Inflation to hit 15%

[onthefencesitter]

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/inflation-bank-england-cost-living-b2137311.html

www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/uk-inflation-could-reach-15-by-start-of-2023-experts-say

What do you all think?

Therefore, the post 2008 rounds of QE had far less impact on aggregate demand (and hence inflation) than the QE post 2020 which was used to finance furlough, bounce-back loans, help-out-to-eat-out, etc.

who said otherwise? the issue is the economy wasn't in a strong place pre covid because of 08 & Brexit.

TBF there was a lot of non-compliance that wasn't visible due to being in the private sphere. I would agree support for lockdown was pretty high across the population. But there are plenty of us who opted out to some or all of the extent that we were able to.

My own non-compliance isn't recorded anywhere. The only people who'd be aware are friends and family plus my neighbours and those of people I visited. None of us attracted any police attention. I was never surveyed or participated in any mechanism asking me if I was breaking the rules or not, and wouldn't have bothered engaging if I'd been asked. It wasn't a secret, but I've no platform and there's no interest in me beyond my circle. Nobody knows how many there were like me, although I do know there was a lot of it going on in my immediate vicinity simply because I observed it myself.

I think the majority bent the rules but overall general compliance was pretty high

Ultimately the point is we have a lot of gaps when it comes to our knowledge about compliance.

There is also the issue of people who were supportive of certain rules and not others. Usually the things they didn't want to do were fair game, but the things they did were important and should be protected.

I don't understand your point? Are you saying people didn't comply?

Some didn't. I'm saying conclusions drawn from compliance rates need to be appropriately caveated, when we actually have no reliable way of measuring how many people quietly opted out where they could.

Compared to the lockdowns and the money printing, Brexit was, and continues to be, a nothingburger

Are you saying it's hard no impact?

had

Some didn't.

of course, you will never get 100% of anything & compliance doesn't mean sticking to every rule.

But people did comply, you can look at road traffic data, public transport info, office usage, retail footfall etc

@downfield

I think the compliance level is largely economically irrelevant - whether the Government created and spent £450 billion and there was a high level of compliance or whether the Government created and spent £450 billion and there was a low level of compliance.

The impact on inflation of creating and spending £450 billion is the same.

Compared to the lockdowns and the money printing, Brexit was, and continues to be, a nothingburger

+++

Whilst I agree the economic impact of QE post 2008 financial crisis and for Covid has had a bigger impact than Brexit, there has still been a negative impact from Brexit. Relatively yes it is less significant but it is still significant.

None of which would tell you what people were doing outside of these spheres. Retail seems a particularly bad mechanism to try and measure compliance, since presumably everyone knows people couldn't use shops that were shut, there weren't unofficial raves at Lidl and that any illicit retail that did still happen obviously isn't going to be included in official data sources.

Which takes us back to the point that what was happening in the private sphere simply isn't reliably documented. You certainly can't look to office usage to see how many people were still walking round to their mates houses. Hence the need for caveats.

As a said compliance did happen but it doesn't mean that everyone complied or complied with everything.

Work from home did increase, public transport usage & road traffic did decrease, mask usage & purchases of mask & hand gel did increase, not all shops were closed etc etc but you can disagree.

Statistics always has caveats it doesn't mean we ignore all the data though.

@Arbitrage fancy posting any sources that aren’t, um, ….. you?

This isn't about ignoring data though. It's about pointing out the lack of it when it comes to what was happening in the private sphere.

And your examples are getting less useful: there was never a legal restriction relating to hand gel. Whereas data on working from home does at least tell us who was working from home, even though it doesn't tell us what else they were doing in their homes.

If you actually had data about lockdown compliance in people's homes and private interactions, you could make valid arguments about not ignoring data. But what's happening now is you're ignoring the non-existence of reliable data relating to certain behaviours.

Feel free to post data that shows compliance in general (not just one sphere) was low...

there was never a legal restriction relating to hand gel.

I don't understand what you aren't comprehending. Compliance included the message wash your hands & use masks. People generally did follow that message.

www.imperial.ac.uk/news/197835/mobile-data-shows-high-compliance-with/amp/

www.ucl.ac.uk/news/headlines/2021/mar/compliance-covid-19-lockdown-rules-remains-high

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronavirusandcompliancewithgovernmentguidanceuk/april2021

People did comply & in the beginning it was actually quite high. Again this doesn't mean that no one broke the rules, or that certain "rules" were more adhered too.

My argument is that we don't have reliable data on those things, though. The part about low compliance is something you've just added and actually entirely goes against what I've been saying.

As you're the person giving a view about the level of compliance, which includes the private sphere, the onus is on you to provide proof. You haven't so far.

Also, there were never legal regulations about hand gel and laws about masks didn't exist before July 2020 in England, ie weren't present during much of the first lockdown. This sub discussion began when you replied to a post about public attitudes to lockdown and support measures. Masks and hand gel are not either of those things. Public health guidance is something else again.

Not having reliable data about private lockdown behaviour doesn't mean that compliance didn't happen overall though? My point is why is that the only measure you are using?

As you're the person giving a view about the level of compliance, which includes the private sphere, the onus is on you to provide proof. You haven't so far.

You haven't provide any evidence that compliance didn't happen in any sphere....

This sub discussion began when you replied to a post about public attitudes to lockdown and support measures

Because I said the majority did support the measures & logically you cannot control millions without them complying. I'm not sure why you don't think this is true?

Masks and hand gel are not either of those things. Public health guidance is something else again

Why would you not include mask wearing when discussing a pandemic & compliance?

I'm genuinely confused by what argument you are trying to make. That people didn't comply with anything because in their homes they broke rules? That hardly any of the population wanted lockdowns? Whatever it's irrelevant & boring others I'm sure.

Not having reliable data about private lockdown behaviour doesn't mean that compliance didn't happen overall though? My point is why is that the only measure you are using?

For the majority of people, most or all the rule breaking they could engage in would have to be in the private sphere: people's homes, premises that weren't open to the public or meeting in those public places they could access unnoticed. For the simple reason that people can't go to workplaces that are locked, events that are cancelled, shops that aren't open etc. Hence the stats you mentioned on those things. You can have your neighbour round for a illegal lunch with more ease than you can break into Primark.

That makes the lack of reliable data on what people were doing on the quiet and who they were having in their houses particularly important: because that's actually the main space in which any rule breaking would have to occur.

You haven't provide any evidence that compliance didn't happen in any sphere....

Yes, people don't tend to provide evidence for things they aren't arguing.

Why would you not include mask wearing when discussing a pandemic & compliance?

Because what you were actually discussing and drawing conclusions about was support for lockdown and support measures, and they're neither of those things. They're just not. If you want to make an argument for how purchases of masks reflect compliance with lockdown and views on financial support measures, by all means do so, but you haven't thus far.

I'm genuinely confused by what argument you are trying to make. That people didn't comply with anything because in their homes they broke rules? That hardly any of the population wanted lockdowns? Whatever it's irrelevant & boring others I'm sure.

If you're confused, your certainty about relevance and the feelings of others on the matter is rather misplaced...

But I'll spell it out once again: we don't have reliable data on compliance with lockdown regulations in the private sphere, which means when we talk about observance we need to caveat it appropriately. It's actually rather simple.

Happy to declare my failures to comply. I drove DDDog to a remote area to walk sometimes for a change. And latterly we invited our friends to bring their own chairs, bottle and glasses to sit in our drive 2 metres apart and chat. I went to Lidl once weekly and the butcher took orders and payment by phone.

We have the highest inflation rate of the G7.

Britain suffers worst inflation in G7 as price surge hits 40-year high
www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/08/17/inflation-surges-double-digits-first-time-40-years/

Of course we have the highest inflation - it's called Brexit plus the war in Ukraine......plus we will be hit by the fact that we're a small economy that has to increase rates to keep up with the Fed