Question: What negative thing happened because of deficit spending?
About the article "Great Depression", section "Japan".

Candidate passages:
A deficit is the amount by which a sum falls short of some reference amount.
In economics, a deficit is an excess of expenditures over revenue in a given time period; in more specific cases it may refer to: Government budget deficit *Deficit spending *Primary deficit, the pure deficit derived after deducting the interest payments  *Structural and cyclical deficit, parts of the public sector deficit Income deficit, the difference between family income and the poverty threshold  Trade deficit, when the value of imports exceed the value of exports   Balance of payments deficit, when the balance of payments is negative Deficit may also refer to: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, a developmental disorder characterized by attentional problems and hyperactivity Cognitive deficit, any characteristic that acts as a barrier to cognitive performance Defect (geometry), angular deficit Déficit, a 2007 Mexican film by Gael García Bernal  
He is a sweet seven year old boy who loves to spend time with his friends.
Since he was really young when his mother died he does not really understand what happened.
The only thing he knows is that his mom was never coming back.
After his mother died he started having nightmares from which he woke up screaming and crying.
The death of his mother also affected his grades at school.
Other teachers let him fall behind because of what happened but Sarah decided to help him.
After spending some time with Sarah he starts to like her and by the end of the novel he already view her as something similar to his mom.  
The Great Depression did not strongly affect Japan.
The Japanese economy shrank by 8% during 1929–31.
Japan's Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo was the first to implement what have come to be identified as Keynesian economic policies: first, by large fiscal stimulus involving deficit spending; and second, by devaluing the currency.
Takahashi used the Bank of Japan to sterilize the deficit spending and minimize resulting inflationary pressures.
Econometric studies have identified the fiscal stimulus as especially effective.
The devaluation of the currency had an immediate effect.
Japanese textiles began to displace British textiles in export markets.
The deficit spending proved to be most profound.
The deficit spending went into the purchase of munitions for the armed forces.
By 1933, Japan was already out of the depression.
By 1934, Takahashi realized that the economy was in danger of overheating, and to avoid inflation, moved to reduce the deficit spending that went towards armaments and munitions.
This resulted in a strong and swift negative reaction from nationalists, especially those in the army, culminating in his assassination in the course of the February 26 Incident.
This had a chilling effect on all civilian bureaucrats in the Japanese government.
From 1934, the military's dominance of the government continued to grow.
Instead of reducing deficit spending, the government introduced price controls and rationing schemes that reduced, but did not eliminate inflation, which would remain a problem until the end of World War II.
The deficit spending had a transformative effect on Japan.
Japan's industrial production doubled during the 1930s.
Further, in 1929 the list of the largest firms in Japan was dominated by light industries, especially textile companies (many of Japan's automakers, like Toyota, have their roots in the textile industry).
By 1940 light industry had been displaced by heavy industry as the largest firms inside the Japanese economy.
Fiscal illusion has been used to explain the flypaper effect often seen when a higher level of government provides a grant to a lower level of government.
Here, instead of reducing taxes in order to pass on the benefits of the grant to local taxpayers, the grant-receiving body increases expenditures in order to expand local services in some way.
Fiscal illusion is invoked as an explanation because the local taxpayers are under the mistaken perception that the grant is to local government and not, in fact, to them.
Another example of fiscal illusion can be seen in local property tax politics.
Here renters, who do not pay local property taxes directly, may vote for an expansion of local government services.
Fiscal illusion theory suggests they support this policy because its cost is masked by its roundabout nature (through an increase in their rent payments).
In their book "Democracy in Deficit" (1977), James M. Buchanan and Richard E. Wagner suggest that the complicated nature of the U.S. tax system causes fiscal illusion and results in greater public expenditure than would be the case in an idealized system in which everyone is aware in detail of what their share of the costs of government is.
Finally, another example of fiscal illusion may be seen in deficit spending.
CATO Institute economist William Niskanen (2004), for instance, has noted that the "starve the beast" strategy popular among US conservatives wherein tax cuts now force a future reduction in federal government spending is empirically false.
Instead, he has found that there is ‘a strong negative relation between the relative level of federal spending and tax revenues.’ Tax cuts and deficit spending, he argues, makes the cost of government appear to be cheaper than it otherwise would be.
Mourao (2008) attempts to quantify fiscal illusion empirically for almost 70 democracies since 1960. 
A government deficit can be thought of as consisting of two elements, "structural" and "cyclical".
At the lowest point in the business cycle, there is a high level of unemployment.
This means that tax revenues are low and expenditure (e.g., on social security) high.
Conversely, at the peak of the cycle, unemployment is low, increasing tax revenue and decreasing social security spending.
The additional borrowing required at the low point of the cycle is the "cyclical deficit".
By definition, the cyclical deficit will be entirely repaid by a cyclical surplus at the peak of the cycle.
The "structural deficit" is the deficit that remains across the business cycle, because the general level of government spending exceeds prevailing tax levels.
The observed total budget deficit is equal to the sum of the structural deficit with the cyclical deficit or surplus.
Some economists have criticized the distinction between cyclical and structural deficits, contending that the business cycle is too difficult to measure to make cyclical analysis worthwhile.
The "fiscal gap", a measure proposed by economists Alan Auerbach and Laurence Kotlikoff, measures the difference between government spending and revenues over the very long term, typically as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product.
The fiscal gap can be interpreted as the percentage increase in revenues or reduction of expenditures necessary to balance spending and revenues in the long run.
For example, a fiscal gap of 5% could be eliminated by an immediate and permanent 5% increase in taxes or cut in spending or some combination of both.
It includes not only the structural deficit at a given point in time, but also the difference between promised future government commitments, such as health and retirement spending, and planned future tax revenues.
Since the elderly population is growing much faster than the young population in many developed countries, many economists argue that these countries have important fiscal gaps, beyond what can be seen from their deficits alone.