Japan Wants to Become an Economic Superpower Again. The Price Could Be Enormous.

Salutations, Olio aficionados! 👋

Welcome to the 304th edition of Weekly Olio. We’re thrilled to introduce a fresh new twist to your Sundays: Publisher Parmesan, our hand-picked, thoughtfully crafted edition designed to spark inspiration and insights for the week ahead.

It’s the perfect way to unwind, recharge, and prepare for the week with something truly worth savoring.

If you’re new here and you’re looking for more long-form, crispy writing, click the link below to subscribe 👇

Have a business larger than 20 people that lives on Slack and is older than a year? Companies like Micro1 want to pay $100k - $2 million to license your data. They anonymize it and then use it to train the next set of frontier AI models.

Get an estimate here

For decades, Japan's defining economic problem was that almost nothing seemed to change. Prices barely moved, wages stagnated and companies grew reluctant to invest. The country that once seemed destined to overtake the United States became a cautionary tale about what happens after an asset bubble collapses.

Now, Japan is attempting something more ambitious than escaping stagnation. Its government wants to rebuild the country's industrial strength, direct capital toward strategic technologies and persuade companies to invest at home again.

The political shift is embodied by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, whose agenda combines industrial policy, higher investment, national security and a more assertive posture toward China. The ambition is substantial. So are the risks.

Japan is trying to use public money to unlock private investment, inflation to improve its debt dynamics and geopolitical uncertainty to justify rebuilding strategic industries. Whether this works will depend on a question that has challenged governments for generations: can the state create the conditions for sustained growth without creating financial problems that eventually overwhelm it?

Japan's economic history is usually divided into two eras.

The first was the extraordinary postwar expansion. Japanese companies became global leaders in automobiles, electronics and industrial manufacturing. By the late 1980s, Japan's economic rise had become so dramatic that some observers believed it could eventually overtake the United States.

Then the bubble burst.

The collapse of Japanese property and equity prices in the early 1990s left businesses and households cautious about borrowing and spending. Weak demand fed weak investment, weak wage growth and persistent deflationary pressure. What followed was not one dramatic crisis, but decades of disappointing growth.

That history matters because Japan's current challenge is different from the one facing most advanced economies.

In the United States, policymakers often worry about an economy growing too quickly. In Japan, policymakers spent years trying to persuade companies to invest, households to spend and workers to expect higher wages. Inflation, usually treated as a problem to be controlled, became something the government actively wanted to restore.

Sanae Takaichi inherited an economy in which inflation had already returned. Inflation was around 3% when she took office and approximately 2% a year later. Yet economic growth had not transformed.

This is the distinction that matters. Higher prices can help an economy escape deflation, but they do not automatically produce higher productivity, stronger real wages or a new generation of globally competitive businesses.

Japan has managed to change its economic environment. Now it has to turn that change into growth.

Takaichi's central economic argument is that Japan does not invest enough at home.

Her response is an ambitious industrial strategy spanning 17 priority areas, including semiconductors, AI, infrastructure, energy, defence, space technology and robotics. The government has discussed a long-term investment target of ¥370 trillion (approximately $2.5 trillion) over 14 years, alongside a stimulus package at roughly $135 billion and an investment roadmap of around $2 trillion.

The numbers are enormous, but the underlying logic is straightforward.

If Japanese businesses have become reluctant to invest, the government can commit public money first, reduce some of the risk and encourage private companies to follow. Public spending becomes the catalyst rather than the entire source of investment.

Japan has used versions of this approach before. Government support, industrial coordination and close relationships between businesses and policymakers helped shape the country's postwar economic development. Takaichi is attempting to apply that tradition to a world in which the strategic industries are changing.

The opportunity is real. Semiconductor capacity, AI infrastructure, robotics, shipbuilding and aerospace all have implications beyond immediate commercial returns. They can strengthen domestic supply chains, support national security and create capabilities that are difficult to rebuild once lost.

But there is a critical difference between identifying a strategic industry and building a successful one.

Government funding can encourage companies to build factories. It cannot guarantee that those factories will be productive, that their products will be competitive or that global demand will justify the investment.

The ultimate test is whether public money unlocks private capital that would otherwise have stayed on the sidelines, and whether that capital generates returns that justify the risk.

Industrial investment is only one part of Takaichi's economic agenda. She has also embraced proposals to reduce the cost of living, including a cut to the sales tax on selected essential goods.

Politically, the logic is understandable. Households that have experienced decades of stagnant wages are now confronting higher prices. Lowering taxes on everyday purchases provides a visible benefit that voters can feel immediately.

Economically, however, it creates a difficult equation.

The proposed sales-tax reduction could cost around ¥10 trillion (approximately $67 billion) over two years. The industrial investment programme could require another ¥5 trillion to ¥10 trillion (approximately $34 billion to $67 billion) annually, before accounting for additional defence spending.

Japan is therefore trying to increase investment while reducing a major source of government revenue.

This would be challenging for any country. It is particularly consequential for Japan, which already carries one of the largest public debt burdens among advanced economies.

Takaichi's argument is that the underlying economic conditions have changed. When an economy is trapped in deflation, nominal growth is weak and the debt burden can become harder to manage. If inflation and nominal economic growth rise, government revenues may increase and the debt-to-GDP ratio can improve even as nominal spending expands.

There is a valid economic mechanism here. But it is not a free lunch.

Inflation can improve debt dynamics when nominal growth outpaces the effective cost of servicing existing debt. If interest rates rise sharply, however, new borrowing becomes more expensive and the government's interest bill eventually increases.

The same inflation that helps Japan escape stagnation could therefore undermine the fiscal flexibility required to sustain its industrial ambitions.

Wallets are returning, stablecoin supply is rising and institutional money is still flowing in. Our free guide explains why we’re accumulating SOL now, plus the key metrics and risks to watch.

Get Free Guide

Financial markets are already testing the government's assumptions.

Rising Japanese government bond yields indicate that investors are demanding greater compensation for lending to the state. Some are concerned about the scale of planned spending. Others worry that inflation could prove more persistent than policymakers expect.

These concerns reinforce one another.

If investors believe the government will spend aggressively without a credible plan for managing its finances, they may demand higher yields. Higher yields increase borrowing costs. More expensive debt then reduces the fiscal room available for industrial policy, tax cuts and other commitments.

The Bank of Japan adds another complication.

Takaichi has historically favoured a slower pace of monetary tightening, reflecting concerns that higher interest rates could undermine economic recovery. Yet, the central bank has raised rates several times during her tenure.

This is not necessarily a contradiction. A government can support growth while accepting that interest rates eventually need to normalise. The difficulty lies in determining how quickly that normalisation should happen.

Move too slowly, and inflation expectations could become entrenched. Move too quickly, and borrowing costs could rise before businesses and households have developed enough underlying economic strength to absorb them.

The danger is not simply that Japan spends too much. It is that fiscal policy, inflation and monetary policy begin working against one another.

Japan's bond market is effectively asking whether the government's growth assumptions are strong enough to support the commitments it wants to make.

Japan's industrial strategy cannot be separated from its position in Asia.

Its relationship with China has become more difficult, particularly after Takaichi suggested that Japan could become militarily involved if China attempted to take Taiwan by force. Beijing responded with measures that, included restrictions affecting tourism and critical-mineral supplies.

For Japan, this is more than a diplomatic dispute.

The country depends on global supply chains for important industrial inputs, while its security arrangements remain closely tied to the United States. Rebuilding domestic capabilities in semiconductors, energy, robotics and defence can reduce some vulnerabilities, but doing so requires time and capital.

The relationship with Washington presents its own challenges. Japan must maintain its alliance with the United States while navigating changing American demands on trade, defence and energy.

These pressures strengthen the case for industrial investment. They also make the investment programme more expensive.

A factory built purely to minimise production costs can be located wherever manufacturing is most efficient. A factory built partly to protect national security may need to operate domestically even when its costs are higher.

That is the trade-off Japan must confront. Strategic resilience has economic value, but it does not always show up as an immediate commercial return.

The most important uncertainty in Takaichi's programme is not how much money the government announces. It is how much private investment follows.

Japan has capable industrial companies, deep technical expertise and a history of manufacturing excellence. Those are genuine advantages. The country does not need to create an industrial base from nothing.

But established strengths do not automatically produce new growth industries. Companies need confidence that domestic investment will generate sustainable demand, that the policy environment will remain predictable and that they can earn attractive returns over many years.

The government has indicated that a more detailed roadmap will clarify how the investment programme is expected to unfold. That roadmap will matter because it should reveal whether the spending is tied to credible projects, measurable objectives and a realistic division of responsibility between the public and private sectors.

There is also a political time constraint. Industrial strategies can take years to produce results, while voters judge governments through their immediate experience of prices, wages and living standards.

Takaichi's political popularity gives her room to pursue an ambitious programme. But popularity is a form of capital that can depreciate quickly if households do not feel the benefits.

The decisive question is whether Japan can convert political momentum into productive investment before the fiscal and inflationary costs become more difficult to manage.

Japan's ambition is bigger than a stimulus package. It is an attempt to rewrite the country's economic trajectory.

For decades, the problem was that Japan struggled to generate enough inflation, investment and confidence. Now the challenge is to manage the consequences of their return while directing capital toward industries that can sustain growth for the next generation.

There is a plausible path to success. Public investment could help revive domestic manufacturing, private companies could follow, and stronger nominal growth could make the debt burden more manageable. Japan could emerge with a more resilient industrial base and a renewed role in strategically important technologies.

But the opposite outcome is also possible. Public money could chase politically attractive projects, private investment could disappoint, and inflation could push borrowing costs higher before productivity improves.

The difference will not be determined by the size of the announced investment target. It will be determined by what that money produces.

Japan once became an economic superpower by building products the world wanted to buy. Its next chapter depends on whether it can do that again, while persuading investors that the cost of rebuilding the future will not overwhelm the country paying for it.

When analytics on Postgres slows down, most teams add a second database. Then come the pipelines, the sync jobs, and a copy of your data that's always a little behind.

TimescaleDB takes a different approach: extend Postgres instead of splitting away from it. Hypertables partition your data automatically as volume grows. Hypercore compression cuts storage up to 95%. Continuous aggregates keep dashboards live without re-querying everything.

CERN runs Postgres this way for sensor data from the Large Hadron Collider.

No split architecture, no pipeline lag, no new query language to learn. Same SQL, same drivers, same tools.

Start on Tiger Cloud and get $1000 in credits.

Get $1000 Credit

That’s all for this week. If you enjoyed this edition, we’d really appreciate if you shared it with a friend, family member or colleague.

We’ll be back in your inbox 2 PM IST next Sunday. Till then, have a productive week!

Peeyush and Mohit

Disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the author's employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.