|
|
何故 竹中氏は、外国の新聞に投稿するのか。国民的世論喚起なら日本の新聞に投稿すればよいのではないか。只 氏の意見が一方的に流布されるのを防ぐため 誰か民主党政権にに参与していないか又はシンパシー感じていない 経済専門家と対論の形で討論したものを 載せる(又は放映する)形にすれば 何処に問題があるのか 解ると思う。
これを報じた新聞の記事 一部引用し転載しておく(著作権の関係で全部転載できない)。
江田 憲司さん、紺谷 典子さん(平成経済20年史(幻冬社 発行)の著者)が論戦かわされれば 実りあるものとなりうる。日本という国 こういうこと なおざりにされていると思うから。
産経新聞が、ワシントン発として、竹中元総務大臣が郵政改革を再国有化などと非難する記事を､ウォールストリート紙に寄稿したとして、その内容を報道している。
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/politics/policy/091102/plc0911021735006-n1.htm
ウォールストリート紙は、もともと、郵政民営化で､日本の国民資産がその内転がり込んでくるなどとの趣旨で報道していた市場原理主義を謳歌したマスコミであるが、よりもよって、民営化の立役者であった元閣僚が、日本の新政権の郵政民営化抜本的な見直しについて悪罵の限りを尽くして外国の新聞に供することは、みぐるしい。日本のマスコミは外国報道を増幅して伝える傾向があるので、政治宣伝として使おうとした意図があったのかも知れないが、それにしても、新たな失われた十年にするとかの指摘は､誤った経済政策を推進して、失われた日本を作り出した当事者が発言する奇怪は、責任皆無の様子でいただけない。死に至る政策であるデフレ政策と、緊縮財政論を支持したのは、どなたであったのか、触れることもしない自家撞着ぶりである。が、見方を変えれば金融規制がないことが改革のように主張しているのは、金融規制を強化しようとしているアメリカの新政権に対しても挑戦する発言として、大方の米国の読者の失笑を買っただけと受け止めた方がよいのかも知れない。
原文は、電子版で、ネットのアドレスは、http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574502651479212142.html
である。幸いにして、竹中氏の寄稿の内容に反論するコメントも寄せられている。ご参考まで。 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574502651479212142.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments
I fully support the de facto nationalization of Postal Bank and Insurance (and postal services).
This August, the Japanese has spoken. It was a resounding NO, loud and clear, to the ex-ruling party LDP and the privatization scheme of Koizumi and Takenaka. This government take over of the postal services is a big win for the Japanese and a big lose for them. In my opinion, this re-nationalization is a matter of national security than of economy. Japan has 800 trillion yen (~8 trillion dollars) in debt. The deficit is expected to increase, at least for some time, owing to the decade-long mis-management of the government by LDP regimes, culminating in predicaments of Koizumi and Takenaka. The new government should take control of the bank to finance the enormous debt. Postal bank and insurance is one of the largest holder of Japanese treasury bonds (~20 % combined) as of now. It is tantamount to treason to privatize and destabilizing already heavily burdened fiscal scheme. In other words, the Japanese taxpayers can't afford to privatize the postal system. Since this is a government take over, it is very appropriate that the new DPJ government appoint a renowned ex-bureaucrat of department of treasury.
Japan is not America. The Japanese take it as a right to have a bank account even if you are poor. Postal bank is (and had been, especially before Koizumi and Takenaka) a smart way to ensure the basic economic rights of the weak and the poor. Postal services are required to be universal any way and postal bank accounts are limited to small amount. The rich can go somewhere else at their own risk. By the way, the postal insurance has no preexisting conditions nor does national health care system. The Japanese have invested in Postal bank/insurance because it is (de facto) government-guarantee. It is much simpler for the Postal bank to directly buy the Japanese treasury bonds, since the government has to pay the risk politically, any way. This will make it simpler for the Postal bank to operate, because this is what they have been doing (~25 % of postal bank is treasury bonds as of now) and they can eliminate all the risk managers. The Japanese can control the risk through the DPJ government, and I consider it more just to do it by democracy, as the Japanese did in this August, than by greed of rich shareholders as when the postal system is privatized.
とのコメントがあって、質問のコメントがあって、それに回答している。
In your opinion, is it OK for a voting majority to vote themselves access to the savings and earnings of a voting minority?
Of course yes. Do you have any problem with commercial banks (in which you have an account) investing in some companies without your consent? That is what banks do. If you disagree with their policy, you can withdraw your money from your account.
The issue of Postal bank (and insurance) is not a general issue of banking regulation. It is THE bank of Japan with their 3 trillion dollars. Much of which is invested in buying Japanese treasury bonds. The reason that Japan does not have to ask China to buy the treasury bonds, as US does, is Postal bank. The battle is who controls the 3 trillion dollars. If we re-nationalize the bank, the money is controlled by the government, and the government is, in principle, controlled by the people. However, the privatization scheme was to sell two thirds of the shares of the bank with ~30 billion dollars, which means only 1 % of the money paid by the few rich institutions is needed to control the huge chunks of money. If that happens the people who deposited their small money to the Postal bank has no control over the money, or its loss, just like any customer of ordinary banks.
The size and business plan of the Postal bank would be a debatable issue, but re-nationalization of the bank is definitely a correct answer at this point.
さらに、もうひとつのコメントがあって、この竹中寄稿の内容を否定する人が、再々度コメントしている。などなど、興味深いコメントが続いている。竹中氏の主張が根拠の無いものであることを見抜いているかのようである。ご関心の向きは、同誌の原文をご覧ください。 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574502651479212142.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments 投稿者 Orwell 時刻 00時35
|
|