According to this article, Japan's jobless rate had been steady at 4 percent since November. and the jobs-to-applicants ratio improved to 1.05 in April -- meaning 105 jobs were available for every 100 applicants -- compared with 1.03 in March. this is better than what economists had predicted, as they had expected it to stay flat at 1.03. Household spending also rose, leading the bank of japan to predict that it will be able to increase interest rates within the next two years.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Japan jobless rate hits 9-year low
the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/05/28/japan.economy.reut/index.html
Sunday, May 20, 2007
New fuels for a greener drive
here's the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/05/18/biofuel.environment/index.html
the european union (EU), wants to impose stricter regulations on large car manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions. the car companies argue that they should be given greater rewards for following the regulations in a timely manner and that they should be given at least 6 years to make the changes to their cars, based on the amount of time it takes to make those changes.
basically, the car companies want a government subsidy for following the regulations. i understand that it'll be a hard transfer for the companies, and i can see wantng/needing a subsidy for the first couple years, but the benefits outweigh the costs so much, in my opinion, that i would think the automotive industry would want to continue producing hybrids, even if they're more expensive. but then, that's me thinking like a tree hugger and not an econmist, so subsidize away!
also, just an amusing anecdote: i met my new baby cousin for the 1st time today, and i was holding her for a very long time. at one point, after i'd been holding her for about an hour, my great-aunt came over and said "my, my. you've got quite the market on that baby!" and i said, "aunt pat, i think you mean monopoly...cuz market makes no sense..." and then i was sad that i was correcting people in their econ terms...but it's become a bit of a habit, i'm afraid.
the european union (EU), wants to impose stricter regulations on large car manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions. the car companies argue that they should be given greater rewards for following the regulations in a timely manner and that they should be given at least 6 years to make the changes to their cars, based on the amount of time it takes to make those changes.
basically, the car companies want a government subsidy for following the regulations. i understand that it'll be a hard transfer for the companies, and i can see wantng/needing a subsidy for the first couple years, but the benefits outweigh the costs so much, in my opinion, that i would think the automotive industry would want to continue producing hybrids, even if they're more expensive. but then, that's me thinking like a tree hugger and not an econmist, so subsidize away!
also, just an amusing anecdote: i met my new baby cousin for the 1st time today, and i was holding her for a very long time. at one point, after i'd been holding her for about an hour, my great-aunt came over and said "my, my. you've got quite the market on that baby!" and i said, "aunt pat, i think you mean monopoly...cuz market makes no sense..." and then i was sad that i was correcting people in their econ terms...but it's become a bit of a habit, i'm afraid.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Dollar's decline could boost some industries
this is the ariticle: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18235574/
the article expounded on the advantages and disadvantages of a falling dollar value as compared to euros. the good thing about the falling dollar is that it may actually boost some industries, tourism, especially, stands to benefit from a weak dollar. the more dollars you get for a euro, the cheaper it is to visit or even study abroad in the U.S. other industries are those that export most goods and those that produce goods in european countries and then turn their profits into dollars, on such company is IBM, which, due to the weak dollar, made a 7% increase on profits as compared to the 4% it would have made had it left its earnings in euros. however, the disadvantages of a weak dollar far outweigh the advantages for the american consumer. not only will travel to europe becoem increasingly expensive, but imported goods from europe will increase as well. and analyists see no sign of a turnaround in the dollar's value anytime soon.
the first thing that came to mind when i read this article was that it's good that everyone from my class is going to visit europe now, because it sounds like it's going to become much harder and more expensive every year. also, i know that a falling dollar is bad, but isn't the fact that more ppl are coming to visit america good? the article mentioned that many europeans can now afford 2nd homes in the U.S., and, while i know that that's not enought to revitalize the economy, it's a positive influence, right?
the article expounded on the advantages and disadvantages of a falling dollar value as compared to euros. the good thing about the falling dollar is that it may actually boost some industries, tourism, especially, stands to benefit from a weak dollar. the more dollars you get for a euro, the cheaper it is to visit or even study abroad in the U.S. other industries are those that export most goods and those that produce goods in european countries and then turn their profits into dollars, on such company is IBM, which, due to the weak dollar, made a 7% increase on profits as compared to the 4% it would have made had it left its earnings in euros. however, the disadvantages of a weak dollar far outweigh the advantages for the american consumer. not only will travel to europe becoem increasingly expensive, but imported goods from europe will increase as well. and analyists see no sign of a turnaround in the dollar's value anytime soon.
the first thing that came to mind when i read this article was that it's good that everyone from my class is going to visit europe now, because it sounds like it's going to become much harder and more expensive every year. also, i know that a falling dollar is bad, but isn't the fact that more ppl are coming to visit america good? the article mentioned that many europeans can now afford 2nd homes in the U.S., and, while i know that that's not enought to revitalize the economy, it's a positive influence, right?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
France gradually opens to globalization
the article can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/17/france.globalization.ap/index.html
As France faces an upcoming presidential election, globalization is one issue that may sway voters. for many years, france has been seen as being afraid of, and averse to, globalization. they have tried to keep their borders as closed as possible in order to preserve their jobs and economy. now, however, the french are slowly, very slowly, opening up and allowing that perhaps globalization is not all bad. most of the presidential candidates are for a limited amount of globalization, and the most anti-globalization candidate is lagging far behind in the polls, which appears to signify the beginnings of a change in french policy.
obviously none of the french economists have read "Naked Economics" because they have been so ani-global trade for so long. of course, that could have much more to do with the lack of the public's understanding of the tradeoffs of globalization. i believe, in the long run, opening the borders a little will have a very positive outcome for the french. they will be able to specialize much more.
the part of the article i found most interesting, however, was one paragraph about how the current president of france has allowed globalization on his own terms: "The outgoing government believes France should push for a kinder, gentler globalization, typified by outgoing President Jacques Chirac's international initiative for a tax on airline tickets to raise money for fighting diseases in poor countries."
a tax on plane tickets to raise money for fighting disease? can you IMAGINE trying to push that bill thru in the US?!?!?! i, personally, think that that's awesome! since lots of people fly, and since tickets are expensive already, it wouldn't have to be a large tax in order to make a lot of money. ingenious. and altruistic. beautiful.
As France faces an upcoming presidential election, globalization is one issue that may sway voters. for many years, france has been seen as being afraid of, and averse to, globalization. they have tried to keep their borders as closed as possible in order to preserve their jobs and economy. now, however, the french are slowly, very slowly, opening up and allowing that perhaps globalization is not all bad. most of the presidential candidates are for a limited amount of globalization, and the most anti-globalization candidate is lagging far behind in the polls, which appears to signify the beginnings of a change in french policy.
obviously none of the french economists have read "Naked Economics" because they have been so ani-global trade for so long. of course, that could have much more to do with the lack of the public's understanding of the tradeoffs of globalization. i believe, in the long run, opening the borders a little will have a very positive outcome for the french. they will be able to specialize much more.
the part of the article i found most interesting, however, was one paragraph about how the current president of france has allowed globalization on his own terms: "The outgoing government believes France should push for a kinder, gentler globalization, typified by outgoing President Jacques Chirac's international initiative for a tax on airline tickets to raise money for fighting diseases in poor countries."
a tax on plane tickets to raise money for fighting disease? can you IMAGINE trying to push that bill thru in the US?!?!?! i, personally, think that that's awesome! since lots of people fly, and since tickets are expensive already, it wouldn't have to be a large tax in order to make a lot of money. ingenious. and altruistic. beautiful.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Entrepreneur hopes to milk camels for cosmetics
find the story here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04/03/camel.milk.reut/index.html
Nancy Abeiderrahmane owns and operates a camel dairy farm in Mauritania and is hoping to branch out into the production of cosmetics such as lotions and soaps. she claims that even drinking the low-fat camel milk can be good for the complexion, so creams would work even better. Abeiderrahmane hopes that the expansion of her business will yeild more jobs and profits for Mauritanian people.
parts of this article really highlight things we've talked about in class. for example, Abeiderrahmane's company is the only one in the WORLD to make a soft camel-milk cheese. talk about a monopoly! they would also have a monopoly on cosmetics, being the only company to sell them w/in 600 miles.
another thing mentioned in this article is how the european union has very stringent animal health and food regulations and a large lobby that wants to prevent diary imports. because of this, there was not a quota or tariff put on the camel cheese, it was outright banned. and, if a quota/tariff are bad for both countries, a ban is undoubtedly worse. when the camel cheese was banned, not only were potential jobs in Mauritania lost (and Mauritania badly needs jobs), but diners in Europe were denied another option. it's bad for everybody.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Mexico's richest man casts controversial shadow
here's the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/03/12/mexico.slim.ap/index.html
Carlos Slim, the world's 3rd richest--and gaining--man, is a perfect example of the wealth disparity in Mexico. Slim currently owns a monopoly in the telephone market. His company, Telemex, is the largest mobile phone company in Mexico. And he has branched his empire out to cover banking, brokerage, internet services, insurance, retail stores, etc. While Slim's good business sense and economics have payed off for him, it is very much at the expense of those who are forced to use his company(s). Because Slim has a monopoly on mobile phones, he can, and does, charge very high prices. The Mexican governemnt has tried to break up monopolies, but so far have had no luck.
In a country where the majority of people live on less than two dollars a day, i find it disturbing that Slim could post profits of $19 billion. it makes me very, very thankful for the legislation and general attitude opposing monopolies here in the US. Though many of the services in the United States are privitized, they are not, in general, monopolized, and that in large part is why we enjoy the relatively cheap prices that we do. It looks like the Mexican governement really needs to impose a price ceiling on mobile phone service, among other things.
Carlos Slim, the world's 3rd richest--and gaining--man, is a perfect example of the wealth disparity in Mexico. Slim currently owns a monopoly in the telephone market. His company, Telemex, is the largest mobile phone company in Mexico. And he has branched his empire out to cover banking, brokerage, internet services, insurance, retail stores, etc. While Slim's good business sense and economics have payed off for him, it is very much at the expense of those who are forced to use his company(s). Because Slim has a monopoly on mobile phones, he can, and does, charge very high prices. The Mexican governemnt has tried to break up monopolies, but so far have had no luck.
In a country where the majority of people live on less than two dollars a day, i find it disturbing that Slim could post profits of $19 billion. it makes me very, very thankful for the legislation and general attitude opposing monopolies here in the US. Though many of the services in the United States are privitized, they are not, in general, monopolized, and that in large part is why we enjoy the relatively cheap prices that we do. It looks like the Mexican governement really needs to impose a price ceiling on mobile phone service, among other things.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Does bigger mean safer?
the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/02/28/motoring.safety/index.html
this article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of driving an SUV. recently SUVs have been getting a bad rap as flashy, gas-guzzling, road hogs--which, they may indeed be--but they are also generally considered less safe in accidents, as they have been proven to roll easily. this article brings to light new data from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), an independent group that has been working to improve traffic safety for over 35 years, and other road data from the UK that big vehicles may actually be safer. one study showed that drivers of SUVs are five times less likely to hit a crash barrier.
i, personally, dislike SUVs immensely. however, looking at the article from an economic standpoint, i had a few questions:
1. will this article/these studies improve consumers' confidence in SUVs enough to affect the demand curve at all? or will the previous reports of their poor performance outweigh this study?
2. how does this affect the opportunity cost of purchasing an SUV?
3. ok, this doesn't relate to econ, but would you rather roll your SUV or crash your car?
and 4. how much more pollution, as an externality, is produced as SUV, and therefore gas, consumption goes up?
in answer to my own questions:
1. it depends on how many people read this article and what their previous experience with SUVs has been. and, as it is from an English publication and deals with data from English groups, it is more likely to influence the brits.
2. the opportunity cost goes down in the sense that buying an SUV means there is lass of a potential to be seriously injured in a car accident, which is not only painful but expensive. on the other hand, the opportunity cost goes up because you have to buy more gas.
3. i'd rather crash my car. i'm claustrophobic and the idea of the ceiling collapsing is not a pleasant one.
4. the externalities will have to increase. not only do SUVs use more gas, they also use more steel to make. in order to get the steel, as or coal must be used, releasing more pollution, etc.
anyone have anything to add/dispute?
this article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of driving an SUV. recently SUVs have been getting a bad rap as flashy, gas-guzzling, road hogs--which, they may indeed be--but they are also generally considered less safe in accidents, as they have been proven to roll easily. this article brings to light new data from the UK's Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), an independent group that has been working to improve traffic safety for over 35 years, and other road data from the UK that big vehicles may actually be safer. one study showed that drivers of SUVs are five times less likely to hit a crash barrier.
i, personally, dislike SUVs immensely. however, looking at the article from an economic standpoint, i had a few questions:
1. will this article/these studies improve consumers' confidence in SUVs enough to affect the demand curve at all? or will the previous reports of their poor performance outweigh this study?
2. how does this affect the opportunity cost of purchasing an SUV?
3. ok, this doesn't relate to econ, but would you rather roll your SUV or crash your car?
and 4. how much more pollution, as an externality, is produced as SUV, and therefore gas, consumption goes up?
in answer to my own questions:
1. it depends on how many people read this article and what their previous experience with SUVs has been. and, as it is from an English publication and deals with data from English groups, it is more likely to influence the brits.
2. the opportunity cost goes down in the sense that buying an SUV means there is lass of a potential to be seriously injured in a car accident, which is not only painful but expensive. on the other hand, the opportunity cost goes up because you have to buy more gas.
3. i'd rather crash my car. i'm claustrophobic and the idea of the ceiling collapsing is not a pleasant one.
4. the externalities will have to increase. not only do SUVs use more gas, they also use more steel to make. in order to get the steel, as or coal must be used, releasing more pollution, etc.
anyone have anything to add/dispute?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)