Bob Crow has passed away

[Stu Monty]

Well considering multi billion corporations are consistently making profit each quarter. You would think it would grow a little more than 0.7

 

Arguing about the level of growth is not the best use of your time. Arguing how evenly the benefits of this growth are being spread is the major point.

[stringvest]

Dog, these figures showing a French exodus?

 

If you're going to get all ranty about people not caring about facts and figures then at least show some consistency.

 

Is there a current exodus or have the effects not been felt yet? Which is it?

 

Apparently the artisan chocolatiers are up in arms about it.  They're ready to bring the country to it's knees now their customer base has fucked off.  

[Strontium]

The ambassador's parties are going to lose much of their sparkle.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Arguing about the level of growth is not the best use of your time. Arguing how evenly the benefits of this growth are being spread is the major point.

Very true, but I find it quite a piss take that 0.7% is deemed something of a success, never mind how it's spread.

 

That goes beyond piss taking.

[Strontium]

Any economic growth is a success. You clearly don't have a very good frame of reference if you are deriding quarterly growth of 0.7%.

[xerxes]

Very true, but I find it quite a piss take that 0.7% is deemed something of a success, never mind how it's spread.

 

That goes beyond piss taking.

2.8% a year seems good to me.

 

Under Labour, between 97-06, GDP averaged 2.8% pa growth, by any measure they were good years.

[VladimirIlyich]

How is economic growth measured? And what does it take into account?

[xerxes]

How is economic growth measured? And what does it take into account?

This is a pretty good answer:

 

 

The gross domestic product (GDP) is one the primary indicators used to gauge the health of a country's economy. It represents the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period - you can think of it as the size of the economy. Usually, GDP is expressed as a comparison to the previous quarter or year. For example, if the year-to-year GDP is up 3%, this is thought to mean that the economy has grown by 3% over the last year.

 

Measuring GDP is complicated (which is why we leave it to the economists), but at its most basic, the calculation can be done in one of two ways: either by adding up what everyone earned in a year (income approach), or by adding up what everyone spent (expenditure method). Logically, both measures should arrive at roughly the same total.

 

The income approach, which is sometimes referred to as GDP(I), is calculated by adding up total compensation to employees, gross profits for incorporated and non incorporated firms, and taxes less any subsidies. The expenditure method is the more common approach and is calculated by adding total consumption, investment, government spending and net exports.

 

As one can imagine, economic production and growth, what GDP represents, has a large impact on nearly everyone within that economy. For example, when the economy is healthy, you will typically see low unemployment and wage increases as businesses demand labor to meet the growing economy. A significant change in GDP, whether up or down, usually has a significant effect on the stock market. It's not hard to understand why: a bad economy usually means lower profits for companies, which in turn means lower stock prices. Investors really worry about negative GDP growth, which is one of the factors economists use to determine whether an economy is in a recession.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/199.asp

[Stu Monty]

Any economic growth is a success. You clearly don't have a very good frame of reference if you are deriding quarterly growth of 0.7%.

 

No it isn't. Not necessarily. If you have massive, unheard of before, growth and all it facilitates is for 1% of your population to fly off into the stratosphere then it isn't a success. You have broken the coherence of your society. You have failed in your task of governing a coherent and fair society. As the 99% drag you out of your walled complex, you would maybe muse on that.

 

The same goes for if your economic growth comes at the expense of destroying a planet - probably not a success in that case.

[xerxes]

, with

No it isn't. Not necessarily. If you have massive, unheard of before, growth and all it facilitates is for 1% of your population to fly off into the stratosphere then it isn't a success. You have broken the coherence of your society. You have failed in your task of governing a coherent and fair society. As the 99% drag you out of your walled complex, you would maybe muse on that.

 

The same goes for if your economic growth comes at the expense of destroying a planet - probably not a success in that case.

You are confusing growth in the first paragraph. - which is a usually a good thing, with HOW that growth is used, which can be used well, or poorly,

 

Few would argue that a growth which  kills you is a bad thing, so you are on safe ground in para two.

[VladimirIlyich]

But if measured by spending,how can you really count all the stuff paid for by credit cards based on the fact its not money owned by the payer and rather debt.

[Rico1304]

I had to laugh at the story about the pissed up train 'driver' on the jubilee line this morning.

[stringvest]

I was on the drain (that's the Waterloo and City line for the uninitiated) yesterday afternoon at 1.30 and they had a minute's silence for Bob Crow.  Apart from this dozy announcer who, by the sounds of his hastily curtailed message, got a dig in the ribs.