Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Economy of the United Kingdom article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the United Kingdom. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] No sections

The section on historical exchange rates is frankly irrelevant, mention the regime and that it has floated since 1992, but the specific numbers mean nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.76 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


why does this article have no citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.93.215 (talk • contribs)

The article has many links to reference sources, known as Embedded citations , it has not got any Footnotes yet as no one has yet applied these to this article. GameKeeper 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the average salary in the United Kingdom? Edward 01:31, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

The average salary in the UK is approximately £23,000. Lapafrax

[edit] GDP rank

Since when has the Uk been the 4th largest economy in the world? Surely the French and Chinese would have something to say about that.

Since the late 1990's, the UK has been the world's 4th largest economy, using the method of GDP based on current exchange rates. Lapafrax 20:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The rankings will need to be changed later this year when China overtakes the UK but France has always been behind the UK in terms of economy size

Correct ranking from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html (note need to 'improve' rank by 2 to discount "World" and "EU aggragate" totals) and https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html.
Those figures at the CIA's POV over what the PPP ranking is. They're not the actual ranking. The '4th' ranking is about that.
Please read what you cite.
James F. (talk) 13:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2005 data is from OECD and the links are now to the relevant pages on Wiki. Yes, they are the nominal totals, before "Purchasing Power Parity" adjustment. If you want to do that, you'll have to add the text to explain. (And then maybe you should update all the other "Economy of" articles to be consistent!) --Red King 14:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lucky I came Red King, here is the UK's growth as provided by the most reliable economic source going IMF:
Year GDP
in billions of USD PPP
  % GDP Growth
2002 1575.906 2.0
2003 1640.829 2.5
2004 1736.377 3.2
2005 1825.837 1.9
2006 1910.818 2.2

Link for verification. I've been to all EU countries and updated their GDP and GDP growth accordingly. For consistency I think the Wiki community should come to some consensus on the source they use for economic facts, personally I find the IMF the easiest use, providing the most up-to-date and impartial economic evidence available. I know that the CIA has a method of their own for calculating GDP and they've been know to be slow to updating. So I'll insert this table and update the information. --JDnCoke 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

France's economy was larger than the U.K.'s by at least one measure until the late 1990s. For consistency I have added the type of measure used in the article to arrive at the rank. -A.Rod (21:20, 8 October 2004 (UTC))
I read in the paper a few days ago that China had overtaken the UK so CHina is now 4th and Britain is 5th. --86.129.34.134 11:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As per above, there are problems with the measure you use. You really need to cite something more precise than "I read in the paper a few days ago". The IMF one is good, so if you feel up to it, search the database and report back. --Red King 22:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


I think the facts in the opening paragraph need links to their sources. To say the UK has the largest povert rate among the large economie sis rather ambiguous. - Adam, 3/6/06

It's also a very problematic comparison, as poverty is defined at a national level, and even if 'harmonised' system is applied, it runs into serious local variations. The UK, for instance, tends to put social housing right next to expensive housing so that even the richest areas have some form of social provision (though the quality and quantity of this can be debated). However, it means that saying that 'poverty' exists for someone who gets a subsidised house in Chelsea is a bit more problematic than someone living in a carivan in the South of the US. Roche-Kerr 19:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxation

This section was just a POV party political broadcast (and I'm not even a Labour voter). What is really needed here is solid data about the size of the national 'cake' that is taken in taxes; this would provide interesting comparisons against other countries. This is what I've removed: The Labour government has increased funding of education, transport, and the National Health Service, at a cost in higher taxes. The government has been criticised by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for its stealth tax raises. --Red King 14:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The five economic tests

The article related to the five economic tests says "It is alleged that the five tests were dreamt up by then shadow Chancellor Gordon Brown". So maybe only the Labour government should be mentioned as the originator in the main article. Taupe 14:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I've rephrased that bit of the five economic tests article. The section in this article is a summary of that detailed article, so it it not good practice to repeat details. --Red King 15:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Average total income by ethnic group

Hi guys. Look at [[1]] and then compare this with Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom#Other_Statistics. You see the changes ? It looks like an ego clash here ... can anyone give any authentic reference here to make things more clear? Like was there any authentic study to find the average income by ethnic group? The way how the thing was changed, it seems like vandalism, as the older page was there for quite a few months and the person who changed the information here, only interchaged the words whites and indians. Also about the Indians, wiki is telling that Indians in the US are the highest earning ethnic group there. Given the richest person (in the UK) Mittal is an Indian and 1 out of 20 Indians in the UK are doctors, it's likely that average income of Indians are the highest in the UK as well, though we need confirmation here. Thanks. Sobuj 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

In case there's no authentic evidence and data about the income per group, I think it's better to delete the section simply, better than to have unconfirmed data as that may mislead. Or, someone may kindly give a source from where the data was taken. I couldn't find any source that's speaks about the given figures like £30,000, £25,000 etc. Sobuj 15:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The alledged sources given for the table at the bottom of this page do not make any reference to income per head by ethnic group. Can a source be found, otherwise the table should be deleted (81.104.245.2 (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

I saw that the discussion had not moved on for one year. I have requested that citations are made for the statistics at the bottom of the page because the sources given did not contain the alledged information (81.104.245.2 (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)).

Hi thanks for checking the references but I think something has gone wrong. I see a valid link at [2] which to cut and paste from it says 'One in 20 Hindu men were doctors compared with one in 200 Christian or Sikh men.' When I click the link I see an article from ONS called 'Employment Patterns'. The info comes from the 1st paragraph after the graph, 2nd sentence. I removed your reference request as I think it's already there. Maybe ONS was doing some bank holiday maintenance and that link was broken briefly. GameKeeper (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I looked at what i did and i put the 'citation needed' in the wrong places. I Dont know what happened there, i had seen the 1 in 200 statistic. My query is with the income stats, i cannot find the information in the references. I have put the 'citation needed' mark back on the income. As for the table at the bottom. The given reference does not give statistics on average income, can you find a reference for the table? (152.71.195.135 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC))
Hello again, I’ve put the ‘citation needed’ marks back on the income table because the source given doesn’t provide this information and I cannot find the information anywhere (152.71.195.135 (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)).

[edit] Poverty

Is this figure- 17 %-accurate? I think it must come from a survey carried out called Breadline Europe: The Measurement of Poverty.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1207241.stm

The issue I have with this figure is that it taken from a survey, asking people if they felt they didn't have enough to live on. This is therefore subjective, and not based on a set measurement of poverty. Is there a standard measure of poverty that is used for all countries? The entry Economy of the United States claims that only 12% of the population are below the poverty line. I find it hard to believe that America, which has a far less extensive welfare state, has a lower level of poverty than the UK. Are different measures being used here?

An article I found showed abaout a UN Human development index study found that the US with 16.5% poverty was the worst in the industrialised world. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/44/177.html

There are numerous ways to measurew poverty. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Income-inequality-metrics#Absolute_income_criteria I get the impression that the 17% is either based on subjective assessment or on relative poverty, while other countries' entries may be based on a 'absolute' measure. This needs to be rectified. We need a list of countries using a standardized measure of poverty, whether that be relative to other citizens in each country or relative to living costs, or based on a particular amount of money. Does anyone know any good websites where this information can be found?

[edit] Expansion request

The UK economy is dominated by services, but this article only features the things they do in the city and three lines on tourism. The services section of the article should really be longer than the primary industry and manufacturing sections combined. Osomec 07:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the pov and inaccurate parts of the manufacturing section, and that doesn't leave much - there is not one statistic. So I've added an expansion notice there too. Osomec 07:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] mixed currencies?

Values are given in US dollars in the 'Economy of the UK' table, in pounds in the Services section, in euros in the Regional Variation section. Can't we standardise on one currency? Markb 17:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it make sense for it all to be in dollars Bobus Builderus 00:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Variances section now in Sterling

Any objections?

I'm not sure, although it definatly should be listed in Sterling, it does make international comparison much more difficult. The GDP per region section has a sentance with figures quoted in Euros appearing just under the list, which makes the section look a bit disjointed. I think additional columns displaying the amounts in Euros and USDs would be good.
Also, the list notes that the London GDP per capita is the highest in Europe, but I am yet to find anywhere else with a higher GDP per capita anywhere in the world. Is it the highest in the world, or just Europe? Canderra 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "largest financial centre"

Someone has insisted on calling London the "largest financial centre" twice in this article, when this doesn't agree with the statement in the opening paragraph that along with New York it is one of the two largest financial centres. There is far from unaninomous agreement that London is the largest, and by various measures it is sometimes estimated to be New York and sometimes London. I think it would be safer to just say that London is "one of the largest financial centres". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.184.30.255 (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC).

it depends on how you measure it if you count the total amount of money that moves through its London. Bobus Builderus 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, New York only ever comes off in terms of total accumulated assets, which isn't surprising given that the New York Stock Exchange has huge amounts of existing companies. However, in terms of total jobs in financial services, as well as variety of business, and furthermore the total turnover of operations, the City (and Docklands) overtook New York in 2005/6. Roche-Kerr 01:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regional Variation Vandalism

The regional variation data seems to be subject to creeping vandalism. Here is the original data being added difference. [3]

If anyone can find a more recent source that would also be good. GameKeeper 08:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Table needs to be converted to the form {{Infobox Economy}}. Thanks — Jack · talk · 02:00, Monday, 19 March 2007

[edit] Opening Section

There seems to be an awful lot of information about transport in the first section of the article. Does it really need to be there so early on in the article? - I thought that section was meant for a brief overview of the page. There also seems to be a lot negativity in the first section. Gives the impression of the UK economy being quite crap, when I thought it wasn’t going so bad lately. 81.111.223.76 23:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it. It simply does not belong in this article and was poorly written and unclear anyway. David 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gross External Debt 384% of GDP ?

[4]

As extracted from the link above, Q3 2007 figures in pound sterling are as follows :

GDP = 348,500,000,000 Gross external debt = 5,501,800,000,000 Gross external debt as percentage of GDP = 394.68% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.224.30 (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] France

All I can say is so what? The fact remains that the UK economy has outperformed the French economy since the early 1990's, in terms of mean GDP growth and unemployment. Besides, if it is true that France is now a larger economy than the UK, then your linked article even attributes it ramifications from exchange rates, and not in consequence from a lower mean rate of economic growth. If the French economy was in such a rosy state, then why is President Sarkozy attempting to privatise state industry and and make France more akin to an Anglo-Saxon capitalist model? He, and practically all others in the French ruling class, know that something has to give if France is to be economically competitive in the future. So yes, have an orgasm at the fact that France (according to your link) has a larger economy, but at the moment one would say that the UK has better prospects, due to our less regulated economic model. Whether Sarkozy and co. can do the same remains to be seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapafrax (talk • contribs) 19:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia GDP data comes from the IMF and World Bank (see List of countries by GDP (nominal)), so it's not up to Wikipedia to update the data but rather the IMF and World Bank. Knowing that France has overtaken the UK isn't particularly useful on its own because we'd need to know the whole list to update it. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The IMF and CIA don't agree with the Financial Times. I know who I'd trust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colliver55 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] leeds

info has been added regarding leeds 2x recently and removed for being POV and readded still without citations . I wish to remove it.

Leeds, is the largest financial sector in england outside of london.

Google this or variations, you will finds many large cities claim this in the UK, it is a POV thing as it is not measurable. The other information is hard to verify too, despite searching for references, which is why I would like to delete it. If we let any information be added to wikipedia and just add {{cite}} tags to it no matter how unlikely it is the whole encyclopedia would fill with cruft. GameKeeper (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Delete it. Bsrboy (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GDP per capita , nominal or PPP

GDP PPP per capita is now mentioned in the opening paragraph now. I would prefer to change this to nominal GDP as nominal is more measurable (no need to estimate cost of living) and is more relevant when comparing to other countries economies as it is an absolute measure of wealth. (In contrast PPP is probably a better measure for comparing cost/standard of living). Since this article is on the Economy I think nominal measure is preferable and should have more prominence. GameKeeper (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs updating

The section that says "It is one of the strongest EU economies in terms of inflation, interest rates and unemployment" is either out-of-date or wrong. The UK's interest rates have been higher than the Eurozone for some time. Inflation is now routinely above target and regularly teetering on the edge of exceeding the level at which the Governor has to write to the Chancellor. Unemployment may be low officially, but it is widely recognized that the total number of people of working age not in employment is exceptionally high (around 5.5m) and only made to seem low by categorizing the majority as being incapacitated rather than unemployed. The economy looks likely to grow less than our neighbours and possibly to go into recession. The OECD have judged that the UK is uniquely vulnerable to the current tightening of global economic conditions. In the light of all this, that sentence cannot be described as objective or unbiased, and should be replaced with a very much more downbeat assessment.

Bgprior (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)