£34 trillion, you're a damned sight closer than he was! Even before we get into the whole question of what age someone becomes an adult in his view (it appears to be at about two days old)I mean, I know they're absolute thieves but 37 trillion* would be incredible even by Tory standards
*i think
His first degree was in economics so he must be rightz
We'd all starve to death once we realised we can't eat £500k anyway.
It has not it has been adequately spelt out that £36bn is more like £500 each, not £500k.
When Serco publish that the cost has been 39bn, they mean 39 thousand million. If this so-called Imperial billion was ever actually used in finance, I have no idea, but it certainly hasn’t been used since at least the 1950s. I really doubt it was ever used in science. So I don’t know why people still get confused. It’s like a collective delusion amongst those who don’t actually have to deal in billions.Depends upon whether one is using outdated Imperial definition of "billion" though - of course I would expect that of right wing little Englander types who can't keep up with the current modern usage of "billion". You're talking about people who would probably relish a return of guineas as currency and workhouses for the poor, don't expect them to understand these newfangled measurements.
When Serco publish that the cost has been 39bn, they mean 39 thousand million. If this so-called Imperial billion was ever actually used in finance, I have no idea, but it certainly hasn’t been used since at least the 1950s. I really doubt it was ever used in science. So I don’t know why people still get confused. It’s like a collective delusion amongst those who don’t actually have to deal in billions.
Wilson announced in late 1974 that the government would adopt the US/French ('short scale') meaning of a billion going forward (arising from international MKS/SI common technical usage) and Healy duly used that in the 1975 budget.They were referring to what SERCO has spent. So no, it was a plain error that comes from not knowing what a billion has been for the last 50 years at least.
Wilson announced in late 1974 that the government would adopt the US/French ('short scale') meaning of billion (arising from international MKS/SI common technical usage) going forward and Healy duly used that in the 1975 budget.
Hardly needs saying. Children learn this in yr 1.
I was first taught the old definition and genuinely still think of a thousand million as an American billionThey were referring to what SERCO has spent. So no, it was a plain error that comes from not knowing what a billion has been for the last 50 years at least.
I do though. They referred to how much SERCO has spent on track and trace, which is £36bn. There is no financial record in the world that doesn’t mean £36 thousand million by £36bn, so if SERCO say they spent £36bn then that can only mean £36 thousand million.You've no idea whether they had the old definition in mind or not, so I can't see the point in insisting that it was a plain error. Might have been. Might not.
My apologies. We can indeed assume that SERCO meant an American billion, but that wasn't the bit I was querying.I do though. They referred to how much SERCO has spent on track and trace, which is £36bn. There is no financial record in the world that doesn’t mean £36 thousand million by £36bn, so if SERCO say they spent £36bn then that can only mean £36 thousand million.
Honestly, there is zero uncertainty or controversy in this. I challenge you to find a single set of accounts over the last 40 years anywhere in the world that refers to a billion as anything but a thousand million.
I missed the Harold Wilson edict so I've always been confused by "billion" - cleared up for me now so ta:I wish I hadn't posted the bloody thing now
I'm sure The Harold Wilson Edict were a late 70s mod revival bandI missed the Harold Wilson edict so I've always been confused by "billion" - cleared up for me now so ta: