interesting article on a cause of Britain's decline
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marsha...
Post war Marshall Plan money was invested by Germany into new plant and industry.
The UK received much more Marshall Plan money than Germany, but the post-war Labour government blew it on spurious nothings.
Post war Marshall Plan money was invested by Germany into new plant and industry.
The UK received much more Marshall Plan money than Germany, but the post-war Labour government blew it on spurious nothings.
Regrettably it appears the British "we won" sigh of relief was disastrous, the nation having essentially bankrupted itself through the war effort. Complacency set in.
It looks very much as though the allied carpet bombing campaign was intended to cripple Germany for the long term - but once the Russians started looking troublesome it was very much in NATO interests to have a strong Germany to stand in the way of the Soviets. Once the ball was rolling, Germany gathered a remarkable momentum of success. People tend to forget that what we now call Germany has already absorbed the huge former East Germany at massive cost.
It looks very much as though the allied carpet bombing campaign was intended to cripple Germany for the long term - but once the Russians started looking troublesome it was very much in NATO interests to have a strong Germany to stand in the way of the Soviets. Once the ball was rolling, Germany gathered a remarkable momentum of success. People tend to forget that what we now call Germany has already absorbed the huge former East Germany at massive cost.
Yes, what an embarrassment that turned out to be. The Germans, a stoic and hard working people, set to rebuilding their country whereas the British, so full of pomp and narcissism, sought to play world superpower.
How embarrassing now then, that Germany's economy dwarfs ours. The French are more proud that the British, and have more backbone. And after blowing our post war finances trying to compete on the world stage, Britain fooled no-one, the empire collapsed and has looked nothing like a super power for over 50 years now.
How embarrassing now then, that Germany's economy dwarfs ours. The French are more proud that the British, and have more backbone. And after blowing our post war finances trying to compete on the world stage, Britain fooled no-one, the empire collapsed and has looked nothing like a super power for over 50 years now.
I don't think it can all be put down to investment, the UK has never willingly embraced central planning of the economy either.
Germany only has about a 15% higher GDP per capita than the UK, their workforce works nowhere near as many hours, government organize and sponsor vocational and technical training programs (which actually means Germans spend longer in training but have fewer degree level graduates) keeping unemployment down, while high end manufacturing provides employment it's reliable rather than high growth often, employee advocates (union reps to you and me) often occupy high level positions in companies and are often play important roles in planning the companies future, many Germans live in cheap high density housing projects and worst of all for PHers company directors are nowhere near as well paid as their UK and US counterparts.
The approach of Germany and the UK to capitalism are a long way apart. Can you imagine trying to tell UK companies and unions they where to play nicely together, employees where to have more time off and the state will be playing a much larger part in deciding how you hire staff?
Different aspirations for the future as well, Germans have huge confidence in playing with the EU and see it as an an opportunity to become a superpower. The UK sees the EU as an inconvenient and burden. It often fails to play the game when it comes to international politics.
The UK just isn't like Germany, how can you expect the same results without adopting the same methods?
Germany only has about a 15% higher GDP per capita than the UK, their workforce works nowhere near as many hours, government organize and sponsor vocational and technical training programs (which actually means Germans spend longer in training but have fewer degree level graduates) keeping unemployment down, while high end manufacturing provides employment it's reliable rather than high growth often, employee advocates (union reps to you and me) often occupy high level positions in companies and are often play important roles in planning the companies future, many Germans live in cheap high density housing projects and worst of all for PHers company directors are nowhere near as well paid as their UK and US counterparts.
The approach of Germany and the UK to capitalism are a long way apart. Can you imagine trying to tell UK companies and unions they where to play nicely together, employees where to have more time off and the state will be playing a much larger part in deciding how you hire staff?
Different aspirations for the future as well, Germans have huge confidence in playing with the EU and see it as an an opportunity to become a superpower. The UK sees the EU as an inconvenient and burden. It often fails to play the game when it comes to international politics.
The UK just isn't like Germany, how can you expect the same results without adopting the same methods?
speedy_thrills said:
employee advocates (union reps to you and me) often occupy high level positions in companies and are often play important roles in planning the companies future
And sometimes, they use the opportunity for different means: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/scanda...This is, by no means, an isolated example.
As for the UK, I'd say the welfare state has been the biggest drain on funds that might otherwise have found their way to (constructive, productive) investment, followed closely by wars of sundry and dubious nature.
Agreed but I think the biggest cost associated with unemployment is the lost opportunity cost. You spend a load of cash on education, rewarding people for popping out children, community services etc. If that person at 16-18 doesn't walk into employment (or higher education) it's the lost future taxation that really costs society.
I'd say this has much to do with it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21762564
We've so many bright, literate children who go on to study art or more glamorous courses which lead only to a big pile of debt. I met people at uni who were straight A* students who are now barely scraping by in their chosen field or else doing bar work, etc, when they could have been earning so much for themselves and the country had they been given better guidance in youth and more realistic expectations of post-uni employment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21762564
We've so many bright, literate children who go on to study art or more glamorous courses which lead only to a big pile of debt. I met people at uni who were straight A* students who are now barely scraping by in their chosen field or else doing bar work, etc, when they could have been earning so much for themselves and the country had they been given better guidance in youth and more realistic expectations of post-uni employment.
The article ignores the threat from Russia that was there from before the end of the war. I was brought up expecting Russian to move west, slowly and inexorably. It was what was going to happen. There was a perceived need to protect western Europe. Experience showed that the French were not a lot of use.
Germany had no army to repel the red army, America also demanded that the UK follow their dictates, the money being a sort of thank-you. And one thing they wanted was a substantial UK presence in Germany. Further, we had other requirements: whilst the empire was falling apart we still felt the need to protect these countries from 'communist' take-overs. Then there was Palestine.
It is easy to suggest we should have wiped all responsibility from our considerations with regard to the armed forces but I'm not sure the population would have allowed it. The population had been fed stories of the support that our empire had provided for the war and I don't think any government could have given up on its protection without overwhelming reason. The Atlee government did reduce the armed forces.
Further, there was investment in industry. The mines were seen as a priority and required massive investment to bring them up to adequate. Before the war they had been left to rot. Road and rail transport was in a dreadful state and there was no investment money from private industry available so the state had to step in. And the same with, for instance, steel works. Everything needed money.
There was austerity, with rations decreasing after the war, even bread being put on, something that hadn't happened during the war itself.
The suggestion of the article is that the UK was profligate but this is not true. It seems to me to be the point of view of a disarmament sympathiser, which is all very well, but we were under a perceived threat from Russia. It might have been over-reaction but the fact that Russia did not advance might have been due to the presence of our army in Germany. No one knows.
Germany had no army to repel the red army, America also demanded that the UK follow their dictates, the money being a sort of thank-you. And one thing they wanted was a substantial UK presence in Germany. Further, we had other requirements: whilst the empire was falling apart we still felt the need to protect these countries from 'communist' take-overs. Then there was Palestine.
It is easy to suggest we should have wiped all responsibility from our considerations with regard to the armed forces but I'm not sure the population would have allowed it. The population had been fed stories of the support that our empire had provided for the war and I don't think any government could have given up on its protection without overwhelming reason. The Atlee government did reduce the armed forces.
Further, there was investment in industry. The mines were seen as a priority and required massive investment to bring them up to adequate. Before the war they had been left to rot. Road and rail transport was in a dreadful state and there was no investment money from private industry available so the state had to step in. And the same with, for instance, steel works. Everything needed money.
There was austerity, with rations decreasing after the war, even bread being put on, something that hadn't happened during the war itself.
The suggestion of the article is that the UK was profligate but this is not true. It seems to me to be the point of view of a disarmament sympathiser, which is all very well, but we were under a perceived threat from Russia. It might have been over-reaction but the fact that Russia did not advance might have been due to the presence of our army in Germany. No one knows.
vodkalolly said:
Germany regulated their banks so that loans to manufacturers were a priority. We had no such strategy. Something we could learn from now.
We have certianly struggled to grow businesses 'organically' as a result of the landscpae fo UK banking and finance.vodkalolly said:
Current business school thinking is that putting money into making things is madness. This is wrong and short termism
All educational economic theory is short termist - by definition they preach the latest, greatest fads. Sell-and-lease-back anyone?Derek Smith said:
The suggestion of the article is that the UK was profligate but this is not true.
I disagree, the article clearly states that where France and Germany primarily invested in infrastructure and industry, the UK put aside Marshall Plan money to shore up BoE reserves so we could continue being banker to a shrinking Sterling Area. There's no suggestion of profligacy, only that the decision makers were misguided and perhaps not a little conceited in thinking we could or should remain banker to a load of former colonies.Mark Benson said:
Derek Smith said:
The suggestion of the article is that the UK was profligate but this is not true.
I disagree, the article clearly states that where France and Germany primarily invested in infrastructure and industry, the UK put aside Marshall Plan money to shore up BoE reserves so we could continue being banker to a shrinking Sterling Area. There's no suggestion of profligacy, only that the decision makers were misguided and perhaps not a little conceited in thinking we could or should remain banker to a load of former colonies.I went to a fee-paying grammar school and we followed the form of really posh schools and were taught, as were all the children in those days, about the Empire. It was asking a lot for the public school educated MPs, who in those days dominated both HoP, that the old ways had ended. The left wingers, those who wanted a much smaller army, no commitment to the old colonies, were kept in check. The phrase used was Little Englander. It was seen by the populace, fed by right wing papers and media, that the Empire was a sacred cow.
From a distance of 50 odd years it is hard to understand why I thought Empire = good, getting rid of our arms = terrible. The CND were not only against nuclear weapons but armed forces larger than we needed for defence. That made them communists in the eyes of the papers and that's where most people's opinions were sourced.
I used to belong to a youth club that had a strong political bias. A group went up to a demonstration (can't remember which) and a couple got fitted up by Challoner. Further, there were threats about funding from the church, whose hall and equipment we used, because of some of the members' belief about Empire. Just not wanting to be able to blow the world up was seen as anti-church, anti-English and pro-Russia.
It was mainly left-wingers who didn't want the guns. Bertrand Russell was seen as a left-winger but he was nothing of the sort. He was just a pacifist and ridiculed for his beliefs. My family, which had lost over a dozen sons/sons-in-law in the two world wars, was very pro-Russell. I had to read a couple of his books and although a bit wordy, he wrote a lot of sense I thought. Thought provoking is the best one can say about such books and they had that in spades.
If any government had opted to reduce the armed forces they would have been voted out, that is if they could have got a majority in the HoC. They certainly wouldn't have had a chance in the Lords. Look at the aggressive anti coverage the recent reductions in the army strength has generated in the press and, it has to be said, on here.
The two countries which came out of WWII the strongest were Germany and Japan. Both success stories were funded by a very generous USA. It wasn't just Marshall Aid that favoured Germany. Having two massive armies on their patch helped no end. We, to an extent, contributed to their success. Part of the need for infrastructure was for the American army.
If it had not been for the surge in union power in the 60s and 70s - not to mention dreadful management of private industries - we might now be saying just how clever we were after the war in the way that we used money.
thismonkeyhere said:
Ayahuasca said:
Labour government blew it on spurious nothings.
It appears to be what Labour governments are best at.Guybrush said:
thismonkeyhere said:
Ayahuasca said:
Labour government blew it on spurious nothings.
It appears to be what Labour governments are best at.
teheads from history.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff