as a whole; They are more likely to shrink the dampening Japanese economy. However, they are reported to be attracted by the people from abroad and may turn out to be a new Japanese generation who pursues a new and different lifestyle from that of the older generations, as some optimists say.
In my view, a new generation gives a new lifestyle, and changes the structure of preference and thus of demand in the economy, say, in which they change a demand for a peaceful music to a fancy car and TV set.
But in the short term, anti-consumptionism should decrease the aggregate demand of the Japanese economy. Today's newspaper said that almost half of the child benefit offered first by the government this year goes to saving for their children. The child benefit doesn't make them save, but spend more on their children. They save more and consume less, which leads to more depressed economy which forces people to save even more and consume even less. It is called "the paradox of thrift".
Anti-consumptionism may be another or a new version of thrifty lifestyle.
We should need the policy to boost up the economic activity and to stimulate the people's spending in a weakened economy. Anyway, no wonder the Japanese economy will not soon recover from this slump. (Source: Diamond online, 08/12/2010)
Last year a book titled A Study on the Generation of Anti-Consumptionism (this title is translated by Taro and this book is published from Toyokeizai and only in Japanese), and subtitled "Stupid to buy a car, isn't it?" was released and went through several printings.
Anti-consumptionists are the young people of late 20s, and they were born after the bubble economy in late 1980s burst. They have generally a trend toward or taste for less consumption even though they have regular earnings. Interestingly, some of them are low paid part-timers and others have a regular job or full-time job and thus stable earnings.
They consume much less than older generations expect: they don't go to karaoke(to enjoy singing in a room with friends) and a restaurant without coupon, prefer eating at home to eating out and don't like a drink that is harmful to their health.
I found the article on almost the same topic and it said that some of the young people have become"grass-eating men" who prefer clothes and cosmetics to cars, and avoid life in the fast lane. (The Economist, November 20th-26th 2010, special report) So they can also tend to be "grass-eaters", but the men named grass-eaters are generally the ones who don't like making or having girlfriends.
The reason they consume less is, the article says, as follows: when they were teens, they went through the Hanshin-Awaji Earthquake, the subway attack in 1995, the bully in the schools and suicide, the Big Bang in Japan(the reform of financial and banking system) . Especially, they were damaged by the bully in the schools and were forced to be inconspicuous, to read the atmosphere in the schools and to make a shallow friendship with each other.
They tend to fear being made fun of and really want to look smart, which promotes buoyancy and rivalry among them, and thus makes them want to look carefully at others' face and to look nice: Such a common generational experience brings about a common generational mentality, which makes them worry about their future and thus consume less.
The above sounds reasonable, but it seems to me that it doesn't tell what makes them consume less, or what makes them worry about their future. I think there's more an economic cause behind this than a sociologistical or philosophical one.
Many business people are worried about such anti-consumptionists because they consume less and give a negative impact on the economy as a whole; They are more likely to shrink the dampening Japanese economy. However, they are reported to be attracted by the people from abroad and may turn out to be a new Japanese generation who pursues a new and different lifestyle from that of the older generations, as some optimists say.
In my view, a new generation gives a new lifestyle, and changes the structure of preference and thus of demand in the economy, say, in which they change a demand for a peaceful music to a fancy car and TV set.
But in the short term, anti-consumptionism should decrease the aggregate demand of the Japanese economy. Today's newspaper said that almost half of the child benefit offered first by the government this year goes to saving for their children. The child benefit doesn't make them save, but spend more on their children. They save more and consume less, which leads to more depressed economy which forces people to save even more and consume even less. It is called "the paradox of thrift".
Anti-consumptionism may be another or a new version of thrifty lifestyle.
We should need the policy to boost up the economic activity and to stimulate the people's spending in a weakened economy. Anyway, no wonder the Japanese economy will not soon recover from this slump. (Source: Diamond online, 08/12/2010)
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Mobile phone in Chaplin's Circus (1928) ?
Many people have been surprised at the scene. I don't think she had a cell phone to make a call.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
On Marrying Self
(Reuters Life! 22/10/2010) - Chen Wei-yih will marry herself. Uninspired by the men she's met but facing social pressure to get married, the 30-year-old Taipei office worker will hold the reception next month in honor of just one person.
"Age thirty is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven't found a partner, so what can I do?" Chen said. "It's not that I'm anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition."
Taiwanese women are marrying later and less often as their economic status advances, fuelling government concerns about a drop in the birth rate and its impact on productivity.
Some people who firmly trust tradition may say that this is not called a wedding and marriage and that she just wanted to attract public attention; Some of them may feel bad about or resist it. Marriage should come true when men and women love and agree with each other on it; Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
"Age thirty is a prime period for me. My work and experience are in good shape, but I haven't found a partner, so what can I do?" Chen said. "It's not that I'm anti-marriage. I just hope that I can express a different idea within the bounds of a tradition."
Taiwanese women are marrying later and less often as their economic status advances, fuelling government concerns about a drop in the birth rate and its impact on productivity.
Only 40 percent of women surveyed earlier this year by the education ministry said they imagined married people could live better than singles, local media said.
But as Chen cannot officially register a marriage to herself, if she finds a man later she will wed again."If I had a steady boyfriend, I wouldn't do this," Chen said. "it would be offensive to him, anyway."
When I read the above post, it was so interesting and I was a little surprised that we could marry ourselves: I didn't have such an idea!Some people who firmly trust tradition may say that this is not called a wedding and marriage and that she just wanted to attract public attention; Some of them may feel bad about or resist it. Marriage should come true when men and women love and agree with each other on it; Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship.
However, recently it has not been unusual for some men/women to get married with some other men/women and it is called the same-sex marriage. I do not say that it is good or not and I have no idea about it, but I know that some people may feel bad about it and that it is open to dispute. Self marriage might also catch public attention and new discussion.
By the way, when I studied economics, my professor said that getting married is just like finding a job. Now I see. Before getting married, we have to find a good partner; We can't marry a bad partner. It's almost the same in finding a good job: we can't work for a bad company all day long.
In my opinion, if the self marriage is a good/the best choice of life for you and it doesn't violate others' interest, health and property, I believe you can do it without any other restriction /obstruction. I don't understand those who want to marry themselves though(we can't have a good night without a good partner!), but if they are satisfied and they don't disturb others' lives, I have no reason or I can't find any reason for disagreement on it. Do whatever they want and be happy!
Monday, October 11, 2010
Nobel Prize 2010
I hope the Nobel prize of economics will go to Nobuhiro Kiyotaki of Princeton as the first Japanese Nobel winner.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Facebook Unfriending
I saw an interesting post in the newspaper. One grad student found some reasons for Facebook unfriending.
Facebook is, as you know, a worldwide social online networking where friends meet to share photos, news and gossip .
The word 'unfriend' came from Facebook and it is defined as “to remove someone as a 'friend' from a social networking site such as Facebook.”
The reasons for Facebook unfriending are as follows:
No.1: frequent, unimportant posts.
No2: posting about polarizing topics like religion and politics.
Moreover, the research found that those making friend requests stood a much higher chance of being abruptly unfriended and that at the same time, those doing the unfriending seemed to hold the upper hand in the relationship.
I think this may be something helpful for some other research on how to keep better relationship between, say, employees and employers in the labor market, men and women in the marriage market, and so on.
At any rate, Facebook itself is UNIMPORTANT. People just enjoy unimportant posts, don't they? They just break boring time. I believe in our life we sometimes need unimportant things as well as important things.
Facebook is, as you know, a worldwide social online networking where friends meet to share photos, news and gossip .
The word 'unfriend' came from Facebook and it is defined as “to remove someone as a 'friend' from a social networking site such as Facebook.”
The reasons for Facebook unfriending are as follows:
No.1: frequent, unimportant posts.
No2: posting about polarizing topics like religion and politics.
Moreover, the research found that those making friend requests stood a much higher chance of being abruptly unfriended and that at the same time, those doing the unfriending seemed to hold the upper hand in the relationship.
I think this may be something helpful for some other research on how to keep better relationship between, say, employees and employers in the labor market, men and women in the marriage market, and so on.
At any rate, Facebook itself is UNIMPORTANT. People just enjoy unimportant posts, don't they? They just break boring time. I believe in our life we sometimes need unimportant things as well as important things.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
BOJ Follows Roger Farmer?
NY times(05/10/2010);TOKYO — In a surprise move Tuesday, the Japanese central bank lowered its benchmark interest rate to a range of 0 percent to 0.1 percent, a tiny change from its previous target of 0.1 percent but a symbolic shift back into an age of zero interest rates.
The Bank of Japan (BOJ) also said it would set up a fund of ¥5 trillion, or $60 billion, to buy Japanese government bonds, commercial paper and other asset-backed securities amid concerns about weakening growth in the economy, the world’s third largest, after those of the United States and China. The bank also kept its credit facility for banks at ¥30 trillion.According to the one book written by Roger E. A. Farmer of UCLA, How the economy works,Oxford University Press, Roger says in this book,
"Control of an index fund(=mutual fund*) is the ideal way to implement this idea(=stabilizing stock market movements and preventing them from devastating the real economy),..."pp.159
*mutual fund : a basket with some stocks, bonds and other assets
"To maintain the interest rate, Fed(=US central bank) intervenes in the market by buying and selling Treasury bills(liabilities issued by government) in exchange for money,... (and at the same time) announces a price path for index funds and stands ready to buy and sell these funds each day at the announced price." pp.160
However, BOJ didn't announce the purchase of index funds/mutual funds and didn't say it follows Prof Farmer, but when I heard this news tonight I recalled Farmer; it seems to me that BOJ's announcement of purchase of Japanese government bonds, commercial paper and other asset-backed securities will have similar effects on the economy to what Prof Farmer's suggested.
I am not sure what Farmer says is going to happen in the Japanese economy when BOJ seeks the above new policy measures, but I would like to watch what's going on.
By the way, the press seemed surprised at the BOJ announcement, as Hirokata Kusaba of Mizuho Research Institute says, “The latest move gives off a much more powerful impression than past, incremental measures, which had sparked market disillusionment”
“Though there will be debate over the effects of the monetary loosening, I believe the Bank of Japan has done all it can at this time”
“despite the (BOJ's) exaggerated language claiming that this is radical,...BOJ is apparently acting reluctantly and de-emphasizing the temporary nature of the measures, which is likely to limit the impact" and “There is a stark contrast with the Fed’s ‘whatever is necessary’ approach.” **The parentheses are added by Taro.
At any rate I am sure that this BOJ's action will soon lead to a widespread debate among economists and policymakers all over the world.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Behind the Boom of Brain Training
What is called 'brain training' or 'logical thinking' is booming among the people in Japan.
I don't know whether I should say 'brain training' and 'logical thinking' in the same context (these words may be quite different to some people), but anyway I can see many books titled 'brain training' and 'logical thinking' in the amazon.com.
It shows that many people want to become more brainy/smarter than ever, doesn't it? I try questioning myself about it and it seems to me that many people, especially business people as well, think that they should be smarter on their own in their everyday life.
I don't know if it is good for them to become brainy. Let me assume some situation of chat: while we are chatting, I always try asking, "what is it?", "what do you mean by this?", "it doesn't make sense", "that part of your tale sounds illogical", and so on. It is as if we were always in a discussion/meeting in class at school. I would get tired if I were always asking and questioning while chatting.
The issue I would raise is," do we really have to be smarter/thinking logically everywhere and every time in our life?" To be honest, I am not sure if we should do.
I don't always respect people trying to be rational or logical: I would like to ask such a king of people, "what part inside you do you defend?" It seems to me that they are likely to care themselves only, or that they just try to look nice and smart. It is just as if I dressed up.
This effort for trying to be smart is a kind of the waste of the time and money. Anyway it doesn't always help.
I don't know whether I should say 'brain training' and 'logical thinking' in the same context (these words may be quite different to some people), but anyway I can see many books titled 'brain training' and 'logical thinking' in the amazon.com.
It shows that many people want to become more brainy/smarter than ever, doesn't it? I try questioning myself about it and it seems to me that many people, especially business people as well, think that they should be smarter on their own in their everyday life.
I don't know if it is good for them to become brainy. Let me assume some situation of chat: while we are chatting, I always try asking, "what is it?", "what do you mean by this?", "it doesn't make sense", "that part of your tale sounds illogical", and so on. It is as if we were always in a discussion/meeting in class at school. I would get tired if I were always asking and questioning while chatting.
The issue I would raise is," do we really have to be smarter/thinking logically everywhere and every time in our life?" To be honest, I am not sure if we should do.
I don't always respect people trying to be rational or logical: I would like to ask such a king of people, "what part inside you do you defend?" It seems to me that they are likely to care themselves only, or that they just try to look nice and smart. It is just as if I dressed up.
This effort for trying to be smart is a kind of the waste of the time and money. Anyway it doesn't always help.
Friday, October 01, 2010
What 'efficiency' means?
In bookstores, I can always see some books on 'an efficient resource management' or 'efficient corporate governance' or 'efficient blah blah blah'.
By the way, what do you mean by 'efficient blah blah blah'? I don't understand it at all! What is efficient? Are you efficient? Hmm...I have no idea.
My English dictionary tells me that it means 'working well'. It's a good answer and most people who say 'efficient blah blah blah' probably may mean so by it.
However, economics tells me somewhat different definition of it: efficient means 'happier'. It's a little ambiguous and it sounds subjective although economics deals with objective social problems, but for me it is rather a correct way of using this word.
When I think of what to change in my life, say, what to cut down on in my spending, what to throw away in my bookshelf and how much to drink in this bar and so on, I usually think of 'the Pareto-efficient' and it means 'happier', say, "if I drink a little more, to what extent will I be happier?".
Usually this word is used on the public policy conducted by policymakers and the effects on the economy and the people's lives: Assume there are two people, A and B and they try to trade each other. If A can't be better off/happier than ever unless A tries to make B worse off/less happier, A is in the 'Pareto-optimal/efficient' condition and vice versa.
Pareto is an Italian sociologist in the 19th century and the Pareto efficiency is used when economists think about the deals between some people, that is, an 'inter-personal' trades, but it's not the wrong usage when I talk of an 'intra-personal' trades between today's Taro and tomorrow's Taro on what or how much to choose to eat/drink*.
Anyway in terms of economic thinking, an 'efficient resource management' should be the one that makes the people related to it happier/more satisfied, rather than that reduces the cost and raises the profit.
*Some alert readers may say, "if you want to talk about Pareto-optimum/efficiency, you should touch on the Edgeworth box, contract curves, core and the first/second theorem of welfare economics". I know I should use these ideas if I talk about it formally.
By the way, what do you mean by 'efficient blah blah blah'? I don't understand it at all! What is efficient? Are you efficient? Hmm...I have no idea.
My English dictionary tells me that it means 'working well'. It's a good answer and most people who say 'efficient blah blah blah' probably may mean so by it.
However, economics tells me somewhat different definition of it: efficient means 'happier'. It's a little ambiguous and it sounds subjective although economics deals with objective social problems, but for me it is rather a correct way of using this word.
When I think of what to change in my life, say, what to cut down on in my spending, what to throw away in my bookshelf and how much to drink in this bar and so on, I usually think of 'the Pareto-efficient' and it means 'happier', say, "if I drink a little more, to what extent will I be happier?".
Usually this word is used on the public policy conducted by policymakers and the effects on the economy and the people's lives: Assume there are two people, A and B and they try to trade each other. If A can't be better off/happier than ever unless A tries to make B worse off/less happier, A is in the 'Pareto-optimal/efficient' condition and vice versa.
Pareto is an Italian sociologist in the 19th century and the Pareto efficiency is used when economists think about the deals between some people, that is, an 'inter-personal' trades, but it's not the wrong usage when I talk of an 'intra-personal' trades between today's Taro and tomorrow's Taro on what or how much to choose to eat/drink*.
Anyway in terms of economic thinking, an 'efficient resource management' should be the one that makes the people related to it happier/more satisfied, rather than that reduces the cost and raises the profit.
*Some alert readers may say, "if you want to talk about Pareto-optimum/efficiency, you should touch on the Edgeworth box, contract curves, core and the first/second theorem of welfare economics". I know I should use these ideas if I talk about it formally.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Fall Comes
Looking at the above picture, I feel the fall has come. The man in the picture who harvests rice for a festival is, with all due respect, our emperor. (The picture is from Jiji press.)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Money is Important, But...
In some major countries like the US, Germany and here Japan, it is not easy to get a new and good job. Many people fear that they will have no job and lower pay. Some of them may also fear that they will have no more moderate and stable life.
Everyone hopes that he or she will have a good job. What I mean by 'a good job' is, of course, high-paid job.
However, some people may say that money is not so important as we expect in our life. There are many different views on that, but to live a healthy life in our modern society, making money should be considered first like this, "how much can I earn by working for your company?"
Here in Japan, maybe, in some other countries, there's a saying: "well fed, well bred". When surfing the web, I found another saying, "manners and money makes a gentleman", "poverty is an enemy to good manners."
Our job or career should be always our major concern in our life and when thinking about living a good life not to feel poverty, we must rethink of our current job and career, "will we be able to keep it for long?".
Good job depends on what we think as a good job, but how much we earn is always first concern and we can't tell a lie on it like,"money is not important, but happiness is always important." Happiness and money must be closely connected each other(and some research prove it) and needless to say, there's no happiness in a one-dollar-in-a-day life.
However, at the same time, there's happiness in a one-million-dollar-in-a-day life, isn't there? That should be another question to think of. Personally I can't imagine what it is like to be such a life, but there may be another problem, say, on how to manage to choose what kind of assets or how to inherit their property to whom.
In my opinion, I am happy that I can eat, read and sleep in a house with a well-built roof. I don't hope too much that I will live in luxury (I would like to live in luxury, having nice dinner and drink and bedroom), but I actually hope I will live a simple and stable life. If I can't live such a life now, then I should take some action to better it and that time should make me think money important in my present life. (No inflation is considered now. If there's the fear of inflation, my above view will be quite different. Behind my view the value of money, the purchasing power of money is important, not money itself when considering what kind of life we would like to lead.)
I believe that saving money doesn't mean just cutting down on our expenditure(cutting down on our standard of living makes no sense!), but thinking carefully of what to buy.
Some commentators on TV or in today's newspapers suggest that we should save money for our uncertain future life, but our future is always uncertain and the most certain thing on the future is that the future is always uncertain. And that's why we should think carefully of what we need most in today's life.
Don't be afraid of our future life too much, yes of course, we need to think of it, but thinking too much is not so helpful when we face some difficulties in our career. We should think of what we can do now because it is clear that we can't do what we can't do now.
If we think that we need something for our current or future job, we should now be studying or preparing for it(there's no money but there's much time! Time is also as important as money in our life), and if we need higher paid job to keep our current life stable, we should be looking for it in the job advertisement on the Internet or in the newspapers.
Please don't be influenced by someone near us(otherwise, you will be hurt!), just listen to or sometimes pretend to listen to what other people mean. However, some advise should be listened to. We remember they don't always think of us or they don't always try to be helpful to us. They just talk about what they want to talk(they just break time!). We should keep in mind that finally"do it yourself". Don't take too much time to talk about ourselves to someone, take time for us to prepare for another chance in the future.
Money is important but it doesn't choose our life. Moreover other people don't choose our life at least here in Japan and in some developed and democratic countries where the law protects our freedom to choose our career. Our life chooses our money.
Everyone hopes that he or she will have a good job. What I mean by 'a good job' is, of course, high-paid job.
However, some people may say that money is not so important as we expect in our life. There are many different views on that, but to live a healthy life in our modern society, making money should be considered first like this, "how much can I earn by working for your company?"
Here in Japan, maybe, in some other countries, there's a saying: "well fed, well bred". When surfing the web, I found another saying, "manners and money makes a gentleman", "poverty is an enemy to good manners."
Our job or career should be always our major concern in our life and when thinking about living a good life not to feel poverty, we must rethink of our current job and career, "will we be able to keep it for long?".
Good job depends on what we think as a good job, but how much we earn is always first concern and we can't tell a lie on it like,"money is not important, but happiness is always important." Happiness and money must be closely connected each other(and some research prove it) and needless to say, there's no happiness in a one-dollar-in-a-day life.
However, at the same time, there's happiness in a one-million-dollar-in-a-day life, isn't there? That should be another question to think of. Personally I can't imagine what it is like to be such a life, but there may be another problem, say, on how to manage to choose what kind of assets or how to inherit their property to whom.
In my opinion, I am happy that I can eat, read and sleep in a house with a well-built roof. I don't hope too much that I will live in luxury (I would like to live in luxury, having nice dinner and drink and bedroom), but I actually hope I will live a simple and stable life. If I can't live such a life now, then I should take some action to better it and that time should make me think money important in my present life. (No inflation is considered now. If there's the fear of inflation, my above view will be quite different. Behind my view the value of money, the purchasing power of money is important, not money itself when considering what kind of life we would like to lead.)
I believe that saving money doesn't mean just cutting down on our expenditure(cutting down on our standard of living makes no sense!), but thinking carefully of what to buy.
Some commentators on TV or in today's newspapers suggest that we should save money for our uncertain future life, but our future is always uncertain and the most certain thing on the future is that the future is always uncertain. And that's why we should think carefully of what we need most in today's life.
Don't be afraid of our future life too much, yes of course, we need to think of it, but thinking too much is not so helpful when we face some difficulties in our career. We should think of what we can do now because it is clear that we can't do what we can't do now.
If we think that we need something for our current or future job, we should now be studying or preparing for it(there's no money but there's much time! Time is also as important as money in our life), and if we need higher paid job to keep our current life stable, we should be looking for it in the job advertisement on the Internet or in the newspapers.
Please don't be influenced by someone near us(otherwise, you will be hurt!), just listen to or sometimes pretend to listen to what other people mean. However, some advise should be listened to. We remember they don't always think of us or they don't always try to be helpful to us. They just talk about what they want to talk(they just break time!). We should keep in mind that finally"do it yourself". Don't take too much time to talk about ourselves to someone, take time for us to prepare for another chance in the future.
Money is important but it doesn't choose our life. Moreover other people don't choose our life at least here in Japan and in some developed and democratic countries where the law protects our freedom to choose our career. Our life chooses our money.
Monday, September 06, 2010
'Frosh' means 'Fresh'
While reading my favorite blog, I was sure I found the wrong spelling in it.
'Frosh' should spell "Fresh".
But I looked up the online dictionary, it has that word: 'frosh' means 'a freshman in a college.' My dictionary doesn't have it. Why not a freshman is 'frosh'? These sound very different. I am not so serious though, just I am wondering why.
It's an American English word. I realize that there's really a lot in the world that I don't know.
'Frosh' should spell "Fresh".
But I looked up the online dictionary, it has that word: 'frosh' means 'a freshman in a college.' My dictionary doesn't have it. Why not a freshman is 'frosh'? These sound very different. I am not so serious though, just I am wondering why.
It's an American English word. I realize that there's really a lot in the world that I don't know.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
円高、株安そして景気
2010年8月下旬の急速な円高、株安そして景気の動向が注目される。菅総理大臣、野田財務大臣の対米ドル８４．３４円、対ユーロ１０６．３５円近辺に対する「当面見守る」発言が、株式市場に失望感を与えて（同年8月24日）、さらに株値を落としている、といわれている。さて、問題は以下2点。①これらの指標、日本経済をどのように見るか。②政府・日銀は何らかの手立てを打つべきか。以上2点を考えていこう。
①日本経済の現状
まず円高である。円が外国通貨に対して高いか低いかの判断基準は「購買力平価説（PPP）」という指標を使うのが基本とされている。これは例えば、米国で売られているトマト1個と日本の1個とが、同じ大きさ、同じ重さ、同じテースト（味）であれば、同じ価値、価格を持つという仮定（一物一価の法則という）のもとで計算される対外貨為替レートのことである。
英国エコノミスト誌の有名なビッグマック指標もPPPの考えのひとつで、対米ドル：1ドル＝85.7円であり、現在（2010年8月27日6時）対米ドル：1ドル=85.24円と比べれば、ほぼハンバーガPPPが指し示す水準値である。
円高は一般的に、日本国内の製品価格が海外製品と比べて割高になるため、外国へ製品販売している業者にとっては不利である。しかし同時に、外国から製品を購入する業者にとっては、外国製品が相対的に割安となるために有利である。円高は「輸出企業には不利、輸入業者には有利」と言われる理由である。
問題は円高は日本経済・景気にとって不利、または有利なのか。日本経済の構造を見ながらそのことを考えよう。どこの国であれ、いつの時代であれ、経済活動・景気変動は、
（１） （需要）＝（供給）
の均等式が成り立つよう変動する。「需要」とは購入者（消費者・企業）であり、「供給」とは生産販売者（労働者・企業）である。 ＊労働者は労働サービスを企業など生産者に生産販売している。
もし、このとき
（２） （需要）＞（供給）
が成立すれば、需要超過と言う。このとき、購入者が経済には多く存在し、モノの値段（物価）が上昇し、利益拡大のチャンスと考える企業は生産・雇用を増やす。結果、供給が増えて、（１）式の均等式に回帰する。逆も然りで、供給が多ければ、物価が下がり、企業は生産・雇用を縮小させる。丁度（２）式が、「好景気」を表し、逆の不等号のときは「不景気」を表す。
経済は（１）式がバランスするように動くのである。
＊いわゆる「ケインズ派」の考えは、「需要が供給を生む」という「有効需要の原理」を唱え、「古典派・RBC派」は「供給が需要を生む」という「セイの法則」を唱える。どちらも正しい議論ではあるが、一部の経済学者はモノが余る「成熟社会」ではケインズ派が、モノが不足する「発展途上社会」では古典派の考えが妥当すると言う解釈を与えている。ここでは、ケインズ派の理論に則って議論を進める。
この考えをもとに経済全体の需要（GDE）の項目を詳しく見ると、
（３） （需要）＝（消費）+（投資）+（政府支出）+（輸出）-（輸入）
である。問題はこれら各需要項目の全体に占める割合である。消費（個人・政府消費）の対実質GDE比（2008年）はおよそ73％で、海外の需要項目、外需すなわち（輸出）-（輸入）は4.9％にすぎない。乱暴に言えば、マックス（最大）で１００％だけ外需が下落すれば、つまり、まったく外需がなくなったとき、日本経済の需要を約５％押し下げる計算になる。金額に換算するとおよそ27.8兆円。国内需要（内需）がおよそ95％、528.7兆円を考えるとさほど大きな数字ではない。割合だけで見ると、外需の消失はスーパーの５％還元ポイントセールが無くなったのに等しい。
＊GDEは国内総支出のことで、GDP（国内総生産）と同値である。これはちょうどGDEが「需要」に、GDPが「供給」に該当すると考えてもよいが（厳密には、これらの数字は同じものを違う面で見ているため、GDPが供給と言うのは正しくない）、これらの値は常に均衡する。また、需要項目で、なぜ「輸入」を差し引くかというと、国内の消費には外国製品の購入が必ず含まれるからである。輸出は外国への販売、すなわち外国人の需要（外需）で、輸入は日本人の購入、つまり内需である。2重計算を避けるために差し引く。また、（需要）＝（内需）+（外需）である。
なお、（３）式から
（４） （需要）-（消費）-（投資）-（政府支出）＝（輸出）-（輸入）
が成立し、（需要）-（消費）-（政府支出）＝（貯蓄）、また、（政府支出）＝（税金）、（需要）=(所得)である（GDE=GDPが成り立つから）ことを考えれば、
（５） （貯蓄）-（投資）＝（輸出）-（輸入）
が成立する。これは何を意味するか。（５）式を書き換えると、
（６） （供給）-（需要）＝（輸出）-（輸入）＝（純輸出）＝（貿易サービス収支）
であり、上記式は常に均衡が成立する。すると、（6）式の右辺の解釈は、「国内の経済・支出活動の反射鏡」であることを示す。景気が悪くなれば、需要が冷え込み、（６）式右辺はプラスになり、輸出超過、すなわち貿易黒字になる。＊財務省の「貿易統計」での貿易収支と上記の数字は一致しない。
このことから、
（７） （景気の低迷）＝（貿易収支黒字）
といえる。円高は外需の押し下げ要因、景気低迷要因であるが、たとえ外需が消失しても、日本経済には５％のマイナス影響しかない。このことより、日本経済は欧米諸国に比べても「内需主導型経済」であると言える。
＊貿易収支の黒字は、海外への販売である輸出が外国からの購入である輸入よりも多いことを意味し、この裏では外貨の受け取りが支払いよりも多くなる。国内企業は外貨を邦貨（円）に換え、決済しようとするので円のニーズが強くなり、「円高」になる。また、国内物価の下落も「円高」要因である。名目為替レート：1ドル＝E円とすると、実質為替レート：米国のトマト1個＝日本のトマトF個とすると、
E=F×（日本のトマトの値段）÷（米国のトマトの値段）
となる。日本のトマトの値段、つまり日本の物価が下がると、名目レートEは減少つまり「円高」になる。さらに、国内の資産にかかる金利上昇も「円高」要因とされるが、内外の金利差（日米間の長期国債金利）は米国金利のほうが高い。
②政府・日銀の政策
以上の５％の変動が日本の実体経済（GDE）にマイナス影響を及ぼし、日本の株価を押し下げているのだろうか。単回帰分析を使って考えたい。これは、株価（日経平均）と経済（名目GDP）との関係を
（８） （日経平均株価）＝a×（名目GDP）+b
という中学校で習った１次関数の形に直して、お互いの相関関係（因果関係ではない）を見ようということだ。データは過去１０年（２０００年～２００９年）の日経平均（終値）、名目GDPを使った。すると、
（9） （日経平均株価）＝0.225×（名目GDP）-99413.7
となる。定数項、名目GDPの係数の推定値ともに有意水準5％で帰無仮説（係数＝0）を棄却でき、日経平均の変動を説明するには、名目GDPが必要であるといえる。（相関係数＝0.84）このことから、外需の対名目GDP比は、5.3％であり、かりに外需が消滅すれば、0.053×0.225＝0.011、つまり１％だけ株価を押し下げる計算になる。
＊もちろん、サンプル数を増やす、変数を増やす、また経済の構造変化を考慮に入れるなどより細かく計算すべきだが。さらに、実質GDP(物価の変動を取り除いたGDP)を用いて、同様の単回帰を行うと、帰無仮説を有意水準５％で棄却できない。このことからも、日経平均は実体経済と強い関係があるとはいえない。また、為替レート（東京市場）でも同様の分析を行うと、これも日経平均と強い関係は確認されない。
＊＊株価には東証株価指数（TOPIX）も存在する。日経平均は日本経済新聞社が作成・公表し、東京証券取引所1部上場約1，700銘柄から代表的な225銘柄の株価の単純平均として表されるため、高い銘柄の動きに左右されやすい。そこで、高い銘柄の動きに左右されないように、上場銘柄の株式数を考慮して加重平均として表したのがTOPIXである。TOPIXは、株式数の多い大型株（資本金100億円以上）の動きが大きく投影される傾向がある。
＊＊＊日経平均の変動は輸出関連・ハイテクなどの値による影響が大きいのに対し、時価総額を基準とするTOPIXは、時価総額の大きい大手銀行株をはじめ、内需関連株による影響が大きい。
＊＊＊＊株価は一般的に「先行指標」とされ、景気に先行して動く。
直近の日経平均は８月８日以降、９５００円を割り込み、円も６月下旬以降９０円を割り込み、２７日現在株価は８９00円程度、円は対米ドル８５円程度である。
乱暴に言えば、円高により外需が消滅しても、株価は１％の下落、つまり９５００円からだと９５円程度のマイナス、９４０５円程度になることが予想される。このことからも、株は円高による実体経済、外需減少要因だけではなく、他の要因にも大きく左右されているのではないかと考えられる。
この単純計算からも、昨今の株価下落と円高の実体経済（外需）に与える影響とに大きな関連はなく、政府による為替の介入、日銀の一段の金融緩和などといった対応には注意が必要である。
そもそもこれらの政策の目的は何か。「景気対策」か、それとも「円高対策」か。たとえ、
（10） （円高対策）=（景気対策）
だとしても、円を仮に安くでき、外需が１００％増加しても（２倍になっても）、GDPにはプラス２７兆円だけの増加である。GDPギャップが20、30兆円程度だと言われているから、それを埋めるのにちょうどいいかもしれない額だが、欧米などの海外の景気が悪化している中、ありえない話である。
＊GDPギャップとは、潜在的な生産能力と需要との差で、日本経済は20、30兆円程度需要が足りないと言われている。
政府の為替介入は「円を売る」ことであり、日銀の金融緩和は「流動性（円）を増やす」ことである。どちらも市場に円供給を増やす政策で、「円を安く」させよう。ただ、仮に円を安くできても、それにより、景気にどう影響するのか。小生が示すように、外需が倍にならないかぎりGDPギャップを埋めることができないし、日銀は金融緩和を続けているし、政府財務省の円売り介入も他通貨が安いうえ、ハンバーガーPPPで見て円は適正値であり、政策効果は非常に限定的であるだろう。「何もしないこと」と変わらないかもしれない。
＊経済通なら「乗数効果」（ある需要項目の経済全体への波及効果）はどうした、と聞くかもしれない。ご承知のとおり、45度線分析で海外部門を導入（限界輸入性向）し、海外部門を考えな国内経済における政府支出の増加による経済波及効果（政府支出乗数）に比べて、外需（輸出）が増えることの乗数効果は小さくなる。
③まとめ
１、外需の内需（実質GDP）に占める割合は小さい（５％）
２、外需の低迷・円高と株安（日経平均）との関係もごくわずか
3、政策的対応は非常に限られ、その効果も非常に小さいだろう
Sunday, July 18, 2010
How To Create Jobs and Income
10/21/07 revised
The world economy has been in crisis and here in Japan some policymakers and economic policy nerds have some ideas of how to boost up the weak demand of the economy.
In my opinion (and I think many people interested in economic issues will agree with it), there're generally two kinds of the problems the economy has: the structural one and short-run business-cyclical one.
As a structural problem, the older people get, the more money they need to make a living. Thus the government should pay them as a medical insurance and national pension plan, which consequently puts the budget into deficit and thus a long-term debt. So we need much more tax revenue as resources to pay them.
On the other hand, and as a short-run problem, many young people now have difficulties in finding a good job in such a weakened economy and many (how many? ...good question, but it doesn't matter at present) of them should put up with low-paid and insecure jobs.
The Prime Minister, Kan, and his economic team seem to want to solve the above two kinds of them at the same time: raise the tax to create jobs and income. It sounds weird in a traditional economic thinking, but they are so serious that they think they can. The government raises the tax and gets the revenue, which it can use to employ the unemployed and to boost up the income and consumption in a whole economy. Now the Kan administration can solve the two problems: it can get more tax revenue to employ the unemployed (it can solve the short-run problem), and thus it can get more and more tax revenue to finance the budget deficit and to shrink the long-term debt because more people can earn income and pay the tax on it in a whole economy(it can solve the structural problem).
Yes of course, there's always a lot of jobs that need young people in the economy from the viewpoint of a whole society, but I mean these jobs may not necessarily keep them on and what's more, we are more likely to have ability-oriented or region-oriented gap: some people can complete the work they are offered, but others can't. Or, in some cities there're many jobs to take but in other cities not many. Always there're jobs that need us as long as we live on, but some of them may not make them eat enough food to live on. (Why are there some job ads that we can always see in the newspaper?)
Although the economic policy the Kan Administration sounds logically coherent, unfortunately I am not sure how successful the solution Mr. Kan proposed is in solving the two problems, and I am wondering what happens to the economy if the government tries to do it.
The world economy has been in crisis and here in Japan some policymakers and economic policy nerds have some ideas of how to boost up the weak demand of the economy.
In my opinion (and I think many people interested in economic issues will agree with it), there're generally two kinds of the problems the economy has: the structural one and short-run business-cyclical one.
As a structural problem, the older people get, the more money they need to make a living. Thus the government should pay them as a medical insurance and national pension plan, which consequently puts the budget into deficit and thus a long-term debt. So we need much more tax revenue as resources to pay them.
On the other hand, and as a short-run problem, many young people now have difficulties in finding a good job in such a weakened economy and many (how many? ...good question, but it doesn't matter at present) of them should put up with low-paid and insecure jobs.
The Prime Minister, Kan, and his economic team seem to want to solve the above two kinds of them at the same time: raise the tax to create jobs and income. It sounds weird in a traditional economic thinking, but they are so serious that they think they can. The government raises the tax and gets the revenue, which it can use to employ the unemployed and to boost up the income and consumption in a whole economy. Now the Kan administration can solve the two problems: it can get more tax revenue to employ the unemployed (it can solve the short-run problem), and thus it can get more and more tax revenue to finance the budget deficit and to shrink the long-term debt because more people can earn income and pay the tax on it in a whole economy(it can solve the structural problem).
Yes of course, there's always a lot of jobs that need young people in the economy from the viewpoint of a whole society, but I mean these jobs may not necessarily keep them on and what's more, we are more likely to have ability-oriented or region-oriented gap: some people can complete the work they are offered, but others can't. Or, in some cities there're many jobs to take but in other cities not many. Always there're jobs that need us as long as we live on, but some of them may not make them eat enough food to live on. (Why are there some job ads that we can always see in the newspaper?)
Although the economic policy the Kan Administration sounds logically coherent, unfortunately I am not sure how successful the solution Mr. Kan proposed is in solving the two problems, and I am wondering what happens to the economy if the government tries to do it.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
I am Still Alive
For more than 3 months I have not updated my blog. That doesn't mean that I have nothing to write and to update, nor that I have no time to write.
Recently I have read some books some of my favorite economists recommend, and wanted to concentrate on them carefully. Of course, while reading them, I've been busy working and teaching.
Soon I will write and discuss on the books I read.
Recently I have read some books some of my favorite economists recommend, and wanted to concentrate on them carefully. Of course, while reading them, I've been busy working and teaching.
Soon I will write and discuss on the books I read.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)