(TAKAHASHI
Yoichi, PPPC Chairman)
The
first and second arrows of the Abenomics are just normal economic policy in the
global standard. It was easily predicted that they would cause the employment
to increase and bankruptcy to decrease, especially after the irresponsible
macroeconomic policy under the DPJ administration.
Number of Workers (ten thousand)
The
number of bankruptcy had been dropping under the DPJ government, but its speed
has been accelerated since Abe gained the power (see the slant).
Number of Bankruptcy
It
was so childish that DPJ opposed to the increased employment and decreased
bankruptcy, and there was no economic debate in the December 14 election. Although
many argue that the landslide victory of LDP may be attributed to
unpreparedness of the opposition parties, there is a wide gap of understanding
of the macroeconomic policy between the Abe Cabinet and DPJ. DPJ must study
more about the macroeconomic policy.
In
the meantime, because the mass media don’t know the macroeconomic policy,
neither, they don’t know why LDP defeated DPJ all the three times in the 2012
Lower House, 2013 Upper House and the general election this time. One cannot
easily be defeated in elections as long as they managed the economy well.
Yet,
LDP was on the verge this time since it conducted the tax-hike from this year.
If the Cabinet was deciding a second tax-hike from next October, LDP would have
lost the nationwide local election next year. If that was the case, the Abe
Cabinet would have collapsed and soon be abandoned by the Ministry of Finance.
Critiques
who don’t know the economy regard the currently decreasing bankruptcy not as a
result of the Abenomics but preservation of zombie companies. Because such
critiques don’t understand the macroeconomic policy, they tend to look at the
third arrow alone. However, it takes 5 years or so to see the influence of the
third arrow visibly, so all we can do at this moment is to release as many
alternatives as possible. And the percentage of which such alternatives go successful
is 3 out of 100 or 1000.
It
is nothing wrong to talk about importance of the third arrow, but it becomes
harmful when they speak of the decreased bankruptcy as preservation of zombie
companies. I call such critiques “sadistic liquidation debater”. This type of
debater can often be found in the management consultants, who are harmless as
long as they speak management of individual company. However, they turn to be
harmful when they start talking about the macro or industrial base. They are
ignorant and indifferent to the macro-economy, and always assume a full
employment. That’s why they don’t understand that the deflation is causing the
unemployment and bankruptcy to increase but they attribute the unemployment and
bankruptcy to laziness or individual responsibility of the workers. They
consider the reduced bankruptcy as preservation of zombie companies, and often
regard the increased employment as spoiling of the workers.