Could we "officialy" come out of recession tomorrow.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

fine, if you're expecting from -4.6% last quarter it to be positive in the next quarter, you are in dreamworld

so please tell me that

• Manufacturing fell by just 0.3% compared to 5.2% in the previous quarter - is a bad thing
• Construction recovered from a 6.9% fall to register a 2.2% drop - is a bad thing.

all of the factors that make up GDP are slow to react and to me they look pretty good compared to last quarter. don't expect things to be turned around in just one quarter or possibly even two. whatever 'your worst case scenario' is, i;d rather have a 0.8% drop (even if worse than expected) than another -4.6% drop!

if you're not happy with that and prefer the -4.6% scenario - you may as well get your tin hat now.

Did I even mention anything....no, scrap that, did I even so much as hint that I was suggesting anything about -4.6% drops?

No.

So why you bombarding me yet again with "if you think" and "if your not happy" and "your worst case scenario".

You are forever changing my posts to something comletely different. Even others are now picking up on you taking my posts out of all context.

I was simply talking about your use of "but it could have been worse" in your arguments to dilute anything bad. It could have been better too, but you never ever say that. "It could have been worse" is done when prices drop, when sales drop, when banks lose money etc.

It't not reasoning, its not arguing, it's just a get out line for anything which looks bad.

roseland69

Ho Ho, I haven't been let down.

"This is bad news. But hey, it could have been worse. Thus, it ain't that bad. No really. In fact, you could say its quite good news"

Ahh, the smell of spin.

Really2

mbga9pgf wrote: »

So you would prefer to defer the pain, forgetting that any government stimulus is going to have to be paid out of future GDP? Nice. Sure your kids will thank you for that.

It makes no difference if you say GDP is going to fall 6% over X years the fall is the same and the pain.

The time it runs over makes no difference in fact the pain would actualy be more if you did 6% over 1 year compared to 6% over 6 years.

losses will be paid out of future GDP, unenployment,
To increase the rate of fall would also increase public borrowing, I cant se the point of debating the legnth will make it worse if the end result will be the same figure.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So why you bombarding me yet again with "if you think" and "if your not happy" and "your worst case scenario".

No, no and no. i'm asking you a question which you have failed to answer. and i brought in the last quarter GDP because it's very relevant when comparing the two sets of data. don't you think so.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are forever changing my posts to something comletely different. Even others are now picking up on you taking my posts out of all context.

No, i have not changed any of your post but asked you a question. which you didn't answer. bringing other people into it get's you no GD bonus points unfortunately. i'm not expecting any reply.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It't not reasoning, its not arguing, it's just a get out line for anything which looks bad.

you failed to asnwer the question in your whole post but threw in lot's of assumptions that you think that i'm trying to infer and that other people have noticed it. i actually don't care and you should worry what you say not what other people think.

let me ask you the question again and see if you'd like to answer it...

so please tell me that

• Manufacturing fell by just 0.3% compared to 5.2% in the previous quarter - is it not a good thing compared to the last quarter?
• Construction recovered from a 6.9% fall to register a 2.2% drop - is it not a good thing compared to the last quarter?

Graham_Devon

Why you asking me a question in the first place if your not trying to defer?

I wasn't involved in that discussion?

neas

If anyone thought we were 'coming out of the recession early' I wanna have whatever shizniz they are smoking cause it sure is potent to cause that sort of delusions.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why you asking me a question in the first place if your not trying to defer?

I wasn't involved in that discussion?

so you would have rather debated what i was assuming you thought that i said, that i was twisting your words and that other people have even noticed instead of discussing the actual components of the -0.8% GDP drop?


i'm intrigued why you won't answer the question i've put to you three times now - so here it is to see if you will the 4th time of asking...

• Manufacturing fell by just 0.3% compared to 4.6% in the previous quarter - is it not a good thing compared to the last quarter?
• Construction recovered from a 6.9% fall to register a 2.2% drop - is it not a good thing compared to the last quarter?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

so you would have rather debated what i was assuming you thought that i said, that i was twisting your words and that other people have even noticed instead of discussing the actual components of the -0.8% GDP drop?

i'm intrigued why you won't answer the question i've put to you three times now - so here it is to see if you will the 4th time of asking...

• Manufacturing fell by just 0.3% compared to 5.2% in the previous quarter - is it not a good thing compared to the last quarter?
• Construction recovered from a 6.9% fall to register a 2.2% drop - is it not a good thing compared to the last quarter?

I have no idea what you are on chucky. Sorry.

I'm not sure if your trying to spin this so far, your not even making sense now, or whether you are simply trying to get around what I said in very simple words to you by trying to make out I'm not answering questions on a subject I wasn't part of the discussion about and therefore trying to make me look silly by saying "I cant answer".

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I have no idea what you are on chucky. Sorry.

I'm not sure if your trying to spin this so far, your not even making sense now, or whether you are simply trying to get around what I said in very simple words to you by trying to make out I'm not answering questions on a subject I wasn't part of the discussion about and therefore trying to make me look silly by saying "I cant answer".

chill out graham, you're making too much of a simple question that was put to YOU, that you haven't answered.

i asked you a simple question - you now trying to make comments about "what i'm on", "you're trying to make you look silly" etc... trying to make this look like it's personal against you. it's 100% not.

if you don't want to answer the question just say you don't want to answer it, simple.

but here it is again just for entertainment value

• Manufacturing fell by just 0.3% compared to 5.2% in the previous quarter - is it not a good thing compared to the last quarter?
• Construction recovered from a 6.9% fall to register a 2.2% drop - is it not a good thing compared to the last quarter?

michaels

I was wrong - I thought it might be positive today.

A couple of questions:
1) Quote on BBC that we now need +1.5% in the next 2 Qs to meet the govt forecast of -3.25 to -3.75 annual. How does this work, so far this calendar year we are down 3.2% (2.4+0.8) so surely we could fall a total of .55 in the last 2 Qs and be -3.75 for the year?

2) What will Q3 look like - is fiscal boost and QE and inventory rebuild still feeding through and thus Q3 likely to be better?

3) I was predicting a 'W' with a slight upturn resulting from the huge fiscal stimulus and QE and then further retrenchment as bond market conditions prevent further govt borrowing - will we actually get the positive leg still?

4) Where should we be with public spending? Labour policy has been that pretty much all economic growth over the last few years should go to the public sector - hence the proportion of gdp in the public sector has risen. Given GDP is now down about 5.7% from peak the public sector would have to shrink by about 10% to put it back to the same share of GDP as when we were last at this level on GDP 4 years ago.

5) The only way keeping public spending static in real terms can be paid for is through a big increase in taxation - even if the decline in tax revenues had been linear (ie no extra drops in corporation tax) the take from all types of tax would need to increase by 5-10% of GDP - anyone know what this looks like on each tax? - 5% on VAT? 8% on basic rate tax?

6) Actual increases will not be linear - tax competition mean increases in corporation tax and top rate taxes are unlikely to be revenue positive so it is basic rate and those just in to higher rate who will be hit hardest - 'fairness' and 'efficiency' will suggest those best to hit are those who are currently able to save - those already living on 100%+ of income for essentials will just be a drain on the exchequer if their incomes are reduced and any reduction in their consumption will just push the economy further down so if you earn more than enough to live on but not enough to live abroard expect to see a 10-15% reduction in your take home pay.