Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
disenfranchised

Slowest Recovery In 300 Years

Recommended Posts

Recovery....what ****ing recovery....a return to insane house prices and more debt, as the man says, it's not a recovery, it's a relapse and this time...there's no where to turn to save the idiots who have bought in london.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er David Blanchflower is a labour shill so all this talk of recovery in 2009/10 is nonsense - they'd borrowed money to splurge on the public sector which then fed into GDP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recovery....what ****ing recovery....a return to insane house prices and more debt, as the man says, it's not a recovery, it's a relapse and this time...there's no where to turn to save the idiots who have bought in london.

There are young people and more debt to issue.

The VI had their house prices protected. With too many pavement licking apologists worried about those who had been 'sold into it by property pron', with such buyers around here lecturing non-owners about markets and how smart they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, all previous recessions’ lost output was restored in four years or less, in contrast with just over six years..

He seems to be confusing "output" with the increasingly manipulated GDP figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/britain-has-taken-longer-to-recover-from-recession-than-at-any-time-since-the-south-sea-bubble-9645218.html

It is without historical precedent. Fraser pointed me to a series published by the Bank of England which provides data on real GDP back to 1700, and guess what? He was right. It is now clear that George Osborne is responsible for the worst recovery in three hundred years of recorded history.

And who was responsible for getting us into this mess in the first place!!!!

Finally, what is unprecedented is the flatlining of the economy in the Great Recession under the Coalition, once the recovery was already underway, from around months 37 (February 2011) through month 59 (December 2012). In February 2011 GDP was 4.9 per cent below the starting level; it was 4.2 per cent below it in January 2012 and still 4.2 per cent below in December 2012. It had still only reached minus 3.1 per cent by May 2013, in month 64. The Coalition killed off recovery at birth.

Excellent piece of analysis confusing peak economy with reality. Clearly the boom period was "normality".

We do know that the situation in other G7 countries was quite unlike the UK, which is next to last, behind Italy, in restoring output. Indeed, Canada restored its peak within two years, while the US, France and Germany restored theirs within three years. There was no comparable flatlining in France, which presumably was more impacted by eurozone weakness than the UK. If we examine GDP per head, the situation is even worse; it remains around 5 per cent below its starting level in the UK and looks unlikely to recover lost ground for another couple of years. GDP per capita is above starting levels in Germany, Japan, Canada, the United States and France.

Again making the assumption that the boom was in fact "normal" and the economic growth up to 2007/08 was sustainable.

The second chart plots updated data from a Bank of England article by Hills and Thomas on GDP growth over the period 1700-2013, with major wars marked in grey. It shows that the UK economy has, almost always, bounced back rapidly from peacetime recessions, without a two-year flatlining period. Wars are different. Ryland Thomas from the Bank of England has kindly pointed out to me that over the last three hundred years you can find one peacetime episode where it does take output over seven years (on an annual basis) to recover to its pre-crisis peak. This is following the South Sea Bubble in 1720. Then the next one of comparable duration is Mr Osborne’s three hundred years later.

Clearly the logical conclusion is that growth from say 2000-2007/08 was in fact a fecking bubble. An economic bubble burst which naturally means it takes longer for it work though the fecking system! The economic bubble of 2000-2007/08 is perhaps far fecking worse than the 1720 South Sea Bubble which was quite a big mother fecking bubble that bankrupted most of the country, and this time we've had a bubble and no bankruptcies. This is worrying as perhaps this means the bust hasn't even happened yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Smith in The Sunday Times on 27 July even suggested that to make things look better for the Coalition we should calculate GDP per capita by dividing by the 16-64 population, which has grown half as fast as the overall population or the 16+ population because “babies and children do not contribute much to economic output”. But he forgets that those age 65 and older increasingly do. Employment of those aged 65 and older is up 67 per cent since January 2008 and their overall numbers are up 15 per cent.

That's one of the reasons why they prefer to use the (manipulated) total GDP figure rather than the GDP/Capita figure.

The fewer people used in the calculation of GDP/Capita the better it appears. Currently the UK's GDP/Capita being well down the global league table and seemingly likely to be sinking further.

The GDP/Capita gives a far more realistic picture of the UK's economic performance than just the GDP figure.

As the GDP figure is always being presented by the government as a demonstration of the UK's economic health then the entire population should be used in the GDP/Capita figure as the entire population has a share in whatever economic health the UK does manage to achieve.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the logical conclusion is that growth from say 2000-2007/08 was in fact a fecking bubble. An economic bubble burst which naturally means it takes longer for it work though the fecking system! The economic bubble of 2000-2007/08 is perhaps far fecking worse than the 1720 South Sea Bubble which was quite a big mother fecking bubble that bankrupted most of the country, and this time we've had a bubble and no bankruptcies. This is worrying as perhaps this means the bust hasn't even happened yet!

Yeah basically Blancheflower is like a cheap, nasty UK version of Krugman - a rusty old Ford Escort with vinyl seats and moss growing on the windscreen instead of a Mustang. A scratched CD on the music center of left wing economics. Holding up France with 5.5 million registered unemployed as an example of success really just discredits his argument even more.

We do know that the situation in other G7 countries was quite unlike the UK, which is next to last, behind Italy, in restoring output. Indeed France and Germany restored theirs within three years.

Taking the case of France, which Blancheflower cites, after some recovery to 2011 the economy has either been falling or flatlining since the end of 2011 - viewed either per capita or as raw GDP. The French economy never restored to its 2007 or even 2008 peak. Now I'll save Campervan the trouble of posting his usual stuff about the UK being a basket case, it is. The only Euro economy to see much growth is Germany. As the poster above says, the UK GDP per Capita figures paint a much worst picture than GDP but even there it looks as if the UK will overhaul French this year.

Edited by davidg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the economy was allowed to have crashed as it was in every other downturn of the last 300 years then it would have seen a far greater recovery.

Nicest thing i wish for Blanchflower is an imminent extremely painful terminal illness, he is a piece of Nulabour bankster scum of the lowest order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no recession or booms. It is about who can keep control and gain control and ownership. The economy is akin to Eastenders and Coronation Street.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 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.