Counterargument to David Atkinson's counterargument

His David Atkinson clearly turned to me "Because of deflation, it is impossible to improve productivity." I was writing a contribution called. (Probably, "Takaaki Mitsuhashi's urgent proposal" is his influence for the development of Japanese SMEs and local economies. After all, 400,000 views) Mr. Atkinson uses a worn-out "statistical trick" and claims that there is a "negative correlation" between productivity growth and inflation. Misunderstanding that "it is impossible to improve productivity because of deflation" There is a negative correlation between the productivity improvement rate and the inflation rate. ◆ It is a mistake to "explain the whole from some events" Six years have passed since I started complaining that "improvement of productivity is indispensable for the revival of the Japanese economy". In response to this claim, from the beginning, "In the case of Japan, productivity has nothing to do with it." "The reason why Japan's productivity is low in the world is that there are many elderly people and many companies have moved their factories overseas. Various counterarguments and objections arose, such as "because it has been done" and "the low productivity of small and medium-sized enterprises is the result of subcontracting exploitation of large enterprises". I examined each of these claims one by one and analyzed how much explanation they had. As a result, it was found that most of the claims generalized some events and argued on the basis of them as if they were the whole. In Japanese, there is a commandment saying, "Look at the trees and don't look at the forest." I feel that the heavy use of this reasoning is one of the characteristics of Japan. By the way, in this series, I would like to examine the following theories that I often hear in the past four times from this time. (1) "Because of deflation, it is impossible to improve productivity." (2) "Financial mobilization is necessary because aggregate demand is insufficient." (3) "If you actively increase fiscal spending, productivity will increase." This time, let's consider whether the theory that "it is impossible to improve productivity because of deflation" is correct. (Omitted) ” Atkinson cites his past treatise, "The more inflation you have, the less productive you are, a solid fact that has been confirmed in data from many countries over the long history." I wrote that. Furthermore, the labor productivity improvement rate and inflation rate from 1991 to 2019 are graphed. "It wasn't inflation, so productivity didn't go up." I conclude that it is a mistake. But, Mr. Atkinson. Why are you only using data since 1991, when the Japanese bubble burst and deflation? Or rather, while writing that "explaining the whole from some events" is a mistake, why are you only looking at "events" after 1991? While looking at the trees and not looking at the forest, while criticizing, why only show "trees"? "I think I knew the whole forest by looking only at the trees. I feel that the heavy use of this reasoning is one of the characteristics of Japan. 』\ I wrote that, but what? e? what? This is self-criticism, maybe? So, let me reveal Mr. Atkinson's "statistical trick". First of all, productivity is strictly defined as "real production per worker". That is, real GDP ÷ number of employees.