知っている人は知っていると思いますが、民主党の鳩山代表が "A New Path for Japan" と題して、New York Times の電子版に Opinion を投稿しています。アジアよりは米国経済にチラリと視線を投げかけている私のようなエコノミストには、最初のパラからして少し違和感を覚える部分もあります。途中にフォントを青にしておいた部分なども私には趣旨が不明です。明日の選挙の結果はもはや明らかと私は受け止めていますので、ホンの少しだけですが、官庁エコノミストとしてはここに示された意見が少し気にかかるところです。
TOKYO - In the post-Cold War period, Japan has been continually buffeted by the winds of market fundamentalism in a U.S.-led movement that is more usually called globalization. In the fundamentalist pursuit of capitalism people are treated not as an end but as a means. Consequently, human dignity is lost.
How can we put an end to unrestrained market fundamentalism and financial capitalism, that are void of morals or moderation, in order to protect the finances and livelihoods of our citizens? That is the issue we are now facing.
In these times, we must return to the idea of fraternity - as in the French slogan "liberté, égalité, fraternité" - as a force for moderating the danger inherent within freedom.
Fraternity as I mean it can be described as a principle that aims to adjust to the excesses of the current globalized brand of capitalism and accommodate the local economic practices that have been fostered through our traditions.
The recent economic crisis resulted from a way of thinking based on the idea that American-style free-market economics represents a universal and ideal economic order, and that all countries should modify the traditions and regulations governing their economies in line with global (or rather American) standards.
In Japan, opinion was divided on how far the trend toward globalization should go. Some advocated the active embrace of globalism and leaving everything up to the dictates of the market. Others favored a more reticent approach, believing that efforts should be made to expand the social safety net and protect our traditional economic activities. Since the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi (2001-2006), the Liberal Democratic Party has stressed the former, while we in the Democratic Party of Japan have tended toward the latter position.
The economic order in any country is built up over long years and reflects the influence of traditions, habits and national lifestyles. But globalism has progressed without any regard for non-economic values, or for environmental issues or problems of resource restriction.
If we look back on the changes in Japanese society since the end of the Cold War, I believe it is no exaggeration to say that the global economy has damaged traditional economic activities and destroyed local communities.
In terms of market theory, people are simply personnel expenses. But in the real world people support the fabric of the local community and are the physical embodiment of its lifestyle, traditions and culture. An individual gains respect as a person by acquiring a job and a role within the local community and being able to maintain his family's livelihood.
Under the principle of fraternity, we would not implement policies that leave areas relating to human lives and safety - such as agriculture, the environment and medicine - to the mercy of globalism.
Our responsibility as politicians is to refocus our attention on those non-economic values that have been thrown aside by the march of globalism. We must work on policies that regenerate the ties that bring people together, that take greater account of nature and the environment, that rebuild welfare and medical systems, that provide better education and child-rearing support, and that address wealth disparities.
Another national goal that emerges from the concept of fraternity is the creation of an East Asian community. Of course, the Japan-U.S. security pact will continue to be the cornerstone of Japanese diplomatic policy.
But at the same time, we must not forget our identity as a nation located in Asia. I believe that the East Asian region, which is showing increasing vitality, must be recognized as Japan's basic sphere of being. So we must continue to build frameworks for stable economic cooperation and security across the region.
The financial crisis has suggested to many that the era of U.S. unilateralism may come to an end. It has also raised doubts about the permanence of the dollar as the key global currency.
I also feel that as a result of the failure of the Iraq war and the financial crisis, the era of U.S.-led globalism is coming to an end and that we are moving toward an era of multipolarity. But at present no one country is ready to replace the United States as the dominant country. Nor is there a currency ready to replace the dollar as the world's key currency. Although the influence of the U.S. is declining, it will remain the world's leading military and economic power for the next two to three decades.
Current developments show clearly that China will become one of the world's leading economic nations while also continuing to expand its military power. The size of China's economy will surpass that of Japan in the not-too-distant future.
How should Japan maintain its political and economic independence and protect its national interest when caught between the United States, which is fighting to retain its position as the world's dominant power, and China, which is seeking ways to become dominant?
This is a question of concern not only to Japan but also to the small and medium-sized nations in Asia. They want the military power of the U.S. to function effectively for the stability of the region but want to restrain U.S. political and economic excesses. They also want to reduce the military threat posed by our neighbor China while ensuring that China's expanding economy develops in an orderly fashion. These are major factors accelerating regional integration.
Today, as the supranational political and economic philosophies of Marxism and globalism have, for better or for worse, stagnated, nationalism is once again starting to have a major influence in various countries.
As we seek to build new structures for international cooperation, we must overcome excessive nationalism and go down a path toward rule-based economic cooperation and security.
Unlike Europe, the countries of this region differ in size, development stage and political system, so economic integration cannot be achieved over the short term. However, we should nonetheless aspire to move toward regional currency integration as a natural extension of the rapid economic growth begun by Japan, followed by South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and then achieved by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China. We must spare no effort to build the permanent security frameworks essential to underpinning currency integration.
Establishing a common Asian currency will likely take more than 10 years. For such a single currency to bring about political integration will surely take longer still.
ASEAN, Japan, China (including Hong Kong), South Korea and Taiwan now account for one quarter of the world's gross domestic product. The economic power of the East Asian region and the interdependent relationships within the region have grown wider and deeper. So the structures required for the formation of a regional economic bloc are already in place.
On the other hand, due to historical and cultural conflicts as well as conflicting national security interests, we must recognize that there are numerous difficult political issues. The problems of increased militarization and territorial disputes cannot be resolved by bilateral negotiations between, for example, Japan and South Korea, or Japan and China. The more these problems are discussed bilaterally, the greater the risk that emotions become inflamed and nationalism intensified.
Therefore, I would suggest, somewhat paradoxically, that the issues that stand in the way of regional integration can only be truly resolved by moving toward greater integration. The experience of the E.U. shows us how regional integration can defuse territorial disputes.
I believe that regional integration and collective security is the path we should follow toward realizing the principles of pacifism and multilateral cooperation advocated by the Japanese Constitution. It is also the appropriate path for protecting Japan's political and economic independence and pursuing our interests in our position between the United States and China.
Let me conclude by quoting the words of Count Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the first popular movement for a united Europe, written 85 years ago in "Pan-Europa" (my grandfather, Ichiro Hatoyama, translated his book, "The Totalitarian State Against Man," into Japanese): "All great historical ideas started as a utopian dream and ended with reality. Whether a particular idea remains as a utopian dream or becomes a reality depends on the number of people who believe in the ideal and their ability to act upon it."
Yukio Hatoyama heads the Democratic Party of Japan, and would become prime minister should the party win in Sunday's elections. A longer version of this article appears in the September issue of the monthly Japanese journal Voice.
今日は一家そろってポケモン映画「アルセウス 超克の時空へ」を見にマリオンへ行きました。入場者プレゼントはDSソフト「ポケモン・ダイヤモンド・パール」のアルセウスがスクリーンから飛んで来るとともに、映画の主役のアルセウスづくしで、ポケモン・カードゲームのアルセウスのカード、同じくポケモン・バトリオのアルセウスのパックでした。この映画は一昨年の「ディアルガ vs パルキア vs ダークライ」と昨年の「ギラティナと氷空の花束 シェイミ」に続くダイヤモンド・パール「神々の戦い」3部作の最終章です。メガホンを取るはいつもの湯山邦彦監督です。
本題に入って、今週号の The Economist でも世界経済の見通しについて、"World economy: U, V or W for recovery" と題する記事を掲げ、経済活動の水準はまだ低いものの、どうやら、1930年代以来の厳しい景気後退は終わりを告げて下げ止まったとし、この先の景気動向を U、V、W として占っています。もっとも、"a real V-shaped bounce seems fanciful." との評価で、しかも、日本で言われていた L 字型回復はメニューにありません。でも、私の目から見て、L は定義として景気回復とは言えないような気がします。結論として、The Economist の上の記事では、"A gloomy U with a long, flat bottom of weak growth is the likeliest shape of the next few years." との文字通り gloomy な L 字型に近い U 字型の景気回復パスを想定しているようです。
私は従来から日本の景気パスについては W 字型を想定していますが、真ん中の小さい盛り上がりが感じられるほかは、ひょっとしたら、実感としては U 字型に近いのかもしれません。
上のグラフは2番目の記事にあり、見れば一目瞭然なんですが、上から番号の振ってある順に、1番目のグラフは鉱工業生産です。米国に比べてアジア新興国の V 字回復振りが際立っています。2番目のグラフは第4四半期対比の年率成長率です。第4四半期対比のベースでは、日米欧の先進国が2008年に続いて2009年もマイナス成長が予想されているのに対して、中国、インド、その他のアジア新興国が力強い成長を示している姿がうかがえます。3番目のグラフは今年1月1日時点からの株価の上昇率です。アジア新興国が軒並み40％を超える株価上昇を見ています。我が日本と比べるとその差は歴然です。4番目のグラフはアジア新興国と G7 諸国の成長率を時系列で示しています。特に説明の必要はないと考えます。要するに、いかなる指標で見ても、サイズやボリュームはまだまだ先進国に及びませんが、成長率や拡大のペースといったモメンタムではアジア新興国が先進諸国を上回っていることが示されています。
私が勤務する長崎大学については、大学ですから小中学校のように海の家や山の家の行事はないんですが、経済学部では7月末から8月初にかけて前期の期末テストがありました。重要な大学イベントです。私の講義の期末試験はすでに終えて答案用紙を回収したんですが、軽く250人を超える学生が登録していますので、インフルエンザその他で登学見合わせの学生の追試があります。リポート提出の要領はすでに伝わっていると思います。2度手間ではありますが、止むを得ない事情によりテストが受けられなかったのですから配慮する必要があります。さらに、感染経路は不明ですが、私自身が A 型インフルエンザに罹患してしまいました。詳細な検査はしていませんが、たぶん、新型ではないかとの医者の見立てでした。本学は私の勤務する経済学部だけでなく、医学部も薬学部も設置されている総合大学ですので、エコノミストだけでなく医者も薬剤師も豊富に在籍しています。結局、タミフルを処方されてアッという間に治りましたが、子供達の学校行事が終わるまで東京に戻るのは差し控えました。
この通りです。あえて付け加える部分はないような気がしますが、いつもの通り、選評では山田詠美さんの評価に注目すべきです。上の引用にある通り、インタビューでも世界をあるがままに肯定するパングロシアンの雰囲気はよく出ていますし、さらに、選評でもガルシア=マルケスの影響を指摘する選者もいました。私もスペイン語を理解しますので、ガルシア=マルケスの『百年の孤独』Cien Años de Soledad は読んだことがあります。でも、『肝心の息子』や『終の住処』は少し違うと感じています。『百年の孤独』はあくまで鉄の意志に貫かれた小説です。私は邦訳で読み通していて、部分的にスペイン語の原文を参照しただけですが、独特の文体を持っています。小説の対象とする期間が長いだけでは同列に論じることは難しかろうと思いますが、似通った雰囲気を出そうとしていることは事実かもしれません。もちろん、『終の住処』の語り手はホセ・アルカディオ・ブエンディアではありませんし、より以上に、主人公の不機嫌な妻もウルスラではあり得ません。
何を調べたかといえば、Yearbook of Statistics, Malaysia を借りてマレーシアの統計を調べます。統計年報のような本で、マレーシアの主要な統計が収められています。上の写真は2007年版の表紙なんですが、この2007年版だけ web サイトから pdf ファイルでダウンロードできます。実は、青山の我が家から行くとすれば、赤坂のアーク森ビルにある JETRO ビジネスライブラリよりも渋谷南平台にあるマレーシア大使館の方が近いので、午前中に電話してみたんですが、担当者が電話中なのにコールバックもしてくれない上に、やっと広報担当とつながると、この統計年報は置いていないということで諦めました。その昔に読んだ本のタイトルである『援助する国、される国』という言葉を思い出してしまいました。日銀ご出身で世銀からルワンダの中央銀行総裁を務めた服部正也さんの遺稿を集めた本だったと記憶しています。たった今、この目で確かめましたから、我が家の本棚にあることは確実なんですが、読んだかどうかも忘れてしまいました。ということは、ひょっとしたら読んでないのかもしれません。なお、その昔に聞いたことのある言葉で「駕籠に乗る人、担ぐ人、そのまた草鞋を作る人」ということわざがありますが、「援助する国、される国」に続くのは、「援助のための税金を払う国民、援助のための財投機関債に投資する機関投資家」などなどと続くんでしょうか？
言うまでもありませんが、64年前の今日8月9日に長崎に原爆が投下されました。ちょうど今、午前11時2分であったと伝えられています。そして、核兵器の廃絶に向けて、今年の4月に注目すべき演説が行われています。オバマ米国大統領のプラハ演説です。下の引用で強調しておきましたが、オバマ米国大統領から "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons." との強い決意が述べられたことです。
長崎被爆の日に核兵器の廃絶を願いつつ、以下に YouTube に投稿された動画とプラハ演説の全文を引用します。なお、朝日新聞のサイトにこの演説の抄訳もありますのでご参考まで。
Thank you so much. Thank you for this wonderful welcome. Thank you to the people of Prague. Thank you to the people of the Czech Republic. (Applause.) Today, I'm proud to stand here with you in the middle of this great city, in the center of Europe. (Applause.) And, to paraphrase one of my predecessors, I am also proud to be the man who brought Michelle Obama to Prague. (Applause.)
To Mr. President, Mr. Prime Minister, to all the dignitaries who are here, thank you for your extraordinary hospitality. And to the people of the Czech Republic, thank you for your friendship to the United States. (Applause.)
I've learned over many years to appreciate the good company and the good humor of the Czech people in my hometown of Chicago. (Applause.) Behind me is a statue of a hero of the Czech people -- Tomas Masaryk. (Applause.) In 1918, after America had pledged its support for Czech independence, Masaryk spoke to a crowd in Chicago that was estimated to be over 100,000. I don't think I can match his record -- (laughter) -- but I am honored to follow his footsteps from Chicago to Prague. (Applause.)
For over a thousand years, Prague has set itself apart from any other city in any other place. You've known war and peace. You've seen empires rise and fall. You've led revolutions in the arts and science, in politics and in poetry. Through it all, the people of Prague have insisted on pursuing their own path, and defining their own destiny. And this city -- this Golden City which is both ancient and youthful -- stands as a living monument to your unconquerable spirit.
When I was born, the world was divided, and our nations were faced with very different circumstances. Few people would have predicted that someone like me would one day become the President of the United States. (Applause.) Few people would have predicted that an American President would one day be permitted to speak to an audience like this in Prague. (Applause.) Few would have imagined that the Czech Republic would become a free nation, a member of NATO, a leader of a united Europe. Those ideas would have been dismissed as dreams.
We are here today because enough people ignored the voices who told them that the world could not change.
We're here today because of the courage of those who stood up and took risks to say that freedom is a right for all people, no matter what side of a wall they live on, and no matter what they look like.
We are here today because of the Prague Spring -- because the simple and principled pursuit of liberty and opportunity shamed those who relied on the power of tanks and arms to put down the will of a people.
We are here today because 20 years ago, the people of this city took to the streets to claim the promise of a new day, and the fundamental human rights that had been denied them for far too long. Sametová Revoluce -- (applause) -- the Velvet Revolution taught us many things. It showed us that peaceful protest could shake the foundations of an empire, and expose the emptiness of an ideology. It showed us that small countries can play a pivotal role in world events, and that young people can lead the way in overcoming old conflicts. (Applause.) And it proved that moral leadership is more powerful than any weapon.
That's why I'm speaking to you in the center of a Europe that is peaceful, united and free -- because ordinary people believed that divisions could be bridged, even when their leaders did not. They believed that walls could come down; that peace could prevail.
We are here today because Americans and Czechs believed against all odds that today could be possible. (Applause.)
Now, we share this common history. But now this generation -- our generation -- cannot stand still. We, too, have a choice to make. As the world has become less divided, it has become more interconnected. And we've seen events move faster than our ability to control them -- a global economy in crisis, a changing climate, the persistent dangers of old conflicts, new threats and the spread of catastrophic weapons.
None of these challenges can be solved quickly or easily. But all of them demand that we listen to one another and work together; that we focus on our common interests, not on occasional differences; and that we reaffirm our shared values, which are stronger than any force that could drive us apart. That is the work that we must carry on. That is the work that I have come to Europe to begin. (Applause.)
To renew our prosperity, we need action coordinated across borders. That means investments to create new jobs. That means resisting the walls of protectionism that stand in the way of growth. That means a change in our financial system, with new rules to prevent abuse and future crisis. (Applause.)
And we have an obligation to our common prosperity and our common humanity to extend a hand to those emerging markets and impoverished people who are suffering the most, even though they may have had very little to do with financial crises, which is why we set aside over a trillion dollars for the International Monetary Fund earlier this week, to make sure that everybody -- everybody -- receives some assistance. (Applause.)
Now, to protect our planet, now is the time to change the way that we use energy. (Applause.) Together, we must confront climate change by ending the world's dependence on fossil fuels, by tapping the power of new sources of energy like the wind and sun, and calling upon all nations to do their part. And I pledge to you that in this global effort, the United States is now ready to lead. (Applause.)
To provide for our common security, we must strengthen our alliance. NATO was founded 60 years ago, after Communism took over Czechoslovakia. That was when the free world learned too late that it could not afford division. So we came together to forge the strongest alliance that the world has ever known. And we should -- stood shoulder to shoulder -- year after year, decade after decade -- until an Iron Curtain was lifted, and freedom spread like flowing water.
This marks the 10th year of NATO membership for the Czech Republic. And I know that many times in the 20th century, decisions were made without you at the table. Great powers let you down, or determined your destiny without your voice being heard. I am here to say that the United States will never turn its back on the people of this nation. (Applause.) We are bound by shared values, shared history -- (applause.) We are bound by shared values and shared history and the enduring promise of our alliance. NATO's Article V states it clearly: An attack on one is an attack on all. That is a promise for our time, and for all time.
The people of the Czech Republic kept that promise after America was attacked; thousands were killed on our soil, and NATO responded. NATO's mission in Afghanistan is fundamental to the safety of people on both sides of the Atlantic. We are targeting the same al Qaeda terrorists who have struck from New York to London, and helping the Afghan people take responsibility for their future. We are demonstrating that free nations can make common cause on behalf of our common security. And I want you to know that we honor the sacrifices of the Czech people in this endeavor, and mourn the loss of those you've lost.
But no alliance can afford to stand still. We must work together as NATO members so that we have contingency plans in place to deal with new threats, wherever they may come from. We must strengthen our cooperation with one another, and with other nations and institutions around the world, to confront dangers that recognize no borders. And we must pursue constructive relations with Russia on issues of common concern.
Now, one of those issues that I'll focus on today is fundamental to the security of our nations and to the peace of the world -- that's the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist.
Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.
Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -- be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -- for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.
Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -- that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.
Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power -- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.
So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)
Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies -- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.
To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.
To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.
And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.
Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.
The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.
And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people.
But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules. That's why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences.
Just this morning, we were reminded again of why we need a new and more rigorous approach to address this threat. North Korea broke the rules once again by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles. This provocation underscores the need for action -- not just this afternoon at the U.N. Security Council, but in our determination to prevent the spread of these weapons.
Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response -- (applause) -- now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.
Iran has yet to build a nuclear weapon. My administration will seek engagement with Iran based on mutual interests and mutual respect. We believe in dialogue. (Applause.) But in that dialogue we will present a clear choice. We want Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically. We will support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections. That's a path that the Islamic Republic can take. Or the government can choose increased isolation, international pressure, and a potential nuclear arms race in the region that will increase insecurity for all.
So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. (Applause.) If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed. (Applause.)
So, finally, we must ensure that terrorists never acquire a nuclear weapon. This is the most immediate and extreme threat to global security. One terrorist with one nuclear weapon could unleash massive destruction. Al Qaeda has said it seeks a bomb and that it would have no problem with using it. And we know that there is unsecured nuclear material across the globe. To protect our people, we must act with a sense of purpose without delay.
So today I am announcing a new international effort to secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years. We will set new standards, expand our cooperation with Russia, pursue new partnerships to lock down these sensitive materials.
We must also build on our efforts to break up black markets, detect and intercept materials in transit, and use financial tools to disrupt this dangerous trade. Because this threat will be lasting, we should come together to turn efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism into durable international institutions. And we should start by having a Global Summit on Nuclear Security that the United States will host within the next year. (Applause.)
Now, I know that there are some who will question whether we can act on such a broad agenda. There are those who doubt whether true international cooperation is possible, given inevitable differences among nations. And there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it's worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve.
But make no mistake: We know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp. We know the path when we choose fear over hope. To denounce or shrug off a call for cooperation is an easy but also a cowardly thing to do. That's how wars begin. That's where human progress ends.
There is violence and injustice in our world that must be confronted. We must confront it not by splitting apart but by standing together as free nations, as free people. (Applause.) I know that a call to arms can stir the souls of men and women more than a call to lay them down. But that is why the voices for peace and progress must be raised together. (Applause.)
Those are the voices that still echo through the streets of Prague. Those are the ghosts of 1968. Those were the joyful sounds of the Velvet Revolution. Those were the Czechs who helped bring down a nuclear-armed empire without firing a shot.
Human destiny will be what we make of it. And here in Prague, let us honor our past by reaching for a better future. Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it. (Applause.) Together we can do it.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Prague. (Applause.)
The most heartening employment report since last summer suggested on Friday that a recovery was under way - and perhaps gathering steam - despite the reluctance of the nation’s businesses to resume hiring or even stop shedding jobs. Employers eliminated 247,000 jobs in July, a huge number by the standards of an ordinary recession, but the smallest monthly loss since last August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. And the unemployment rate, rising for months, actually ticked down, to 9.4 percent from 9.5 percent in June, mainly because so many people dropped out of the hunt for work, ceasing to list themselves as unemployed.
事前の市場コンセンサスよりもかなり強い数字で、こぞって米国メディアでは「そろそろ景気後退は終了か？」といった論調の報道を多く見かけるようになっています。確かに、経験則として、非農業部門雇用者数の前月差が▲30万人を下回るころに景気の谷を迎えることが多く、日本より少し遅れて米国でも事後的に今年年央が景気の谷と認定される可能性が十分あると私は考えています。ついでながら、私が見ている範囲のメディアについて、New York Times の記事の重複を含めて、記事のタイトルとリンクは以下の通りです。
すでに、同じことを何回も主張しましたが、現時点は、方向としては上向きのミッチェル的な景気拡大局面に入っているんですが、水準としてはまだ低くてシュンペーター的な不況局面にあります。ですから、景気実感は冴えません。このミッチェリアンとシュンペタリアンの学術的な理由に加えて、どうして景気実感が冴えないのかの理由について、今夜は考えたいと思います。まず、第1にメディアのポジショントークです。選挙が近くなって来ましたから、何かの点で政府を批判したいのだと仮定すれば、経済に関して否定的な論調を張るのが一番です。第2に国民の間の悲観的なバイアスです。すでに、1年半ほど前の2008年2月11日付けのエントリーでジョージ・メイソン大学カプラン准教授の The Myth of the Rational Voter という本を紹介して、マインド調査における悲観的なバイアスの原因を取り上げましたが、先月、日経BP社から『選挙の経済学 - 投票者はなぜ愚策を選ぶのか』として邦訳が出版されました。まだ読んでいませんが、私も買い求めました。特段の大きな根拠はありませんが、自虐性が強いと言われることもありますから、ひょっとしたら、日本人はこの悲観バイアスが特に強い国民なのかもしれないと思ったりもします。
成長率の水準そのものに大きな差がありませんので、それ以外の注目点について、私は2点上げたいと思います。第1にデフレータです。控除項目である輸入デフレーターが商品市況の下落に伴って大幅な低下を示しており、GDPデフレータとしてはプラス幅を拡大するんでしょうが、国内需要デフレータもマイナス幅を拡大することは確実で、デフレの進行の観点からの評価が難しそうな気がします。なお、デフレータのプラス・マイナスは伝統に従って前年同期比で考えています。第2に年度後半以降の先行き見通しが不透明なことです。私の考えとほぼ同じなので、上の表のみずほ総研のリポートからそのまま引用すると、「企業の投資意欲は減退したままであるし、雇用・所得環境は悪化傾向が続いており、民需が自律的に回復するパスは依然として描けない。その意味で、財政刺激効果が剥落した後の景気パスについて、わが国経済は依然として不安を抱えたままの状態にあり、決して先行きを楽観できるものではないだろう。」ということになります。要するに、従来からの私の主張の繰返しになりますが、今年年末から来年年始にかけて W 字型の景気パスを描き、2番底を付けに行く可能性が高いということだと思います。さらに、その先にマイナス成長が続くようだと、本格的なデフレ・スパイラルの可能性が否定できなくなります。もちろん、米国経済をはじめとする外需の動向も気がかりです。
上の記事は LSE の Buiter 教授がサマーズ委員長を批判したもので、それに対して、下の記事はクルーグマン教授がサマーズ委員長を擁護したものです。Buiter 教授はサマーズ委員長に対して "Summers is not a monetary economist or macroeconomist." と断じたり、逆に、サンフランシスコ連銀総裁のイェレン女史については "Janet Yellen is an outstanding monetary and macroeconomist." と評したりしているのに対して、クルーグマン教授の結論は "I don't think a Fed chairman has to have a lot of academic work on business cycles on his or her resume; what you need is someone who has a broad grasp of economics and is a quick study." というもので、Buiter 教授の意見を nuts と決め付けています。私も基本的にクルーグマン教授に賛成です。
最後に、誠についでながら、上のグラフは米国商務省が昨夜発表した米国GDP成長率です。季節調整済み系列で前期比年率成長率は昨年10-12月期の▲5.4％減、今年1-3月期の▲6.4％減から、4-6月期には▲1.0％減までマイナス幅が縮小しました。オバマ米国大統領は "As far as I'm concerned, we won't have a recovery as long as we keep losing jobs." と発言し、雇用を重視する従来の姿勢を強調しました。来週の米国雇用統計も注目なんでしょう。