Public opinion without examining Abenomics - there is no point in criticizing it based on contradictory premises.
2024-01-08
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Abenomics three arrows
There are some surveys and opinions in public opinion that Abenomics has ruined Japan, but is that true? First of all, what is Abenomics? Were you asking people who answered the same question as in the poll, or were you asking people you didn't know? I wonder if asking someone I don't know will give me the results I expected. First, let's review the three arrows of Abenomics.
Three arrows of Abenomics
Bold monetary policy
Flexible fiscal policy
Growth strategy to stimulate private investment Monetary policy is still ongoing, but former Prime Minister Abe has said that the consumption tax increase was decided in advance and was carried out at a time when it could not be postponed, so he was unable to fire a second arrow. In other words, Abenomics is actually the first arrow in a variety of environments. In other words, I would understand if there was an evaluation of the fact that it did not advance to the second stage, but I have doubts about evaluating Abenomics itself.
Results are rarely published
Next, I will list some of the achievements of Abenomics.
Main achievements of Abenomics
The total national and local tax revenue will reach a record high of １０７ trillion yen in fiscal ２０１９, up from ７８.７ trillion yen in fiscal ２０１２.
The stock price, which was around ８,０００ yen, rose to over ２４,０００ yen under the Abe administration.
Public pension investment profits increased by ５７.６ trillion yen in seven and a half years.
The effective job opening ratio was ８３ job openings for every １００ people in ２０１２, and １６４ job openings for every １００ people in ２０１９.
Business operators improved their treatment due to the labor shortage. The minimum hourly wage rose from ７４９ yen in ２０１２ to ９０１ yen in ２０１９.
The rate of children from single-parent households going on to university increased significantly from ２３.９% to ４１.９%. Sanaenomics three arrows
Sanaenomics (Japanese Economic Resilience Plan) will be published. Representative Sanae Takaichi announced a policy to carry on Abenomics during the last presidential election.
Sanaenomics three arrows
Financial easing
Flexible fiscal stimulus in times of emergency
Bold crisis management investment/growth investment What they have in common is that monetary easing policy will continue, and if the Takauchi Cabinet is elected, the government will implement aggressive fiscal policy.
The Japanese government had no balance sheet
The fact that the Japanese government's balance sheet was introduced for the first time in １９９５ means that the Japanese government did not have the concept of strategic investment, which companies take for granted. How can you invest without a balance sheet or cash flow statement? It was only a matter of being able to compare the income and expenditure for a single year, or the previous year. The term "primary balance" has come to be used like crazy. At that time, Japan believed that deregulation would revive the economy, and the government repeatedly took the approach of relaxing regulations through legal revisions.
Dual structure of industrial transfer and wages
As a result, the Japanese government was unable to rebuild the national economy or make strategic investments for economic growth after the collapse of the bubble, which was an unprecedented economic crisis. More than ３０ years have passed since we stubbornly closed the doors. Then, companies moved their manufacturing sectors to emerging countries, and GDP and tax revenues mainly went to neighboring countries such as China, creating a dual wage structure of dispatched labor in order to prevent an increase in the number of unemployed people in Japan. . The economic disparity that arose from this process is said to be one of the causes of the current declining birthrate.
Choosing the next president based on policy
So, has Abenomics ruined Japan? Would that also mean denying Sanaenomics? Or will we continue to turn down investments from the government as we have been doing, paying close attention to the primary balance under the guidance of the Ministry of Finance and listening to the beautiful words of fiscal consolidation? The point of contention should be to gather opinions on whether or not bold fiscal spending by the government is necessary. In any case, regardless of whether the policy is better or not, there are parts where it seems like the point at issue is not policy at all, but just an extension of a personal attack, which is unfortunate.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Interpretation of Former Prime Minister Abe's Preamble to the Constitution - It is necessary to revise the preamble at the same time as the revision of Article 9 of the Constitution. The following is the preamble to the Constitution of Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe, who appeared on TV as acting secretary general of the LDP in 2005, was talking about the interpretation of the preamble to the Constitution. The preamble to the Constitution is a declaration of peacekeeping on the premise that it has no military power, and it is premised that it will be supported by other countries.
How Japan enjoyed peace during the post-war Cold War, and how to maintain peace in the midst of the rise of China and the runaway of North Korea, should be discussed separately. ..
Preamble to the Constitution of Japan
The Japanese people act through their representatives in a legitimately elected parliament, ensuring the achievements of harmony with the nations and the abundance of freedom throughout our country for our descendants, the government. Decided to prevent the tragedy of war from happening again by the act of, proclaiming that sovereignty exists in the people here, and finalizing this constitution. In the first place, national affairs are based on the solemn trust of the people, whose authority comes from the people, whose power is exercised by the representatives of the people, and whose welfare is enjoyed by the people. This is a universal principle of mankind, and this Constitution is based on this principle. We exclude any constitutions, statutes and imperial rescripts that violate this.
The people wish for lasting peace and are deeply aware of the noble ideals that govern human relations, and trust in the justice and faith of the peace-loving nations. We decided to keep our safety and survival. We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. We affirm that the people of the world have the right to live in peace, free from fear and deficiency.
We must not concentrate on our own nation and ignore others, and the law of political morality is universal and follows this law. I believe that it is the responsibility of each country to maintain its sovereignty and to establish equal relations with other countries.
The Japanese people pledge to do their utmost to achieve their noble ideals and goals in the honor of the nation.
[Interpretation of former Prime Minister Abe] We have decided to maintain our security and survival by trusting the justice and faith of peace-loving nations. → Leave it to other countries and decide to do nothing (Abe interpretation)
We want to occupy a prestigious position in the international community, which strives to maintain peace and forever remove tyranny and servitude, oppression and narrowness from the earth. → Let's get compliments from the international community that we are working on instead of asking for something (Abe interpretation)
It is a frank opinion that seems to be the former Prime Minister Abe. Many Japanese still think that Japan's peace has been protected by Article 9 of the Constitution, but the interpretation that it was protected by the United States rather than by Article 9 of the Constitution is more realistic. prize.
On the flip side, if the United States does not protect Japan, Japan's peace will be completely destroyed.
The debate on the revision of Article 9 of the Constitution is overheating, but it seems necessary to discuss revising the preamble itself on the premise that it does not have force in the first place.
Constitutional Democratic Party member Konishi continued to complain at ABEMA TV that there was no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral.
Opposition party member developing original theory
It is clear that the Cabinet decides on national ceremonies
Clearly answered in parliamentary questions
Opposition parties' opinions should be as good as their approval ratings
The media mass-produces inequality of speech
Congressman Konishi of the Constitutional Democratic Party continued to complain on ABEMA Prime that there is no legal basis for former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral. He developed his own theory that the ceremonies performed by the state in the Cabinet Establishment Act referred to the ceremonies performed by the imperial family.
Looking at the Cabinet Establishment Act, Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 states, ``Matters related to national ceremonies and affairs related to ceremonies and events conducted by the Cabinet (excluding matters that fall under the jurisdiction of other ministries).'' It is written. The Imperial Household Ceremonies set out in the Imperial House Law are interpreted to be included in this, and Article 7 of the Constitution states, ``The Emperor, with the advice and approval of the Cabinet, shall perform the following acts in matters of state for the people.'' It becomes.
This is done with the advice and approval of the Cabinet under the Cabinet Establishment Act. In other words, nowhere does it say that the national ceremonies specified in the Cabinet Establishment Act refer only to ceremonies of the imperial family.
He asked a question in the Diet about the legal basis of the cabinet decision for state funerals, and Prime Minister Kishida clearly stated, ``Holding a state funeral, which is a national ceremony, based on a cabinet decision, means that the cabinet has decided to conduct a national ceremony.'' This is included in the function of administrative power, and Article 4, Paragraph 3, Item 33 of the Cabinet Office Establishment Act clearly states that the Cabinet Office is responsible for affairs related to national ceremonies. I think it is possible, as it is clear in the law that the performance of national ceremonies that include national ceremonies is included in the functions of administrative power.''.
I wonder what the media means by equality of reporting. It is said that reporting the voices of opposition parties equally means not reporting only the opinions of a particular political party, but is reporting the opinions of opposition parties in the same manner really equal reporting equality? . According to opinion polls, even though the largest opposition party is the Nippon Ishin no Kai, it only has about 6% of the vote, while the Constitutional Democratic Party has about 5%. It is hard to believe that these opinions are represented by the number of seats that stand against the ruling party, and it is far from possible that they represent the voices of the people. In other words, reporting should be around 5% to 6% of the total, which would also be consistent with the meaning of equality.
On the contrary, Japan's current media outlets report on the claims of these opposition parties more than they do on the claims of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party. Recently, the opposition parties have become weak and are making a fuss by simply making counterarguments and making a fuss as if it were a flaming tactic, and the media, whose audience ratings continue to decline, are taking advantage of this to make numbers, which seems to be creating this inequality. appear. The media should mainly report the opinion that the Cabinet decision to hold a state funeral based on the Cabinet Establishment Act is legal.
Untimely protests against state funerals - Media incitement that is getting worse - The media is not representative of the people.
The size of the opposition that makes you laugh
What is the argument that divided the nation into two?
What is the content of the poll?
I don't understand the difference from sports newspapers
Mass media turning into sports newspaper due to slump in sales
The process of dividing national opinion into two
The media does not represent the people
Report only the facts, not opinions
On the day of the demonstration by opponents of former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral, it is said that there were around 100 to 200 people, based on a partial count. Police said there were 500 people. It is said that 4,183 people attended the state funeral, and approximately 23,000 people donated flowers (as announced on the 27th).
What exactly was the debate that reportedly divided the nation into two? Kudanshita, where the state funeral was held, is close to Meiji University's Surugadai campus. The university has traditionally had a strong left-wing student movement. Of course, ordinary students have nothing to do with it, but even if left-wing activists in Tokyo gathered together, it gives the impression that there were too few of them.
What is the content of public opinion polls conducted by the media? The problem is the questions. Depending on how the question is asked, it is possible to lead the data to the result intended by the questioner. I would like all public opinion poll data to be disclosed.
It seems like all mass media are now doing what sports newspapers and other media were doing before the decline of major mass media due to the spread of SNS.
In order to sell articles with headlines, sports newspapers publish speculative information in the headlines that have not been fact-checked, and sell them at station kiosks even though they say that the information is unconfirmed by adding a question mark at the end. It will be done. The "?" part is hidden from view due to the way it is displayed.
Many people were surprised and tolerated it, saying, ``It can't be helped because it's a sports newspaper,'' but no one believed it and it was just a form of entertainment. That's what all the media are doing now.
The underlying issue is sales. Sports newspapers used to take desperate measures to increase circulation, but I wonder if many media outlets now think of this as the right way to go. What is more troubling than sports newspapers is that the major media barely have the power to stir up public opinion.
Using the current issue of state funerals as an example, when the opposition party first objects to a state funeral, the media immediately jumps in and reports on it. At this stage, the ruling party and the opposition party are in conflict, so in that sense they are theoretically divided into two parties. However, this does not mean that national opinion is divided into two.
Then, the media outlets loudly convey the opinions of the opposition parties, and the process of dividing national opinion into two begins. It is incitement. First of all, there is a process in which the media themselves agitate and increase the number of opposition parties, and then they cultivate them as if it were a big problem divided into two.
They increase sales by raising the grade of articles based on irrelevant opinions and information by several levels. The more confrontational the structure, the more sensational it is. This is a common method that the media has used in the past on various issues.
The media sometimes uses expressions such as ``representing the people,'' but it feels very strange and even unpleasant. They are just office workers, not representatives of the people. When did they receive the mandate of the people? When did he run for election and when was he elected to the Diet?
If you're an average office worker, you might go to a yakitori restaurant for a drink with your colleagues on the way home from work and talk about politics. The media are just office workers, so that should be fine. You should not express your opinion to the people as if you were a representative of the people. We need to stop privatizing public airwaves and simply collect and report the facts.
Former Prime Minister Aso plans to visit South Korea and meet with President Yoon - A person who has been monitoring Japan - Korea issues from within the Cabinet
Mr. Aso visits South Korea
Mr. Aso has been observing Japan-Korea relations for a long time from within the Cabinet
The handover on the Korean side is in disarray
What will Mr. Aso offer to the South Korean regime
Former Prime Minister Aso is visiting South Korea, but the Japanese government has said that it is part of parliamentary diplomacy and not as Prime Minister Kishida's special envoy. What did Mr. Aso come to Korea for?
Mr. Aso was the prime minister who concluded the Japan-Korea currency swap during the 2008 Korean currency crisis, which occurred during the Lehman shock in the United States. After rebuilding the economy, the Lee Myung-bak administration said that Japan's aid was unnecessary. Mr. Aso subsequently served as deputy prime minister from the second Abe administration to the Suga administration. During that time, he was involved in various Japan-Korea issues, including Lee Myung-bak's landing on Takeshima, the comfort women agreement, the suspension of the Japan-Korea currency swap, the radar irradiation incident, the forced labor judgment, the comfort women judgment, and the white country issue, in his capacity as vice prime minister. Become the person you were. Like former Prime Minister Abe, he will probably be the only person who has looked at a series of issues as a cabinet member.
Meanwhile, in South Korea, the government changed from Lee Myung-bak to Park Geun-hye, and after impeachment, came the Moon Jae-in government, which removed all people who were said to be pro-Japanese from diplomatic relations. After that, he launched a series of anti-Japanese movements, leading to the current Yun Seok-Yue administration. In other words, on the South Korean side, there is no continuity in Japan-Korea relations, the handover is probably fragmentary, and it is highly likely that they do not understand anything other than symbolic concerns.
It would not be surprising if Japan-Korea relations contain a variety of other problems in addition to those that have been made public. If the problems that have come to light are just the tip of the iceberg, Mr. Aso is probably the person who knows the various problems and background behind them. In other words, it is highly likely that the meaning and content of the comprehensive solution that South Korea calls and the comprehensive solution that Japan thinks of are different.
The United Nations that has stopped functioning due to old - fashioned values - Japan remains an enemy country - Where is the country to be monitored?
Enemy State Clauses in the Charter of the United Nations are set forth in Articles 53, 77 and 107. The enemy country is a country that was an enemy at the time of World War II, and it is permitted to impose military sanctions against re-invasion by the enemy country without passing a resolution of the Security Council. The United Nations is a coalition of victorious nations, one of which is to monitor and control defeated nations. Needless to say, one of the enemy countries is Japan. Among such organizations, Russia, which is currently at war, and China, which aims to expand its power to Asia, exist as permanent members. China and South Korea are the countries that try to lower Japan's international status by taking advantage of the nature of the United Nations as a victorious coalition.
The contribution to the United Nations is determined based on GDP. As for the contribution, Japan, which is stipulated as an enemy country, is in 3rd place, and Germany is in 4th place. In recent years, China has been ranked second due to the growth of GDP, but Japan is still second in terms of cumulative contributions.
In the postwar US-Soviet Cold War era, NATO and the Warsaw Pact face each other. Nevertheless, this victorious alliance will continue to maintain the enemy state clause of World War II. And now, even when witnessing Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United Nations is monitoring Japan and Germany with Russia and China as permanent members. The countries that the world must monitor will be clearly different.
