Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Uk Gdp Growth Limited To 1% In Longer Term, Economists Warn

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/10/uk-gdp-growth-iea-post-crisis-sluggish

Britain's economic growth will be limited to just 1% in the longer term as higher government spending, dwindling North Sea oil stocks and an ageing population all take their toll on the country's potential output, a group of economists has warned.

Tempering the recent spate of upbeat news on the UK and chancellor George Osborne's assertion that the economy has "turned a corner", a new paper predicts a post-crisis era of sluggish growth.

The long-term, sustainable growth rate in the UK may be only 1%, compared with the 2.5% that the Treasury thought standard from the 1980s to the 2000s, according to a discussion paper for free-market thinktank the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). "Until 2008 the UK had got used to our economy doubling in size every 25 years: unless action is taken it will now only double in size every 70 years," says the group of economists, which includes former Treasury adviser and UK Independence Party candidate Tim Congdon, and Andrew Lilico, the managing director of Europe Economics, an economics consultancy.

1% growth... It's a recovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a Ponzi scheme. There will come a time when it may take 200 years for the economy to double in size. The more developed we get as a nation, the less extra output that will be generated as there will be less drive to do more. For most people there is only so much stuff they would want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a Ponzi scheme. There will come a time when it may take 200 years for the economy to double in size. The more developed we get as a nation, the less extra output that will be generated as there will be less drive to do more. For most people there is only so much stuff they would want.

That assumes that the only motivation people have to do more is for the purposes of having more stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That assumes that the only motivation people have to do more is for the purposes of having more stuff.

I'm getting along just fine on less stuff and what stuff I have is made abroad. I doubt I own a single modern item that was made in this country My biggest expense however is to UK rentiers.

'UK - Rentier and proud for over 1000 years' should be the country slogan/ tag line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a Ponzi scheme. There will come a time when it may take 200 years for the economy to double in size. The more developed we get as a nation, the less extra output that will be generated as there will be less drive to do more. For most people there is only so much stuff they would want.

They can make you continue to work hard despite productivity increases by continually upping your taxes and rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That assumes that the only motivation people have to do more is for the purposes of having more stuff.

Exactly. People also have the motivation not to be banged up in prison or thrown onto the street for not paying their taxes and rents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. People also have the motivation not to be banged up in prison or thrown onto the street for not paying their taxes and rents.

That is no doubt true but I try to imagine a society where as much satisfaction was gained from doing stuff as is gained from having stuff. Acquisitiveness didn't just happen, of course people wanted stuff that made their lives easier but there comes a point where the satisfaction from having the latest fashion or gadget diminishes relative to the means of obtaining it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That assumes that the only motivation people have to do more is for the purposes of having more stuff.

From a GDP point of view it is mainly what is measured. As we get more developed, we may want to spend less time working and having more leisure pursuits. However this may not boost GDP. The government has ensured GDP growth by encouraging more debt and more people to work and encouraging parents to pay for childcare. All these things have increased GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a GDP point of view it is mainly what is measured. As we get more developed, we may want to spend less time working and having more leisure pursuits. However this may not boost GDP. The government has ensured GDP growth by encouraging more debt and more people to work and encouraging parents to pay for childcare. All these things have increased GDP.

Would GDP be increased if some people spent less time in shopping centres and more time making things or doing things or providing things that other people need though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, they could just tell existing pensioners over 50, that they arent going to be getting theit Governement basic pension until 67...Back to work you teachers, back to work you BT workers, back to work you Doctors.

they could also tell them they arent getting the benefits fraudulently promised in the past either....and they could start arresting the people that promised them too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the usual lazy, monetarist crap from Congdon and Lillico.

The paper advocates "bold" reforms if the UK wants to get back to sustainable growth rates of around 2% or more over the long run, including: the rolling back of government activity and influence; the regeneration of affordable credit channels to unencumbered households and businesses; and the implementation of radical supply-side measures.

The UK is bankrupt. Without govt borrowing and spending on an unprecedented scale its Ponzi economy would have contracted continuously post 2008. The country has no future to speak of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, they could just tell existing pensioners over 50, that they arent going to be getting theit Governement basic pension until 67...Back to work you teachers, back to work you BT workers, back to work you Doctors.

they could also tell them they arent getting the benefits fraudulently promised in the past either....and they could start arresting the people that promised them too.

You might be surprised just how many retired people already do voluntary stuff in addition to unpaid childcare and continuing to be economically active through continuing to work or running a business.

Two out of five people over the age of 60 do voluntary work, a survey has suggested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23669279

Number of 65 to 74-year-olds still in work DOUBLES in just ten years on rising living costs

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2414016/Number-65-74-year-olds-work-doubles.html

The babysitting grandparents who save families £7billion a year: Study shows older generation cares for 1.6million UK children

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2332939/The-babysitting-grandparents-save-families-7billion-year-Study-shows-older-generation-cares-1-6million-UK-children.html

The stereotype of retired people swanning around on Caribbean cruises is past it's sell by date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the usual lazy, monetarist crap from Congdon and Lillico.

Where 'rolling back government' is the automatic policy recommendation, regardless of the problem. Of course, it's convenient that they don't spell out which bits of government should be rolled back or how, presumably because that would be hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where 'rolling back government' is the automatic policy recommendation, regardless of the problem. Of course, it's convenient that they don't spell out which bits of government should be rolled back or how, presumably because that would be hard.

And the only thing they have to offer is rolling out cheap credit to those not already in debt. Classic.

the rolling back of government activity and influence; the regeneration of affordable credit channels to unencumbered households and businesses; and the implementation of radical supply-side measures.

And somehow I doubt think the 'supply side' reforms will stretch to land reform. Its all nice and fuzzy in right wing economics land with no vested interests harmed in the process.

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is no doubt true but I try to imagine a society where as much satisfaction was gained from doing stuff as is gained from having stuff. Acquisitiveness didn't just happen, of course people wanted stuff that made their lives easier but there comes a point where the satisfaction from having the latest fashion or gadget diminishes relative to the means of obtaining it.

.....this is true for a growing proportion of people....I agree how more of us are having to help each other out with our skills, health and energy helping give something back without expecting any payment with money....

Thousands of mothers would not have had the chance to work if was not for family and friends helping with childcare........thousands of elderly people would have to spend more time in hospitals and care homes if it was not for the supportive help given by others.....thousands of local good causes and charities rely on the free help given to them everyday.......... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper advocates "bold" reforms if the UK wants to get back to sustainable growth rates of around 2% or more over the long run, including: the rolling back of government activity and influence; the regeneration of affordable credit channels to unencumbered households and businesses; and the implementation of radical supply-side measures.

Yeah - "bold" :rolleyes:

Sounds like they just want more and more debt.

The photo at the start of the article showing Osborne at the location where he made his speech yesterday about the UK economy "turning a corner". One Commercial Street - a property development.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - "bold" :rolleyes:

Sounds like they just want more and more debt.

The photo at the start of the article showing Osborne at the location where he made his speech yesterday about the UK economy "turning a corner". One Commercial Street - a property development.

See the Faisal Islam tweets, very expensive properties mostly flogged off-plan to foreign buyers. Token amount of "affordable" propertties.

Summed it up perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah - "bold" :rolleyes:

Sounds like they just want more and more debt.

The photo at the start of the article showing Osborne at the location where he made his speech yesterday about the UK economy "turning a corner". One Commercial Street - a property development.

Turning a corner and up a blind ally. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would GDP be increased if some people spent less time in shopping centres and more time making things or doing things or providing things that other people need though?

I don't know. I suppose if the financial transactions involved were as high, then yes. Borrowing form the future to buy things made by others seems to be what the UK government want though. However there has to be a limit to how far things can go. GDP may go up due to immigration, but GDP per capita may well go down in the longer term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...) My biggest expense however is to UK rentiers.

(...)

Very well put ST.

And the inflated amount these rentiers manage to extract is only possible due to the scarcity they manage to create via planning restrictions. Without this scarcity their bargaining power would reduce dramatically.

These b@stards are leeching the productive sectors of this country to death - or saddling it so much that it can only grow 1%/year.

See my sig, below:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.