Comments on Volz Ulrich “What Japan needs to do to end deflation”, 30/06/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/30/what-japan-needs-to-do-to-end-deflation/
We can all be more creative and try something new, as opposed to try the failed old tricks.
Speaking of non-conventional measures, why aren't economists more creative and bold in both domestic macroeconomic policy and international policy using a new kind of international monetary instrument to resolve domestic deflation problem existing in countries like Japan?
Just consider what the US has been doing, it is not too difficult for one to consider a policy from a deflationary country like Japan to lend to other countries specifically for them to buy Japanese goods and services with more favourable interest rates, as long as those lendings can be secured with very low risks.
Risks can be managed and minimised by sovereign guarantee or other secured guarantee.
If Japan is in a deflationary cycle, then it can stimulate other countries to provide sufficient demand for it and in turn stimulate its own production and demand in the process.
That is probably better than using and changing exchange rate.
2010-06-30
It is bureacrats not economists who haven't done enough on climate change
Comments on Martin Parkinson “Why economists need to engage in the CPRS debate”, 29/06/2010, http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/29/why-economists-need-to-engage-in-the-cprs-debate/
While I agree that economists can and should play a significant role in the debate and design of emission reduction strategy and policies to contribute to their effectiveness and efficiency, it is equally important that economists do not just become or hoped by the government or bureaucrats to become their supporters without critically analyse, evaluate and assess government's policy proposals.
It is important to recognise and acknowledge that there will be costs involved in reducing emissions and give realist expectations to the public on what the likely costs of emission reduction options.
Dr Martin Parkinson's claim that "our experience of reform should give us confidence that we can deliver significant reductions in emissions while maintaining strong and sustained growth" runs the risk of spins without real substance. Emission reductions, though a significant reform, will be significantly different from many of the past reforms, in that the benefits are not necessarily seen or felt except when the science is correct and it is done correctly temperature may not rise as much as a baseline that few knows and in the process costs of the actions will be evidently felt.
Without acknowledge that and being upfront and forthright with the public, there is a risk of misleading.
Secondly, government and its advisors should separate the issue of emission reduction and the issue of redistribution of income due to consideration of the impact of climate change actions. On that front, government should adopt the most efficient and least distortionary approach by using carbon price on emissions and distribute the proceeds to all residents equally. By doing that, two important objectives can be achieved: having public support and be most efficient. If it feels it has to do something more, it should find other means to address the impact on low income people.
There is not much that requires economists to do more than it already did. It is a puzzle that the government and bureaucrats have drafted distortionary and less efficient CPRS as it stood. The government was portrayed as a tax grab and bribing polluters. And the proposed subsidies to some were seen as an unnecessary Labor distribution agenda.
PS: the title is wrong from the start. Why should it be confined to the CPRS debate, as opposed to have the best policy options or actions? The government has moved on, but Dr Martin Parkinson hasn’t and hasn’t caught up even with his political master.
While I agree that economists can and should play a significant role in the debate and design of emission reduction strategy and policies to contribute to their effectiveness and efficiency, it is equally important that economists do not just become or hoped by the government or bureaucrats to become their supporters without critically analyse, evaluate and assess government's policy proposals.
It is important to recognise and acknowledge that there will be costs involved in reducing emissions and give realist expectations to the public on what the likely costs of emission reduction options.
Dr Martin Parkinson's claim that "our experience of reform should give us confidence that we can deliver significant reductions in emissions while maintaining strong and sustained growth" runs the risk of spins without real substance. Emission reductions, though a significant reform, will be significantly different from many of the past reforms, in that the benefits are not necessarily seen or felt except when the science is correct and it is done correctly temperature may not rise as much as a baseline that few knows and in the process costs of the actions will be evidently felt.
Without acknowledge that and being upfront and forthright with the public, there is a risk of misleading.
Secondly, government and its advisors should separate the issue of emission reduction and the issue of redistribution of income due to consideration of the impact of climate change actions. On that front, government should adopt the most efficient and least distortionary approach by using carbon price on emissions and distribute the proceeds to all residents equally. By doing that, two important objectives can be achieved: having public support and be most efficient. If it feels it has to do something more, it should find other means to address the impact on low income people.
There is not much that requires economists to do more than it already did. It is a puzzle that the government and bureaucrats have drafted distortionary and less efficient CPRS as it stood. The government was portrayed as a tax grab and bribing polluters. And the proposed subsidies to some were seen as an unnecessary Labor distribution agenda.
PS: the title is wrong from the start. Why should it be confined to the CPRS debate, as opposed to have the best policy options or actions? The government has moved on, but Dr Martin Parkinson hasn’t and hasn’t caught up even with his political master.
Global economic governance - from G8 to G20
Comments on Pradumna B. Rana “How can Asia strengthen its voice at the G20?”, 30/06/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/29/how-can-asia-strengthen-its-voice-at-the-g20/
While I have sympathy to some of the arguments of Pradumna B. Rana, I think it is important to recognise that G20 is much more representative than G8 and has stronger representation of Asian economies. Indonesia, a member of ASEAN, is part of the G20. ASEAN + 3 has 4 members in the G20.
It is important to consolidate G20 and not to derail or damage the progress already made while pursuing further goals.
The Asian members of G20 include economically and politically diverse group. The dual roles of those members should enable them to better coordinate their policies to advance both global and regional interests.
While I have sympathy to some of the arguments of Pradumna B. Rana, I think it is important to recognise that G20 is much more representative than G8 and has stronger representation of Asian economies. Indonesia, a member of ASEAN, is part of the G20. ASEAN + 3 has 4 members in the G20.
It is important to consolidate G20 and not to derail or damage the progress already made while pursuing further goals.
The Asian members of G20 include economically and politically diverse group. The dual roles of those members should enable them to better coordinate their policies to advance both global and regional interests.
Climte change mission needs a fair international framework
Second comments on Xiujun Xu “China and climate change in the post-Copenhagen era”, 30/06/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/06/25/china-and-climate-change-in-the-post-copenhagen-era/comment-page-1/#comment-126430
This is to answer some comments on the post and my comments.
First to address Davis Gao's points, I am afraid you probably missed and misunderstood my point. I did not say or argue that I hope China does more than it has said it would do and I don't know how you got that impression. Further my point is about a simple and fair principle and framework that can be used to get an international agreement on global actions on climate change and that does not disadvantage any countries including China which may act alone in advance irrespective other countries act or not. My framework is totally consistent with the principle of “common differentiated responsibilities” that, I understood, is China’s public stance.
Second, while I have sympathy for the thrust of admin city’s main argument, I think China can and should take actions together with all other countries based on a practical, pragmatic and effective application of the principle of “common differentiated responsibilities”, rather than arguing for that principle without an effective and fair framework to make that principle stronger to argue and to implement. Again, I think my framework should provide the necessary ingredients for any and every reasonable country, rich or poor to accept.
Third, Mariyas’ speculation appears to ignore and to be contradictory to the fact that China has announced an ambitious action plan of reducing its energy intensity by 40-45% by 2020 from the 2005 level unilaterally even though its stage of economic development (if based on past experiences) requires much higher energy intensity now and its per capita emissions are much lower than most industrialised countries, especially the US. As in my first comments, I asked the question what had occurred at Copenhagen. Your further speculation does not seem to be helpful and is more confusing and misleading. Frankly speaking, that is not the right way to advance the climate change cause.
However, I do agree with countries taking actions in reducing emissions should not be punished. But we should also realise and acknowledge that without actions now it’s the industrialised countries that are emitting much more per capita CO2 into the atmosphere every day and every moment. That itself is not fair, is it?
We need and should be fair to everyone. To achieve that, we must adopt a fair framework to avoid unnecessary and distorted arguments.
This is to answer some comments on the post and my comments.
First to address Davis Gao's points, I am afraid you probably missed and misunderstood my point. I did not say or argue that I hope China does more than it has said it would do and I don't know how you got that impression. Further my point is about a simple and fair principle and framework that can be used to get an international agreement on global actions on climate change and that does not disadvantage any countries including China which may act alone in advance irrespective other countries act or not. My framework is totally consistent with the principle of “common differentiated responsibilities” that, I understood, is China’s public stance.
Second, while I have sympathy for the thrust of admin city’s main argument, I think China can and should take actions together with all other countries based on a practical, pragmatic and effective application of the principle of “common differentiated responsibilities”, rather than arguing for that principle without an effective and fair framework to make that principle stronger to argue and to implement. Again, I think my framework should provide the necessary ingredients for any and every reasonable country, rich or poor to accept.
Third, Mariyas’ speculation appears to ignore and to be contradictory to the fact that China has announced an ambitious action plan of reducing its energy intensity by 40-45% by 2020 from the 2005 level unilaterally even though its stage of economic development (if based on past experiences) requires much higher energy intensity now and its per capita emissions are much lower than most industrialised countries, especially the US. As in my first comments, I asked the question what had occurred at Copenhagen. Your further speculation does not seem to be helpful and is more confusing and misleading. Frankly speaking, that is not the right way to advance the climate change cause.
However, I do agree with countries taking actions in reducing emissions should not be punished. But we should also realise and acknowledge that without actions now it’s the industrialised countries that are emitting much more per capita CO2 into the atmosphere every day and every moment. That itself is not fair, is it?
We need and should be fair to everyone. To achieve that, we must adopt a fair framework to avoid unnecessary and distorted arguments.
2010-06-29
Verrender's mischief-making
Comments on Ian Verrender “Mischief-making by big miners is on the nose”, 29/06/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/business/mischiefmaking-by-big-miners-is-on-the-nose-20100628-zf6h.html?posted=sucessful
While I share your idea of modify the proposed RSPT to something similar to the PRRT possibly with a lower tax rate. However, that is where our agreement ends.
Your argument that "For it is the existing mines, particularly those in operation for decades, that actually earn the super profits" seems to be a lot of nonsense. If you had just become a shareholder of those companies the day before the announcement of the RSPT, were you really making super profits by any of your imagination?
Shareholders of listed public companies don't have super profits due to share market arbitrage.
It seems that you simply do not understand the reality, do you?
For the rest of your argument, you can judge for yourself.
While I share your idea of modify the proposed RSPT to something similar to the PRRT possibly with a lower tax rate. However, that is where our agreement ends.
Your argument that "For it is the existing mines, particularly those in operation for decades, that actually earn the super profits" seems to be a lot of nonsense. If you had just become a shareholder of those companies the day before the announcement of the RSPT, were you really making super profits by any of your imagination?
Shareholders of listed public companies don't have super profits due to share market arbitrage.
It seems that you simply do not understand the reality, do you?
For the rest of your argument, you can judge for yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
