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.)
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
The Fall Comes
Looking at the above picture, I feel the fall has come. The man in the picture who harvests rice for a festival is, with all due respect, our emperor. (The picture is from Jiji press.)
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Money is Important, But...
In some major countries like the US, Germany and here Japan, it is not easy to get a new and good job. Many people fear that they will have no job and lower pay. Some of them may also fear that they will have no more moderate and stable life.
Everyone hopes that he or she will have a good job. What I mean by 'a good job' is, of course, high-paid job.
However, some people may say that money is not so important as we expect in our life. There are many different views on that, but to live a healthy life in our modern society, making money should be considered first like this, "how much can I earn by working for your company?"
Here in Japan, maybe, in some other countries, there's a saying: "well fed, well bred". When surfing the web, I found another saying, "manners and money makes a gentleman", "poverty is an enemy to good manners."
Our job or career should be always our major concern in our life and when thinking about living a good life not to feel poverty, we must rethink of our current job and career, "will we be able to keep it for long?".
Good job depends on what we think as a good job, but how much we earn is always first concern and we can't tell a lie on it like,"money is not important, but happiness is always important." Happiness and money must be closely connected each other(and some research prove it) and needless to say, there's no happiness in a one-dollar-in-a-day life.
However, at the same time, there's happiness in a one-million-dollar-in-a-day life, isn't there? That should be another question to think of. Personally I can't imagine what it is like to be such a life, but there may be another problem, say, on how to manage to choose what kind of assets or how to inherit their property to whom.
In my opinion, I am happy that I can eat, read and sleep in a house with a well-built roof. I don't hope too much that I will live in luxury (I would like to live in luxury, having nice dinner and drink and bedroom), but I actually hope I will live a simple and stable life. If I can't live such a life now, then I should take some action to better it and that time should make me think money important in my present life. (No inflation is considered now. If there's the fear of inflation, my above view will be quite different. Behind my view the value of money, the purchasing power of money is important, not money itself when considering what kind of life we would like to lead.)
I believe that saving money doesn't mean just cutting down on our expenditure(cutting down on our standard of living makes no sense!), but thinking carefully of what to buy.
Some commentators on TV or in today's newspapers suggest that we should save money for our uncertain future life, but our future is always uncertain and the most certain thing on the future is that the future is always uncertain. And that's why we should think carefully of what we need most in today's life.
Don't be afraid of our future life too much, yes of course, we need to think of it, but thinking too much is not so helpful when we face some difficulties in our career. We should think of what we can do now because it is clear that we can't do what we can't do now.
If we think that we need something for our current or future job, we should now be studying or preparing for it(there's no money but there's much time! Time is also as important as money in our life), and if we need higher paid job to keep our current life stable, we should be looking for it in the job advertisement on the Internet or in the newspapers.
Please don't be influenced by someone near us(otherwise, you will be hurt!), just listen to or sometimes pretend to listen to what other people mean. However, some advise should be listened to. We remember they don't always think of us or they don't always try to be helpful to us. They just talk about what they want to talk(they just break time!). We should keep in mind that finally"do it yourself". Don't take too much time to talk about ourselves to someone, take time for us to prepare for another chance in the future.
Money is important but it doesn't choose our life. Moreover other people don't choose our life at least here in Japan and in some developed and democratic countries where the law protects our freedom to choose our career. Our life chooses our money.
Everyone hopes that he or she will have a good job. What I mean by 'a good job' is, of course, high-paid job.
However, some people may say that money is not so important as we expect in our life. There are many different views on that, but to live a healthy life in our modern society, making money should be considered first like this, "how much can I earn by working for your company?"
Here in Japan, maybe, in some other countries, there's a saying: "well fed, well bred". When surfing the web, I found another saying, "manners and money makes a gentleman", "poverty is an enemy to good manners."
Our job or career should be always our major concern in our life and when thinking about living a good life not to feel poverty, we must rethink of our current job and career, "will we be able to keep it for long?".
Good job depends on what we think as a good job, but how much we earn is always first concern and we can't tell a lie on it like,"money is not important, but happiness is always important." Happiness and money must be closely connected each other(and some research prove it) and needless to say, there's no happiness in a one-dollar-in-a-day life.
However, at the same time, there's happiness in a one-million-dollar-in-a-day life, isn't there? That should be another question to think of. Personally I can't imagine what it is like to be such a life, but there may be another problem, say, on how to manage to choose what kind of assets or how to inherit their property to whom.
In my opinion, I am happy that I can eat, read and sleep in a house with a well-built roof. I don't hope too much that I will live in luxury (I would like to live in luxury, having nice dinner and drink and bedroom), but I actually hope I will live a simple and stable life. If I can't live such a life now, then I should take some action to better it and that time should make me think money important in my present life. (No inflation is considered now. If there's the fear of inflation, my above view will be quite different. Behind my view the value of money, the purchasing power of money is important, not money itself when considering what kind of life we would like to lead.)
I believe that saving money doesn't mean just cutting down on our expenditure(cutting down on our standard of living makes no sense!), but thinking carefully of what to buy.
Some commentators on TV or in today's newspapers suggest that we should save money for our uncertain future life, but our future is always uncertain and the most certain thing on the future is that the future is always uncertain. And that's why we should think carefully of what we need most in today's life.
Don't be afraid of our future life too much, yes of course, we need to think of it, but thinking too much is not so helpful when we face some difficulties in our career. We should think of what we can do now because it is clear that we can't do what we can't do now.
If we think that we need something for our current or future job, we should now be studying or preparing for it(there's no money but there's much time! Time is also as important as money in our life), and if we need higher paid job to keep our current life stable, we should be looking for it in the job advertisement on the Internet or in the newspapers.
Please don't be influenced by someone near us(otherwise, you will be hurt!), just listen to or sometimes pretend to listen to what other people mean. However, some advise should be listened to. We remember they don't always think of us or they don't always try to be helpful to us. They just talk about what they want to talk(they just break time!). We should keep in mind that finally"do it yourself". Don't take too much time to talk about ourselves to someone, take time for us to prepare for another chance in the future.
Money is important but it doesn't choose our life. Moreover other people don't choose our life at least here in Japan and in some developed and democratic countries where the law protects our freedom to choose our career. Our life chooses our money.
Monday, September 06, 2010
'Frosh' means 'Fresh'
While reading my favorite blog, I was sure I found the wrong spelling in it.
'Frosh' should spell "Fresh".
But I looked up the online dictionary, it has that word: 'frosh' means 'a freshman in a college.' My dictionary doesn't have it. Why not a freshman is 'frosh'? These sound very different. I am not so serious though, just I am wondering why.
It's an American English word. I realize that there's really a lot in the world that I don't know.
'Frosh' should spell "Fresh".
But I looked up the online dictionary, it has that word: 'frosh' means 'a freshman in a college.' My dictionary doesn't have it. Why not a freshman is 'frosh'? These sound very different. I am not so serious though, just I am wondering why.
It's an American English word. I realize that there's really a lot in the world that I don't know.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
円高、株安そして景気
2010年8月下旬の急速な円高、株安そして景気の動向が注目される。菅総理大臣、野田財務大臣の対米ドル８４．３４円、対ユーロ１０６．３５円近辺に対する「当面見守る」発言が、株式市場に失望感を与えて（同年8月24日）、さらに株値を落としている、といわれている。さて、問題は以下2点。①これらの指標、日本経済をどのように見るか。②政府・日銀は何らかの手立てを打つべきか。以上2点を考えていこう。
①日本経済の現状
まず円高である。円が外国通貨に対して高いか低いかの判断基準は「購買力平価説（PPP）」という指標を使うのが基本とされている。これは例えば、米国で売られているトマト1個と日本の1個とが、同じ大きさ、同じ重さ、同じテースト（味）であれば、同じ価値、価格を持つという仮定（一物一価の法則という）のもとで計算される対外貨為替レートのことである。
英国エコノミスト誌の有名なビッグマック指標もPPPの考えのひとつで、対米ドル：1ドル＝85.7円であり、現在（2010年8月27日6時）対米ドル：1ドル=85.24円と比べれば、ほぼハンバーガPPPが指し示す水準値である。
円高は一般的に、日本国内の製品価格が海外製品と比べて割高になるため、外国へ製品販売している業者にとっては不利である。しかし同時に、外国から製品を購入する業者にとっては、外国製品が相対的に割安となるために有利である。円高は「輸出企業には不利、輸入業者には有利」と言われる理由である。
問題は円高は日本経済・景気にとって不利、または有利なのか。日本経済の構造を見ながらそのことを考えよう。どこの国であれ、いつの時代であれ、経済活動・景気変動は、
（１） （需要）＝（供給）
の均等式が成り立つよう変動する。「需要」とは購入者（消費者・企業）であり、「供給」とは生産販売者（労働者・企業）である。 ＊労働者は労働サービスを企業など生産者に生産販売している。
もし、このとき
（２） （需要）＞（供給）
が成立すれば、需要超過と言う。このとき、購入者が経済には多く存在し、モノの値段（物価）が上昇し、利益拡大のチャンスと考える企業は生産・雇用を増やす。結果、供給が増えて、（１）式の均等式に回帰する。逆も然りで、供給が多ければ、物価が下がり、企業は生産・雇用を縮小させる。丁度（２）式が、「好景気」を表し、逆の不等号のときは「不景気」を表す。
経済は（１）式がバランスするように動くのである。
＊いわゆる「ケインズ派」の考えは、「需要が供給を生む」という「有効需要の原理」を唱え、「古典派・RBC派」は「供給が需要を生む」という「セイの法則」を唱える。どちらも正しい議論ではあるが、一部の経済学者はモノが余る「成熟社会」ではケインズ派が、モノが不足する「発展途上社会」では古典派の考えが妥当すると言う解釈を与えている。ここでは、ケインズ派の理論に則って議論を進める。
この考えをもとに経済全体の需要（GDE）の項目を詳しく見ると、
（３） （需要）＝（消費）+（投資）+（政府支出）+（輸出）-（輸入）
である。問題はこれら各需要項目の全体に占める割合である。消費（個人・政府消費）の対実質GDE比（2008年）はおよそ73％で、海外の需要項目、外需すなわち（輸出）-（輸入）は4.9％にすぎない。乱暴に言えば、マックス（最大）で１００％だけ外需が下落すれば、つまり、まったく外需がなくなったとき、日本経済の需要を約５％押し下げる計算になる。金額に換算するとおよそ27.8兆円。国内需要（内需）がおよそ95％、528.7兆円を考えるとさほど大きな数字ではない。割合だけで見ると、外需の消失はスーパーの５％還元ポイントセールが無くなったのに等しい。
＊GDEは国内総支出のことで、GDP（国内総生産）と同値である。これはちょうどGDEが「需要」に、GDPが「供給」に該当すると考えてもよいが（厳密には、これらの数字は同じものを違う面で見ているため、GDPが供給と言うのは正しくない）、これらの値は常に均衡する。また、需要項目で、なぜ「輸入」を差し引くかというと、国内の消費には外国製品の購入が必ず含まれるからである。輸出は外国への販売、すなわち外国人の需要（外需）で、輸入は日本人の購入、つまり内需である。2重計算を避けるために差し引く。また、（需要）＝（内需）+（外需）である。
なお、（３）式から
（４） （需要）-（消費）-（投資）-（政府支出）＝（輸出）-（輸入）
が成立し、（需要）-（消費）-（政府支出）＝（貯蓄）、また、（政府支出）＝（税金）、（需要）=(所得)である（GDE=GDPが成り立つから）ことを考えれば、
（５） （貯蓄）-（投資）＝（輸出）-（輸入）
が成立する。これは何を意味するか。（５）式を書き換えると、
（６） （供給）-（需要）＝（輸出）-（輸入）＝（純輸出）＝（貿易サービス収支）
であり、上記式は常に均衡が成立する。すると、（6）式の右辺の解釈は、「国内の経済・支出活動の反射鏡」であることを示す。景気が悪くなれば、需要が冷え込み、（６）式右辺はプラスになり、輸出超過、すなわち貿易黒字になる。＊財務省の「貿易統計」での貿易収支と上記の数字は一致しない。
このことから、
（７） （景気の低迷）＝（貿易収支黒字）
といえる。円高は外需の押し下げ要因、景気低迷要因であるが、たとえ外需が消失しても、日本経済には５％のマイナス影響しかない。このことより、日本経済は欧米諸国に比べても「内需主導型経済」であると言える。
＊貿易収支の黒字は、海外への販売である輸出が外国からの購入である輸入よりも多いことを意味し、この裏では外貨の受け取りが支払いよりも多くなる。国内企業は外貨を邦貨（円）に換え、決済しようとするので円のニーズが強くなり、「円高」になる。また、国内物価の下落も「円高」要因である。名目為替レート：1ドル＝E円とすると、実質為替レート：米国のトマト1個＝日本のトマトF個とすると、
E=F×（日本のトマトの値段）÷（米国のトマトの値段）
となる。日本のトマトの値段、つまり日本の物価が下がると、名目レートEは減少つまり「円高」になる。さらに、国内の資産にかかる金利上昇も「円高」要因とされるが、内外の金利差（日米間の長期国債金利）は米国金利のほうが高い。
②政府・日銀の政策
以上の５％の変動が日本の実体経済（GDE）にマイナス影響を及ぼし、日本の株価を押し下げているのだろうか。単回帰分析を使って考えたい。これは、株価（日経平均）と経済（名目GDP）との関係を
（８） （日経平均株価）＝a×（名目GDP）+b
という中学校で習った１次関数の形に直して、お互いの相関関係（因果関係ではない）を見ようということだ。データは過去１０年（２０００年～２００９年）の日経平均（終値）、名目GDPを使った。すると、
（9） （日経平均株価）＝0.225×（名目GDP）-99413.7
となる。定数項、名目GDPの係数の推定値ともに有意水準5％で帰無仮説（係数＝0）を棄却でき、日経平均の変動を説明するには、名目GDPが必要であるといえる。（相関係数＝0.84）このことから、外需の対名目GDP比は、5.3％であり、かりに外需が消滅すれば、0.053×0.225＝0.011、つまり１％だけ株価を押し下げる計算になる。
＊もちろん、サンプル数を増やす、変数を増やす、また経済の構造変化を考慮に入れるなどより細かく計算すべきだが。さらに、実質GDP(物価の変動を取り除いたGDP)を用いて、同様の単回帰を行うと、帰無仮説を有意水準５％で棄却できない。このことからも、日経平均は実体経済と強い関係があるとはいえない。また、為替レート（東京市場）でも同様の分析を行うと、これも日経平均と強い関係は確認されない。
＊＊株価には東証株価指数（TOPIX）も存在する。日経平均は日本経済新聞社が作成・公表し、東京証券取引所1部上場約1，700銘柄から代表的な225銘柄の株価の単純平均として表されるため、高い銘柄の動きに左右されやすい。そこで、高い銘柄の動きに左右されないように、上場銘柄の株式数を考慮して加重平均として表したのがTOPIXである。TOPIXは、株式数の多い大型株（資本金100億円以上）の動きが大きく投影される傾向がある。
＊＊＊日経平均の変動は輸出関連・ハイテクなどの値による影響が大きいのに対し、時価総額を基準とするTOPIXは、時価総額の大きい大手銀行株をはじめ、内需関連株による影響が大きい。
＊＊＊＊株価は一般的に「先行指標」とされ、景気に先行して動く。
直近の日経平均は８月８日以降、９５００円を割り込み、円も６月下旬以降９０円を割り込み、２７日現在株価は８９00円程度、円は対米ドル８５円程度である。
乱暴に言えば、円高により外需が消滅しても、株価は１％の下落、つまり９５００円からだと９５円程度のマイナス、９４０５円程度になることが予想される。このことからも、株は円高による実体経済、外需減少要因だけではなく、他の要因にも大きく左右されているのではないかと考えられる。
この単純計算からも、昨今の株価下落と円高の実体経済（外需）に与える影響とに大きな関連はなく、政府による為替の介入、日銀の一段の金融緩和などといった対応には注意が必要である。
そもそもこれらの政策の目的は何か。「景気対策」か、それとも「円高対策」か。たとえ、
（10） （円高対策）=（景気対策）
だとしても、円を仮に安くでき、外需が１００％増加しても（２倍になっても）、GDPにはプラス２７兆円だけの増加である。GDPギャップが20、30兆円程度だと言われているから、それを埋めるのにちょうどいいかもしれない額だが、欧米などの海外の景気が悪化している中、ありえない話である。
＊GDPギャップとは、潜在的な生産能力と需要との差で、日本経済は20、30兆円程度需要が足りないと言われている。
政府の為替介入は「円を売る」ことであり、日銀の金融緩和は「流動性（円）を増やす」ことである。どちらも市場に円供給を増やす政策で、「円を安く」させよう。ただ、仮に円を安くできても、それにより、景気にどう影響するのか。小生が示すように、外需が倍にならないかぎりGDPギャップを埋めることができないし、日銀は金融緩和を続けているし、政府財務省の円売り介入も他通貨が安いうえ、ハンバーガーPPPで見て円は適正値であり、政策効果は非常に限定的であるだろう。「何もしないこと」と変わらないかもしれない。
＊経済通なら「乗数効果」（ある需要項目の経済全体への波及効果）はどうした、と聞くかもしれない。ご承知のとおり、45度線分析で海外部門を導入（限界輸入性向）し、海外部門を考えな国内経済における政府支出の増加による経済波及効果（政府支出乗数）に比べて、外需（輸出）が増えることの乗数効果は小さくなる。
③まとめ
１、外需の内需（実質GDP）に占める割合は小さい（５％）
２、外需の低迷・円高と株安（日経平均）との関係もごくわずか
3、政策的対応は非常に限られ、その効果も非常に小さいだろう
Sunday, July 18, 2010
How To Create Jobs and Income
10/21/07 revised
The world economy has been in crisis and here in Japan some policymakers and economic policy nerds have some ideas of how to boost up the weak demand of the economy.
In my opinion (and I think many people interested in economic issues will agree with it), there're generally two kinds of the problems the economy has: the structural one and short-run business-cyclical one.
As a structural problem, the older people get, the more money they need to make a living. Thus the government should pay them as a medical insurance and national pension plan, which consequently puts the budget into deficit and thus a long-term debt. So we need much more tax revenue as resources to pay them.
On the other hand, and as a short-run problem, many young people now have difficulties in finding a good job in such a weakened economy and many (how many? ...good question, but it doesn't matter at present) of them should put up with low-paid and insecure jobs.
The Prime Minister, Kan, and his economic team seem to want to solve the above two kinds of them at the same time: raise the tax to create jobs and income. It sounds weird in a traditional economic thinking, but they are so serious that they think they can. The government raises the tax and gets the revenue, which it can use to employ the unemployed and to boost up the income and consumption in a whole economy. Now the Kan administration can solve the two problems: it can get more tax revenue to employ the unemployed (it can solve the short-run problem), and thus it can get more and more tax revenue to finance the budget deficit and to shrink the long-term debt because more people can earn income and pay the tax on it in a whole economy(it can solve the structural problem).
Yes of course, there's always a lot of jobs that need young people in the economy from the viewpoint of a whole society, but I mean these jobs may not necessarily keep them on and what's more, we are more likely to have ability-oriented or region-oriented gap: some people can complete the work they are offered, but others can't. Or, in some cities there're many jobs to take but in other cities not many. Always there're jobs that need us as long as we live on, but some of them may not make them eat enough food to live on. (Why are there some job ads that we can always see in the newspaper?)
Although the economic policy the Kan Administration sounds logically coherent, unfortunately I am not sure how successful the solution Mr. Kan proposed is in solving the two problems, and I am wondering what happens to the economy if the government tries to do it.
The world economy has been in crisis and here in Japan some policymakers and economic policy nerds have some ideas of how to boost up the weak demand of the economy.
In my opinion (and I think many people interested in economic issues will agree with it), there're generally two kinds of the problems the economy has: the structural one and short-run business-cyclical one.
As a structural problem, the older people get, the more money they need to make a living. Thus the government should pay them as a medical insurance and national pension plan, which consequently puts the budget into deficit and thus a long-term debt. So we need much more tax revenue as resources to pay them.
On the other hand, and as a short-run problem, many young people now have difficulties in finding a good job in such a weakened economy and many (how many? ...good question, but it doesn't matter at present) of them should put up with low-paid and insecure jobs.
The Prime Minister, Kan, and his economic team seem to want to solve the above two kinds of them at the same time: raise the tax to create jobs and income. It sounds weird in a traditional economic thinking, but they are so serious that they think they can. The government raises the tax and gets the revenue, which it can use to employ the unemployed and to boost up the income and consumption in a whole economy. Now the Kan administration can solve the two problems: it can get more tax revenue to employ the unemployed (it can solve the short-run problem), and thus it can get more and more tax revenue to finance the budget deficit and to shrink the long-term debt because more people can earn income and pay the tax on it in a whole economy(it can solve the structural problem).
Yes of course, there's always a lot of jobs that need young people in the economy from the viewpoint of a whole society, but I mean these jobs may not necessarily keep them on and what's more, we are more likely to have ability-oriented or region-oriented gap: some people can complete the work they are offered, but others can't. Or, in some cities there're many jobs to take but in other cities not many. Always there're jobs that need us as long as we live on, but some of them may not make them eat enough food to live on. (Why are there some job ads that we can always see in the newspaper?)
Although the economic policy the Kan Administration sounds logically coherent, unfortunately I am not sure how successful the solution Mr. Kan proposed is in solving the two problems, and I am wondering what happens to the economy if the government tries to do it.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
I am Still Alive
For more than 3 months I have not updated my blog. That doesn't mean that I have nothing to write and to update, nor that I have no time to write.
Recently I have read some books some of my favorite economists recommend, and wanted to concentrate on them carefully. Of course, while reading them, I've been busy working and teaching.
Soon I will write and discuss on the books I read.
Recently I have read some books some of my favorite economists recommend, and wanted to concentrate on them carefully. Of course, while reading them, I've been busy working and teaching.
Soon I will write and discuss on the books I read.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
On Fiscal Policy (1)
I am teaching elementary economics at school, and I touch on fiscal policy - government budget, spending, cut tax, how built-in stabilizer works, tax collection, bond issue and fiscal reform of the Japanese government.
When I think of the fiscal problems that the Hatoyama administration should solve, this report may greatly help though it is on the fiscal policy of the US.
Fiscal policy has three functions: (1) allocation of resources, (2) income redistribution, and (3) economic stabilization.
This report is almost entirely on the function of fiscal stimulus, or comment on textbook Keynesian view on fiscal policy and here's the summary of this report:
(1) On the effects of government spending
There are two effects of government spending on aggregate demand(=consumption + investment). These are positive and negative effects:
The positive effect is multiplier effect, where government purchase leads to higher income and thus today's demand.
On the other hand, the negative effects are growth-retarding effect, where government spending leads to higher taxes in the future and thus less demand today to prepare for the higher tax, and crowding-out effect, where government spending results in higher interest rate and thus less today's demand.
(2) On the effects of tax cut and spending on demand
Generally, I say that government spending is more effective on demand than is tax cut. However, some researches say that it isn't, rather it is the opposite: tax cut is more effective on demand than government spending.
Moreover, (interestingly) successful, growth-promoting fiscal stimulus is tax cut whereas unsuccessful stimulus is spending more and transfer payments, which are now (unfortunately) the Hatoyama administration's main dishes!
When I think of the fiscal problems that the Hatoyama administration should solve, this report may greatly help though it is on the fiscal policy of the US.
Fiscal policy has three functions: (1) allocation of resources, (2) income redistribution, and (3) economic stabilization.
This report is almost entirely on the function of fiscal stimulus, or comment on textbook Keynesian view on fiscal policy and here's the summary of this report:
(1) On the effects of government spending
There are two effects of government spending on aggregate demand(=consumption + investment). These are positive and negative effects:
The positive effect is multiplier effect, where government purchase leads to higher income and thus today's demand.
On the other hand, the negative effects are growth-retarding effect, where government spending leads to higher taxes in the future and thus less demand today to prepare for the higher tax, and crowding-out effect, where government spending results in higher interest rate and thus less today's demand.
(2) On the effects of tax cut and spending on demand
Generally, I say that government spending is more effective on demand than is tax cut. However, some researches say that it isn't, rather it is the opposite: tax cut is more effective on demand than government spending.
Moreover, (interestingly) successful, growth-promoting fiscal stimulus is tax cut whereas unsuccessful stimulus is spending more and transfer payments, which are now (unfortunately) the Hatoyama administration's main dishes!
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
マクドへのファンメール
日本マクドナルド株式会社さんへファンメールを書いた。以下のその一文。
御社での製品(特に、マックシェイク、フィレオフィッシュ)は幼いころから楽しんでおり、「マクドファン」としてメールいたしました。
街中を歩いておりますと、御社の使用済み包装が散らばっているのを良く見かけます。包装については、衛生上の観点から必要であり、「過重包装」についても何度も御社では改善されたことを伺っております。
基本的に食後の包装の処理は消費者の責任でありますが、御社としては難しいとは存じますが、一度「デポジット制度」についてご検討されては、と存じます。例えば、お持ち帰りの包装に関して紙袋代やポテトの紙箱など一律10円を正規価格に上乗せし、店舗に持ち込めば、10円返金する、という制度です。
街中のゴミも減り、環境配慮を全面的にアピールする狙いを込めて、御社が積極的にこれに乗り出せば、更なる企業イメージアップも図れ、他社さんもこれに追随するやも知れません。
ご検討されれば、と存じます。拙文失礼致します。
御社での製品(特に、マックシェイク、フィレオフィッシュ)は幼いころから楽しんでおり、「マクドファン」としてメールいたしました。
街中を歩いておりますと、御社の使用済み包装が散らばっているのを良く見かけます。包装については、衛生上の観点から必要であり、「過重包装」についても何度も御社では改善されたことを伺っております。
基本的に食後の包装の処理は消費者の責任でありますが、御社としては難しいとは存じますが、一度「デポジット制度」についてご検討されては、と存じます。例えば、お持ち帰りの包装に関して紙袋代やポテトの紙箱など一律10円を正規価格に上乗せし、店舗に持ち込めば、10円返金する、という制度です。
街中のゴミも減り、環境配慮を全面的にアピールする狙いを込めて、御社が積極的にこれに乗り出せば、更なる企業イメージアップも図れ、他社さんもこれに追随するやも知れません。
ご検討されれば、と存じます。拙文失礼致します。
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Inequality and Education
Recently I've read the latest Mankiw's article and wondered how to solve an income (or opportunity) inequality. Not only has this problem been considered important in the US, but also in Japan.
Since around 1970s, the age of oil and dollar crisis, an income inequality has been wider in some developed countries and especially since late 1990s, when IT(information technology) revolution, the Internet, came across and changed our everyday business and life, we've got concerned about what is called "digital divide", which means that those who use IT are more likely to get higher income than those who don't.
"Kakusa society", in Japanese, means "income-gap society" and is now a well known word to a lot of modern Japanese people. Income gap leads to a wider opportunity gap; Those who get higher income are more likely to have good friends and spouses and live a better and happier life, and thus so are their children.
When Gary Becker & Kevin Murphy talk about the income inequality, they point out the role of "human capital" played in an income gap:
The initial impact of higher returns to human capital(Taro added: a higher education of college and university) is wider inequality in earnings.
...Higher returns to education will accelerate growth in living standards as existing investments have a higher return, and additional investments in education will be made in response to the higher returns.
Why is the earnings gap widening? Because (of) the demand for educated and other skilled persons (and) ...a general shift in economic activity to more education-intensive sectors, such as finance and professional services... At the same time, world demand has risen for the kinds of products and services that are provided by high-skilled employees.
They tell us that initial impact of higher education on income widens income gap, but as time goes by, it decreases and leads to higher income and benefit spilled over more people. Moreover, they criticize the usual policy response to an income inequality:
...the solution to an increase in inequality is ...to raise taxes on high-income households and reduce taxes on low-income households. .. (That is just like advocating) a tax on going to college and a subsidy for dropping out of high school in response to the increased importance of education.
They suggest that we should encourage higher education for more people. I completely agree with them.
Since around 1970s, the age of oil and dollar crisis, an income inequality has been wider in some developed countries and especially since late 1990s, when IT(information technology) revolution, the Internet, came across and changed our everyday business and life, we've got concerned about what is called "digital divide", which means that those who use IT are more likely to get higher income than those who don't.
"Kakusa society", in Japanese, means "income-gap society" and is now a well known word to a lot of modern Japanese people. Income gap leads to a wider opportunity gap; Those who get higher income are more likely to have good friends and spouses and live a better and happier life, and thus so are their children.
When Gary Becker & Kevin Murphy talk about the income inequality, they point out the role of "human capital" played in an income gap:
The initial impact of higher returns to human capital(Taro added: a higher education of college and university) is wider inequality in earnings.
...Higher returns to education will accelerate growth in living standards as existing investments have a higher return, and additional investments in education will be made in response to the higher returns.
Why is the earnings gap widening? Because (of) the demand for educated and other skilled persons (and) ...a general shift in economic activity to more education-intensive sectors, such as finance and professional services... At the same time, world demand has risen for the kinds of products and services that are provided by high-skilled employees.
They tell us that initial impact of higher education on income widens income gap, but as time goes by, it decreases and leads to higher income and benefit spilled over more people. Moreover, they criticize the usual policy response to an income inequality:
...the solution to an increase in inequality is ...to raise taxes on high-income households and reduce taxes on low-income households. .. (That is just like advocating) a tax on going to college and a subsidy for dropping out of high school in response to the increased importance of education.
They suggest that we should encourage higher education for more people. I completely agree with them.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Teach Economics
Since last year I have been given some opportunities to teach elementary economics as a lecturer to students who are thinking of entering university and working for governments.
Here in Japan before we work for governments we should take the exam on law, history, and economics and have some interviews. These subjects are, however, at an elementary level,but to teach elementary economics is not easy for me because almost all the students don't know a lot about economics.(that's why they come up to me!!)
They need good lectures and thus they paid a lot for schools. I should talk frankly about economics and watch them study hard.
During this lecture I had some lessons on giving a lecture: I found I didn't understand what I had thought I knew a lot about. Moreover, I found good lecture depends on how much I prepare for it: If I didn't read the textbook very much beforehand, I couldn't teach well and would give the students an impression in which I don't know a lot about what I am talking about. That's true but I hadn't found it until I gave some lectures.
I believe it is a good experience and I should study more on how to teach elementary economics. But at the same time I should begin to write some papers for the doctor degree.
Here in Japan before we work for governments we should take the exam on law, history, and economics and have some interviews. These subjects are, however, at an elementary level,but to teach elementary economics is not easy for me because almost all the students don't know a lot about economics.(that's why they come up to me!!)
They need good lectures and thus they paid a lot for schools. I should talk frankly about economics and watch them study hard.
During this lecture I had some lessons on giving a lecture: I found I didn't understand what I had thought I knew a lot about. Moreover, I found good lecture depends on how much I prepare for it: If I didn't read the textbook very much beforehand, I couldn't teach well and would give the students an impression in which I don't know a lot about what I am talking about. That's true but I hadn't found it until I gave some lectures.
I believe it is a good experience and I should study more on how to teach elementary economics. But at the same time I should begin to write some papers for the doctor degree.
Monday, February 22, 2010
A Love From Russia?
Recently I've got some emails from someone that I've never met. They say that they came from Russia and girls. They say that they broke their love and looked for another good love.
It looks interesting and I've tried to reply to them. After a while, they emailed me and they said they found me an ideal guy... and I continue to email her(?) and she(?) says that she wants me, needs me and loves me....(like Elvis's song?)
What is that? I have no idea. Why do they email someone that they never meet?
Anyway, if you have some idea of such an anonymous email, I would be happy to hear it.
It looks interesting and I've tried to reply to them. After a while, they emailed me and they said they found me an ideal guy... and I continue to email her(?) and she(?) says that she wants me, needs me and loves me....(like Elvis's song?)
What is that? I have no idea. Why do they email someone that they never meet?
Anyway, if you have some idea of such an anonymous email, I would be happy to hear it.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Trip to Old Japan
I found a good collection of old pictures of more than 100-year-ago Japan. Enjoy it.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Haiti Tragedy
It is a very sad news of Haiti's earthquake. What Krugman says is also what I really want to say: As far as one can tell, those with the power to help are doing all they can. One can only hope that enough help arrives fast enough to avoid the second-round calamities — deaths due to lack of food and water and/or disease — that can all too easily follow a natural disaster.
It also reminds us of the Kobe-Awaji earthquake that happened 15 years ago.
It also reminds us of the Kobe-Awaji earthquake that happened 15 years ago.
American Obesity
WSJ says on 13/01/2010 that:
WASHINGTON—One-third of American adults are obese, according to new U.S. government figures released Wednesday, but the rate of increase seen in recent decades has slowed.
Figures from the National Center for Health Statistics showed 34% of American adults age 20 and older were obese in 2007-08 while 68% were considered overweight or obese. In children ages 2 through 19, 17% were considered obese while 32% were considered overweight. Broadly, the figures are similar to rates seen in 1999-2000.
"Obesity remains high and is a significant public-health problem in the U.S.," said Cynthia Ogden, one of the main researchers involved in tabulating the data and an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's health-statistics unit.
..."I see this as relatively good news," said William Dietz, the director of CDC's division of nutrition, physical activity and obesity. "It suggests we've halted the progression of the epidemic."...."The administration recognizes that control of obesity is related to health reform," Dr. Dietz said.
The obesity figures were taken from 5,555 adults and nearly 4,000 children who are considered representative of the U.S. population. For adults, researchers looked at body mass index, a measure that estimates body fat by using a person's height and weight in the calculation. Those with BMIs of 25 to 29.9 are considered overweight and those who are considered obese have a BMI of 30 or greater. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered a normal weight for adults.
Interestingly, we can see this article in the site of Yahoo JAPAN! although it is a piece of the American news that doesn't seem to have anything to do with our own life. I'm not sure how many Japanese are obese and what growth rate of obese Japanese we have seen for the past decades, but I'm sure it is not other people's affairs.
We have already lived a civilized life here for long: the foods we eat are more similar or closer to those the American eat, and we do less exercise for long and so do they. Our life style becomes quite closer to American one. I think we need to take a good look at the data of obesity in America for good reference.
WASHINGTON—One-third of American adults are obese, according to new U.S. government figures released Wednesday, but the rate of increase seen in recent decades has slowed.
Figures from the National Center for Health Statistics showed 34% of American adults age 20 and older were obese in 2007-08 while 68% were considered overweight or obese. In children ages 2 through 19, 17% were considered obese while 32% were considered overweight. Broadly, the figures are similar to rates seen in 1999-2000.
"Obesity remains high and is a significant public-health problem in the U.S.," said Cynthia Ogden, one of the main researchers involved in tabulating the data and an epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's health-statistics unit.
..."I see this as relatively good news," said William Dietz, the director of CDC's division of nutrition, physical activity and obesity. "It suggests we've halted the progression of the epidemic."...."The administration recognizes that control of obesity is related to health reform," Dr. Dietz said.
The obesity figures were taken from 5,555 adults and nearly 4,000 children who are considered representative of the U.S. population. For adults, researchers looked at body mass index, a measure that estimates body fat by using a person's height and weight in the calculation. Those with BMIs of 25 to 29.9 are considered overweight and those who are considered obese have a BMI of 30 or greater. A BMI of 18.5 to 24.9 is considered a normal weight for adults.
Interestingly, we can see this article in the site of Yahoo JAPAN! although it is a piece of the American news that doesn't seem to have anything to do with our own life. I'm not sure how many Japanese are obese and what growth rate of obese Japanese we have seen for the past decades, but I'm sure it is not other people's affairs.
We have already lived a civilized life here for long: the foods we eat are more similar or closer to those the American eat, and we do less exercise for long and so do they. Our life style becomes quite closer to American one. I think we need to take a good look at the data of obesity in America for good reference.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Conscience of a Conservative
What is a conservative? I don't think I am a conservative but I sometimes wonder what the idea of a conservative is like. Let me tell you about it:
Longman dictionary says that a conservative means a person who dislikes changes. My definition of a conservative is a little different: Generally, a conservative has three principles of behavior, or beliefs.
(1) To love his or her own culture, custom and tradition
That's natural to what is called a conservative. There's always such a person no matter which part of the world he or she lives in. Such a person always says that he or she loves and tries to protect his or her own tradition.
(2) To be tolerant
When you meet someone who doesn't agree with you, if you blame him or her, you are not a conservative in my definition.
What a conservative is like is tolerance for disagreement or misunderstanding. I know if you are hard for someone to understand you feel bad with him or her. But try to keep calm and to listen to him or her because someone who doesn't agree with you probably has a different point of view from you that might sometimes help you broaden your outlook. (It is difficult to keep calm when you are harshly blamed. That's our nature!)
A conservative is basically not a violent one, rather a gentle and kind one in this way.
(3) To know that changes are sometimes needed
"Change to remain the same!" Ichiro Ozawa, a politician of the Democratic Party, now a ruling party in Japan, likes this phrase. Ozawa has been considered to be and called a neoconservative, who believes the power and dynamism of freedom. I like this phrase too.
When we see the world in which we live changing fast, we should not stick to our own opinion or idea. We should first rather learn how the world is changing and what is changing in the world. And then if we feel the need to change the way in which we behave due to changing social and economic surroundings, we should try to change our idea, or if needed, ourselves to remain the same as what we are and how we live on.
Change is not always a good choice, though. We should think of the effect of the change we make on our life and society. I know it's a difficult task. It's not a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis. It can be said that it's a great decision to make a change in our present life and society.
Longman dictionary says that a conservative means a person who dislikes changes. My definition of a conservative is a little different: Generally, a conservative has three principles of behavior, or beliefs.
(1) To love his or her own culture, custom and tradition
That's natural to what is called a conservative. There's always such a person no matter which part of the world he or she lives in. Such a person always says that he or she loves and tries to protect his or her own tradition.
(2) To be tolerant
When you meet someone who doesn't agree with you, if you blame him or her, you are not a conservative in my definition.
What a conservative is like is tolerance for disagreement or misunderstanding. I know if you are hard for someone to understand you feel bad with him or her. But try to keep calm and to listen to him or her because someone who doesn't agree with you probably has a different point of view from you that might sometimes help you broaden your outlook. (It is difficult to keep calm when you are harshly blamed. That's our nature!)
A conservative is basically not a violent one, rather a gentle and kind one in this way.
(3) To know that changes are sometimes needed
"Change to remain the same!" Ichiro Ozawa, a politician of the Democratic Party, now a ruling party in Japan, likes this phrase. Ozawa has been considered to be and called a neoconservative, who believes the power and dynamism of freedom. I like this phrase too.
When we see the world in which we live changing fast, we should not stick to our own opinion or idea. We should first rather learn how the world is changing and what is changing in the world. And then if we feel the need to change the way in which we behave due to changing social and economic surroundings, we should try to change our idea, or if needed, ourselves to remain the same as what we are and how we live on.
Change is not always a good choice, though. We should think of the effect of the change we make on our life and society. I know it's a difficult task. It's not a simple matter of cost-benefit analysis. It can be said that it's a great decision to make a change in our present life and society.
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Peter Principle
It's very interesting! The Peter Principle says that the less productive a worker, the more likely will she succeed.
...There are, though, perhaps more basic messages here. Competition needn’t necessarily yield optimum outcomes; “survival of the fittest” mightn’t be the most efficient principle. And the organization of corporate hierarchies might be inefficient, not (just) from heterodox perspectives, but from the perspective of conventional neoclassical economic theory itself.
Now might be the time for us to study such a kind of economics; Just before, Koizumi and Takenaka tried to conduct an economic policy of a traditional neoclassical version of competition and privatization(Reaganomics), in order to boost up the stagnant Japanese economy.
Recently a lot of people have doubt on an attempt to make such a policy because the Japanese economy is still stagnant. The Peter Principle would not be a key solution to the difficult problem of the Japanese economy, but greatly influence the ideas of political and business leaders.
...There are, though, perhaps more basic messages here. Competition needn’t necessarily yield optimum outcomes; “survival of the fittest” mightn’t be the most efficient principle. And the organization of corporate hierarchies might be inefficient, not (just) from heterodox perspectives, but from the perspective of conventional neoclassical economic theory itself.
Now might be the time for us to study such a kind of economics; Just before, Koizumi and Takenaka tried to conduct an economic policy of a traditional neoclassical version of competition and privatization(Reaganomics), in order to boost up the stagnant Japanese economy.
Recently a lot of people have doubt on an attempt to make such a policy because the Japanese economy is still stagnant. The Peter Principle would not be a key solution to the difficult problem of the Japanese economy, but greatly influence the ideas of political and business leaders.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Economics
Paul A. Samuelson died. (The picture is from NY times.)When I was a freshman at college, I took a course of international economics. The lecturer introduced one econ textbook to the students. That was the Samuelson's economics. Of course, it was the one written with Nordhaus and soon I dropped from this course because I felt it was enough to read it.
I can't talk about Samuelson and his work because I don't know what he really did in economics. However, he is so famous in the area of economics that most of people should find his name in any introductory econ textbook.
Of course, Japanese economists of older generation studied economics with his textbook and if they were asked who wrote a great econ text, they would definitely answer "it's Samuelson". He is certainly a brand name in Japan too and influenced them so greatly. Unfortunately, I have never read his economics (I've read Mankiw's one instead.) but I heard most of econ textbooks have followed his style of economics by introducing micro, and then macroeconomics.
Recently, I have been wondering what's the true meaning of the distinction between micro and macroecon. Well, I think it's easier for econ teachers to teach beginners economics. But as an econ beginner I struggled to understand what econ is like; Micro seems very different from macro in intro econ textbooks. To be precise, Keynes theory(AD-AS analysis) seems different from New Classical one(Demand-supply diagram).
I know Barro of Harvard tried to integrate them into one. I am not somewhat happy with the Barro's style of economics and I cannot give alternative version of econ(it's really a big task!), but I would say there's no more need than to make the distinction.
I would say macroeconomics should be described as an applied microeconomics and this trend has been already accepted. Why have many of intro econ textbooks still followed an old-fashioned Samuelson's style of econ text? It might be a stable equilibrium of econ style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)