Talk:Lost Decade (Japan)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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. 220.127.116.11 (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.--18.104.22.168 (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. 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Large unsourced section
There's an edit from "07:13, 18 November 2009 126.96.36.199 (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  PantsB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
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)
- Fingleton has an update on this in the Sunday NYT: The Myth of Japan’s Failure. He does have some arguments that sound good, but I don't know enough about it to decide if it is balanced overall. Rwendland (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
He has Sh**t arguments. The most important measure of economic success is GDP growth which has been negligible in Japan since 1990. Which is why Japan has continuously slid down in the charts of richest country by per capita PPP-$ GDP from 3 or 4th place in the 1990's to way down. IMF as of 2012 (cf. wiki-article) now lists Japan in 22nd place.
Also wages have been falling since 1997 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2009/08/japanese_wages_hit_20year_low.html). It would recommend adding that chart to the article. How anyone can say then say Japan is booming and it's all a media-myth is bordering absurdity. I'll give u one thing that's absent in Japan, that's usually the major indicator of economic suffering, unemployment has never become a sizable problem during those 20 years and it's certainly something that should make this slump feel much less painful to a large part of the people, than in your garden variety depression. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
"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%."
Merger with Japanese Recession
There's talk of merging this with the other 2000s recession article, Japanese Recession. I think the two are separate, because the Lost Decade is very specific, and still referred to as a specific time period. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
It's good to provide a well-argued alternative perspective, but I'd say the amount of space spent on his argument is quite out of proportion to its significance. Weygander (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the article spends too much time focusing on the counter-argument and doesn't go into details of the economic and social effects of the lost decade. Saying something like "However, there is serious dispute on whether or not such “lost decade” or decades actually took place," gives too much credence to a flawed fringe view. --Asingh0208 (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect to Fingleton, this has red flags all over it.
- One, he's not a member of an academy and thus does not publish under peer-review. Two, he offers a prize for people going into a debate with him. This is a common tactic among denialists of various kinds (vaccination, climate, HIV, evolution, you name it) used to draw attention of more prominent researchers and thus manifest their point of view as a legitimate counter-argument or, should no one reply, claim that the argument stands undefeated because nobody has shown up to get an easy bag of money. The fact that he specifically challenged an ambassador reinforces this notion. Lastly, the argument does not seem to have definitive backing from others in the academia while being centered around a very important topic for a country that has an incredibly large academic apparatus that has previously dealt with much more incendiary issues like Nanjing. It reeks of a conspiracy theory that seems to be centered largely around sensationally-expressed semantics of what the fairly poetic term "lost decade" should or should not mean.
...recently the decade from 2001 to 2010 is often included, so that the whole period of the 1990s to the present is referred to
as the Lost Two Decades or the Lost 20 Years.
I don't understand this sentence. Does it encompass 1990-2010 or it continues in the present (1990-)? It's just not clear from the text. I suggest editing.