the economy.

[BoyBlue_1985]

Historically 2% pa is very good.

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion.

I always heard between 2 and 4 is good as sustainable growth

 

[Skashion]

I always heard between 2 and 4 is good as sustainable growth

2% is at the lower end of that. If you grow at that level constantly, a recession would destroy it very quickly, dragging an average growth rate well down. Our economy has grown at over 2% on average for decades, which means in order to make up for recessions and downturns, good growth years have to be 3-4% (sometimes even higher) to get the 2% average. 2% average is good. 2% is not, and it's certainly not very good.

 

[Len Rum]

4 years of austerity for a 0.6% growth rate from a very low baseline... Eurozone has achieved more for Christ sake. Really hope this is the start of rapid growth. My son on a zero hours contract for a company in liquidation. Tried to get a job for over two years. Does not appear on jobless figures. It is all a con. Real jobs are not being created. Part time, low wage jobs at best.

0.6% for this quarter. Historically 2% pa is very good.

Your comment about the Eurozone is just incorrect, they are still in (though coming to the end of an 18 month) recession, so no, they haven't achieved more at all.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/24/eurozone-recession-over-economic-survey-pmi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... survey-pmi</a>

Why comment on something and make "facts" up?

-- Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:14 am --

But again whatever, it's people like you who are the problem and not the solution and why whatever positive spin you put on it you're just delaying the inevitable!

Delaying what inevitable?

And how am I the problem? Is it the fact a run a business and employ people? Would it be better if I claimed on the dole do you think, but agreed with you? Would that help more?

On the subject of "facts" 2% growth pa is not "very good". The historical UK average is about 2.5 % pa.Following a recession this figure should be much higher.

 

[SWP's back]

Historically 2% pa is very good.

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion.

I always heard between 2 and 4 is good as sustainable growth

It is. I think he isn't happy I put the word "very" in there. It is backed up by this in the Telegraph also

The robust quarterly growth rate was double the first quarter and officially laid to rest any lingering fears of another slowdown. However, the economy remains 3.3pc smaller than its pre-crisis peak and has yet to return to Britain’s annual trend rate of growth of around 2pc. Growth over the past year has been 1.4pc, the Office for National Statistics said.

Also, employment is up, happy days

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10203743/Britain-on-track-at-last-as-employment-rises.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rises.html</a>

And the amount of new homes being built reaches 5 year high

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/10203032/Number-of-new-homes-hits-5-year-high-says-industry.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... ustry.html</a>

-- Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:26 am --

4 years of austerity for a 0.6% growth rate from a very low baseline... Eurozone has achieved more for Christ sake. Really hope this is the start of rapid growth. My son on a zero hours contract for a company in liquidation. Tried to get a job for over two years. Does not appear on jobless figures. It is all a con. Real jobs are not being created. Part time, low wage jobs at best.

0.6% for this quarter. Historically 2% pa is very good.

Your comment about the Eurozone is just incorrect, they are still in (though coming to the end of an 18 month) recession, so no, they haven't achieved more at all.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/24/eurozone-recession-over-economic-survey-pmi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... survey-pmi</a>

Why comment on something and make "facts" up?

-- Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:14 am --

But again whatever, it's people like you who are the problem and not the solution and why whatever positive spin you put on it you're just delaying the inevitable!

Delaying what inevitable?

And how am I the problem? Is it the fact a run a business and employ people? Would it be better if I claimed on the dole do you think, but agreed with you? Would that help more?

On the subject of "facts" 2% growth pa is not "very good". The historical UK average is about 2.5 % pa.Following a recession this figure should be much higher.

Yes from the last 4 pages, the error that stands out is the word 'very'. Obviously.<br /><br />-- Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:27 am --<br /><br />

I always heard between 2 and 4 is good as sustainable growth

2% is at the lower end of that. If you grow at that level constantly, a recession would destroy it very quickly, dragging an average growth rate well down. Our economy has grown at over 2% on average for decades, which means in order to make up for recessions and downturns, good growth years have to be 3-4% (sometimes even higher) to get the 2% average. 2% average is good. 2% is not, and it's certainly not very good.

If the UK was to hit its historic average for the next 3 years, that would certainly be a good thing and beat even the most optimistic outlooks of the last 18 months.

 

[metalblue]

I always heard between 2 and 4 is good as sustainable growth

2% is at the lower end of that. If you grow at that level constantly, a recession would destroy it very quickly, dragging an average growth rate well down. Our economy has grown at over 2% on average for decades, which means in order to make up for recessions and downturns, good growth years have to be 3-4% (sometimes even higher) to get the 2% average. 2% average is good. 2% is not, and it's certainly not very good.

Sustainable growth runs at around 2.5%, this should limit potential for recessions and overheating. 2%pa would be very good given where we've been and what the rest of the world is like..perhaps this is what SWP meant? I'll forgive his exuberance just this once.

 

[Blue Maverick]

With the government guaranteeing mortgages for people basically subprime mortgage like in the USA surely this is dodgy ground, people have poor credit ratings for a reason, isn't his one of the reasons for the collapse in the first place? I'm no expert but using tax layers money to guarantee their mortgages just seems to leave us wide open to yet more debt? Or maybe I just haven't got a clue, oh and when all the strikes start in the autumn I'm sure the economy will take a dive again :(

 

[SWP's back]

I always heard between 2 and 4 is good as sustainable growth

2% is at the lower end of that. If you grow at that level constantly, a recession would destroy it very quickly, dragging an average growth rate well down. Our economy has grown at over 2% on average for decades, which means in order to make up for recessions and downturns, good growth years have to be 3-4% (sometimes even higher) to get the 2% average. 2% average is good. 2% is not, and it's certainly not very good.

Sustainable growth runs at around 2.5%, this should limit potential for recessions and overheating. 2%pa would be very good given where we've been and what the rest of the world is like..perhaps this is what SWP meant? I'll forgive his exuberance just this once.

I'm always exuberant.

Still wont vote Tory though as I like porn.

 

[Len Rum]

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion.

I always heard between 2 and 4 is good as sustainable growth

It is. I think he isn't happy I put the word "very" in there. It is backed up by this in the Telegraph also

The robust quarterly growth rate was double the first quarter and officially laid to rest any lingering fears of another slowdown. However, the economy remains 3.3pc smaller than its pre-crisis peak and has yet to return to Britain’s annual trend rate of growth of around 2pc. Growth over the past year has been 1.4pc, the Office for National Statistics said.

Also, employment is up, happy days

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10203743/Britain-on-track-at-last-as-employment-rises.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... rises.html</a>

And the amount of new homes being built reaches 5 year high

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/10203032/Number-of-new-homes-hits-5-year-high-says-industry.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... ustry.html</a>

-- Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:26 am --

0.6% for this quarter. Historically 2% pa is very good.

Your comment about the Eurozone is just incorrect, they are still in (though coming to the end of an 18 month) recession, so no, they haven't achieved more at all.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/24/eurozone-recession-over-economic-survey-pmi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013 ... survey-pmi</a>

Why comment on something and make "facts" up?

-- Fri Jul 26, 2013 8:14 am --


Delaying what inevitable?

And how am I the problem? Is it the fact a run a business and employ people? Would it be better if I claimed on the dole do you think, but agreed with you? Would that help more?

On the subject of "facts" 2% growth pa is not "very good". The historical UK average is about 2.5 % pa.Following a recession this figure should be much higher.

Yes from the last 4 pages, the error that stands out is the word 'very'. Obviously.

-- Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:27 am --

I always heard between 2 and 4 is good as sustainable growth

2% is at the lower end of that. If you grow at that level constantly, a recession would destroy it very quickly, dragging an average growth rate well down. Our economy has grown at over 2% on average for decades, which means in order to make up for recessions and downturns, good growth years have to be 3-4% (sometimes even higher) to get the 2% average. 2% average is good. 2% is not, and it's certainly not very good.

If the UK was to hit its historic average for the next 3 years, that would certainly be a good thing and beat even the most optimistic outlooks of the last 18 months.

Yes 'Obviously'. You slagged somebody off for making facts up and then did a nice bit of spin yourself.

 

[Skashion]

If the UK was to hit its historic average for the next 3 years, that would certainly be a good thing and beat even the most optimistic outlooks of the last 18 months.

Good from where we have been/are. Certainly not good historically. In order to get a 2% average, that we have done for decades, you need to be in the 3-4% in good growth years to negate recessions and downturns. If things carried on as they are we'd be looking at at least a 50 year low in GDP growth over an extended period, suggesting a very long drawn-out recovery. It's very welcome news, as I say, from where we have been, but 2% is nothing at all to get excited about from a historical standpoint (and we're not even at 2% yet!)

 

[SWP's back]

@ Len rum - Semantics and subjective, I do think 2% pa would be very good of we can sustain it for the next few years. And yes someone falsifying things such as relative performance of the UK and Eurozone is worth slagging as it is just an outright lie.<br /><br />-- Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:40 am --<br /><br />

If the UK was to hit its historic average for the next 3 years, that would certainly be a good thing and beat even the most optimistic outlooks of the last 18 months.

Good from where we have been/are. Certainly not good historically. In order to get a 2% average, that we have done for decades, you need to be in the 3-4% in good growth years to negate recessions and downturns. If things carried on as they are we'd be looking at at least a 50 year low in GDP growth over an extended period, suggesting a very long drawn-out recovery. It's very welcome news, as I say, from where we have been, but 2% is nothing at all to get excited about from a historical standpoint (and we're not even at 2% yet!)

The point that I was making, though it is hard to follow now, was that 0.6% per quarter (which would be annualised at 2.4% if it was continued) was not to be scoffed at.

This was aimed at the poster decrying a quarterly 0.6% growth rate as being insignificant.

Hope that clears it up.