BBC Reports that UK GDP rose to 0.9% in the 2nd quarter. Up from the more anemic 0.7% in the 1st quarter. And up a whopping 3.2% from the 2nd quarter in 2013.
The recession in the UK now appears to be a thing of the past. Maybe.
The methodology for calculating GDP has been slightly revised. It now includes estimates of the sales of illegal drugs and prostitution.
These changes have added billions of pounds to the total amount produced by the economy. But because there have been revisions to the measures going back to the 1970s, the amount of growth from quarter to quarter has not changed a great deal.
Now if the UK government could only figure out a way to tax those illegal goods and services.
○ France refuses EU order to include drugs, prostitution in GDP figures
Difference is that this sector of the underground economy hasn’t been corporatized. Large numbers of independent operators and entrepreneurs. Would be surprising if the Wall St “big swinging dicks” haven’t been eying these as possible growth industries for the investment community.
Is this the hangout for those in the 1%?
Take the Pew Quiz
This one is so easy that it’s scary that only 1% correctly answered all the questions.
I missed the question on government spending because I don’t consider Social Security as government spending, it’s a revolving trust fund. I’m not so sure anyway that net social security spending (payments less worker & employer contributions) really exceeds interest on the national debt. Probably, they are just counting gross expenditures and considering the contributions as general taxes. I’ll check those numbers later today.
Here’s the 2013 report on Social Security. As Social Security receipts and disbursements are included in the calculation of the annual federal deficit, it gets tossed into federal spending category. It’s still generating an annual surplus and therefore, masks the true picture on the shortfall between general revenues and spending. How would the public respond if they knew the Pentagon was spending our retirement money? Not well one would hope.
Thanks for saving me the work, Marie.
Oh, and that points out the problem with multiple choice questions. It’s OK for things like “the volume of the solid in figure C is a) 10 cc b) 20cc c) 3.14 l” with well defined answers, each of the wrong answers corresponding to a common error in calculation or misunderstanding of formulas (hhmm, the spellchecker doesn’t like formulae). You can find these in geometry, calculus, circuit analysis and the like, but for social studies they don’t work except on the most trivial level. i.e. “The Sons of Liberty were: a) a patriotic organization that fought for American freedom b) a terrorist organization opposing legitimate government c) a 18th century singing group.” who is to say whether a or b is correct?. Or are they both correct? An essay question “Discuss the aims, methods and legitimacy of the Sons of Liberty” is much better but requires a skilled and knowledgeable teacher to grade it and he/she may need to put aside their own prejudices, something most teachers can’t do.
Except there was nothing tricky about the Pew question on federal spending. Tricky would have been having to choose among Social Security, Health Care, and Defense. The latter two are imprecise in that they include many separate programs and/or agencies.
Federal gasoline taxes are revenues dedicated to transportation, but doubt that would have tripped you up as to whether or not that is a federal spending category.
Expenditures, net expenditures, total obligational authority, these are all different. Federal accounting is tricky.
I think federal highways also get appropriated funds, else how could we be expanding construction by vote of Congress? I’ll admit I’m not as up on this as I was forty years ago when I was part of the appropriation process.
Oh yes, appropriated vs non-appropriated funds, another accounting minefield.
I also think the Pew question is aimed at people who think foreign aid and welfare are the biggest federal expenditures. How many times have I heard people say, “We would have enough money for X if it wasn’t for all that foreign aid.” Also from Liberals, “We would have enough money for X if we weren’t wasting it on NASA.” In both cases, a very small slice of pie. The big slice is Defense (or Offense depending on your point of view).
Bingo: I also think the Pew question is aimed at people who think foreign aid and welfare are the biggest federal expenditures.
wrt to transportation appropriations, that’s about spending monies in the transportation trust fund that were generated from federal fuel taxes. If the federal coffers are a bit short on cash, hold off on spending transportation funds. That’s a political game that’s played to make the annual deficit look better than it is. Not that there aren’t a few excellent reasons to hold back on funding projects in any one fiscal year, but those don’t seem to be operative.
wrt to major federal spending categories, you would be wrong if you selected “defense” as the largest item. Number one is health care at 27%, number two is pensions at 25% (assume that includes Social Security and military and other federal employees that earn a non-SSI pension), defense is third at 22%.
Healthcare probably includes Medicare for which I would only include the shortfall. Pensions are trickier. Each employee contributes to his/her pension and their agency is supposed to match that contribution, all into another trust fund (actually two trust funds). The agency contributions and payroll deductions are already listed in the budget by agency as payroll costs. I think it would be double counting to pull them out. BTW, the USPS in it’s ineptitude has overpaid the CSRS trust fund by, I believe the figure is, $10 billion, and they desperately want that back. The (Democratic) Senate has told them to go fly a kite, although a much smaller overpayment to the FERS trust fund was refunded. I think that was in a 2013 rescue bill that staved off disaster for the Postal Service. As an aside, Tammy Duckworth, who is an old political enemy of mine, voted for that bill, so I am voting for her next month, although Durbin can piss up a rope as he said to our union (in much more genteel terms) when my facility was up for closure. Simple pocketbook politics. Vote to save my job and I’ll vote to save yours (Thank You, Tammy). If you don’t care about my job, then I don’t care about yours. Democratic politicians DESPERATELY need to understand this, else they and not the Republicans, will go the way of the Whig Party. And before you say that the Republicans don’t care about people like me, either, let me point out that hate is much stronger than love, hence the R’s with a near monopoly on hate and prejudice and with a mountain of Koch cash can still prevail. It’s like the old Southern “Well, I’m dirt poor without running water or an indoor toilet, but Praise The Lord, I’m not black.” Hate is stronger than logic too.
BTW if you don’t understand what CSRS and FERS are, I would be happy to explain.
Huh? Payroll taxes only fund Medicare Part A (hospitalization). Parts B, C, and D are funded through a combination of general tax revenues and beneficiary premiums. Here’s the 2013 summary report.
Doesn’t matter how you think government accounting should be done — it conforms to specific accounting rules. Not an accrual system as in the private sector, but a modified cash and accrual system. The downside to that is that there is no balance sheet listing all the federally owned fixed assets (equipment, buildings, land). The upside is that without an equity account, it can’t go bankrupt (negative equity) on paper and give the RWNJs something more concrete to point to in their never-ending claim that the country is bankrupt.
Have no interest in knowing the details of FERS. Or that the conversion is viewed as less generous than the prior retirement plan. The latter was constructed when federal employee incomes were on the low side. The deal was job security, lower income, and higher than SSI pension than in the private sector.
“Parts B, C, and D are funded through a combination of general tax revenues and beneficiary premiums”
That’s the shortfall. The rest is paid for by beneficiaries, either prior to eligibility or post.
Conceptually what you’re missing is that SSI and Medicare (Part A) are insurance programs and not annuities. (Medicare B-D are entitlements.) It’s not as if the vast majority that have been gobbling up Social Security and hospitalization funds ever came close to contributing what they’ve been receiving. In that way, it’s not different from auto/home/life insurance.
Appears that you have some company in missing that question and arguing that SSI shouldn’t be considered spending by the government.
SSI (Supplemental Security Income)is an appropriated fund and thus is part of spending but the Social Security and other benefits that come from the trust fund are not.
I may be mistaken on this further point, but here it is: My understanding (which may be wrong) is that the pay of SS civil servants and the operation of the centers also comes from the trust 7und and not appropriated funds. I was told this once, but have not seen any official document confirming it.