by sarimkx on 9/20/24, 6:27 PM with 39 comments
by segasaturn on 9/20/24, 6:40 PM
Edit:
> Considered by conventional macroeconomic metrics, the 1960s can claim to be one of the UK’s most economically successful decades. GDP growth averaged 3.5%, unemployment 2.7% and inflation 3.5%. Real disposable household income per head was 25% greater by the end of the 1960s than it was at the end of the 1950s. However, such figures fail to take account of the trajectory of developments over the course of the decade, which tended largely in a negative direction. As well as slowing growth in real disposable household incomes and the declining profitability of industry, this trajectory can also be seen with respect to inflation and unemployment. As can be seen in table 3, inflation and the unemployment rate began the decade at 1.0% and 2.1% respectively, but gradually ratcheted up with every stop-go cycle. By 1969 inflation was 5.4% and unemployment 3.5%, a post-war high.
From https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uk-economy-in-the-196...
by naveen99 on 9/20/24, 10:17 PM
I just want some honesty and transparency. If you are going to let in migrants, do it transparently…
by churchill on 9/20/24, 6:42 PM
Even the Arab petro-states that literally scoop money from the ground haven't saved that much! (Highest is Saudi Arabia with $1 trillion.)
Edit: in case you're wondering, no, there's no catch: Singapore has ultra-modern infrastructure, great healthcare, and they're enviable in every way.
by inglor_cz on 9/20/24, 6:34 PM
Given that debt cannot grow to infinity, something will give way one day.
by ksec on 9/21/24, 2:43 AM
by jellicle on 9/20/24, 7:40 PM
Discussions of sovereign debts as if they were the same as debts owed by individuals are laughable.
The stated actions planned by Labour (generally impoverishing the populace and slowing the economy) will have the effect of increasing the notional indebtedness of the UK, not decreasing it.