You said the economy was not recovering.

Well people who have just a tad more knowledge than you disagree. You are wrong. The funny thing is you are so arrogant you genuinely think you are right and they are wrong.

You are embarrassing yourself in your desperate attempts to tory bash.

Do they? Who? Because the article you posted doesn't show anyone saying that. Because they aren't stupid enough to take 2 quarters data as proof of anything.

Again, which facts that I posted do you dispute or which sources do you dispute? If you can't say which can we just assume that you're talking rubbish and don't know what you're on about?
It's you who is so arrogant as to post such complete guff without knowing the subject.

I'm Tory bashing because they're the ones in control of an economy that shows the characteristics I posted earlier. That's a disgrace. It's either due to incompetence or is done on purpose. I'm not sure which is worse. I also blame the Lib Dems for letting/assisting in these policies and I blame Labour for not doing enough to control the excesses in the first place and for not providing a proper, strongly articulated alternative.
As JerryChicken might say, take your football supporter style politics elsewhere.

Mark Carney: "A renewed recovery is taking hold"

So whose opinion has more credibility? The Governor of the bank of England backed up by various statistics over the last 6 months to support his statement or Him from the Rlfans message board who hates Tories. Hmmmm.




Try reading....



Good news about the recent growth figures isn't it?

Which economy?

Which growth figures?

He didn't say that at all. You're lying once again.
This is what he said:
[i“What I hear from businesses here and elsewhere is that a renewed recovery is taking hold amid a rising tide of optimism,” the governor said in prepared remarks. But, he said, the U.K. has little for which to tap itself on the shoulder. Over the past five years, he noted, “Germany has grown by 2%, the US by 5%, Australia by 13% and China by more than 50%. Meanwhile the UK economy still produces 3% less than it did five years ago.”[/i



It's definitely the Governor of the Bank of England. Who I agree with. Who uses various statistics (not just simple GDP growth) from a sustained time period (not 2 quarters that include a sharp rise in government spending) to back up his viewpoint. As does the graph shown on the article you yourself posted:

[url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/209/e1db.jpg/[/url




No, it's better news than previously but it's not good news because, as the Governor of the Bank of England points out growth should be much higher.

You said something about credibility, well you started with none after your little Thatcher poll debacle. Congratulations you've lost no credibility on this thread, you had none to start with.

No because you said the economy was not recovering. The Governor says we are (as well as the British Chamber of Commerce).

In other words you are talking nonsense (again).

Please stop lying. It's pathetic. Especially when it's so obvious. The Governor did not say we're in recovery, if he did please provide the quote in full.

You've gone from proclaiming 2 quarters GDP numbers as proof of a great economy to trying to dispute any opposing statistics, to trying to dispute their sources, to making up quotes from the CBI and the Governor of the BoE. You've been proved wrong by myself and others at every turn. Your refusal to reply to LeagueFan hasn't gone unnoticed. You don't know what you're on about. It's been proved on other occasions with your reliance upon Wikipedia without understanding the subject at all. It's been proved again here.

Nobody with any economic literacy and without an agenda would describe these 2 quarters data as a recovery.
The fact that you are proves you either are economically illiterate or have an agenda. Which is it? I suspect both.

Sure:

"And it's in regions such as this and industries such as those that will determine the course of this recovery"

"There are signs that that recovery is broad based and set to continue and this is obviously welcome and it should be
encouraged"

"The Bank of England's task is now to secure this fledgling recovery"

"We will ensure that we bring inflation down as the recovery progresses"

So now not only do you disagree with the Governor he is now economically illiterate!

That doesn't make 2 quarters of anemic growth a recovery, as he says the course is to be determined.


Talking about the economy as a whole since crash. It is broad based. Growth of that currently experienced in the last 2 quarters is not a recovery, it's barely keeping pace with population growth. Hence his comments about poor growth.


That doesn't equate to calling 2 quarters of anemic growth a recovery.


A future claim as to what the bank will do when the economy recovers. Unless you think the economy will never recover then that's a neutral statement.


No the Governor is spot on, it's you who can't understand the terms, like you didn't understand the difference between an opinion poll and looking stuff up on Wikipedia with regard to Thatcher. You were embarrassed on that thread due to your lack of knowledge, it appears history does repeat itself. Why don't you answer LeagueFan's questions? Is it because you can't?

Deary me. What a shambles this post is. You would look better if you just admitted either:

1. You were wrong about the economy not being in recovery; or

2. You genuinely believe the economy is not in recovery, in which case you disagree with Carney, The BCC, PWC and the statistics.

You just look v.silly now continuing this line of 'argument'.

You really don't understand at all do you. You don't understand the subject, it's terms, how they are used and what they correspond to.

What's a shambles is this governments economic policy, one you whole heartedly support despite the Governor disagreeing with it.
It's you who looks silly desperately trying to pretend you know what you're on about despite not understanding the data, trying to dispute opposing data, trying to dispute official sources whilst using those sources for select pieces of data which you also don't understand and then making up or distorting quotes from the Governor of the Bank of England in a desperate attempt to find some support for your argument.

The fact that you think any government deserves credit for such small growth figures 5-6 years on from a crash shows how little you understand the subject.

You never did actually answer the questions I put to you:

1. Which facts that I initially posted did you dispute?

2. Why won't you answer LeagueFan's points?

If you don't answer both these it will simply confirm what everybody already knows about you.

Baffling. How can a proper discussion be had with someone who appears unable to understand simple English?

If you want to go on believing there is no recovery and that those who disagree with you (such as the Governor and the BCC) are 'economically illiterate' that is your prerogative but you will look even more ridiculous when the Q.3 figures are published.

But one suspects two quarters of contraction would constitute recession under a Tory Government?

Yep you don't understand the terms.

You appear to have missed half my post, so I'll ask the questions again. Lets see if you can answer them and defy popular belief.

1. Which facts that I initially posted did you dispute?

2. Why won't you answer LeagueFan's points?

Indeed. As they would under any government. But then recession and recovery are different things and have very different meanings and implications.
As I said to dear old Ajw, the Tories are to be blamed for the lack of growth in recent years due to their policies. The Lib Dems share the blame for letting them. Labour are to be blamed for allowing and encouraging some of the excesses that contributed toward either the crash or economic imbalance pre and post crash.

I'll answer your questions....just as soon as you admit either 1) or 2) in my post of 20:22 set out below for ease of reference:



But I've toyed with you enough tonight so I will be back tomorrow to respond to more of your flawed postings.

Thanks for further confirmation that you don't know what you're on about, disputed official statistics that didnt back you up and made up and distorted quotes. All because you don't understand what you're on about.
You can't answer those questions can you? You've had plenty of time and opportunity to yet won't. Because you can't. Just like you couldn't answer the questions over your Thatcher "poll" or your "football supporter politics".


Of course you will

you'll do like you always do and disappear when asked questions you can't answer, usually just after you've looked something up on Wikipedia, got it wrong, made something up, then backed yourself into a corner. Just like now.

Just do yourself a favour, bin this identity and move on to the next. Because this one's done.

Let this thread (and others before it), be a lesson to any of our younger forum members: if you are ever offered batteries to lick or shower water to drink....


[size=150Just say[/size [size=200NO![/size

Did you miss this bit above from Mark Carney about why the UK should not be patting itself on the back?
“[iGermany has grown by 2%, the US by 5%, Australia by 13% and China by more than 50%. Meanwhile the UK economy still produces 3% [uless[/u than it did five years ago.[/i”.
The US used stimulus to "prime the pump" and now have enjoyed [uyears[/u of continuous growth (i.e. with no negative quarters) since the crash, whereas the UK government did precisely nothing to encourage growth.
Indeed, the coalition inherited a rising economy sparked by Darling's stimuli and quickly turned it into a double dip and, since then, the UK economy has bumped along the bottom, stagnating and never exceeding +1%.

You are cock-a-hoop about two consecutive +ve quarters.
Bear in mind that we had [uthree[/u consecutive +ve quarters in 2011 ... you'd have been cheering from the rooftops about "the good news about the economy" but you'd have looked stupid a quarter later because they were followed by a -ve, then a zero and then another -ve.

You still think that two tiny +ves in succession constitutes recovery?
You still think that HM Gov deserves congratulation for this?

The plan was to eliminate all of the deficit and resume growth in one full parliamentary term.
Epic fail on both counts.

It's OK, Ajw71 [u[ibelieves[/i[/u the economy is recovering. If you [u[ibelieve[/i[/u, truth and statistics are irrelevant...

How it pans out?
I think 14 (fourteen) consecutive quarters of growth in US GDP so far (of which none have been as low as our highest) is panning out quite well for them so far.
How long a period of measurement do you want?

Of course, if the rednecks of the Republican party had had their way, the banks would have been allowed to fail (which I seem to recall you advocated), taking most of the economy with it, Chrysler and GM would have gone bust taking a million jobs down with them and the US economy would be absolutely flat on its back right now.
The car makers have almost paid back their government TARP loans now and have completely restructured.
Amazing what well-placed intervention (aka Keynesian stimulus) can do.

We're now in the position where big businesses are moaning about the poor returns on the capital that they have on deposit in the banks.

Well here's a suggestion: don't sit on the fecking capital then, put it to work.

Invest in something innovative, if not in your own business, then invest in other fledgling businesses, you know the kind of business you used to be. Such enterprises are struggling because the banks with whom you have entrusted your deposits, will not loan to such "risky" businesses. They would rather take advantage of QE and borrow money on the cheap off the government and then "invest" it in lower-return but equally lower-risk business.

Instead we have a clueless chancellor who is crowing about his schemes to stimulate the housing market, conveniently forgetting that the people who need to get on the housing ladder can't do so because the fecking banks won't lend them money and the c[in[/iuts who employ them won't give them an employment contract that a bank would recognise as a good risk. All Osborne's housing stimulus will do is fuel yet another property bubble with the consequent inevitable burst to follow.

You can't admit 1) or 2) in my post of 20:22 on 1 September 2013 can you?

The same belief that [uis[/u supported by statistics. The same belief held by Carney and the BCC....