tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post18598944499386851..comments2024-03-19T13:01:14.062+00:00Comments on Capitalists@Work: Office of Numpties and Scaremongerers?CityUnslickerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15929544047783163175noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-70696899068844391432012-04-30T14:56:48.037+01:002012-04-30T14:56:48.037+01:00ONS been dodgy ever since they occupied the same H...ONS been dodgy ever since they occupied the same HQ building as Labour.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-28901743025750474682012-04-29T13:29:13.824+01:002012-04-29T13:29:13.824+01:00Fibonacci numbers anyone?Fibonacci numbers anyone?James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-83963192510771768432012-04-27T09:22:09.304+01:002012-04-27T09:22:09.304+01:00Anon - welcome and thank you for the defence. No d...Anon - welcome and thank you for the defence. No doubt it is hard to do, but perhaps the BOE not taking the ONS seriously does highlight some issues with the data quality?<br /><br />Any ideas on how to improve things?CityUnslickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15929544047783163175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-56654485134884166992012-04-26T17:34:00.018+01:002012-04-26T17:34:00.018+01:00As an ex-Numptie I can tell you that a lot of work...As an ex-Numptie I can tell you that a lot of work goes into checking various sources so that they can get it right - within the limits of error!<br /><br />The problem is that the closer to the zero line it gets the more political the numbers become. <br /><br />Take inflation for example that can be 3.5% +/- 0.5% and no one worries - except at pension fixing time. <br /><br />Same goes for GDP. Book a couple of major engineering exports in any one month then GDP can vary.<br /><br />And I thought you lot were numerate! <br /><br />Perhaps the reason for the problems in the UK is the quality of it's business leaders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-67840474060839204352012-04-26T15:04:30.183+01:002012-04-26T15:04:30.183+01:00Demetrius - Yes, home run.
in the past we spent t...Demetrius - Yes, home run.<br /><br />in the past we spent too much money we diod not have building schools and hospitals with money borrowed from the future. Now we have them we don't need more of them as they last 20+ years. <br /><br />so now the construction industy needs to shrink, but it look sbad when a l you measure is growth. Really its good news, we have finished the things we needed and now have them. <br /><br />You should be in Government.CityUnslickerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15929544047783163175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-13094951953489239182012-04-26T14:45:44.460+01:002012-04-26T14:45:44.460+01:00If a lot of passt growth is simply money slushed a...If a lot of passt growth is simply money slushed about on spending that creates debits or speculation that fails then if that is cut back theoretically the "growth" figure might well contract. It is a bit like putting out the rubbish. Your possessions may be reduced but you are well rid of them.Demetriushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17198549581667363991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-8791277270599223822012-04-26T13:39:36.239+01:002012-04-26T13:39:36.239+01:00"Construction in particular is very variable,..."Construction in particular is very variable, out by 1-2% each time, which is huge - more than enough to turn yesterday's GDP positive if it proves to be wrong."<br /><br />They probably are wrong about construction Bill.<br /><br />We've noticed a strong element of the bigger builders contributing to the funding of secure schemes, where in the past, they just wanted tenders on the desk.<br /><br />So far, the picture is not clear, and I suggest far too complicated to be sorted out, or understood by an economist - or even a politician...<br /><br />Good point you made there!Sen. C.R.O'Blenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07482646859547203051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-24884419736062521082012-04-26T13:19:36.707+01:002012-04-26T13:19:36.707+01:00When the Yes Minister writers asked PM Thatcher if...When the Yes Minister writers asked PM Thatcher if she would like to appear in an episode. Maggie and Bernard Ingham wrote a story line that was made into an episode.<br /><br />The script:<br /><br />Prime Minister: Ah, good morning Jim, Sir Humphrey. Do come in and sit down. How's your wife? Is she well?<br /><br />Jim Hacker: [Puzzled] Oh yes, fine, Prime Minister. Fine. Thank you. Yes, fine.<br /><br />PM: Good. So pleased. I've been meaning to have a word with you for some time. I've got an idea.<br /><br />JH: [Brightening visibly] An idea, Prime Minister? Oh good.<br /><br />Sir Humphrey: [Guardedly] An idea, Prime Minister?<br /><br />PM: Well, not really an idea. It's gone beyond that actually. I've given it quite a bit of thought and I'm sure you, Jim, are the right man to carry it out. It's got to do with a kind of institution and you are sort of responsible for institutions, aren't you?<br /><br />SH: [Cautiously] Institutions, Prime Minister?<br /><br />JH: [Decisively] Oh yes, institutions fall to me. Most definitely. And you want me to set one up, I suppose?<br /><br />PM: Set one up? Certainly not. I want you to get rid of one.<br /><br />JH: [Astonished] Get rid of one, Prime Minister?<br /><br />PM: Yes. It's all very simple. I want you to abolish economists.<br /><br />JH: [Mouth open] Abolish economists, Prime Minister?<br /><br />PM: Yes, abolish economists ..... quickly.<br /><br />SH: [Silkily] All of them, Prime Minister?<br /><br />PM: Yes, all of them. They never agree on anything. They just fill the heads of politicians with all sorts of curious notions, like the more you spend, the richer you get.<br /><br />JH: [Coming around to the idea] I see your point, Prime Minister. Can't have the nation's time wasted on curious notions, can we? No.<br /><br />SH: [Sternly] Minister.<br /><br />PM: Quite right, Jim. Absolute waste of time. Simply got to go.<br /><br />JH: [Uncertain] Simply got to go?<br /><br />PM: [Motherly] Yes Jim. Don't worry. If it all goes wrong I shall get the blame. But if it goes right - as it will - then you'll get the credit for redeploying a lot of underused and misapplied resources. Probably get promotion too.<br /><br />SH: [Indignantly] Resources? Resources, Prime Minister? We're talking about economists.<br /><br />PM: [Decisively] Yes Humphrey, were. We're going to get rid of them.Bill Quango MPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14861116614665461655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-33769840435879465252012-04-26T11:55:56.572+01:002012-04-26T11:55:56.572+01:00Worse still - Kirkcaldy!Worse still - Kirkcaldy!Barnacle Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17257546424880537005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32841798.post-82567764987163166852012-04-26T11:33:22.507+01:002012-04-26T11:33:22.507+01:00It could be worse, the ONS could have been moved t...It could be worse, the ONS could have been moved to Salford...Old BEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06974090439936326476noreply@blogger.com