• ImplyingImplications
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Economics Explained has an interesting video on the topic. After WWII, Japan became the first country in Asia to undergo an industrial revolution and soon became the second largest economy after the US and was by many accounts set to match or even overtake the US. They then suffered an economic collapse due to unchecked growth and speculative markets and decided to never again speculate on the future and just stick to tried and true methods.

    Since the 1990s, Japan’s economy has barely changed while other nations have seen huge growth. You’d assume that would mean Japan is now far behind, but they aren’t. They seem to have mastered keeping everything the same for decades without the normal decline that comes with it.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      12 hours ago

      And that, actually, is a great thing. You don’t want explosive growth, you want stability. This is a lesson the US is learning right now

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      After WWII, Japan became the first country in Asia to undergo an industrial revolution

      After WW2? Industrialization during the 20s/30s was the whole reason they attempted to conqueror the Oceanic island states and the Chinese/Korean/Indochinese mainland.

      They then suffered an economic collapse due to unchecked growth and speculative markets and decided to never again speculate on the future and just stick to tried and true methods.

      The Japanese Economy was undone by The Plaza Accord and The Louvre Accord, which western nations used to devalue their currency and undermine Japanese export prices. The downturn, followed by a financialized corporate consolidation and expropriation of revenues through foreign investment, permanently crippled the Japanese economy in the aftermath of the 90s Asian recession.

      What sets countries like Japan, Korea, and the Philippines apart from China is the domestic control of their industries. Their markets are dominated by private equity and fixated on steady profit margins rather than long term public investments. Consequently, the capital cities are flooded with cash and industrial development while the rural areas are devoid of commerce. There’s no shortage of speculation, but its rooted in the private equity markets and focused largely on fictitious capital - debt instruments and their derivatives - rather than real capital or technology.

      Chinese investment in the periphery and its rising tide of middle class wage earners is what propels them into the 21st century. They’re the ones building out new transit lines, new public housing projects, new universities, and blue sky research. The Xi Government is openly hostile to speculative investment, doesn’t bother to bail out failing financial institutions, and focuses primarily on expansion of utilities, trade corridors, and mixed us developments.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      Honestly, sounds great to me. I know they’ve had “issues” (is it really an issue for me if my money becomes more valuable?) with deflation, but I’d be OK with that if it meant no more speculation.

      • tetris11@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        They’ll survive it, their markets and investments aren’t overvalued like ours are. They’ll crash, re-evaluate their societal priorities, and start to build again

          • tetris11@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 hours ago

            I mean every society has to rebuild after a crash, I’m just optimistic that they’ll do it faster

              • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                14 hours ago

                Got a summary? I know the onus is on me, but I’m not likely to dig much further

                  • jackeryjoo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    14 hours ago

                    Within 50 years, the whole world population is going to shrink dramatically, and it will have nothing to do with declining birth rates.

                  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    14 hours ago

                    Yeah, but that’s only a problem if elderly orderlies is an underpaid job that no one wants, and if people can’t afford to live on it when choosing such a profession.

                    If the economy adjusts or society adjusts such that caring for the elderly is a highly sought out and secure job that can easily pay a mortgage, what’s the issue?

                    This is what I mean when I say they will crash and their economy will adjust.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        No, they’re absolutely not. Their GDP will majorly decline, but their QOL will stay the same or even improve and their GDP per capita also won’t see much change.

        Birtherism is bullshit.

        • Shard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 minutes ago

          I’m interested to know how you believe the elderly will be cared for? Let’s assume for a moment they have no issues financially supporting the elderly, but physically who is supposed to care for them? Who will make up the nurses, doctors and caretakers now that their population pyramid looks like a chicken drumstick?

        • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Their nation needs tax revenue. That depends on having people to tax. If the population declines too much they cannot afford to maintain social services and QoL will decline.

          None of this is particularly controversial or surprising.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            15 hours ago

            The services’ costs are dependent on the number of recipients. They’re already in the slump of elderly being a drain on the system, it can only get better not worse.

            The only concern of the population decline that I can see is the decrease in funding available for Military Expenses.

            And, if things get really bad, all they have to do is open up for immigration and able bodied workers will magically appear.

              • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                14 hours ago

                If Generation A has a higher number of people than Generation B then when Generation A dies off there will be a lower number of elderly. It’s a temporary slump. It might last a decade or more, but it is temporary.

                According to your source the Percentage of people aged over 65 peaks in 2042 or 2043 at about 38% if the government does nothing, compared to the 29.6% currently.

                Right now a lot of skilled workers are fleeing to the EU, so Japan could totally capitalize on that. Or it can just educate its population to be skilled labor and give all the low skilled labor (if that even exists) to immigrants. Immigrants work hard for lower wages and are less prone to crime, there is no good faith argument against that.

                • RowRowRowYourBot@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  The projected population of elderly people is projected to be 40% of the total population within 50 years unless substantial shifts happen. They are not replacing workers fast enough.

                  Japan has never wanted more immigrants and soon they will need a LOT of immigrants. Japan’s traditional xenophobia might prevent them for getting enough people.

      • Cait@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        15 hours ago

        That’d require significant societal change to an environment where having children is actually manageable