« Shifting the Overton window | Main | Liberal values: empirical evidence »

March 15, 2013


Luis Enrique

how much is explained by questionable measures of output (maybe financial sector "output" having collapsed, where output in terms of real financial services produced is very badly measured)


This CEP paper on banking overstating overall GDP suggests that this isn't an issue http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/occasional/op033.pdf (not that I've read it!)


Perhaps the high employment / low productivity combo should be seen as a symptom of the Tories' success in privatising boondoggles. A sort of New Deal that dare not speak its name.

Luis Enrique

thanks David


If he carrys on being this lucky we will soon have the standard of living associated with the stone age.

Lets hope some one re discovers the manufacture of bronze.

Ralph Musgrave

If productivity HAD RISEN, inflation would have been much lower, all else equal. That would have meant any SENSIBLE government would have boosted demand and kept as many employed as are currently employed. So on that basis, Chris is wrong.

On the other hand I’m distinctly queasy about putting the words “sensible”, “Osborne” and “Cameron” in the same sentence. So on that basis, Chris is right.


Surely this just illustrates the fact that some nebulous measure of 'productivity' is just a mathematical function of the number of people in employment and output?

Productivity as a figure has stagnated precisely because of zombie companies hoarding labour and a lack of growth, not the other way around.

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad