Uk 1q gdp drop largest quarterly decline since 1958

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm not a landlord, dont do shares, but want to in the future, so need to learn. Seems different people call different things growth.

that's a bit harsh
i'm a landlord, i do shares - you don't not have to be one of those to learn here. i do it everyday.

growth doesn't mean you're out of recession it has to be absolute growth

ps. just seen JB explanation

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

that's a bit harsh
i'm a landlord, i do shares - you don't not have to be one of those to learn here. i do it everyday.

growth doesn't mean you're out of recession it has to be absolute growth

And !!!!!! is that?

The other thread says you just need one quarte rof growth and your out. Now you need absolute growth?

Now, I am assuming absolute growth is -1.9% one quarter and then 3 quarters at 1% = annual growth at 1.1%?

I aint assuming nothing any more though!!

inspector_monkfish

:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:

kennyboy66_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And !!!!!! is that?

The other thread says you just need one quarte rof growth and your out. Now you need absolute growth?

Now, I am assuming absolute growth is -1.9% one quarter and then 3 quarters at 1% = annual growth at 1.1%?

I aint assuming nothing any more though!!

Ignore absolute growth but yes annual growth is roughly the 4 quarters added up.

The definition of a recession has nothing to do with annual growth, it purely focuses on quarterly growth and treats each quarter as a discrete time interval.

kennyboy66_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thanks, but would that mean "growth". I.e. 0.5% growth between the quarters.

.

No it doesn't.

To go back to the car anology.

Your car slows from 70mph to 30mph in 10 seconds and then slows again to 20mph in the next 10 seconds.

In neither period of 10 seconds are you accelerating.

inspector_monkfish

kennyboy66 wrote: »

No it doesn't.

To go back to the car anology.

Your car slows from 70mph to 30mph in 10 seconds and then slows again to 20mph in the next 10 seconds.

In neither period of 10 seconds are you accelerating.

you're just geting slower, slower...

werent we always told that 2 negatives dont necesarily make a positive

or was it the other way around

Graham_Devon

Hmmm, I may now understand

Biggest thing is knowing it's not a rolloing number, and starts from a baseline, that clears a LOT up.

A lot of the stuff on these forums, from everyone including myself, is often said in ways that can easily lead you down the wrong track depending on the point you want to prove.

My post earlier was from reading this stuff and thinking it was a rolling figure. Hence my reason for categorically denying we could possibly have over 1.9% growth this quarter to get over the 0.0% base again

kennyboy66_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hmmm, I may now understand

Biggest thing is knowing it's not a rolloing number, and starts from a baseline, that clears a LOT up.

A lot of the stuff on these forums, from everyone including myself, is often said in ways that can easily lead you down the wrong track depending on the point you want to prove.

My post earlier was from reading this stuff and thinking it was a rolling figure. Hence my reason for categorically denying we could possibly have over 1.9% growth this quarter to get over the 0.0% base again

Ok

I hope this doesn't confuse you more, but beware when you see USA GDP figures.
They are normally quoted each quarter at "an annual rate".

Hence you might see USA GDP Q1 2009 at -5.5%.

This measure is obviously different from the way the UK reports numbers.

Graham_Devon

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Ok

I hope this doesn't confuse you more, but beware when you see USA GDP figures.
They are normally quoted each quarter at "an annual rate".

Hence you might see USA GDP Q1 2009 at -5.5%.

This measure is obviously different from the way the UK reports numbers.

Ahh I had that one sorted!

Thanks for the help.

StevieJ

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Ok

I hope this doesn't confuse you more, but beware when you see USA GDP figures.
They are normally quoted each quarter at "an annual rate".

Hence you might see USA GDP Q1 2009 at -5.5%.

This measure is obviously different from the way the UK reports numbers.

They also have a different definition of recession, I think they have a committee to decide based on a basket of indicators e.g. unemployment numbers.