Re: The Economy : Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:56 pm  

Him wrote:

:lol: You really don't understand at all do you. You don't understand the subject, it's terms, how they are used and what they correspond to.

What's a shambles is this governments economic policy, one you whole heartedly support despite the Governor disagreeing with it.

Baffling. How can a proper discussion be had with someone who appears unable to understand simple English?

If you want to go on believing there is no recovery and that those who disagree with you (such as the Governor and the BCC) are 'economically illiterate' that is your prerogative but you will look even more ridiculous when the Q.3 figures are published.

Re: The Economy : Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:16 pm  

Him wrote:

Nobody with any economic literacy and without an agenda would describe these 2 quarters data as a recovery.

But one suspects two quarters of contraction would constitute recession under a Tory Government?

Re: The Economy : Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:20 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Baffling. How can a proper discussion be had with someone who appears unable to understand simple English?

If you want to go on believing there is no recovery and that those who disagree with you (such as the Governor and the BCC) are 'economically illiterate' that is your prerogative but you will look even more ridiculous when the Q.3 figures are published.

Yep you don't understand the terms.

You appear to have missed half my post, so I'll ask the questions again. Lets see if you can answer them and defy popular belief.

1. Which facts that I initially posted did you dispute?

2. Why won't you answer LeagueFan's points?

Re: The Economy : Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:25 pm  

Dally wrote:

But one suspects two quarters of contraction would constitute recession under a Tory Government?

Indeed. As they would under any government. But then recession and recovery are different things and have very different meanings and implications.
As I said to dear old Ajw, the Tories are to be blamed for the lack of growth in recent years due to their policies. The Lib Dems share the blame for letting them. Labour are to be blamed for allowing and encouraging some of the excesses that contributed toward either the crash or economic imbalance pre and post crash.

Re: The Economy : Sun Sep 01, 2013 8:47 pm  

Him wrote:

:lol:
Yep you don't understand the terms.

You appear to have missed half my post, so I'll ask the questions again. Lets see if you can answer them and defy popular belief.

1. Which facts that I initially posted did you dispute?

2. Why won't you answer LeagueFan's points?

I'll answer your questions....just as soon as you admit either 1) or 2) in my post of 20:22 set out below for ease of reference:

ajw71 wrote:

You would look better if you just admitted either:

1. You were wrong about the economy not being in recovery; or

2. You genuinely believe the economy is not in recovery, in which case you disagree with Carney, The BCC, PWC and the statistics"

But I've toyed with you enough tonight so I will be back tomorrow to respond to more of your flawed postings.

Re: The Economy : Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:21 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

I'll answer your questions....just as soon as you admit either 1) or 2) in my post of 20:22 set out below for ease of reference:

Thanks for further confirmation that you don't know what you're on about, disputed official statistics that didnt back you up and made up and distorted quotes. All because you don't understand what you're on about.
You can't answer those questions can you? You've had plenty of time and opportunity to yet won't. Because you can't. Just like you couldn't answer the questions over your Thatcher "poll" or your "football supporter politics".

Ajw71 wrote:

But I've toyed with you enough tonight so I will be back tomorrow to respond to more of your flawed postings.

Of course you will you'll do like you always do and disappear when asked questions you can't answer, usually just after you've looked something up on Wikipedia, got it wrong, made something up, then backed yourself into a corner. Just like now.

Just do yourself a favour, bin this identity and move on to the next. Because this one's done.

Re: The Economy : Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:24 pm  

Let this thread (and others before it), be a lesson to any of our younger forum members: if you are ever offered batteries to lick or shower water to drink....


Just say NO!

Re: The Economy : Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:03 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

...But I've toyed with you enough tonight so I will be back tomorrow to respond to more of your flawed postings.

Did you miss this bit above from Mark Carney about why the UK should not be patting itself on the back?
“Germany has grown by 2%, the US by 5%, Australia by 13% and China by more than 50%. Meanwhile the UK economy still produces 3% less than it did five years ago.”.
The US used stimulus to "prime the pump" and now have enjoyed years of continuous growth (i.e. with no negative quarters) since the crash, whereas the UK government did precisely nothing to encourage growth.
Indeed, the coalition inherited a rising economy sparked by Darling's stimuli and quickly turned it into a double dip and, since then, the UK economy has bumped along the bottom, stagnating and never exceeding +1%.

You are cock-a-hoop about two consecutive +ve quarters.
Bear in mind that we had three consecutive +ve quarters in 2011 ... you'd have been cheering from the rooftops about "the good news about the economy" but you'd have looked stupid a quarter later because they were followed by a -ve, then a zero and then another -ve.

You still think that two tiny +ves in succession constitutes recovery?
You still think that HM Gov deserves congratulation for this?

The plan was to eliminate all of the deficit and resume growth in one full parliamentary term.
Epic fail on both counts.

Re: The Economy : Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:57 am  

It's OK, Ajw71 believes the economy is recovering. If you believe, truth and statistics are irrelevant...

Re: The Economy : Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:35 pm  

[quote="“Germany has grown by 2%, the US by 5%, Australia by 13% and China by more than 50%. Meanwhile the UK economy still produces 3% less than it did five years ago.”.
The US used stimulus to "prime the pump" and now have enjoyed years of continuous growth (i.e. with no negative quarters) since the crash, whereas the UK government did precisely nothing to encourage growth.
Indeed, the coalition inherited a rising economy sparked by Darling's stimuli and quickly turned it into a double dip and, since then, the UK economy has bumped along the bottom, stagnating and never exceeding +1%.
.[/quote]

It'll be interesting to see how the "controlled experiment" of the US versus UK approaches pans out. As would be expected the US ecomony is doing better than the UK's at present but what will the longer term hold (assuming the UK doesn't change policy)?