Economy shrinks by 1.6%

Cleaver

ad44downey wrote: »

It looks like the depression is going to be even worse than we first feared.

Your continous, simple one-line, negative posts are fast becoming my highlight on this forum. Sorry to be harsh, but it's like there's an ad44downey machine that someone presses and it produces your posts for you:

"I think this shows that Brown's systems will simply not work."

"These sleazy BTLers will all die over the next four years and quite right too."

"We will see an even bigger depression that the '30s".

Brilliant stuff, keep it coming.

Generali

Again you change your argument.

You previously said:

Perhaps people who claimed that cutting IRs would discourage saving would like to admit they were wrong now?

Now you say:

I do expect savings to fall as incomes decline

So is your point about savings rates connected to incomes or interest rates? You seem to have made both points in a few minutes.

Which way do you want it?

JonnyBravo

Cleaver wrote: »

but it's like there's an ad44downey machine that someone presses and it produces your posts for you:

I think they would have to press quite a large knob.....

Cannon_Fodder

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Perhaps people who claimed that cutting IRs would discourage saving would like to admit they were wrong now?

"savings ratio surged from a negative number in the first quarter to almost 5% by the end of the year"

It is figures for last year...before the worst of the rate cuts had filtered through to savings rates.

Helped by the petrol price cuts etc, Ordinary joes could see the excrement on the way to hit the fan, and were hunkering down to ride out the recession.

Another three months will tell what todays savings situation is...

The start of 2008 was bad for savings, as per;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/jun/28/savings.creditcrunch

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Again you change your argument.

You previously said:

Now you say:

So is your point about savings rates connected to incomes or interest rates? You seem to have made both points in a few minutes.

Which way do you want it?

The main determinant of saving is income. Confidence in the economy is also important, but that has been weak throughout the period in question. I am not actually attacking you, I was attacking people who claimed that cutting IRs would lead to a flight from saving. That has not happened.

Dithering_Dad

Cleaver wrote: »

Your continous, simple one-line, negative posts are fast becoming my highlight on this forum. Sorry to be harsh, but it's like there's an ad44downey machine that someone presses and it produces your posts for you:

"I think this shows that Brown's systems will simply not work."

"These sleazy BTLers will all die over the next four years and quite right too."

"We will see an even bigger depression that the '30s".

Brilliant stuff, keep it coming.

He doesn't have time to post anything of any substance because he's jumping between his various other usernames (fatpig, napoleon, scousethife to name but a few). Oh, and because he's simply not bright enough to post anything other than one-liners and insults.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The main determinant of saving is income.

That is economic orthodoxy. Economic orthodoxy isn't always right however....

What have average saving rates been in the US and China over the past few years?

China has been (IIRC) approximately 30% of income. US about -2% of income.

Average Chinese incomes have been a fraction of those in the US over the period.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

That is economic orthodoxy. Economic orthodoxy isn't always right however....

What have average saving rates been in the US and China over the past few years?

China has been (IIRC) approximately 30% of income. US about -2% of income.

Average Chinese incomes have been a fraction of those in the US over the period.

The cost of living in China is far lower. Real income growth has been much higher in China than in the USA, where real wages have been static (except for the rich).

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The cost of living in China is far lower. Real income growth has been much higher in China than in the USA, where real wages have been static (except for the rich).

Economists use something called purchasing power parity to allow for this.

You're just wrong. Badly wrong.

Ps You moved your argument again!

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Economists use something called purchasing power parity to allow for this.

You're just wrong. Badly wrong.

Ps You moved your argument again!

What determines saving rates then?