Slow Motion wo Mou Ichido - Vol. 7 Ch. 53 - The Doors of Summer
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2018
- Messages
- 38
@rpapo I thought it was implying that her mother was the girl shown winning on the show, running to the man she would marry, and singing with in the outbuilding. In other words, her mother was an aspiring idol, probably got pregnant and had to give up that dream, then the guy disappeared and she blames him for it.
She wants to forget all of it, but her daughter keeps digging it up unknowingly.
She wants to forget all of it, but her daughter keeps digging it up unknowingly.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2018
- Messages
- 2,215
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2018
- Messages
- 81
I think she tried to be an idol for his sake but something happened and things went awry. However, the resemblance between the mother and her daughter is uncanny. More than her daughter, she looks like her clone 🤭
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 353
Tossing out ideas, but I think it's focused on the 80s because that's the last time that Japan had any significant growth. Look up lost decade and lost score. It has even looked like Japan has had a lost triple decade (I don't think there's a single word in English for thirty). That's just me tossing it out there.
@FredFriendly I agree it's been dragging out and that it should've ended long ago. On the flip side, we're finally seeing an opportunity for Yakushimaru to grow and stop being such an immensely unlikable garbage human.
@FredFriendly I agree it's been dragging out and that it should've ended long ago. On the flip side, we're finally seeing an opportunity for Yakushimaru to grow and stop being such an immensely unlikable garbage human.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2018
- Messages
- 1,583
Milf
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,340
@comeonnow People are a bit fooled about Japan's economy--probably including a lot of Japanese. The thing about Japan is, if you look at GDP growth the economy looks lousy and has for some time. If you look at GDP growth per capita, they've been doing fine. It's just the population is shrinking. Which is fine because Japan has a pretty dense population.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 353
@Purplelibraryguy I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that. I was specifically looking at GDP per capita, which has stagnated for the past thirty years or so, rising only to fall to rise and fall again within a narrow-ish range. There are statistics that show wages (by purchasing power) have actually decreased under current Abenomics (debatable, but not unreasonable).
So, yeah, disagree.
So, yeah, disagree.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,340
@comeonnow Wages by purchasing power is a whole other question--I don't know if any piece of the first world has been doing well by that measure for the past 30 years or so, especially if you look at median figures rather than averages skewed by the massive growth at the top. Certainly North America hasn't, pretty sure Britain hasn't, France . . . anyone except I dunno, perhaps the Scandinavians and maybe Germany. So probably Japan hasn't either. And I'm certainly no fan of Abenomics; it was a bait and switch from the start. No, it's not like I'd argue Japan's economy is healthy. But then, the whole world's economy isn't healthy.
Where we diverge is that, from what I remember seeing, when you factor in the (lack of) population growth, they stop being an outlier in GDP growth and turn out to be in the middle of the pack, "doing fine" in the sense that they're not doing particularly worse than other first world economies. Unless one of us feels like putting in the effort to check, I guess we'll stay in disagreement on that.
Where we diverge is that, from what I remember seeing, when you factor in the (lack of) population growth, they stop being an outlier in GDP growth and turn out to be in the middle of the pack, "doing fine" in the sense that they're not doing particularly worse than other first world economies. Unless one of us feels like putting in the effort to check, I guess we'll stay in disagreement on that.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 353
@Purplelibraryguy But you specifically talked about GDP per capita showing that they're doing fine. From before you had made your comment, I was already looking at GDP per capita, and they have not been doing fine. They've been stagnant for thirty years or so. And that's basically my point; not since the 80s has Japan really moved.
You've moved the goal posts by trying to talk about how Japan compares to other "first world" economies (hate the term, but whatever). First, I could completely accept what you said as true, that they're doing okay in comparison to "first world" economies, but that doesn't detract from my point that they've been stagnant. That just means all "first world" economies are stagnant.
Second, again, wrong. GDP per capita, which is explicitly what you wanted to talk about, has been stagnant in Japan for three decades while there actually has been growth in many other "first world" economies. Yes, these are facts. Yes, I had looked this up before I ever started this conversation. There is a specific reason that Lost Decade/Lost Score is applied only to Japan and not other countries. It's because of Japan's stagnation and lack of growth for many years.
You've moved the goal posts by trying to talk about how Japan compares to other "first world" economies (hate the term, but whatever). First, I could completely accept what you said as true, that they're doing okay in comparison to "first world" economies, but that doesn't detract from my point that they've been stagnant. That just means all "first world" economies are stagnant.
Second, again, wrong. GDP per capita, which is explicitly what you wanted to talk about, has been stagnant in Japan for three decades while there actually has been growth in many other "first world" economies. Yes, these are facts. Yes, I had looked this up before I ever started this conversation. There is a specific reason that Lost Decade/Lost Score is applied only to Japan and not other countries. It's because of Japan's stagnation and lack of growth for many years.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,340
@comeonnow Fine, if you're going to be patronizing. OK, so I looked up some figures. According to the World Bank, the average GDP per capita change from 1990-2018 (most recent year showing) was just over 1% growth--like 1.03 or so. And of course that's dragged down some by some bad stuff in the 90s and the big nosedive in 2008-9. Now I'm sure you can wiffle around about just what "stagnant" is, but I would consider "stagnant" to be "on average not growing", which is not what has been happening.
So then I overlaid the graphs of a few other countries and I found that they looked very, very similar--especially over the last 15-20 years. Places such as France, the United States, United Kingdom--per capita GDP growth was looking pretty much just like Japan's . . . although probably just plain headline GDP growth would have looked higher because those places have (largely due to immigration) growing populations. Eurozone taken as a unit, same, maybe worse. "High Income" countries taken as a group, a bit higher before the "great recession", a bit lower since. So if you want to say Japan has had two more "lost decades" after the first one, you would have to also say that loads of the other "upper income" countries of the world were having two "lost decades" at the same time, which makes it kind of a meaningless and somewhat misleading thing to say. More realistic would be to say that Japan has participated in the weakness of high income economies under finance-oriented neoliberal policies.
So then I overlaid the graphs of a few other countries and I found that they looked very, very similar--especially over the last 15-20 years. Places such as France, the United States, United Kingdom--per capita GDP growth was looking pretty much just like Japan's . . . although probably just plain headline GDP growth would have looked higher because those places have (largely due to immigration) growing populations. Eurozone taken as a unit, same, maybe worse. "High Income" countries taken as a group, a bit higher before the "great recession", a bit lower since. So if you want to say Japan has had two more "lost decades" after the first one, you would have to also say that loads of the other "upper income" countries of the world were having two "lost decades" at the same time, which makes it kind of a meaningless and somewhat misleading thing to say. More realistic would be to say that Japan has participated in the weakness of high income economies under finance-oriented neoliberal policies.
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 353
@Purplelibraryguy Wow, you actually don't know what you're talking about at all.
What you did is look at the average change between 1990 and 2018, which is not what I was talking about. Look at the actual year-by-year charts for GDP per capita. You will see rise. You will see fall. You will see rise again. You will see fall again. It's a cyclic pattern of having both positive and negative growth. Averaged out over those 28 years, it comes to slightly over 1%. That's not a clear picture because that distorts the reality of both positive and negative growth.
Contrast that to a lot of other "rich" countries where growth has been pretty stable. Yes, there were clear downturns (depending on the country in question, that occurred at different times), but it is MUCH LESS cyclical than Japan's rise then fall then rise then fall then rise then fall. The necessary conclusion is that Japan's economy is much more stagnant than most other "rich" countries that do not have this pattern.
And you're ignoring the fact that terms such as lost decade and lost score ALREADY exist in professional academic writings as specific to Japan. You're literally ignoring the failings of the Japanese economy when the data clearly shows that you're wrong.
What you did is look at the average change between 1990 and 2018, which is not what I was talking about. Look at the actual year-by-year charts for GDP per capita. You will see rise. You will see fall. You will see rise again. You will see fall again. It's a cyclic pattern of having both positive and negative growth. Averaged out over those 28 years, it comes to slightly over 1%. That's not a clear picture because that distorts the reality of both positive and negative growth.
Contrast that to a lot of other "rich" countries where growth has been pretty stable. Yes, there were clear downturns (depending on the country in question, that occurred at different times), but it is MUCH LESS cyclical than Japan's rise then fall then rise then fall then rise then fall. The necessary conclusion is that Japan's economy is much more stagnant than most other "rich" countries that do not have this pattern.
And you're ignoring the fact that terms such as lost decade and lost score ALREADY exist in professional academic writings as specific to Japan. You're literally ignoring the failings of the Japanese economy when the data clearly shows that you're wrong.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,340
@comeonnow Uhhh . . . I was literally just looking at overlaid graphs of Japan and different countries and seeing surprisingly close matches. That's why I said they looked the same. Not all the peaks and valleys were identical, but there was nothing looking remotely like "Other countries stable, Japan more cyclical".
Further, even if you had been right about that (which you clearly are not), more cyclical is not remotely the same as "stagnant". The two concepts are nearly opposed; stagnant is absolutely not a term you would naturally use to describe a place with roller coaster shifts in growth. You are changing your story and definitions to make it look like you're not bullshitting.
Finally, I'm not ignoring that the terms are often used. I'm saying that, at least beyond the first "lost decade" which was kind of real, they are used because of poor analysis. This may amaze you, but there are many things which are said by many, even things said by many professionals, which are mistaken.
I started this conversation under the impression that it would be worth having. Clearly it is not--you are not capable of discussing in good faith and you try to camouflage it with abuse. I will not be replying again.
Further, even if you had been right about that (which you clearly are not), more cyclical is not remotely the same as "stagnant". The two concepts are nearly opposed; stagnant is absolutely not a term you would naturally use to describe a place with roller coaster shifts in growth. You are changing your story and definitions to make it look like you're not bullshitting.
Finally, I'm not ignoring that the terms are often used. I'm saying that, at least beyond the first "lost decade" which was kind of real, they are used because of poor analysis. This may amaze you, but there are many things which are said by many, even things said by many professionals, which are mistaken.
I started this conversation under the impression that it would be worth having. Clearly it is not--you are not capable of discussing in good faith and you try to camouflage it with abuse. I will not be replying again.
Similar threads
