> From: Arthur Alexander
> Date: 2012/02/21
>
> Investment: Japanese companies invest too much, and
have been doing so
> since the 1970s. Returns on private investment are
well below those in
> the US and other rich countries. Over the past 30
years, Japanese
> companies invested about 4 percentage points more of
their output than
> did American companies (17% versus 13%).

Why isn't US investment considered "under-investment" ?

If the number of patents (applications and granted) is a function of investment then Japan seems to be doing the right thing (esp. if you factor in population).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_paten
ts

> This over-investment has several consequences:
> insufficient employment of labor, lower productivity,

Considering the US, wouldn't that mean that a GDP to worked hours ratio does not show much ?

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=LEVEL

Countries that are above of slightly below the US are:

Norway/Luxembourg/Ireland/Netherlands/Belgium/France.
Not exactly industrial powerhouses.

Germany is 10 points below the US.

Let's compare productivity per sector (with finance in it's own slot) to see exactly how so called "over investment" affects productivity.

> lower personal income because corporate profits are
not given back to
> shareholders in the form of dividends but used
unproductively by the
> firms.

Since when does giving back to shareholders increase personal income ?

> I attribute
> over-investment to weak corporate governance (that
is, insufficient
> attention to shareholders). I am willing to entertain
alternative
> explanations.

Seeing the mess it created in many advanced economies, maybe "attention to shareholder" is exactly at the right level in Japan.

> Fertility: There is evidence that the fertility
uptick among the
> richest countries is an effect of greater
opportunities for women in
> the work force, greater participation of men in
household activities,
> and better child care facilities. However, the uptick
is not very
> large.

Over the 1984-2009 period, it seems that most OECD countries have seen quite a serious uptick:

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/40/47570005.pdf

With high fertility countries (Turkey/Mexico/Israel) have seen their rate lower a bit and most lower fertility countries have seen it rise.

> More on ageing: The evidence suggests that ageing is
associated with
> delayed senescence, rather than extended senescence.
The implication
> is that today's 70-year old is as healthy as
yesterday's 50-year old.
> Health care costs are rising for everyone, not just
older people.

Why is that ? Why would a healthy population generate higher health costs ?

> The extra costs associated with the older population
come from their
> existence, not their age.
>
> Finally, is declining population and slower growth a
problem rather
> than a description of a situation?

It seems to be a problem is one considers the burden it puts on the next to come generations.

Jean-Christophe Helary=