We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
More good news not Thursday's GDP figure
Comments
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: »You and I know that but a lot of short-termist, none-too-bright voters will not see it that way.
On the subject of the GDP figure for Q3, I believe the vast majority of Olympic Games tickets were bought and paid for prior to Q3, so I don't see that the games will have had much, if any, of a once-off beneficial effect in that quarter. I expect the BBC came up with that one, in their desperate attempt to find something negative about coming out of recession.
ticket sales were estimated at £600 million.
1% of 1 quarter of total GDP is approx £35 billion, I think. So even if the entire cost of the olympics (£11 billion) and the entire revenues raised from it by locog (about £1.5 billion) were added together and bunged on top of GDP, they wouldn't account for an increase of 1.3% in one quarter or whatever it was.0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »On the plus side they would either have been truly dead and buried or their policies may have been shown to have worked.
They had thirteen years to show that their policies work and ended up with abject failure. But they're never dead and buried, because their dog-in-a-manger, politics-of-envy, easy-way-out, lowest-common-denominator approach will always appeal to millions in this country.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Think it's around £3.5bn (0.25% of £1,400bn (ish)).chewmylegoff wrote: »1% of 1 quarter of total GDP is approx £35 billion, I think.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »They had thirteen years to show that their policies work and ended up with abject failure. But they're never dead and buried, because their dog-in-a-manger, politics-of-envy, easy-way-out, lowest-common-denominator approach will always appeal to millions in this country.
It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the GFC not exploded in their face."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the GFC not exploded in their face.
That certainly exacerbated it. But all Labour governments run out of money. It's in their DNA to tax and spend, and to spend more than they dare tax. They are the equivalent of individuals and families that cannot deny themselves anything, and who therefore get into unsustainable debt. I suspect that a lot of Labour voters are those sort of people, because they cannot see what the problem is.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »You and I know that but a lot of short-termist, none-too-bright voters will not see it that way.
On the subject of the GDP figure for Q3, I believe the vast majority of Olympic Games tickets were bought and paid for prior to Q3, so I don't see that the games will have had much, if any, of a once-off beneficial effect in that quarter. I expect the BBC came up with that one, in their desperate attempt to find something negative about coming out of recession.
There was spend in retail and hotels...apart from ticket sales..
The combined estimates were given in the region of 0.6%..thats out of a total of 1%..
Think the service industry added the rest...as it has been for years.0 -
There was spend in retail and hotels...apart from ticket sales..
The combined estimates were given in the region of 0.6%..thats out of a total of 1%..
Think the service industry added the rest...as it has been for years.
We'll never know for sure, but we have been told that the 'non-Olympic' spend was down in terms of tourism, retail etc because people were distracted by the games and those not interested understandably stayed away. I'd be surprised if the games contributed more than 0.3% net effect in the third quarter itself.
The BBC, the Guardian, and others must now be bracing themselves against the possibility of bitter and devastating disappointment if the Q4 figures do not indicate a treble dip recession.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: ».....The BBC, the Guardian, and others must now be bracing themselves against the possibility of bitter and devastating disappointment if the Q4 figures do not indicate a treble dip recession.
Very true.
But let's hope the ONS are... er... 'educated' enough to... er... do their job 'properly'.
If, say, Q4 came in at -0.1%, then there's plenty of room to find (what would you call them) - timing errors? All of a sudden they could be corrected to show Q3 as +0.8% and Q4 +0.1%.
After all, it must be extremely difficult for ONS to come up with the figures for the whole of the UK. An awful lot of stuff must be "open to interpretation" as to the exact 'date' or 'dates' over which transactional information is recorded....somebody has to 'interpret' them, and perhaps reveal them early to Georgie in his offices over, say, dinner, or lunch, or a whisky, or even just a cup of cold tea......0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »Very true.
But let's hope the ONS are... er... 'educated' enough to... er... do their job 'properly'.
If, say, Q4 came in at -0.1%, then there's plenty of room to find (what would you call them) - timing errors? All of a sudden they could be corrected to show Q3 as +0.8% and Q4 +0.1%.
After all, it must be extremely difficult for ONS to come up with the figures for the whole of the UK. An awful lot of stuff must be "open to interpretation" as to the exact 'date' or 'dates' over which transactional information is recorded....somebody has to 'interpret' them, and perhaps reveal them early to Georgie in his offices over, say, dinner, or lunch, or a whisky, or even just a cup of cold tea......
I'm, sure you're right. I would guess that at least +/- 0.5% in any quarter is the potential margin of error.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards