UK Growth third fastest growing economy!!!

[DeppityDawg]

Well apart from the fact there's no such team as citeh :-P  :-P  I largely agree.



Anyway how's your lot the sparrows innit doing ::

We are having an average season. I suppose I should compare it to our season of 1989 to get a more accurate picture of our current performance.

[cromwell]

I'm still not getting this argument? Its a bit like Chelsea looking at the rest of the Prem and saying "look, lets not compare our performance with Liverpool or Citeh, instead we need to look at our 2012 season performance, when we had a different manager, different team, different competitors and a completely different set of fecking circumstances? What the feck?



Look. Conchur. The world is approaching the end of an economic cycle. A recession is due soon, and probably a big one. We aren't going to have another "golden age" of economics like the 2000s again. In the UK, we've just gone through 3 and a half years of probably the worst conditions imaginable for investment and business confidence. We've gone through all sorts of doomsday scenarios conjured up by remainers to say the UK is completely fecked. We should all be eating grass, living in corrugated iron shacks and the pound should be worth two beer caps by now, according to some remainer forecasts? Yet the UK economy is NOT on its knees yet - it is (according to these figures anyway) STILL performing OK? Its like the old joke. "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"? For god sake. What do you expect? The UK to be on its knees, or performing head and shoulders above Europes long time biggest economy, Germany? Which is it?



Looking at these figures (if they are correct), it doesn't matter what happened in 2012 or 1813, we are comparing the Worlds developed economies concurrently? Not 20 years ago. Not 10 years ago. But NOW. In current circumstances which are common to us all, like being in the Premership in the same season as Liverpool or Spurs. What these figures do possibly reveal is that Europes economies, despite the EU, are in  no better shape (and in Germany's case significantly worse) than the UKs, in CURRENT circumstances. It may change next quarter. But we've all been through the Brexit debacle, the UK, the EU and all those developed economies who trade with us. If there's one indicator these figures show, its that Germany's economy (one heavily reliant on manufacturing and exporting) IS struggling, and Brexit uncertainty (the UK is one of their major trading partners after all) hasn't done them any favours.



I'm getting tired of this remainer attitude, like some spoilt child, "well if we can't stay in the EU then I'd rather see my own country go to hell in a hard cart" than accept the fecking result.

Well apart from the fact there's no such team as citeh :-P  :-P  I largely agree.



Anyway how's your lot the sparrows innit doing ::

[DeppityDawg]

Yes, but forget about France and Germany — the comparison masks the reality.  If the UK's figures are better pre-2016, and then suddenly drop that year to much slower levels ....and continue to do so over the following years...it's very, very difficult to make a compelling argument that this doesn't have a lot to do with Brexit.  The argument about the benefits of staying in or leaving the EU never hinged on how Germany and France were fareing — they hinged on whether it worked to the benefit of the UK. Even if we do bring their performance into the spotlight, it's just as easy to make the argument that sluggish growth on the part of the UK, France and Germany is indicative of just how mutually damaging Brexit is proving for these countries collectively.



Also, the figures are not at the level of "just OK" — they are at the level of poor.  Posting figures way below a 30 year average of fairly solid growth is not 'just OK'. Ultimately this is precisely why a lot of the more extreme predictions of Brexit catastrophe (usually peddled by unqualified people in fairness) have worked counterproductively — success is now measured by a lower standard than it was previously.  Rather than people measuring it on the basis of long term averages, they measure it on the basis of making isolated comparisons.  It's a subtle way of lowering the bar, and it is undoubtedly turning a negative into a positive — simply by changing the parameter of success from the much more pertinent question of 'how has growth fared since prior to the 2016 referendum' to 'how does growth compare to France and Germany' etc.    



The only way you could deny this is by producing evidence that this markedly slower growth, that just happened to become a trend since 2016, would have happened anyway.  You'd have a hard time making that case though as the numbers would be objectively stacked against it.

I'm still not getting this argument? Its a bit like Chelsea looking at the rest of the Prem and saying "look, lets not compare our performance with Liverpool or Citeh, instead we need to look at our 2012 season performance, when we had a different manager, different team, different competitors and a completely different set of fecking circumstances? What the feck?



Look. Conchur. The world is approaching the end of an economic cycle. A recession is due soon, and probably a big one. We aren't going to have another "golden age" of economics like the 2000s again. In the UK, we've just gone through 3 and a half years of probably the worst conditions imaginable for investment and business confidence. We've gone through all sorts of doomsday scenarios conjured up by remainers to say the UK is completely fecked. We should all be eating grass, living in corrugated iron shacks and the pound should be worth two beer caps by now, according to some remainer forecasts? Yet the UK economy is NOT on its knees yet - it is (according to these figures anyway) STILL performing OK? Its like the old joke. "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated"? For god sake. What do you expect? The UK to be on its knees, or performing head and shoulders above Europes long time biggest economy, Germany? Which is it?



Looking at these figures (if they are correct), it doesn't matter what happened in 2012 or 1813, we are comparing the Worlds developed economies concurrently? Not 20 years ago. Not 10 years ago. But NOW. In current circumstances which are common to us all, like being in the Premership in the same season as Liverpool or Spurs. What these figures do possibly reveal is that Europes economies, despite the EU, are in  no better shape (and in Germany's case significantly worse) than the UKs, in CURRENT circumstances. It may change next quarter. But we've all been through the Brexit debacle, the UK, the EU and all those developed economies who trade with us. If there's one indicator these figures show, its that Germany's economy (one heavily reliant on manufacturing and exporting) IS struggling, and Brexit uncertainty (the UK is one of their major trading partners after all) hasn't done them any favours.



I'm getting tired of this remainer attitude, like some spoilt child, "well if we can't stay in the EU then I'd rather see my own country go to hell in a hard cart" than accept the fecking result.

[Conchúr]

Yes you are a bare faced LIAR. The sentence you reproduce does nothing but support the meaning of my first statement. It does not support your assertion about what you claim I said or its meaning. You are wriggling like a worm on a hook. For once in your life dredge up a few molecules of a long lost integrity and acknowledge you got it wrong again. Its bad enough that we all have to tolerate your inability to comprehend a clear and cogent post supported by evidence, your clumsy attempts to obfuscate that post with extraneous figures and to 'move the goal posts' and finally to lie blatantly.



You have derailed a thread, which provided a comparison of all three G7 EU economies with the UK and were found wanting and which support my initial premise.

So I've derailed a thread about GDP growth by ehhhh talking specifically about GDP growth. OK.  



I literally copy and pasted your exact words. You said that the figures showed that any early negative economic impact would in all likelihood be avoided.  Those are your words, and unless the very nature of the English language has morphed beyond all recognition in the space of the last few hours, that is a fairly unequivocal interpretation of what the figures show.  But (a) it does not look like a very sound interpretation ; (b) I have pointed out why ; and (c) you haven't offered any counter argument.



IMaybe you think that, in time, those growth figures will far exceed the average the UK posted in the couple of decades prior to 2016.  Who knows....maybe they will.  But for the love of God, why can't you accept that there has been an initial negative economic hit ? The figures are pretty clear cut — and if you have a counter argument then by all means please outline it.

[cromwell]

I trust that does not mean I have to accept lies being told about what I have said in my posts, lies I have illustrated as being such?

It just means as it says "be civil"

[Major Sinic]

mod notice

And disagree all you like gents,but please keep it civil.

Thanks

I trust that does not mean I have to accept lies being told about what I have said in my posts, lies I have illustrated as being such?

[cromwell]

mod notice

And disagree all you like gents,but please keep it civil.

Thanks

[Major Sinic]

Bare faced liar am I ? Christ, it's bad enough that I have to do your research for you, but now I need to remind you of your stances.



https://politicalforums.uk/pol/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=570&p=13851#p13851">https://politicalforums.uk/pol/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=570&p=13851#p13851



Third comment from the top of the page, last line of last paragraph :  "We have had three years of fear mongering, lies and distortions on the subject of Brexit. These GDP growth figures tell us that any early negative economic impact will, in all probability, be avoided"



A trend of sluggish growth since 2016, far below the levels of growth the UK had posted on average in the 30 years prior, shows that there has already been an early negative economic impact.  Your figures also showed that sluggish growth would continue over the next couple of years.  Other Leavers will gladly admit that they expected an initial negative hit on the economy ... for some reason you are arguing against an objective reality which is plainly apparent from the data source you yourself actually introduced!

Yes you are a bare faced LIAR. The sentence you reproduce does nothing but support the meaning of my first statement. It does not support your assertion about what you claim I said or its meaning. You are wriggling like a worm on a hook. For once in your life dredge up a few molecules of a long lost integrity and acknowledge you got it wrong again. Its bad enough that we all have to tolerate your inability to comprehend a clear and cogent post supported by evidence, your clumsy attempts to obfuscate that post with extraneous figures and to 'move the goal posts' and finally to lie blatantly.



You have derailed a thread, which provided a comparison of all three G7 EU economies with the UK and were found wanting and which support my initial premise.

[Conchúr]

And you sir are a bare-faced LIAR!!  Your allegation of what I allegedly said bears no resemblance to what I actually did say. What I said was:-



The sole purpose of my post was to show, using credible evidence from the IMF, that prophecies of the economic Armageddon which would immediately befall the UK, as guaranteed and promised by many Remoaners, was false. Your false dichotomy does not invalidate this.



Not only do you fail to understand relatively simple factual statements supported by solid evidence, but you now LIE about what I originally said.It is a great shame when having been defeated in debate, then tried to change the parameters of my point, then attempted to confuse the whole issue with extensive extraneous and largely irrelevant figures you then sacrifice what little integrity you have left by resorting to lies. You are beneath contempt!

Bare faced liar am I ? Christ, it's bad enough that I have to do your research for you, but now I need to remind you of your stances.



https://politicalforums.uk/pol/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=570&p=13851#p13851">https://politicalforums.uk/pol/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=570&p=13851#p13851



Third comment from the top of the page, last line of last paragraph :  "We have had three years of fear mongering, lies and distortions on the subject of Brexit. These GDP growth figures tell us that any early negative economic impact will, in all probability, be avoided"



A trend of sluggish growth since 2016, far below the levels of growth the UK had posted on average in the 30 years prior, shows that there has already been an early negative economic impact.  Your figures also showed that sluggish growth would continue over the next couple of years.  Other Leavers will gladly admit that they expected an initial negative hit on the economy ... for some reason you are arguing against an objective reality which is plainly apparent from the data source you yourself actually introduced!

[Major Sinic]

The link I provided takes you to a global map provided by the IMF detailing historic annual growth levels, as well as projections for the next couple of years. MajorSinic had previously posted similar figures elsewhere on the site and jubilantly proclaimed that they proved there would be no damage from Brexit, purely because the growth figures exceeded those France and Germany,



If you look at the IMF map however for the UK, and trace it back over the past 30 years or whatever — you would see that regardless of whether the figures are better or worse than FRA/GER, they still represent a significantly slower rate of growth than the figures the UK was posting right up to 2016 (with the exception of course of the global financial crisis in the late 2000s).  From 2016 onwards, growth has been sluggish compared to the average and the IMF projects that this will continue into the near future.  



In other words, the figures are subject to an enormous caveat — it's basically trying to make a positive out of what is actually a negative, on the spurious basis of 'well at least it's better than the Germans'.

And you sir are a bare-faced LIAR!!  Your allegation of what I allegedly said bears no resemblance to what I actually did say. What I said was:-



The sole purpose of my post was to show, using credible evidence from the IMF, that prophecies of the economic Armageddon which would immediately befall the UK, as guaranteed and promised by many Remoaners, was false. Your false dichotomy does not invalidate this.



Not only do you fail to understand relatively simple factual statements supported by solid evidence, but you now LIE about what I originally said.It is a great shame when having been defeated in debate, then tried to change the parameters of my point, then attempted to confuse the whole issue with extensive extraneous and largely irrelevant figures you then sacrifice what little integrity you have left by resorting to lies. You are beneath contempt!

[Baron von Lotsov]

According to a report in the FT today the UK had the third fastest growing economy within the G7 eclipsing France, Germany and Italy in 2020, despite the political and economic uncertainty for the UK during the year and particularly the final quarter. The UK grew by 1.4% and the three EU states by 1.3%, 0.5% and 0.2% respectively.

Germany's car industry is worth 400bn euros a year and it is nearly all petrol cars. Not only that, but they are big and heavy, and guzzle a lot of fuel. In years to come Germany is going to suffer because of this. They started doing electric cars before anyone else, but then stopped some years back and are now trying to play catchup, which looks more like desperation. Where they led the industry, they will lag with electric cars, and also another thing that is going to trouble them is autonomous cars. Countries with good results here are China, USA And our country in that order, I think.

[Conchúr]

Sorry I still don't get it. One could look at it and say it's you trying to make a negative out of a positive? Surely, if you are suggesting that prior to 2016 the UK was doing better (because it was in the EU and unencumbered by the Brexit fiasco?), weren't FRA/GER in the EU too.And still are? But they aren't doing so well now, or they are? I still don't get what point you are trying to make? The UK is just doing "ok" now, instead of "brilliant" when it was in the EU? But FRA/GER are doing "kind of ok" in the EU? Were they "brilliant" in the past too? Maybe its me, but I just don't get the point?

Yes, but forget about France and Germany — the comparison masks the reality.  If the UK's figures are better pre-2016, and then suddenly drop that year to much slower levels ....and continue to do so over the following years...it's very, very difficult to make a compelling argument that this doesn't have a lot to do with Brexit.  The argument about the benefits of staying in or leaving the EU never hinged on how Germany and France were fareing — they hinged on whether it worked to the benefit of the UK. Even if we do bring their performance into the spotlight, it's just as easy to make the argument that sluggish growth on the part of the UK, France and Germany is indicative of just how mutually damaging Brexit is proving for these countries collectively.



Also, the figures are not at the level of "just OK" — they are at the level of poor.  Posting figures way below a 30 year average of fairly solid growth is not 'just OK'. Ultimately this is precisely why a lot of the more extreme predictions of Brexit catastrophe (usually peddled by unqualified people in fairness) have worked counterproductively — success is now measured by a lower standard than it was previously.  Rather than people measuring it on the basis of long term averages, they measure it on the basis of making isolated comparisons.  It's a subtle way of lowering the bar, and it is undoubtedly turning a negative into a positive — simply by changing the parameter of success from the much more pertinent question of 'how has growth fared since prior to the 2016 referendum' to 'how does growth compare to France and Germany' etc.    



The only way you could deny this is by producing evidence that this markedly slower growth, that just happened to become a trend since 2016, would have happened anyway.  You'd have a hard time making that case though as the numbers would be objectively stacked against it.

[DeppityDawg]

The link I provided takes you to a global map provided by the IMF detailing historic annual growth levels, as well as projections for the next couple of years. MajorSinic had previously posted similar figures elsewhere on the site and jubilantly proclaimed that they proved there would be no damage from Brexit, purely because the growth figures exceeded those France and Germany,



If you look at the IMF map however for the UK, and trace it back over the past 30 years or whatever — you would see that regardless of whether the figures are better or worse than FRA/GER, they still represent a significantly slower rate of growth than the figures the UK was posting right up to 2016 (with the exception of course of the global financial crisis in the late 2000s).  From 2016 onwards, growth has been sluggish compared to the average and the IMF projects that this will continue into the near future.  



In other words, the figures are subject to an enormous caveat — it's basically trying to make a positive out of what is actually a negative, on the spurious basis of 'well at least it's better than the Germans'.

Sorry I still don't get it. One could look at it and say it's you trying to make a negative out of a positive? Surely, if you are suggesting that prior to 2016 the UK was doing better (because it was in the EU and unencumbered by the Brexit fiasco?), weren't FRA/GER in the EU too.And still are? But they aren't doing so well now, or they are? I still don't get what point you are trying to make? The UK is just doing "ok" now, instead of "brilliant" when it was in the EU? But FRA/GER are doing "kind of ok" in the EU? Were they "brilliant" in the past too? Maybe its me, but I just don't get the point?

[Conchúr]

I dont understand what you are getting at? Isn't he comparing UK current growth to other G7 nations? In which case what does the last 30 years have to do with the price of fish, unless you do the comparison for all G7 nations too. To arrive at what conclusion?

The link I provided takes you to a global map provided by the IMF detailing historic annual growth levels, as well as projections for the next couple of years. MajorSinic had previously posted similar figures elsewhere on the site and jubilantly proclaimed that they proved there would be no damage from Brexit, purely because the growth figures exceeded those France and Germany,



If you look at the IMF map however for the UK, and trace it back over the past 30 years or whatever — you would see that regardless of whether the figures are better or worse than FRA/GER, they still represent a significantly slower rate of growth than the figures the UK was posting right up to 2016 (with the exception of course of the global financial crisis in the late 2000s).  From 2016 onwards, growth has been sluggish compared to the average and the IMF projects that this will continue into the near future.  



In other words, the figures are subject to an enormous caveat — it's basically trying to make a positive out of what is actually a negative, on the spurious basis of 'well at least it's better than the Germans'.

[DeppityDawg]

Ah, back with more numbers I see.  



Can you tell us how the the figures compare to UK average growth over the last 30 years?  And can you tell us how growth has been fareing, versus that average, since the 2016 vote?

I dont understand what you are getting at? Isn't he comparing UK current growth to other G7 nations? In which case what does the last 30 years have to do with the price of fish, unless you do the comparison for all G7 nations too. To arrive at what conclusion?