Forums
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Dr J
02 Jul 07 10:37
Joined:
Date Joined: 18 Oct 01
| Topic/replies: 2,508 | Blogger: Dr J's blog
The figures below come from

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-225.html

a website which I'm indebtted to Goring for drawing my attention to.

All I've done is divide each nation's 2004 GDP (the most recent year available) by their 1997 GDP. Of the twenty countries in the list, the UK comes top. Unless I've made a schoolboy error here (and I'm the first to admit that my knowledge of economics is far inferior to other posters' here), what these figures show is that the UK has been extremely economically competitive under Labour. I'd always been under the impression that there would be a price to pay in terms of GDP for socialist measures such as minimum wage, increased public spending, etc. However, it actually seems to be the case that GDP increase is entirely compatible with left-wing ideals. Indeed, many of the nations trailing the UK's economic wake have much more right-wing governments.

1. UK 1.322
2. Hong Kong 1.309
3. USA 1.307
4. France 1.306
5. Belgium 1.298
6. Netherlands 1.290
7. Austria 1.290
8. South Africa 1.279
9. Portugal 1.260
10. Italy 1.255
11. Denmark 1.253
12. Germany 1.251
13. Norway 1.244
14. Kuwait 1.216
15. Switzerland 1.192
16. Japan 1.176
17. Saudi Arabia 1.167
18. UAE 1.165
19. Israel 1.164
20. Australia 1.125
Pause Switch to Standard View UK GDP growth under Blair - a table...
Show More
Loading...
Report V4 Vendetta July 2, 2007 11:41 AM BST
If it's plain GDP then the currency element and also the population increase from immigration will elevate the UK a lot. GDP/head (PPP) is often a different matter. Which did you use?
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 11:43 AM BST
GDP per capita, PPP
Report madsimon July 2, 2007 11:43 AM BST
thought you agreed that GDP is a poor indicator of quality of life?
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 11:45 AM BST
Communist China, incidentally, is off the graph with a staggering 1.928...
Report madsimon July 2, 2007 11:46 AM BST
except China is only communist politically and not economically
Report madsimon July 2, 2007 11:47 AM BST
yeah and socialist/communist Zimbabwe is bucking the trend though!!
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 11:47 AM BST
thought you agreed that GDP is a poor indicator of quality of life?

Yes, Simon, I still think it is. But I've never before checked up on the right-wingers' beloved argument about Labour having restricted UK economic growth. Funny what you can do with an Excel spread-sheet.
Report V4 Vendetta July 2, 2007 11:47 AM BST
Well, I've checked it and it's the case. Much of it has been public sector growth, of course, which will burden the future trend rate through increase borrowing, but it's certainly not shabby. Perhaps our slowdown is set to be worse as they tighten in on the splurge because we weren't top when I looked at an end date of 2006, we were behind many of those in the table.

Credit where it's due though, it does seem that Blair's switching to Tory policies did the trick.
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 11:49 AM BST
ty Mr G
Report madsimon July 2, 2007 11:50 AM BST
I think most right wingers arguments with this government as been over the destruction of a way of life due to huge immigration etc
Report madsimon July 2, 2007 11:51 AM BST
Blair has pursued a very 'right wing' (in the free market sense) economic policy
Report V4 Vendetta July 2, 2007 11:55 AM BST
Well, I wouldn't say "very" right wing, simon. Let me have a go. :D
Report nononsense July 2, 2007 11:56 AM BST
what do you mean right wing myths? do you think Brown has followed purely socialist economic policies? like not talking to business people, sucking up to unions, allowing high inflation, high interest rates, nationalising everything.
no he more or less followed the tory template.
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 12:00 PM BST
You have a very quaint and old-fashioned view of socialism, sir.

:)
Report slartybartfast July 2, 2007 12:01 PM BST
KABOOOOOOM

or maybe

phzzzzzzzzzzt...



YOU DECIDE!
Report golfjudge July 2, 2007 12:59 PM BST
Good stuff, Dr J.
Report Snake Plissken July 2, 2007 1:13 PM BST


Gring 02 Jul 12:47
Well, I've checked it and it's the case. Much of it has been public sector growth, of course, which will burden the future trend rate through increase borrowing, but it's certainly not shabby. Perhaps our slowdown is set to be worse as they tighten in on the splurge because we weren't top when I looked at an end date of 2006, we were behind many of those in the table.


But as you touch on here and many "experts" have commented, a lot of the spending is public sector and is storing up problems in teh system.

How much has he borrowed in this "ecomomic cycle"? and didn't he fiddle the figures so that he didn't break his "golden rule"?
Report Snake Plissken July 2, 2007 1:15 PM BST
In addition as I touch on above. No one disputes teh ecomony has expanded. The point is whether it is sustainable and/or storing up problems for the future.
Report madsimon July 2, 2007 1:16 PM BST
the borrowing is indeed worrying taking into account 'off balance sheet' items like PFI schemes and also personal debt of individuals.

I prefer Brown to Blair but to be honest any fool (bar perhaps mugabe) could increase their economic activity if they borrowed like their was no tomorrow
Report treetop July 2, 2007 1:17 PM BST
Interesting insight Dr J but havent you got students to teach or are you already into holiday mode ! Your point does bear scrutiny and as with many statistics if we choose a lower than average year to start from the percentage increase can be more/less favourable at the end. That is nit picking but could support UK performance as a result of the cutting of fat made by earlier administrations. More than one way of looking at the data I suspect and 3 politicians could present the conclusions in 3 different lights?.
Report clivex. July 2, 2007 1:23 PM BST
I thought it was largely accepted that we had outperformed our competitors over the past ten years. Blair has to take some credit for this but also britain's postion in the world both geogrpahically and culturally has become an increasing factor

But simple travel around eurpoean cities (which i do pretty regularly) quickly demonstrates that the scale of enterprise and the general vibe and energy of London (for one) is streets ahead

Thats only an observation..not a measure...but not necessarily any less valid
Report Snake Plissken July 2, 2007 1:25 PM BST
Are you talking about any particular areas of London Clive?
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 1:27 PM BST
Point taken, treetop, though my start-point was 1997 (i.e. the year Labour returned to power). I didn't strategically choose a low-point.

I'm afraid I'm not economically literate enought to respond to the points about borrowing.

FYI, treetop, I've finished lecturing for the academic year and today is Graduation Day (the one time in year I'm forced to wear a suit and look all corporate...)
Report Snake Plissken July 2, 2007 1:30 PM BST
Re London

"London has large chunks of poverty, including the UK's poorest boroughs - Hackney and Tower Hamlets, which have become almost 10% poorer since 1991."

A recent report showed Newhams infant mortality rate was similar to that third world countries.

Heres an extract from an old report.

"Figures collected by the London Health Observatory for 1997 to 1999 showed that a baby boy born in Westminster, one of London�s richest boroughs, is likely to outlive a baby boy born in Newham, one of the poorest boroughs, by six years. In the early 1990s, the difference in life expectancy was just five years.

Similarly, infant mortality varies enormously across the capital and is closely related to deprivation. A baby born in another of London�s poorest boroughs, Hackney, is more than twice as likely to die in the first year of life than a baby born in affluent Bexley. Babies born in London are at greater risk of dying in their first year than those in other European capitals such as Dublin, Berlin, Copenhagen, Vienna, Stockholm, Madrid, Lyons, and Helsinki.

Babies born to single mothers are at the greatest risk of dying, with a rate of 9.5 deaths per 1000 live births compared with 6.1 for babies born to manual workers and 5.7 for babies born inside marriage or a stable relationship. "
Report vrk July 2, 2007 1:57 PM BST
The big myth in your statement is that Blair actually isn't right wing.
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 1:59 PM BST
Don't get me started on distribution of wealth, Snake.
Report Snake Plissken July 2, 2007 3:14 PM BST
And the poor boroughs are those overwhelmed by immigration placing extra strain on public services.

But lets not discuss that, eh, as I know the topic upsets you.
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 3:15 PM BST
lol

Poor immigrants, poor indigenous folk.

Poverty is poverty regardless of race, ethnicity or religion.
Report Snake Plissken July 2, 2007 3:21 PM BST
What has that got to do with it?

In any case, so the aborigine in the outback with a spear and a loin cloth as his only worldly goods is equivalent to teh unmarried mother in a tower block?

Dr J will say anything to hide from the truth.

BTW Are your African fellow midfielders christian?

Do they know you are gay?
Report treetop July 2, 2007 5:53 PM BST
Is that Manchester Uni J ? My daughter graduated from there 10 years ago, fine place despite all the left wing indoctrination from the lecturers !!
Report V4 Vendetta July 2, 2007 5:55 PM BST
Lewisham college.
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 6:13 PM BST
Treetop's right.
Report Dr J July 2, 2007 6:14 PM BST
Do they know you are gay?

Snake, even by your base standards, this is a remarkably juvenile jab....
Report limerick mick July 2, 2007 6:15 PM BST
You can dress it up with whatever statistics you like..simple fact.....................
Look around.................no offense meant the country is fkkked,and THEY are alot to blame for it.
Report CHIPPIE IN BLACKPOOL August 1, 2008 2:32 PM BST
Are you intending to post this annually?
Report A.H HUNTER esq. January 1, 2010 6:29 PM GMT
Schoolboy error .
Report A.H HUNTER esq. January 1, 2010 6:56 PM GMT
I'd always been under the impression that there would be a price to pay in terms of GDP for socialist measures DR J .

Sometimes 1st impressions are accurate .
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 7:20 PM GMT
I do hope that Dr J pops back onto this one. Irrefutable proof that Labour were socialists while the party was in full swing but Thatcher's children when the shiit hit the fan.

Oh how we laughed. Truly a New Year's gift from the gods.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 7:21 PM GMT
How did it go now?

Oh I remember:

I'd always been under the impression that there would be a price to pay in terms of GDP for socialist measures such as minimum wage, increased public spending, etc. However, it actually seems to be the case that GDP increase is entirely compatible with left-wing ideals. Indeed, many of the nations trailing the UK's economic wake have much more right-wing governments.
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 1, 2010 7:24 PM GMT
You have a very quaint and old-fashioned view of socialism, sir.


And you sir, depending on which way the wind is blowing, have a very changeable definition.
Report Mister E January 2, 2010 9:25 AM GMT
vrk 02 Jul 14:57
The big myth in your statement is that Blair actually isn't right wing.


Thought for the day.
Report Mexico January 2, 2010 9:43 AM GMT
Interesting figures - although would be good to have more up to date figures.

Praise to Blair. Economy did well in those years.

Also well done Major for leaving the economy in good shape. A lesser man may have realised he would lose the 1997 election and use every trick to win a few votes even if it would damage the economic future of the country. Whatever Major's faults he has never been accused of being a traitor.
The 1997 election landslide was interesting. We removed a state educated PM with a toff from a posh private school. Glad that was not an election issue; It was refressing to know the UK had moved on from the 1960's/70's class war agenda.
Report Mister E January 2, 2010 9:49 AM GMT
Refreshing indeed.
The Class war died in the 1960s when Wilson replaced Sir Alec Douglas home. The Macmillan Cabinet were larhely old Etonians/relatives etc.
We had a run : Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major all state educated. Then along came Blair to explain that he was a "pretty straight kind of guy".
Report Larry's Codpiece. January 2, 2010 9:50 AM GMT
A lesser man may have realised he would lose the 1997 election and use every trick to win a few votes even if it would damage the economic future of the country.

Did you have anybody in particular in mind?
Report the loser January 2, 2010 10:08 AM GMT
Dr Jerkenstein


The figures below come from

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-225.html

a website which I'm indebtted to Goring for drawing my attention to.

All I've done is divide each nation's 2004 GDP (the most recent year available) by their 1997 GDP. Of the twenty countries in the list, the UK comes top. Unless I've made a schoolboy error here (and I'm the first to admit that my knowledge of economics is far inferior to other posters' here), what these figures show is that the UK has been extremely economically competitive under Labour. I'd always been under the impression that there would be a price to pay in terms of GDP for socialist measures such as minimum wage, increased public spending, etc. However, it actually seems to be the case that GDP increase is entirely compatible with left-wing ideals. Indeed, many of the nations trailing the UK's economic wake have much more right-wing governments.


' Unless I've made a schoolboy error here ' - Sexist ! Most schoolboys know more than you do

'.. and I'm the first to admit that my knowledge of economics is far inferior to other .... ' - Make that knowledge of anything and I'll agree to that [ Except of course your knowledge of Piles Ointment Creams and Halitosis Sprays ]

'there would be a price to pay in terms of GDP for socialist measures such as minimum wage, increased public spending, etc. However, it actually seems...... ' - er, wouldn't increased public spending INCREASE GDP ??????

' ....that GDP increase is entirely compatible with left-wing ideals. ' - Explain - this is a meaningless statement as it stands

Dr Jerkoff might also like to look at the figures for the reign of Thatcher from 1980 to 1990 where he will find that GDP almost doubled [ 1.928 or 6.8 % p.a.] compared to 1.593 for 1997 to 2007 under Brown / Blair - so much for the hyperbole from Crippen,**Boy, Surly Boring Liar [ ....destroyed whole swathes of industry etc. etc .]

However some of us have realised that GDP [ per capita ] is meaningless unless other factors are taken into consideration [ note that Iceland and Ireland have also done rather well ].

For example, if your piles got really bad and you borrowed a £ 1000000 for a miracle cure then this would increase GDP but it wouldn't increase the rest of the UK's population's quality of life would it ?

The gargantuan cost of the Foot and Mouth Epidemic [ made much worse becuase the Govt. didn't even follow their own guidelines ] and the waste of money that is the Olympics both boost GDP.
Report noddys ryde January 2, 2010 10:22 AM GMT
Can we discuss the last 5 years?
The growth in the early years of 97-04 was down to Major.
Report the loser January 2, 2010 10:36 AM GMT
According to the figures we get a ratio of 1.239 or 4.4 % pa

[ below Germany, Ireland, Japan, Spain, Greece to name but a few but above France and Italy ]
Report Dr J January 4, 2010 12:07 PM GMT
Snake Plissken 02 Jul 16:21

Dr J will say anything to hide from the truth.

BTW Are your African fellow midfielders christian?

Do they know you are gay?


I do miss Snake - that's just the sort of conscise, cutting abuse that the forum's current crop of right-wing cynics seem incapable of articulating.
Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.

Wonder

Instance ID: 13539
www.betfair.com