Economic indicators, useful or meaningless?

michaels

padington wrote: »

So why don't they change it in the UK ? Because as it stands London has an inherent supply of petrol on its house price fire by the anomaly.

In a way London alrady has a lot going against it compared to the rest of the UK. Progressive tax rates on income and property (council tax, stamp duty) already mean Londoners pay a tax premium on the income needed to enjoy the same standard of living as can be had for much cheaper elsewhere. And of course it doesn't just stop at tax, housing, eating out, cinema, even beer is much more expensive in London.

And yet London still thrives to the extent that the gap is getting larger not smaller. this suggests two possibilities:
1) That London offers things that other places do not that people are willing to pay for.
2) That there is some sort of feedback loop where London's success breeds more success and relative failure in the rest of the UK is also self reinforcing.

padington

antrobus wrote: »

Ah, the good old ad hominem fallacy! The usual last resort.:)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

You started that game first, twit.

antrobus wrote: »

It is clear that you are indeed struggling.:)

I don't spend time virtually to satiate some weird need to try to feel intellectually superior to others or are weirdly possessed by an unfortunate sense of inadequacy and display a clear need to over compensate.

Try it some time.

padington

michaels wrote: »

In a way London alrady has a lot going against it compared to the rest of the UK. Progressive tax rates on income and property (council tax, stamp duty) already mean Londoners pay a tax premium on the income needed to enjoy the same standard of living as can be had for much cheaper elsewhere. And of course it doesn't just stop at tax, housing, eating out, cinema, even beer is much more expensive in London.

And yet London still thrives to the extent that the gap is getting larger not smaller. this suggests two possibilities:
1) That London offers things that other places do not that people are willing to pay for.
2) That there is some sort of feedback loop where London's success breeds more success and relative failure in the rest of the UK is also self reinforcing.

i think it goes back to that idea that every time a population doubles, every aspect of that society enjoys a 15% increase in productivity, which in turn makes it a more attractive space for more people to join.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

i think it goes back to that idea that every time a population doubles, every aspect of that society enjoys a 15% increase in productivity, which in turn makes it a more attractive space for more people to join.

and yet empires rise and fall
cities grow and are abandoned


a mystery

antrobus

padington wrote: »

You started that game first, twit....

No, I didn't.

You said;

padington wrote: »

No, its just that inflation and interest rates and our use of them seems to be quite blunt and simple. Just trying to get my head around why this is.

I was merely agreeing with you, by noting that it was self-evident that you were indeed struggling to 'get your head around it'.:)

padington wrote: »

...I don't spend time virtually to satiate some weird need to try to feel intellectually superior to others or are weirdly possessed by an unfortunate sense of inadequacy and display a clear need to over compensate.

Try it some time.

Let's recap.

You started off here;

padington wrote: »

I say that because the current inflation statistics very poorly reflect the weakening spending power of us all when buying things in the UK once housing costs are truely considered like they should be.

I have simply pointed out that CPIH, which is a current inflation statistic, does indeed attempt to truly consider housing costs, and have explained what it is that any CPI type statistic is trying to measure.

I can't help if if I know things that you don't.

antrobus

padington wrote: »

i think it goes back to that idea that every time a population doubles, every aspect of that society enjoys a 15% increase in productivity, which in turn makes it a more attractive space for more people to join.

There is no correlation, or a weak negative correlation, between measures of total factor productivity growth and population growth

http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/1813-9450-1567

Using figures from the U.S. Census and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Jos! Lobo of Arizona State University and my colleagues at the Martin Prosperity Institute examined the trends in population growth and productivity growth (measured as economic output per capita) for all 350-plus U.S. metros over the decade spanning 2001 to 2011.

Their main conclusion: There is little, if any connection, between the two.

http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/09/great-growth-disconnect-population-growth-does-not-equal-economic-growth/5860/First page of Google.:)