4 ms·

> The US cannot win but they can slow things down to maintain their dominance as long as they can. They (the USA) fucked up Japan pretty bad. Throughout the 7

> The US cannot win but they can slow things down to maintain their dominance as long as they can. They (the USA) fucked up Japan pretty bad. Throughout the 70s-80s the USA was fearful of the rise of Japan, their incredible ability to usurp American businesses, and their growing trade deficit surplus, which they then rolled back into US T-bonds. From an American perspective, Japan was in the 70s what China is today. In the early-80s, the Yen-to-dollar ratio was really high. This kicked off an inflationary asset bubble within the country that lasted for several years. Starting in 1985, the yen-to-dollar ratio collapsed, falling by half from mid ¥200s in just two years and reaching a low of ¥85 by 95. Japan entered the Lost Decade as a result of this situation. The lost decade became two, then the GFC happened, bringing it to three decades. It is suspected that this was the result of an intentional attack on the Japanese economy by US officials with the express intent to curb Japan's rising economic power.

thereare5lights 6y ago
Japan doesn't have over 4x the population of US and a comparable amount of land. China has many advantages that Japan doesn't have. It's not a given that the same thing will happen.
ampdepolymerase 6y ago
> In the early-80s, the Yen-to-dollar ratio was really high. This kicked off an inflationary asset bubble within the country that lasted for several years. I believe this is commonly referred to in geopolitics as the Plaza Accord.
triceratops 6y ago
Japan never realistically had any shot at overtaking the US economy. They have 1/3rd the population, 1/4th the land, next to no natural resources, and very little immigration. It's a testament to the nation's effort, ingenuity, and strength of character that they got as close to the US economically, as they did in the half-century after WW2. But it could never have been that close in the long term.
- refurb 6y ago
  You realize there are several countries, like Singapore, that are in the same situation (small population, little land, no natural resources) that already exceed the US on a GDP/capita basis?
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Singapore's GDP per capita isn't actually higher than the US but I get your overall point. The key differences there are "small nation" and "GDP/capita". Singapore is more comparable to a metropolitan region in the US, such as New York or Los Angeles, rather than the entire country. There are smaller countries that have a higher GDP on average. Although some of those are suspect in reality; Ireland's is higher, but no one thinks of Ireland as especially more prosperous than say England. I wonder if it's because it's a tax haven. Japan is not a small country at all. It's probably in the top 10 for population (off the top of my head, China > India > USA > Indonesia > Nigeria > Russia > Japan?). But there are no medium-to-large countries - population 35m+ - whose GDP per capita is within $10k of the US. The US is an outlier. Moreover, I was talking about total GDP and not per capita. Among the current nations, only China and India have any hope of overtaking the US within our lifetimes (very slim for India). And that's only because of their gargantuan populations - per capita they'll still be far behind. For Japan to have overtaken the US in the 90s, they would have had to have a GDP per capita 3x of the US - which no country of any size has even today. Japan got really close, which is very impressive given its size.
    - mytailorisrich 6y ago
      Japan is a small country for the discussion at hand, which is threatening the US's dominance. > And that's only because of their gargantuan populations All things being equal the relative economic and industrial power of countries is proportional to their population. Unless a catastrophe befalls the US it's the countries with comparable or larger population that are threats. These includes the EU, actually, which is why the US are always wary of further EU integration. With the likes of the EU, China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, the US will pretty much inevitably lose their dominance and become one of the "big guys", key words being 'one of', not 'the' and not the biggest of the big guys, either.
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Japan is a small country with a much smaller population. It's not the same situation at all. China has 4x the population of the US. The US have 4x the population of the UK. Did the UK manage to stop the rise of the US? No. The US is much larger than any European country and thus it was inevitable that they became the dominant power (Europe helped by self-destructing, but economically the US had already overtaken European countries). The only way the US can remain dominant is by trying to keep 'third world' countries poor. Once massive countries are on a strong development path it's just a matter of time and this is what's happening with China. India also has the potential to overtake the US. In the future Nigeria could as well. This is actually an optimistic view as it assumes that no country is bound to be poor forever.

thereare5lights 6y ago

Japan doesn't have over 4x the population of US and a comparable amount of land. China has many advantages that Japan doesn't have. It's not a given that the same thing will happen.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago

> In the early-80s, the Yen-to-dollar ratio was really high. This kicked off an inflationary asset bubble within the country that lasted for several years. I believe this is commonly referred to in geopolitics as the Plaza Accord.

triceratops 6y ago

Japan never realistically had any shot at overtaking the US economy. They have 1/3rd the population, 1/4th the land, next to no natural resources, and very little immigration. It's a testament to the nation's effort, ingenuity, and strength of character that they got as close to the US economically, as they did in the half-century after WW2. But it could never have been that close in the long term.

refurb 6y ago
You realize there are several countries, like Singapore, that are in the same situation (small population, little land, no natural resources) that already exceed the US on a GDP/capita basis?
- triceratops 6y ago
  Singapore's GDP per capita isn't actually higher than the US but I get your overall point. The key differences there are "small nation" and "GDP/capita". Singapore is more comparable to a metropolitan region in the US, such as New York or Los Angeles, rather than the entire country. There are smaller countries that have a higher GDP on average. Although some of those are suspect in reality; Ireland's is higher, but no one thinks of Ireland as especially more prosperous than say England. I wonder if it's because it's a tax haven. Japan is not a small country at all. It's probably in the top 10 for population (off the top of my head, China > India > USA > Indonesia > Nigeria > Russia > Japan?). But there are no medium-to-large countries - population 35m+ - whose GDP per capita is within $10k of the US. The US is an outlier. Moreover, I was talking about total GDP and not per capita. Among the current nations, only China and India have any hope of overtaking the US within our lifetimes (very slim for India). And that's only because of their gargantuan populations - per capita they'll still be far behind. For Japan to have overtaken the US in the 90s, they would have had to have a GDP per capita 3x of the US - which no country of any size has even today. Japan got really close, which is very impressive given its size.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Japan is a small country for the discussion at hand, which is threatening the US's dominance. > And that's only because of their gargantuan populations All things being equal the relative economic and industrial power of countries is proportional to their population. Unless a catastrophe befalls the US it's the countries with comparable or larger population that are threats. These includes the EU, actually, which is why the US are always wary of further EU integration. With the likes of the EU, China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, the US will pretty much inevitably lose their dominance and become one of the "big guys", key words being 'one of', not 'the' and not the biggest of the big guys, either.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Japan is a small country with a much smaller population. It's not the same situation at all. China has 4x the population of the US. The US have 4x the population of the UK. Did the UK manage to stop the rise of the US? No. The US is much larger than any European country and thus it was inevitable that they became the dominant power (Europe helped by self-destructing, but economically the US had already overtaken European countries). The only way the US can remain dominant is by trying to keep 'third world' countries poor. Once massive countries are on a strong development path it's just a matter of time and this is what's happening with China. India also has the potential to overtake the US. In the future Nigeria could as well. This is actually an optimistic view as it assumes that no country is bound to be poor forever.