Given Paul Krugman's popular stature and the way he's saying a return to Keynesianism will save capitalism, it seems interesting to discuss Abe's three arrows a bit. First, the interesting tidbit: An AEI blogger comments on the structural reform this way: Said charts reveal that starting a business in Japan takes about 25 days and 8 procedures (on average, I presume.) The link: http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/05/the-most-important-of-shinzo-abes-three-arrows/ Business Insider reports first "details" on the third arrow: Nope, there are no further details about how the government plans to increase private investment as yet. Further below. Opalesque quotes from its roundtable discussion as follows: Here's the link: http://www.opalesque.com/646673/are_necessary_to_succeed667.html As usual, the best popular English-language source, if you make allowances as much as possible for bias, is The Economist. http://www.economist.com/news/brief...conomy-seems-different-man-one-whose-previous My guess is that the new "private" investment is projected to be for government contracts for a new Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, since Abe is a virulent right winger. (Yes, he's the loon who justified drafting Korean women as army "comfort women.") Abe's second arrow, fiscal stimulus, means an increase in government debt. The Economist "warns" that means the bond market would be destabilized. That means of course that the market will press for fiscal austerity. Incidental, the reference to "animal spirits" comes straight from Keynes. Keynesianism in the end holds a psychological interpretation of economic crises. The first arrow, a massive increase in money supply and quantitative easing for banks, is relatively quickly accomplished. Yet it has been demonstrated over and over that monetary policy is never a cure for economic depression. The second arrow, fiscal stimulus by private investment, is probably imaginary. The third arrow, structural reform, is probably the real intent of the program, and it is an essential part of an austerity program. I venture to predict that Keynesianism as practiced in Japan, contra Krugman, will not save capitalism. And that the three arrows are essentially aimed at workers everywhere, not just in Japan. Abe was PM before and nothing like this. The difference now I think is the "pivot to Asia." Japan under Abe has signed on to the latest anticommunist crusade, as witnessed by the row over those pointless islands. Leave them to Oliver Queen I say.
stj, maybe you should word all that in simple english, as all i read was a massive statement with some crazy-ass predictions about the rebirth of imperial japan.
Not an economist either, but my wife teaches it. She'd probably rip them a new one for thinking Keynesian economics would work.
^Unless you show me some proof that you know more than my wife on this (who studies and teaches it), I'll take her word, thanks.
What I wrote was extremely compressed. Also, the word in reference to Abe's imperial pretensions was "guess," not predict. Abe's grandfather was tried for war crimes, as The Economist article noted, so whether or not you disagree, raising the issue is not "crazy-ass." "Branomics" isn't simple English?
fuck. i'd hate to see you write something uncompressed. my grandfather was a miner, but that doesn't mean i want to dig holes in the ground and no, 'branomics' is a hideous buzzword that no sane person can guess the meaning of. is it the economics of lingerie sales?
Why don't you back up your claim that Keynesian doesn't work first? You seem rather light on details.
I don't think I agree with that; basic economics isn't that difficult. However, unnecessary use of trendy jargon and cutesy media buzzwords is almost guaranteed to exclude some who'd keep up just fine were plain language used instead.