Time for a little more isolationism?
Discussion
During my almost seven decades, I have watched Britain become less self sufficient in manufacturing. In some respects this makes sense; economies of scale, and non duplication of effort being two notable examples.
World events, including the latest viral pandemic have led me to wonder whether this has now gone too far, leaving us exposed to a lack of essential supplies, medical most recently, but also strategically. I am reminded of the 1930s when our new MTBs were powered by Isotta Fraschini engines, and had to be rapidly adapted to accept Merlins from Rolls Royce, since the enemy would have been unlikely to supply further example and spare parts for repair and maintenance.Is it not time for government departments, businesses and individuals to stop buying capital equipment, vehicles, weapons, medicines, and anything else which we could produce ourselves, from other countries?
World events, including the latest viral pandemic have led me to wonder whether this has now gone too far, leaving us exposed to a lack of essential supplies, medical most recently, but also strategically. I am reminded of the 1930s when our new MTBs were powered by Isotta Fraschini engines, and had to be rapidly adapted to accept Merlins from Rolls Royce, since the enemy would have been unlikely to supply further example and spare parts for repair and maintenance.Is it not time for government departments, businesses and individuals to stop buying capital equipment, vehicles, weapons, medicines, and anything else which we could produce ourselves, from other countries?
I don't think so.
It seems likely that the benefits you mention alone more than outweigh the disadvantages, and there are many other benefits.
We humans have been successful because our advanced intelligence facilitates sophisticated co-operation. Firstly in families, then tribes, then countries, now across continents and global marketplaces. Every time we have extended the size of these networks - typically through leverage from technology - we have increased our productivity as a species, and raised our average standards of living (although not always equitably). Through greater mutual interdependence we have reduced the incidence of wars for resources, particularly wars between countries. As economies have opened up in the last fifty or so years connecting capital and expertise with labour globally, we have collectively lifted more people from subsistence level existences than during any earlier period in history.
To reverse this progress now - particularly to reverse it to nation state level - would be madness. To consider it is to contemplate a backward step in our evolution. For relatively wealthy countries like ours, to recede in this way would be an abrogation of our responsibility. We would be pulling up the ladder to prevent others from gaining access to the benefits we enjoy.
So no, I think it is a very bad idea.
It seems likely that the benefits you mention alone more than outweigh the disadvantages, and there are many other benefits.
We humans have been successful because our advanced intelligence facilitates sophisticated co-operation. Firstly in families, then tribes, then countries, now across continents and global marketplaces. Every time we have extended the size of these networks - typically through leverage from technology - we have increased our productivity as a species, and raised our average standards of living (although not always equitably). Through greater mutual interdependence we have reduced the incidence of wars for resources, particularly wars between countries. As economies have opened up in the last fifty or so years connecting capital and expertise with labour globally, we have collectively lifted more people from subsistence level existences than during any earlier period in history.
To reverse this progress now - particularly to reverse it to nation state level - would be madness. To consider it is to contemplate a backward step in our evolution. For relatively wealthy countries like ours, to recede in this way would be an abrogation of our responsibility. We would be pulling up the ladder to prevent others from gaining access to the benefits we enjoy.
So no, I think it is a very bad idea.
We need to be a self sufficient country that puts it's own people and interests first but succeeds in doing so by co-operating intelligently, appropriately and politely with our friends in other countries.
So isolationism is a slightly misleading term. We will never be isolated, but what we need to do is be more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing, food supply, energy supply and population management.
So isolationism is a slightly misleading term. We will never be isolated, but what we need to do is be more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing, food supply, energy supply and population management.
John Locke said:
Is it not time for government departments, businesses and individuals to stop buying capital equipment, vehicles, weapons, medicines, and anything else which we could produce ourselves, from other countries?
No.We don't need to make everything, we just need to not rely on others for emergency items.
So massive stockpiles for things that don't have a shelf life, and ensuring capability to ramp up production at short notice of other stuff.
Britain is doing what it does best: lining the pockets of its elite. When slavery lined their pockets, there was slavery. When industry lined their pockets, there was industry. When British imperialism and plunder lined their pockets, we had the British Empire. When financial capitalism lined their pockets, we had that. Even austerity doubled the wealth of England's aristocracy-no accident there. Hell, in 2015 only paid off Britain's debt incurred to pay out the slaving aristocracy. Quite the scam.
Don't think of Britain as a country but as an organised crime gang with a matriarch at the top, and a bunch of people below wondering "why do we all have this indefinable sense of a loss of greatness?"
Don't think of Britain as a country but as an organised crime gang with a matriarch at the top, and a bunch of people below wondering "why do we all have this indefinable sense of a loss of greatness?"
hackjo said:
We need to be a self sufficient country that puts it's own people and interests first but succeeds in doing so by co-operating intelligently, appropriately and politely with our friends in other countries.
So isolationism is a slightly misleading term. We will never be isolated, but what we need to do is be more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing, food supply, energy supply and population management.
What do you mean by "population management"..?So isolationism is a slightly misleading term. We will never be isolated, but what we need to do is be more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing, food supply, energy supply and population management.
B210bandit said:
Don't think of Britain as a country but as an organised crime gang with a matriarch at the top, and a bunch of people below wondering "why do we all have this indefinable sense of a loss of greatness?"
Whilst that is a little extreme, there is an element of truth in it. It only continues because enough people at the bottom, looking backwards, believe the myth.
Not so much isolationism Id say but rather aiming for far greater self sufficiency.
Its not such a good thing to be reliant on other countries so much as we have been.
You can buy anything you want these days but its a fair bet its got "Made In China" stamped on it.
Even covid masks that dont work and testing kits that are worse than a 50/50 guess.
Not a good place to be at, backing away from that model would be a benefit long term.
Its not such a good thing to be reliant on other countries so much as we have been.
You can buy anything you want these days but its a fair bet its got "Made In China" stamped on it.
Even covid masks that dont work and testing kits that are worse than a 50/50 guess.
Not a good place to be at, backing away from that model would be a benefit long term.
WindyCommon said:
I don't think so.
It seems likely that the benefits you mention alone more than outweigh the disadvantages, and there are many other benefits.
We humans have been successful because our advanced intelligence facilitates sophisticated co-operation. Firstly in families, then tribes, then countries, now across continents and global marketplaces. Every time we have extended the size of these networks - typically through leverage from technology - we have increased our productivity as a species, and raised our average standards of living (although not always equitably). Through greater mutual interdependence we have reduced the incidence of wars for resources, particularly wars between countries. As economies have opened up in the last fifty or so years connecting capital and expertise with labour globally, we have collectively lifted more people from subsistence level existences than during any earlier period in history.
To reverse this progress now - particularly to reverse it to nation state level - would be madness. To consider it is to contemplate a backward step in our evolution. For relatively wealthy countries like ours, to recede in this way would be an abrogation of our responsibility. We would be pulling up the ladder to prevent others from gaining access to the benefits we enjoy.
So no, I think it is a very bad idea.
Your argument is just as binary as UKIP supporter wanting a hard brecht. Now I am not saying you are crazy like the aforementioned kipper but to say the rising living standards are all down to cooperation is not 100% true. We have seen in the last 100 years technical advances not always shared with others lead to benefits. The spitfire in WW2 seems to come to mind. Plus more recently the US use of shale oil an gas to kip a lid on Oil prices.It seems likely that the benefits you mention alone more than outweigh the disadvantages, and there are many other benefits.
We humans have been successful because our advanced intelligence facilitates sophisticated co-operation. Firstly in families, then tribes, then countries, now across continents and global marketplaces. Every time we have extended the size of these networks - typically through leverage from technology - we have increased our productivity as a species, and raised our average standards of living (although not always equitably). Through greater mutual interdependence we have reduced the incidence of wars for resources, particularly wars between countries. As economies have opened up in the last fifty or so years connecting capital and expertise with labour globally, we have collectively lifted more people from subsistence level existences than during any earlier period in history.
To reverse this progress now - particularly to reverse it to nation state level - would be madness. To consider it is to contemplate a backward step in our evolution. For relatively wealthy countries like ours, to recede in this way would be an abrogation of our responsibility. We would be pulling up the ladder to prevent others from gaining access to the benefits we enjoy.
So no, I think it is a very bad idea.
Globalisation has brought many benefits but also left us at risk due to fractured supply chains. I would hope some critical manufacturing remains in the UK. The US already have laws in place for this and their economy has not done badly. So while we could trade and share technology some things we should at least have capacity to build at home.
It's not as simple as just retreating from the outside world.
For many of us, our lives are as they are due to international cooperation and for many in the younger generations this is just normal.
There is a degree of nostalgia from older people to a time that possibly never was. The aftermath of WW2 was a short period that is within memory of the elderly or their impression of it as children. In the 1950s, living standards improved for ordinary people and things began looking up. At that time, it was also very much a seller's market. If you made it someone would buy it. Nowadays there are many sources of goods and selling them is the hard bit.
Yes, there may well be an argument for keeping some control of some critical infrastrucutre and goods (The UK has embraced flogging things off more than most) , but to spend massively on insurance is always about managing risk.
For many of us, our lives are as they are due to international cooperation and for many in the younger generations this is just normal.
There is a degree of nostalgia from older people to a time that possibly never was. The aftermath of WW2 was a short period that is within memory of the elderly or their impression of it as children. In the 1950s, living standards improved for ordinary people and things began looking up. At that time, it was also very much a seller's market. If you made it someone would buy it. Nowadays there are many sources of goods and selling them is the hard bit.
Yes, there may well be an argument for keeping some control of some critical infrastrucutre and goods (The UK has embraced flogging things off more than most) , but to spend massively on insurance is always about managing risk.
I read a book by a great pulp sci-fi writer written in the 60s, about a post-apocalyptic world, that was brought about by all the worlds manufacturing taking place in a few mega-hubs, and everything produced being life restricted e.g. Cars would last 1 year and turn to dust, houses 5 years and so on. Then one day a mega hub was taken out, the others struggled and failed to meet demand and themselves failed through excess usage, and eventually everything (literally) came apart as supply chains failed etc.
Okay that might be an excessive example but this has highlighted just how little resilience we have against failure in the limited supply chains, even of vital items like drugs being manufactured by limited entities in faraway places and supplied JIT.
We criticised all those rushing to stockpile in a panic but there's something instinctive about what they did, I find myself wondering who the bigger idiots actually are, those who queue or those who sit on their pasta mountains...
Okay that might be an excessive example but this has highlighted just how little resilience we have against failure in the limited supply chains, even of vital items like drugs being manufactured by limited entities in faraway places and supplied JIT.
We criticised all those rushing to stockpile in a panic but there's something instinctive about what they did, I find myself wondering who the bigger idiots actually are, those who queue or those who sit on their pasta mountains...
Edited by Teddy Lop on Sunday 12th April 12:34
hackjo said:
We need to be a self sufficient country that puts it's own people and interests first but succeeds in doing so by co-operating intelligently, appropriately and politely with our friends in other countries.
So isolationism is a slightly misleading term. We will never be isolated, but what we need to do is be more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing, food supply, energy supply and population management.
This.So isolationism is a slightly misleading term. We will never be isolated, but what we need to do is be more self-sufficient in terms of manufacturing, food supply, energy supply and population management.
Sadly, the qualities offered in your first paragraph have been sorely lacking in recent years.
I’m not sure it’s so much that it’s produced in other counties it’s the “just in time” so that companies can run thin margins on stock that totally mess us up, they threatened this all though brexit and surely just keeping some more stock solves the problem at least for a while. There’s so much empty warehouse space I can’t believe it would be catastrophic for any company to have 12 weeks supplies instead of 15 mins worth Like I heard Honda keep at their factory
Imagine if a office kept 1 reem of paper in the draw and relied on having another delivered every day
Imagine if a office kept 1 reem of paper in the draw and relied on having another delivered every day
Dont Panic said:
Not so much isolationism Id say but rather aiming for far greater self sufficiency.
Its not such a good thing to be reliant on other countries so much as we have been.
You can buy anything you want these days but its a fair bet its got "Made In China" stamped on it.
Even covid masks that dont work and testing kits that are worse than a 50/50 guess.
Not a good place to be at, backing away from that model would be a benefit long term.
Nitrile gloves are all made in Malaysia and have a shelf life. The trick is to maintain quality at a price, this is where a good buyer is worth his weight. Middle men are always trying to switch suppliers, 'these are the same' -coal face say otherwise. It would appear they can't be made anywhere else. Its not such a good thing to be reliant on other countries so much as we have been.
You can buy anything you want these days but its a fair bet its got "Made In China" stamped on it.
Even covid masks that dont work and testing kits that are worse than a 50/50 guess.
Not a good place to be at, backing away from that model would be a benefit long term.
Nickbrapp said:
I’m not sure it’s so much that it’s produced in other counties it’s the “just in time” so that companies can run thin margins on stock that totally mess us up, they threatened this all though brexit and surely just keeping some more stock solves the problem at least for a while. There’s so much empty warehouse space I can’t believe it would be catastrophic for any company to have 12 weeks supplies instead of 15 mins worth Like I heard Honda keep at their factory
Imagine if a office kept 1 reem of paper in the draw and relied on having another delivered every day
I think this one of the the major learning points we’ll have from the coronavirus pandemic. The risks associated with “just-in-time” will be re-evaluated. This is is not so much about physical storage space as it is about capital utilisation. Keeping stock means tying up financial resources and I think the relatively recent trend of de-equitisation (manifested through share buy-backs in the US in particular) may be reversed. Better capitalised businesses may be seen to be more resilient, and so attract more favourable valuations. Similarly, it will be harder to find investors for over-leveraged private-equity “opportunities”. The opposite has been the case for the last decade or so.Imagine if a office kept 1 reem of paper in the draw and relied on having another delivered every day
Becoming better able to ride out periods of supply-chain disruption will be particularly important for countries like ours where self-sufficiency is not (because of geography and natural resources) really a viable option.
MX5Biologist said:
The UK already takes steps to regulate foreign ownership of critical industries:
https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-foreign-in...
When it comes to medicines, it boils down to how much we want to pay for the most commonly used drugs. If as a nation, we want to pay much much more for medicines, fine, we can have penicillin made here. Or do we want a state owned pharma industry. Both China and India have large state owned pharmaceutical industries. They are good at copying drugs. They are terrible at developing new medicines.
and that's before you get to EU;) rules on state aid...https://thelawreviews.co.uk/edition/the-foreign-in...
When it comes to medicines, it boils down to how much we want to pay for the most commonly used drugs. If as a nation, we want to pay much much more for medicines, fine, we can have penicillin made here. Or do we want a state owned pharma industry. Both China and India have large state owned pharmaceutical industries. They are good at copying drugs. They are terrible at developing new medicines.
Cant see much of this going anywhere. The government will agree with it all but do nothing.
Some people assumed we had stockpiles of food. How much you wonder? Enough for 70 million people for years??
If we stockpiled things in the past you would have everyone running around in Asbestos protective PPE now
and rusty tins of spam being distributed.
What we do need is industries that already have plans and tooling in place to switch to making the required emergency products instead of looking at china products on ebay.
So many people off work from car plants etc doing eff all that could have been doing this.
This government are pretty talentless and selfish but I dont think labour would have done better as a lot of them were stupid.
Some people assumed we had stockpiles of food. How much you wonder? Enough for 70 million people for years??
If we stockpiled things in the past you would have everyone running around in Asbestos protective PPE now
and rusty tins of spam being distributed.
What we do need is industries that already have plans and tooling in place to switch to making the required emergency products instead of looking at china products on ebay.
So many people off work from car plants etc doing eff all that could have been doing this.
This government are pretty talentless and selfish but I dont think labour would have done better as a lot of them were stupid.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff