Japan's economy falls back into recession | Hacker News Reader

Japan's economy falls back into recession

bbc.com

93 pointskevindeasis105 comments

A -0.008 rate of GDP growth in a country with a -0.009 rate of working age labor force growth is actually positive growth, albeit slow. It is not in any realistic sense a recession.

Japan continues to be the first world nation with the best long term prospects for its citizens. The present standard of living is not clearly exceeded anywhere in the world.

Of course, adjustment to and recovery from severe overpopulation is going to create some difficulties over the next half century. It's nothing the country can't adjust to.

> best long term prospects for its citizens

Seems like you are conveniently ignoring the 300+ % of Japan's GDP of Public debt. Yeah, a bright future.

Most of that is internal debt, which is very different from over sea debt.

Why? (Not disputing, just would like to have a clear explanation.)

Lot's of reasons the most obvious is it does not impact trade or currency. However, from a repayment standpoint the debt payments are generally taxable which reduces the effective interest rate dramatically.

Hypothetical example: Interest rates are 8%, inflation is 5% = 3% over inflation. Now tax that 8% at 30% and your paying 5.6% - 5% inflation = 0.6% effective rate. (Assuming you don't let interest compound tax free.)

It most definitely affects the currency, and the currency of course affects trade.

The core difference between internal and external debt - or more precisely debt denominated in a country's sovereign currency vs. foreign currency - is that a country can typically always avoid defaulting on domestic debt by printing more money, despite typical "independence" of central banks. Rates on domestic debt can also be controlled in a similar way.

The Japanese Central Bank is currently undertaking a quantitative easing program of gargantuan proportions, which basically means that they create new money every month and use it to buy Japanese government bonds. They are, albeit indirectly, creating money and loaning it to the government, which then uses it to run a large deficit. Government social programs are significant. The effect on the currency has been dramatic, with the JPY depreciating nearly 40% over the last three years versus the dollar. The central is bank is expected by many analysts to expand the program in the near future.

Although the stated intention is to generate inflation, a cynic might suggest that without such massive buying by the central bank, the governments enormous debt load would soon be at risk of becoming unsustainable - JGB interest rates could easily become unserviceable as investors become more concerned.

QE is a separate and complex thing. Without going into M1 vs M2 etc. It creates short term virtual money while bonds are out there at the cost of destroying real money in the long term when there paid back.

If you actually want to create currency there better off buying junk bonds that don't get paid back. That or sell the bonds for less than they paid for them.

You understand the Japanese Central Bank is purchasing Securities (stocks), not simply Bonds like The US Fed did during QE and still does as it is currently rolling over all of the bonds and Mortgage Backed Securities which are maturing

This has the same issue. Dividends plus any gains when they sell the stocks remove currency from circulation.

Not at all considering the Japanese are using this to fund the nation's pension system, all of that currency goes back into circulation

? That does not sound like QE as it does not add any new money into the system.

Unless you mean they create money to buy the stuff, and then give the proceeds to the pension system.

That is exactly what the Japanese Central Bank is doing, were you unaware?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/boj-helps-tokyo-stocks-to-soar-1...

"Analysts say the bank’s action has been a significant driver of Japan’s stock-market rally in recent months, combined with hefty purchases by the $1.1 trillion Government Pension Investment Fund."

That sounds like there both buying stock, not that there is a handoff between the two. Quantitative easing is specifically something Central Banks do when they buy stuff using money created from thin air. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_creation

My point, is after a central bank buy something be it stocks, bonds, gold or pogo sticks with money created on the spot they add money to the economy. But, if they sell it for more than they bought them for then even more money is removed from circulation.

Where exactly do you think the JCB is getting that money? Its a form of QE whether you want to acknowledge it is or not. The rest of the world's economists agree

The BoJ’s most obvious easing option is more asset purchases. Despite the doubts of some market participants, BoJ officials do not think there is any practical obstacle to buying faster than the current pace of Y80tn a year. It could also expand the scope of purchases to assets such as local government debt, buy longer-term securities, as the US Federal Reserve did under Operation Twist, or — particularly likely given recent market falls — buy more exchange traded funds tracking the Japanese stock market. “We expect the BoJ will do more of the same — increasing the pace of purchases and buying more ETFs,” says Kiichi Murashima, a Citigroup analyst."

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d0867f3a-6b24-11e5-aca9-d8754...

Because the Japanese have effectively lent it to themselves.

A debt is a debt is a debt.

Debt is meant to be repaid, not held indefinitely. It is not being repaid because everyone knows (certainly in Japan's case, and most probably in other countries' cases) that it CANNOT be repaid and therefore WILL NOT be repaid. Debt 'servicing' is just sweeping the problem under the carpet.

What do you mean by "debt is meant to be repaid?" Debt is an asset for the lender, and debt service names it in l an income generated asset. Where it is not better for the borrower to pay it off now vs m continuing to pay debt service, and where the terms of the debt alow that (or where the debt service can be transferred by paying off one lender by borrowing from a new one), then it can be mutually beneficial to the parties involved not to pay off the debt. Debt does not have some cosmic purpose outside the interests of the parties involved. You may have a mental model of debt that preferred it being paid off, but that's quite possibly an irrational preference outside the circumstances of as particular debt.

Not sure why you downvoted my post. At 300% of GDP, Japan is the most indebted country in the world and essentially bankrupt (Greece is at 180%).

The government has a mountain of debt (300% of GDP) which it mostly owes to the people of Japan. Debt means the money has been spent, but -at maturity- the money needs to be returned to the lender (not all of them at once, of course).

But Japan does not have money to reduce the debt so keeps servicing the debt by artificially lowering borrowing costs and just finding new lenders to pay off former lenders. In case the Japanese find better safe places to park their money, borrowing costs will go up, causing the debt to balloon, and may cause financial meltdown.

This has been going on for the past 20+ years resulting in stagnation in Japan.

Japan's debt has been sold at generally less than its inflation rate for a decade, making servicing costs essentially below zero over the last decade. While that may not be stable, you can't get into a debt spiral with a negative interest rate.

That said, they have been running large deficits for a long time which is a separate issue.

At some point, borrowing costs will rise and then they are in big trouble.

Perhaps, it's an odd situation. If you exclude the Bank of Japan's holdings Japan's debt to GDP ratio is ~70%.

It's as if the FED used QE to increase the money supply and ended up owning most US public debt. Sure, on paper it would look bad, but there would be nobody to pay back that debt to.

I believe the stock HN response to mathematically certain sovereign debt disaster is either "print your way out" or "grow your way out".

> is either "print your way out"

I have yet to see any country which was able to get to an actual way out by inflating their currency. Reality always catches up.

The U.K went from a debt to gdp ratio of 225% to a low of 33%.[0] The U.S. went from a debt to gdp ratio of 120% down to 37%.[1] This isn't the first time countries have had to run large deficits.

[0]http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/11697/debt/post-war-boom/ [1]http://dailybail.com/home/chart-us-debt-to-gdp-1940-2015.htm...

In the US case, it "only" took 40+ years - and now we are sadly almost back at 100%+

Which is not quite as long as it's been since the time we had a recession of this magnitude.

Germany made their way out after WWI, but lets just say the results weren't pretty.

At least from historical precedent, it seems the best solution is to "cheat" your way out, by massively inflating a currency, then if hyperinflation kicks in, create a new currency in quick succession.

Huh, there are plenty of examples. Italy did it more than once, for example. But it isn't obvious whether its better to inflate or to default - both are painful and you need to be running a surplus barring interest payments or they might be disastrous.

And you are conveniently forgetting that Japan is the biggest creditor in the world and the one that possesses more foreign net assets than even China.

So yes... definitely a bright future despite the colossal "debt".

"It is not in any realistic sense a recession."

It fits the definition of a recession. I guess you are arguing that the definition of recession should be changed to use per capita GDP numbers. This isn't clear, however. From the standpoint of an investor, say, you want to invest in an enterprise that will grow. If your business is shrinking, it doesn't help you that it is growing per capita.

A recession is a general failure of businesses across all economic sectors. That's what the word has meant for three centuries.

Some modern witch doctors have literally made up arbitrary economic statistics and defined a particular pattern of those statistics to be a recession. I could define a recession to be stinky fermented soybeans and then Japan would always be full of delicious recession (mmm 納豆). You should not take either of those definitions too seriously.

What "overpopulation" are you talking about? The Japanese population is shrinking. Or do you mean "overpopulation of old people"?

Japan's population is about 127MM people. Sustainable population with healthy natural fish stocks, abundant open space, sufficient rice stocks with diverse strains, a high quality of life, cheap spacious housing, and nature reserves, woods, and wilderness to maintain a healthy ecology would be about 10MM-40MM. With low birth rates, Japan is on its way back down toward those happy sustainable levels.

Abundant open space? Cheap spacious housing?

Can't say if you are being sarcastic or not?

Do you think those things won't contribute to a happy life? I love open space and affordable housing and I'd like to have more.

Sorry, but I can't tell what you're getting at. What do you suppose would be sarcastic? Your comment needs a lot more explanation.

Ah, I did not quite get your comment - you are saying that _once they get to 40M (instead of 127M), they will have all those things - it will take a long time, though. Right now, Japan is famous for having very little open space and sky-high real-estate prices (and rents) - that's why I thought you were sarcastic.

sky-high real-estate prices ? May be minority of places, but most of the real estate prices are cheap. Very Cheap.

May be what you are referring to is Tokyo. And even then its not even SKY high compared to San Fransisco or Hong Kong.

I think the parent was saying they are on their way down to a population where open space would be more abundant and spacious housing would be more affordable, but they aren't there yet with their current population.

not true, you over-romanticize your view on that country

By some measures at 127 million inhabitants Japan is overpopulated. Example of such measures:

- Japan only produce enough food to feed half of its population, so an embargo on food imports would certainly result in a massive population shrinkage.

- Japanese people are concentrated in small plains: there is physically very little space.

On the other hand I've lived in Japan and love it, but I don't think population growth would be a reasonable option at this point.

Just take a look at the sheer mass of Tokyo, and that just becomes more truth than fiction. The US actually, is going to have a massive GDP issue once a generation passes from where we are today. Why? Baby boomer generation is retiring. If immigration is not allowed, we will have a bigger problem on our hands than President Trump's legacy (that's a joke, btw).

So, those numbers together indicate an increase in productivity -- but there are non-working age people in the economy that still need a slice of the pie. Productivity growth is good, but I'd focus on the larger population changes.

It's an investment in the future. The Japanese will be much better off with a third or a fifth of their current population someday on their overstuffed islands; that's going to require some shrinkage. If you intend to encourage everyone to live out his full natural lifespan in comfort -- as we should -- then it's going to cost a little. Shouldn't cost too much, though.

as for standards of living, what about Switzerland, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Luxembourg, quite a few Caribbean islands etc?

Just curious about such bold statements, Japan is not the type of country I would like to live in, for quite a few reasons

Okay, a handful of tiny countries with massive immigration of millionaire tax cheats may have more per capita cash. That's not meaningful in the context of a real sustainable large country.

"Japan is not the type of country I would like to live in"

I agree -- the weather isn't to my taste. Remember you're free to emigrate at any time.

For years I was misled by statements like this, into thinking that immigration is a decision you can make one day, and just polish off your passport, pack a bag, and flip the middle finger to your place of origin.

Who knows, maybe 40 years ago that was true, but it is emphatically NOT true now. Getting a work visa in another country is extremely difficult and generally takes years of preparation, outside a few narrow carveouts like working holiday. And yes, we in tech have it easier than others (besides medical doctors).

My corollary is yes, you are free to emigrate at any time, provided you have met the stringent requirements of your destination. To me it's like saying, you are free to swim across the Pacific Ocean.

It's easy to get a work permit if you've bothered to get a decent education in all sorts of desirable first world countries.

Japan is one. Canada, Mexico, Hong Kong, Korea. Probably lots of places in Europe, though I can't say which ones; people seem to go to Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic a lot. Most of those places you can literally just show up and be working in six weeks. Some take a little longer.

The only way it could be years of preparation is including your whole education.

I'm in tech and still had a difficult time finding a job that would provide a visa. And the visa process is a minimum of 2 to 3 months, meaning even if you got the job, you can't legally work for a long time, and hopefully they get you the visa before your traveling visa expires otherwise you get to fly out of the country to renew. Not necessarily cheap. Further, many jobs require strong Japanese skills which is a huge hurdle IMHO. I would hardly say it is easy.

While the west complains about immigration and the issues arising from it, here's the other side of the problem.

Japan has not grown significantly in the past 20 years and it won't grow again. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/japan/gdp

>Japan has not grown significantly in the past 20 years and it won't grow again.

You mean, Japan won't grow again this year? Or ever?

Interestingly, back in the 1980s, we Americans thought Japan was going to take over in every market: automotive manufacturing, high tech and consumer electronics, software, even space travel eventually. They were buying up iconic American properties like Rockefeller Center, and Japanese culture was all the rage.

Then something strange happened in the '90s: the Internet. Suddenly the Americans (and some Europeans) roared back into first place and left Japan just idling by the side of the road. It was a remarkable turnaround.

By the same token, I would expect Japan eventually to bounce back from its current doldrums. China is a huge challenge to Japanese manufacturers, but they are still incredibly clever and innovative. Their aging population may do a number on that innovation, though; a new baby boom is probably their best hope.

>Interestingly, back in the 1980s, we Americans thought Japan was going to take over in every market: automotive manufacturing, high tech and consumer electronics, software, even space travel eventually. They were buying up iconic American properties like Rockefeller Center, and Japanese culture was all the rage. > >Then something strange happened in the '90s: the Internet.

The Internet had nothing to do with it. Japan was simply in the midst of a titanic property bubble which subsequently popped:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble

That's only a part of it. Between 1960 and 1985 Japan's per capita GDP quintupled (even adjusting for inflation). That huge economic growth on the back of a strong manufacturing and high-technology base made Japan seem like it had unstoppable economic momentum. But, of course, it didn't. Japan's economy is still very large and very advanced but it stopped growing and hasn't been able to keep up with innovation in the rest of the world.

>That's only a part of it. Between 1960 and 1985 Japan's per capita GDP quintupled

Yeah, and a lot of that was phony growth caused by debt and unsustainable asset price rises.

I think OP meant that, given the shrinking population, total GDP won't grow, even if per capita GDP does.

People routinely conflate GDP growth and GDP per capita growth. For example, US GDP growth seems high relative to other rich countries because the US has more immigration and a higher birth rate. This leads to more GDP, though not necessarily GDP per capita.

So, Japan could actually get richer (per person) as their economy shrinks.

This also means that defining recession only in total GDP terms may be misleading.

I think that the Plaza Accord had its toll on the Japanese economy and only benefited the Americans and Europeans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord

Did it help the Germans?

Yes, Japan will grow again if it finds a way to expand productivity in one sector.

You're right about Japan getting behind after the internet. I guess their way of working is not compatible with the velocity demanded by this new field. Can you imagine Salaryman getting the latest on the new Angular.js version? (or even JS for that matter?)

Germany drastically increased its GDP while not growing its population over 40 years.

Population expansion is in no way necessary for economic expansion. The people arguing for immigration on the basis of it being required for meaningful economic growth are pushing propaganda, the facts easily prove them wrong.

Productivity gains, new inventions, new processes, stability, science, R&D, sound monetary and fiscal policy - all far more important than merely increasing your population. There's endless proof of this, see: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Finland, New Zealand.

Or better yet, see: Japan 1974, to 1994. 10% population growth, 1000% economic growth. If population were an integral factor, their growth would have been pathetic over that time.

Japan's growth problem is debt, it's destroying the capital that would otherwise be available for investment and business formation. The collapse of their savings rate has gone in tandem with that, and has further removed capital required for investment to generate productivity gains across an economy. Most of Europe and the US are mirroring that exact outcome, having loaded up on massive amounts of debt, they now find they can't grow beyond extremely low levels. China is in the process of joining that club as well. You can have growth or tons of debt, you can't have both together for long.

I don't think the case that large debt destroys growth is as open and shut as you seem to imply.

You mention debt destroys growth by reducing available capital. This is because the government's borrowing of money increases the demand for capital. The government's increased demand for capital can drive up the price of capital to the point where many private enterprises can't afford it. This is called crowding out.

The price to borrow capital is the interest rate. If you look at the problem in Japan and most of the developed world you find remarkably low interest rates. This tells us that we don't have a scarcity of capital and a surplus of opportunities but a glut of capital and a drought of opportunities. We have a large supply of capital and not enough places to use it.

If capital was like any other good it would fall to market clearing levels. The problem is that there is an arbitrary price floor on capital. You can't charge anyone less than 0% interest. Which gives you a price floor of a real interest rate of 0% - inflation. This is why so many countries are trying to get inflation. Because if we can get an inflation of 4% we can have a real interest rate of -4% and reduce the price floor on capital.

And Germany managed to do it in cooperation with unions (rather than eliminating them, see UK, US).

German unions are rather different beasts than their UK and US counterparts.

Oh I don't disagree with you on that, increase in productivity is one way of increasing GDP

However I don't see this happening in Japan right now.

I agree with the debt commentary

For my own country Denmark, if you adjust GDP for population growth (which is due to immigration) and inflation, we did not have any growth for the past two decades.

However we did successfully create a housing boom/bubble, while the Japanese are deflating theirs.

Also as others have mentioned GDP can be an amazingly stupid measure where crime or an poorly organised health care system give higher output while harm.

Japan is a wealthy country.

To add to this discussion, the pyramid scheme of constant population growth to pay for the elderly is not going to be sustainable forever in first world countries.

Maybe Japan is intelligently embracing these 'growing pains' (by which I mean the pain resulting from a shrinking population, which the west will have to face at some point) now, by investing in robots and automation. I think they are getting a head start in a race against ageing that we will all (all of us with birthrates below 2.1, that is) have to compete in at some point.

well, they tend to be a bit racist, xenophobic (just ask koreans how they are treated) and super-closed to foreigners

No terrorist attacks either.

Japan has been in a debt-deflation cycle for a quarter century and the west is headed the same direction. http://i.imgur.com/PQ6HNay.png

The other side is stable economy and conserved cultural values, it would seem.

And an enviable level of social trust.

I think Japan will manage. Not sure about Europe.

Endless growth is impossible.

Generally "Physical growth" and "GDP growth" are not really similar.

A number can grow infinitely. Tree or human population can not.

GDP approximates perceived value prodced by society. In capitalism, saying GDP cannot grow anymore is essentially saying humans don't want anything you can buy with money to be better in any perceivable way. Give average guy huge amount of money, if he burns it for shits and giggles, then GDP cannot grow anymore.

> Generally "Physical growth" and "GDP growth" are not really similar.

No, two different things. But just the same, neither can grow infinitely.

> A number can grow infinitely.

Especially if it's a measure of a scale that's constantly adjusting itself.

Your explanation of economic growth sounds like how American capitalists justify the existence of growth economies. Economic growth cannot be infinite, just like physical growth. Economic growth depends on resources just like any other kind of growth. When the resources run out, the everything stops. You can't math your way out of that.

The only way to sustain our current economic burn at our current (and growing) population is to move off-planet.

There is nothing American about it. Global sum of all GDP's has grown for all recorded history. Even if inflation adjusted.

If you mean that GPD can't grow "infinitely" as infinitely high value, then I agree. If you claim it can't grow for infinitely long time, well at some point sun is going to swallow earth or heath death happens, I agree again. If you claim that GDP doesn't necessarily grow exponentially, I agree again. I'd say the last one is even likely.

But my point was that there is no known inherent phenomena, that would force economic growth to end in the timescale of human life. End of oil could be it, or it could be offset with different energy sources, different types of consumption and more energy efficiency.

I see your point and I think you and me may have different ideas of what growth means. To my credit, wrt "growth" I was referring to GP's comment "Endless growth is impossible" which doesn't mean GDP inherently, and the statement is true as far as "if a system is growing, it needs growing resources to support itself."

Sure, if we convert to solar and maintain our population, then we can sustain ourselves until the sun explodes, but that is not growth no matter what our GDP says.

My point is that if GDP, as a measure, somehow indicates that economic growth can be sustained indefinitely (barring acts of God of course) then it is flawed.

GDP is very much flawed in the sense of "how much humanity has achieved". You need some kind of moral framework for that. And I really don't think you can go with money = good. And you might also need some kind of better measure for achievement as separate from ethics.

But it's answering a completely different question. It's trying to answer the question "has the system we call economy optimized itself during the time span we are looking". The "optimized" here is referring to Pareto efficiency more than anything else. But GDP is not that good tool even for this. I chose it to have something definite to discuss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

Personally I see capitalism as quite shitty tool for distributing and managing resources. But in globalized and interconnected world we have to operate in low trust environment. With such mutual lack of trust, capitalism is suddenly the best possible system for doing stuff.

EDIT: Theoretically perceived value can be added to system with constant amount of resources. You would probably gladly pay 10$ for very fine stamped shovel that light weight. If there is 15$ crude, rusty, heavy welded shovel right next to it, it doesn't look all that appealing. You normally don't perceive situations like this because the system is working so well. Any product out there could be optimized for slightly less material usage while not making it worse in any way, that would directly increase the profit margin. That would show in GDP.

Currently we don't do that, because engineers are busy doing other stuff. But if there would be price increase in materials, the picture changes automatically.

> Economic growth depends on resources

That's a point from ... long past.

Dollar, yen, euro, bitcoin(!) have no direct relation to resources.

So, I agree with your opponent that economic growth is not limited in principle.

Real economic growth (NB: inflation adjusted) cannot grow infinitely. In fact, growth of the value of the currencies you've listed points instead to the finite nature of resources, since they have no intrinsic value, except as a measure of exchange for other goods and services. Supply of resources being constricted means that fiat currencies will go up over time. That doesn't mean that economic growth is infinite.

> Dollar, yen, euro, bitcoin(!) have no direct relation to resources.

Made up numbers (ie the value of the dollar, bitcoin, etc) need to be reconciled at some point. The value doesn't come from nowhere. If the bitcoin value GOES UP it's because people are putting money into it. The price doesn't go down when people buy it, it goes up. That's a currency exchange, it's not creating value from nothing.

That's what I'm referring to as a "resource." Not just iron or silicon.

The entire 2008 crash happened because people were trying to create massive amounts of value from nothing.

The idea that any system needs resources to grow isn't an opinion, it's a universal constant.

Japan's trend growth is zero. This is business as usual, not bad economy. If we want recession to mean bad economy, definition of recession for Japan needs to be revised.

See http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31307.

> This is business as usual, not bad economy

Japan needs actually steady growth if it is to tackle its public debt sooner or later. Or then drastic measures will have to be taken at some point.

The public debt can be traded away with the high foreign exchange reserves or inflated away if it becomes a problem. There's no need to worry too much about it now as all the creditors seem eager to roll it over at low rates forever.

Drastic measures are not on the horizon.

Inflation of public debt is just destroying Savings and Private investment, which is the opposite of what you want for a growing Economy.

I'm not recommending hyperinflation. Countries like Japan and the USA with their current levels of debt will someday have to inflate or they will have to renounce the debt officially. That is a mathematical certainty.

But that day is a long way off. Low inflation is better. If exchange rates are out of balance, such as in Japan in 2010, inflation in the prices of only imports should be sufficient and that should be moderate at worst.

In any case it's nothing to worry about now.

Remember the late 90s, when Fed chairman Greenspan was terrified the national debt might actually be paid off someday (denying the rich an investment in our future taxes)?

actually, you want to destroy savings to get a growing economy, because it incentivises spending. Why hold onto yen if they'll be worthless in a year? Might as well turn them into tangibles now

That's not really how investment works. For a private company to be able to invest in infrastructure and equipment, you need access to hard cash, and therefore savings procured through banks as lenders. If everything is at credit, it's not sustainable.

It's time we start to distinguish between financial and real assets. Financial assets are not "real".

Growing an economy is building infrastructure, knowledge, real and human capital. Things that allow improve the quality of life of the people.

Inflation could imply redistribution but not necessarily destroying real assets. Deflation, in the other hand can only be solved by destroying real economy in order to adjust it to the financial economy.

"Deflation, in the other hand can only be solved by destroying real economy in order to adjust it to the financial economy."

Abenomics had no trouble reversing deflation in 2010-2013. You just have to really mean it and not depend on the bankers to do it for you. There was zero harm to the real economy.

You are right. I didn't express myself properly.

My point was about the fashionable view of fixing the economy by "internal devaluation" that is so in vogue in Europe.

For a country like Japan which has a declining workforce and population. Maybe it would give a clearer picture to look at GDP pr. worker or GDP pr. populus?

I am not so sure it would look so bad then.

PS: The tourism section surely is booming. :-)

It looks really bad in fact. Their place in terms of GDP per capita is a disaster.

In 1987 they matched and then surpassed the US on GDP per capita. Within ten years from today they'll be at half (or less) the GDP per capita level of the US.

If Japan continues with their blatantly failed Yen destruction policies (meant to debase their debt), they'll rapidly sink below other countries they used to tower over on GDP per capita, such as Spain or New Zealand.

Preliminary 2015 figures peg their GDP per capita at 24th, at $32k. The US is nearly $56k by comparison.

This is a classic example of the problems with using real GDP as a measure of anything. The US GDP counts crime and corruption as positive contributors to the economy; the error is so deeply embedded in the idea of GDP that economists have a name for it: the Broken Window Fallacy. Japan's GDP counts the world's most efficient urban infrastructure, best rail system, and world's best urban zoning, transit, and development practices against it because it makes unsubsidized city living relatively cheap. Inflation calculations in both countries are nothing but political propaganda.

If you measure cost of living against typical wages, Japan outperforms the USA and far surpasses the UK and almost all of Europe. Just compute a budget including owning a home in a good school district in a safe neighborhood. Don't forget health care and owning two or three cars in the USA. Add back in the value of all the untaxed employer provided benefits in Japan.

>Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

-Robert Kennedy, Speech at the University of Kansas at Lawrence (18 March 1968)

Something to keep in mind is that Japan is very impacted by the economy of China: Not just direct exports and tourism, but as the rest of Asia suffers from the slow down in China that also impacts Japanese exports as well. And on the tech side many Japanese brands from Sharp to Sony haven't been doing too well.

Excuse the over-simplification, but is the Japanese government's reluctance to proactively stimulate their economy built partially on a desire to secure the pension for a few more years (both as a product of cultural expectations and the appeasing mostly elderly voter-base)?

Some reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenomics#Implementation

They've been attempting to stimulate the economy already. As you mention, viability of pensions is very important in Japan. Much of their savings and investments are in Japanese bonds.

It is likely a major piece of the puzzle and will also be due to reverence of their elderly.

Ah yes, that's what I meant by "cultural expectations," but "reverence" is certainly a far more succinct way to describe it.

Plus global trade is down. I am afraid the future is looking a bit darker than usual.

Taxing themselves out of growth. Effectively their tax rates are too high on individuals and business that there is no incentive to spend or grow. Similar reason why any supposed US recovery has been anemic.

We've got the fourth lowest tax rate among OECD convention countries (if we're looking at taxes vs GDP). Look at it from a perspective of rates on $100k gross income, and we're still not even in the top 50%.

I don't think any US economic issues can be laid at the feet of our tax rates with that in mind.

Interestingly enough, Japan is usually only 3 positions above us in Tax/GDP, and 9 positions above us in Tax/$100K, which calls the thesis of this article into question...

US corporate tax rates are the highest among developed countries, however. Capital gains are also taxed higher in the U.S. than most other OECD countries.

Perhaps it all balances out between lower personal and higher corporate; I don't know. But there are so many other factors involved--debt, military activity, outsourcing trends, health and fitness, weather--that one can't realistically call out taxation as a major cause of macroeconomic trends.

But Japans central bank has printed more money and longer than most countries and it still does not work in making its economy grow.

Western countries has copied Japans money printing expecting it to work better for us than in Japan. "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

We will need to engineer a new economic system that can deal with climate change which requires less physical goods. Valuing things more like renewable energy, repair ability, upgrade ability.

The policy responses in the west have been very different from in Japan. For a start Europe only started doing anything like QE this year, and only in a very limited fashion compared to the US or Britain.

If you look at the US and Britain, they did carry out extensive money printing operations in the form of QE, but they also let their economy take the hit hard and early in the form of bankruptcies, job losses and housing devaluation. As a result, their economies have largely been through the pain. The US economy particularly has bounced back and it actually doing pretty well in global terms with growth of 3.7%. That's hardly 'the same results' as in Japan.

So Europe followed a completely different path and is still stuck with low growth, while America and Britain did use QE but avoided falling back into recession. It's not as if everything's come up roses in the West, we still have major challenges to deal with, but how things have panned out is completely different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com