SA GDP better than expected

davemc said:
So, we've loaned 7.3% or our GDP and got an improvement of 3.2 of our GDP in the last quarter.

If I am earning R4000 a month.
And I then take a loan for R1,000,000.
And I then pay myself R4292.
I can then claim that I have increased my income by 7.3 percent as well, and blithely ignore the fact that I have to pay back the R1,000,000.
Click to expand...

Please stop. I don't even want to comment on your obvious lack of understanding of what a Gross Domestic Product even is or what it represents, that fact that you used income and lending as a direct analogy just shows your ignorance.

Anyways, for everyone being stupid about how this won't last, all economies crash and boom.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...im=country:ZAF&dl=en&hl=en&q=South+africa+gdp

The above link shows our GDP growth, and its from the World Bank, not STATS SA who have been branded as liars by ignorant South Africans.
 
Last edited:
davemc said:
So, we've loaned 7.3% or our GDP and got an improvement of 3.2 of our GDP in the last quarter.

If I am earning R4000 a month.
And I then take a loan for R1,000,000.
And I then pay myself R4292.
I can then claim that I have increased my income by 7.3 percent as well, and blithely ignore the fact that I have to pay back the R1,000,000.
Click to expand...

I'm going to quote this again and advocate for a facepalm emotion for MyBB. I'm sorry but I can't accentuate enough how retarded this post was =/

And for the rest of you, since I posted a link to somewhere that refutes your obtuse ignorant claims, I'm guessing none of you will reply and this thread will die? Thought so. Just checking.
 
boramk said:
I'm going to quote this again and advocate for a facepalm emotion for MyBB. I'm sorry but I can't accentuate enough how retarded this post was =/

And for the rest of you, since I posted a link to somewhere that refutes your obtuse ignorant claims, I'm guessing none of you will reply and this thread will die? Thought so. Just checking.
Click to expand...

Now you go read.


http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/civils-industry-expected-to-decline-this-year-2010-02-12

Then lets take the confersation from there.
 
Mila said:
We are the group that is growing, According to STATS SA . I did read the report. Yes Construction and government is doing great. I wonder why?

Like STAT SA’s report on crime they tell us what the government wants us to know.

Yes there was growth but we have been artificially stimulated by the construction sector that was boosted by 2010.
If you have read reports on 2011 you will know that we are going to see a difficult times in the next few years.

I’m not fighting. I’m just saying STATS SA is a mouth piece for the government. And for that I will doubt what they say.
Click to expand...
To me it seems like you are disputing the validity of yesterday's figures based on projected figures...Or am I misundustanding you?
This GDP growth is yesterday's figures...That's what's done and will not be impacted by what's coming next year...
 
davemc said:
So, we've loaned 7.3% or our GDP and got an improvement of 3.2 of our GDP in the last quarter.

If I am earning R4000 a month.
And I then take a loan for R1,000,000.
And I then pay myself R4292.
I can then claim that I have increased my income by 7.3 percent as well, and blithely ignore the fact that I have to pay back the R1,000,000.
Click to expand...

JungleBoy said:
To me it seems like you are disputing the validity of yesterday's figures based on projected figures...Or am I misundustanding you?
This GDP growth is yesterday's figures...That's what's done and will not be impacted by what's coming next year...
Click to expand...
Does the above not explain it.?

They say it will decrease further. So nothing grew it declined further? SO how did the construction sector grow and boost the ecconomy if there are contrary reports?
(when I have time I'll post more articles and reports.)


My first question is. Do we believe Stats SA. When we know they maipulate stats. ( Grade 12 results and Crime which was reported on several more we debated here too.)
 
Tbf you’ve got to know what you are reading. The stats show that quarter-on-quarter there was growth, that is there was an improvement in Q4 from Q3. However on a year on year basis there was negative growth, ie Q409 was worse than Q408.

As to the claim of manipulated numbers from Stats SA, I am guessing Mila believes the World Bank and IMF are in on it given they often collaborate the numbers released by Stats SA. Furthermore international institutions that invest billions have faith in the numbers provided by Stats SA.
 
milomak said:
Tbf you’ve got to know what you are reading. The stats show that quarter-on-quarter there was growth, that is there was an improvement in Q4 from Q3. However on a year on year basis there was negative growth, ie Q409 was worse than Q408.

As to the claim of manipulated numbers from Stats SA, I am guessing Mila believes the World Bank and IMF are in on it given they often collaborate the numbers released by Stats SA. Furthermore international institutions that invest billions have faith in the numbers provided by Stats SA.
Click to expand...
Yes and I believe that aliens and fairies too. Do not forget about the goblins.. oh do not forget about your tin hat!!!
alf101 said:
I'm sure you can recall a few stuffups that StatsSA have made.
And you do know that they restate their numbers now and again, for various reasons...
Click to expand...
That.:)
 
alf101 said:
I'm sure you can recall a few stuffups that StatsSA have made.
Click to expand...

one stuff up regarding CPI around mid-2000 iirc. i doubt it it is the first and last official Stats agency to befall that fate.

And you do know that they restate their numbers now and again, for various reasons...
Click to expand...

you do know that all official stats the world over are revised every 5 years or so. it is hardly something unique to Stats SA.
 
According to gross domestic product (GDP) data published by Statistics SA (StatsSA) on Tuesday, the economy grew in the fourth quarter by 3,2 percent quarter-on-quarter and annualised, compared with the previous 0,9 percent growth.
Click to expand...
So we are talking which months?

Real annual GDP declined by 1.8 percent in 2009, StatsSA said.
The main contributors to the increase in economic activity for the fourth quarter of 2009 were the manufacturing industry, the general government services, the mining and quarrying industry, the transport, storage and communication industry, finance, real estate and business services and personal services, and the construction industry.

StatsSA said negative contributions were made by the wholesale, retail, motor trade and accommodation industries, and the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry.

StatsSA economic statistics head Rashad Cassim said that during the fourth quarter it was not the consumption side that gave the economy impetus.

"The growth in manufacturing is coming from global demands, and domestic demand is not at levels many people would like to see," he said.
Click to expand...
And now we are talking 2009?
Then I quote
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/civils-industry-expected-to-decline-this-year-2010-02-12
Which mention this year and last year I'm wrong?

In that article they say one thing about the first quater and goes on to talk about 2009...
 
milomak said:
one stuff up regarding CPI around mid-2000 iirc. i doubt it it is the first and last official Stats agency to befall that fate.



you do know that all official stats the world over are revised every 5 years or so. it is hardly something unique to Stats SA.
Click to expand...

So why cry when I asked who believes them?
 
Mila – Do you understand that GDP figures are quoted in different ways?
Quarter-on-Quarter annualised – Compare one quarter against the previous quarter
Year-on-Year – Compare one quarter against the corresponding quarter the previous year
Annual Year GDP – A full year’s GDP against the previous full year’s GDP

Each number tells a different story.
 
Mila said:
So why cry when I asked who believes them?
Click to expand...

you portray the numbers to be unreliable, when in fact many place great faith in them. that was all i was trying to point out to you.
 
Mila said:
Does the above not explain it.?

They say it will decrease further. So nothing grew it declined further? SO how did the construction sector grow and boost the ecconomy if there are contrary reports?
(when I have time I'll post more articles and reports.)


My first question is. Do we believe Stats SA. When we know they maipulate stats. ( Grade 12 results and Crime which was reported on several more we debated here too.)
Click to expand...

He compared income and interest with the production of goods and services within the South African economy. Somehow our current account deficit of 7.3% is matched up against a growth of GDP at 3.2%.. Two COMPLETELY different things.
How ****ing retarded are you? Because someone sounds right doesn't mean he is. :confused:
 
Mila said:
So we are talking which months?

And now we are talking 2009?
Then I quote
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/civils-industry-expected-to-decline-this-year-2010-02-12
Which mention this year and last year I'm wrong?

In that article they say one thing about the first quater and goes on to talk about 2009...
Click to expand...

Again, your lack of understanding of economic indicators just scintillates in this post..
They talk of quarterly growth, then annual growth... If Q1 was -5% and Q2 was 0%, Q3 was 3% and Q4 4%, that's an annual growth of 0.5%.

Also, we won't get Q1 results of 2010 well until near the end of Q2.. There's no conspiracy of distortion of results like you point out..

StatsSA might be wrong (which it isn't), the World Bank ain't, and the both concur SA has grown.
 
alf101 said:
Rebased every 5 years or so depending on the data, restated is different, you don't always get a reason for it.
Click to expand...

restating is also quite common. do you honestly believe that in the states for instance they still use the same weights say for IT sector as they did in the 60s? of course not. they would have had to restate the composition of the GDP components.

same with inflation, as spending patterns change certain things become a bigger part of the inflation mix and thus the official composition needs to be restated.

there is really nothing sinister going on at StatsSA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X