/ Economy grows by 09% shrink by 0.3% - meaningless?
All GDP figures have some uncertainty and they're often revised a bit later but why is -0.3% more meaningless than +2.5% or any other GDP growth figure with a similar uncertainty?
Look at the graph and judge for yourself where it fits in.
That's what I'm trying to say, really - there's very little point making a biggish deal of such a small figure
Not seen that, thanks.
There is a clear trend for decline in growth and my personal feeling (running a financial services business catering for entrepreneurs) is that we are in a recessionary environment.
I disagree, small numbers like -0.3% is just as valid a number as any other number. If you look at the graph the big deal is that it's at the bad end of economic data.
Looking at what's happening in real estate / business advisory which is what I work in, it looks like we may, just may be turning a corner.
I think the stabilisation of the Euro and the increased confidence in the US' ability to manage their economy is bringing a more confndent view.
We are seeing an increased liquidity in the market, increased lending into real estate and yields are falling - a sign that risk is decreasing and also confidence is increasing in the bond market, which is the primary bench for real estate investment analysis.
If you look at the wider picture - the FTSE is at pre-recession levels which an investment analyst colleague tells me is the sign of an increased appetite for risk.
Bit of a crap analogy perhaps, but it's easier to get fat than loose weight. By 2007 western economies had become so bloated we knew the pain of a crash diet was inevitable.
I think the points you've made about the FTSE levels, and a bit of confidence in the real estate sector are much better indicators of the real state of the economy. Earlier this week I heard a report that house prices (outside London) should reach pre-recession levels by 2014, and as long as this happens (and the banks start lending again), I think we can avoid a Japanese-style 20 years in the doldrums.
The % is meaningless at these small margins. Now if it was a decent number - say 4 to5% then it would be different.
Anyway they always reveise the figures latar, as its only a snapshot of I thing 40% of the economy from what I remember.
I run a small businees - engineering export driven - I have never been busier
Not meaningless at all, -0.3% tells you "not very good" compared to what you describe as a decent number or a more normal 2-3% in the UK.
Considering it will be correctd later it's meaningless. In view of the margins for error it's totally irrelevant. It's stupid number and it does not mean anything other than nothings changed.
> It's stupid number and it does not mean anything other than nothings changed.
..which in itself means something.
It's no less meaningful than any other GDP figure, they're always subject to uncertainty and revision.
-0.3% means shrinkage just as much as +2.5% means growth or -2.5% means a slump.
I think we are about to see a bond crisis myself. Yields to rise, and more QE to contain. It looks desperate to me. The flight from bonds is why we are seeing an uptick in equities.I think equities will continue to climb through to mid year. Then a good chance of a crash. Speculation of course
I think we are in a depression, and I think inflation is already out of control. Just none of the "official" figures or politicians will say that.
> Look at the graph and judge for yourself where it fits in.
If you change the date range to 1990-present it shows an upward trend while Major was PM, then a downward trend until 2009. Interesting stuff.
> Considering it will be correctd later it's meaningless. In view of the margins for error it's totally irrelevant.
Yes, I think the point trying to be made here is that if growth is -0.3% +/- 1% then we could just as easily be experiencing small growth as small decline, whereas with larger numbers, 2.5% +/- 1% is still growth whichever way you look at it.
-0.3% +/- 1% has just as much meaning as 2.5% +/- 1%, there seems to be an irrational prejudice against the number zero and numbers close to it.
In this context -0.3% means we are about 2.5 or 3% down on the +2 or +2.5% where we want to be. The uncertainties and subsequent corrections won't be 2 or 3% (maybe 0.5%?).
No, this time it's very different. And unfortunatley it's looking very bleak indeed. Hyper inflation is looking increasingly likely in an attempt to escape from unpayable debt.
Time to get used to life after growth.
agreed, so we are just ticking over, just.
Devaluing the £ by 20%......maybbe we are on the way to that any way.
Interestingly Iceland are doing alright on the bond market having ignored the advice of mainstream economists. Having walked away from their debt they are now seen as a safe(r) investment bet as they are more likely to pay back loans without the burden of debt endured by, for example, Ireland.
Contrast this 'Iceland Goes Bankrupt' story from 2008 (www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/10/iceland_goes_ba.html) with this one where Iceland's bond issues were oversubsribed (www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/iceland-targets-wealth-funds-as-new-law-hits-bondholders.html).
Forget the advice of most economists and simply follow the money.
Having said that. This will happen to us and is happening right now. Just at a much slower pace, probably taking the next 15 years to play out.
> Having said that. This will happen to us and is happening right now. Just at a much slower pace, probably taking the next 15 years to play out.
Maybe but I am not sure if anyone really knows. There is re-trenching of the economy going on in the UK which will obviously precipitate some kind of pain, but there are firm signs of growth in manufacturing (cars production in particular), aerospace industries, creative media and so forth.
This is all against a back drop of global re-trenching which confound robust, long-term forecast.
Ed Balls really is an arrogant fool. On statistically insignificant data he makes such firm proclamations. World economics are way to subtle in their integration and dynamic in their ebb and flow for him to state a 'cure' for our ills. Whilst Osborne does seem to be missing some tricks, focus on the debt is paramount, but not the be-all and end-all.
Iceland is a tiny economy and hardly has a bearing on the grand scheme of things -its hardly got a major population--- no disrespect to anybody from Iceland.
Follow the money - invest in equities?
> Iceland is a tiny economy and hardly has a bearing on the grand scheme of things -its hardly got a major population--- no disrespect to anybody from Iceland.
> Follow the money - invest in equities?
The small population is largely irelevant - it is the size of the debt that is important.
We should have jailed the bankers and bailed the tax payers as this would have eased liquidity and kept the real economy moving rather than locking it up in the banking system. But no, as it stands we are still picking up the bill for the bankers whilst the finance industry migrates surreptitiously eastward (it will go where it can make a profit regardless of ethical and moral considerations).
By 'Follow the money) I mean to say that markets don't care about your past, they care about making money NOW and 'going forward'.
Economic policies need to be analyzed in terms of the incentives they create, rather than the hopes that inspired them.
Elsewhere on the site
Aiming at designing and producing the best belay glasses to protect climbers’ necks, Y&Y focuses on every detail to... Read more
On Sunday 12th October the Depot Climbing Centre Leeds held its 5th annual Battle of Britain competition. The competition has... Read more
Climbing as a discipline offers plentiful metaphors for tackling life's obstacles - bravery, courage, climbing to... Read more
Pete Whittaker has flashed the 32 pitch route Freerider 5.12d on El Capitan in Yosemite Valley over three days,... Read more