Recession is over - stop beating the beards

Flamed Diving

Gross National Income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_income

Gross national income (GNI) comprises the total value produced within a country (i.e. its gross domestic product), together with its income received from other countries (notably interest and dividends), less similar payments made to other countries.

The GNI consists of: the personal consumption expenditures, the gross private investment, the government consumption expenditures, the net income from assets abroad (net income receipts) (this is Dookys big argument here, MNCs repatriating funds, all accounted for here), and the gross exports of goods and services, after deducting two components: the gross imports of goods and services, and the indirect business taxes. (this is the bit that the govt of Ireland get back)

The GNI is similar to the gross national product (GNP), except that in measuring the GNP one does not deduct the indirect business taxes.

For example, the profits of a US-owned company operating in the UK will count towards US GNI and UK GDP, but will not count towards UK GNI or US GDP


More on Indirect Business Taxes

http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=indirect+business+taxes

Flamed Diving

Can anyone find non-GDP measures of income on Eurostat?

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/national_accounts/data/database

Or did The Indo merely use the GDP data and make a rough guesstimate of what repatriated funds would be, hence the "probably" in their article?

nesf

nesf wrote: »

Yar! GNI rankings per capita adjusted for Nominal and PPP (i.e. with and without adjusting for cost of living differences, we obviously drop a few places when you take account of our high cost of living!): http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GNIPC.pdf (World Bank 2008 rankings) (We're 11th in the world and 13th in the world respectively for those who don't want to click)

No "probably below the UK" on per capita grounds we beat them by a few places which confuses me but there you go.

Actually, what annoys me is that with less than 5 minutes of googling I had the above table of GNI per country (and I've never bothered to look for said data until tonight, cause really GNI, who cares?). Which is what the Indo is on about. Or we could use GNP per country and get a slightly different table. But no, they just go "eh, somewhere around the EU average, probably not in the top 10" and present it as ****ing analysis. I mean what are they paying these guys for.

Flamed Diving

nesf wrote: »

Actually, what annoys me is that with less than 5 minutes of googling I had the above table of GNI per country (and I've never bothered to look for said data until tonight, cause really GNI, who cares?). Which is what the Indo is on about. Or we could use GNP per country and get a slightly different table. But no, they just go "eh, somewhere around the EU average, probably not in the top 10" and present it as ****ing analysis. I mean what are they paying these guys for.

Yup, and then people regurgitate it as fact. This article perfectly illustrates my issue with using journalistic articles as sources. You never know just who threw these things together. Count Dooku, thank you for proving my point.

Count Dooku

Flamed Diving wrote: »

(Probably not in the top ten... were they too lazy to look?)

The Indo???

Have you not been reading a word I said in this thread???

I will make it nice and clear:

I WANT DATA SOURCES

Are you sure that you studied economics somewhere?
I am asking because I cannot belive that somebody with degree in economics cannot find simple facts himself
This GNP page from eurostat
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=0&language=en&pcode=teina080

Population taken from here

I did some extraction from this page and used data for Q2/2009

Belgium 84723.00 10,666,866 7942.632822
Denmark 56317.80 5,511,451 10218.32545
Germany 603490.00 82,218,000 7340.120168
Estonia 3186.70 1,340,935 2376.476116
Ireland 34114.80 4,501,000 7579.382359
Greece 58983.40 11,125,179 5301.793346
France 486004.00 64,473,140 7538.084852
Italy 371657.60 59,619,290 6233.848139
Latvia 5347.60 2,266,000 2359.929391
Lithuania 6586.00 3,357,873 1961.360659
Netherlands 137516.00 16,471,968 8348.48635
Austria 67536.60 8,340,924 8097.01659
Portugal 39361.70 10,599,095 3713.684989
Slovenia 8608.40 2,025,866 4249.244521
Slovakia 15330.70 5,400,998 2838.493923
Finland 43031.00 5,312,415 8100.082542
As you see Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Netherlands, Finland already above Ireland.
Then you can add Luxemburg as well – they always were on first place.
Then you will see Ireland very close to Germany and France, but data is for Q2/09 and Irish GNP falling much faster then German and French. Probably GNP is already below them.
If will add Norway and Switzerland, probaly we will below top 10 in Europe now

Count Dooku

nesf wrote: »

Actually, what annoys me is that with less than 5 minutes of googling I had the above table of GNI per country

For 2008
Today picture is completely different

Flamed Diving

Count Dooku wrote: »

Are you sure that you studied economics somewhere?
I am asking because I cannot belive that somebody with degree in economics cannot find simple facts himself

Erm, you are the one making the assertions, therefore, the onus is on you to back them up (which you have failed to do, see below). Not I.

Count Dooku wrote: »

This GNP page from eurostat
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=0&language=en&pcode=teina080

Population taken from here

I did some extraction from this page and used data for Q2/2009

Belgium 84723.00 10,666,866 7942.632822
Denmark 56317.80 5,511,451 10218.32545
Germany 603490.00 82,218,000 7340.120168
Estonia 3186.70 1,340,935 2376.476116
Ireland 34114.80 4,501,000 7579.382359
Greece 58983.40 11,125,179 5301.793346
France 486004.00 64,473,140 7538.084852
Italy 371657.60 59,619,290 6233.848139
Latvia 5347.60 2,266,000 2359.929391
Lithuania 6586.00 3,357,873 1961.360659
Netherlands 137516.00 16,471,968 8348.48635
Austria 67536.60 8,340,924 8097.01659
Portugal 39361.70 10,599,095 3713.684989
Slovenia 8608.40 2,025,866 4249.244521
Slovakia 15330.70 5,400,998 2838.493923
Finland 43031.00 5,312,415 8100.082542
As you see Belgium, Denmark, Austria, Netherlands, Finland already above Ireland.
Then you can add Luxemburg as well – they always were on first place.
Then you will see Ireland very close to Germany and France, but data is for Q2/09 and Irish GNP falling much faster then German and French. Probably GNP is already below them.
If will add Norway and Switzerland, probaly we will below top 10 in Europe now

So Ireland are/were fifth, instead of being:

You: while Ireland even not in first ten within EU

which is a definite statement rather than:

Probably GNP is already below them.

which is simply a guess. For all you know, we could still be fifth, much worse, you then resort to:

If will add Norway and Switzerland, probaly we will below top 10 in Europe now

which is not the same as:

You: while Ireland even not in first ten within EU

So you are throwing guesses around and shifting the goalposts while you are at it. Marvellous. This is all I wanted to know. Thank you.

Count Dooku

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So Ireland are/were fifth, instead of being:

How Ireland can be fifth if five countries already ahead:eek:, plus Sweden and Luxemburg are not included.
Don’t forget that it was done without PPP adjustment, it means that Germany and France also should be ahead, because they are cheaper

Count Dooku

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Erm, you are the one making the assertions, therefore, the onus is on you to back them up (which you have failed to do, see below). Not I.

Sorry - my fault

I should use Europe instead of EU
Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway can push Ireland out of top ten

Flamed Diving

Count Dooku wrote: »

How Ireland can be fifth if five countries already ahead:eek:, plus Sweden and Luxemburg are not included.
Don’t forget that it was done without PPP adjustment, it means that Germany and France also should be ahead, because they are cheaper

Oh, ok they are sixth then. Still not out of top ten. Why did you not include Sweden and Lux? Why not use data that allows for PPP?

Count Dooku

Flamed Diving wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Why did you not include Sweden and Luxembourg? Why did you not include PPP adjusted measures? Why do you expect me to believe your word?

I don't trust anything you say!

It is not me
It is Eurostat
If you have figures for 2009, which proof that I wrong, please show them

So far I have seen any arguments from you - only impty statemnts and demands for data

Flamed Diving

Count Dooku wrote: »

Sorry - my fault

I should use Europe instead of EU
Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Norway can push Ireland out of top ten

Ok, no problem. However, this means your Independent article is now discussing a different issue, right? Not that they had a clue about what they were talking about anyway.

But the problem I have is still one of shifting goalposts. You just keep adding in countries until Ireland falls out of the top ten. Does that make your point valid?

Flamed Diving

Count Dooku wrote: »

It is not me
It is Eurostat
If you have figures for 2009, which proof that I wrong, please show them

So far I have seen any arguments from you - only impty statemnts and demands for data

Dooku, I cannot tell you who the top ten GNI for 2009Q3 are because there is insufficient data to describe this table. This is exactly why I make demands for data in this argument, while making no tall claims of my own. Going around saying "Ireland are not in the EU/Europe top ten" is an absolutely useless statement unless you can back it up with data, which you cannot.

Count Dooku

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why did you not include Sweden and Lux?

Why should I do it?
Sweden and Luxemburg were ahead of Ireland in 2008 and their GNP is not falling so fast as Irish
Instead of learning of economic terminology, you should learn how to use you brains by applying simple logic

nesf

Count Dooku wrote: »

For 2008
Today picture is completely different

Welcome to National Accounts data. The only international tallies will be for last year. You can get quarterly data for the Eurozone and places but unless you fancy digging through 30 versions of the CSO for data, then 2008 will have to do us.

The Indo article was discussing 2008 numbers btw.

imme

what did I miss?:D

nesf

imme wrote: »

what did I miss?:D

My daughter's birth at 5am this morning!

Daithinski

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Don't post unsourced opinions as facts, then.

Simple.

There wouldn't be too many posts if this view was adhered to. Considering that you don't count a newspaper article as a proper source.

If it bothers you so much, maybe you should set up your own forum where you make the rules, (since you don't have the authority to control this one.) Simple!

imme

nesf wrote: »

My daughter's birth at 5am this morning!

ah sorry I wasn't there for you. Congrats to you and your good lady.:)

ardmacha

This data is for 2008 when Irish GNP had already began to decline, the decline in 2009 was more than other countries, but not hugely more than some. But we had a decline 2008 and probably a small decline in 2010 so the overall decline is greater. Also our popualtion growth has ended, (notwithstanding NESFs good news) perhaps even gone into reverse, affecting the per capita figure.

One question, when people talk about a 10-11% decline in Irish GNP in 2009, is this nominal or real? What is the GNP deflator for 2009 likely to be, 3% or so?

Count Dooku

ardmacha wrote: »

This data is for 2008 when Irish GNP had already began to decline, the decline in 2009 was more than other countries, but not hugely more than some. But we had a decline 2008 and probably a small decline in 2010 so the overall decline is greater. Also our popualtion growth has ended, (notwithstanding NESFs good news) perhaps even gone into reverse, affecting the per capita figure.

One question, when people talk about a 10-11% decline in Irish GNP in 2009, is this nominal or real? What is the GNP deflator for 2009 likely to be, 3% or so?

Good news that Eurostat figures shows Gross national income at market prices.

Bad news is that actually nearly 19% from 41169.2 in Q1/08 to 33935.8 33935.8 in Q1/09

Flamed Diving

Daithinski wrote: »

There wouldn't be too many posts if this view was adhered to. Considering that you don't count a newspaper article as a proper source.

If it bothers you so much, maybe you should set up your own forum where you make the rules, (since you don't have the authority to control this one.) Simple!

Nah, why bother when I can continue to expose the weakness of assertions made by people who treat tabloid articles as fact?

Much more fun. If you don't like it, why don't you set up your own forum, etc...


P.S: In case you failed to read last nights proceedings, it was a world class illustration in the dangers of using newspapers as sources. Economic journals don't accept newspapers as sources. Did you ever wonder why?

Hmmmmm...

Bu..but... its not an economic journal here.

Yes, I am very aware of this. But I have some standards, at least, unlike the newspapers you so adore and rely on to tell you what to say. They clearly make it up as they go along, which is what The Indo was shown to do in that article above. Just like most of the people on this forum, in fact.

nesf

Daithinski wrote: »

There wouldn't be too many posts if this view was adhered to. Considering that you don't count a newspaper article as a proper source.

Newspapers are a fine source! But they aren't necessarily fact and that's what people need to appreciate. Presenting a newspaper article as your source for holding a certain view is fine so long as you're willing to debate the accuracy of the article as a source and be willing to withdraw your view if the article is shown to be a half-truth/false/presenting only part of the real story.

Daithinski wrote: »

If it bothers you so much, maybe you should set up your own forum where you make the rules, (since you don't have the authority to control this one.) Simple!

The rules in this forum and the Politics forums in general has been, for many years, that posters need to be able to back up or justify their post and show sources if challenged fairly. This rule is in force in this forum and it is perfectly ok for someone to challenge someone and ask them to provide a source for their numbers or arguments in their post and be willing to withdraw a point if it shown that their source is false/imbalanced/misleading/whatever. Obviously most of the time it won't be clear cut and will be open to debate but this isn't AH and people are expected to be able to back up their arguments and posts with something more than mere assertion.

Flamed Diving

Here is how I tend to use newspaper sources:

Economy beginning 'gradual turnaround'

CIARA O'BRIEN

Mon, Dec 21, 2009

The Irish economy may be starting a gradual turnaround despite tough conditions for businesses, but weakness in activity and employment remain.

The Winter Business Sentiment survey produced by KBC Bank Ireland and Chartered Accountants Ireland found businesses were reporting better conditions than 12 months ago. Businesses were also buoyed by the measures announced by Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan in Budget 2010.

However, firms are not anticipating a dramatic turnaround, the survey said, with employment still falling, although at a lower rate than previously experienced.

“The Winter Business Sentiment Survey is telling us the worst is over. Equally, however, very few firms expect anything approaching a dramatic recovery in the early months of 2010,” said Chartered Accountants Ireland president Tom Fitzpatrick.

“It seems clear that an improvement in global conditions has translated into more encouraging signs although domestic spending remains under pressure.”

KBC Bank Ireland's chief economist Austin Hughes said the majority of firms had made adjustments to improve viability, and many appeared to believe the worst of the adjustment to the downturn could have passed.

"Far and away the most important change has been a reduction in payroll numbers as companies adjust to the prospect that pre-crisis levels of demand are unlikely to return," he said.

"Although companies didn’t regard reductions in pay as the key action taken, as many as 66 per cent of respondents said there had been pay cuts at their companies. Clearly pay cuts have played an important role but the major adjustment has been a reduction in payroll costs through job losses."

© 2009 irishtimes.com

What do you think of the above? I think these surveys are usually quite flawed, but it does seem to coincide with the CSO figures. Discuss.

Note how I don't use assertive language in an effort to make the article seem like fact.

bangersandmash

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What do you think of the above? I think these surveys are usually quite flawed, but it does seem to coincide with the CSO figures. Discuss.

Note how I don't use assertive language in an effort to make the article seem like fact.

The article relies on quotes from Austin Hughes. In other words, it's little better than a PR piece on behalf of KBC and Chartered Accountants Ireland. Not sure what the benefit is of reposting it in full here.

Flamed Diving

bangersandmash wrote: »

The article relies on quotes from Austin Hughes. In other words, it's little better than a PR piece on behalf of KBC and Chartered Accountants Ireland. Not sure what the benefit is of reposting it in full here.

Mainly as an illustration of how to use a newspaper article. Not treating it as fact or truth. Stuff like that. Since it was related to the thread title, I thought it would be a perfect article to use. Very simple to understand.

Sleepy

O/T

TBH, Flamed Diving, I think you'd get much further with those of us that haven't got post-graduate levels of economic education if you adopted an informative , rather than adversarial stance on topics. For the early part of this thread, I just took you for an ignorant troll rather than someone with a deep interest in economics... If I say something stupid, show me why it's stupid and I'll thank you for it. Belittle me or condescend to me and I'll just think you're an arsehole.

Flamed Diving

Sleepy wrote: »

O/T

TBH, Flamed Diving, I think you'd get much further with those of us that haven't got post-graduate levels of economic education if you adopted an informative , rather than adversarial stance on topics. For the early part of this thread, I just took you for an ignorant troll rather than someone with a deep interest in economics... If I say something stupid, show me why it's stupid and I'll thank you for it. Belittle me or condescend to me and I'll just think you're an arsehole.

You don't need any formal education in economics to realise that a slowing rate of descent is better than an accelerating rate of descent. You choose to ignore this and throw around your silly analogies instead. This is standard fare on this forum, and I really don't have the patience to make people view data in a sensible light. Even if I tried, I would probably fail, because it is not ignorance that causes this problem, for that is easily cured.

Sleepy

I never chose to ignore the fact, just refused to celebrate it.

Do you honestly think we're approaching the bottom? If so, can I ask where your confidence that the worst is over is coming from?

Flamed Diving

Sleepy wrote: »

I never chose to ignore the fact, just refused to celebrate it.

Celebrate it is a strong word, but it was nice to see something other than collapse.

Sleepy wrote: »

Do you honestly think we're approaching the bottom?

No, if Q4 and most importantly, 2010Q1 continue to show this decline in the speed of descent, then I will start calling the above.

Sleepy wrote: »

If so, can I ask where your confidence that the worst is over is coming from?

I know I said no, but despite our issues with debt/construction sector, I would maintain that our biggest problem has been the fall in global demand. If the global economy continues to recover in the way it has been this year, then this will drag us up with it. Small. Open. Economy. (with lots of MNCs [repatriate-schmatriate, they also happen to employ people])

Of course, if the global economy stagnates or falls further...