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
Thursday, November 01, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)