Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

export import[edit]

exports $813 billion and imports $782 billion are far larger than other ref on the web.

IMF staff estimates/forecasts[edit]

Can we please not use this as a source of our current GDP statistics? The IMF highlight it as staff estimates, which should not be used over more reliable 2015 data, which is not a staff estimate. Pinging Kkm010, since you don't seem to acknowledge my edit summaries. Jolly Ω Janner 07:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No need to put list of countries of GDP data. Its better to put only UK stats and IMF data are extremely accurate. I think you should not doubt about the stats provided by IMF.--kkm010 talk to me 07:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I initially thought that the 2015 figures on that page were not forecasts, but the data is from April 2015. Here is the equivalent data published in April 2016. Note that the 2015 data there isn't marked as an estimate, so I think we should use that. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
e/c I'm open to using a source which only displays the UK's data rather than all countries, but cannot find such a source that isn't a staff estimate (please note that despite both those links being for UK 2015 GDP, they give different figures). And why should I not doubt their stats? The fact that they shade cells noted as being "staff estimates" indicates even they doubt their own reliability. Jolly Ω Janner 07:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
The data on the page I just linked to matches that of the source you linked above, Jolly Janner. The advantage is that it gives figures for various different GDP definitions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
That's an excellent find, Larry. I'd like to see this used for all the GDP infobox stats. It even has it in GBP too. While we're at it, what is the position for USD and GBP in there? Do we display both or just one? I was thinking USD with GBP as a footnote could help declutter it a bit. Jolly Ω Janner 07:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no guidance on that at Template:Infobox economy. A quick check shows that Economy of France and Economy of Germany use dollars only for this, not euros, so I would remove the GBP figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the figures based on the source I found, and removed the GBP figure. I also updated the figures in the infobox at United Kingdom, so we have consistency between the articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Good job. I hope this is something we can all agree on. Jolly Ω Janner 06:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

GDP growth graph[edit]

I am slightly concerned about the graph of GDP growth per decade. Firstly I am not sure why it is by decade, if you want to smooth out the trend then I am sure averaging out over four or five years would provide a better idea. Secondly, I don't understand how you got average growth from a table of the growth in each year - did you account for cumulative growth here? I tried reproducing the graph and got significantly higher figures. Also could you clarify what you mean by each decade, are you taking growth in the 1950s as that from 1950-60? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

It isn't the growth in each year; it is the growth rate (%). In the decade 1950–59, the growth rate in each year was 3.3%, 3.7%, 1.6%, 5.5%, 4.3%, 3.8%, 1.6%, 1.9%, 1.3%, and 4.1%. The average (mean) growth rate was 3.11% for the decade. No, the 50s were the 10 years that began with a five. In hindsight it would be better, for other reasons, to make a chart that goes year-by-year as opposed to decade-by-decade, and I will do that now... Firebrace (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I can now see why the original chart was confusing. I should have made it clearer that it actually shows the average year-on-year growth rate for the period and not the cumulative growth rate for the decade. I hope the new one is an improvement. Firebrace (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, it is much better now. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed - looks much better and illustrates a lot more than the previous chart. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Forbes estimate[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Economy of France#Recent Forbes article about whether we should use Forbes or the IMF for GDP figures which is relevant to recent edits here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Economy of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Deindustrialisation section[edit]

There is now a section on "Deindustrialistion". A large chunk of this seems to be about reactions to deindustrialisation, rather than the deindustrialisation itself. I will remove this chunk as it is straying away from the subject of the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep it--scholars consider it central to the problem and it features heavily in the scholarly literature on deindustrialization. Note for example the article on Industrial Revolution gives heavy emphasis on its social impact. Rjensen (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
If you want to include it in deindustrialisation, then feel free to (and in fact I recommend you do). However, this article is on the Economy of the UK, not the social history associated with economic changes. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
that 's a personal view of what economic historians do. and not quite true for this article--there is also politics here [Support for the Labour government slumped during the recession, and the general election of 2010 resulted in a coalition government being formed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.] Rjensen (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about economic historians, I'm talking about the article. That sentence provides context for the next sentence. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
our job as editors of this article is to report what the RS say about economic history. To quote Strangleman: stable work, even dull repetitive labor, allows people to develop character over time. It allows them to mature and form powerful bonds with others around them.... the jolt provided by losing a job is an inherently reflective process. Narratives and images of industrial work and its loss, ... serve as more than “storehouses of memory,” [they become] “moral landscapes,” and morality is a common theme in narratives and interviews about plant closure." the USA had a lesson in this yesterday in Trump's inaugural address and you have it in Brexit discussions. People are finding new meaning in their own economic history. Rjensen (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)