Britain's decline was inevitable.
Discussion
Following on from another thread, our situation is far too complex to distill into a single sentence answer. But if you want the brutal truth, I will outline it below as I see it.
There are a number of key points:
The UK, like most of the West, is in what is termed Stage Five of the Socio-Demographic Transition Model. That is to say that today we are a post industrial society.
We no longer make things, and thus our basic economic strength, the foundation upon which our society of the 19th and 20th centuries was built, has been transferred to newly developing countries. In essence, we inevitably priced ourselves out of our own markets. As living standards rose we could no longer pay the wages needed to manufacture the goods we we consume.
This in turn has led to a fundamental change in the social make-up of the country. In the 19th Century peasants toiled the land to farm it, and then moved to the cities to make things. In the first half of the 20thC they were the labour force that underpinned our economy - they built ships, mined coal, made steel etc. Now they don't. And they aren't suited to white-collar work at all.
This has led, along with greater geographic mobility, to increased alienation, anomie and disenfranchisement within society and particularly amongst the traditionally lower/working classes.
Which in turn has led to a rise in anti-social behaviour and property crime (but be careful here - crime and violent crime was still a major problem a century ago). It has also led to a massive rise in the welfare state, because the thing the politicians can't say publically is that there are no really suitable jobs for a large proportion of our population - and there haven't been for nearly forty years now.
Last century we had two world wars which killed off a lot of young "working class" men. Thus there were fewer of them around to perpetrate crime and social problems. But we haven't had a mass "cull" for nearly seventy years now...
Much of our wealth came through military conquest and the exploitation of other countries, the same countries which are now out breeding us and out performing us.
It is a salutary fact that individually, China and India have more High IQ gifted and talented students than we have students in total across our entire education system.
So, at the same time that expectations of living standards have risen, our ability to fund them has in real terms decreased. This has led eventually to the collapse in the financial system we are now experiencing. The wealth was never real, it wasn't based upon tangible assets. In the final analysis it was all little more than pixie dust.
The bottom line is that the position we find ourselves in now as a society was largely inevitable. Of course politicians have made dreadful mistakes, and could probably have mitigated this decline a little, but the trend was always going to catch up with us in the end. The UK, and most of the other major "developed" countries are where they are now because of socio-economic entropy. Our financial model, which worked for a couple of centuries is not suited to a post-industrial economy. If we are to thrive in future, we need a new system, one that is based upon us servicing the growing economies of the world.
Agree?
There are a number of key points:
The UK, like most of the West, is in what is termed Stage Five of the Socio-Demographic Transition Model. That is to say that today we are a post industrial society.
We no longer make things, and thus our basic economic strength, the foundation upon which our society of the 19th and 20th centuries was built, has been transferred to newly developing countries. In essence, we inevitably priced ourselves out of our own markets. As living standards rose we could no longer pay the wages needed to manufacture the goods we we consume.
This in turn has led to a fundamental change in the social make-up of the country. In the 19th Century peasants toiled the land to farm it, and then moved to the cities to make things. In the first half of the 20thC they were the labour force that underpinned our economy - they built ships, mined coal, made steel etc. Now they don't. And they aren't suited to white-collar work at all.
This has led, along with greater geographic mobility, to increased alienation, anomie and disenfranchisement within society and particularly amongst the traditionally lower/working classes.
Which in turn has led to a rise in anti-social behaviour and property crime (but be careful here - crime and violent crime was still a major problem a century ago). It has also led to a massive rise in the welfare state, because the thing the politicians can't say publically is that there are no really suitable jobs for a large proportion of our population - and there haven't been for nearly forty years now.
Last century we had two world wars which killed off a lot of young "working class" men. Thus there were fewer of them around to perpetrate crime and social problems. But we haven't had a mass "cull" for nearly seventy years now...
Much of our wealth came through military conquest and the exploitation of other countries, the same countries which are now out breeding us and out performing us.
It is a salutary fact that individually, China and India have more High IQ gifted and talented students than we have students in total across our entire education system.
So, at the same time that expectations of living standards have risen, our ability to fund them has in real terms decreased. This has led eventually to the collapse in the financial system we are now experiencing. The wealth was never real, it wasn't based upon tangible assets. In the final analysis it was all little more than pixie dust.
The bottom line is that the position we find ourselves in now as a society was largely inevitable. Of course politicians have made dreadful mistakes, and could probably have mitigated this decline a little, but the trend was always going to catch up with us in the end. The UK, and most of the other major "developed" countries are where they are now because of socio-economic entropy. Our financial model, which worked for a couple of centuries is not suited to a post-industrial economy. If we are to thrive in future, we need a new system, one that is based upon us servicing the growing economies of the world.
Agree?
Edited by AlexKP on Tuesday 17th March 21:33
You cover a lot of ground here and in the main I agree with your analysis. However it isn't true that we don't make anything anymore and I'm not convinced that the solution is another great war.
The UK has always been a great innovator and has the capacity to re-invent itself out of necessity, but there needs to be an impetus, a driver, and the current shower in government seems to be doing everything in its power to prevent this happening.
The UK has always been a great innovator and has the capacity to re-invent itself out of necessity, but there needs to be an impetus, a driver, and the current shower in government seems to be doing everything in its power to prevent this happening.
Good post alex. I'm not sure I follow the link between peasants in the fields and the modern working classes who are now "unsuitable for White collar work"
Perhaps peasants were stupid I don't really know, but modern day working class people aren't. Surely working/lower class people can become suitable for most jobs given the right oportunity.
There are still plenty of occupations for the thickos and no-hopers these days. They don't need to be left with 'white collar' only jobs.
Modern Britain still manufactures and exports many goods in many differing industries that can employ less qualified people.
Perhaps peasants were stupid I don't really know, but modern day working class people aren't. Surely working/lower class people can become suitable for most jobs given the right oportunity.
There are still plenty of occupations for the thickos and no-hopers these days. They don't need to be left with 'white collar' only jobs.
Modern Britain still manufactures and exports many goods in many differing industries that can employ less qualified people.
Edited by el stovey on Tuesday 17th March 21:41
svm said:
thehawk said:
Here's a novel idea. We have to pay these scroungers money anyway - why not make it compulsory to work for it and essentially get free labour costs?
I agree, but unfortunately it will upset their 'umon rites. 
I can see a Wisconsin type labour reform in this country where all able people have to work for benefits but also receive training for jobs to get them off benefits long term.
thehawk said:
Here's a novel idea. We have to pay these scroungers money anyway - why not make it compulsory to work for it and essentially get free labour costs?
In principle the welfare state is a fantstic idea. Unfortunateley its proliferated like a cancer, killing our society which hosts it. Giving money away for nothing destroys real wealth that can only be created through work. Alternatively, it could be argued that the current crisis is a result of what happens when you base the economy on "Other people's money."
In other words, if you want/need something don't bother saving for it, just borrow the money from a bank.
Now this works fine until either 1) interest rates go up so that you can't afford to borrow any more, or worse, can't afford to meet your existing repayments or 2) money supply dries up so that you can't obtain any additional loans.
When both these scenarios occur together or in quick succession, as has recently happened, the economy is in the excrement.
In other words, if you want/need something don't bother saving for it, just borrow the money from a bank.
Now this works fine until either 1) interest rates go up so that you can't afford to borrow any more, or worse, can't afford to meet your existing repayments or 2) money supply dries up so that you can't obtain any additional loans.
When both these scenarios occur together or in quick succession, as has recently happened, the economy is in the excrement.
dealmaker said:
Largely agree - but how do you explain the German economy - which has had a similar getsation but now has a balance of payments surplus?
The German case is an interesting one. I know the country quite well.Germany is also a country with serious structual problems - they had a negative population growth rate for some years. This was leading to an inevitable decline in the sustainability of their economic system. However, the Germans have done a couple of major things to ameliorate their situation. The first is that they didn't sacrifice so much of their industrial capacity, and situated as they are in central Europe they are ideally placed to manufacture certain goods (particularly cars) for a large market.
The second is that they re-unified with a second world country that immediately boosted their workforce with younger, motivated and skilled workers.
Germany though is a society that plans for the future. Their politics (generally socialist regardless of the party in power) have focussed on the collective good. But probably the best thing they did was to lose the second world war and be on the receiving end of massive investment and rebuilding as a result of the politics of the post war period and their critical geographic location.
(NB - I am not condoning socialism - more the general ethos of their society).
Edited by AlexKP on Tuesday 17th March 22:04
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff