Wide awake at 2am in Los Angeles with jetlag!Over here in California to meet with five universities, two consulates, seven potential investors and one of the most successful Welsh businessmen - all in three and a half days!
At least it has given me the opportunity to read about the development of the US economy during the last hour or so before trying to get back to sleep.
The contrast with the UK's recent growth is startling.
Whilst people are hailing the revised 0.3 per cent growth in the fourth quarter of 2009 for the UK economy, the US economy grew at an incredible 5.9 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2009.
This was largely driven by manufacturing with consumer spending less than originally thought. The fourth-quarter figure compares with 2.2 per cent growth in GDP in 2009’s third quarter. For the 12 months of 2009, GDP fell 2.4 per cent, the biggest full-year decline since the 10.9 per cent recorded in 1946.
Compare this to the UK's figures during 2009, which showed that the UK economy had declined by 5.0 per cent.
This places the claims of the UK Government as being 'best placed to emerge out of recession' into clear perspective.
It also demonstrates that the underlying weaknesses in the UK economy of unsustainable levels of public spending since 2001 has left us in the worst possible position for recovery, especially as the Government's deficit is predicted to hit Greece like levels of 12.6% of GDP later this year.
5 comments:
Do the events of the last 2 years not mean that we have to have a re-think about the value of raw growth figures as an indicator of prosperity?
In both UK and USA, growth was good (i.e. neither sluggish nor over-heated, or so we thought) immediately prior to the 'credit crunch' but it has become clear since that growth generated only by spending earnings yet to accrue is not REAL growth.
The big G20 Keynesian 'uber-fix' has kick-started things again (more successfully in USA, as you point out) but is it REALLY growth or more of the same?
On thing missing from your article Dylan. This is Thanks in part (to paraphrase PBS) to the US taxpayer and One trillion Dollars. I am sure it would not have happened in Maggie's day.
Do you really believe the accuracy of these sorts of figures? The US has posted these sorts of figures in the past when debt funded the growth, what is funding such growth now? If the GDP figure is accurate then why is the energy component down 0.08% in these figures. Even if energy is used more efficiently such a GDP growth should be reflected in the energy sector also growing.
Dylan
All three of us are saying the same thing in different ways, here (above)
- do you think we are we right?
Apologies for not replying sooner as I have had no time during the last four days in California to do anything.
What I was trying to point out, I suppose, is that the economic stimulus in the USA seems to be having a more direct effect on the economy than that being experienced in the UK, although the jury seems to be out as to whether this can be sustained this year.
If you are going to use public funding to stimulate an economy, then make sure that it makes a difference. If that is happening in the USA, then there are certainly lessons to be learnt over here in the UK.
Post a Comment