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.
