Fuel Strike Theory..........
Discussion
the final quarter of last year ended up negative growth.
you need two consecutive quarters of negative growth to be in recession.
therefore the growth in jan/feb/march this year defines whether or not we are in recession. If the figure for growth is positive we aren't in recession, if it's negative we are in recession.
we are waiting for this figure.
Therefore, do any of you think that given that the fuel strikes/panic buying was done in the last week in march (the last week of the quarter) and government people were advocating buying more fuel but a strike has not been announced that this could have been an idea to stoke growth?
could this be the extra injection the economy needed to prevent us from slipping into recession?
you need two consecutive quarters of negative growth to be in recession.
therefore the growth in jan/feb/march this year defines whether or not we are in recession. If the figure for growth is positive we aren't in recession, if it's negative we are in recession.
we are waiting for this figure.
Therefore, do any of you think that given that the fuel strikes/panic buying was done in the last week in march (the last week of the quarter) and government people were advocating buying more fuel but a strike has not been announced that this could have been an idea to stoke growth?
could this be the extra injection the economy needed to prevent us from slipping into recession?
jonah35 said:
the final quarter of last year ended up negative growth.
you need two consecutive quarters of negative growth to be in recession.
therefore the growth in jan/feb/march this year defines whether or not we are in recession. If the figure for growth is positive we aren't in recession, if it's negative we are in recession.
we are waiting for this figure.
Therefore, do any of you think that given that the fuel strikes/panic buying was done in the last week in march (the last week of the quarter) and government people were advocating buying more fuel but a strike has not been announced that this could have been an idea to stoke growth?
could this be the extra injection the economy needed to prevent us from slipping into recession?
People scared of a fuel strike tend not to travel quite so much.... and therefore not spend so much. you need two consecutive quarters of negative growth to be in recession.
therefore the growth in jan/feb/march this year defines whether or not we are in recession. If the figure for growth is positive we aren't in recession, if it's negative we are in recession.
we are waiting for this figure.
Therefore, do any of you think that given that the fuel strikes/panic buying was done in the last week in march (the last week of the quarter) and government people were advocating buying more fuel but a strike has not been announced that this could have been an idea to stoke growth?
could this be the extra injection the economy needed to prevent us from slipping into recession?
I think this would be rather counter productive. Additionally, I doubt if any more fuel was bought over the last week than would have been bought anyway. It was just all bought on TWednesday/Thursday, and then very little was bought on Friday/Saturday because the pumps were dry.
I heard this theory last week and as much as I criticise the Government's handling of this and believe its been hi-jacked to attack Labour, I dont feel it has anything to do with quarterly figures.
They've probably gained about £100million extra in tax this week than they planned. The AA reckoned Wednesday was worth £32million in tax by itself.
To put it in perspective, the NHS costs £14million an hour.
They've probably gained about £100million extra in tax this week than they planned. The AA reckoned Wednesday was worth £32million in tax by itself.
To put it in perspective, the NHS costs £14million an hour.
CBR JGWRR said:
The petrol was going to be bought anyway.
What changed was how the petrol was bought.
Not so sure.What changed was how the petrol was bought.
I've definitely used less Petrol because of this s
t. Some trips that I might well have driven are by train instead.Probably keep it up until I am happy that stocks are back to normal. My guess is overall usage will be reduced.
CBR JGWRR said:
The petrol was going to be bought anyway.
What changed was how the petrol was bought.
It's about the timing of it - or if you prefer the phasing. What changed was how the petrol was bought.
Totally agree net impact would be nill.
I made this very point in the petrol thread specifically that it's a shrewd move by the Govt to get a lot of additional duty and vat from fuel sales into it's coffers for the quarter end so I was on about Govt borrowing rather than recession.
No, no....you have it all wrong...the government engineered it so they could have their Thatcher moment, stockpiling loads of the commodity the strikers have in their possession, in her case a solid fuel, coal, in theirs liquid fuel, so that the impact of any strike would be minimal a everyone would have more than enough to get by on, thus breaking the power of the Unions.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff