Wikipedia

Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

< Talk:Economy of the United Kingdom
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 77.199.96.68 in topic Update the UK's global economic ranking, as it is now sixth not fifth.
Archive 1Archive 2

Joining the Euro.

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The text reads:

Until relatively recently there was debate over whether or not the UK should abolish its currency Pound Sterling and join the Euro.

I would dispute this. Euro membership is still on the cards. The Liberal Democrats favour the idea (however they have suspended their Euro-policy as a concession to the coalition), there are some in the Labour and Conservative parties who also favour it. Many in the UK favour the idea. While I can't see it happening any time too soon, once the sovereign debt crisis has been calmed down and tougher rules on treasuries have been established then doubtlessly the debate will resurge, and in time Britain will probably adopt the single currency.

I don't think it does the issue justice to make out as if it was a past-debate like the reform of the corn laws.

If no one objects I shall change it to something that reflects the reality a little better.

Regards,

Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"Many in the UK favour the idea." - that would depend on your definition of many. It is very clear a large majority of people in the United Kingdom oppose joining the euro, even many liberal democrats do not want to join. As a big supporter of the European Union, id never want us to join the euro which is so deeply flawed and always has been.
Britain will not adopt the Euro for decades, mentioning that the government has no intention of joining the euro over the next 5 years is valid and relevant. A mention of the positions the main 3 parties take is also justified, however whilst the lib dems are pro EU they aint desperate for joining the euro and would hold a referendum, a referendum that polls show they would lose badly. Public opposition to it should also be mentioned.
I do agree with you though that the wording should be changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
David Cameron has stated categorically to the House of Commons that the UK will not enter the Euro in the current Parliament, so that seems to leave little room for doubt; the sentence therefore seems fairly accurate, although of course it could be further explained. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This is one of those debates which will never be settled and it would be wrong to say the debate is over. There is pretty large agreement that this would not be a good time to join, but give it five years for the current financial crisis to settle down, and who knows. Official statements by political leaders are also notoriously unreliable. Sandpiper (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

France

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
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)

:: Lapafrax your comments are all based on assumptions. It could be that the French governments changes are all in response to the entire world being in an economic downturn as a result of the attacks on the US and the following war(s). Either way your arguement is based on emotion not facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.101.76 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

i agree with lapafrax. check GDP growth statistics on any reputable website, whether the OECD, UN, IMF or what have you. It is fact that Sarkozy in 2007 election ran on a manifesto of changing the French macroeconomic model. It is fact that since the start of the current decade, the UK has experienced a higher average rate of economic growth. it is fact that the UK has also experienced lower unemployment in the period. To say these points are assumptions makes little sense. And what global economic downturn was there in 2007, at the time Sarkozy became president? Few economists at that time could predict the current recession.

And a global downturn as a result of 9/11? What? I'd imagine since 9/11, the Eurozone has been the worst performing region in the first world. Why then didn't Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, the UK, New Zealand and South Korea all experience stagnant economic growth and high unemployment since 2001? http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/2830-sarkozys-french-revolution - see this link. Sarkozy was often seen as the French Margaret Thatcher, since in the UK Thatcher's remit as PM was to reform the UK economy in order to halt a relative economic decline.

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)

I think i'll never understand this british obsession of always comparing UK with France whatever the matter. aren't the hundred years' war and napoleonic era over ? Last time I was in France, they did care of UK as their first diaper. Baby Bobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.24.105 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with a British obsession. It just so happens that the UK and France have similar GDP figures, and so their international ranking is subject to considerable debate. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Why then didn't the UK experience stagnant economic growth and high unemployment since 2001" The answer to this can be found here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/government_expenditure.html#ukgs302 The UK gov increased public spending from £1021 billion in 2001 to £1451 billion in 2010 go on read that again, thats an increase of £431 billion in 9 years. Increasing gov supported employment and supporting a SHRINKING economy. The gov also removed the BOE's responsibility of controlling inflation and relaxed banking regulations in the UK, which encouraged bad lending practices to support the UK. Increased dept to unsustainable levels and now we have to pay the price. Basically the UK differed payment until the bailiffs came knocking. The labour Gov also sold 400 tonnes of the UK's gold reserves from 1999 to 2002 http://www.bullionmark.com/bullion-market-tools-a-resources/blog-and-articles/2010/3/00/52-UK-gold-sale--was-it-a-bank-bailout?.html The UK has very few substantial assets left and considerable debt. Scotlands oil wont last forever.

2009 France GDP $2.666 Trillion 2009 UK GDP $2.224 Trillion

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fr.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/uk.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.181.191 (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but France has a much larger debt, when you put it all into context the UK comes out on top.Twobells (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually that reminds me, I want to add a warning here:

If you browse through many British & English historical and statistical pages on Wikipedia you will find that French editors have been there trying to give undue weight to their country, some even going as far as making up allegations about British historical figures creating so-called 'sexual preferences' sections and suggesting without any evidence a predilection towards homosexuality all completely unchallenged until you find them, they try to be clever by inserting 'citation needed' and of course no citation exists but the student doesn't know that so be on the constant lookout for certain editors.Twobells (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

--> all of that might be true, or just 'talk'; to me, from belgium, it seems all based on chauvinist feelings on either side of the channel; one example being the myth of the socalled 'anglosaxon capitalsit model'; if there is some-one that can explain in simple terms what that diffrence consists of, then I retract my words, but basicly, the RF and the UK are simply capitalist states with some social democratic characteristics of a welfare states... France has not been socialist for decades; and since WWII conservative (gaullist) ideology has dominated french politics, as it has also troughout most of the 19th century (despite the revolutionary elan of paris glowing like a firefly in the night)

yeah, there were riots in paris, yeah there were riots in london; you see, all the same inequality, failing economic policy and economic emancipation of young unemployed and the same bullshitting politicians wanting to clean it up (but putting it under the carpet)... Both paris and london are financial centres with global attraction and radiance... both france and britain are economies of similar size and population, very similar growth, very similar crises; how can anybody then say one model is so much more successfull when diffrence is basicly 'marginal'? resorting to the ad hominem: what idiot would analyse into the absurd these minute "diffrences" in order to obtain recognition of some vague assumed economic "ideology"???

As to the 'anglosaxon model'; once I went to the US; and thought the US could join the EU being rich enough and so similar in values and economic devellopment (though with a bit more space)... or inversely, the EU states could join the US... one could just as easily speak of the Belgian capitalist model; or the Euro-American model etc... its all the same to me: these parts of the world share the goal of trying to establish free trade, open markets and to create wealth as a basis of a mass consumerist welfare democracy (or in plural) alongside very similar methods (mostly still somehow imbedded in the old keynsian theory -as long as we use terms like BNP defined as they are today, its keynsian-, which is why all of our debts keep rising)...

I don't know why Brittish folks and French folks are baited so easily in some dumb nationalist or chauvinistic rethoric... probably because the're less intelligent compared to the others...

British have a higher IQ than the French; less than the Italians, higher than the Americans and the Israelis. Is this relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.239.140 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC) 15:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monoclemask (talk • contribs)


Hatnote

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Apologies for the delay in starting this discussion. I think a hatnote along the lines of

"UK plc" and "GB plc" redirect here. For public limited companies in the United Kingdom, see United Kingdom company law.

belongs in the article because "UK plc" and "GB plc" each have two meanings: the UK economy (determined at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 25#UK plc to be the primary meaning) and public limited companies in the UK (to which they redirected for three years; for example, one might say "the UK plc Tesco..."). As such, though the consensus at the RfD was to retarget them here, there remains a significant chance that a reader searching for them might be looking for something along the lines of United Kingdom company law. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. "GB plc" I have never heard of and think should simply be discounted.
"UK plc" is a phrase used sometimes by the UK media to refer to the British economy, but in the narrow sense of the present day economy, and generally just as regards the private sector (which is just over half the economy). It is therefore not synonymous with the topic of this article, although it is closely related.
I see very little way in which this article could ever be confused for one on United Kingdom company law. However I do accept that some people may well search UK plc looking for the article Public limited company.
In my view the best solution here would be to make "UK plc" into either a short article or a disambiguation page which explains the meaning of the term and links to both this article and Public limited company. Rangoon11 (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"GB plc" has negligible pageviews so I'm happy to remove it from the hatnote. I think your proposed solution, though, would go against the consensus at the RfD discussion, so a new one would be required. Seeing as you agree that public limited company is a plausible target for a reader searching for "UK plc", I'm going to restore a hatnote for that article and leave it up to you as to whether a new RfD's necessary. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That discussion does not preculde the creation of either a UK plc article or disambiguation page, it was purely a discussion on which page the redirect should go to if there were one.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I have now created a disambiguation page which I feel is the most sensible solution. There is also @UK plc to consider too. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Not convinced by your first argument – there could have been a consensus to turn it into a disambiguation page, a frequent outcome at RfD, but there obviously wasn't – however I'm happy to leave it be in the absence of any stronger objections than mine. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
To be fair it was a very short discussion, shorter even than this now is, and the idea of a disambiguation page was not raised. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Exports

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Missing trader fraud being 10% of exports sounds rather large. On the link it states According to the case Federation of Technological Industries v Customs and Excise Commissioners ([2004] EWCA Civ 1020) in 2002-3 the estimated cumulative cost of such frauds to the UK alone was between £1.65 and £2.64 billion (US$2.9 to $4.62). which is a much smaller fraction of exports.

I suspect a table would be more useful than a diagram representing exports, much of the text is difficult to see. Should the financial sector be represented? --Andromedean (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

North Sea oil

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page shows a huge fall-off in 1994, from almost 2000kbpd to less than a hundred. What happened? — LlywelynII 09:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikiecon

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would love to see a Wiki project map out the global economy. In an organized format all local/country economic data would be collected. All authors would be required to write articles according to a standardized and cited format. The model revolves around publicly released economic data: GDP, employment, industries, corporations, fiscal policy, etc. Economists and volunteers can help determine which economic data accounts are most appropriate to be required under the standardized format. There is nothing in the world that resembles this model. There is no Wiki that allows economists to add economic data under a standardized format. I have already written the article for 'Economy of the United States'. It is 7 pages long. This article contains what I believe is the most important economic data available to the public. The data is almost entirely in table format. Citations include the U.S. Census Bureau, the World Bank, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Yahoo Finance, CNN'S Money's Fortune 500 list, U.S. treasury releases, Federal Reserve websites, company SEC filings and the IMF. The article can be seen in PDF format at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Economy.pdf The Contents are: 1. States, 2. Industries, 3. Corporations, 4. Employment, 5. Fiscal Budget, 6. Monetary Policy, 7. Creditors, 8. Cities, 9. International Accounts 9. History All articles would be standardized and connected in an organized network. This model would go down to the most local level. All 196 countries would have a standardized country article to have the same exact format used in the attached file. This project would evolve as economists determine better ways to present the data.

The 'Economy of ______' pages would be a very educational collection of economic data. I think that these articles would be greatly improved if they were modified to become uniform. This would allow for greater comparability. I believe that these pages would be improved with a standardized and simplified format. This would allow for greater comparability and public understanding of the economy and fiscal budgets. Below are the Wikipedia Contents of the four biggest economy articles. As you can see, the Contents are inconsistent between them. I believe this can be fixed with my Wiki project proposal. 1. Economy of the United States 1 History 2 Overview 3 Employment 4 Research, development, and entrepreneurship 5 Income and wealth 6 Financial position 7 Industry Sectors 8 Notable companies and markets 9 Energy, transportation, and telecommunications 10 Finance 11 Health care 12 International trade 13 Currency and central bank 14 Law and government 15 See also 16 References 17 External links 2. Economy of China 1 History 2 Government role 3 Regional economies 4 Development 5 Macroeconomic trends 6 Financial and banking system 7 Industry Sectors 8 Labor and welfare 9 External trade 10 Foreign investment 11 Demographics 12 Transportation and infrastructure 13 Science and technology 14 See also 15 References 16 External links 3. Economy of Japan 1 Economic history 2 Infrastructure 3 Macro-economic trend 4 Services 5 Industry 6 Mining and petroleum exploration 7 Agriculture 8 Labor force 9 Law and government 10 Culture 11 Other economic indicators 12 See also 13 Notes 14 External links 4. Economy of Germany 1 History 2 Macroeconomic data 3 Economic region 4 Natural resources 5 Sectors 6 Infrastructure 7 Technology 8 See also 9 References 10 External links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcnabber091 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Substantial Revisions Required

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

This article is in need of substantial revision. The quality of the information is often poor, or severely out of date. Furthermore, the range of information presented is far too narrow. Greater information could be provided for example on Employment within the Economy of the UK etc. We need some people to agree to develop this page and the information on it. AdamFouracre (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would note for the sake of completeness that I have been updating the information listed under "Statistics" in the right hand column, and have been providing citations. AdamFouracre (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Saved for future reference: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_286243.pdf AdamFouracre (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

UK gross wage averaged...

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

€4,108 or $5,546... what was that in legal UK tender then... and is that before or after conversion into Sterling? MrZoolook (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


I have updated these figures to 2011 (from 2006) and calculated them based on average market prices for the respective currencies during the 2011 year using data provided by the ONS. Thus the figures are calculated on the basis of £1 = €1.151, and £1 = $1.605.
Average gross salary: £2,183 / €2,510 / $3,493.32 (2011) - http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_241497.pdf
Average net salary: £1,336 / €1,536 / $2,137.60 (2011) - http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_307651.pdf
AdamFouracre (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC).

infographic / circular flow of the economy?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.

We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if this of the circular flow of the economy (showing where ONS publications fit) would be of interest for UK_economy

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:How_ONS_statistics_explain_the_UK_economy_Feb_2012_%288790240798%29.jpg

FYI, the full gallery, updated weekly, is here <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>

All the best

Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013

Smanders1982 (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

monetary information is useless

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

all pages that deal with an economy should have that countries monetary units as the prime info, then dollars, sterling and euros in brackets, unless they use dollars then just put sterling and euros in brackets etc. so for the UK GDP should be in £'s then have dollar and euro values bracketed behind it. most visitors to the page from the country (any country) won't like having to go find a web currency converter to work out what the GDP is in a currency they have some idea about. and before anyone says that dollars are easy, actually the dollars various exchange rates are pretty fluid, and europeans and brits generally have little use for the dollar in discussions, sterling or euros all the way! 82.9.105.183 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Public Debt

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I wanted to know how is possible to have a so huge difference between the percentage of GDP's Public Debt from the Office for National Statistics (75,4%) and in other part the percentage given by CIA Factbook (more than 90%) the International Monetary Fund (also more than 90%). 90.52.145.184 (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether you include financial sector interventions to rescue the banking sector into the public sector net debt figures - its a contingent liability you see and so arguably should not be included. I hope that answers your question. AdamFouracre (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with that, but do others countries do the same, per example the US, Germany or France ? Those three countries also had a massive financial sector interventions. If they don't, your contigent liability would create in fact a false discrepancy in term of debt comparaison between countries, isn't it ? 90.52.36.34 (talk) 04:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear, from the same [review of the Office for National Statistics] stating the 75,4%, if we include the temporary effects of financial interventions, the debt of UK arises to 132,1% (page 28 table 5), that was way worse than I thought.90.52.36.34 (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Job creation/unsourced claims

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Consequently, the UK is currently creating more jobs than the entirety of all countries in the European Union combined "

This sentence needs a reliable source, or ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.103.94 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Equality crashing: "rich are 64% richer than before the recession, while the poor are 57% poorer"

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"The gap between richest and poorest has dramatically widened in the past decade as wealthy households paid off their debts and piled up savings following the financial crisis, a report warns today. By contrast, the worst-off families are far less financially secure than before the recession triggered by the near- collapse of several major banks. They have an average of less than a week’s pay set aside and are more often in the red. Younger workers have fallen behind older people while homeowners – particularly those who have paid off their mortgages – have become increasingly affluent compared with their neighbours who are paying rent...." -- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-divided-decade-the-rich-are-64-richer-than-before-the-recessionwhile-the-poor-are-57-poorer-10097038.html EllenCT (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, I will try to reflect this in the article Gati123 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Statistics

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

As I have a verifiable source that comes from one of the most respected authorities for estimates for GDP/PPP, I don't see any reason to discredit them and state that the UK is the second largest economy because YOU think it is so, the source clearly states that the UK is the third largest economy PPP Gati123 (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I do think the source could be improved, as the table selected only shows the four largest economies in Europe. It would be better if it showed data for all European economies. It also doesn't support the claim about the UK's economy being the eighth largest in the world in PPP terms, and the link through to List of countries by GDP (PPP) in the infobox actually shows it to be 10th according to IMF data. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll do some fact checking and research and will let you know some of the other options @Cordless Larry Gati123 (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry Sorry I reply this late. I was very busy with work, friends etc. Yes it is true that in 2014 the UK has overtaken to become Europe second largest economy measured by GDP[1] PPP wise the UK is estimated to overtake France this year and become Europe's 3rd largest economy measured by PPP[2][3] What we need to discuss is if we either stock to last year's verified data or if we'll use this year's estimates. I propose two options we either use:

Proposal: The United Kingdom ... (and second largest in Europe) measured by nominal GDP and ... (and third largest in Europe)[4] measured by purchasing power parity (PPP). (Based on this year's estimates) OR
Proposal: The United Kingdom ... (and second largest in Europe) measured by nominal GDP ... (and fourth largest in Europe)[5] measured by purchasing power parity (PPP). (Based on last year's verified numbers). Gati123 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I will come consider the options the data about the UK being the 5th/8th largest economy Gati123 (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the UK the 4th largest in Europe in PPP terms if we consider Russia? Or when we say Europe do we in fact mean the EU?Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The IMF citation clearly shows the UK has the 5th nominal and 9th PPP economy in the world as of the 2015 estimates.Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Antiochus the Great It depends Russia is in both version 2rd. What needs to be discussed is if we use the verified PPP data from last year (France 3rd, UK 4th) Or the IMF estimates for this year where the UK will overtake France to become Europe's 3rd largest economy measured by PPP. My problem with the second option is that they're estimates, which haven't been verified Gati123 (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Surely this is an issue with all country articles? Isn't there a consensus about what to use? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2013&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=49&pr1.y=17&c=914%2C946%2C137%2C122%2C124%2C921%2C943%2C963%2C918%2C138%2C142%2C964%2C182%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C128%2C135%2C942%2C939%2C936%2C961%2C172%2C132%2C184%2C134%2C174%2C144%2C146%2C944%2C176%2C178%2C136%2C926%2C112%2C967%2C941&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP&grp=0&a=
  2. ^ http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/weorept.aspxsy=2013&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=49&pr1.y=17&c=914%2C946%2C137%2C122%2C124%2C921%2C943%2C963%2C918%2C138%2C142%2C964%2C182%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C128%2C135%2C942%2C939%2C936%2C961%2C172%2C132%2C184%2C134%2C174%2C144%2C146%2C944%2C176%2C178%2C136%2C926%2C112%2C967%2C941&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP&grp=0&a=
  3. ^ http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php
  4. ^ http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/weorept.aspxsy=2013&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=49&pr1.y=17&c=914%2C946%2C137%2C122%2C124%2C921%2C943%2C963%2C918%2C138%2C142%2C964%2C182%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C128%2C135%2C942%2C939%2C936%2C961%2C172%2C132%2C184%2C134%2C174%2C144%2C146%2C944%2C176%2C178%2C136%2C926%2C112%2C967%2C941&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP&grp=0&a=
  5. ^ http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/weorept.aspxsy=2013&ey=2016&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=49&pr1.y=17&c=914%2C946%2C137%2C122%2C124%2C921%2C943%2C963%2C918%2C138%2C142%2C964%2C182%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C128%2C135%2C942%2C939%2C936%2C961%2C172%2C132%2C184%2C134%2C174%2C144%2C146%2C944%2C176%2C178%2C136%2C926%2C112%2C967%2C941&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP&grp=0&a=

The GDP data in this article is not real data.

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

The GDP figures for this article are incorrect at today's valuations and are based on projected estimates, sometimes outdated ones.

It states that the economy of the UK is $3.002 trillion despite the fact that the total output of the country never reached that level in history. The source for the figure are IMF estimates made in 2014, not actual data. While it is possible that, at some point in 2015, the UK economy reaches $3 trillion (nominal GDP at current prices), it is also perfectly possible that this number never materialises in 2015.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=13&pr.y=3&sy=2014&ey=2015&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=112&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC&grp=0&a=

I crunched the numbers from the Office of National Statistics' Quarterly National Accounts, Q3 2014 Dataset. Click "select series from this dataset" if you want to see the data:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/naa2/quarterly-national-accounts/q3-2014/tsd-quarterly-nationl-accounts--q3-2014.html

This is the most recent national accounts data available for download (Q3 2014) but Q4 numbers have been published in their pre-release. It showed the economy grew by 0.5% in Q4 (GDP at constant prices/chained volume measure). The GDP at current prices is likely to have been marginally higher, perhaps 0.1%, consistent with near zero inflation in late 2014.

GDP for the 4 quarters ending Q3 2014 showed the size of the UK economy was £1.770.866 (nominal GDP at current prices), £1.750.452 for Q2 and £1.733.015 for Q1. For Q4 GDP, the figure is likely to be £1.789.884 based on a non deflated Q4 GDP growth rate.

Taking the GBP/USD exchange rate for the last day of each quarter, we have a dollar denominated GDP of:

Q1: $2.799.520 Q2: $2.912.157 Q3: $2.944.806 Q4: $2.931.748 (estimate based on the ONS pre-relase data)

Based on the current GBP/USD rate and estimates for the for Q1 2015, UK GDP is likely to be below 2.9 trillion right now.


The GDP ranking (PPP) of 8th is also based on a projection, that of the CIA World Factbook for 2013. These estimates differ significantly from the last official year end release by the IMF and the World Bank (2013), showing the UK in 10th and 9th place respectively.

The intro also states that the UK is the 2nd largest economy in Europe in both nominal and PPP values. The source for the PPP data is yet another estimate, this time a substantially outdated one, made in April 2011 by the IMF. The whole of that ranking page needs to be updated since hard IMF data now exists for every value on the page (2011, 2012 and 2013)

In short, no data has ever shown that the UK had overtaken France in PPP GDP and there is no evidence that it is the case now. The last available data from the IMF and the World Bank is for the year 2013 and both show the UK as the 3rd largest economy in Europe in PPP valuations. IMF projections for 2014 and 2015 also show that:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2014/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=67&pr.y=6&sy=2013&ey=2015&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=132%2C112&s=NGDPD%2CPPPGDP&grp=0&a=

For the nominal value, the UK has overtaken France as the 2nd largest economy in Europe, in the second half of 2014. Because this is a very recent event, no data currently currently shows this development. This may or may not appear in the IMF's 2014 full year release to be published later this year, depending on which GBP/USD and EUR/USD the fund chooses as reference.

However, my data, which is a merging of official GDP data from the ONS, the British statistics agency, and INSEE, its French counterpart, shows that at the end of Q3 2014, UK nominal GDP had passed French GDP. This gap widened to over $100 billion by year end and today, with the significant falls in euro rates, this is probably in excess of $200 billion.

Since no data shows this evolution yet, and may not for some time, I suggest you use as source, one of the many articles in the press relaying this story.


A couple of other minor problems in the introduction, the state of UK GDP versus its 2008 peak and the claim about UK job creation:

"As of Q4 2014, the UK economy is 3.4% above its pre-crisis peak in Q1 2008 and growth in 2014 was the fastest since 2007 at 2.6%."

According to this article, it appears that the ONS has revised past GDP estimates downwards, back in December, and that the new figures show that the UK is 2.9% above its pre-recession peak and not the 3.4% it previously thought. I checked the actual quarterly GDP data and they are correct. However, I did not find the the ONS releases:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2885029/GDP-growth-confirmed-0-7-Q3-revised-data-previous-12-months-shows-recovery-weaker-previously-thought.html


"Consequently, the UK is currently creating more jobs than the entirety of all countries in the European Union combined and unemployment is currently falling at record levels"

The page indicates that a source is needed here but I think the sentence should be re-written. The UK is part of the EU so the sentence does not make sense. It should say "the rest of the EU combined".

As for the claim itself, it is slightly misleading. First, it is net employment we are taking about, not job creation. Second, the claim is that if the rest of the EU formed a bloc (EU minus the UK, which is not en entity that makes any sense), then it is true that the UK has had higher net employment than the rest of the EU, which has experienced negative net employment. Third, while UK net employment appears to have increased by 1.6 million in the last 4 years, Germany did better with 1.7 million.

This is a link from the FT, the only reliable source I found supporting the claim:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c11ffcb0-338f-11e4-85f1-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3TXIzELby

Finally, one has to bear in mind that, the only reason this got an echo in the press is because it was mentioned in a speech by David Cameron. This is a political claim. And it begs the question: Why 4 years? Why not since the beginning of the recovery or over the entire economic cycle? I do not know what the statistics would show on different time frames but politicians tend to be less objective than economists. This should be taken with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premium Junk (talk • contribs) 04:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


Obviously, things have gone a lot worse since my last comment. It seems that ever since that blockbuster 2014 year for the UK economy and its overtaking of France, the GDP stats for the UK are all over the place and that's across several pages on wikipedia.

Before, future projections were presented as present data (which is problematic, see comment above) but at least the numbers were rooted in some kind of reality (an outdated projection). Now, none of the figures even relate to the projections. In the statistics side bar, the nominal GDP of the UK now reads $3.153 trillion (against 3.002 trillion a few months ago). Of course, the economy of the UK has never reached that level in history (see comment above). The PPP number at $2.841 trillion is also made up.

The GDP per capita figure corresponds to the estimate the IMF had in their October release... but is described as "April 2015 est" data.

On that note, there is not such thing as an "April 2015" estimate, the IMF page has full year data and projections (shaded cells) released twice a year, in October and in April.

On the GDP ranking page, the UK is on $3,056,499 thousands and that's... hum... you guessed it, also made up. Premium Junk (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


It now says $3,215 trillion! complete fantasy. No wonder wikipedia isn't taken seriously. Premium Junk (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is the data table under the Data heading data for the Republic of Ireland?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The "Data" heading on this page contains a table of the GDP per capita of the regions of the Republic of Ireland. Why is this table on this page? The RoI is not a part of the UK, so how is this data relevant to the topic at hand, the economy of the UK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.11.128 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 28 July 2015‎ (UTC)

That material was added recently by Taoiseach. I have no idea why, and it's clearly out of place, so I've removed it. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on Economy of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.218.140 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

2nd/3rd/4th largest economy in Europe

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Several editors have recently edited the ranking of the UK in Europe in PPP terms. The (IMF) reference which is given is not particularly good but from what I can see the UK is bigger than France and Italy (the two countries which might be bigger than it) in terms of "GDP at current prices". I assume this means the PPP GDP, but it is not particularly clear. If other editors have better sources then please provide them rather than simply editing the page without attaching sources Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I compiled a report from the IMF's October 2015 WEO database; I only included the five largest European countries and give their respective GDP in both Nominal (current prices) and Purchasing-power-parity (PPP) (Click here for report). From this data, and considering the IMF is arguably the most authoritative source on such a topic - the United Kingdom is ranked 2nd in Europe in GDP Nominal and ranked 4th in GDP PPP. Cheers.
GDP Nominal
  • Germany 3,874
  • United Kingdom 2,950
  • France 2,833
  • Italy 2,147
  • Russia 1,860
GDP PPP
  • Germany 3,748
  • Russia 3,576
  • France 2,591
  • United Kingdom 2,569
  • Italy 2,135

Antiochus the Great (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Antiochus, thanks for your reply, I have added the source into the lead. However I am not sure about including Russia as being "in Europe" (although many sources say it is) - possibly it would be better to say that it is the third largest in the EU to avoid confusion? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that might be better.Antiochus the Great (talk) 23:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I used the EU for both to make it more consistent. Jolly Ω Janner 02:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Update to deficit, expenses and revenue

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The following edit was made today in which the several figures were updated int he infobox. None were cited, but I managed to find a reference for the inflation figures, which lead me to believe they are likely genuine. The US dollar figures from the World Factbook on revenue and expenditure are wrong, as I have just confirmed the CIA is still using 2014 estimates. A quick Google of the figures used leads only back to a Wikipedia article with unreferenced claims. Unless references can be found, I'm inclined to remove them as dubious. Jolly Ω Janner 17:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Per the latest edit, it would appear as though these are based on the budget, which are likely to change slightly once the financial year is over. I'm unsure if it goes against WP:FUTURE, since it's likely to be near the actual mark. Jolly Ω Janner 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of icons in the infobox for growth

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I recently had a discussion at User talk:Absolutelypuremilk#UK GDP growth forecast about the use of the green (up) arrows for the GDP growth part of the infobox. I initially added red (down) arrows to our figures, because GDP growth rates had decreased. It appears that the case for most articles is that these arrows represent the change in GDP, not change in GDP growth. I'm sure I can't be alone in initially thinking the arrows signified the change in growth rate and I think it is rather ambiguous. I would much rather remove them all together, since the growth rate itself tells you whether GDP is going up or down. PS I'm aware that this is a big issue, since they are used on a lot of economy articles... I would appreciate any thoughts, thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 00:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the arrows are confusing. In fact, looking at the others in the infobox, I would probably struggle to explain them all. Are all those apart from GDP growth signifying the change since the previous year? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. There's no mention of it on the infobox page. I think they must've appeared some time ago without any discussion or description on what they are showing. I think they can serve a purpose, because the change since last year can be informative, but listing the previous year's statistic would almost double the infobox length. I think inflation might have a similar problem of ambiguity as the GDP growth rate. Jolly Ω Janner 21:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

IMF staff estimates/forecasts

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

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

Deindustrialisation section

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

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)

In truth the process of de-industrialisation had been ongoing for quite some time before 1973. Coal consumption peaked at c. 200 million tonnes in the 1950s and started to decline rapidly after the Clear Air Act was passed in 1956. Yet the section on de-industrialisation cites the decline in coal consumption between 1970 and 2015 as evidence that de-industrialisation began in the 1970s. The number of deep coal mines in the UK was c. 3,000 in the 1910s, c. 2,000 in the 1920s, c. 1,500 in the 1930s, c. 500 in the 1960s, and c. 250 in the 1970s. Coal production in the 1970s was half of what it had been at the turn of the century. When viewed in a historical context, the idea that coal mining suddenly collapsed in the 1970s makes no sense; it was an exponential decline that began around the 1900s. I have no data but am pretty sure that more textile mills had been closing than opening for quite a while. Services overtook manufacturing as a share of employment in 1911, and the gap really started to widen in 1961... Firebrace (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors. It is not our job to figure out the trajectory of deindustrialization – our job is to report what the reliable sources have to say. The economic issue reached crisis proportion in the 1970s & was a major political factors well. 1) "the post-1973 period is also associated with de-industrialization, with the shrinkage of the UK manufacturing base" say Roger Lloyd-Jones and ‎Merv Lewis in 2014. 2) "The recession of the late 1970s exacerbated Britain's already serious problems" says Deindustrialization by Gene F. Summers. 3) deindustrialization "Began in earnest in the 1970s, especially in Britain and the United States" says Warf, Encyclopedia of geography (2010). 4) "the processes of deindustrialization that ravaged the northeast of England in the 1970s and '80s." says Buckley (2007). 5) "Britain's industrial workforce declined rapidly during the 1970s," says Bernhard Ebbinghaus (2006). Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It's a widely debated and controversial subject with different people saying different things about the timing, nature, and causes of UK's industrial decline. The controversy itself is well documented. I will make contextual amendments to this effect in due course. Firebrace (talk) 21:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


export import

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

Arms deals should be included

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Arms deals should be included (as a separate figure). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Statistics Section Update

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, The Statistics section needs updating to reflect the increase to the UK base borrowing rate to 0.5%.[1]

  Done Firebrace (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Update the UK's global economic ranking, as it is now sixth not fifth.

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The opening sentence is out of date as the UK is now the sixth global leading economy[1], not the fifth as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timdxherty (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is subject to change with currency variations. One way to make the ranking more stable would be to say: Between this year and that year, UK economy is ranked between fifth and sixth depending upon currency changes.
Also, the sixth global leading economy might be confusing as the European single market — the thing with the "four freedoms" within the European Union — is also sometimes ranked in global economy. In the same way some countries such as California might also be ranked globally. So I wonder if it would not be less confusing to write: sixth global leading national economy?
Anyway, according to Kuznets, Measurements of national income are subject to this type of illusion and resulting abuse, especially since they deal with matters that are the center of conflict of opposing social groups where the effectiveness of an argument is often contingent upon oversimplification... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.68 (talk) 15:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/uk-overtaken-by-france-in-list-of-worlds-largest-economies-a3699556.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1075131254"