Harlem, New York City

Harlem is one of the cities that are celled 'dangerous place.' But, looking there with google map, it doesn't really seem to be such a place. Is it an old story? I don't know. Harlem is a part of north Manhattan and is where many African-Americans live.

But, one reason why there are many unemployed people or why relatively more poor people live there is deindustrialization after World War II. Deindustrialization is such as an economic shift from factory to service sector. If you go to New York City, you see that there is no factory. May be there are, but almost no.

I have never been there, but many people say Harlem is a dangerous place. I understand there are relatively high crime rate where poorer people live. But, my image of such a city used to be like there are many dirty or half-broken buildings...etc. But, Harlem doesn't seem like.

Just, I wondered, because my textbook says that the unemployment rate among Black youth would be 86%. This seems really large number.

Occupy Wall Street

Not knowing is sometimes disadvantage. It is not right to have an opinion without knowing. Well...it's may be right, I mean 'not wrong,' but it is not cool.

I didn't know much about the protest, Occupy Wall Street. One group in my school is protesting the decision of increasing tuition. One of my friends told me today that SUNY decided to increase tuition. SUNY stands for State University of New York. It is a group of public colleges and universities in New York. I heard that the tuition increases by $300 for in-state students and $600 for out-state students, and in four years, the tuition is going to be its 160%.

I am not sure where the source from, and I do not know what increasing to 160% is referring to. Actually, I was confused when the friend was telling me, but, at least, the tuition increases.

Occupy Wall Street protests have multiple reasons to protest and purposes to pursue. Based on one of the reasons, the school protesting group is protesting against SUNY: increase in tuition.

I met my other friends and talked about this. Our opinion is that it is good that schools repair buildings that should be repaired. However, we do not want the school to make new things for the future students with our money. I mean that if the school wants to cut its budget, it has to try so. It is not supposed to spend more money for new stuffs. It is supposed to provide good educations and to make the environment where more people can study. This is our opinion.

We do not pay for school to build new stuffs. Broken things have to be fixed, but the school does not need new things that do not equally help its students.

Schools now are cutting budgets for the stuffs that students want and spending money to things that students do not necessary need. This is not 'saving,' but is just 'shifting' money. My school is saving paper, water, electricity, etc, and to offer us more money? because it wants to have new, clear stuffs? because it wants to just get more money? No Way! Why is a public school benefiting? Why is it increasing its tuition? because of inflation? No. To cut budgets. Is it really cutting budgets? Maybe. BUT it is spending as well...to have things that students are not desiring.

Actually, what motivated me to think about this is because of my feeling that I don't want to pay more money and that I don't want the tuition to increase. But, this became a good opportunity for me to start focusing on such protests. I have been unlikely focusing on motions of individuals or relatively small actors. Thanks, Occupy Wall Street.

TPP: What Can Japan Really Do?

TPP = Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I want to ask, "what does Japan really want to do?"

I think Prime Minister of Japan, Mr. Noda is taking TPP as an opportunity to start negotiating with countries where Japan does not have EPA and FTA with. He says that he will protect what Japan is proud of and what has to be protected. However, TPP is basically an alliance of multiple countries aiming zero-tariff and free-trade, including workers as well as imported and exported products.

I somehow agree with Mr. Noda because he sounds like he is going to protect Japan's important products and will not eliminate all the tariffs. If he can do that, there would be no problem. And, maybe, only some good EPA and FTA will be left.

However, the problem is how strongly TPP can work to Japan. TPP consists of multiple member countries. Do the members have any power to influence Japan? Can Japan neglect if it is offered to eliminate tariffs of the products that Japan wants to protect with tariffs?

I think Mr. Noda's strategy itself is good, but it does not seem to be realistic. Can Japan REALLY do that? Is it possible?

I need to do more research to examine this problem.

The other point is TPP as a treaty preventing China's powerful growth. China cannot or may not be able to join TPP as long as it does not change its policy. I don't know much about China, but because China's economy is more like socialist kind of system, it does not fit the pact that seeks free trades: capitalism thought. Therefore, one perspective is that TPP makes a great large market on pacific area, pressuring China. Many countries are suffered from China's recent growth.

Again, I need to do more research on this. I should not write what I am not sure. But, this is what I'm thinking recently.

TPP: Trans-Pacific Partnership

TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. I think, this TPP is the current largest issue in Japan. TPP does not do anything to Japan yet, but the discussion for it is involving a lot of issues. On November 11, 2011, Mr. Noda, Prime Minister of Japan, said that Japan is joining the negotiations of TPP. However, there are supporters as well as protesters, claiming many problems that would occur if Japan joins TPP. TPP is a treaty among member states and is aiming a free trade market. TPP aims 'no tariffs.' How does it sound to you? Good? Bad?

If you are a consumer who works at a general company to earn money and spend the money to purchase food to eat, you may be happy because no tariff means that cheaper imported goods will be in the market. For example, you can buy imported rice which is very cheap, instead of domestic rice. Rice isn't a good example if you are Japanese because, I personally believe, Japanese rice is the best rice in the world for Japanese....anyway, yes, if you are such a consumer, you can pay less to purchase the same amount of products. Are you happy with that?

How about if you are a farmer who is producing vegetable, fruits, and whatever. Do you think you are happy with TPP that allow more goods to be imported from other countries? Obviously, Japanese products are more expensive than those in other TPP member states. If there is no tariffs, such cheap products will be imported more and traded in the market. That means that you need to compete with more cheaper-goods. You may have to reduce price...maybe you can. You may need to reduce costs of your production...maybe you can. But, do you think you can win the cheapness of products imported from less-developed countries? I DON'T THINK SO.

Now, imported rice is levied with 777.7% tariff. This means that rice whose price in the original country is $100 will be at least $877.7 (100 + 777.7% of $100 as tariff).....sorry if my calculation is wrong.....'at least' because importers definitely put more price to benefit.

Japanese domestic rice is protected under such extremely high tariff. In other words, such thigh tariff is needed to protect Japanese rice. The tariff is high in order to protect Japanese rice. What happens if this tariff becomes 0%? Importers can import rice with the same price as the local market. Who wants to buy rice which is 8 times expensive as foreign rice? Maybe me, I love Japanese rice, so I would love to buy it, but not everyone. That means Japanese rice will be bought less, by hurting rice farmers. This is not only in the case of rice, but all other agricultural products.

Also, another problem is that even though deflation is a big problem in Japan, TPP would accelerate it. That cheaper goods are purchased more means that there will be more cheap goods and less expensive goods. Gradually, the cheap goods dominate the market, causing prices to decrease: deflation. Companies want to sell their products with higher price and benefit more. The problem of deflation is that they cannot productively benefit. They have to sell more and more to benefit in deflation.

There are still more problems with Japan joining TPP, but I cannot list all of them. I am not understanding all of them. I am just a college student who studied little about economics and can guess what is going to happen if Japan joins TPP. I don't know what the prime minister of Japan is thinking. As you may know, I am one of the protestants against TPP and am not just a consumer who simply seeks cheaper goods. I do not think that expected increase in exports will benefit more than supporters believe. Joining TPP, Japan will lose what it will never be able to regain. I am sad about the prime minister deciding without enough consideration and explanations to the public.

This is my summary of this event published by New York Times.