Well, it's certainly possible that I am not as educated in macro econ as you thought. On the other hand, many other interpretations are also possible. As to Abenomics being a success, like I mentioned previously, I am not as optimistic as I used to be, which means that I don't think I would call it a "success". I do think that it's working and hasn't failed. Obviously, like I said in my original post, that doesn't mean that it won't.
Well, I'm certainly glad to hear you are catching up to the rest of us in the realization that Abenomics was not a success, could potentially fail (even though many, including myself, judge it to already have failed) and that you've changed your tune to your original hypothesis. One more question, if I may, senator. What would it take for you to finally admit to yourself that Abenomics has, indeed, failed?
Whether Abenomics will/won't fail, has,hasn't failed is not for me to say. But what you guys should keep in mind is that things take much longer to get done here than in western countries. So 3 years seems quite short given the scale of what he is attempting to do.
Firstly, I take exception to this: "... certainly glad to hear you are catching up to the rest of us that Abenomics ... could potentially fail and ... that you've changed your tune to your original hypothesis". This is what I said in one of my old posts (Aug 2014): "Obviously, I am not suggesting that Abe's policies will succeed in the end, as there is a lot of uncertainty and risk." This is from another (Oct 2014): "Of course, it's by no means certain that [Abenomics] will succeed." So let's please be a little more accurate with these things. As to what I need to see to conclude that Abenomics is a failure, it's simple. Ultimately, IMHO, all policies are about nominal GDP. When/if that returns to and persists for a while at pre-Abenomics levels, I would be prepared to state that the policies have failed.
There's the back peddle. "In fact, there is ample empirical evidence that Abenomics, thus far, is a rather unmitigated success." Now it's "well at the time it looked good and I was right, there was a lot of risk".
Huh? How, pray tell, can I backpedal, if I am quoting my original posts? Indeed, the whole point is that I repeatedly mentioned risks and uncertainties in 2014 and am not bringing these things up now, contrary to your claim. So you can certainly accuse me of being too optimistic and of underestimating the risks, but you sure as hell can't claim that I was purposefully ignoring them. As to the graphs, I am not really sure what you're showing there. Abe was elected in December 2012, so you'd need to show the years since then.
Yes, because -with the exception of the latest lunacy in NIRP - Abenomics has been drastically different than the last 10 years.
Actually this looks like not yet proven but promising! We are looking at three years here. Is, by any chance, that 2014 'Oops!' after the big increase in sale tax was announced? You'll recall that had to be quickly rescinded. I haven't bothered to look it up, but I am seeing 4 quarters here in 2014, and if you made me guess, using this chart alone, I am going to guess that the sales tax increase was announced either late in the first quarter or early in the second in 2014. [The curious thing is that markets will usually react before the macro economic numbers reveal much.] If I'm wrong, i'm wrong. I know you'll let we know if i'm wrong, but will you be as generous to me if I am right? If one is going to put Keynesian economics to work in a recession one can't blame Keynes if its not done properly. If I'm right Re the sales tax, then I believe this chart is promising, but no cigar yet. Put the cigars in the Humidor for now. We'll probably be able to smoke them sometime in 2020-21. Have patience, young man, a great Ship of State doesn't respond to the driving wheel like a bumper car.