Reply to: So far this recession is not worse than the last one

[Cyberman]

Anything in the BBC I take with a pinch of salt. This is pure Labour propaganda IMO to try to make things appear better than they are. The fact is that I have lived through a number of recessions and this is by far the worst so far, and the worst handled by any of those governments in over 50 years. Never have the banks and the economy been in such a mess and never have I known interest rates so low and with the availability of mortgages so low.

We are also seeing exceptionally sharp rises in unemployment, consumer spending has fallen off a cliff, and the incompetence of our leaders means that they have not got a clue what to do, but waste our money. The 12.5 Billion wasted on the VAT cut immediately springs to mind with no attempt to reverse it !!!!!

[BrilloPad]

...as the excellent Blastland shows:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7883619.stm

Interesting how the press have their own agenda - presumably by exagerrating the effects, they can force down interest rates which are a good thing for the Murdoch empire

Depends what you mean by worse. So far there has been the sharpest drop in GBP for quit a while(1948?). So far the effects have not fully been felt : but I think they will.

Not sure it was a good idea for you to go on holiday...

[snaw]

We won't start to recover until the middle of 2010, when we have the next election. By then most of the guys on this BB will be out of work, and won't be feeling so smug.

Maybe. But we'll get work again in 2011. You'll still be a c0 ck.

[Cyberman]

still, we are not even near start of recovery

We won't start to recover until the middle of 2010, when we have the next election. By then most of the guys on this BB will be out of work, and won't be feeling so smug.

[Doggy Styles]

Crap graph as it shows absolute values not percentage - exactly what Blastland is talking about.

This one is better:

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time....the-last-five/

Also note these are American nums not British ones,

Aha! The nation that doesn't know what a proper billion is. So they are probably out by a factor of 1000.

We're boomed! I mean doomed!

[ThomasSoerensen]

Crap graph as it shows absolute values not percentage - exactly what Blastland is talking about.

This one is better:

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time....the-last-five/

Also note these are American nums not British ones,

still, we are not even near start of recovery

[sasguru]

i agree . no recession here

just look at this

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02...ii-recessions/

Crap graph as it shows absolute values not percentage - exactly what Blastland is talking about.

This one is better:

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time....the-last-five/

Also note these are American nums not British ones,

[ThomasSoerensen]

i agree . no recession here

just look at this

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/02...ii-recessions/

[PM-Junkie]

Are you sure?

Some more Blastland observations. I reckon he has a point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7733794.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4981188.ece
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...stics_politics

Economically he doesn't have a point. If you are not going to include PFI obligations and "invalidity benefit" claimant numbers, these figures are meaningless.

As for his observations about the media, and of labour and the conservatives being equally bad, I heartily agree.

[Swiss Tony]

My 2 Cents

While this article certainly does spin the stats, the stats themselves are rather questionable to begin with.

I would say the population of the UK has managed to grow in the last 18 years, and that actually backs up the article in question. Not to worry it is soon thrown into disrepute the way in which Liebour measures unemployment. Some of you may remember that when good ol Tone came into power they reassessed the way in which unemployment is measured.

Anyone over 60 was said to be not unemployed as they could have early retirement. So bang an immediate 1+ million jobs created by not taking into account that there was, and still is, a large population from 60-65 of people who are unemployed.

[minestrone]

Are we in recession?

[sasguru]

Are you sure?

Some more Blastland observations. I reckon he has a point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7733794.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4981188.ece
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article...stics_politics

[Doggy Styles]

Comparing 1990 stats with 2008 stats is comparing apples with oranges. For example...

The effect on the figures of the large number of people on incapacity benefit is worth bearing in mind here, and might suggest that the true unemployment level is higher than it looks. But incapacity benefit was also there in the 90s recession.

No comment necessary.

When all's said and done/at the end of the day/the bottom line is ... debt levels today knock those of the early 1990s into a cocked hat. That's the problem that f***ed Japan for nearly 20 years, and it will f*** us too.

Hang on, that sounds a bit too depressing doesn't it. Cheer up, it's nearly Shrove Tuesday.

[snaw]

Dunno if it's worse or better from a big picture economics perspective, all I know is I know lots of people who have lost their jobs, my houses are worth less and the contract market actually seems to have almost dried up entirely (Unless you want to work for McDonald's rates).

Pretty sh!te state of affairs IMO.

[Solidec]

Selective tractor stats in that article. Tells us not much to be honest.

They should reverse engineer Unemployment by counting the number of individuals registering income with HMRC and substracting that from the Census statistics of working age people.

I bet that figure for this recession is already higher than the same time period of the last recession.