Leaders
The vote that changed Japan
Originally from The Economist September.5th, 2009
Summary:
The Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) broke the half-century lock of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) on power, marked the delayed destruction of Japan’s post-war political system.
There are three reasons to believe that this vote marks a big change. The first is the scale of victory—DPJ has more than half of the members in Diet. Second, the rejection of the LDP means deep changes in Japan’s political culture. Third, by overthrowing the LDP, Japan’s voters have thrown away a whole system.
Since 1955, LDP has created “iron triangle”, making prosperous growth and …corruption. LDP failed to respond to people’s needs, and ministers’ best intentions were undermined by party’s own benefit. Hence the voters’ rejection reflects they want an open and accountable government.
DPJ tapped into Nordic vision of their society; it rejected the free-market version of change. The party has also made mild anti-American noises about military and market. DPJ says it will put consumers first, and steer the economy away from export-led growth towards domestic demand.
All these depend on Mr. Hatoyama’s first task: redesigning government. The first challenge comes from drawing up the budget for the 2010 fiscal year. That is also a chance to show that the party is not wasting people’s money as LDP claimed.
My opinion:
Japan’s economy has been down for decades; of course, people want change. This new government has many different opinions and thoughts from the old one. It’s an important index of Japan’s change in their future industry prospect. They say they’ll boost domestic demand and consider consumers first. Thus, they should build a good welfare system, better than the one used now, first, and then the public in Japan will start to spend their money. If the new government do it successfully, Japan will have a brighter future.
2009年9月11日 星期五
2009年9月2日 星期三
The Economist's Digest30
Leaders
Big is back
Originally from The Economist August.29th, 2009
Summary:
Few years ago, big companies have many problems and hurt a lot in the financial crisis last year. However, after government’s claim that some companies are too big to fail, these big companies’ advantages are back…
Big companies are always there. Small ones and deregulating innovation are not always best, and some accounting laws give not only big companies but also small ones a big burden. Now many industries discover advantages and disadvantages of being big, such as having more money to do research or having bad outsourcing partners.
On the other hand, companies emerged have discovered how to be entrepreneurial when being big. Some may worry about the return of the mighty. Yet big is not always bad, the same that small is not always good. Big and small companies should co-exist and co-flourish.
The return of giants could be good for global economy. Nevertheless, some points should be emphasized. First, the most successful big firms focus on their core business. Second, governments shouldn’t support failed big ones; they should make it more easy for companies to start and grow big.
My opinion:
International entrepreneurial companies have being more and more, and these companies have more power and resources. Will these companies grab more resources? Certainly they will. That’s why governments around the world should help small companies, whether they’ll grow big or not, since it’s very important for small and big companies to coexist. On the other hand, the management education is changing too. More and more universities and colleges have courses about international entrepreneur.
Big is back
Originally from The Economist August.29th, 2009
Summary:
Few years ago, big companies have many problems and hurt a lot in the financial crisis last year. However, after government’s claim that some companies are too big to fail, these big companies’ advantages are back…
Big companies are always there. Small ones and deregulating innovation are not always best, and some accounting laws give not only big companies but also small ones a big burden. Now many industries discover advantages and disadvantages of being big, such as having more money to do research or having bad outsourcing partners.
On the other hand, companies emerged have discovered how to be entrepreneurial when being big. Some may worry about the return of the mighty. Yet big is not always bad, the same that small is not always good. Big and small companies should co-exist and co-flourish.
The return of giants could be good for global economy. Nevertheless, some points should be emphasized. First, the most successful big firms focus on their core business. Second, governments shouldn’t support failed big ones; they should make it more easy for companies to start and grow big.
My opinion:
International entrepreneurial companies have being more and more, and these companies have more power and resources. Will these companies grab more resources? Certainly they will. That’s why governments around the world should help small companies, whether they’ll grow big or not, since it’s very important for small and big companies to coexist. On the other hand, the management education is changing too. More and more universities and colleges have courses about international entrepreneur.
2009年7月25日 星期六
The Economist's Digest29
Europe
He who pays for the pipelines calls the tune
Originally from The Economist July.18th, 2009
Summary:
In the past, the gas pipelines have been through Russia to Europe. It is dangerous since there’s overlap of political interest and economic profits. However, there may be other alternations in the future--- new pipelines going through Turkey, the Nabucco line.
The gas source of Nabucco line is not definite; Iraq promised to supply half; Turkmenistan may offer, since there’s pressure form EU and America.
Other pipelines (not through Russia) are developing too. However, Russia also signed a contract with Nigeria and planned new pipelines. Yet the company which planned to build these lines, the biggest gas company in Russia, is corruptive and in bad financial position. Furthermore, its new pipelines may violate EU anti-monopoly rules.
Actually, there are two energy companies, one of Germany, another of France, that were fined due to their violation of this rule. The EU commission emphasizes on energy-market liberalization, and it’s a better way to energy security than the pipelines.
My opinion:
The position of oil pipelines is important, since these pipelines will be strategic points in wars. Moreover, these pipelines s also represent economic and political interests. These pipelines are important---also dangerous in many ways.
However, when it comes to anti-monopoly of energy, these pipelines may not have useful ways since one oil company can have many lines.
Thus, reading this article, what I’m interested in is not only energy liberalization but also the energy-related influence of these pipelines. Will oil prices be influenced by this? How about the political relations influenced by this?
Energy-market liberalization is hard to succeed. When it comes true, there may be other better energy resources.
He who pays for the pipelines calls the tune
Originally from The Economist July.18th, 2009
Summary:
In the past, the gas pipelines have been through Russia to Europe. It is dangerous since there’s overlap of political interest and economic profits. However, there may be other alternations in the future--- new pipelines going through Turkey, the Nabucco line.
The gas source of Nabucco line is not definite; Iraq promised to supply half; Turkmenistan may offer, since there’s pressure form EU and America.
Other pipelines (not through Russia) are developing too. However, Russia also signed a contract with Nigeria and planned new pipelines. Yet the company which planned to build these lines, the biggest gas company in Russia, is corruptive and in bad financial position. Furthermore, its new pipelines may violate EU anti-monopoly rules.
Actually, there are two energy companies, one of Germany, another of France, that were fined due to their violation of this rule. The EU commission emphasizes on energy-market liberalization, and it’s a better way to energy security than the pipelines.
My opinion:
The position of oil pipelines is important, since these pipelines will be strategic points in wars. Moreover, these pipelines s also represent economic and political interests. These pipelines are important---also dangerous in many ways.
However, when it comes to anti-monopoly of energy, these pipelines may not have useful ways since one oil company can have many lines.
Thus, reading this article, what I’m interested in is not only energy liberalization but also the energy-related influence of these pipelines. Will oil prices be influenced by this? How about the political relations influenced by this?
Energy-market liberalization is hard to succeed. When it comes true, there may be other better energy resources.
The Economist's Digest28
Leaders
What went wrong with economics?
Originally from The Economist July.18th, 2009
Summary:
In the past, most economic crises didn’t challenge the economics itself. Economics was taken as gospel. However, after these two years---the financial crisis, economics is not honored as before. It’s in doubt. Even some people in Europe started to doubt economic liberalism, and it’s false and dangerous.
There are three main criticisms: that macro and financial economists helped cause the crisis, that they failed to spot it, and that they don’t know how to fix it. The first is half right. Actually, macroeconomists are careless of asset bubbles this time. On the other hand, some important economic theories---like the inefficiency of the market---were ignored or distorted in Wall Street.
Actually, almost all the economists failed to previse how bad the consequence would be, even though some of them felt something wrong before the crisis. The central banks believe the imperfection of economy by human nature, yet financial officers don’t do so--- their economic model ignoring it, thus causing the disaster.
This financial crisis has changed economics a lot, and economists and financial professors should know more about each other’s field. Economists are social scientists, trying to understand the world changed by the financial crisis.
My opinion:
This time economic theories are confronted with big problems and good chances. Many financial workers blame economists for this financial crisis. However, it’s ridiculous, like irresponsible politicians blaming each other for a co-committed crime.
Don’t be silly; monetary policies can’t solve all the problems as money can’t solve all the problems. Those who plays the money game too much will be flushed our by cash flow. Money sometimes can control people’s mind---it is where its power lies. However, the most powerful tool is our own mind---don’t forget!
What went wrong with economics?
Originally from The Economist July.18th, 2009
Summary:
In the past, most economic crises didn’t challenge the economics itself. Economics was taken as gospel. However, after these two years---the financial crisis, economics is not honored as before. It’s in doubt. Even some people in Europe started to doubt economic liberalism, and it’s false and dangerous.
There are three main criticisms: that macro and financial economists helped cause the crisis, that they failed to spot it, and that they don’t know how to fix it. The first is half right. Actually, macroeconomists are careless of asset bubbles this time. On the other hand, some important economic theories---like the inefficiency of the market---were ignored or distorted in Wall Street.
Actually, almost all the economists failed to previse how bad the consequence would be, even though some of them felt something wrong before the crisis. The central banks believe the imperfection of economy by human nature, yet financial officers don’t do so--- their economic model ignoring it, thus causing the disaster.
This financial crisis has changed economics a lot, and economists and financial professors should know more about each other’s field. Economists are social scientists, trying to understand the world changed by the financial crisis.
My opinion:
This time economic theories are confronted with big problems and good chances. Many financial workers blame economists for this financial crisis. However, it’s ridiculous, like irresponsible politicians blaming each other for a co-committed crime.
Don’t be silly; monetary policies can’t solve all the problems as money can’t solve all the problems. Those who plays the money game too much will be flushed our by cash flow. Money sometimes can control people’s mind---it is where its power lies. However, the most powerful tool is our own mind---don’t forget!
2009年7月16日 星期四
The Eonomist's Digest27
International
New sins, new virtues
Originally from The Economist July.11th, 2009
Summary:
As globalization, technology and economic problems emerge; religious leaders like the Pope and Dalai Lama start to think these global problems and start to talk humans as a whole instead of the old, individual way.
The Pope talks about scientific progress problems, mental-health problems, human responsibility for the earth…etc. Other moral leaders also worry about climate change. Annual reports from the Pope have a great influence on the Catholic; the issue of this year, however, was delayed because the Vatican’s thinkers want to catch up with the world’s step. Even though Pope’s Annual reports (encyclicals) talk about new things this year, the Pope still insists on his original value----he doesn’t fawn on the modern material culture.
Now in the encyclicals, they connect religious idea to the development in the modern world. They still emphasize on the Catholic virtues, mentioning without it the society will only serve for private interest.
The Pope also proposes that an overhaul of global organizations. He talks about the ugly side of global organizations, and also lament for the Iraq war. The Pope also says that the origin of these years’ economic crises is the confusion of happiness with prosperity; he says we can’t solve all the social problems through economic activity.
Other religious leaders worry about climate change and our environment. Dalai Lama worries about global warming; Islamic scholars worry about water resources, hygiene, and rainforests. Many of these religious leaders have taken their actions, many of which are Islamic scholars, instead of the Vatican leader.
My opinion:
It’s easy to understand why climate change worries religious leaders----it’s about the human existence in the world! Actually, the only thing that the Pope can do is talking, but it’s not his fault----it’s the historical effect. In the past, the Pope’s power is over the kings’ in western world. Thus, people started to rip him off it.
However, it’s not the case in Islamic world. Religious leaders still have their “real” power in their countries, and they can do more things to the world. The western (especially Catholic) countries should contemplate on this phenomenon. I don’t know whether it’s good or bad.
New sins, new virtues
Originally from The Economist July.11th, 2009
Summary:
As globalization, technology and economic problems emerge; religious leaders like the Pope and Dalai Lama start to think these global problems and start to talk humans as a whole instead of the old, individual way.
The Pope talks about scientific progress problems, mental-health problems, human responsibility for the earth…etc. Other moral leaders also worry about climate change. Annual reports from the Pope have a great influence on the Catholic; the issue of this year, however, was delayed because the Vatican’s thinkers want to catch up with the world’s step. Even though Pope’s Annual reports (encyclicals) talk about new things this year, the Pope still insists on his original value----he doesn’t fawn on the modern material culture.
Now in the encyclicals, they connect religious idea to the development in the modern world. They still emphasize on the Catholic virtues, mentioning without it the society will only serve for private interest.
The Pope also proposes that an overhaul of global organizations. He talks about the ugly side of global organizations, and also lament for the Iraq war. The Pope also says that the origin of these years’ economic crises is the confusion of happiness with prosperity; he says we can’t solve all the social problems through economic activity.
Other religious leaders worry about climate change and our environment. Dalai Lama worries about global warming; Islamic scholars worry about water resources, hygiene, and rainforests. Many of these religious leaders have taken their actions, many of which are Islamic scholars, instead of the Vatican leader.
My opinion:
It’s easy to understand why climate change worries religious leaders----it’s about the human existence in the world! Actually, the only thing that the Pope can do is talking, but it’s not his fault----it’s the historical effect. In the past, the Pope’s power is over the kings’ in western world. Thus, people started to rip him off it.
However, it’s not the case in Islamic world. Religious leaders still have their “real” power in their countries, and they can do more things to the world. The western (especially Catholic) countries should contemplate on this phenomenon. I don’t know whether it’s good or bad.
2009年7月14日 星期二
The Eonomist's Digest26
Leaders
Beijing's nightmare
Originally from The Economist July.11th, 2009
Summary:
After the disbandment of the Soviet Union, it seems strange that the People's Republic of China still has these autonomous region like Xinjiang. However, the Chinese government had never thought of these problems of ethnic-Turkic Muslins before. The riots in Xinjiang's capital this week has caused over 150 deaths. It is a shame of the Chinese government, and also is a the most serious bloody event after the 1989 Tianamen Square protests. It also made the China's president, Hu Jintao, skip his G8 meeting. The riot calls the idea into question---China's idea that its people will always happily trade freedom for prosperity.
The Uighurs' bad situation is like that of Tibetans: unfairness. From the riots we know that modernization doesn't soothe the hate of Uighurstan to the Chinese government. Eventhough the Uighur has no such a famous leader in western world like Tibet's Dalai Lama, this threat may cause a bigger problem to the Chinese government----the hatred from the rest of the Islamic world.
The riots were ignited by the false accusation of two Urumqi workers, and the Han Chinese people also suffer from the riots. What's worse is that the Uighurstan in Xinjiang think they are colonized. On the other hand, China's censorship made this thing worse by leaking out little information of the two accused workers; the people think of the worst case. Learnt from the riots in Lhasa, the Chinese government let foreign media to Xinjiang and censor them. Then China will deal with these things with suppression.
Is this sustainable? Except for Tibetans and Uighurs, there are many other uneven threats in China like this. Using repression, this riot may not be a big threat to China's territory. However, without harmony, the regime will be harder to survive.
My opinion:
There's a rumor telling that if China can't make its economic growth up to 8% of their GDp last year, there will be revolutions. This riot in Xinjiang seems to be a political and racial one, but its essence is economic and living one.
Why I say so? Let's see. The Uighur people in China ca have more children than the Han Chinese, but they don't have enough resources---even living necessities to feed their children. The economic weakness of aborigines is also a common problem in Taiwan and U.S. However, both of the countries have a different solution from the Chinese one. At least they don't use military forces now.
It's not sure that China's repression can last long. Racial problems should be dealt with respect; the Chinese government shouldn't take this revolt as a political rebellion, eventhough it doesn't meet the Communists' need.
Beijing's nightmare
Originally from The Economist July.11th, 2009
Summary:
After the disbandment of the Soviet Union, it seems strange that the People's Republic of China still has these autonomous region like Xinjiang. However, the Chinese government had never thought of these problems of ethnic-Turkic Muslins before. The riots in Xinjiang's capital this week has caused over 150 deaths. It is a shame of the Chinese government, and also is a the most serious bloody event after the 1989 Tianamen Square protests. It also made the China's president, Hu Jintao, skip his G8 meeting. The riot calls the idea into question---China's idea that its people will always happily trade freedom for prosperity.
The Uighurs' bad situation is like that of Tibetans: unfairness. From the riots we know that modernization doesn't soothe the hate of Uighurstan to the Chinese government. Eventhough the Uighur has no such a famous leader in western world like Tibet's Dalai Lama, this threat may cause a bigger problem to the Chinese government----the hatred from the rest of the Islamic world.
The riots were ignited by the false accusation of two Urumqi workers, and the Han Chinese people also suffer from the riots. What's worse is that the Uighurstan in Xinjiang think they are colonized. On the other hand, China's censorship made this thing worse by leaking out little information of the two accused workers; the people think of the worst case. Learnt from the riots in Lhasa, the Chinese government let foreign media to Xinjiang and censor them. Then China will deal with these things with suppression.
Is this sustainable? Except for Tibetans and Uighurs, there are many other uneven threats in China like this. Using repression, this riot may not be a big threat to China's territory. However, without harmony, the regime will be harder to survive.
My opinion:
There's a rumor telling that if China can't make its economic growth up to 8% of their GDp last year, there will be revolutions. This riot in Xinjiang seems to be a political and racial one, but its essence is economic and living one.
Why I say so? Let's see. The Uighur people in China ca have more children than the Han Chinese, but they don't have enough resources---even living necessities to feed their children. The economic weakness of aborigines is also a common problem in Taiwan and U.S. However, both of the countries have a different solution from the Chinese one. At least they don't use military forces now.
It's not sure that China's repression can last long. Racial problems should be dealt with respect; the Chinese government shouldn't take this revolt as a political rebellion, eventhough it doesn't meet the Communists' need.
2009年4月29日 星期三
The Economist's Digest25
The coming days
The week ahead
Originally from Economist.com Jan.18th, 2009
Summary:
。Barak Obama will be sworn in as America ’s 44th president on 1/20.
。Israel, which has paid a heavy reputational price for its war in Gaza Strip, has declared to stop.
。China is expected to release estimates for fourth-quarter GDP this week. They may show that economic growth has slowed.
。Bolivia holds a civil vote for a new constitution on 1/25. The new president is the first indigenous president in Bolivia .
My opinion:
Wars and unstable politics, recovery of America and recession of China , are important steps to the future turbulence.
The week ahead
Originally from Economist.com Jan.18th, 2009
Summary:
。Barak Obama will be sworn in as America ’s 44th president on 1/20.
。Israel, which has paid a heavy reputational price for its war in Gaza Strip, has declared to stop.
。China is expected to release estimates for fourth-quarter GDP this week. They may show that economic growth has slowed.
。Bolivia holds a civil vote for a new constitution on 1/25. The new president is the first indigenous president in Bolivia .
My opinion:
Wars and unstable politics, recovery of America and recession of China , are important steps to the future turbulence.
The Economist's Digest24
The coming days
The week ahead
Originally from Economist.com Dec.7th, 2008
Summary:
。America’s carmakers visited the white house, and congress is set to vote on rescuing them. However, it seems not enough for them.
。On 12/8, the national concert is held, with America , China , Japan , South Korea and Russia in. Another is held on12/31, in Dazaifu , Japan . Both are for the nuclear problem.
。Thailand’s politicians will continue the search for a new leader.
。Switzerland is set to op its land borders to travelers from EU on12/12.
My opinion:
Of course Americans should contribute more to their carmakers. After all, they use so many cars and so much fuel!
The week ahead
Originally from Economist.com Dec.7th, 2008
Summary:
。America’s carmakers visited the white house, and congress is set to vote on rescuing them. However, it seems not enough for them.
。On 12/8, the national concert is held, with America , China , Japan , South Korea and Russia in. Another is held on12/31, in Dazaifu , Japan . Both are for the nuclear problem.
。Thailand’s politicians will continue the search for a new leader.
。Switzerland is set to op its land borders to travelers from EU on12/12.
My opinion:
Of course Americans should contribute more to their carmakers. After all, they use so many cars and so much fuel!
The Economist's Digest23
Private equity
Get a grip
Originally from The Economist Nov.29th, 2008
Summary:
Many big companies buy bankrupting companies in a silly high price. Why? Since we know valuation is based on accounting system, its calculations involve subjective comparisons with quoted companies. Thus, conflicts of interest are possible.
How optimistic are these valuations? From1/1~9/31, developed-world shares dropped by about 1/4, consistent with a fall in private equity over 50%. Yet many companies report less of its fall.
Private-equity firms bought defensive firms which are being run better than quoted peers. However, low confidence in valuation makes these trades distressed. These firms are paid if they sell companies for a profit, not on the basis of current marks. Thus it doesn’t matter so much.
However, the pension funds and donation funds aren’t so. Many may choose to lower the absolute value of private-equity investments and concentrate on the best.
Pressure for conservative valuations must come from clients. There is a great need for experienced managers for this recession.
My opinion:
It’s difficult to evaluate a company as well as stock prices. In today’s chaos, many companies are put in a strict test about its real value. Which one can stand in this storm? Which one will go bankruptcy? All of the decisions will be made under the effect of accounting. Well, it’s uneasy to be an accountant in this period, but it’s also a great experience for young accountants to know the essence of equity.
Get a grip
Originally from The Economist Nov.29th, 2008
Summary:
Many big companies buy bankrupting companies in a silly high price. Why? Since we know valuation is based on accounting system, its calculations involve subjective comparisons with quoted companies. Thus, conflicts of interest are possible.
How optimistic are these valuations? From1/1~9/31, developed-world shares dropped by about 1/4, consistent with a fall in private equity over 50%. Yet many companies report less of its fall.
Private-equity firms bought defensive firms which are being run better than quoted peers. However, low confidence in valuation makes these trades distressed. These firms are paid if they sell companies for a profit, not on the basis of current marks. Thus it doesn’t matter so much.
However, the pension funds and donation funds aren’t so. Many may choose to lower the absolute value of private-equity investments and concentrate on the best.
Pressure for conservative valuations must come from clients. There is a great need for experienced managers for this recession.
My opinion:
It’s difficult to evaluate a company as well as stock prices. In today’s chaos, many companies are put in a strict test about its real value. Which one can stand in this storm? Which one will go bankruptcy? All of the decisions will be made under the effect of accounting. Well, it’s uneasy to be an accountant in this period, but it’s also a great experience for young accountants to know the essence of equity.
The Economist's Digest 22
Economic gloom in Europe
The euro zone’s first recession
Originally from Economist.com Nov.14th, 2008
Summary:
November 14th, the European economy officially fell into its first recession since the euro was introduced. One of the worst affected is Germany , where GDP fell by 0.5% in the quarter and 0.4% in the previous quarter.
As a result of slow-d0wn economies, German’s economy output is shrinking. It is estimated Germany ’s GDP may fall 1% next year.
German should use more intense fiscal policy to boost demand in the country. There’s a modest package appear; however, an American economist doubted that cutting taxes and simply spending more money would work.
On the other hand, output of all Europe ’s 27 economies also slid by 0.2% in the quarter. Britain and Spain are likely to be hurt particularly by downturns in household spending as consumers worry about collapsing house prices and high levels of debt. Only one country dodged the recession----- France , whose economy grew by 0.1% in the third quarter, supported by consumer spending and corporate investment.
However, there’s still hope. One is the devaluating euro, which is good for European exporters to give their goods outside Europe . Another is that inflation is now falling sharply, allowing the bank to cut rates forcefully.
My opinion:
Is this the first step to deflation? Well, it may not be so------or should I say, “We hope not.” Nevertheless, we are in a worse situation, a mixture of inflation and deflation. The credit collapse, yet the commodity prices are high.
Actually, most developed countries are stepping into their first recession in this decade, including Japan , America , and someone special------ Taiwan , since it’s hard to define that whether Taiwan is a developed country or not.
On the other hand, many countries started to stimulate domestic consumption in different ways. Will it work in this “mixed” recessions?
The euro zone’s first recession
Originally from Economist.com Nov.14th, 2008
Summary:
November 14th, the European economy officially fell into its first recession since the euro was introduced. One of the worst affected is Germany , where GDP fell by 0.5% in the quarter and 0.4% in the previous quarter.
As a result of slow-d0wn economies, German’s economy output is shrinking. It is estimated Germany ’s GDP may fall 1% next year.
German should use more intense fiscal policy to boost demand in the country. There’s a modest package appear; however, an American economist doubted that cutting taxes and simply spending more money would work.
On the other hand, output of all Europe ’s 27 economies also slid by 0.2% in the quarter. Britain and Spain are likely to be hurt particularly by downturns in household spending as consumers worry about collapsing house prices and high levels of debt. Only one country dodged the recession----- France , whose economy grew by 0.1% in the third quarter, supported by consumer spending and corporate investment.
However, there’s still hope. One is the devaluating euro, which is good for European exporters to give their goods outside Europe . Another is that inflation is now falling sharply, allowing the bank to cut rates forcefully.
My opinion:
Is this the first step to deflation? Well, it may not be so------or should I say, “We hope not.” Nevertheless, we are in a worse situation, a mixture of inflation and deflation. The credit collapse, yet the commodity prices are high.
Actually, most developed countries are stepping into their first recession in this decade, including Japan , America , and someone special------ Taiwan , since it’s hard to define that whether Taiwan is a developed country or not.
On the other hand, many countries started to stimulate domestic consumption in different ways. Will it work in this “mixed” recessions?
The Economist's Digest21
Japanese banking
The big boys are back
Originally from Economist.com Sep.25th, 2008
Summary:
Japanese financial force is back and stronger than others in the West! Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group agreed to buy 20% of Morgan Stanley in ¥ 900 billion. Normura bought some of Lehman Brothers------its Asia-Pacific business. The boss (of Nomura) called it “a once-in-a-generation opportunity”. Other two JP banks also invested about
$ 1billion in Barclays and Merrill Lynch earlier this year.
Both MUFG and Nomura face huge difficulties in managing due to corporate cultural problems. Japan emphasizes on loyalty and seniority, while America looks on value and youth.
On the other hand, the profit may not appear so fast, so the Japanese banks should endure a period of recession in these departments. Nevertheless, Japan is experienced but with not-so-good economy and population structure------so its business go abroad.
Japanese banks know more about recessions than other world’s banks. That’s why their investment to USA banks is a good sign.
My opinion:
Wise men always know when to put their hands in proper places. Actually, as the Economist said before, American economy will still come back------ if the Congress and the government don’t do anything or don’t interrupt the market too much. Then, the Japanese look at this good opportunity. Things they did are just like putting money in the stock market when 911 or during 2000.
Yet the cultural difference is more important and difficult to get over. Actually, I can’t say which enterprise culture is right. In 21st century, the American one seems more effective. Is that really right? Well, in oriental opinion, this may lead to social problems. Especially Japan is a population-older country.
It’s good news to see Japanese banks to buy American banks, which makes Asian economy more powerful.
The big boys are back
Originally from Economist.com Sep.25th, 2008
Summary:
Japanese financial force is back and stronger than others in the West! Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group agreed to buy 20% of Morgan Stanley in ¥ 900 billion. Normura bought some of Lehman Brothers------its Asia-Pacific business. The boss (of Nomura) called it “a once-in-a-generation opportunity”. Other two JP banks also invested about
$ 1billion in Barclays and Merrill Lynch earlier this year.
Both MUFG and Nomura face huge difficulties in managing due to corporate cultural problems. Japan emphasizes on loyalty and seniority, while America looks on value and youth.
On the other hand, the profit may not appear so fast, so the Japanese banks should endure a period of recession in these departments. Nevertheless, Japan is experienced but with not-so-good economy and population structure------so its business go abroad.
Japanese banks know more about recessions than other world’s banks. That’s why their investment to USA banks is a good sign.
My opinion:
Wise men always know when to put their hands in proper places. Actually, as the Economist said before, American economy will still come back------ if the Congress and the government don’t do anything or don’t interrupt the market too much. Then, the Japanese look at this good opportunity. Things they did are just like putting money in the stock market when 911 or during 2000.
Yet the cultural difference is more important and difficult to get over. Actually, I can’t say which enterprise culture is right. In 21st century, the American one seems more effective. Is that really right? Well, in oriental opinion, this may lead to social problems. Especially Japan is a population-older country.
It’s good news to see Japanese banks to buy American banks, which makes Asian economy more powerful.
The Economist's Digest20
The financial crisis
What next?
Originally from Economist.com Sep.18th, 2008
Summary:
The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch’s rapid sale to Bank of America were shocking enough. However, the government rescue means a new low in this bad year, because AIG (American International Group) was taking one the risk due to its financial-products division writing so many derivatives contracts (信託商品) to destroy the firm and shake the world.
Actually the AIG has done little to diminish the fear. There are still many banks emerged by big ones, and many banks are going to be emerged. Banks will lose funding and the contagion (感染，原文中指好多金融相關品) will suck in hedge funds and companies. In principle, American government letting Lehman Brothers go bankrupt is right, yet the bigger AIG shouldn’t be done in this way because it’ll threat the authority of USA .
Studying the 1930s (USA Economy Crisis), houses and promises to pay debts were worth less than most people thought------just like today. Today, the credit boom inflated both assets prices and finances itself. However, it makes this industry (financial industry) make money harder, since it will have to keep the too large size and expand at the same time.
Then governments should deal with these problems and thus become a buyer. For, good reason, it has wiped out risks for others to buy dangerous banks’ shares. Most importantly, each rescue lessens the worry and encourages the next booming. However, the costs of it would sometimes be higher, which may lead to deflation. Unemployment raised yet industrial production fell in America ; ( America ’s) output is shrinking in many other developed countries.
There’s no need to take such a big risk to save the emergency situation now------even if it’s very urgent, because it’ll become a very big potential danger. It’s more important to improve financial laws, which will make the finance more transparent, and may let more collapses. Financiers know more than those regulators, while these regulators are more powerful in policy making
It would take a big recession to wipe out those gains, and to produce healthy economic growth and low inflation for a generation.
My opinion:
No loss, no gain. It’s capitalistic regulation to have a big recession after years of booming. The English economists and some American economists agree that we should let the market collapse spontaneously and make a more careful regulation.
However, the USA has passed the rescue policy recently. (9/28) We still have to prepare for a short-term recession, about at least one year, or a long-term collapse, hoping EU or newly-developed Asia will support global economy.
Actually, many developed countries and their governments should have prepared for this.
What next?
Originally from Economist.com Sep.18th, 2008
Summary:
The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch’s rapid sale to Bank of America were shocking enough. However, the government rescue means a new low in this bad year, because AIG (American International Group) was taking one the risk due to its financial-products division writing so many derivatives contracts (信託商品) to destroy the firm and shake the world.
Actually the AIG has done little to diminish the fear. There are still many banks emerged by big ones, and many banks are going to be emerged. Banks will lose funding and the contagion (感染，原文中指好多金融相關品) will suck in hedge funds and companies. In principle, American government letting Lehman Brothers go bankrupt is right, yet the bigger AIG shouldn’t be done in this way because it’ll threat the authority of USA .
Studying the 1930s (USA Economy Crisis), houses and promises to pay debts were worth less than most people thought------just like today. Today, the credit boom inflated both assets prices and finances itself. However, it makes this industry (financial industry) make money harder, since it will have to keep the too large size and expand at the same time.
Then governments should deal with these problems and thus become a buyer. For, good reason, it has wiped out risks for others to buy dangerous banks’ shares. Most importantly, each rescue lessens the worry and encourages the next booming. However, the costs of it would sometimes be higher, which may lead to deflation. Unemployment raised yet industrial production fell in America ; ( America ’s) output is shrinking in many other developed countries.
There’s no need to take such a big risk to save the emergency situation now------even if it’s very urgent, because it’ll become a very big potential danger. It’s more important to improve financial laws, which will make the finance more transparent, and may let more collapses. Financiers know more than those regulators, while these regulators are more powerful in policy making
It would take a big recession to wipe out those gains, and to produce healthy economic growth and low inflation for a generation.
My opinion:
No loss, no gain. It’s capitalistic regulation to have a big recession after years of booming. The English economists and some American economists agree that we should let the market collapse spontaneously and make a more careful regulation.
However, the USA has passed the rescue policy recently. (9/28) We still have to prepare for a short-term recession, about at least one year, or a long-term collapse, hoping EU or newly-developed Asia will support global economy.
Actually, many developed countries and their governments should have prepared for this.
The Economist's Digest19
The coming days
The week ahead
Originally from Economist.com Sep.14th, 2008
Summary:
。Damien Hirst, a leadin Britain conceptual artist, is going to hold an art auction on Sep.15th.
。Zimbabwe’s president is expected to form a government with the main opposition party of the country on Sep. 15th.
。Malaysia’s opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, hopes to get enough supporters to win a no-confidence vote and deliver a death-blow to the Malaysia ’s government now.
。The Israel governing party, Kadima, holds elections for a new leader on Sep.17th. However, the replacement of the leader may not make a workable ruling government for negotiating with Palestinians.
My opinion:
The world’s politics is becoming……interesting.
The week ahead
Originally from Economist.com Sep.14th, 2008
Summary:
。Damien Hirst, a leadin Britain conceptual artist, is going to hold an art auction on Sep.15th.
。Zimbabwe’s president is expected to form a government with the main opposition party of the country on Sep. 15th.
。Malaysia’s opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, hopes to get enough supporters to win a no-confidence vote and deliver a death-blow to the Malaysia ’s government now.
。The Israel governing party, Kadima, holds elections for a new leader on Sep.17th. However, the replacement of the leader may not make a workable ruling government for negotiating with Palestinians.
My opinion:
The world’s politics is becoming……interesting.
2009年4月22日 星期三
The Economist's Digest 18
Commodities
A petrodollar saved
Originally from Economist.com Sep.4th, 2008
Summary:
Resource-rich countries invest their income from natural resource to sovereign-wealth funds (SWFs) to avoid bad economic circle------spending all the money from their resources and becoming poor again. For example, Government Pension Fund in Norway is established to save the wealth from oil. Moreover, Arabia (S.A.) uses their fund to buy farmland for food demand at home.
However, most of these funds aren’t transparent on their financial conditions, which is a big shortcoming. Then, co-operation may be a good solution, or illiquid (hard to change into $) investments may help, too. Because SWFs is usually used to urgent-government use, it lose its original purpose.
There are two extreme examples, funds in Venezuela and Norway . The former doesn’t know how to collect money properly; while the latter doesn’t know how to use it effectively.
To break the resource curse, in short, one needs the kind of government that money can’t buy.
My opinion:
Well, if we analogize these national stories into personal ones, we can find that “governments” are “people who don’t know how to use money.” Actually, it’s the essence of governmental finance. We can see it clearly from how governments around the world make their budgets. Even if it’s a very good national government, it will still make “some” mistake when making budgets.
Compared to private funds, government funds will be used in inappropriate ways more often because of the bad spending habits of governments. It seems like a credit-bankrupt person. In fact, many governments, including that of developing countries and developed countries, have been credit-bankrupt for many times during many global economic crises. (Yet most of them are developing countries.)
In Taiwan , we aren’t looking forward to our government to use our national funds properly nowadays. Nevertheless, we may look at other countries’ experiences and improve our government a little.
A petrodollar saved
Originally from Economist.com Sep.4th, 2008
Summary:
Resource-rich countries invest their income from natural resource to sovereign-wealth funds (SWFs) to avoid bad economic circle------spending all the money from their resources and becoming poor again. For example, Government Pension Fund in Norway is established to save the wealth from oil. Moreover, Arabia (S.A.) uses their fund to buy farmland for food demand at home.
However, most of these funds aren’t transparent on their financial conditions, which is a big shortcoming. Then, co-operation may be a good solution, or illiquid (hard to change into $) investments may help, too. Because SWFs is usually used to urgent-government use, it lose its original purpose.
There are two extreme examples, funds in Venezuela and Norway . The former doesn’t know how to collect money properly; while the latter doesn’t know how to use it effectively.
To break the resource curse, in short, one needs the kind of government that money can’t buy.
My opinion:
Well, if we analogize these national stories into personal ones, we can find that “governments” are “people who don’t know how to use money.” Actually, it’s the essence of governmental finance. We can see it clearly from how governments around the world make their budgets. Even if it’s a very good national government, it will still make “some” mistake when making budgets.
Compared to private funds, government funds will be used in inappropriate ways more often because of the bad spending habits of governments. It seems like a credit-bankrupt person. In fact, many governments, including that of developing countries and developed countries, have been credit-bankrupt for many times during many global economic crises. (Yet most of them are developing countries.)
In Taiwan , we aren’t looking forward to our government to use our national funds properly nowadays. Nevertheless, we may look at other countries’ experiences and improve our government a little.
The Economist's Digest17
The coming days
The week ahead
Originally from Economist.com Aug.24th, 2008
Summary:
。Barack Obama will make a speech in the DP convention. If he doesn’t make his polls a leading place, it will threat his chance to win the election.
。Israel plans to release some 200 Palestinian prisoners. Some oppose to release an important person of Gaza Strip.
。Anwar Ibrahim contests a by-election to drive Malaysia ’s government away. If he wins the by-election, he will be in a better position to strike the ruling party now.
。Failing oil prices may diminish euro-area inflation August 29th, which is good news for rich-country economies.
My opinion:
All main economic influential elements are in this week, all of which will influence America ’s economy and its revival after second-mortgage crisis. Wholly, the rising oil price is irresistible; in other words, don’t count on the peace of the middle-east for a lowing oil price.
The week ahead
Originally from Economist.com Aug.24th, 2008
Summary:
。Barack Obama will make a speech in the DP convention. If he doesn’t make his polls a leading place, it will threat his chance to win the election.
。Israel plans to release some 200 Palestinian prisoners. Some oppose to release an important person of Gaza Strip.
。Anwar Ibrahim contests a by-election to drive Malaysia ’s government away. If he wins the by-election, he will be in a better position to strike the ruling party now.
。Failing oil prices may diminish euro-area inflation August 29th, which is good news for rich-country economies.
My opinion:
All main economic influential elements are in this week, all of which will influence America ’s economy and its revival after second-mortgage crisis. Wholly, the rising oil price is irresistible; in other words, don’t count on the peace of the middle-east for a lowing oil price.
The Economist's Digest16
The week ahead
Originally from The Economist, August 17th, 2008
Summary:
。Georgia will get some help and the war seems to be soothed. On 8/19, there’ll be a special meeting of NATO, about this situation.
。Boeing has trouble launching its new 787 plane------the workers welfare makes the plane-maker union call a strike.
。Central bankers and economists will go to Wyoming (a USA state) for an annual conference held by Fed and discuss recent world economic problems.
。The 2008 Beijing Olympic Games will close on 8/24. This time, China may leave a good impression on the world.
My opinion:
The state of matter is determined when we realize its existence. (每日一怪句?!)
Originally from The Economist, August 17th, 2008
Summary:
。Georgia will get some help and the war seems to be soothed. On 8/19, there’ll be a special meeting of NATO, about this situation.
。Boeing has trouble launching its new 787 plane------the workers welfare makes the plane-maker union call a strike.
。Central bankers and economists will go to Wyoming (a USA state) for an annual conference held by Fed and discuss recent world economic problems.
。The 2008 Beijing Olympic Games will close on 8/24. This time, China may leave a good impression on the world.
My opinion:
The state of matter is determined when we realize its existence. (每日一怪句?!)
The Economist's Digest15
Unhappy America
Originally from The Economist, July 24th,2008
Summary:
Most Americans (about 80%) loose confidence in their government and the president. Some problems still haunt around today------ collapse of housing market, rising oil prices, credit shortage and inflation threatening the confidence of consumer. Even though the economic gains raised, the economic envy is still in American’s heart------ and this will threat globalization.
America has wasted many resources in the Iraq war. After it claimed to stop, the result is not as good as expected. On the other hand, the booming countries, especially China , also attract America ’s attention. However, for the experienced America , it’s not the first time to be in horror; in fact, it has revived from many serious international crises, because the country is good at fixing itself. Due to the special characters of America , its speed of revival and standing up again is faster than Europe . Nevertheless, if America can’t figure out which character is to be changed now, it will do harm to other countries and itself in the world.
Actually, the credit crisis (sub-mortgage crisis) is part of the capitalism-system circulation. America needs to learn from mistakes, and its educational system and medical system also need reform. It shouldn’t start wars abroad casually, too. Yet American politicians are still smart. Even Mr. Bush started to relieve the hostility of North Korea .
Another problem for America is the threat of rising Asian countries. Yet it’s wrong for America to worry about this. First, China ’s GDP will take 25 years to catch up with America ’s, and there are many inter problems which will influence its growing speed. On the other hand, most developing countries’ success is built on America ’s ideas. America should be proud of their growth which also helps America . Nevertheless, many Americans and US politicians regard them as thieves stealing their job opportunities and wealth. If America start to build barrier like before (referring to the 192X economic crisis), it may caused problems.
However, America is still a big strong country, not easily being torn down. It’s believed that it will come back stronger after this crisis, whether it’s earlier or later.
My opinion:
Actually, we’ve gone through credit crisis in Taiwan , yet with a different cause from the one of USA . It is the credit-card and cash-card problems that trigger the event and it just happened a few years before. In Asia and Europe , people’s opinion about loan (borrowing money) is a little more conservative than American. Even countries in those areas have suffered from credit crises, why America not?
Maybe------ America can look at other countries, especially developing Asian countries and developed European countries, regard their failures as its mirror since most of them are also capitalism enactors.
Originally from The Economist, July 24th,2008
Summary:
Most Americans (about 80%) loose confidence in their government and the president. Some problems still haunt around today------ collapse of housing market, rising oil prices, credit shortage and inflation threatening the confidence of consumer. Even though the economic gains raised, the economic envy is still in American’s heart------ and this will threat globalization.
America has wasted many resources in the Iraq war. After it claimed to stop, the result is not as good as expected. On the other hand, the booming countries, especially China , also attract America ’s attention. However, for the experienced America , it’s not the first time to be in horror; in fact, it has revived from many serious international crises, because the country is good at fixing itself. Due to the special characters of America , its speed of revival and standing up again is faster than Europe . Nevertheless, if America can’t figure out which character is to be changed now, it will do harm to other countries and itself in the world.
Actually, the credit crisis (sub-mortgage crisis) is part of the capitalism-system circulation. America needs to learn from mistakes, and its educational system and medical system also need reform. It shouldn’t start wars abroad casually, too. Yet American politicians are still smart. Even Mr. Bush started to relieve the hostility of North Korea .
Another problem for America is the threat of rising Asian countries. Yet it’s wrong for America to worry about this. First, China ’s GDP will take 25 years to catch up with America ’s, and there are many inter problems which will influence its growing speed. On the other hand, most developing countries’ success is built on America ’s ideas. America should be proud of their growth which also helps America . Nevertheless, many Americans and US politicians regard them as thieves stealing their job opportunities and wealth. If America start to build barrier like before (referring to the 192X economic crisis), it may caused problems.
However, America is still a big strong country, not easily being torn down. It’s believed that it will come back stronger after this crisis, whether it’s earlier or later.
My opinion:
Actually, we’ve gone through credit crisis in Taiwan , yet with a different cause from the one of USA . It is the credit-card and cash-card problems that trigger the event and it just happened a few years before. In Asia and Europe , people’s opinion about loan (borrowing money) is a little more conservative than American. Even countries in those areas have suffered from credit crises, why America not?
Maybe------ America can look at other countries, especially developing Asian countries and developed European countries, regard their failures as its mirror since most of them are also capitalism enactors.
2009年4月21日 星期二
The Economist's Digest14
All change?
Originally from The Economist, March, 22~29
Summary:
There are some ways for America to improve its bad reputation around the world about its foreign policy, and people in America are also looking forward to the new president doing these. What are these methods?
First, stop dehumanized torture in CIA and the army; this would make the world believes the country will lead them by example and not just by military power. Second, the new president should show his/her determination to fight global warming more clearly, since Mr. Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto protocol has irritated the world.
However, the American people may be a little disappointed, because all of these are difficult to take into action. Even if the new president promises to fight global warming, the Congress may not pass the laws easily, so as the case in military unloading. Both of these have their reason that shouldn’t be deprived of. If the government passes the laws, the huge amount of cars in America will face a difficult situation: a higher gas prices.
Problems in the Middle East also haunt around------Muslims want America to kick Israel out of the West Bank. On the other hand, despite the 9/11 attack, the world have thought of the Iraq war as a war against Islam, not against terrorists after these years. All of these chaoses make the new president difficult to enjoy his/her power.
Of course, the new president may use the old policy, yet he/she still has to keep an eye on thriving China and Russia. Needless to say, both Obama and Hillary promise to withdraw the troops from Iraq after they are elected. None of them wants to get involved in this troublesome international fare. However, the sudden exit of invading Iraq will cause economic harm to both countries.
It’s strange that foreigners are surprised to learn that the USA presidents serve American interests, not for the world. Whether the benefit of the country and the one of world overlaps or not, the next president of it still put its own interest first. America is still a sole powerful country, and it still have to cooperate with its allies when needed.
My opinion:
America has considered itself to be the boss of the world for a long time since two world wars and this becomes a bad habit which is hard for it to rid of. Furthermore, this would become a stumbling block for it to the path of true peace and getting along well with other countries.
European countries especially have been sick at this attitude for long time. After the EU established, their grumbling voice became louder.
To my astonishment, this article regards Japan and Taiwan as allies of America. The case of Taiwan is understandable-----Taiwan’s international situation is partly influenced by America. As for Japan, actually, “some” Japanese don’t like America; thus they may cooperate for a period of time for both side’s benefits, but it won’t be too long. On the other hand, after Mr. Ma was elected, Taiwan would become closer to China.
Originally from The Economist, March, 22~29
Summary:
There are some ways for America to improve its bad reputation around the world about its foreign policy, and people in America are also looking forward to the new president doing these. What are these methods?
First, stop dehumanized torture in CIA and the army; this would make the world believes the country will lead them by example and not just by military power. Second, the new president should show his/her determination to fight global warming more clearly, since Mr. Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto protocol has irritated the world.
However, the American people may be a little disappointed, because all of these are difficult to take into action. Even if the new president promises to fight global warming, the Congress may not pass the laws easily, so as the case in military unloading. Both of these have their reason that shouldn’t be deprived of. If the government passes the laws, the huge amount of cars in America will face a difficult situation: a higher gas prices.
Problems in the Middle East also haunt around------Muslims want America to kick Israel out of the West Bank. On the other hand, despite the 9/11 attack, the world have thought of the Iraq war as a war against Islam, not against terrorists after these years. All of these chaoses make the new president difficult to enjoy his/her power.
Of course, the new president may use the old policy, yet he/she still has to keep an eye on thriving China and Russia. Needless to say, both Obama and Hillary promise to withdraw the troops from Iraq after they are elected. None of them wants to get involved in this troublesome international fare. However, the sudden exit of invading Iraq will cause economic harm to both countries.
It’s strange that foreigners are surprised to learn that the USA presidents serve American interests, not for the world. Whether the benefit of the country and the one of world overlaps or not, the next president of it still put its own interest first. America is still a sole powerful country, and it still have to cooperate with its allies when needed.
My opinion:
America has considered itself to be the boss of the world for a long time since two world wars and this becomes a bad habit which is hard for it to rid of. Furthermore, this would become a stumbling block for it to the path of true peace and getting along well with other countries.
European countries especially have been sick at this attitude for long time. After the EU established, their grumbling voice became louder.
To my astonishment, this article regards Japan and Taiwan as allies of America. The case of Taiwan is understandable-----Taiwan’s international situation is partly influenced by America. As for Japan, actually, “some” Japanese don’t like America; thus they may cooperate for a period of time for both side’s benefits, but it won’t be too long. On the other hand, after Mr. Ma was elected, Taiwan would become closer to China.
The Economist's Digest 13
Economic focus Grossly distorted picture
Originally from The Economist. Mar. 15~21th.
Summary:
If we compare Japan ’s GDP growth with the America ’s, it seems that America performs better in recent years; even it was confronted with the credit crisis. However, if we add the influence of the change in population, the number will be different.
Because Japan ’s population has been shrinking since 2005, its GDP growth benefits each person in a rate better than America , which has a growing population. If we use this way to measure the economic growth in other countries, we will find that the growing rate may be different when measured only by GDP growth.
Many countries boasts of their GDP growth, such as Australia and Brazil , yet their GDP per person are lower than Japan ’s. In a chart, many countries’ GDP growth per person, even Japan , is lower than the original GDP growth number------except for Germany , whose account is almost the same. Germany is a country whose population is decreasing because of low birth-rate. However, this is the few nations that really can stay the life standard and economic growth.
Thus, we can’t only take GDP growth as the only sign now; we should see GDP growth per person. Nevertheless, some politicians in USA don’t seem to understand------They still look on GDP growth and take it for the only goal, not knowing their nation is actually in recession. If GDP per person is a better signature, the government should show it to the public.
My opinion:
This article offers a simple and clear view: a new economic sign------GDP per person. I was amazed when I was reading this article because it seems like a very simple idea, but almost no one has used it until recently. It sounds strange.
Actually, there is another problem about the reality of GDP. It’s the bubble economy, which also makes the number of GDP high. GDP growth means the total improvement of a country’s economy. Thus, if this is a developed country, its low GDP growth doesn’t wholly mean the country is becoming worse. On the contrary, the surge of GDP in developing nations doesn’t mean they’re being as good as developed nations.
Even if the number is right, when we misread the meaning of it, the facts behind the number would be distorted.
Originally from The Economist. Mar. 15~21th.
Summary:
If we compare Japan ’s GDP growth with the America ’s, it seems that America performs better in recent years; even it was confronted with the credit crisis. However, if we add the influence of the change in population, the number will be different.
Because Japan ’s population has been shrinking since 2005, its GDP growth benefits each person in a rate better than America , which has a growing population. If we use this way to measure the economic growth in other countries, we will find that the growing rate may be different when measured only by GDP growth.
Many countries boasts of their GDP growth, such as Australia and Brazil , yet their GDP per person are lower than Japan ’s. In a chart, many countries’ GDP growth per person, even Japan , is lower than the original GDP growth number------except for Germany , whose account is almost the same. Germany is a country whose population is decreasing because of low birth-rate. However, this is the few nations that really can stay the life standard and economic growth.
Thus, we can’t only take GDP growth as the only sign now; we should see GDP growth per person. Nevertheless, some politicians in USA don’t seem to understand------They still look on GDP growth and take it for the only goal, not knowing their nation is actually in recession. If GDP per person is a better signature, the government should show it to the public.
My opinion:
This article offers a simple and clear view: a new economic sign------GDP per person. I was amazed when I was reading this article because it seems like a very simple idea, but almost no one has used it until recently. It sounds strange.
Actually, there is another problem about the reality of GDP. It’s the bubble economy, which also makes the number of GDP high. GDP growth means the total improvement of a country’s economy. Thus, if this is a developed country, its low GDP growth doesn’t wholly mean the country is becoming worse. On the contrary, the surge of GDP in developing nations doesn’t mean they’re being as good as developed nations.
Even if the number is right, when we misread the meaning of it, the facts behind the number would be distorted.
2009年4月11日 星期六
The Economist's Digest 12
Japain
Originally from The Economist Feb.23~29, 2008
Summary:
Many people doubt that America will step into the terrible recession like the one of Japan in 1990. Japan hasn’t gone out of the shade of the recession, yet it should be a threat for it’s the second biggest economy.
Both Japan ’s and America ’s recession are dramatic, but the one in US seems smaller. Furthermore, the difference of two recessions depends on the reaction of the two governments. American government divides the big mess into small part, while Japanese government tried to hide it in the past.
People hoped Japan would help during the recession of America . However, even though it’s a strong economic power, it still has to retrieve strength from the past injuries.
On the other hand, Japan has its internal politic problems----two opposite parties control different parts of Japanese constitution. Moreover, there are many small groups voicing different opinions in the two parties. The voices include conservative ones and ones who want reform.
However, there would be a hope because the two parties want to cooperate in order to boost their economy, with the same goal to urge Japanese to vote for them. Another choice is general elections, which is estimated to lead to a chaos.
My opinion:
Oh! Japan , Ja”pain”, is in the same crisis of America , even of Taiwan . Since I’m in Taiwan , I knew it well that chaotic politics lead to the mess of economy, because our country is a good example. Compare these economic bodies: EU, America , Japan , China , and Taiwan ----they have different economic problems individually, but they all have to face the same world; the same international problem.
In the article, the author compared America to Japan ; then we may compare Japan to Taiwan . There’s a big difference that even the two parties in Japan are reluctant to work with each other, if the situation forces them, they will do it with their whole heart. As for Taiwan , well……On the other hand, Japan has its economy priority, while Taiwan still has its problem with China , a new strong economy. Even the internal politic situation is similar; the two countries will go different ways.
Originally from The Economist Feb.23~29, 2008
Summary:
Many people doubt that America will step into the terrible recession like the one of Japan in 1990. Japan hasn’t gone out of the shade of the recession, yet it should be a threat for it’s the second biggest economy.
Both Japan ’s and America ’s recession are dramatic, but the one in US seems smaller. Furthermore, the difference of two recessions depends on the reaction of the two governments. American government divides the big mess into small part, while Japanese government tried to hide it in the past.
People hoped Japan would help during the recession of America . However, even though it’s a strong economic power, it still has to retrieve strength from the past injuries.
On the other hand, Japan has its internal politic problems----two opposite parties control different parts of Japanese constitution. Moreover, there are many small groups voicing different opinions in the two parties. The voices include conservative ones and ones who want reform.
However, there would be a hope because the two parties want to cooperate in order to boost their economy, with the same goal to urge Japanese to vote for them. Another choice is general elections, which is estimated to lead to a chaos.
My opinion:
Oh! Japan , Ja”pain”, is in the same crisis of America , even of Taiwan . Since I’m in Taiwan , I knew it well that chaotic politics lead to the mess of economy, because our country is a good example. Compare these economic bodies: EU, America , Japan , China , and Taiwan ----they have different economic problems individually, but they all have to face the same world; the same international problem.
In the article, the author compared America to Japan ; then we may compare Japan to Taiwan . There’s a big difference that even the two parties in Japan are reluctant to work with each other, if the situation forces them, they will do it with their whole heart. As for Taiwan , well……On the other hand, Japan has its economy priority, while Taiwan still has its problem with China , a new strong economy. Even the internal politic situation is similar; the two countries will go different ways.
The Economist's Digest 11
The panic about the dollar
(Originally from The Economist Dec.1~7, 2007)
Summary:
The developed countries’ economy seems to be warm again, especially the USA. However, there is another crisis after the credit downturn—the collapse of dollar. Both the down dollar and rise euro would limit the economic development in both region, US &EU.
In the past, dollar was the main powerful currency (貨幣) in the world; however, when euro comes up, appear the threat of investors switching from one to the other. Yet it’s not the main cause for the possible collapse of dollar. What really matter are what exactly is making the dollar falling down and the reaction of the government.
In order to import less and export more, a weaker dollar really works. America fears recession; thus the Fed cut rates. If it’s still going to cut rates, finally a weak dollar is the end. Furthermore, the credit problem is another problem that cause the slide of the dollar. The eruption point is definitely the subprime mortage crisis.
There’s other danger that threats EU and US. One is China, who links its currency to the dollar. Another is the rising price of oil, which also makes the Gulf states (波灣國家) decide to meet to modify their currency.
A good policy will reduce the damage----First, the UA government should care their currency. Yet the fact is that the US government let their dollar expose to danger just for an export growth; it’ll hurt America’s economy. Another solution to the down dollar is to seek help from countries, whose currency depend on dollar. Because they need not sell dollars----this also hurts their economy.
One the other hand, China and the oil-rich Gulf states play important parts this time. The Chinese doesn’t want their “customers’ money” shrink; they must come up with some ways.
What I think:
The credit crisis has really triggered a little downturn in dollar! Will it remain? If so, the world economy has to face a dramatic change. This can’t drag down Taiwan; no one would safe us, neither China. We can’t link our economy too tightly with US and China. EU and Australia may be a good trade partner, but they’re not good friends.
Even if the US will be safe, Taiwan’s economy may be not. Not until our chaotic political environment improves do our economy rise. The entrepreneur must think about other solutions; don’t just escape to China.
(Originally from The Economist Dec.1~7, 2007)
Summary:
The developed countries’ economy seems to be warm again, especially the USA. However, there is another crisis after the credit downturn—the collapse of dollar. Both the down dollar and rise euro would limit the economic development in both region, US &EU.
In the past, dollar was the main powerful currency (貨幣) in the world; however, when euro comes up, appear the threat of investors switching from one to the other. Yet it’s not the main cause for the possible collapse of dollar. What really matter are what exactly is making the dollar falling down and the reaction of the government.
In order to import less and export more, a weaker dollar really works. America fears recession; thus the Fed cut rates. If it’s still going to cut rates, finally a weak dollar is the end. Furthermore, the credit problem is another problem that cause the slide of the dollar. The eruption point is definitely the subprime mortage crisis.
There’s other danger that threats EU and US. One is China, who links its currency to the dollar. Another is the rising price of oil, which also makes the Gulf states (波灣國家) decide to meet to modify their currency.
A good policy will reduce the damage----First, the UA government should care their currency. Yet the fact is that the US government let their dollar expose to danger just for an export growth; it’ll hurt America’s economy. Another solution to the down dollar is to seek help from countries, whose currency depend on dollar. Because they need not sell dollars----this also hurts their economy.
One the other hand, China and the oil-rich Gulf states play important parts this time. The Chinese doesn’t want their “customers’ money” shrink; they must come up with some ways.
What I think:
The credit crisis has really triggered a little downturn in dollar! Will it remain? If so, the world economy has to face a dramatic change. This can’t drag down Taiwan; no one would safe us, neither China. We can’t link our economy too tightly with US and China. EU and Australia may be a good trade partner, but they’re not good friends.
Even if the US will be safe, Taiwan’s economy may be not. Not until our chaotic political environment improves do our economy rise. The entrepreneur must think about other solutions; don’t just escape to China.
2009年4月9日 星期四
The Economist's Digest 10
America's vulnerable economy
(Originally from The Economist Nov.17~23, 2007)
Summary:
The economy in the USA must be going down. The main cause is the downturn of housing market. This time may be more serious than the one in 2001, which caused by stock market’s collapse. Moreover, the high price of oil will make things worse, and consumer confidence may collapse, which will reduce companies’ profits. The weak dollar (due to Fed’s rate-cuts) won’t help because it’s not much enough to rescue the down of consumer spending.
Europe and Japan are influenced by American downturn. Thus, look at new developing countries! It used to be dangerous to ask them for financial help when there was a recession (衰退).
Yet, they can help now! On the other hand, America has been stepping down the role as the head of the global economy. On the contrary, the new developing countries’ economy, such as China and India, are becoming stronger. Even though their financial contribution may not be much enough to make up the loss from the fall of America’s output, it still helps a lot for the next 30 years.
With the develop of those new industrial countries, the price of oil and dollar will be higher and higher, which makes developed countries uncomfortable, since they must consume a lot of them. In the past American recessions, the price of oil would go down, but this time is not so, and this will hurt Western countries. It may lead to economical difficulties in those countries, because they must face inflationary problems.
Furthermore, the weak dollar can’t get its support from developing countries! When the interest rate of dollar falls, Fed must let their dollar flow into the market, but as the dollar falling down, investors may want to give it out.
The downturn is good news for new developing countries, bad news for dollar, and America will be less important in world economy.
What I think:
It’s the best time, also the worst time. Those who want to buy dollars be careful! If you want to buy EU, be careful too! When a recession starts, assets of the world must reform. The situation may be more difficult for small investors, due to their limitation of buying currencies.
Funds are also a dangerous invest tool now! Because most foreign funds are count on dollars, the profits of them may be influenced, especially for foreign investors. If you want to grasp money in today’s chaotic economy, you must have some special access to the money in developing countries.
(Originally from The Economist Nov.17~23, 2007)
Summary:
The economy in the USA must be going down. The main cause is the downturn of housing market. This time may be more serious than the one in 2001, which caused by stock market’s collapse. Moreover, the high price of oil will make things worse, and consumer confidence may collapse, which will reduce companies’ profits. The weak dollar (due to Fed’s rate-cuts) won’t help because it’s not much enough to rescue the down of consumer spending.
Europe and Japan are influenced by American downturn. Thus, look at new developing countries! It used to be dangerous to ask them for financial help when there was a recession (衰退).
Yet, they can help now! On the other hand, America has been stepping down the role as the head of the global economy. On the contrary, the new developing countries’ economy, such as China and India, are becoming stronger. Even though their financial contribution may not be much enough to make up the loss from the fall of America’s output, it still helps a lot for the next 30 years.
With the develop of those new industrial countries, the price of oil and dollar will be higher and higher, which makes developed countries uncomfortable, since they must consume a lot of them. In the past American recessions, the price of oil would go down, but this time is not so, and this will hurt Western countries. It may lead to economical difficulties in those countries, because they must face inflationary problems.
Furthermore, the weak dollar can’t get its support from developing countries! When the interest rate of dollar falls, Fed must let their dollar flow into the market, but as the dollar falling down, investors may want to give it out.
The downturn is good news for new developing countries, bad news for dollar, and America will be less important in world economy.
What I think:
It’s the best time, also the worst time. Those who want to buy dollars be careful! If you want to buy EU, be careful too! When a recession starts, assets of the world must reform. The situation may be more difficult for small investors, due to their limitation of buying currencies.
Funds are also a dangerous invest tool now! Because most foreign funds are count on dollars, the profits of them may be influenced, especially for foreign investors. If you want to grasp money in today’s chaotic economy, you must have some special access to the money in developing countries.
2009年4月8日 星期三
The Economist's Digest 9
Mind games
(Originally from The Economist Nov.10~17)
Summary:
The fake goods seem to disappear in China’s big city. However, the view is one the surface. Actually, fake brand-name goods are hidden under the counter or in a special place of the store. Because of this, some people in the Quality Brands Protection Committee said things are better, others claimed it’s getting worse, and still others thought the situation doesn’t improve. It seems difficult to protect intellectual property in China.
The situation is in other industries as well, from fake medicine to mobile phones. Fake medicine could lead to high casualties, which scares the Chinese government. As for mobile industry, there are very alert to it now! The Chinese government has caught many people making fake Motorola, Nokia phones.
Even the government took strict measures, there’s little improvement in the piracy of goods. Why? Because there are many restrictions to catch patent criminal, especially for humanitarian concerns, needless to say, sellers started to hide their fake products.
Fake goods online are a problem, too. Although the piracy of DVDs and CDs has decrease recently, the online film problem becomes more and more serious. Sarcastically, the Chinese government is able to check online information that threats the government, but can’t do anything about it. Due to the limitation of foreign-film import, many films are released online illegally.
There’s even such a debate about patent that is going too far! However, as the development of Chinese companies, their needs of patent will increase. If the Chinese government wants to create advanced products in domestic industry, they must improve the situation, or no one will be willing to create. Furthermore, calls for stronger protection come from EU and US. On the other hand, consumers in China are more willing to buy real edition of fake products now!
What I think:
So touching it is to see such a view in Chinese shops about patent protection. The Chinese people have had little concept about intellectual-property protection since long ago, so it’s a little difficult for us (including Taiwanese people) to protect patents properly. Nevertheless, this would lead to the difficulties to improve our nation.
Why? Since there were not any protections of people’s invention, we have to cover them and then knowledge of people couldn’t spread wide. Thus, patent is important, but it should be used properly. Patents can make brand names. It can’t be used as a means of blocking the market, or fake goods will flow into the market again.
(Originally from The Economist Nov.10~17)
Summary:
The fake goods seem to disappear in China’s big city. However, the view is one the surface. Actually, fake brand-name goods are hidden under the counter or in a special place of the store. Because of this, some people in the Quality Brands Protection Committee said things are better, others claimed it’s getting worse, and still others thought the situation doesn’t improve. It seems difficult to protect intellectual property in China.
The situation is in other industries as well, from fake medicine to mobile phones. Fake medicine could lead to high casualties, which scares the Chinese government. As for mobile industry, there are very alert to it now! The Chinese government has caught many people making fake Motorola, Nokia phones.
Even the government took strict measures, there’s little improvement in the piracy of goods. Why? Because there are many restrictions to catch patent criminal, especially for humanitarian concerns, needless to say, sellers started to hide their fake products.
Fake goods online are a problem, too. Although the piracy of DVDs and CDs has decrease recently, the online film problem becomes more and more serious. Sarcastically, the Chinese government is able to check online information that threats the government, but can’t do anything about it. Due to the limitation of foreign-film import, many films are released online illegally.
There’s even such a debate about patent that is going too far! However, as the development of Chinese companies, their needs of patent will increase. If the Chinese government wants to create advanced products in domestic industry, they must improve the situation, or no one will be willing to create. Furthermore, calls for stronger protection come from EU and US. On the other hand, consumers in China are more willing to buy real edition of fake products now!
What I think:
So touching it is to see such a view in Chinese shops about patent protection. The Chinese people have had little concept about intellectual-property protection since long ago, so it’s a little difficult for us (including Taiwanese people) to protect patents properly. Nevertheless, this would lead to the difficulties to improve our nation.
Why? Since there were not any protections of people’s invention, we have to cover them and then knowledge of people couldn’t spread wide. Thus, patent is important, but it should be used properly. Patents can make brand names. It can’t be used as a means of blocking the market, or fake goods will flow into the market again.
The Economist's Digest 8
Economics focusMoney v mosquito
(Originally from The Economist Nov.3~10)
Summary:
A new drug against malaria in Africa called artemisinin gives hope when the old one is unable to use, but it costs a lot to such a poor continent. Thus, some international organization such as the World Bank, AMFm(抗瘧疾組織)…etc , are going to give them money to buy it.
Then it’s a problem: Does it work? Does it worth? Outsiders may think Africans can get cheap malaria medicines from government. However, it’s difficult for them sometimes and thus it ended up buying them from private suppliers. But if the plan works, the price of the new medicine will fall down.
Many scholars support the plan, while there is others don’t agree. Because when the manufacturing and retailing is less competitive, the prices might up and benefits someone. There are two concerns about it:
One is the weak competition between manufacturers can make price firm. The other is the few sellers may hold the medicine and control the price------which makes a profit for them, and this may lead to the in ability of the money given by AMFm. In other words, the subsidy(補助) will be abused. Yet there’s still a solution: Set limits to the prices.
On the other hand, fake medicine is another problem. One scholar says the solution is the plan of subsidy. He thinks the AMFm should teach everybody (in Africa) the right prices of the medicine.
Despite remaining great uncertainties, for fighting against malaria, it’s still worth trying.
What I think:
The price-controlling problem of goods is a problem not only for medicine but also for many other things, even our food. The ups and downs of the prices of vegetables reflect the economic construction problems of Taiwan. (Regardless of the inability of our government.)
The other subject I want to discuss is why we have to help Africa with their diseases. This involves not only humanitarian concerns but also global economics.
If people in Africa all died out or the tropical diseases spread out through vehicles, who knows what will happen next?
(Originally from The Economist Nov.3~10)
Summary:
A new drug against malaria in Africa called artemisinin gives hope when the old one is unable to use, but it costs a lot to such a poor continent. Thus, some international organization such as the World Bank, AMFm(抗瘧疾組織)…etc , are going to give them money to buy it.
Then it’s a problem: Does it work? Does it worth? Outsiders may think Africans can get cheap malaria medicines from government. However, it’s difficult for them sometimes and thus it ended up buying them from private suppliers. But if the plan works, the price of the new medicine will fall down.
Many scholars support the plan, while there is others don’t agree. Because when the manufacturing and retailing is less competitive, the prices might up and benefits someone. There are two concerns about it:
One is the weak competition between manufacturers can make price firm. The other is the few sellers may hold the medicine and control the price------which makes a profit for them, and this may lead to the in ability of the money given by AMFm. In other words, the subsidy(補助) will be abused. Yet there’s still a solution: Set limits to the prices.
On the other hand, fake medicine is another problem. One scholar says the solution is the plan of subsidy. He thinks the AMFm should teach everybody (in Africa) the right prices of the medicine.
Despite remaining great uncertainties, for fighting against malaria, it’s still worth trying.
What I think:
The price-controlling problem of goods is a problem not only for medicine but also for many other things, even our food. The ups and downs of the prices of vegetables reflect the economic construction problems of Taiwan. (Regardless of the inability of our government.)
The other subject I want to discuss is why we have to help Africa with their diseases. This involves not only humanitarian concerns but also global economics.
If people in Africa all died out or the tropical diseases spread out through vehicles, who knows what will happen next?
The Economist's Digest 7
Brains, not bullets
(Originally from The Economist Oct.21~27, 2007)
Summary:
What’s controversial is the construction in American army. The problem is what will threat the USA and what kind of the arm force it needs.
Future form of the army may cut in popularity but emphasize the technical device in soldiers’ weapons and clothes, making all the soldiers as strong as robots. However, the incidents related to armies of America in Iraq make us can’t help but think they’re just able to destroy things but they can’t build them back.
Nevertheless, there’s still one can do it. A successor in Iraq war said,” Technological tricks aren’t being abandoned, and once the powerful American armies fight against the old ones, we may have to get a long-term war which may embarrass us.”
On the other hand, the American armies with good device may not do well in building the war-damaged region, which needs brains and patient. Some say the soldiers should be trained to be smarter.
As the American armies become better, people started to think that it should be used in a proper purpose, not for interrupting other countries’ business. Being hard for advanced device to fight guerrillas(游擊隊) in far-away places, there’s few insurgencies(暴動) that can be stopped by Western power. Moreover, concerns of human rights make it difficult for arm force from foreign countries to go into other countries. Thus, ask for local forces’ help is a better way to deal the problem in Iraq.
The conclusion is that we should cut on old device and develop new one to face the possible conflict with China and Russia (for USA) and it must cost a lot.
What I think:
After all, cooperation is the most important! Wars in future tend to be more technological and the cost of in must be higher and higher, so taxpayers must be unwilling to see their money spend on stupid soldiers.
Future cause of conflict may be the difference in culture and thoughts between nations, but the resource problem is still an old one. The troops mentioned above are to deal with the new one.
If wars in Iraq break and expand, the price of oil must fly to the top. The USA must be careful of it.
(Originally from The Economist Oct.21~27, 2007)
Summary:
What’s controversial is the construction in American army. The problem is what will threat the USA and what kind of the arm force it needs.
Future form of the army may cut in popularity but emphasize the technical device in soldiers’ weapons and clothes, making all the soldiers as strong as robots. However, the incidents related to armies of America in Iraq make us can’t help but think they’re just able to destroy things but they can’t build them back.
Nevertheless, there’s still one can do it. A successor in Iraq war said,” Technological tricks aren’t being abandoned, and once the powerful American armies fight against the old ones, we may have to get a long-term war which may embarrass us.”
On the other hand, the American armies with good device may not do well in building the war-damaged region, which needs brains and patient. Some say the soldiers should be trained to be smarter.
As the American armies become better, people started to think that it should be used in a proper purpose, not for interrupting other countries’ business. Being hard for advanced device to fight guerrillas(游擊隊) in far-away places, there’s few insurgencies(暴動) that can be stopped by Western power. Moreover, concerns of human rights make it difficult for arm force from foreign countries to go into other countries. Thus, ask for local forces’ help is a better way to deal the problem in Iraq.
The conclusion is that we should cut on old device and develop new one to face the possible conflict with China and Russia (for USA) and it must cost a lot.
What I think:
After all, cooperation is the most important! Wars in future tend to be more technological and the cost of in must be higher and higher, so taxpayers must be unwilling to see their money spend on stupid soldiers.
Future cause of conflict may be the difference in culture and thoughts between nations, but the resource problem is still an old one. The troops mentioned above are to deal with the new one.
If wars in Iraq break and expand, the price of oil must fly to the top. The USA must be careful of it.
The Economist's Digest 6
Charlemagne The China trade syndrome
(Originally from The Economist Oct.6~13, 2007)
Summary:
The threat of developing European countries made Europe notices the threat of China later than America. That is to say, when the Americans were afraid of the rise of China, the rich EU countries still worried about labors in poor EU countries taking their jobs.
Then the EU notices China now, because their trade between China expanded by over 20%, and their trade balance was influenced by China. As the Chinese imports amount rises, the peace communication between the EU and China becomes more and more difficult.
China has been accused of many thins, all of which point to a conclusion: Unfair trade, especially the invasion of super cheap imported products. Moreover, lowing Chinese currency(貨幣)makes it more aggressive. Thus, both the EU and America are trying to make it higher but in vain, even showing their weakness.
This kind of weakness seems a little strange because the EU is one of the greatest trading regions. However, China knows the inside division in the EU (referring the summary article “Overweight and underpowered”, 9/15) about their business attitude. The developed EU countries get profit from China, while other developing EU countries, such as those in southern and eastern EU, are unwilling to see China grabbing their opportunity.
The developed EU countries’ opinions are also different:
France: Close the door unless China notices their needs.
Britain: Want to open the market due to their needs.
Germany: Both of the opinions above.
The EU may figure out a response to China, which may get China more involved with WTO and make stricter rules to China. But it’s better than useless arguments and fear.
What I think:
Grows China, threats the world. The economic development of China stuns all of us in recent years. Contrary to Asia and USA, the EU was so busy dealing with its problems inside the continent that it ignored the trade problem with China. It’s good mirror for us.
The threat by China is clearly seen in Taiwan; what about other globalization problems? What about our trade in other countries? What about our rising price of bread? The development in Korea and Japan is also notable, and Japan’s attitude toward globalization is also interesting, which may give us a way.
(Originally from The Economist Oct.6~13, 2007)
Summary:
The threat of developing European countries made Europe notices the threat of China later than America. That is to say, when the Americans were afraid of the rise of China, the rich EU countries still worried about labors in poor EU countries taking their jobs.
Then the EU notices China now, because their trade between China expanded by over 20%, and their trade balance was influenced by China. As the Chinese imports amount rises, the peace communication between the EU and China becomes more and more difficult.
China has been accused of many thins, all of which point to a conclusion: Unfair trade, especially the invasion of super cheap imported products. Moreover, lowing Chinese currency(貨幣)makes it more aggressive. Thus, both the EU and America are trying to make it higher but in vain, even showing their weakness.
This kind of weakness seems a little strange because the EU is one of the greatest trading regions. However, China knows the inside division in the EU (referring the summary article “Overweight and underpowered”, 9/15) about their business attitude. The developed EU countries get profit from China, while other developing EU countries, such as those in southern and eastern EU, are unwilling to see China grabbing their opportunity.
The developed EU countries’ opinions are also different:
France: Close the door unless China notices their needs.
Britain: Want to open the market due to their needs.
Germany: Both of the opinions above.
The EU may figure out a response to China, which may get China more involved with WTO and make stricter rules to China. But it’s better than useless arguments and fear.
What I think:
Grows China, threats the world. The economic development of China stuns all of us in recent years. Contrary to Asia and USA, the EU was so busy dealing with its problems inside the continent that it ignored the trade problem with China. It’s good mirror for us.
The threat by China is clearly seen in Taiwan; what about other globalization problems? What about our trade in other countries? What about our rising price of bread? The development in Korea and Japan is also notable, and Japan’s attitude toward globalization is also interesting, which may give us a way.
2009年4月6日 星期一
The Economist's Digest5
Economics focus // Playing games with the planet
(Originally from The Economist Sep.29~Oct.6)
Summary:
The term” prisoner’s dilemma” is used to describe a situation when everyone is selfish and only chooses the things benefits themselves not the things for everybody, and this term is used to describe the situation of Kyoto Protocol, which is used to stop global warming.
Because the Kyoto Protocol asked the assigned countries to reduce their released carbon-gas, few countries want to slow down their economics to slow down global warming unless they know everybody will do it.
However, an expert gives a suggestion: If there’s a punishment for those who don’t obey? If it can be played on a second round? He believes this will work. At the same time, UN still tries to persuade countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
The pro. Itself offers a clear rule to punish betrayers, that is, they have to cut more released carbon-gas in the next round. The expert (mentioned above) also suggests the term of the pro can be shorter, enthusiastic countries should press others to join in, and the rules should change frequently to allow it operating quickly.
Most observers think the America’s policy for global warming will change with its president changing, so as other countries. After all, when it gets the worst, all we have to join in.
What I think:
This article obviously scolds the America and other countries unwilling to sign or obey the Kyoto Protocol. What about those who don’t have the “right” to join in? It’s a question for Taiwan. We should still obey is even though the government’s policy is so “good” that our released carbon-gas amount keeps rising.
Some people give a suggestion that our electricity fees should be higher to reduce the electricity we use so that the fire-powered plant will reduce less gasoline, which harms the earth. As for my advice, is that we can turn our ground parking lot into tree parks so that there’ll be less car on the road because there’s no place to park. Both of them are useful, and will be scolded by people in Taiwan.
(Originally from The Economist Sep.29~Oct.6)
Summary:
The term” prisoner’s dilemma” is used to describe a situation when everyone is selfish and only chooses the things benefits themselves not the things for everybody, and this term is used to describe the situation of Kyoto Protocol, which is used to stop global warming.
Because the Kyoto Protocol asked the assigned countries to reduce their released carbon-gas, few countries want to slow down their economics to slow down global warming unless they know everybody will do it.
However, an expert gives a suggestion: If there’s a punishment for those who don’t obey? If it can be played on a second round? He believes this will work. At the same time, UN still tries to persuade countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
The pro. Itself offers a clear rule to punish betrayers, that is, they have to cut more released carbon-gas in the next round. The expert (mentioned above) also suggests the term of the pro can be shorter, enthusiastic countries should press others to join in, and the rules should change frequently to allow it operating quickly.
Most observers think the America’s policy for global warming will change with its president changing, so as other countries. After all, when it gets the worst, all we have to join in.
What I think:
This article obviously scolds the America and other countries unwilling to sign or obey the Kyoto Protocol. What about those who don’t have the “right” to join in? It’s a question for Taiwan. We should still obey is even though the government’s policy is so “good” that our released carbon-gas amount keeps rising.
Some people give a suggestion that our electricity fees should be higher to reduce the electricity we use so that the fire-powered plant will reduce less gasoline, which harms the earth. As for my advice, is that we can turn our ground parking lot into tree parks so that there’ll be less car on the road because there’s no place to park. Both of them are useful, and will be scolded by people in Taiwan.
The Economist's Digest4
Will the credit crisis trigger a downturn?
(Originally from The Economist Sep.22~28, 2007)
Summary:
Markets had expected for a decreased interest-rate by1/4. After gaining the half cut on the interest-rate, the market (in America) seemed spring back to life. The high rate is danger to the market; as the Fed and Congress wanted to make his name, their scream for it wouldn’t stop.
Despite the Fed’s big interest-rate cut, danger still exists. The first firing line is a doubling of foreclosures, the subprime(次級房貸) mortgage crisis in housing market. Even if the America’s economy goes down, it’s not the main danger to other countries because both Asia and Europe are less dependent on America than they were before.
What really matters is the rise in borrowing costs in both EU and US. After the Central Bank of England gave up refusing to interrupt the three-month money market (a three-month term money market), interbank rates also fell but still high. Banks (ordinary banks) have to digest the things they ate for greed (credit debts). Therefore, since they want to keep their money rather than lend to others, it’ll be more difficult for companies and people to loan unless they’re willing to pay the price. It becomes a clear rule in markets.
Even when the policy of cutting down rates would increase danger a little, the problem still can’t be removed so fast, and the policymakers haven’t forgotten inflation (means the price of things coming up) which is still not an urgent problem now, except Fed, who won a reputation for their rate policy.
Bankers in other countries may also follow the Fed’s step, for it’s hard for them to say no.
What I think:
Taiwan just had passed the credit crisis (maybe not?) and the banking industry just had a sauna, the credit crisis in the world (mainly EU) came. The interest-rate in Taiwan just has come up a little, the other countries’ want to run down. Will it affect Taiwan? Maybe we should have to face another low-interest-rate time but things in Taiwan becoming more and more expensive?
Another question I want to ask is it’s necessary to low the rates? Does it really help? Or have no choice? The low interest-rates may help the rich, higher-ups and companies. Will it benefit the society or make the gap between the rich and the poor wider? Wait and see.
(Originally from The Economist Sep.22~28, 2007)
Summary:
Markets had expected for a decreased interest-rate by1/4. After gaining the half cut on the interest-rate, the market (in America) seemed spring back to life. The high rate is danger to the market; as the Fed and Congress wanted to make his name, their scream for it wouldn’t stop.
Despite the Fed’s big interest-rate cut, danger still exists. The first firing line is a doubling of foreclosures, the subprime(次級房貸) mortgage crisis in housing market. Even if the America’s economy goes down, it’s not the main danger to other countries because both Asia and Europe are less dependent on America than they were before.
What really matters is the rise in borrowing costs in both EU and US. After the Central Bank of England gave up refusing to interrupt the three-month money market (a three-month term money market), interbank rates also fell but still high. Banks (ordinary banks) have to digest the things they ate for greed (credit debts). Therefore, since they want to keep their money rather than lend to others, it’ll be more difficult for companies and people to loan unless they’re willing to pay the price. It becomes a clear rule in markets.
Even when the policy of cutting down rates would increase danger a little, the problem still can’t be removed so fast, and the policymakers haven’t forgotten inflation (means the price of things coming up) which is still not an urgent problem now, except Fed, who won a reputation for their rate policy.
Bankers in other countries may also follow the Fed’s step, for it’s hard for them to say no.
What I think:
Taiwan just had passed the credit crisis (maybe not?) and the banking industry just had a sauna, the credit crisis in the world (mainly EU) came. The interest-rate in Taiwan just has come up a little, the other countries’ want to run down. Will it affect Taiwan? Maybe we should have to face another low-interest-rate time but things in Taiwan becoming more and more expensive?
Another question I want to ask is it’s necessary to low the rates? Does it really help? Or have no choice? The low interest-rates may help the rich, higher-ups and companies. Will it benefit the society or make the gap between the rich and the poor wider? Wait and see.
2009年4月4日 星期六
The Economist's Digest 3
Why they should stay
(Originally from The Economist Sep.15~21)
Summary:
Why don’t the American armies leave Iraq? Do they like to stay there? Certainly not! Congress(美國國會) also wanted to bring them home. However, a general there told them if taking their armed force away, there must be in trouble because the situation is still not stable.
Although there’s a little strange in the attitude that the general and the ambassador who want to keep American armies in Iraq, inevitably the leave of American armies may shake the situation in Iraq. Some politicians (in both American tow main parties) say their armies in Iraq exactly have lost the power. Thus, even if Iraq would never come good, the US president’s insistence on keeping armed force in Iraq makes this popularity down because there’s not a good cause for American armies to stay there and the armies haven’t improve the situation but given reasons for terrorists to act.
On the other hand, people in Iraq don’t like American armies stay in their country became more and more. Some is because they lack confidence in them; others even think they made things worse. People in some areas in Iraq agreed to be governed by American force, according to the general; these areas have fewer terrorist killings. But the number is still little.
While, according to the statistic, the Shia, a Muslim sectarian(教派) in Arabian world, seem to want to get rid of Sunnis (the other sectarian) in the country, and the American force is the only one now who can stop them. Compared with foreigners, Iraqis prefer to stay unified than separate because of religious sectarian.
Americans have been frustrated because they invade the civil war in Iraq---and they are very regretful! There’s little hope for Iraq, but it’s possible its own non-religious armies will replace the American armies.
Maybe the invasion of American force is helpful for Iraq, but it’s not proved yet and nobody dares to say so.
What I thought:
America keeps armies in Iraq is for money but not for” grabbing” money. If the armies leave Iraq, there must be wars and it’ll harm global economic. At first, maybe the Americans want to get some benefit---but they’re wrong. Like the past Vietnam War, they didn’t get ant thing but lose their money and soldiers, and it even became a duty to stay in Iraq. Obviously, most of Americans don’t like this and want their armies back. America always troubles other countries; every time learning a lesson, they’ll do it again.
(Originally from The Economist Sep.15~21)
Summary:
Why don’t the American armies leave Iraq? Do they like to stay there? Certainly not! Congress(美國國會) also wanted to bring them home. However, a general there told them if taking their armed force away, there must be in trouble because the situation is still not stable.
Although there’s a little strange in the attitude that the general and the ambassador who want to keep American armies in Iraq, inevitably the leave of American armies may shake the situation in Iraq. Some politicians (in both American tow main parties) say their armies in Iraq exactly have lost the power. Thus, even if Iraq would never come good, the US president’s insistence on keeping armed force in Iraq makes this popularity down because there’s not a good cause for American armies to stay there and the armies haven’t improve the situation but given reasons for terrorists to act.
On the other hand, people in Iraq don’t like American armies stay in their country became more and more. Some is because they lack confidence in them; others even think they made things worse. People in some areas in Iraq agreed to be governed by American force, according to the general; these areas have fewer terrorist killings. But the number is still little.
While, according to the statistic, the Shia, a Muslim sectarian(教派) in Arabian world, seem to want to get rid of Sunnis (the other sectarian) in the country, and the American force is the only one now who can stop them. Compared with foreigners, Iraqis prefer to stay unified than separate because of religious sectarian.
Americans have been frustrated because they invade the civil war in Iraq---and they are very regretful! There’s little hope for Iraq, but it’s possible its own non-religious armies will replace the American armies.
Maybe the invasion of American force is helpful for Iraq, but it’s not proved yet and nobody dares to say so.
What I thought:
America keeps armies in Iraq is for money but not for” grabbing” money. If the armies leave Iraq, there must be wars and it’ll harm global economic. At first, maybe the Americans want to get some benefit---but they’re wrong. Like the past Vietnam War, they didn’t get ant thing but lose their money and soldiers, and it even became a duty to stay in Iraq. Obviously, most of Americans don’t like this and want their armies back. America always troubles other countries; every time learning a lesson, they’ll do it again.
The Economist's Digest 2
Charlemagne/Overweight but underpowered
(Originally from The Economist Sep. 8~14)
Summary:
The European Union is one of the most powerful economic organizations in the world. It has many financial-powered countries, such as half of G8 (The eight biggest industrial countries in the world.) members. It's considered to be the most successful global economic organization that put many states' financial power together; it also plays an important role in globalization, has the powerful invisible hand controlling the world, and has became the biggest market.
As the power it grows the problem of the EU is coming up------the "Union" is not united(團結) enough. Since there are many EU member countries doubt the organization, there must be many conflicts, such as the French vs. Britain.
There's another problem of EU, that is, the same opinion about their goal. Does the organization set for reducing barrier of globalization? What's the EU aid for? The North EU countries hate using the aid for commercial benefits just for themselves while other EU countries use this to get a profit on trade policy. Some scholar think that "neither recipient needs nor recipient should get" plays a important dispenser (分配者). On the other hand, the common energy policy is not a problem because the EU has finished the rules about its use of fossil fuels (things to provide power for industry).
There's a final problem that the Europe is becoming smaller because of the decline of its population due to low birth rate, so it has to become more humble and generous to share its uncontrollable power and adjust itself to fit a new global order. This also gives the EU new power for the next decades.
What I think:
The EU is doubtfully a strong-connected economic organization. Such an organization still has many problems to solve, other developing countries, like BRICK, are needless to say. How the EU deals with energy and environmental problem is praiseworthy. However, look at Asia and America, there's a lot of room for improving.
The European deeply feel its danger of decline, so they also find they're not united "enough".
What about Taiwan? Don't lose our advantage and get rid of our disadvantage soon. Create a new way in other areas. what we can take for example isn't America, but the EU.
(Originally from The Economist Sep. 8~14)
Summary:
The European Union is one of the most powerful economic organizations in the world. It has many financial-powered countries, such as half of G8 (The eight biggest industrial countries in the world.) members. It's considered to be the most successful global economic organization that put many states' financial power together; it also plays an important role in globalization, has the powerful invisible hand controlling the world, and has became the biggest market.
As the power it grows the problem of the EU is coming up------the "Union" is not united(團結) enough. Since there are many EU member countries doubt the organization, there must be many conflicts, such as the French vs. Britain.
There's another problem of EU, that is, the same opinion about their goal. Does the organization set for reducing barrier of globalization? What's the EU aid for? The North EU countries hate using the aid for commercial benefits just for themselves while other EU countries use this to get a profit on trade policy. Some scholar think that "neither recipient needs nor recipient should get" plays a important dispenser (分配者). On the other hand, the common energy policy is not a problem because the EU has finished the rules about its use of fossil fuels (things to provide power for industry).
There's a final problem that the Europe is becoming smaller because of the decline of its population due to low birth rate, so it has to become more humble and generous to share its uncontrollable power and adjust itself to fit a new global order. This also gives the EU new power for the next decades.
What I think:
The EU is doubtfully a strong-connected economic organization. Such an organization still has many problems to solve, other developing countries, like BRICK, are needless to say. How the EU deals with energy and environmental problem is praiseworthy. However, look at Asia and America, there's a lot of room for improving.
The European deeply feel its danger of decline, so they also find they're not united "enough".
What about Taiwan? Don't lose our advantage and get rid of our disadvantage soon. Create a new way in other areas. what we can take for example isn't America, but the EU.
The Economist's Digest 1
Who's afraid of Google?
(Originally from The Economist Sep. 1~7)
Summary:
Google is the world’s largest search engine, measured by its digital and human resource. As far as their enemies, such as some telecom firms and book publishers, are concerned, the growth of Google is fearful, and to their hatred, they even think Google use their patents (專利) illegally.
Other small companies also hate them because of its use on search formula (公式，指Google的搜尋引擎) to win prime positions.(Means they think Google took advantage of them.) And Google also has the problem with its extend in China, due to Chinese government’s conservative (保守) moan (呻吟) (It’s said they’ve had some “gives and takes”; who knows!) and those moan from individuals.
And the speed that Google collects personal information is so fast that it became a threat to other companies (like Yahoo!). On the other hand, the large data bank Google has is a big fortune. Although Google claimed they’re not for money, something they did make others can’t help thinking they’re grabbing money. (Here I regard Google as a “company”, so I use plural form.)
The public thinks its main idea is to make money, not to give things away. However, Google actually help people in an arguable way, that is, they use Adam Smith’s invisible hand. (The way that the market balances its flow of money.) It gives the window for advertisers and booksellers to sell their products, and provide the public free search engine.
Google can protect its users privacy properly, (unlike Yahoo!) but the choices that how to deal with the personal data is difficult to make. Keeping it private can get users trust but may lose the chance to provide more service and get more profit. Giving it to the advertisers can get the money and provide more service but they will lose the trust of the users. Google is between both of them.
Therefore, Google becomes clearer and examine information more cautious to win public trust and confidence, but there’s still a lot of danger they have to face.
What I think:
Google is actually a useful search engine, and the”Google “mentioned above sometimes means the search engine, while sometimes means the company. It’s a problem for me to write the summary.
Compared with other search engines, it can provide the biggest amount of information, but there’s a problem. That is the security from virus, because it can get information around the world, even Chinese (mean “China”) websites, and the danger of virus attack is the most serious in those non-profit simplified-Chinese websites. This becomes a barrier that keeps other timid (cautious) users from using this formula.
(Originally from The Economist Sep. 1~7)
Summary:
Google is the world’s largest search engine, measured by its digital and human resource. As far as their enemies, such as some telecom firms and book publishers, are concerned, the growth of Google is fearful, and to their hatred, they even think Google use their patents (專利) illegally.
Other small companies also hate them because of its use on search formula (公式，指Google的搜尋引擎) to win prime positions.(Means they think Google took advantage of them.) And Google also has the problem with its extend in China, due to Chinese government’s conservative (保守) moan (呻吟) (It’s said they’ve had some “gives and takes”; who knows!) and those moan from individuals.
And the speed that Google collects personal information is so fast that it became a threat to other companies (like Yahoo!). On the other hand, the large data bank Google has is a big fortune. Although Google claimed they’re not for money, something they did make others can’t help thinking they’re grabbing money. (Here I regard Google as a “company”, so I use plural form.)
The public thinks its main idea is to make money, not to give things away. However, Google actually help people in an arguable way, that is, they use Adam Smith’s invisible hand. (The way that the market balances its flow of money.) It gives the window for advertisers and booksellers to sell their products, and provide the public free search engine.
Google can protect its users privacy properly, (unlike Yahoo!) but the choices that how to deal with the personal data is difficult to make. Keeping it private can get users trust but may lose the chance to provide more service and get more profit. Giving it to the advertisers can get the money and provide more service but they will lose the trust of the users. Google is between both of them.
Therefore, Google becomes clearer and examine information more cautious to win public trust and confidence, but there’s still a lot of danger they have to face.
What I think:
Google is actually a useful search engine, and the”Google “mentioned above sometimes means the search engine, while sometimes means the company. It’s a problem for me to write the summary.
Compared with other search engines, it can provide the biggest amount of information, but there’s a problem. That is the security from virus, because it can get information around the world, even Chinese (mean “China”) websites, and the danger of virus attack is the most serious in those non-profit simplified-Chinese websites. This becomes a barrier that keeps other timid (cautious) users from using this formula.
