I get that the guy is trying to say, and he is right about part of it. The more government spends to better the economy will be for that year. This is similar to when a leverages its assess and takes out loan to expand their business quicker.
The problem is that it doesn’t matter whether the money is spent by the government or private sector, because all the wealth comes from the private sector. So let’s say(in simple terms for math) the private sector made $100. It could use that money for the economy in the best way it seems fit. But if the government takes $20 to spend then the private sector only gets to spend $80. The total is still the same for the economy but is spent from different sources. However to add debt, maybe the government spends $30, so the total amount of money being spent in the economy is $110. This does increase GDP and helps the economy. Basically this is Keynesian economics.
The fault is this is only a short term economic plan, used during recessions and times of financial problems to stabilize the economy. Very similar to when you lose your job and you spend money from your savings and credit cards. This is not good for long term because it is not sustainable, you screw over the next generation. He made no mention, and for obvious reasons, that the GDP growth would exceed the debt being created.
So, I am a huge fan of cutting the military budget(among other things), but this would be bad for the economy with his logic. However, that part of the economy should not even exist and now money can be free to grow other parts of the economy that would benefit the country.
You will be extremely happy!
I am expecting around 35,000-yen tax refund this year. This is related to income tax, and it is not a substitute for universal health coverage. Generally speaking, Japan’s health care system is based on universalism like those of other “developed” countries.
I have already answered this question(please read my posts before you respond), but I will try another approach to help you understand.
Of course not, who would want to drink contaminated water?
In regards to the article, the argument is ridiculous. The water everyone drinks is treated and cleaned. No one drinks directly from rivers as it is unsanitary. The water, after being treated should still be drinkable.
The argument they should be making is the damage to wildlife.
As a general rule, I don’t want to regulate activities. I want LARGE financial penalties for companies that cause damage to third parties etc. which is the ultimate goal of these types of regulations.
For every (ton) of waste they throw into the stream they should be pay X amount of dollars for the the estimated damage to restore the damage they caused.
I also don’t like laws that attack a specific industry which is what this law does, instead they should attack pollution in general. Why is it that the CEO of GE was advising president Obama to put all these regulations only on coal and not address pollution in general for the energy market? Could it have been that when the power plants shut down, GE can build the new ones?
There is a TON of money to be made in these “green” regulations.
Stephen Taiwan wrote:
"Imagine if everything you can do for college was based on your SAT score and everyone who goes to college has to take the test. This determines what college you can go to and what you can major in which controls your future. "
Your comments are in part true, in part false. Taking the National-Center-for-University-Entrance Examination is not required when you want to enter private universities, if I am not mistaken. The questions used in the examination are not very difficult to answer.
The harshness of the competition for entering “prestigious” universities has been related to the high upward mobility in modern Japan.
“Trump has already passed an executive order mandating that no new regulations can be enacted without removing two existing regulations, and GOP members of Congress are already working on rolling back much—if not all—of Dodd-Frank.”
“Retailers may increase prices on goods and services to protect their profit, and banks may not fully roll-back the increases they made to fees following the passage of the Durbin Amendment. For this reason, it’s consumers who could end up being the losers in this particular case of deregulation, not retailers or banks.”
Trump’s financial deregulation may hit consumers’ wallets Trump's Financial Deregulation May Hit Consumers' Wallets via @Newsweek_INT#creditcards
“No new regulations can be enacted without removing two existing regulations”
What a strange guideline! Is Trump only interested in the number of regulations? I suppose there are a lot of regulations in various fields, and each regulation aims at a certain particular policy objective in a particular field. You should abolish any unnecessary regulations in any field, but a new regulation should be enacted if it is necessary. Do you want to sell your old trousers in order to by a new hat?
@Colin:
“…except the super rich who Trump is most interested in helping…”
I’m not convinced he is just out to help the super rich. At the very least, not to the same degree as Clinton (or, indeed, any other candidate in the last 40 years.)
I think he needs to keep those blue-collar voters on side.
(The thing that worries me most about Donald is that he has shown some signs of mental instability - in particular the whole thing about saying that Obama asked GCHQ to spy on him. It’s just not freaking true!)
Global suicide rates among young people aged 15-19
BBC News - Why does Japan have such a high suicide rate? Why does Japan have such a high suicide rate? - BBC News
This article shows several explanations, but you cannot reach any definite conclusion. It is difficult to single out one aspect as the main reason.
I can find data on suicides, but I don’t know where I can find data on depression.
Economic cycles are like changing seasons. Growth and a bull market can be prolonged but eventually it will give way to Winter. This change is perfectly natural and expected.
For me, personally, I would love a large tax cut but I wouldn’t help the economy immediately as I would save it. Then spend it carefully later on self-improvement which I think makes me more likely to contribute to society via continued gainful employment. Yes, this would make me happy.
Right now the problem is that the financial sector is drowning in cheap money and the regulation is limiting them from doing anything with it with monetary policy having little effect as a result
Big cuts to wasteful government programs is a great idea because it opens up resources for the private sector (or other parts of government) that more effectively provides what someone wants.
If cuts to government programs is harmful as you say, then following that logic increasing spending on government programs would be beneficial. For how long would this be the case? Until the economy is nothing but government spending or before? Where is that magical point where the government spends enough? What the government is essentially trying to say now is that the magical point is lower than it is today, that the private sector needs more resources. There is nothing wrong with this idea
The problem with this argument is that you assume your spending remains unspent or that you saving does not impact the economy. This is not the case. Most likely your savings will be used by somebody in the economy unless you hide it under your pillow. If you hide it under your pillow, your savings will leave the money pool and as a result the remaining money is more valuable. With this money being more valuable, the spending will naturally increase. In other words, atleast some part of your savings will be spent
Of course It wasn’t the only factor by any means. The trillions of dollars spent on the Iraq war was a big one… but you can’t act like the gramm leach bliley act, the spread of toxic mortgage assets, fraudulent credit ratings, credit default swap market, and the like had NOTHING to do with the crash. The point above that is correct is the dependance of our financial institutions on government protection, but that is because they influence policy specifically to benefit the financial sector since they are the biggest funders of campaign donations.
Ofcourse they were related to the crash, but they are rather symptoms (or aggravating factors) than causes.
Financial institutions are dependent on government protection because of the market conditions created by the government (and central bank) itself. All monetary policy runs directly through the banks so that big banks cannot be allowed to die without a temporary disaster. In other words, the problem is that the financial industry and the government (and central bank) are too interconnected and that will get even worse with more regulation