GDP again

This story gets itself rather confused. My italics.

UK growth falls less than thought [UK growth falls less than thought would make sense only if growth was say 0.8% in Q1, then though to be 06% in Q2, but in fact was 0.7%. They really should say UK GDP falls less than thought, or if that is too technical, 'national income']


The rate of contraction of the UK economy in the three months from April to June has been reduced again. [this is right]

Gross domestic product (GDP) [growth] has been revised to a fall of 0.6% compared with the last quarter, up [you know what they mean here - up as in less of a decline - but it looks a little odd, I think 'better' is better] from the previous estimate of 0.7%.

The figures were revised upwards last month, from a 0.8% decline, according to the Office for National Statistics. [this is OK, but 'The figures have already been revised from a larger 0.8% decline' is better]

Many other countries, including Germany and Japan, emerged from recession in the second quarter [Again OK but perhaps 'saw positive growth in the second quarter' would be more accurate].

No, UK production has shrunk the most in 40 years

Sigh, yet another example of this common error.

Averages

Every taxpayer in the country has lost almost £40,000 since the onset of the credit crunch, as plunging house prices and the savage sell-off in stock markets have obliterated £1.2 trillion of Britain's national wealth.

No they haven't. If we take the figures as correct, then some have lost more than £40,000, some less. On average the loss is £40,000. This is not nit-picking, the statement 'every taxpayer has lost' is pretty definitive, and entirely wrong.

Exchange Rates

This is a disappointing piece making the old comparisions - I'd say modestly fleshed out on this 'blog some time ago - about how exchange rate movements have altered the relative standing of the US, Eurozone and UK over the past four years. But we all know that when discussing dollar (or any other common currency) GDP you can talk about exchange rates, but when you start talking about 'living standards' you need to make a lot more explanations. This statement is clearly nonsense:

The Oxford Economics consultancy, which only a few months ago reported that Britain’s living standards had overtaken those in the United States,

It's disappointing because David Smith knows all of this more than just about anyone else around. And see post above.

GDP confusion

By no means disastrous, but there is some confusion between growth and GDP and so on here.

The headline "UK growth shrinks to worst level since 1990" is not incorrect, but would be better written as "UK economy shrinks at fastest rate since 1990". The first paragaph reads:

Britain's economy shrank during the third quarter of the year for the first time since 1992 and endured the worst single quarter since 1990, it was revealed today.

One should be careful here. GDP in Q3 2008 was probably something like 40-50% higher than it was in in any quarter of 1990. So when saying it was the 'worst' quarter, the author means the rate of change was the worst since then. Although this is how these things are written about, they shouldn't really. If you earned £11,000 in 2004, £10,000 in 2005, £15,000 in 2006, £40,000 in 2007, and then £39,000 in 2008, you probably wouldn't declare 2008 your 'worst year since 2005', at least without some further explanation.

I think the Guardian covered it better.

Scary (and mostly wrong) statistics

Will return to this later, but a quick scan suggests the author hasn't understood most of the statistics contained within.

Sterling is sterling

Rather unfortunate article this one. You can see what they are trying to do - to note that in local currency UK aid now buys less real goods and services, or perhaps more relevantly, in most international currencies (as aid clearly goes to buying foreign goods, otherwise it's a bit pointless). But for some reason they decided the reader wouldn't understand it unless it was converted back into sterling, so we have the nonsensical suggestion that a fall in sterling means a sterling amount is equal to less in sterling.