GDP and margins of error

[Green Mango]

The Swedish economy grew by 5.2% in 2010. Clearly it never snows there

Might have somthing to do with the fact that a) the Nordic countries know what they are doing in snow b) they weren't wrecked by a twat called Gordon Brown and his bastard Labour party

[AtW]

The Swedish economy grew by 5.2% in 2010. Clearly it never snows there

If they had ENOUGH snow to block roads at time of most sales it would have impact on their GDP.

[NickFitz]

You think massive snow that closed airports at the end of last year did not have an effect?

The Swedish economy grew by 5.2% in 2010. Clearly it never snows there

[AtW]

due to factors outside the government's control, such as snow.

You think massive snow that closed airports at the end of last year did not have an effect?

[NickFitz]

If it looks good, it's completely accurate and the government is responsible. If it looks bad, there's a wide margin of error and it's due to factors outside the government's control, such as snow.

[doodab]

Is it really possible to state that the economy has 'grown by 0.2%' or 'shrunk by 0.3%'? Are the measurements really that accurate or is there some margin of error within which such statements are actually at best rather spekulative (sic) and at worst nonsense?

Well, 0.1% is about 1.5 billion pounds. I would hope they are accurate to the nearest billion or so.

[Mich the Tester]

Isn't the headline a preliminary figure, which they sometimes adjust up or down later when more data comes in?

But by how much do they adjust it? What is the bandwidth of these post-sorting-out-the-data corrections?

[Doggy Styles]

Isn't the headline a preliminary figure, which they sometimes adjust up or down later when more data comes in?

[AtW]

GDP is a load of boll0x: a moderately paid lawyers in London would contribute more to UKs GDP than dozens of railway engineers making thousands of miles of modern high speed railway in China.

HTH

[Mich the Tester]

Is it really possible to state that the economy has 'grown by 0.2%' or 'shrunk by 0.3%'? Are the measurements really that accurate or is there some margin of error within which such statements are actually at best rather spekulative (sic) and at worst nonsense?