Britain's decline was inevitable.
Discussion
The view that "making things" is the only basis of "true" economic activity is wrong. All you have to do is add value ... i.e. do something that someone else values above the effort you have to put in. It matters not one jot whether that is providing accountancy services, manufacturing spoons or extracting oil from the ground. Just look how quickly people have stopped buying cars as they started to feel the economic downturn. Exactly where is this magic protection that manufacturing is supposed to offer?
ATG said:
The view that "making things" is the only basis of "true" economic activity is wrong. All you have to do is add value ... i.e. do something that someone else values above the effort you have to put in. It matters not one jot whether that is providing accountancy services, manufacturing spoons or extracting oil from the ground. Just look how quickly people have stopped buying cars as they started to feel the economic downturn. Exactly where is this magic protection that manufacturing is supposed to offer?
You need something to add value to - and that starts with extraction industries (mining/agriculture/fisheries) ... then conversion (processing/manufacturing) ... then services. If all you do - as a nation - is add value with services to *stuff* produced by others you are dependent on them and have to hope they really need your "expertise". Over time, the producers get their own expertise. Over time, the experts do not get the production.
bosscerbera said:
s2art said:
'There is a false premise in the OP. Britain did not get rich soley because we were exploiting other countries. In fact it was the industrial revolution that enabled Britain to do said exploiting on such a global scale. The reality is that Britain actually subsidised the Empire from mid to late 19th century onwards.
Britains decline is more to do with its failure to capitalise on that technological and scientific lead. Even as recently as the 1950's or early '60's Britain was a world leader in many areas of science and technology.
I blame Labour.
FFS. Blue or red (or yellow or green if you must), political orientation has had little effect on our path to where we are now. Britains decline is more to do with its failure to capitalise on that technological and scientific lead. Even as recently as the 1950's or early '60's Britain was a world leader in many areas of science and technology.
I blame Labour.
bosscerbera said:
ATG said:
The view that "making things" is the only basis of "true" economic activity is wrong. All you have to do is add value ... i.e. do something that someone else values above the effort you have to put in. It matters not one jot whether that is providing accountancy services, manufacturing spoons or extracting oil from the ground. Just look how quickly people have stopped buying cars as they started to feel the economic downturn. Exactly where is this magic protection that manufacturing is supposed to offer?
You need something to add value to - and that starts with extraction industries (mining/agriculture/fisheries) ... then conversion (processing/manufacturing) ... then services. If all you do - as a nation - is add value with services to *stuff* produced by others you are dependent on them and have to hope they really need your "expertise". Over time, the producers get their own expertise. Over time, the experts do not get the production.
s2art said:
bosscerbera said:
s2art said:
'There is a false premise in the OP. Britain did not get rich soley because we were exploiting other countries. In fact it was the industrial revolution that enabled Britain to do said exploiting on such a global scale. The reality is that Britain actually subsidised the Empire from mid to late 19th century onwards.
Britains decline is more to do with its failure to capitalise on that technological and scientific lead. Even as recently as the 1950's or early '60's Britain was a world leader in many areas of science and technology.
I blame Labour.
FFS. Blue or red (or yellow or green if you must), political orientation has had little effect on our path to where we are now. Britains decline is more to do with its failure to capitalise on that technological and scientific lead. Even as recently as the 1950's or early '60's Britain was a world leader in many areas of science and technology.
I blame Labour.
At least quote in context: It had precisely nothing to do with who was in power here why we preferred imported motorcycles then imported cars. Ditto consumer electronics. The British consumer killed the British manufacturing base. Our wealth - in earlier centuries - WAS borne of exploiting other countries and their natural resources.ATG said:
bosscerbera said:
ATG said:
The view that "making things" is the only basis of "true" economic activity is wrong. All you have to do is add value ... i.e. do something that someone else values above the effort you have to put in. It matters not one jot whether that is providing accountancy services, manufacturing spoons or extracting oil from the ground. Just look how quickly people have stopped buying cars as they started to feel the economic downturn. Exactly where is this magic protection that manufacturing is supposed to offer?
You need something to add value to - and that starts with extraction industries (mining/agriculture/fisheries) ... then conversion (processing/manufacturing) ... then services. If all you do - as a nation - is add value with services to *stuff* produced by others you are dependent on them and have to hope they really need your "expertise". Over time, the producers get their own expertise. Over time, the experts do not get the production.
Pasco said:
Blimey Phil ! So what is the bottom line then ?
Our currency's bombed so we're getting cheaper to buy from. We could swap places with the "low cost economies" as they get richer... BUT... with the debt levels throughout the G20 countries, those that appeared to have money have been exposed to have been building colossal debt ...to spend with the others. The producers have little to outsource to us because demand has collapsed, and can't sell to us because we can't afford to buy.
Until the monetary system problem is resolved, the economies are paralysed. Bailouts in USA/EU are propping up the banks (increasing debt); bailouts in China are propping up their industries (decreasing reserves).
China (and Japan) are massively exposed to American debt. Britain is the world's 7th largest debtor nation; British citizens have the world's highest debt-per-person.
The debt bit is the bit that wasn't inevitable but now the genie's out of the lamp, it ain't going back in. That's the bit we can pin on Winky McF.
bosscerbera said:
s2art said:
bosscerbera said:
s2art said:
'There is a false premise in the OP. Britain did not get rich soley because we were exploiting other countries. In fact it was the industrial revolution that enabled Britain to do said exploiting on such a global scale. The reality is that Britain actually subsidised the Empire from mid to late 19th century onwards.
Britains decline is more to do with its failure to capitalise on that technological and scientific lead. Even as recently as the 1950's or early '60's Britain was a world leader in many areas of science and technology.
I blame Labour.
FFS. Blue or red (or yellow or green if you must), political orientation has had little effect on our path to where we are now. Britains decline is more to do with its failure to capitalise on that technological and scientific lead. Even as recently as the 1950's or early '60's Britain was a world leader in many areas of science and technology.
I blame Labour.
At least quote in context: It had precisely nothing to do with who was in power here why we preferred imported motorcycles then imported cars. Ditto consumer electronics. The British consumer killed the British manufacturing base. Our wealth - in earlier centuries - WAS borne of exploiting other countries and their natural resources.b)You have it back to front. We were able to 'exploit' other countries BECAUSE we had a superior technical base. Even then we were subsidising them by approx mid 19th century.
Edited by s2art on Wednesday 18th March 02:06
Edited by s2art on Wednesday 18th March 02:08
bosscerbera said:
ATG said:
bosscerbera said:
ATG said:
The view that "making things" is the only basis of "true" economic activity is wrong. All you have to do is add value ... i.e. do something that someone else values above the effort you have to put in. It matters not one jot whether that is providing accountancy services, manufacturing spoons or extracting oil from the ground. Just look how quickly people have stopped buying cars as they started to feel the economic downturn. Exactly where is this magic protection that manufacturing is supposed to offer?
You need something to add value to - and that starts with extraction industries (mining/agriculture/fisheries) ... then conversion (processing/manufacturing) ... then services. If all you do - as a nation - is add value with services to *stuff* produced by others you are dependent on them and have to hope they really need your "expertise". Over time, the producers get their own expertise. Over time, the experts do not get the production.
I'd have thought the future is just as likely to be one in which the imbalances we currently see between the developing and developed world reduce as the developing world develops and that allows all our economies to become a bit more diversified ... i.e. more services provided by the current developing world and more manufacturing in the developed world. Global capitalk and trade imbalances would tend to reduce, economies would tend to become more diversified and therefore resilient ... cake for everyone. If you realise a lot of our current government holding Labour membership cards used to be communists, you'll then realise part of the reason why we are sliding downhill in the way that we are. It was worse in the 70s when they had influence, but now they're back in again they're turning the clock back.
s2art said:
a) The resources available, and the regulatory regime, produced a decline in products such as British motorcycles. There was no shortage of good engineers, with brilliant ideas, to have produced superior products, but that didnt happen. (in the early-mid '60's Triumph engineers designed a modular set of engines, from a 200/250 single to a 1200 V5, all using common components. Unfortunately Triumph didnt and/or couldnt implement it. Look at the Norton Wulf as well). The consumer merely chose the best from the marketplace.
b) You have it back to front. We were able to 'exploit' other countries BECAUSE we had a superior technical base. Even then we were subsidising them by approx mid 19th century.
a) Indeed, Triumph/Norton did have some good ideas, ideas for motorcycles more advanced than they were peddling. Do you have data for the likely selling price of that new generation of bikes made in England...? b) You have it back to front. We were able to 'exploit' other countries BECAUSE we had a superior technical base. Even then we were subsidising them by approx mid 19th century.
b) I don't have it back to front. While there is a relationship between expertise and wealth, they are not the same thing. As for 'subsidising' the Empire, the early phases of all investments involve shareholders spending/subsidising ahead of getting a return. It's one of the paradoxes of capitalism - many people look at capitalism as a "trickle down" structure where the pockets of the rich sort of overflow into those of the poor. The reverse is true: the "rich" investor must first pay for others to do something - then sit back and hope profit "trickles up" later.
I'm sure Kennedy's 'Rise and Fall of the Great Powers' is a great book, I'll look it up. But it's just one book. Read some others and do some thinking of your own to put Kennedy into context.
A couple of points:
1. Total British WW2 military deaths were ~400k, out of a total population of 48m. That's not really enough to trim all unproductive elements, even assuming that they all were. And they weren't; as in most wars, the young and intelligent (i.e. junior officers) received proportionately higher casualties.
2. As for 'not making anything'; industrial production still amounts to a quarter of GDP.
Anyone who thinks countries like China and India, with their fundamental structural and societal flaws, are going to 'win' against the massive intellectual and capital resources of the west needs to get their heads out of the Daily Mail and take a good look around them.
SS7
1. Total British WW2 military deaths were ~400k, out of a total population of 48m. That's not really enough to trim all unproductive elements, even assuming that they all were. And they weren't; as in most wars, the young and intelligent (i.e. junior officers) received proportionately higher casualties.
2. As for 'not making anything'; industrial production still amounts to a quarter of GDP.
Anyone who thinks countries like China and India, with their fundamental structural and societal flaws, are going to 'win' against the massive intellectual and capital resources of the west needs to get their heads out of the Daily Mail and take a good look around them.
SS7
shoestring7 said:
Anyone who thinks countries like China and India, with their fundamental structural and societal flaws, are going to 'win' against the massive intellectual and capital resources of the west needs to get their heads out of the Daily Mail and take a good look around them.
US trade deficit $747 billion; external debt $12.2 trillion; GDP $13.8 trillion
UK trade deficit $111 billion; external debt $10.4 trillion; GDP $2.1 trillion
China trade surplus - $363 billion; external debt $363 billion; GDP $7 trillion
(figures at 1/1/08; declined since)
US trade deficit world's largest - six times larger than the #2 slot (Spain), which is only marginally bigger than the #3 slot (UK)
US external debt world's largest; UK at #2 has FIVE TIMES the debt per capita of the US.
China is the US's largest creditor. Whose capital?
As for western intellectual capital, a good look around is rather disturbing.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Some interesting points, but your argument is flawed in a number of respects.The world wars were a cull of all classes not just the lower orders. In fact the highest proportional casualty rates were in ranks mainly occupied by the upper/middle classes (Junior offices in WW1, bomber command in WW2)
If we have no unskilled jobs available why have we had mass migration of millions this past decade to fill them?
America has had a similar deindustrialisation, without the same proportion becoming 'economically inactive'. They simply have a lower minimum wage (in proportion to average earnings) and a less generous welfare state.
JagLover said:
If we have no unskilled jobs available why have we had mass migration of millions this past decade to fill them?
America has had a similar deindustrialisation, without the same proportion becoming 'economically inactive'. They simply have a lower minimum wage (in proportion to average earnings) and a less generous welfare state.
Question and answer.America has had a similar deindustrialisation, without the same proportion becoming 'economically inactive'. They simply have a lower minimum wage (in proportion to average earnings) and a less generous welfare state.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff