The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[drummonds]

I agree we're miles ahead of Ireland and the Netherlands in terms of the countrys GDP, and thats before you stop to consider that many of the multi-nationals are funnelling their money through these two countries and artificially pumping up their GDP figures.

 

a more worthwhile discussion would be how much of our tax revenue is spent on financing borrowing. I wonder how many folk know that 8p of every pound they pay in tax goes to pay interest on debt. this figure will go considerably higher before debt starts to actally be paid back. currently around £1,500,000,000,000

 

this debt is being piled on to the shoulders of the next generation of tax payers who will not only emerge from universities up to their necks in student loans. they will also be looking to take out mortgages they can't afford, paying taxes to pay back debt and probably eat from time to time. so lets all go and borrow a bit more for them to repay.

[TJC1]

How do you propose Osborne pays down the debt without a budget surplus? That's the whole point of the charter he's brought in. You really aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

 

Didnt he forecast 5 years in 2010. Its now going to be 2019.

Hence focus. Troll.

[999tigger]

well the performance is relative to where we were in 2010. the uk economy since 2010 has outperformed virtually every other economy in the developed world.

 

 

https://fullfact.org/economy/uk_fastest_growing_gdp_major_economy-41159

 

"Britain’s GDP grew faster than any other of what the International Monetary Fund (IMF) calls “major advanced economies”—the other G7 economies—last year. That’s according to the IMF’s figures.

 

These may actually understate the UK’s lead, because the UK’s GDP for 2014 was revised up to 2.8% yesterday from 2.6%. The IMF comparison is based on the 2.6% figure. Figures for other countries, such as Canada, have been revised and so differ from the IMF figures too. But these differences don’t change the UK’s ranking: even by the lower estimate of 2.6% the UK would come out on top."

 

so when you say we are on a par with japan and france you might add that we are overtaking both as we are growing faster.

and when you say behind netherlands, ireland and scandinavia i think you need to qualify that with something about per capita income or the like as it clearly isn't gdp.

 

the uk recession was very deep compared to some other countries. it happened when gordon brown was either prime minister or chancellor. fortunately the clean up crew are here and things are on the mend. it is why labour are not trusted on the economy.

 

Considering the discussion has chosen to be about GDP per capita then its safe to assume the conversation was about GDP per capita.

 

I never mentioned about growth. You want to discuss this in political terms whereas im pretty neutral. Its just boring when you misrepresent things or dont put them in context.

 

Common sense would suggest it wasnt GDP beause larger countries have an advantage.

 

---------- Post added 15-10-2015 at 14:36 ----------

 

I agree we're miles ahead of Ireland and the Netherlands in terms of the countrys GDP, and thats before you stop to consider that many of the multi-nationals are funnelling their money through these two countries and artificially pumping up their GDP figures.

 

Except we were talking about GDP per head.

 

UK has 63.84m v Ireland 4.58m v Netherlands 16.8m I would hope overall GDP was superior, but we were talking about GDP per capita.

 

Btw a lot of gdp growth is due to the 2.8m extra people in the UK.

Edited October 15, 2015 by 999tigger

[geared]

Except we were talking about GDP per head.

 

UK has 63.84m v Ireland 4.58m v Netherlands 16.8m I would hope overall GDP was superior, but we were talking about GDP per capita.

 

Btw a lot of gdp growth is due to the 2.8m extra people in the UK.

 

My point still stands thought, if large multi-nationals are all declaring their income in Ireland then it inflates their GDP.

The money wasn't made in Ireland, many don't even operate a large business there, they just send the money on through.

It shows as economic activity in Ireland, but in reality its money from all over the EU.

 

Their GDP per head will look pretty decent, but it's still a pig to find jobs and make a good living there.

[Solomon1]

ndvbdlhisgfilausdghai;jb

 

"GET LABOUR OUT!"

Edited October 15, 2015 by Solomon1

[Vague_Boy]

Btw a lot of gdp growth is due to the 2.8m extra people in the UK.

 

Bizarrely, high house prices contribute to GDP "growth".

 

GDP figures include house prices. In a concept called ‘imputed rent‘, householders are considered to charge themselves a notional amount for the accommodation they already own, which is treated as economic output or more specifically as housing services.

 

LINK

 

So selling each other the same pile of bricks at ever increasing prices represents growth. Or the the height of charlatanry. You takes yer pick.

 

Modern economics has long since divorced itself from reality. Arguing about "growth" and GDP is an endless merry-go-round of utter futility.

[I1L2T3]

Bizarrely, high house prices contribute to GDP "growth".

 

 

 

LINK

 

So selling each other the same pile of bricks at ever increasing prices represents growth. Or the the height of charlatanry. You takes yer pick.

 

Modern economics has long since divorced itself from reality. Arguing about "growth" and GDP is an endless merry-go-round of utter futility.

 

Very interesting.

 

Shouldn't be forgotten also that Brown removed housing costs from official measures of inflation.

[Phanerothyme]

Modern economics has long since divorced itself from reality. Arguing about "growth" and GDP is an endless merry-go-round of utter futility.

 

I think that's it, right there.

 

The South Park episode about the 2008 financial crash and the consequences summed it up for me quite well. [it also won an Emmy].

[Solomon1]

I think that's it, right there.

 

The South Park episode about the 2008 financial crash and the consequences summed it up for me quite well. [it also won an Emmy].

 

Yo dude!

 

Wasssssaaap??

 

(hope you didn't spot my little accident with the keyboard)

[drummonds]

Considering the discussion has chosen to be about GDP per capita then its safe to assume the conversation was about GDP per capita.

 

I never mentioned about growth. You want to discuss this in political terms whereas im pretty neutral. Its just boring when you misrepresent things or dont put them in context.

 

Common sense would suggest it wasnt GDP beause larger countries have an advantage.

 

oh right. so was the drop in gdp in 2008/2009..........

 

 

2008 Q2: -0.2%

2008 Q3: -1.7%

2008 Q4: -2.2%

2009 Q1: -1.8%

2009 Q2: -0.3%

 

...... down to a population migration or were the figure even worse than they look because of the population increase that accompanied it?