Latest GDP numbers out of Japan came out overnight and though the decline in GDP was expected, it was worse (-0.1% vs -0.6% actual). But is this really a surprise given the continuous decline in the Japanese population – deaths outnumber births now by more than 1,000 per day?

• The growth rate of Japan’s population started declining in earnest in the mid-1970s, but it turned negative only in 2009. Absent massive rises in productivity, it is natural for GDP growth rate to decline as well in line with the decline in population growth.
• Still, Japan’s GDP growth rate has been consistently above the growth rate of its population (another way of saying GDP per capita rises) except for a brief period post the 2008 financial crisis. Nevertheless, the average GDP growth rate since 2009 is still above the average growth rate of the population (0.6% vs -0.1%, respectively).

What does this mean? Positive labor productivity growth rate.

• Since the 2008 financial crisis, Japan’s annual GDP per capita growth rate averaged the same as US’. Even since the 1990s, when Japan’s supposed stagnation started, its GDP per capita was on average just 35bps lower than that in the US.

• GDP per capita growth can be broken by growth in labor productivity (GDP per hour worked) and changes in labor utilisation. Measured by GDP per hour worked, Japan surpassed USA in 1989. But measured by labor productivity growth, it has outperformed the US since the 1970s at least.

• High labor productivity can come from many things (greater use of capital, low labor utilisation, innovation). In general, Japan tends to have a lower labor utilisation rate than US. That could mean more automation/ less employment of low productivity workers.

• Perhaps that is why, Japan also tends to have a lower labor compensation (per hour worked) growth rate than US. However, in 2016, for the first time, that changed.

Bottom line is as long as population continues to decline, GDP should also be expected to decline given also lackluster productivity growth. However, as long as productivity growth is positive, GDP rate of decline should stay above population rate of decline. It could be better, but there is nothing bad about that either.

Good paper by M. Juselius and E. Takats on “The enduring link between demography and inflation” pointing to the fact that:

• an increase in the share of the dependent population is generally associated with higher inflation; and
• aging is set to increase the share of dependents, reversing a previous trend.

Is inflation then set to burst higher? It depends.

First, even though the global dependency ratio is rising, its level is not the same for each country. For example, China’s current dependency ratio at 40 is 58% of Japan’s at 68. US dependency ratio is forecast to rise the least; in fact, in the mid-2030s, it is forecast to start declining again.

Second, a lower dependency ratio, even though a rising one, should in theory cause less upward pressure on inflation. By that measure, US inflation may rise but would probably rise less than UK’s and EU’s; in fact, by 2050, with US dependency ratio the lowest among these major countries, one would expect US inflation to be the most subdued.

Third, Japan’s dependency ratio has been rising pretty much since the great crash in 1990, and, in 2007, it surpassed these other countries’ dependency ratios, while this whole time has coincided with a period of consistent deflation there: obviously there are other, presumably, much stronger determinants of inflation.

Fourth, and to the latter point, with the advance of technology, labor’s role in the production function is becoming less important. Does that mean that demography’s role in influencing inflation is also fading?

It does not matter how we spin it and define it, economic growth is about production and consumption chasing each’s other tail in a circle. We can argue what comes first but reality is that we need both.

A few years ago, Noah Smith wrote a blog post with a similar sounding title but focusing on consumption.

Nowadays, it seems fashionable to talk about innovation in technology and increasing productivity so the latest epiphany when it comes to ways to boost economic growth is to focus on investment (with the buzz words of driverless cars, AI, blockchain, etc.).

In other words, we have given up on trying to do anything about the demand side of the economy (purchasing power down because wages pressured by automation and globalization) so let’s go back to trying to increase the supply (and hope that it will create its own demand?). Sadly, Say’s Law does not work in the modern fiat-based economy (maybe it did work in a barter economy).

So, increasing investments, will it push up GDP growth?

Yes, of course. GDP(Y) = investment(I) + consumption(C) + government spending(G) + net exports(NX). If we increase I, Y will go up.

But aren’t we already operating way below capacity in the developed world? What’s the point of creating even more capacity. The point is that at t(0), if I goes up, Y goes up (and inflation probably goes down, but who cares, right?).

But let’s say we weren’t operating below capacity. Doesn’t this investment at some point need to be ‘consumed’? How is it going to be consumed if there is no purchasing power?

Or maybe the plan is to ‘export our investment’ so that some other country can consume it. Well, I guess it is possible, but the stuff we are good at (financial services, defense, education) we are already exporting. There are a lot more things we are good at but they are either in the digital sphere where the marginal cost of production and, especially distribution, is zero and there is not much value-added, or we do not want to export it (really high-tech stuff).

I think the sad reality is:

We have exhausted all other options in the above equation.

C: Not that consumption-led growth does not work per se, but that it does not work with borrowed money. It does work, however, if people have the income to consume.

G: No one has the appetite for more government spending (even though some people, when they talk about investment-led growth, do include the government there)

NX: It’s not like there are many other countries out there that are eager/have the means to consume.

So, yes, increasing I is the next logical step. And it could work as long as that is accompanied by a rise in purchasing power which eventually gets transformed to a rise in aggregate demand which leads to increased consumption. Or something like this: I rises in t(0) -> Y rises in t(0) which leads to a rise in C(t+1) and a corresponding rise in Y(t+1). A virtuous cycle we could create indeed.

But if I does not result in a rise in purchasing power, i.e. if we invest in increasing production through automation, then it is a dead end. Which is why all these corporates are sitting on their cash and buying back their share and not investing.

In an environment when inflation is close to zero and we are operating way below capacity, it sounds strange to me that we are going to focus on investment which will only increase capacity, instead of figuring out how to prop up consumption without incurring more personal debt.

It is a totally different argument whether we need consumption at all, or rather whether even if we give people money to consume they will (I bet the millennials are much less likely to consume regardless of their income). Which raises the issue of whether we really need additional GDP, whether that should be our focus etc.

My answer is as long as we have a debt-based economy, we are hooked on GDP. All this talk about fancy other stuff to measure our wellbeing is great but it does not cut it that somebody has to service that debt. Of course, there are alternatives but they must be accompanied by some sort of a debt jubilee.