Archive for Current Issues

Will ‘Abenomics’ Save the Japanese Economy?

Abenomics

アベノミクス: Abenomics in Japanese

PDF File: “Will ‘Abenomics’ Save the Japanese Economy?” by Kim Sang Keun

I. Introduction

Ever since Shinzo Abe came to power, the Japanese government led by LDP has vowed to revive the stagnant economy by implementing bold economic policies. In effort to overcome so-called ‘Lost Decades,’ which has deteriorated the ego of many Japanese people, Abe has announced three simple economic policies that earned the name ‘Abenomics’ after its proposer. This includes indefinite quantitative easing, flexible public finance policy and economic growth strategy.[8] In this paper, we will look at the economic logic behind the Abenomics and problems and risks associated with it.

II. Economic Logic Behind Abenomics

Through Abenomics, the Japanese government hopes to revive its economy by implementing bold, powerful economic policies that will pull its economy out of deflation, depreciate Japanese yen, and induce CPI inflation rate of 2% per year. The Japanese government saw the constant decline of overall price level by lack of aggregate demand as the main culprit of the long-term recession that its country was going through.[3] In order to ‘reflate’ its economy, Abenomics tries to implement quantitative easing, fiscal policy through expanding government spending, and provide economic growth strategy. We will first look at the quantitative easing and its economic theory behind what the Abenomics is trying to achieve.

For analyzing the economic theory of Abenomics, the Mundell-Fleming Model for a large open economy was used in this paper as the main model. The following are the IS-LM equations for the model:

IS: Y = C(Y-T) + I(r) + G + NX(e)

LM: M/P = L(r,Y)

Notice that the assumption of r = r* was dropped, which is an equation for a small economy that cannot influence the world interest rate. As Japan is the third largest economy in the world, the assumption that it has little influence on the world financial market had to be dropped. Therefore, the interest rate was treated as an endogenous variable. As a result, LM curve got a positive slope, instead of being vertical.

2

3

First of all, the Bank of Japan is targeting a 2% CPI inflation rate and increasing the money supply circulating in the economy by buying various financial assets such as the government bond, which is essentially monetary expansion policy.[3] It could be said that this indefinite quantitative easing is the core of Abenomics. On the graph above, the increase in the money supply shifts the LM curve to the right, raising the income from Y1 to Y2, and lowering the real interest rate from r1 to r2. The decrease in the real interest rate then increases the net capital outflow as is illustrated on the second graph.

4

As the net capital outflow increases from CF1 to CF2, the supply of Japanese yen in the market for foreign exchange increases. The exchange rate falls from e1 to e2, depreciating the Japanese yen. This makes the Japanese goods relatively cheaper to foreign goods and the net export rises from NX1 to NX2. There are two channels for this mechanism. First, as the monetary expansion lowers the interest rate, this stimulates the investment. Second, as the monetary policy causes the currency to depreciate in the market for foreign exchange, this stimulates net exports.

5

All in all, the Abenomics tries to devaluate its allegedly over-appreciated yen and cause an inflation rate of 2% as the output increases. As a result, the Japanese yen has depreciated until the 103.42 (JPY/USD) recently on May 22nd. This is the lowest in almost 6 years, ever since the Global Financial Crisis that hit the economy around the world in 2007. This is shown in the exchange rate graph above.

6

7

Secondly, the Japanese government is trying to initiate fiscal policy by expanding government expenditures. As the government implements fiscal expansionary policies the IS curve shifts to the right. As the graph above illustrates, this shift in the IS curve leads to an increase in the level of income from Y1 to Y2 and an increase in the interest rate from r1 to r2. The increase in the real interest rate reduces the net capital outflow from CF1 to CF2.

8

As the net capital flow falls, the supply of Japanese yen in the market for foreign exchange falls. This induces the exchange rate to appreciate from e1 to e2, which decreases the net export from NX1 to NX2 as the Japanese goods become more expensive relative to foreign goods.

As the graph illustrates, the fiscal expansion by Abenomics will raise the income and output for the Japanese economy. However, it is to be pointed out that although implementing both the fiscal and monetary expansionary policies will increase the output of the Japanese economy, the effect on the exchange rate is conflicting. Yet, this problem is accounted for as the Japanese government will set its ‘desirable’ exchange rate, possibly above 100 JPY/USD, and fix it so that other variables can freely adjust, although it might compromise some of the output to some degree. Or if the Japanese government considers the increase in the economic output, and therefore the inflation rate, more important over the exchange rate, it might decide to compromise fixating the exchange rate to their ‘desired’ level for the economic growth.

Thirdly, on June 5th, the Japanese government announced the third policy for Abenomics, which includes economic growth strategy. The government announced plans for bringing up the financial integrity of Japan, however, there were no significant policies that were announced.

III. Problems and Risks Associated with Abenomics

9

10

There is a rising skepticism towards whether Abenomics would really revitalize the Japanese economy as the exchange rate appreciated breaking the 100 JPY/USD boundary and as Nikkei Index crashed. Although, theoretically, Abenomics has a sound Keynesian background, many are pointing out the fact that it is too focused on the demand side of its economy, not on the supply side.

13

Japanese Demography Data[11]

One of the fundamental problems that Japan is facing is its ageing population. As the population pyramid gets inverted, the labor population is shrinking every year. This brings about number of problems for the Japanese economy. First, the government commitment in spending on pensions, medical expenses and social security will continually act as a substantial burden to the already indebted country with a public debt of 240% its GDP.[11] This will further worsen the financial integrity of the Japanese government leading to an erosion of international confidence in Japanese economy. The lack of confidence can raise the risk premium (CDS) shifting the IS* curve to the left and LM* curve to the right, as θ increases for r = r* + θ. But, the exchange rate would depreciate more than what is desired by the Japanese economy, and it would force the Bank of Japan to decrease the money supply in order to bring up the yen value, shifting the LM* curve back to the left. This would aggravate the situation and lower the total income in the Japanese economy. This then would induce the interest rates to depress the prices of financial assets, which will then reduce the collateral being used as bank loans. As a result, this will lead to financial problems for Japan, further exacerbating the problems. Secondly, its dwindling workforce cannot sustain the economic output level that is maintained in the future.[11] As it is shown on the data, the demography will drastically change so that more young people will have to support for the older population, which implies that this change in demography is the main culprit for the last two decades of deflation and stagnant economic growth.[11] This has another implication to why the consumer demand might be falling behind.

In this sense, it could be said that Abenomics is failing to address the core problem of its economy. It must ask why consumer demand is inherently weak. Another major reason why the Japanese economy is stagnating is the poor productivity. This may sound strange to many people as Japan was once praised as technologically advanced country. However, according to the statistic, Japanese productivity lags badly behind world’s leading countries in many areas. For example, it lags 30% behind the U.S. in manufacturing with automobiles industry in exception.[9] Therefore, corporate reforms are needed in order to let inefficient firms downsize or die and be replaced to better ones.[9] In the case of Korea, as it suffered trough the so-called IMF Crisis in 1997, it underwent painstaking corporate reforms to let the inefficient firms die and raise the overall competitiveness of its economy. So it is doing relatively fine in terms of corporate competitiveness and financial integrity compared to Japan, although this is shaking a little due to Abenomics.

What is problematic right now is that the third policy for Abenomics lacks fundamental and specific content, which started to give erode out public confidence in Abenomics. As it was mentioned, this resulted in the crash of Nikkei Index and the re-appreciation of Japanese yen, breaking the 100 JPY/USD boundary. Shinzo Abe, afraid of losing the votes, has put aside the painstaking reforms to later, such as corporate tax cuts that will improve the productivity of Japanese firms. There was a discussion within the Japanese government in cutting the corporate taxes from 30% to 20% and to implement new policies that will make the labor market flexible.[5] However, flexible labor policy means temporary job losses[11], and it seems that Shinzo Abe is putting these essential reforms after the Japanese upper house elections. This could erode out confidence in Abenomics losing its force towards reviving the economy.

There is another risk associated with Abenomics. As the yen depreciates, net export increases as domestic products gets cheaper abroad, however, imports get more expensive. This is a big problem for Japan as ever since the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the word ‘energy crisis’ was lingering around the Japanese newspapers for two years. As Japanese public refused to use nuclear power, the Japanese government had to turn to more expensive imported energy, such as LPG, oil and naphtha, increasing the monthly value of Japanese energy imports from 1.4 trillion yen to 2.2 trillion yen.[12] This could deteriorate the competitiveness of Japanese companies, as energy prices go up. In addition, export accounts for only about 14% of its economy.[1] So the core of Abenomics should be in order to revive the domestic economy, not through export. The increase in energy prices could raise the domestic consumer prices without actually improving the income of the Japanese firms and consumers. Therefore, there is a risk towards Abenomics in that expensive energy imports will drag the Japanese economy into another lost decade.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, Abenomics is a sound Keynesian policy that could save the Japanese economy from deflation. The Mundell-Fleming Model was used to illustrate the economic theory behind Abenomics. However, there were considerable risks associated with Abenomics, such as the ageing population, poor productivity and the energy crisis. The key to success for Abenomics would be dependent on whether the Japanese government effectively manages these risks and confronts the fundamental reforms that would improve the supply side of its economy.

Reference

1. 박영철, 아베노믹스 실패 가능성 높다, <주간조선>, 2013.03.18, http://weekly.chosun.com/client/news/viw.asp?nNewsNumb=002248100014&ctcd=C05

2. 박형준, 日 환율-주가-금리 3각 부메랑… 아베노믹스 두달만에 휘청, <동아일보>, 2013.06.05, http://news.donga.com/3/all/20130605/55643597/1

3. 이형근, 아베노믹스, 디플레이션 탈출과 엔고 시정 추진, 2013년, 평화문제연구소, 통일한국 제352호, pg34-35, http://www.dbpia.co.kr/Article/3129836

4. 정성춘, 이형근, 서영경, 일본 아베노믹스의 추진 현황과 정책 시사점, 2013년, 대외경제정책연구원, 오늘의 세계경제, Vol. 13, No. 5

5. 차학봉, 아베노믹스 세 번째 화살 ‘不發’, <조선일보>, 2013.06.06, http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/06/06/2013060600263.html

6. 한영기, 아베노믹스의 효과 및 과제, 2013년, 한국은행 동경사무소

7. 한창만, 아베노믹스 ‘거꾸로 효과’, <한국일보>, 2013.02.20, http://news.hankooki.com/ArticleView/ArticleView.php?url=world/201302/h2013022021083122510.htm&ver=v002

8. Adams, W. J. (2013). Japan: Assessing the Future of Abenomics, The Boston Company, http://www.thebostoncompany.com/assets/pdf/views-insights/April13_Views_Insights_Future_of_Abenomics.pdf

9. Katz, R. (2013). Abenomics Is Bad Medicine, The Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324590904578287472450294546.html

10. Mankiw, N. G. (2013). Macroeconomics Eighth Edition, Macmillian

11. McNerney, G. J. (2013). Will ‘Abenomics’ Ensure Japan’s Revival?, Thomas White International, http://www.thomaswhite.com/pdf/Will-Abenomics-Ensure-Japans-Revival.pdf

12. Schaede, U. (2013). Abenomics cannot succeed without cheap nuclear power, The Japan Times, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/06/05/commentary/abenomics-cannot-succeed-without-cheap-nuclear-power/#.UbFlP-uPJBy

Data

13. St. Louis Economic Research: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?id=DEXJPUS

14. Naver금융: http://info.finance.naver.com/marketindex/worldExchangeDetail.nhn?marketindexCd=FX_USDJPY

15. Naver금융: http://finance.naver.com/world/sise.nhn?symbol=NII@NI225#

Leave a comment »

Is Abenomics Coming to a Halt?

Abenomics

Abe Shinzo, the Japanese Prime Minister, advocates yen devaluation

Wall Street Journal: Abenomics Will Be Felt Beyond Yen

Hankook Ilbo(Korean): 아베노믹스 ‘거꾸로 효과'(Abenomics ‘Reverse Effect’)

Abe Shinzo had explicitly announced that he would artificially devalue yen in the hope that this will help its export-dependent economy. His idea was that devaluation of yen against other currencies, especially USD, would improve price competitiveness of Japanese products overseas. This announcement was quickly criticized by many nations dependent on export such as Korea and Germany.

The Japanese government said that it would pump ‘infinite’ amount of money supply in the economy until it reaches its target inflation rate of 2%, thus achieving the devaluation of yen. Wall Street Journal expected that the inflation rate would make it less attractive for Japanese households to save and invest their money else where or simply use them to go on shopping. “Deutsche Bank said in a note Wednesday, spurring a “meaningful reallocation” of these deposits into offshore assets.” Therefore, Abe’s policy should have helped to vitalize the consumer sector of Japanese economy and at the same time increase its export to foreign countries.

However, Hankook Ilbo, a Korean newspaper, has published an article that Abe’s devaluation of yen is actually having a reverse effect on Japanese economy. According to the report published by Japanese Ministry of Finance in February 20th, 2013, exports decreased 9.4% compared to the previous month, while imports increased 8.2%. This resulted in 1.63 trillion yen deficit.

The newspaper analyzed that the main reason for this deficit is the rising prices for the energy imports due to the yen devaluation. The nation has been importing more of energy supplies such as LNG, oil, and naphtha, as it tried to diversify energy usage and reduce nuclear power following the Fukushima Nuclear Accident. According to Hankook Ilbo, “If Japanese firms fail to significantly recover from this deficit, Abenomics will be hit hard.”

In addition, many Japanese firms are showing their reluctance in raising wages for workers, which is very important for Abenomics to work in order to revive the real economy. They believe that devaluation alone will not simply rejuvenate the economy. Many Japanese companies have been outsourcing their factories overseas and it would be very hard to retrieve all those back to Japan in very short period.

Of course, it has only been several months, so it will be hard to tell whether Abe’s yen devaluation is doing well for the Japanese economy. But, I think that, from reading these articles, it would be better off for a Japanese economy to appreciate yen due to significant the increase in the energy import. The devaluation certainly is doing no good for Japanese economy and disturbing other export-driven economies such as Korea, Germany and etc.

Leave a comment »

Patent Lawsuit: Apple, Samsung and the Prisoner’s Dilemma

Apple vs. Samsung in a Patent War

CNET News 1: “Apple vs. Samsung: 50 suits, 10 countries – and counting”

CNET News 2: “Samsung, Apple CEOs meet without coming to agreement?”

Meritz Investment Bank (Korean): PDF File

A hostile patent litigation between Apple and Samsung started ever since Apple accused Samsung of copying its designs for smartphones and tablet PCs. In response, Samsung dodged back with patent lawsuits concerning the mobile technology. According to CNET News, this litigation chaos augmented into 50 lawsuits against each other in 10 different countries. Apple became wary of Samsung’s ever-increasing market share of the smartphones and tablet PCs.

A smartphone or a tablet PC market can be said to be an oligopoly. There is only a handful of firms offering the product: Apple, Samsung, HTC, Sony, and so on. It is definitely different from a PC components market where there are lots of firms providing the identical product.

As Samsung’s market power is increasing in both the smartphone and the tablet PC market, Apple has opened a Pandora’s Box by filing a lawsuit against Samsung, as it was mentioned above. This has triggered the problem of Prisoner’s Dilemma, of which the ‘players’ in a ‘game’ are forced to choose the option that makes both of them worse off. In this case, the ‘players’ are Apple and Samsung, and the ‘game’ they are playing is the chicken game of patent litigations.

Table based on Game Theory: Prisoner’s Dilemma

This table illustrates the situation that Apple and Samsung is facing. According to the table, whatever the opponent chooses to do, the best option for a player is to file a lawsuit against the opponent. For example, for Samsung, it is the best option for it to file a lawsuit against Apple because the best-case scenario is that it will possibly kick Apple out of the market. The worst-case scenario is that both Samsung and Apple will possibly be kicked out of the market. However, this case is better than Samsung being kicked out of the market while Apple stays in the market with the market gain, in the point of view of Samsung. The reason behind choosing to file a lawsuit is the same for Apple.

As a result, they reach a Nash equilibrium, in which both of them file a lawsuit against each other, making them worse off. The patent lawsuit can be seen as a deadweight loss that is ‘wasted’ in a litigious process. Some people argue that the only people gaining from this situation are the lawyers. Consumers are the ultimate victims of this patent war because the ligation burdens are passed through higher prices for the products Apple and Samsung produce.

However, it should be noted that this ‘game’ of patent lawsuits is repeated numerously, 50 lawsuits as it was mentioned. Meritz Investment Bank’s analyst Lee Secheol anticipated in April that Apple and Samsung would stop and reconcile with each other as the ‘game’ is repeated. He anticipated that both firms would realize that this situation is making them worse off and that they would sit down at the negotiating table.

According to CNET News, CEOs of Apple and Samsung did have a meeting. However, they have never came up with an agreement. The fact that they had a meeting to reconcile showed that both of them realized they were in a situation of prisoner’s dilemma. However, their disagreement over withdrawing from a patent war also showed that this issue has become somewhat emotional, which makes it beyond the problem of prisoner’s dilemma.

Consumers should realize that this is not only doing harm to both the companies but also doing harm to themselves. This patent war will inevitably lead to an increase in the prices of products that Apple and Samsung produce and will significantly limit the number of choices that consumers can make if one of them are kicked out of the market as a result of a lawsuit. Also, the products they purchase may be limited in functions or features due to the patent constraints.

Leave a comment »

California’s Tradable Permit on Oil Refineries

Californian Government Implements Tradable Permit on Oil Production

The Reporter: News Article

According to The Reporter, California decided to implement the tradable permit policy for the production of oil, which is responsible for the global warming. The government has budget deficit of “$9 billion” and it hopes to gain “$14 billion” by 2015, profiting from auctioning tradable permits to the oil companies.

The main reason for implementing tradable permit policy is that there is a negative externality associated with the production of oil. The social cost exceeds the private cost and this makes the society to take care of the environmental cost. In order to internalize the cost of pollution of the oil production and move the quantity supplied from Q market to Q optimum, the Californian government introduced tradable permit.

The government or EPA sets the amount of pollution allowed and auctions the pollution rights (tradable permits) to the oil companies. If the amount of tradable permit is appropriately chosen, it effectively moves the quantity supplied to Q optimum both eliminating the negative externality and increasing the government profit. The government would profit P times Q optimum amount of money.

However, some critics argue that the increase in the price of oil will increase the overall price of consumer goods. The cost of production will increase for virtually all the consumer goods that are produced from oil-running factories. Also, the means of transporting goods from city to city will be more expensive. All this will contribute in increasing the price of consumer goods. The economic size (or social welfare) would decrease also.

The overall increase in the price of oil and the price of consumer goods will lead to the decrease in the consumer spending overall. United States, especially California, is a place where the public transportation is not as advanced and popularly used as Korea. People usually drive their cars to go to work and go shopping. The increase in the price of oil will act as a disincentive for the people to go out on shopping. This will shift the demand curve from Demand 1 to Demand 2 decreasing the price of consumer goods from P2 to P1 and decreasing the quantity demanded from Q1 to Q2. Again, the economic size (or social welfare) will decrease. Some argue that the tax revenue form the taxes such as VAT will decrease countering the benefits by profits from implementing tradable permits.

In conclusion, the tradable permit will increase the profit of Californian government and at the same time cut down the level of pollution contributing to the global warming. However, the government should be fully aware of the complicated consequence or unintended effects of implementing any sort of policy distorting the market will have.

Comments (1) »

China on Equity vs. Efficiency

Should China slow down and focus more on Equality rather than Efficiency?

The Economist: News Article

As the gap between the rich and the poor increases substantially, China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao, has ordered the new upcoming president, Xi Jinping, to “satisfy the people” by focusing more on the equality. Wen Jiabao has set a low target of 7.5% growth rate for Xi Jinping in order to slow down the overheated economy, lower the inflation rate, and focus more on dividing the economic pie equally for the people.

This old debate about whether an economy should focus on equality or efficiency is a ever-real problem for China as its economy is growing at double-digit growth rate, however, the gap between the rich and the poor has widen. This gap stirs the conflict between the people and the government as they get upset about the problem. There has been outburst of unrest in many parts of China in relation to the low income and the ever-increasing inflation rate.

Therefore, this political situation has forced the Chinese government to focus more on the equality. Otherwise, the government will soon lose the support from people and authority, which will result in the demise of the communist China.

I think that the Chinese officials are well aware of the trade-off of focusing more on equality. The economy will soon lose the efficiency once it had and the economic pie will shrink, instead of increasing. Surely the officials will be able to slice the pie more equally for the poor, however, this will act as a disincentive for the rich to work hard, which lead to the shrinkage of the economic size. In short term, the poor experience the prosperity from equality. However, in the long run, “The poor will get poorer and the rich will get less rich,” which is a quote by Margaret Thatcher.

This is a video of Magaret Thatcher commenting on socialist policies and how everyone will be hurt by focusing on equality.

China’s GDP per capita is only $8,394 according to the recent data from IMF (2011). Its GDP might be the second biggest in the world, however, there are too many people, which decreases the GDP per capita. UK’s GDP per capita was absolutely higher than China’s around 1990, and they were still arguing about equality verses efficiency. UK led by Margaret Thatcher focused more on efficiency. China will almost certainly decrease its economic pie if Xi Jinping focuses on equality. If I were at the decision-making position, I would certainly have focused more on efficiency. I would focus on equality later when the GDP per capita is high enough.

I understand that China has to satisfy and relieve complaints from their people to sustain political power. I am also aware that the government is focusing on slowing down the economy at an appropriate level. However, if the economy loses its economic momentum from socialist policies, the chance that China will become a developed country will decrease substantially.

Leave a comment »

IA Commentary 3

ECONOMICS COMMENTARY COVERSHEET
Economics Commentary Number: 3
Title of extract: European Union and South Korea Sign Free Trade Agreement
Source of extract: International centre for trade and sustainable development. (2010). 14(35), Retrieved from http://ictsd.org/i/news/bridgesweekly/86983
Date of extract: November 4th, 2010
Word Count: 738
Date the commentary was written: November 8th, 2010
Sections of the syllabus to which the commentary relates: Section 4
Section: 4
Candidate Name: Sang Keun Kim
Candidate Number:

International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development(ICTSD) reported that the European Union and South Korea signed a free trade agreement (FTA) on October 6th, 2010. Free trade agreement is an agreement to form a type of trade bloc between two or more countries to eliminate protectionism barriers such as tariffs and quotas. Tariff is a taxation imposed on any product when it is imported into a country. Also, quotas are limitation set on the number of imported good allowed in the country. In this commentary, the focus will be on the Korean side of the market, not the European market.

ICTSD reports that the FTA agreement will free almost all of the trade and eliminate 99% of European tariffs and 96% of Korean tariffs on imported goods. This elimination of tariffs will help markets between EU and Korea to eliminate dead weight loss, which is a cost caused by economic inefficiency.

By initiating free trade, EU and Korean markets will be able to get rid of the deadweight loss from the tariffs. Deadweight losses are costs that are caused by inefficient industries spending their resources inefficiently, and these costs are often passed on to the consumers. As EU and Korea initiate FTA, the prices of products will decrease from P(tariff) to P(world). Subsequently, the deadweight losses caused by inefficient industries are eliminated, getting rid of the burden off the consumers’ hands.


As EU and Korea get rid of the tariffs, there will be benefits for the consumers for several reasons. According to ICTSD, the Europeans will gain in chemicals, pharmaceutical, electronics, alcoholic beverages, and agricultural sectors. In other words, this means that the Europeans are efficient in these sectors and they have the ability to supply at the price of P(world), which is way cheaper compared to how Korean industries are supplying at P(domestic). Therefore, the Korean consumers benefit from a fall in price from P(domestic) to P(world) in these sectors. Also, the quantity demanded from the Korean consumers will increase from Q1 to Q2 due to its decreased price. So the consumers who could not buy the products from Q1 to Q2 now benefit from the EU-Korea FTA by the decrease in the price of the products. However, this will be especially bad for the Korean industries in these sectors. As it is illustrated in the diagram, their share of the market decreases from Q(domestic) to Q1 due to the EU-Korea FTA.

The efficient industries compared to other countries’ industries will benefit from gain in the share of other countries’ market by the FTA. These industries are most likely that they will not be badly affected by the FTA and will not lose any of the market shares within the domestic market. In the point of view of European industries in chemicals, pharmaceutical, electronics, alcoholic beverages, and agricultural sectors, these industries will not lose any of the market shares from the Korean industries in these sectors due to their competitiveness and efficiency. To illustrate, the Korean industries in these sectors will not be able to take away the European market due to its high price of P(world) compared to European industries’ price of P(domestic). Therefore, the supply curve will be above the equilibrium point and the Korean products in these sectors will not be appealing to the European consumers.

On the other hand, the Korean industries in automobiles, ships, and mobile communications sectors, they will not lose any of the market share from the European industries because of their cheap price of P(domestic) compared to P(world) of European industries.

In conclusion, the EU-Korea FTA will have a great impact and significance to both economies. There would be a losses and wins from both sides. However, the FTA is worth a try due to the elimination of deadweight losses caused by inefficient industries that are causing great burden on consumers. The elimination of deadweight losses mean the elimination of the inefficiency, and this will bolster the industries to be efficient as possible. Thus, this will benefit not only the consumers but also the industries because it will help them to be competitive in the global market. Increase in the competitiveness and efficiency will help the industries to export their goods and gain profit like how the other efficient foreign industries did. Also, the increase in the trade will greatly contribute to subside the ever-rising unemployment rate, which is troubling both the sides.

Word Count: [738 words]

Comments (1) »

Diigo Contributions

Leave a comment »

Common Mistakes made in Writting Exams

There are several common mistakes that are made on the exams. Some of them are poor time management, careless reading of the question, and poor use of diagrams.

One of the common mistake that I make during exams is the careless reading of the questions. I often make this mistake thinking that I’ve got the question firm in my mind. But, it is quite common that you really don’t have the firm idea of what you are going to write on the question box. So it is needless to say that you must read the questions carefully.

Leave a comment »

Plan to cut down US Public Debt failed

US Government’s Plan (1999) to Cut Down Public Debt

BBC News: Business: The Economy  US to buy back national debt

US Public Debt Data: Wikipedia file

I have found an interesting news article from 1999 about how US government was trying to cut down its public debts.

US government was planning to cut down public debts by paying the debts. The US government expected to decrease its debt of  $3,700 billion to $1,200 billion by 2009. However, as you can see from the actual data collected over 11 years, this plan wasn’t well executed.

The Actual Data of US Public Debt (1997-2008)

Instead of decreasing its debt to $1,200 billion, the debt increased to $10,000 billion. This suggests that the US government’s ‘plan’ to cut down its public debt was a poorly planned/executed policy.

According to U.S National Debt Clock, the US public debt is $13,621 billion or $13.6 trillion (Data Retrieved: 18 Oct 2010 at 12:38:23 PM GMT). I think that this increase in US public debt will someday have a detrimental effect not just on the US economy but on the economies around the world.

This blog post is an ‘add-on’ to the original blog post: Debt Time Bomb, Is It an Impending Death of Pax Americana?

Comments (2) »

What Greece must do to Survive the Debt Crisis

A frustrated Greek expressing his angry through violent protest

CNN News: Click Here

In action to fight off the increasingly unbearable debt crisis, Greece chose to get financial support from both EU (mainly Germany) and IMF. This might help Greece out of the problem in a short-run, yet they still have to pay back the money they have borrowed from EU and IMF. Now all Greeks must tighten their belt in order to fight off the crisis. There is a list of what Greece must to do recover their economy.

  1. Salary Cuts
  2. Retirement
  3. Increase in Taxation
  4. Reform in Pension System

First of all, all Greeks (at least public workers) will increase a cut in their salaries. Salaries are one of the big factors that take up large percentage of the cost in business and government spending. Though this will arouse some violent protests from the people, there is no other way to fight off the debt crisis without a cut in wages.

With some cuts in wages, many business and governments will want to minimize the number of employees as possible to decrease the money spent. This will result in early retirement of many workers with ages over 60. This will also contribute to the high unemployment rate, however, significantly cut the unnecessary budgets.

Interestingly, the Greek government decided not to have an early retirement for its workers but to increase the retirement. The retirement age was shifted from 61 to 65. It may be that Greece government didn’t want more unemployment and more protests regarding it. I think that the Greece government is tightening the payment of wages so much that they don’t need to cut down its workforce.

Greek people will most definetly exprience the rise in taxation. Greek government said that it was going to raise all VAT’s by 10%. Increasing taxation is one of the key ways that Greece can endure the crisis.

Greeks will also exprience a cut in pension. Unplanned pension system was the main culprits for the cause of Greece’s debt crisis. The government borrowed money, unplanned, in order to fulfil its populistic policy of pension system. The system supported too many people and gave out excess amount of money. So many aged Greeks will exprience this frustrating cut in their pension.

In sum, these were the actions that Greece must implement in order to survive the debt crisis. I think that the government’s determination to get out of the deb crisis is firm, but I think that this determination is not supported by lots of Greeks. Greek people must bear in mind that if they don’t start tighenting their belts, the government’s effort in order to get out of the crisis.

Leave a comment »