BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

surrey_commuter

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

I am thinking of fellow forumites

Stevo_666

darkhairedlord said:

Stevo_666 said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

On living standards, that's where GDP per capita comes in. As BB mentions above, India has a comparable overall GDP to the UK but its inhabitants are on the whole much less well off than we are as their GDP per capita is much lower.

The control point has been done to death on here but I'm sure someone will pop up to argue it again...

In general terms population growth increases gdp, simply by having more hands passing the money on its merry-go-round. more hands = more transactions = more gdp. However, if you have a population growth of one, where they bring covid-19 to the uk and that leads to lots of people staying at home and not spending money... clearly that leads to a reduction in GDP.

That's not disagreeing with the point I was making further up the thread. But not sure how its connected directly to what you quoted.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

Speak for yourself. I think if you were there, you can remember.

coopster_the_1st

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

pblakeney

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

Meh, currently earning less, spending less, and still happy.

Edit:- Not much crossover in the Venn diagram.

surrey_commuter

coopster_the_1st said:

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

I was thinking about no pressure on public services/finances good pay rises and little threat of redundancy

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

Speak for yourself. I think if you were there, you can remember.

So can I put you down as agreeing with Rick and I that higher GDP growth is a good thing.

It does stagger me the difference compound growth makes to a 0.5% fall over a decade

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

I was thinking about no pressure on public services/finances good pay rises and little threat of redundancy

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

That worked out well 😔

spatt77

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

Meh, currently earning less, spending less, and still happy.

Edit:- Not much crossover in the Venn diagram.

cheers! that was the point i was trying to make!

morstar

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

Boy do I feel old now!

Jeremy.89

spatt77 said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

Meh, currently earning less, spending less, and still happy.

Edit:- Not much crossover in the Venn diagram.

cheers! that was the point i was trying to make!

That the majority are in the single market?

pblakeney

Jeremy.89 said:

spatt77 said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

Meh, currently earning less, spending less, and still happy.

Edit:- Not much crossover in the Venn diagram.

cheers! that was the point i was trying to make!

That the majority are in the single market?

Adding that 3rd circle made the Venn Diagram work. 😉

darkhairedlord

Stevo_666 said:

darkhairedlord said:

Stevo_666 said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

On living standards, that's where GDP per capita comes in. As BB mentions above, India has a comparable overall GDP to the UK but its inhabitants are on the whole much less well off than we are as their GDP per capita is much lower.

The control point has been done to death on here but I'm sure someone will pop up to argue it again...

In general terms population growth increases gdp, simply by having more hands passing the money on its merry-go-round. more hands = more transactions = more gdp. However, if you have a population growth of one, where they bring covid-19 to the uk and that leads to lots of people staying at home and not spending money... clearly that leads to a reduction in GDP.

That's not disagreeing with the point I was making further up the thread. But not sure how its connected directly to what you quoted.

I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with either point. Both were binary positions in an analog world.

darkhairedlord

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

I was thinking about no pressure on public services/finances good pay rises and little threat of redundancy

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

That worked out well 😔

You have reached peak-woke.

surrey_commuter

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

I was thinking about no pressure on public services/finances good pay rises and little threat of redundancy

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

That worked out well 😔

Not at all, in some years they even ran a surplus

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

I was thinking about no pressure on public services/finances good pay rises and little threat of redundancy

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

That worked out well 😔

Not at all, in some years they even ran a surplus

The couple of years of surpluses were one-offs from the sale of the 3G licences at the peak of the Tech boom. That was nothing to do with Labours fiscal management of the economy

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

Speak for yourself. I think if you were there, you can remember.

So can I put you down as agreeing with Rick and I that higher GDP growth is a good thing.

It does stagger me the difference compound growth makes to a 0.5% fall over a decade

Generally, depends on the distribution of that growth, though.

surrey_commuter

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

I was thinking about no pressure on public services/finances good pay rises and little threat of redundancy

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

That worked out well 😔

Not at all, in some years they even ran a surplus

The couple of years of surpluses were one-offs from the sale of the 3G licences at the peak of the Tech boom. That was nothing to do with Labours fiscal management of the economy

I was responding to your assertion

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

coopster_the_1st

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

I was thinking about no pressure on public services/finances good pay rises and little threat of redundancy

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

That worked out well 😔

Not at all, in some years they even ran a surplus

The couple of years of surpluses were one-offs from the sale of the 3G licences at the peak of the Tech boom. That was nothing to do with Labours fiscal management of the economy

I was responding to your assertion

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

And I originally referred to the last few years prior to the GFC before you widened out the time frame. 2005-2007 was all about house price rises and BTL's.

On the point of the 3G licence windfall, that was pure luck. It took place at peak tech boom. Had they occurred as little as 6 months later they would have got no-where near what they achieved.

Jeremy.89

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

surrey_commuter said:

coopster_the_1st said:

Jeremy.89 said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

People who left secondary education during the gfc are now in their 30s, people who left tertiary education during the gfc are now in their mid 30s. There is a large portion of the working population who simply don't know what it was like pre gfc.

The last few years prior to the GFC were mostly about monthly house price increases of at least 1% and how many houses people had as BTL's

I was thinking about no pressure on public services/finances good pay rises and little threat of redundancy

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

That worked out well 😔

Not at all, in some years they even ran a surplus

The couple of years of surpluses were one-offs from the sale of the 3G licences at the peak of the Tech boom. That was nothing to do with Labours fiscal management of the economy

I was responding to your assertion

All fuelled by ever increasing borrowing...

And I originally referred to the last few years prior to the GFC before you widened out the time frame. 2005-2007 was all about house price rises and BTL's.

On the point of the 3G licence windfall, that was pure luck. It took place at peak tech boom. Had they occurred as little as 6 months later they would have got no-where near what they achieved.

The right wing blaming their misfortune on luck again.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

Speak for yourself. I think if you were there, you can remember.

So can I put you down as agreeing with Rick and I that higher GDP growth is a good thing.

It does stagger me the difference compound growth makes to a 0.5% fall over a decade

Generally, depends on the distribution of that growth, though.

My argument is that the poorest are most dependent on the state so will benefit the most from a strong economy as there is less pressure on state finances

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

it is quite interesting that people can not remember the difference between pre and post GFC.

Saying that I assume they do not put the differences down to the relative performance of the economy

interesting graph - the magic number seems to be 2.5%
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2

Speak for yourself. I think if you were there, you can remember.

So can I put you down as agreeing with Rick and I that higher GDP growth is a good thing.

It does stagger me the difference compound growth makes to a 0.5% fall over a decade

Generally, depends on the distribution of that growth, though.

My argument is that the poorest are most dependent on the state so will benefit the most from a strong economy as there is less pressure on state finances

Would be better if they were less dependent in the first place.

rick_chasey

spatt77 said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

Meh, currently earning less, spending less, and still happy.

Edit:- Not much crossover in the Venn diagram.

cheers! that was the point i was trying to make!

That is a great list of nations who have had remarkable economic growth...!

spatt77

rick_chasey said:

spatt77 said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

Meh, currently earning less, spending less, and still happy.

Edit:- Not much crossover in the Venn diagram.

cheers! that was the point i was trying to make!

That is a great list of nations who have had remarkable economic growth...!

and yet not one of them has a economy as big as ours..........

surrey_commuter

spatt77 said:

rick_chasey said:

spatt77 said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

Meh, currently earning less, spending less, and still happy.

Edit:- Not much crossover in the Venn diagram.

cheers! that was the point i was trying to make!

That is a great list of nations who have had remarkable economic growth...!

and yet not one of them has a economy as big as ours..........

are we not still in the week long debate about the importance of economic growth?

rick_chasey

spatt77 said:

rick_chasey said:

spatt77 said:

pblakeney said:

rick_chasey said:

pblakeney said:

spatt77 said:

I think all this talk about GDP and growth is missing the point! surely a better standard of living and being in control is more important? Im sure the countries with the highest standard of living maybe dont figure anywhere on GDP graphs!

You are asking people to consider that money is not the be all and end all.

The world is a lot less angry when their earnings are all rising.

It is a lot angrier when earnings don’t.

You may not think earnings are the be all and end all, but they make everything else feel better.

Meh, currently earning less, spending less, and still happy.

Edit:- Not much crossover in the Venn diagram.

cheers! that was the point i was trying to make!

That is a great list of nations who have had remarkable economic growth...!

and yet not one of them has a economy as big as ours..........

Take a look at the median and mode incomes per head...

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1280767688307093504?s=20

john80

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

...admitted to hospital due to dehydration and spent her remaining days at the NHS expense. Can we end this pointless aside?

After 1,456 pages of banging on about GDP growth, it appears surrey commuter doesn't understand what it is. Isn't that worth pausing on for a moment, or at least allowing him the opportunity to find a shovel?

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Could we agree

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

Let's have a look at the fish vs FS scale.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06193/

2019 parliament report puts FS at 6.9% of UK GDP and 3.1% of all UK jobs (who knew, FS was high earning, eh?) That's £132bn to the economy per year and 1.1m jobs

(As an aside: 43% of financial services exports went to the EU and 34% of financial services imports came from the EU)

Anyway, fish. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2017-0256/CDP-2017-0256.pdf

two years older at 2017, so expect some marginal differences.

There were 4,000 businesses in the fishing industry in 2016. These businesses employed 24,000 people and contributed £1.4 billion (0.12% of the all UK economic output.) to the UK economy in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA – a measure similar to GDP, abeit flattering, as it's just 0.12% of the all UK economic output)

(For Scottish Indie's, just over half of these fishermen are in Scotland...)

So we're not that far off FS being two orders of magnitude more valuable than fishing.

The problem with this logic is that if you extrapolate it up then it shows the weakness in running a country with just money leading the decisions. What percentage would be required to sell the inhabitants of that country down the river. What if China said in 2025 when they might be the leading economy in the world that we cannot trade with them unless we sign up to a one way extradition process where having a flag was enough to get deported and put in the Ghulag. Maybe France want all the fishing rights so that some Southerners can keep selling financial products to this market. Maybe Nissan want the UK to have the four freedoms so that they don't have to pay import taxes or export taxes on goods. At what point does it not work within a democracy this money first obsession you have.

This is not easy to read, and I'm not really sure what you're driving at.

Let me put my point in a different way. A lot more jobs are affected by screwing up FS than are affected by screwing up Fishing.

That may not be the *only* factor in deciding what to prioritise, but it is surely a bloody big one?

The basic point is that a good democracy is often at odds with business for the greater good of the population. If this was not the case we would still have victoria employment practices. We would still have victorian environmental laws. The constant quest for a steady gdp increase is actually not that important to most people. Allowing your economy to rely on certain sectors is a fools errand.

Could we agree that most people don’t realise how important a steady increase in GDP is to them?

It is probably peoples failure to understand this simple concept that has led us to where we are.

Only where there is context in the form of the gdp growth. It is the lack of care as to what type of growth is going on that is the problem. Gdp figures would be great if we doubled the population but the vast majority of the populations quality of life and access to services would suffer.

Why do you think GDP figures would be great if we doubled the population?

I am not even going to answer this as it is so fecking obvious.

Go on give it a try.

I find it helps to take two extreme examples.

So on the one hand add 68 million Elon Musks and on the other add 68 million penniless economically inactive people.

When you look up the definition of GDP please advise the group how either of the examples above would not boost GDP. Kind of proving my original point are you not.

Let’s simplify it. In these two examples do you think there is an identical impact on GDP?

Elon Musk moves to the UK and sets up a factory employing 1,000 people.

My penniless granny moves here to live with me here after losing her life savings buying crypto currencies and has no income or entitlement to any benefits.

The simple act of moving to the UK will itself have increased the GDP by the journey alone. I suspect you are trying to talk about GDP per capita, but that wasn't the original point.

She swam

Then walked to Surrey, ate nothing and died without a funeral?

I am starting to understand the fun you get nitpicking holes in a simplistic scenario that somebody is using to explain an economic concept

So yes I buried her in the garden using a shovel I already owned

You have been trying to explain away you lack of understanding of gdp for a good few pages now. You were wrong then and your simplistic arguments have merely highlighted this point.

surrey_commuter

john80 said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

pblakeney said:

...admitted to hospital due to dehydration and spent her remaining days at the NHS expense. Can we end this pointless aside?

After 1,456 pages of banging on about GDP growth, it appears surrey commuter doesn't understand what it is. Isn't that worth pausing on for a moment, or at least allowing him the opportunity to find a shovel?

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

surrey_commuter said:

Could we agree

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

john80 said:

rick_chasey said:

Let's have a look at the fish vs FS scale.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06193/

2019 parliament report puts FS at 6.9% of UK GDP and 3.1% of all UK jobs (who knew, FS was high earning, eh?) That's £132bn to the economy per year and 1.1m jobs

(As an aside: 43% of financial services exports went to the EU and 34% of financial services imports came from the EU)

Anyway, fish. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2017-0256/CDP-2017-0256.pdf

two years older at 2017, so expect some marginal differences.

There were 4,000 businesses in the fishing industry in 2016. These businesses employed 24,000 people and contributed £1.4 billion (0.12% of the all UK economic output.) to the UK economy in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA – a measure similar to GDP, abeit flattering, as it's just 0.12% of the all UK economic output)

(For Scottish Indie's, just over half of these fishermen are in Scotland...)

So we're not that far off FS being two orders of magnitude more valuable than fishing.

The problem with this logic is that if you extrapolate it up then it shows the weakness in running a country with just money leading the decisions. What percentage would be required to sell the inhabitants of that country down the river. What if China said in 2025 when they might be the leading economy in the world that we cannot trade with them unless we sign up to a one way extradition process where having a flag was enough to get deported and put in the Ghulag. Maybe France want all the fishing rights so that some Southerners can keep selling financial products to this market. Maybe Nissan want the UK to have the four freedoms so that they don't have to pay import taxes or export taxes on goods. At what point does it not work within a democracy this money first obsession you have.

This is not easy to read, and I'm not really sure what you're driving at.

Let me put my point in a different way. A lot more jobs are affected by screwing up FS than are affected by screwing up Fishing.

That may not be the *only* factor in deciding what to prioritise, but it is surely a bloody big one?

The basic point is that a good democracy is often at odds with business for the greater good of the population. If this was not the case we would still have victoria employment practices. We would still have victorian environmental laws. The constant quest for a steady gdp increase is actually not that important to most people. Allowing your economy to rely on certain sectors is a fools errand.

Could we agree that most people don’t realise how important a steady increase in GDP is to them?

It is probably peoples failure to understand this simple concept that has led us to where we are.

Only where there is context in the form of the gdp growth. It is the lack of care as to what type of growth is going on that is the problem. Gdp figures would be great if we doubled the population but the vast majority of the populations quality of life and access to services would suffer.

Why do you think GDP figures would be great if we doubled the population?

I am not even going to answer this as it is so fecking obvious.

Go on give it a try.

I find it helps to take two extreme examples.

So on the one hand add 68 million Elon Musks and on the other add 68 million penniless economically inactive people.

When you look up the definition of GDP please advise the group how either of the examples above would not boost GDP. Kind of proving my original point are you not.

Let’s simplify it. In these two examples do you think there is an identical impact on GDP?

Elon Musk moves to the UK and sets up a factory employing 1,000 people.

My penniless granny moves here to live with me here after losing her life savings buying crypto currencies and has no income or entitlement to any benefits.

The simple act of moving to the UK will itself have increased the GDP by the journey alone. I suspect you are trying to talk about GDP per capita, but that wasn't the original point.

She swam

Then walked to Surrey, ate nothing and died without a funeral?

I am starting to understand the fun you get nitpicking holes in a simplistic scenario that somebody is using to explain an economic concept

So yes I buried her in the garden using a shovel I already owned

You have been trying to explain away you lack of understanding of gdp for a good few pages now. You were wrong then and your simplistic arguments have merely highlighted this point.

where did you pop up from? keep reading past that post and you will see that people either begrudgingly concede my point or go awol.

simplistic models are how economic theories are best explained, typically they involve an island which I guess stops some loon disagreeing with your explanation on the grounds the old lady could have bought a sandwich.

try this example;
Elon relocates 100 rocket scientists to the UK and Priti Patel deports 200 ne'er do wells - are you still confident GDP falls in line with population

or 1,500 City jobs move to luxembourg but at the same time 2,000 uneducated non-English speaking dependents join their families in the UK - are you confident GDP will rise in line with population growth?

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

where did you pop up from? keep reading past that post and you will see that people either begrudgingly concede my point or go awol.

Or got bored. Not sure anyone accepted your opinion.

It is true that someone managed what you couldn't and produced an obscure example of how adding one person might lower GDP. Another example might be a destructive invading army.

surrey_commuter said:

- are you confident GDP will rise in line with population growth?

That would be GDP per capita which you were explicitly not discussing.