Talk:Lost Decades

Merger Proposal

This article should be integrated with Economic history of Japan. It is very poor, as it stands. cckkab (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose: The Japanese rise in the 1800s was and should something to be left to it's own section because of its originality. It should improved and merging it would make the topic cluttered.
• Support I completely agree; it's something that should be mentioned in detail there. The Squicks (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a very notable event, and is getting a lot of discussion in economic circles currently, due to the current economic crisis, as there are clearly lessons to be learnt from this. 91.110.232.156 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a significant event in WORLD ECONOMIC HISTORY. This is such a significant event, I would not have thought to search for Japanese Economic History.--64.179.182.35 (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose; As stated, this is an important event in Japanese history and receives quite a bit of press today. I realize the article is in bad shape, but merging it is not going to improve matters. Madman (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the two anonymous IP editors. This article needs to be improved, buffed up, not hidden away. It could even become a Featured level article, if someone took the effort. LordAmeth (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as a significant era in Japan which, as others have pointed out, continues to receive press and academic coverage even today (not to mention all the press and academic coverage in the past). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: As many others have stated, it is significant and important. This could very well be a template for what is ahead for the US based on the similarities. It seems the reason you want it merged is because the article is "bad and lacking" per se and that yes it really needs to be improved preferably by people with the relevant economic background but merging it is clearly not a solution. You should judge the article by the subject merit not by its current status. OneiroPhobia (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If the article stays, is there anyone here who would be interesting in adding more material to the article? The Squicks (talk) 03:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, it was just tagged as part of 日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a very important concept in Japan, and a case study for what might happen in the US today. It is important enough to deserve a separate page. --Charizardpal (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: an important period, without any "real" reason why it should be only a section of an article. Eugeniu Bmsg 03:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article should be improved, not merged.Rreagan007 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is a very significant period in Japanese history and is parellel (though not as severe) to the Great Depression that took place in the U.S. This is a topic that should be a seperate article. The Japan article should have a brief summary and a link to this page. Additionally, the Lost Decade may be the future of the U.S. and should be brought to the forefront of the public's awareness with EMPHASIS! I hope more qualified economists and financial scholars, especially familiar with the Lost Decade, contribute to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSCBaker (talk • contribs) 13:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hell Yeah! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.88.104.202 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Large unsourced section

There's an edit from "07:13, 18 November 2009 174.48.153.228 (talk) (7,396 bytes) (undo)" that contains a great deal of sourceless , non-neutral analysis of the Lost Decade. It pretty obviously was created with an intent to compare it to the current economic recession and response in the US. I hesitate to eliminate this content, but its pretty clearly slanted, at times simply inaccurate and it doesn't meet citation standards. Does anyone want to save it? Original submitter only had an IP. PantsB (talk)

Upon further review, I removed the section. It was plagiarized from an Op Ed written by Fergus Hodgson [1] PantsB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

Counterargument

The Myth of Japan's 'Lost Decades' Eamonn Fingleton presents a counterargument to the perception of Japn's so-called stagnation. I think he raises important points. Please take a look. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get some pictures such as charts or graphs on this topic? 129.120.177.8 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

"It also meant credit became very difficult to obtain, due to the beleaguered situation of the banks; even now the official interest rate is at 0.1%."

If credit is difficult to obtain, it should be expensive and not cheap. Please explain or source the first sentence. --183.174.206.242 (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)