3 ms·

This is incorrect. GDP growth in Japan jumped when it became clear Abenomics was going forward, and un-jumped when the recent tax increase went in. The annuali

This is incorrect. GDP growth in Japan jumped when it became clear Abenomics was going forward, and un-jumped when the recent tax increase went in. The annualized growth[1] in between these two periods has been greater than 2%, with falling unemployment, despite a declining workforce. The growth right before Abenomics was negative and falling. [1] For this comparison, make sure to use annualized QoQ figures. Data-illiterate people have been using YoY figures to argue Abenomics doesn't work, but these are distorted by the pre-Abenomics recessionary plunge in 2012.

ekianjo 12y ago
I'm not talking about short-term changes in GDP. I'm talking about longer term ones, obviously. Nothing in Economics is worth measuring on a 6 month scale. Political decisions on the Economical climate take dozens of years to take their toll and have marking impact.
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  You have things exactly backwards. Monetary policy is considered neutral in the long run. The real economy is definitely not. Monetary shocks are a passing phenomenon. Loss of GDP hurts for a very long time.
adventured 12y ago
Real GDP did not jump. Japan massively debased their currency, that provided a fake spike to both GDP and the stock market. In real terms, their stock market has gone down, and their GDP has contracted even more than the nominal terms show.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Or rather, instead of putting more money into their economy by printing it, which was working extraordinarily well, they instead decided to pull money back out with a huge rise in a regressive tax. "Real GDP" is some kind of economic truther term. If you can sell debt at a low interest rate, whatever paper you've generated is "real" because the market is still buying it.
  - nhaehnle 12y ago
    To be fair, "real GDP" has a somewhat precise economic meaning as measuring GDP while taking inflation into account; i.e., take nominal GDP and divide it by some measure of inflation (it is only somewhat precise because one can quibble about which inflation measure should be used). In general though, you are right that especially "real growth", as the antonym of "fake growth", is often used in a way that has economic truther feel to it.

ekianjo 12y ago

I'm not talking about short-term changes in GDP. I'm talking about longer term ones, obviously. Nothing in Economics is worth measuring on a 6 month scale. Political decisions on the Economical climate take dozens of years to take their toll and have marking impact.

cynicalkane 12y ago
You have things exactly backwards. Monetary policy is considered neutral in the long run. The real economy is definitely not. Monetary shocks are a passing phenomenon. Loss of GDP hurts for a very long time.

adventured 12y ago

Real GDP did not jump. Japan massively debased their currency, that provided a fake spike to both GDP and the stock market. In real terms, their stock market has gone down, and their GDP has contracted even more than the nominal terms show.

pessimizer 12y ago
Or rather, instead of putting more money into their economy by printing it, which was working extraordinarily well, they instead decided to pull money back out with a huge rise in a regressive tax. "Real GDP" is some kind of economic truther term. If you can sell debt at a low interest rate, whatever paper you've generated is "real" because the market is still buying it.
- nhaehnle 12y ago
  To be fair, "real GDP" has a somewhat precise economic meaning as measuring GDP while taking inflation into account; i.e., take nominal GDP and divide it by some measure of inflation (it is only somewhat precise because one can quibble about which inflation measure should be used). In general though, you are right that especially "real growth", as the antonym of "fake growth", is often used in a way that has economic truther feel to it.