The Bank of Japan – Ringing in the Endgame?

why not let the economy contract but try to capture more market share or improve quality of life. A fully built out housing infrastructure could be seen as a plus. Eventually per capita wealth goes up as wages go up as the amount of workers goes down... people have more free time and that could lead to more kids... no? Why not let natural cycles work?

OddTrader said:
In hindsight, Japan, the world's 3rd large economy, should have implemented this kind of scheme which is almost completely opposite to the recent conservative economic policy in the past 3+ decades.

Then they could have kept a certain growth of population, jobs, taxes, investment, etc. that they need, against the downturn of population, jobs, taxes, investment they have currently had for 3+ decades.

Countries like Japan and Switzerland, that have a constant shrink of population, mainly due to decreasing birth rate and lack of inflow immigrants, would have less and lesser jobs each year. They would have to close schools, paying high wages for lack of workers (hence high inflation), no more new houses required (Japan already has had a lot of abandon houses), no any new/major infrastructure projects/constructions required, decreasing income taxes, etc.

There would be only two ways to resolve the situation: New migrants; and Birth rate.

A forward looking country should accept more new migrants including asylum seekers that would generate a bit of vitality and competition dynamics.

This kind of new policy for an unconditional income given equally to everyone would be another constructive direction, producing positive impact to the national economy, even globally! Also reducing the natural conflict to the local citizens worrying about job competition! As the locals don't understand well, intellectually and intelligently, there is virtually Not enough jobs - if keeping the current trend of economic policies.

I could be wrong here but personally I can see the positive economic effects from both these two policies.

The expected growth of birth rate by the locals is a merely gambling. The inflow of new immigrants and asylum seekers is a 100% sure thing!

Perhaps the only problem would be about implementation and education, to let the locals understand their positive impacts and consequences.

Just 2 cents!
More...
 
Martinghoul said:
Greatest futures contract in the world? How did Kuroda destroy it?
More...
I traded JGB futures for 10 or so years when Kuroda's actions resulted in lower volume, narrower daily range, and sporadic price movement rather than that of an actively traded contract. Given these and other factors, brokers increased margin rates to as much as 5 times over SPAN.
 
Last edited:
learner2007 said:
I traded JGB futures for 10 or so years when Kuroda's actions resulted in lower volume, narrower daily range, and sporadic price movement rather than that of an actively traded contract. Given these and other factors, brokers increased margin rates to as much as 5 times over SPAN.
More...
Ah yes, there is that... It's pretty lively and volatile at the moment, though.
 
Japan is rapidly losing population—and half the world is about to join it

http://qz.com/162788/japan-is-rapidly-losing-population-and-half-the-world-is-about-to-join-it/

Japan is shrinking at a record pace. The country lost 244,000 people in 2013 as births plunged and deaths soared. It faces the prospect of losing a third of its population in the next 50 years, raising fears about its economic prospects and labor market.

But while Japan may be grabbing headlines, with its alleged aversion to sex and a sudden need for more eldercare robots and adult diapers, its predicament is one that much of the world will soon have to face. According to the United Nations, some 48% of the world’s people lives in a country where birthrates are not sufficient to sustain existing populations: All of Europe except Iceland, BRIC mainstays Brazil, Russia, and China, and even some emerging markets like Vietnam.

That means that Japan may be ahead of the curve in dealing with the problems of an aging population (40% of Japanese will be over 65 by the year 2060) and not enough babies (there were 6,000 fewer births in 2013 than the previous year), but is not alone.

The exception to this demographic trend is the United States, which has similarly low birthrates, but is taking in more than a million immigrants a year. Because of that factor—which could change dramatically depending on the fate of long-stalled US immigration reform—the US is one of eight countries that are expected to account for half of all population growth between 2013 and 2100. The other seven are Nigeria, India, Tanzania, Congo, Niger, Uganda and Ethiopia.

It’s no surprise that African countries make up the bulk of the list: The continent contains 29 of the 31 “high fertility” countries highlighted by the UN (pdf), which is why Africa’s population is expected to roughly double in the next 36 years, reaching a projected 2.4 billion in 2050. Excluding Africa, the world’s population is only expected to grow by just over 10% by 2100. China, by contrast, will peak at 1.4 billion people in 2025 and fall back to just over 1 billion by 2100.

More...
 
Last edited:
Welcome back, Martin. You don't have to "help" with anything. I was just reminded of you telling me how Abenomics was an "unmitigated success" and pointing out how amusing that comment is in light of recent Japanese economic events.
 
Tsing Tao said:
Welcome back, Martin. You don't have to "help" with anything. I was just reminded of you telling me how Abenomics was an "unmitigated success" and pointing out how amusing that comment is in light of recent Japanese economic events.
More...
Well, firstly, what I said then may not apply today (pls note "thus far" and a whole passage at the end of that post, which emphasized that). When/if facts change, I am perfectly happy to change my view. Secondly, what economic events, precisely? As far as I can see, real GDP is running arnd 1% higher than pre-Abenomics. Unemployment keeps going down, literally, every single quarter (latest 3.27%). Participation rate is going up, in particular women's. Sure, my current assessment might not be near the levels of "unmitigated success", but that's about it.

As to your original post, I may have said it before. I really do expect better quality articles out of you. This one's seriously sub-standard.
 
Martinghoul said:
Well, firstly, what I said then may not apply today (pls note "thus far" and a whole passage at the end of that post, which emphasized that). When/if facts change, I am perfectly happy to change my view. Secondly, what economic events, precisely? As far as I can see, real GDP is running arnd 1% higher than pre-Abenomics. Unemployment keeps going down, literally, every single quarter (latest 3.27%). Participation rate is going up, in particular women's. Sure, my current assessment might not be near the levels of "unmitigated success", but that's about it.

As to your original post, I may have said it before. I really do expect better quality articles out of you. This one's seriously sub-standard.
More...

I'm not obligated to post articles you pre-approve. As for what you said before not applying to today, I would think someone as supposedly educated in macro econ as you are would recognize dangerous policy when he saw it, and understand what can and will work, and what can't and won't prior to the passage of time. This doesn't mean you have to have the ability to see the future, but you should be able to recognize that what Abe put forth was inherently dangerous and would not work long term. Many others certainly did.

But I'm curious, you still think Abenomics is a success? You think it's working? I just want to hear you say it. Try not to back peddle too much in your answer. Or was the extent of this already answered in the "GDP is running around 1% higher" hilarity and the unemployment statistic (which was never what Abenomics was intended for in the first place)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top