Goodbody cuts Irish economic growth forecast to 1.1%

[spalpeen]

Goodbody cuts Irish economic growth forecast to 1.1%
http://www.independent.ie/business/iris ... 56531.html

"Goodbody Stockbrokers halved its forecast for Irish economic growth this year and said profit at the country's largest companies will be less than it previously anticipated.
Dermot O'Leary, chief economist at Dublin-based Goodbody, said gross domestic product will expand 1.1 percent this year rather than 2.3 percent. He lowered his 2009 prediction to 2 percent from 2.5 percent.
``The latest evidence suggests that Irish consumer-spending growth will slow markedly this year on the back of weaker employment prospects and falling confidence levels,'' O'Leary said in a report published today. A 1.1 percent growth rate would be the lowest since 1986. ..."

Are we heading for "Inverse Growth" ??

[seabhcan]

1% would be quite impressive, seeing that the UK and US are in major downturns. In euro terms, the UK economy is now 10% smaller than it was in January.

[seabhac siulach]

With growth of only 1.1% and inflation at 5% (as it is now), would we not already technically be in a type of recession, sorry, 'inverse growth' period? That is, we are not growing fast enough to overcome the inflationary drag on tax revenues, etc.

[Ard-Taoiseach]

With growth of only 1.1% and inflation at 5% (as it is now), would we not already technically be in a type of recession, sorry, 'inverse growth' period? That is, we are not growing fast enough to overcome the inflationary drag on tax revenues, etc.

Oh, heaven give me strength. This always comes up. GDP growth figures are always adjusted for inflation by the CSO before they're released, always. That's why the CSO calls them real GDP growth rates since they're real and add to national income. However, they do publish nominal GDP growth rates which are real GDP growth rates multiplied by the rate of inflation. If the CSO says growth is 1.1%. It is 1.1% End of. Never mind inflation when reading them.

[Bray Head]

With growth of only 1.1% and inflation at 5% (as it is now), would we not already technically be in a type of recession, sorry, 'inverse growth' period? That is, we are not growing fast enough to overcome the inflationary drag on tax revenues, etc.

Dude, you really shouldn't be posting on economy threads if you don't know the difference between real and nominal growth. Go read an economics book, hell it's probably even on wikipedia.

[feargach]

A little harsh, no?

[seabhac siulach]

[quote=Bray Head]

With growth of only 1.1% and inflation at 5% (as it is now), would we not already technically be in a type of recession, sorry, 'inverse growth' period? That is, we are not growing fast enough to overcome the inflationary drag on tax revenues, etc.

Dude, you really shouldn't be posting on economy threads if you don't know the difference between real and nominal growth. Go read an economics book, hell it's probably even on wikipedia.[/quote:3bc85b1p]

Dudes, it was a question...my background is not in economics...far from that dismal science...
Thanks for the clarification.

[returning officer]

It was a good question (on statistical presentation rather than economics) , providing a useful clarification for many on this political site.
The purpose of this website, as I see it, to provide a forum for people to get information relevant to politics - so please leaving the bitchy sneering and high minded tones to the uber-pessimists.

[Bray Head]

[quote=seabhac siulach][quote="Bray Head":30c38lrw]

With growth of only 1.1% and inflation at 5% (as it is now), would we not already technically be in a type of recession, sorry, 'inverse growth' period? That is, we are not growing fast enough to overcome the inflationary drag on tax revenues, etc.

Dude, you really shouldn't be posting on economy threads if you don't know the difference between real and nominal growth. Go read an economics book, hell it's probably even on wikipedia.[/quote:30c38lrw]

Dudes, it was a question...my background is not in economics...far from that dismal science...
Thanks for the clarification.[/quote:30c38lrw]

Apologies, I shouldn't have been so rude. It's just that there's far too many posts on p.ie from people whose lack of facts doesn't stop them having an opinion.

[expat girl]

[quote=Bray Head]

Dudes, it was a question...my background is not in economics...far from that dismal science...
Thanks for the clarification.

Apologies, I shouldn't have been so rude. It's just that there's far too many posts on p.ie from people whose lack of facts doesn't stop them having an opinion.[/quote:5tsgzcyw]

Dang it, I thought the whole POINT of politics was not to allow the facts to colour one's conveniently chosen opinions......

Yiz are spoiling my fun....