UK Q2 GDP at new risk of downward revision tomorrow

Really2

Revised up to -0.7%

michaels

When the 0.8% came out a lot on here suggested upward revision was likely, looks like we were right.

chucky

Really2 wrote: »

Revised up to -0.7%

so it's not as bad as the more negative posters predicted... what a surprise :rolleyes:

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

Thanks Mr Mumble.

Investment (as I'm sure you know but some others may not) consists of investment in productive capacity, spending on new houses and changes to inventories.

Falls in the latter 2 parts of investment don't really matter in the end (within reason) as they can always be made up at a later date, to some extent at least although they cause pain via unemployment in the short term. Drops in spending on investment that will be used to create the GDP of tomorrow is more worrying.

DAK how to see what proportion of investment falls have come from which sort of investment? My feeling is that housing will be broadly the same as this time last year and I suspect that falling inventories must be pretty much finished as there's only so far they can fall but that's just a guess.

Anyone...?

Investment always takes a hammering in a recession, I have never understood why companies don't hold funds back (in the good times) and invest counter cyclically in many a business there is a dictinct lack of capacity after a recession and it always seems to me an opportunity missed (also costs tend to be lower in a recession). This recession may of course be different as economists are saying that excess capacity will take a time to disappear (I am not convinced about that).

StevieJ

chucky wrote: »

so it's not as bad as the more negative posters predicted... what a surprise :rolleyes:

I thought it was supposed to be a lot worse, and it is actually positively amended, it also said that inventories were down and I thought the doomers were saying that the improvement would come from a (short term) rebuild of inventories

"The most important piece of news is on inventories, which continued to fall at a fairly aggressive pace."

Looks good for positive GDP in Q3.

nearlynew

All government statistics, by definition, are fiddled.

Really2

nearlynew wrote: »

I couldn't give a stuff about any "figures" to be honest.


And I'm 46

OK nearlyfifty.;) If you don't care don't post about them then. (but sorry for the age confusion)

I just thought you were in your fifty as you said you had about 10 years to retirement.

StevieJ

nearlynew wrote: »

And I'm 46

:rotfl: He squeezed that one out of you, a classic move Really

nearlynew

Really2 wrote: »

OK nearlyfifty.;) If you don't care don't post about them then. (but sorry for the age confusion)

I just thought you were in your fifty as you said you had about 10 years to retirement.

I don't analyse them, or take any notice, if that's what you mean.

Doesn't stop me saying I think they are a pile of cr4p.


Ever heard of early retirement?

Really2

nearlynew wrote: »

Ever heard of early retirement?

Yes but unless some one tells you you automatically think 65. Especially this day and age.