And the UK's is 0.7% google I didn't really quote any data and never said anything about negative or positive growth just general global sluggishness. The UK isn't coping as well as Germany but it isn't doing as badly as Spain or Italy either. It would be great if the UK managed to recover more quickly than any other country but there's worse place to be than distinctly average.
disagree with those figures - real growth for the uk last year was -0.1% with spain at -1.6% and italy at -2.4%
You do agree that the world is still in a recessionary period? No western country is enjoying the kind of growth that was predicted by forecasters in say 2006. As such expecting the UK to be the sole exception to the problems of the developed world economies is a ludicrously high expectation.
"Surely its a good thing if you force a couple to vacate a large house so instead a family can be housed" I agree that people living with 2 or 3 spare rooms should down size yes BUT their is a right and wrong way to go about this, forcing them into rent arrears/ debt to join waiting lists with no properties isn't the right way. "Social housing isn't an area I'm too fond of." That is because you're clearly a Tory.
and now i take point at that opinion the `world` is not in recession - china for example has 7% gdp growth , india has 5% and yes neither are your definition of western, but so does 1/3rd of europe have definitive gdp growth. so just because the usa and its satellite the uk have a reccession due to piss poor policies over the last 30 years , doesnt mean the rest of the planet are in the same **** pit
Sorry to branch off but can someone explain to the less informed what does a AAA and other credit ratings mean for country please?
Generally the lower the credit rating the less likely it will be for banks to authorise lending, or the lending will have a higher interest rate. A triple A rating tended to afford the best interest rates when borrowing
AAA is the top-most credit rating available for a country. The credit rating system scores how likely a country is to be able to repay its debts in the future. Having the highest rating allows countries to borrow at the lowest rates so with the UK's credit rating being downgraded, it means any new borrowing will likely be at increased interest rates.
Since only Canada and Germany retain the AAA raiting its not as important as it once was, the former counties on the AAA but now AA1 like the USA/France have continued to borrow at low rates. If Labour where still in power with balls as chancellor it would proably be financial meltdown by now as hes more of a idiot then osbourne is but then what alternative is their in British politics as their all pretty useless. Not many politicians seem keen on writing of the debt, though its been done for the banks and for Greece in part.
Except various other factors don't seem to be looking too bad at all.. There was a saying that you can tell when things are bad in the Square Mile when no-one is building anything.. well they are now.. The FTSE is going from strength to strength, unemployment is going down. If the media weren't so concerned with doom and gloom and reported on some of the positives we'd all be an awful lot more confident. Cuts are needed. There is no doubt about that. They seem extreme because people got used to getting far too much for far too long. Streamlining is needed, red tape needs to be removed, and people need to stop thinking that everything in life is owed to them. Do you honestly think we'd be in a better situation of Ed Balls was the Chancellor? Well, if you do, you are utterly deluded.
A lot of those countries are doing well now precisely because they went through the same period of cuts and restructuring that we are going through now. The difference is they did it before the recession.
Realistically, absolutely nothing. It's about 4 years too late. The sharp speculators who used to react to this kind of ******** already pulled their money out and it won't be going back in even if they agencies start sucking our bums and hand feeding the cabinet. Rating agencies are well known for being behind the curve and this is a prime example of that. It's more appropriate to say that Osborne was wrong to say that our rating is crucial and that he's more correct now in saying it doesn't matter that much, rather than the other way round.
Why do people think it is only Canada and Germany on an AAA rating across all three rating agents? Standard and poor's: UK, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Fitch: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, USA Moody's: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, USA Those that are triple A Across all three are: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland. So that is 11 not 2.
Because Canada and Germany is the only 2 on all 4 with an AAA rating. Not that it makes a bit of difference. USA borrowing rates actually went down with a ratings cut.
Credit = An ability to take on debt. Growth = Feeding the financial system and taking on more debt. Austerity = Feeding the financial system while maintaining the debt. Seeing a pattern here? Debt = Earning an income while maintainig a position of dominance on the backs of hard working individuals. A Parasite. Taken from the film "Four Horsemen (2012)" IMDB link here See it in full here I suggest watching the film if you have a spare 90 mins, And spread the word.
If Government expenditure is cut during a boom then it has a much lower fiscal multiplier due to "crowding out" an effect some people seem to think occurs during a liquidity trap as well. Georgia, Gibraltar and Switzerland can be ruled out as a comparison because Georgia isn't an advanced industrial nation, Gibraltar is basically a rock and Switzerland is where cash goes all the time anyway. If you look at who has faired well during this financial meltdown some of the industrial advanced countries with a current account surplus faired much better. Germany, Norway, Australia and Sweden. While that isn't the solution that helps. Also those countries have much more diversified economy with less private borrowing pre recession and less of a debt overhang. Smaller financial sector also. Also they aren't in the same degree of a liquidity trap in those nations, where in the UK and USA are struggling with one. Poland is much the same in that there is a smaller private debt level. The banking sector was competent in reaction and a lot less exposed to begin with. Highly productive workforce. Increased FDI due to the amount of potential in the polish economy. Plus a good sized sum of money from the EU budget. Iceland is difficult to compare because the measures they took had less impact on the domestic economy due to a very small population. Also financial institutions held a lot of their assets and liabilities abroad. There had been some defaulting on foreign debts as well. It does show how having your own central bank means you are more able to cope with rises in interest rates and sudden shock borrowing if you have a lender of last resort. Also they were able to devalue their currency. A major reason why a comparison between a country with its own central bank can't be easily or directly compared to countries affected by the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis. Which seems like a great way small state ideologues can scare voters into accepting unnecessary austerity.
You mean dagong. The Chinese based ratings agency that holds china at a tripple A Actually with theirs Germany and Canada are AA+. Singapore, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Norway, Luxembourg, Finland. They are all triple A on all four.
