View Full Version : First quarter GDP - UK +0.3%, US +0.7%
Organ Morgan.
28-04-17, 22:55
Growth slows in Britain and the US as GDP reports miss forecasts - as it happened -
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/apr/28/uk-gdp-britain-economic-growth-france-us-spain-business-live
Central banks have thrown about 10 trillion dollars of funny money created from zilch to prop-up the world economies while suppressing interest rates to absurdly low levels thus inflating gigantic housing, stock market and debt bubbles to produce pitiful growth. When this sh*t show finally implodes it won't be pretty.
Eric the Half a Bee
28-04-17, 23:00
Growth slows in Britain and the US as GDP reports miss forecasts - as it happened -
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/apr/28/uk-gdp-britain-economic-growth-france-us-spain-business-live
Central banks have thrown about 10 trillion dollars of funny money created from zilch to prop-up the world economies while suppressing interest rates to absurdly low levels thus inflating gigantic housing, stock market and debt bubbles to produce pitiful growth. When this sh*t show finally implodes it won't be pretty.
Glad to see austerity has worked.
Organ Morgan.
28-04-17, 23:22
In spite of austerity, the Tories have tacked on around £830 billion to the national debt in the past seven years. It's currently at £1,730 billion. They've practically doubled it in that time. That's some going as it took a thousand years to get to to the debt level what they inherited, £900 billion.
Wales-Bales
29-04-17, 00:34
In spite of austerity, the Tories have tacked on around £830 billion to the national debt in the past seven years. It's currently at £1,730 billion. They've practically doubled it in that time. That's some going as it took a thousand years to get to to the debt level what they inherited, £900 billion.
At least they fixed the roof while the sun was shining. Well done George, great forsight :thumbup:
the other bob wilson
29-04-17, 05:34
In spite of austerity, the Tories have tacked on around £830 billion to the national debt in the past seven years. It's currently at £1,730 billion. They've practically doubled it in that time. That's some going as it took a thousand years to get to to the debt level what they inherited, £900 billion.
But they have provided "strong and stable" leadership :hehe:.
But they have provided "strong and stable" leadership :hehe:.
Everyone should read this article no matter what you political persuasion: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/28/theresa-may-snowflakes-health-and-safety-election
The 2015 Tory manifesto used the word “plan” 121 times, devoting a mere seven words to one aspect of this plan that would affect the lives of millions of voters. Namely: “We will find £12bn from welfare savings.” That was it.....they devoted three times as many words to polar bears.
If you are going to vote Tory then please vote because you agree with their policies (make them tell you what they are) rather than voting for them because you believe in the buzzwords and slogans.
Yeah but at least crime rates have gone down. Oh.
Its a myth that the Tories are the safe bet with the economy. As alluded to in the opening post national debt under this lot has doubled in seven years and for what exactly? We have seen shag all growth in that time and may well end up with another recession under the Tories.
On the bright side we will have strong and stable leadership. Its just a shame she is running scared of the electorate.
In spite of austerity, the Tories have tacked on around £830 billion to the national debt in the past seven years. It's currently at £1,730 billion. They've practically doubled it in that time. That's some going as it took a thousand years to get to to the debt level what they inherited, £900 billion.
Yeah but its hand-picked austerity only. Its for those who don't have a voice and are easy targets. Just look at our High streets. They have been transformed. Lots of people like sleeping and living on them these days.
the other bob wilson
29-04-17, 13:13
Everyone should read this article no matter what you political persuasion: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/28/theresa-may-snowflakes-health-and-safety-election
If you are going to vote Tory then please vote because you agree with their policies (make them tell you what they are) rather than voting for them because you believe in the buzzwords and slogans.
What a superb article, the Mourinho comparison is so appropriate - thanks for posting it.
the other bob wilson
29-04-17, 14:37
Bob you will have to wait until May 15th to see how Labour propose to pay for the massive spending they have promised to carry out. They have 3 choices - cut budgets, increase taxes or borrow more - which one would you choose ?
Just so you know - the 1% rise for NHS staff (excluding Docs) will cost 500million.
I will be interested to know what the Conservatives re going to do though. Interestingly in that unbiased 'Guardian' article - not one mention of Corbyn's plans . The Guardian is to the left what the Daily Mai is to the right, just pandering to their readers perceived viewpoints and expanding them FFS
My choice would be tax increases.
£500 million is peanuts in terms of the debt this Government is running up.
As for the article, your bias is showing again - she, correctly in my view, criticises Corbyn for his hypocrisy in accusing our strong and stable leader of cowardice in avoiding a televised leader's debate (how can she be a coward when she's so strong and stable?) and then choosing to dodge that debate himself.
the other bob wilson
30-04-17, 04:32
Bob - ever asked yourself why they are running up debt ?
The deficit is reducing slowly year by year. So for example each year we spend 80 odd billion more than we were taking in tax. That is being reduced year on year - BUT obviously the deficit at the end of each year goes on the debt.
If they wanted to reduce the deficit - then it's simple you either cut your spending by 80 billion - or you attempt to raise your taxes by 80 billion. Neither is possible in one go - as you would kill business over night. Same as if you stopped Govt spending by 80 billion you would kill services over night.
So - the logical / sensible way is to do it bit by bit at the same time as trying to grow the economy. It's what any company would do and it is what any sensible Govt would based on the facts in front of them.
You try as much as possible to encourage business to grow and invest, you try as much as possible to get rid of red tape and you try as much as possible to make as many savings and efficiencies as possible wherever you find then in public spending. It is what any sane company would do - if you wanted to stay in business that is.
So as much as people may admire Corbyn for his principles - they are undeliverable and dreams. Jam today and jam tomorrow etc. Dont believe the hype mate. Try running a business like that - and see you get on...
And of course you'd be saying the same thing if the debt was going exactly the same way under a Labour Government - for someone who isn't Feedback, you don't half sound a lot like him.
"Then it's simple you either cut by 80 million or reduce spending by 80 million"
Or you can have a more balanced plan that has everyone contribute. Surely if empty rooms are so bad in social housing then, while so many are without any accommodation, there can be a small additional charge for empty rooms in much, much bigger houses? Or perhaps reducing ctax reductions for second homes which are empty most of the year.
"So logical step is to do it bit by bit"
7 years worth later and every Osbourne target has been failed. A balanced commentary would talk about external factors for both Tory and labour governments but that doesn't quite fit the popular political narrative.
Hammond, Cable and McDonnell all seem to be saying that there needs to be some tax increases and borrowing should take place where used to invest in infrastructure and other projects that help growth.
Barry Dragon
03-05-17, 13:03
Growth slows in Britain and the US as GDP reports miss forecasts - as it happened -
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/apr/28/uk-gdp-britain-economic-growth-france-us-spain-business-live
Central banks have thrown about 10 trillion dollars of funny money created from zilch to prop-up the world economies while suppressing interest rates to absurdly low levels thus inflating gigantic housing, stock market and debt bubbles to produce pitiful growth. When this sh*t show finally implodes it won't be pretty.
The 0.7 is an annualised rate, and the 0.3% for britain is a quarterly growth figure. So our growth is roughly equated at 1.2% as a n equivalent figure to the US. Plus the first quarter in recent years has been the slowest period of the year. Same last year.
Taking the figures on their own may not be looking great, but an overall growth rate for developed economies we are still near the top of the pack.
The bubble created by QE is huge though. And no-one seems quite sure what to do with it. Americans seem to be winding it in over there, but the EU is still pumping loads in as they were late to the QE party. And if you note that using QE has been a prerequisite to the economy picking up. Worked in the US, worked here, and as the EU finally started it last year so their economy is slowly picking up. Without it we could have truely had a decade with zero growth. But lets just look at the bad side of it shall we?
Organ Morgan.
03-05-17, 22:53
QE is and was another prop to keep things afloat. Again, the biggest clue to how fragile Western economies are is the absurdly low interest rates. Britain's went to an all-time low last year, after 7 years of being stuck at the previous all-time low. That's the tell because the Bank of England's been around since the 1690s.
GDP is an easily manipulated measure, so too inflation rates which are directly linked to the former when making the equation. The USA's data is a joke. Their inflation number doesn't include fluctuations in food and energy prices (which everyone must consume). Here it's based on CPI when it used to be RPI. RPI is nearly always higher, and more accurate, because changes to housing costs are included which most people have to bear.
Getting back to the Yanks, their headline unemployment rate is 4.7%, and yet 94 million (from a 324 million total population) of their fit and able citizens of working age are not in work. If they totted-up the total in the same way as they did until 1985 that headline rate today would stand at 23% - just 2% lower than what it stood at during the Great Depression.
when the deficit starts at £157bn per annum then the debt pile is going to rise until such time as the deficit is reduced to nil. simple arithmetic really. it is disingenuous at best to state that the tories have run up more debt than all labour governments, when you consider the starting position of the 2010 government.
that is not to to say that the government couldn't have done more to reduce the deficit, but that is a different argument altogether
Its a myth that the Tories are the safe bet with the economy. As alluded to in the opening post national debt under this lot has doubled in seven years and for what exactly? We have seen shag all growth in that time and may well end up with another recession under the Tories.
On the bright side we will have strong and stable leadership. Its just a shame she is running scared of the electorate.
would you have expected the national debt to have fallen whilst we still had a deficit?
My choice would be tax increases.
£500 million is peanuts in terms of the debt this Government is running up.
As for the article, your bias is showing again - she, correctly in my view, criticises Corbyn for his hypocrisy in accusing our strong and stable leader of cowardice in avoiding a televised leader's debate (how can she be a coward when she's so strong and stable?) and then choosing to dodge that debate himself.
would you have preferred greater austerity to get the deficit down sooner? or would you sacrifice that for increasing levels of debt? you can't have it both ways
"Then it's simple you either cut by 80 million or reduce spending by 80 million"
Or you can have a more balanced plan that has everyone contribute. Surely if empty rooms are so bad in social housing then, while so many are without any accommodation, there can be a small additional charge for empty rooms in much, much bigger houses? Or perhaps reducing ctax reductions for second homes which are empty most of the year.
"So logical step is to do it bit by bit"
7 years worth later and every Osbourne target has been failed. A balanced commentary would talk about external factors for both Tory and labour governments but that doesn't quite fit the popular political narrative.
Hammond, Cable and McDonnell all seem to be saying that there needs to be some tax increases and borrowing should take place where used to invest in infrastructure and other projects that help growth.
the deficit has reduced by almost £100bn in those ten years, that is hardly a failure. would you have preferred greater austerity and massive cuts to public services to bring the deficit down sooner?
Organ Morgan.
04-05-17, 13:18
94 million unemployed in America - are you sure ? , that seems a fecking very high figure to me (and worrying)
Trump said this the other day while addressing Congress as President: "Tonight, as I outline the next steps we must take as a country, we must honestly acknowledge the circumstances we inherited," Trump said. "Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force."
Barry Dragon
04-05-17, 14:13
94 million unemployed in America - are you sure ? , that seems a fecking very high figure to me (and worrying)
Not really, only 50% of the population work here in the UK. You are including babies and retirees in that data and students and people who dont need to work.
Barry Dragon
04-05-17, 14:16
the deficit has reduced by almost £100bn in those ten years, that is hardly a failure. would you have preferred greater austerity and massive cuts to public services to bring the deficit down sooner?
Dont confuse them. Its their right to complain that austerity is too high and debt too high. Dont try and point out the obvious link between the 2. It doesnt compute in their head.
Eric Cartman
04-05-17, 14:27
the deficit has reduced by almost £100bn in those ten years, that is hardly a failure. would you have preferred greater austerity and massive cuts to public services to bring the deficit down sooner?
So when the next England manager comes in and says 'I will build a team to win the world cup', he should be judged a success because he got out of the group stages. They told us categorically they would do something and then they didn't manage it, if that isn't the definition of failure then maybe we don't speak the same language!
Eric Cartman
04-05-17, 14:31
Dont confuse them. Its their right to complain that austerity is too high and debt too high. Dont try and point out the obvious link between the 2. It doesnt compute in their head.
Austerity is an ideology.
Barry Dragon
04-05-17, 14:36
Austerity is an ideology.
Its one of many paths available. Lets be thankful they didn't implement it fully like Feedback wanted. It was austerity lite as worst. Cant compare what Greece has been forced to do by the EU to what we had.
We could of carried on spending the next generations tax receipts like we were and piled up the debt to encourage growth. But we have already spent the next generations tax receipts, can we allow ourselves to spend 2 generations of tax receipts before they are even paid? They call the tories greedy, but I think spending the next generations tax receipts so we can live a comfortable life and leaving them to pay is greedy.
Barry Dragon
04-05-17, 14:38
So when the next England manager comes in and says 'I will build a team to win the world cup', he should be judged a success because he got out of the group stages. They told us categorically they would do something and then they didn't manage it, if that isn't the definition of failure then maybe we don't speak the same language!
Pointing out a governments failures can lead to alot of tit for tat replies. I though the boom bust period was over in the noughties. Oops there's another failure.
So when the next England manager comes in and says 'I will build a team to win the world cup', he should be judged a success because he got out of the group stages. They told us categorically they would do something and then they didn't manage it, if that isn't the definition of failure then maybe we don't speak the same language!
i said getting the deficit down £100bn was hardly a failure. i didn't say they had achieved their forecasts.
Eric Cartman
04-05-17, 15:25
Pointing out a governments failures can lead to alot of tit for tat replies. I though the boom bust period was over in the noughties. Oops there's another failure.
And the party political wand comes out.
It is hardly tit for tat, I didn't even raise the issue. Any politician that tells the electorate they will do something and then can't achieve it, has failed. People fail in their jobs every day, no one defends me when I miss a target or deadline, why are we so precious about politicians?
Eric Cartman
04-05-17, 15:26
i said getting the deficit down £100bn was hardly a failure. i didn't say they had achieved their forecasts.
So is it a success?
Eric Cartman
04-05-17, 15:37
Its one of many paths available. Lets be thankful they didn't implement it fully like Feedback wanted. It was austerity lite as worst. Cant compare what Greece has been forced to do by the EU to what we had.
We could of carried on spending the next generations tax receipts like we were and piled up the debt to encourage growth. But we have already spent the next generations tax receipts, can we allow ourselves to spend 2 generations of tax receipts before they are even paid? They call the tories greedy, but I think spending the next generations tax receipts so we can live a comfortable life and leaving them to pay is greedy.
That is what we are doing currently.
When someone borrows money to start a business, are they being greedy and hoping their kids eventually foot the bill or are they hoping that their idea is good enough to outperform interest rates?
A government can borrow money to invest. Austerity leaves us treading water and we have ended up in a situation where our 'growth' relies upon things that will eventually implode.
would you have expected the national debt to have fallen whilst we still had a deficit?
What deficit? Osborne pledged this would be eradicated by 2015. Oh!
So is it a success?why does it have to be binary?
What deficit? Osborne pledged this would be eradicated by 2015. Oh!that's not really adding anything. Clearly the forecasts were overly optimistic and with the benefit of hindsight there should have been better stress testing.
However well the plan compared against forecast it is true to say that the deficit has been reduced by 2/3.
Depending on your politics will determine how you interpret that
that's not really adding anything. Clearly the forecasts were overly optimistic and with the benefit of hindsight there should have been better stress testing.
However well the plan compared against forecast it is true to say that the deficit has been reduced by 2/3.
Depending on your politics will determine how you interpret that
Its adding quite a lot actually. They won't have cleared the defecit by 2020 either so the national debt will keep rising and rising
Its adding quite a lot actually. They won't have cleared the defecit by 2020 either so the national debt will keep rising and rising
It sure will. That is simple arithmetic. As long as the debt/GDP ratio keeps falling, then it doesn't really matter as the nation is earning more to cover the cost
It sure will. That is simple arithmetic. As long as the debt/GDP ratio keeps falling, then it doesn't really matter as the nation is earning more to cover the cost
It certainly doesn't help that the economy is slowing down.It will be interesting to see what the Q2 results are like at the back end of July
Organ Morgan.
04-05-17, 19:51
What deficit? Osborne pledged this would be eradicated by 2015. Oh!
Yes, he was counting on huge and sustained economic growth (more tax receipts rolling in, less benefits paid out) to eliminate the deficit. It's something they have singularly failed to achieve. Instead they've cut it by two-thirds through spending cuts and stealth taxes.
Yes, he was counting on huge and sustained economic growth (more tax receipts rolling in, less benefits paid out) to eliminate the deficit. It's something they have singularly failed to achieve. Instead they've cut it by two-thirds through spending cuts and stealth taxes.
Yep but we are all in in together and its in the
national interest that we have strong and stable leadership.
Eric Cartman
04-05-17, 21:04
Yes, he was counting on huge and sustained economic growth (more tax receipts rolling in, less benefits paid out) to eliminate the deficit. It's something they have singularly failed to achieve. Instead they've cut it by two-thirds through spending cuts and stealth taxes.
You aren't allowed to call it a failure, I think we should call it a partial success to save his feelings.
Eric Cartman
04-05-17, 21:08
why does it have to be binary?
I am just curious as to what you call it when someone states a specific aim and then doesn't meet it.
I am just curious as to what you call it when someone states a specific aim and then doesn't meet it.
Again you are looking at this as being binary. The economics and politics if a nation is far more complicated than you suggest.
Was the deficit eliminated? No it wasn't and in that respect the policy failed. However it has reduced by 2/3 and when we look into the reasons why the policy failed, we see many factors, some of them external to the UK (e.g. the EU debt issue around 2012, the USA debt issue around 2013)
Again you are looking at this as being binary. The economics and politics if a nation is far more complicated than you suggest.
Was the deficit eliminated? No it wasn't and in that respect the policy failed. However it has reduced by 2/3 and when we look into the reasons why the policy failed, we see many factors, some of them external to the UK (e.g. the EU debt issue around 2012, the USA debt issue around 2013)
All true but the Tories didn't give Labour any benefit of doubt for the financial collapse in 2008 when there were clearly external factors at play which,in part,were beyond their control. So they can hard!y expect a sympathetic hearing in return
All true but the Tories didn't give Labour any benefit of doubt for the financial collapse in 2008 when there were clearly external factors at play which,in part,were beyond their control. So they can hard!y expect a sympathetic hearing in return
Labour were lax in regulating the banks. they have to be accountable or that. the general public wanted everything today and to pay for it tomorrow. Labour can't be held accountable for public greed or for the banks ruthlessness in exploiting that greed.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.