Timeline for Can it be justified that an economic contraction of 11.3% is "the largest fall for more than 300 years"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 26, 2020 at 0:01 | comment | added | Andrew is gone | I've put together another answer trying to tease apart how these numbers were estimated, and why I think the real value estimate is probably better than the nominal. | |
| Nov 25, 2020 at 23:27 | history | edited | Moishe Kohan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 504 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2020 at 22:58 | comment | added | Dave | It seems to me that the question (perhaps for economic.se) is there evidence that this a meaningful measure of the economy? This is indicating the last comparable year was the 6th on the chart, so 1711? This comes 2 years after the highest value on the chart (1709?) which is a gain roughly equal to the losses of the next 2 years. Does this change have more to do with the true economy or the measure? Other sites disagree with massive changes in this period. | |
| Nov 25, 2020 at 21:31 | comment | added | Moishe Kohan | @Andrew: Yes, this could be an explanation, I did not have time to check the details. | |
| Nov 25, 2020 at 21:26 | comment | added | Andrew is gone | ...and eyeballing the BBC graph, we see two ~5% declines between 1800 and 1850, which strongly suggests they're using the year-on-year change in real values rather than nominal. Going to their "consistent series" which goes back to 1700 and reports slightly different data (because it's covering the same area as current-UK), the real GDP changes each year seem to line up with the ones shown on the graph. A drop of 11% would be the largest since 1709 by this measure (not quite bad enough to reach 1706) | |
| Nov 25, 2020 at 21:14 | comment | added | Andrew is gone | The MeasuringWorth data is ultimately derived from the same Bank of England data, so it's odd they disagree. Consulting the MW data (their "historic series" is very close to what the other site reports, presumably a more recent update) it seems that this sharp drop in 1802, 1816, and 1826 is only seen in nominal data (contemporary prices), not real data (current prices) - in 1802 there is a ~1% real increase, in 1816 and 1826 the real decline is ~5%. The two are often out of step. Why is another question! | |
| Nov 25, 2020 at 19:04 | history | edited | Moishe Kohan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 566 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2020 at 17:58 | history | answered | Moishe Kohan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |