Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 353
@Purplelibraryguy Compare the US, which has a rough average of 3% growth per year. France is slightly under 2%. Likewise for Germany and the UK. South Korea is at around 2.5% or so. Those countries have had much more consistent growth than Japan, and it has generally been less cyclical.
And no, cyclical is not incompatible with stagnant. You're ignoring the fact that this is how professional, academic, and expert writers actually use the words. It is a fact that those kinds of writers actually do describe the Japanese economy as stagnant. There are tons of articles on that. It is also a fact that Japanese GDP per capita has experienced a cyclical pattern of rising to only fall to only rise to only fall again for the past thirty or so years. This is how people actually use the terms.
And there comes the problem. You're ignoring the terms that are often used. You have tried to dismiss it as poor analysis, but your analysis seems shoddy at best and even worse than others. This is not me trying to appeal to authority. I'm saying that the actual data, as shown in my first paragraph as well as others. Just look at this chart. https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=gdp+per+capita+south+korea That compares Japan, South Korea, and Italy. Since roughly 1992 or 1993, Japan's GDP per capita goes through rise and fall cycles. Meanwhile, South Korea and Italy both have much more consistent growth even if they do both have dips.
What you have done is try to act like you're above this all despite the fact that you couldn't even back up anything with facts. It's all too common for someone who is clearly wrong to just quit and act like they're above it all.
And no, cyclical is not incompatible with stagnant. You're ignoring the fact that this is how professional, academic, and expert writers actually use the words. It is a fact that those kinds of writers actually do describe the Japanese economy as stagnant. There are tons of articles on that. It is also a fact that Japanese GDP per capita has experienced a cyclical pattern of rising to only fall to only rise to only fall again for the past thirty or so years. This is how people actually use the terms.
And there comes the problem. You're ignoring the terms that are often used. You have tried to dismiss it as poor analysis, but your analysis seems shoddy at best and even worse than others. This is not me trying to appeal to authority. I'm saying that the actual data, as shown in my first paragraph as well as others. Just look at this chart. https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZLBR&pc=MOZI&q=gdp+per+capita+south+korea That compares Japan, South Korea, and Italy. Since roughly 1992 or 1993, Japan's GDP per capita goes through rise and fall cycles. Meanwhile, South Korea and Italy both have much more consistent growth even if they do both have dips.
What you have done is try to act like you're above this all despite the fact that you couldn't even back up anything with facts. It's all too common for someone who is clearly wrong to just quit and act like they're above it all.
