political commentator * author * publisher * bookseller * radio presenter * blogger * Conservative candidate * former lobbyist * Jack Russell owner * West Ham United fanatic * Email iain AT iaindale DOT com
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Quiz of the Day
Do you ...
a) Believe Alistair Darling who maintains that the economy will continue to grow at up to 2.25% this year
or
b) Believe the IMF who say growth will be no more than 1.6%
What is it with Labour governments and the IMF? :)
Darling is probably right. THe easiest way to push up GDP is to let in more immigrants. More people means more money flowing round the system and higher GDP. Then there is tax and spend. Push up taxes and put more people on the government payroll in non-jobs. They pay tax too. It makes GDP look good but eventually the economy grinds to a halt because for all the nominal monetary value being circulated, nobody is doing any useful work.
"Mr Darling said he was sticking by his forecast made in last month's Budget that the UK economy would grow by between 1.75% and 2.25% in 2008 and by 2.25% to 2.75% in 2009, substantially above IMF projections." - per BBC website
Not quite what you quote Darling as saying - and of course both forecasts are for growth rather than recession as you and other Tory bloggers have predicted elsewhere.
Here is a quiz for you Mr Dale - which period showed the higher average growth rate a) 1979 to 1997 or b) 1998 to 2007 and was the difference more or less than the 0.15% difference between Darling's and the IMF forecast which you seem to think is a large enough difference to beat the government with?
Do we believe a government whose economic growth forecasts over the last ten years have been consistently more accurate than those of City economists or do we believe an organisation whose recommended policies reduced Argentina's middle classes to a state of penury in a matter of a couple of years...
Strictly speaking, Darling's forecast is of a range between 1.75% and 2.25% - the bottom of the range is pretty close to the IMF's forecast. In general, it's more sensible to forecast within a range than a precise figure. If growth turns out to be 1.7%, Darling will be closer than the IMF - but by focusing on the 2.25% figure you obscure this.
As for "What is it with Labour governments and the IMF?" - um, they both exist at the same time? That's about it, really - this is a story which has the words "Labour" and "IMF" in it, but which otherwise bears no resemblance to other well-known incidents involving Labour and the IMF. This is about forecasting.
Yes, I know it was a joke, as your ":)" signified. Clue: if you have to write ":)", it's not funny.
no and you may remember my posting some months ago predicting the next election would take place with falling house prices, rising unemployment and high inflation. HOWEVER Labour supporting scroungers on benefits are doing alright and in fact their disposable income is growing. freedom to prosper
And of course the IMF report does say that the UK will outperform its projected average growth figure for all advanced economies - which is 1.3%. Something that neither you or the BBC care to mention however.
Because I agree with Gordon Brown that the IMF should act as an "early warning system" for economies.
Or did he mean it should it act as an "early warning system" for all countries not run by him?
By his twisted logic it should be the latter. We heard in the house of commons that the Labour government is in his view infallible: "We make the right decisions at all times".
"Here is a quiz for you Mr Dale - which period showed the higher average growth rate a) 1979 to 1997 or b) 1998 to 2007...." blah, blah, blah...
Mr "tory boys never grow up" - why do you "little labour lads who whinge a lot" always try to make spurious comparisons with an 18-year period when we've been told by Blair and Brown how we are in a different era of globalisation and have to respond to these new challenges?
Compare that to the pre-1979 era when Great Britain was considered to be the "sick man of Europe", the trade unions had nearly brought us to our knees and our old smoke stack industries were badly in need of modernisation, rationalisation and denationalistion.
Remember too that the political world was a very different place until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.
If you are going to make these tedious (and inaccurate) comparisons at least compare apples with apples.
11 comments:
Darling is probably right. THe easiest way to push up GDP is to let in more immigrants. More people means more money flowing round the system and higher GDP.
Then there is tax and spend. Push up taxes and put more people on the government payroll in non-jobs. They pay tax too. It makes GDP look good but eventually the economy grinds to a halt because for all the nominal monetary value being circulated, nobody is doing any useful work.
"Mr Darling said he was sticking by his forecast made in last month's Budget that the UK economy would grow by between 1.75% and 2.25% in 2008 and by 2.25% to 2.75% in 2009, substantially above IMF projections." - per BBC website
Not quite what you quote Darling as saying - and of course both forecasts are for growth rather than recession as you and other Tory bloggers have predicted elsewhere.
Here is a quiz for you Mr Dale - which period showed the higher average growth rate a) 1979 to 1997
or b) 1998 to 2007 and was the difference more or less than the 0.15% difference between Darling's and the IMF forecast which you seem to think is a large enough difference to beat the government with?
Mmm, that's a toughie Iain.
Do we believe a government whose economic growth forecasts over the last ten years have been consistently more accurate than those of City economists or do we believe an organisation whose recommended policies reduced Argentina's middle classes to a state of penury in a matter of a couple of years...
Strictly speaking, Darling's forecast is of a range between 1.75% and 2.25% - the bottom of the range is pretty close to the IMF's forecast. In general, it's more sensible to forecast within a range than a precise figure. If growth turns out to be 1.7%, Darling will be closer than the IMF - but by focusing on the 2.25% figure you obscure this.
As for "What is it with Labour governments and the IMF?" - um, they both exist at the same time? That's about it, really - this is a story which has the words "Labour" and "IMF" in it, but which otherwise bears no resemblance to other well-known incidents involving Labour and the IMF. This is about forecasting.
Yes, I know it was a joke, as your ":)" signified. Clue: if you have to write ":)", it's not funny.
no and you may remember my posting some months ago predicting the next election would take place with falling house prices, rising unemployment and high inflation. HOWEVER Labour supporting scroungers on benefits are doing alright and in fact their disposable income is growing.
freedom to prosper
And of course the IMF report does say that the UK will outperform its projected average growth figure for all advanced economies - which is 1.3%. Something that neither you or the BBC care to mention however.
Answer: b
Because I agree with Gordon Brown that the IMF should act as an "early warning system" for economies.
Or did he mean it should it act as an "early warning system" for all countries not run by him?
By his twisted logic it should be the latter. We heard in the house of commons that the Labour government is in his view infallible: "We make the right decisions at all times".
Well, not according to the IMF.
Are we meant to answer this? Bloody rhetoric!
Do we believe that prices are going up by 2.5% a year?
"Here is a quiz for you Mr Dale - which period showed the higher average growth rate a) 1979 to 1997
or b) 1998 to 2007...." blah, blah, blah...
Mr "tory boys never grow up" - why do you "little labour lads who whinge a lot" always try to make spurious comparisons with an 18-year period when we've been told by Blair and Brown how we are in a different era of globalisation and have to respond to these new challenges?
Compare that to the pre-1979 era when Great Britain was considered to be the "sick man of Europe", the trade unions had nearly brought us to our knees and our old smoke stack industries were badly in need of modernisation, rationalisation and denationalistion.
Remember too that the political world was a very different place until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.
If you are going to make these tedious (and inaccurate) comparisons at least compare apples with apples.
Darling should watch out, doesn't he know there is a badger cull imminent?
Zorro.
Post a Comment