Britain's decline was inevitable.
Discussion
shoestring7 said:
bosscerbera said:
As for western intellectual capital, a good look around is rather disturbing.
Go ahead; try and find one technology that wasn't developed in the west.Unfortunately residual bragging rights aren't bankable.
bosscerbera said:
shoestring7 said:
bosscerbera said:
As for western intellectual capital, a good look around is rather disturbing.
Go ahead; try and find one technology that wasn't developed in the west.Unfortunately residual bragging rights aren't bankable.
SS7
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.
That 'the left' can't be seen to adopt any of 'the right's policies and vice versa, even when some of those policies might actually benefit the country.
Does the answer lie in a political class that don't work to such dogmatic principles but that take the best of both (no, not the Lib Dims, they seem to seek out the worst in both) and are brave enough to try something and admit it didn't work, or strong enough to do something which might upset a large group of people (usually those with the most dogmatic views) temporarily?
It seems a bit simplistic to me to blame left or right, rather that the inability to admit the 'other side' might have a point about something is what has held us back and created a divided society, stopping us being more like Germany, who seem to have held on to the idea of capitalism as a means for advancing the whole of society, not just the few that are able to hoodwink the many.
shoestring7 said:
bosscerbera said:
shoestring7 said:
bosscerbera said:
As for western intellectual capital, a good look around is rather disturbing.
Go ahead; try and find one technology that wasn't developed in the west.Unfortunately residual bragging rights aren't bankable.
As for China not inventing anything, it's irrelevant compared with their growing ability to innovate in development. I think you'll be surprised if you have a good look around - start with solar panels and their proximity to achieving grid parity. We couldn't figure out how to do that and, granted, an Australian inventor was involved, but Chinese nous and capital (from their "inefficient" nationalized banks, haha) is making it happen...
Interesting post, and clearly something you've spent far more time thinking about than most of us have.
Your comments aren't unreasonable, but it's a bit hard synthesising a theory of that magnitude with a sample size of one. Other countries have had different results - but you cannot isolate their experiences down to a handful of social trends. Which of those are cause and which are just effects of other pressures, such as racial mixes, border disputes, trade routes and simple statistical events giving rise to localised 'centres of excellence'?
One thought is that our unique form of democracy and relative national stability has led to a style of politician that is pressured to hide simple truths - that society is inequal, that good health cannot be guaranteed for the entire population throughout their lives, that industries change and that sometimes hardships have to be endured. It's like advertising for washing powder, where each generation has to wash whiter than before. All of our major political parties are pushed to promise better times, and to do all they can to avoid mention of the hard limits that we have to work within. As a result, our population is unprepared to be competitive, and some of the services designed to support our society are hostage to 'political correctness' (for want of a better term) rather than delivering the most effective results.
The World Wars not only had huge impacts on our population, but also changed our attitudes towards resources and improving/rebuilding our nation. It allowed politicians the luxury of making far-reaching changes that hugely benefited the country. That new attitude has faded as memories are lost, and sweeping changes are hard to make in the face of a public that want stability - even in the middle of a technological revolution that has changed everything from housing to transport, from work to leisure time.
It's notable that even in the grips of a global recession, the opposition parties are unwilling or unable to say "We're going to have to put up with some **** to make things better". Instead there's a desperate clinging on to the current status quo, and a promise that with minor tweaks we can return to business as normal. Our housing, transport, education, energy policy and health system are deeply dysfunctional but we don't have the appetite to tackle such things head on, or to shoulder the costs now for a bigger return in the future.
Your comments aren't unreasonable, but it's a bit hard synthesising a theory of that magnitude with a sample size of one. Other countries have had different results - but you cannot isolate their experiences down to a handful of social trends. Which of those are cause and which are just effects of other pressures, such as racial mixes, border disputes, trade routes and simple statistical events giving rise to localised 'centres of excellence'?
One thought is that our unique form of democracy and relative national stability has led to a style of politician that is pressured to hide simple truths - that society is inequal, that good health cannot be guaranteed for the entire population throughout their lives, that industries change and that sometimes hardships have to be endured. It's like advertising for washing powder, where each generation has to wash whiter than before. All of our major political parties are pushed to promise better times, and to do all they can to avoid mention of the hard limits that we have to work within. As a result, our population is unprepared to be competitive, and some of the services designed to support our society are hostage to 'political correctness' (for want of a better term) rather than delivering the most effective results.
The World Wars not only had huge impacts on our population, but also changed our attitudes towards resources and improving/rebuilding our nation. It allowed politicians the luxury of making far-reaching changes that hugely benefited the country. That new attitude has faded as memories are lost, and sweeping changes are hard to make in the face of a public that want stability - even in the middle of a technological revolution that has changed everything from housing to transport, from work to leisure time.
It's notable that even in the grips of a global recession, the opposition parties are unwilling or unable to say "We're going to have to put up with some **** to make things better". Instead there's a desperate clinging on to the current status quo, and a promise that with minor tweaks we can return to business as normal. Our housing, transport, education, energy policy and health system are deeply dysfunctional but we don't have the appetite to tackle such things head on, or to shoulder the costs now for a bigger return in the future.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Gordon Brown has been studying that and has realised that we he has to do to "save the cheerleader save.....er.the country " is to declare war on the richest per capita country in the world and lose.Tomorrow we go to war with Lichtenstein. And if no one's home Luxembourg.
His plan goes like this.
Thursday - Declare war, invade Lichtenstein.
Friday - Wait for Lichtenstein army volunteers to finish their shift at the 7/11, then all fighting forces to fall victim to horrific ankle sprains.
Saturday - sue for peace, back in Blighty for tea and biccies
Sunday - start planning what to do with all the money
bosscerbera said:
shoestring7 said:
bosscerbera said:
shoestring7 said:
bosscerbera said:
As for western intellectual capital, a good look around is rather disturbing.
Go ahead; try and find one technology that wasn't developed in the west.Unfortunately residual bragging rights aren't bankable.
As for China not inventing anything, it's irrelevant compared with their growing ability to innovate in development. I think you'll be surprised if you have a good look around - start with solar panels and their proximity to achieving grid parity. We couldn't figure out how to do that and, granted, an Australian inventor was involved, but Chinese nous and capital (from their "inefficient" nationalized banks, haha) is making it happen...
In 2008, Chinese solar panel production was trailing Europe and Japan.
SS7
shoestring7 said:
If you mean photovoltaic panels; the princple was discovered by a Frenchman, the first cells were made in the US, they were first used in space by NASA, the first commercial models were American, the first ground based solar power generating site was in the US, GM's sunracer was the first effective solar car, and the American Helios solar powered plane flew around the world.
In 2008, Chinese solar panel production was trailing Europe and Japan.
Very good. I think you may have misunderstood (my sloppy sentence, apologies) what I meant by what we, the west, couldn't do. I wasn't referring to the solar panels, I was referring to grid parity, loosely the point at which solar becomes economically viable for power generation on the grid.In 2008, Chinese solar panel production was trailing Europe and Japan.
The land grab in North America's deserts is frantic for situating solar power stations. The panels on those sites will almost certainly be Chinese.
I'm not arguing with you about the west having all the best ideas. I don't see how you can argue with me about our lack of economic benefit from them. For all our intellectual clout (more yesterday than today), the west is virtually bankrupt.
Do you seriously think we'll "think of a good idea(s)" to work off $10 trillion in debt, work off the world's third largest trade deficit and fund our government's pet projects?
el stovey said:
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.
UK Average reading age of 8 ...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
Not too stupid I suppose?
bosscerbera said:
...
China is the US's largest creditor. Whose capital?
While the US is in debt to China the dollar belongs to America and if it wants the Fed to "Quantitative ease" a few trillion to pay off debts and devalue the currency and annoy the Chinese - they could. China is the US's largest creditor. Whose capital?
So ultimately who has the upper hand?
I read an article earlier (which I can't find now, doh) about the IMF printing money - which to me points that the world IS straining under debt and the problem is to devalue every currency in the world potentially to reduce this debt - all in the name of avoiding a worldwide depression!
Tuna said:
It's notable that even in the grips of a global recession, the opposition parties are unwilling or unable to say "We're going to have to put up with some **** to make things better". Instead there's a desperate clinging on to the current status quo, and a promise that with minor tweaks we can return to business as normal. Our housing, transport, education, energy policy and health system are deeply dysfunctional but we don't have the appetite to tackle such things head on, or to shoulder the costs now for a bigger return in the future.
This!!!! Hits the nail on the head IMO!Everything in this country has become sooooo PC!!! The media is the single most self-destructive force this country faces!!!
You're right Tuna, Politicians are affraid to come out and tell the cold hard truths; that we as a nation are going to have to take some crap for a while if we are to get through this recession! Government is implementing schemes to try and keep things as they were before!
But what needs to be realised is that things were not working properly before! Our country has some extremely flawed policies and systems (NHS, Welfare, etc...good ideas that have been implemented in the most shambolic, slapdash fashion without much thought!), and we are only going to get better as a nation if we adapt and change with the times.
But here is where the media plays their part;
How often do you see good news on TV? NEVER!!!!! Its all doom and gloom! So what if politicians came out saying that we need to take some hits before we can progress? Media would be all over them! Slating them, saying how they've failed, blah, blah, rhetoric, rhetoric!!!
The media should be serving the people...giving us infomation to help us.....but they dont. They scare us!!! They threaten us!!!! And look what its turned us all into!!! Blind sheep, following a partially blind leader, who let us not forget, was not voted into this office! He is not in power by the will of the poeple!!!
We are affraid to stand up for our rights because of all the 'nasty' things the state will do to us if we don't comply, etc.
Gone are the days when the News actually was the News, and news worth listening to. Now it's all propoganda. Political spin with an end game. The media could be THE BIGGEST weapon we have to fight this recession; Boost moral, put a bright picture on the country, and get people's confidence up.......but so far......all its served in doing is help drag our confidence in the government and economy down.
RichardD said:
bosscerbera said:
...
China is the US's largest creditor. Whose capital?
While the US is in debt to China the dollar belongs to America and if it wants the Fed to "Quantitative ease" a few trillion to pay off debts and devalue the currency and annoy the Chinese - they could. China is the US's largest creditor. Whose capital?
So ultimately who has the upper hand?!
Spiritual_Beggar said:
The media should be serving the people...giving us infomation to help us.....but they dont. They scare us!!! They threaten us!!!! And look what its turned us all into!!! Blind sheep, following a partially blind leader
A fearful population suits the Government because fear makes people easier to control "for their own good"As for not standing up for our rights; there is a large proportion of the country who feel it's their right not to do menial jobs, and rather than clean toilets in other peoples' houses, they get paid to not work. If my thinking is correct, it was this Government who encouraged that view because the PMs wife was an advocate of "Human Rights".
Spiritual_Beggar said:
[Gone are the days when the News actually was the News, and news worth listening to. Now it's all propoganda. Political spin with an end game. The media could be THE BIGGEST weapon we have to fight this recession; Boost moral, put a bright picture on the country, and get people's confidence up.......but so far......all its served in doing is help drag our confidence in the government and economy down.
S_B... the newspapers of yesteryear stopped being economically viable 20-odd years ago with Murdoch's Wapping bunfight. Thereafter the budgets for journalism - real investigative reporting - have collapsed. Yep, the majority of what's published/broadcast is propaganda - "PR people" from government and industry feed the media by fair means and foul. "Newspapers" are just a business with very little ethics. Ironically, the government's codswallop is supposed to boost moral with promises of supporting the unsupportable; promises of picking up the tab and outright lies about Britain being "well placed" etc etc.. Media that contests this claptrap is being unusually, well, honest. There is no reason to have any confidence in this government.
"THE BIGGEST weapon" we have is the internet. Journalism is not dead, it's moved that's all. There is still proper journalism at work in The Economist and such like but it's not a "recession-busting 20 pence" to buy. Many of the sources used for data by the Economist are online if you search. Furthermore, very little of what goes on in the further flung corners of the world makes the mainstream media, but it is online, and it is worth understanding.
This country's appalling economic condition is not a media invention.
I would just like to throw in a bit of a curve ball.
I believe that a massive problem for Britain has been its exposure to free trade and the growing EU. Having no tariffs or quotas has leveled the playing field and left Britain behind in a massively competitive world economy, due to things like the minimum wage and IMHO Britain's "something for nothing" we are running out of areas where we are still competitive even with other EU countries.
Sadly this is turning countries such as the US towards protectionist ideals. So it looks like its every man for himself so to speak.
I personally can not see how Britain can recover when there is more money going out than there is coming in and with fewer and fewer specializations and competitive industries.
Radical idea that will be ripped to pieces:
UK becomes independent?
This would give controlled immigration, protection of own industries, Quite possibly increase foreign direct investment into Britain even more. would allow for Britain to nurture and grow its specialized industries
I believe that a massive problem for Britain has been its exposure to free trade and the growing EU. Having no tariffs or quotas has leveled the playing field and left Britain behind in a massively competitive world economy, due to things like the minimum wage and IMHO Britain's "something for nothing" we are running out of areas where we are still competitive even with other EU countries.
Sadly this is turning countries such as the US towards protectionist ideals. So it looks like its every man for himself so to speak.
I personally can not see how Britain can recover when there is more money going out than there is coming in and with fewer and fewer specializations and competitive industries.
Radical idea that will be ripped to pieces:
UK becomes independent?
This would give controlled immigration, protection of own industries, Quite possibly increase foreign direct investment into Britain even more. would allow for Britain to nurture and grow its specialized industries
anonymous said:
[redacted]
No, I think that while you have summarized a number of popular myths admirably, and you have skirted close to the truth on occasion, you are wrong on just about every point. You know someone is wrong as soon as they use an expression like 'Stage Five of the Socio-Demographic Transition Model.' Britain has been in decline since the mid-19th Century as other countries caught up on our early technological lead. We simply failed to compete. Some of the wealth of the nation was undoubtedly made from exploitation - particularly sugar and tobacco slavery - but that is a subsidiary issue. What is remarkable about the British Empire was how little exploitation took place rather than how much (though I don't expect many to agree since you cannot expect anyone to enjoy a Master-Servant society where they are always the servant for racial and entirely senseless reasons) The Empire cost Britain increasing amounts of money, and while the colonial administrators may have been arrogant a lot of their work was entirely selfless. Also, since Britain's wealth was largely destroyed in two world wars against German Militarism, which was demonstrably a much more evil force, Britain can be absolved on that score.
Britain is an innovative and imaginative country, but it is not organised or disciplined. There was a lot of wealth, and it was unequally distributed, and that led to demands for a fairer society, but the floodgates were opened by the First World War, since when authority is automatically challenged rather than respected, and social compensation of the 'common man' was enshrined, largely because of their unprecedented sacrifices in that war.
Lloyd George is the politician most guilty of initiating the Popular Era in politics, which in essence involves bribing the electorate with their own money, and the bribes have just become ever larger. And the fundamental weakness of democracy - as every State which adopts it finds to its cost - is that if everyone can vote whether they pay taxes or not, an increasing number are going to vote for handouts, and bribery of the electorate becomes the total focus of Government policy. The anti-elitism which came with it actually works to make us ever less competitive, and the bureaucracy created largely in the two world wars has become a cancer which is strangling the nation.
The suggestion that we cannot manufacture competitively in the world is ludicrous, even though at a point in history it appeared to be true. The reality is that automation innovative design and hard work would allow us to manufacture as competitively as anyone, but we haven't got the stomach for it. Politicians of all shades, who are the most easily deluded, and bribed, of all, have laboured under the delusion that we can create wealth through 'services', particularly financial services. I hope that the current debacle illustrates how misguided that is. As you say, the wealth upon which Gordon Brown and indeed the rest of us depended, was Pixie Dust. And it is not coming back.
Britain's decline has only ever been inevitable to the extent that the British people have been susceptible to laziness and corruption. The gap between the developed and the undeveloped countries is narrowing rapidly, and it is the countries which are not democratic which are gaining fastest. Which is a sobering thought. Where Britain is now is that the British either embrace efficiency or live on the 'services' we provide each other, which is a euphemism for a form of old eastern bloc penury. Personally I don't think Britain is going to make it, which basically means that it will become a sad, dreary and unimportant backwater whose world importance has gone the way of Babylon and Rome, and for very similar reasons. We get what we deserve. All the more reason to pull out of Afghanistan. It is no longer our job or responsibility to police the world, and it is very doubtful if we are achieving anything by attempting to do so.
Edited by cardigankid on Wednesday 18th March 14:13
shoestring7 said:
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
As I mentioned in my OP, both China and India, individually have as many high IQ Gifted and Talented students as we have total students. Year on year whatever our current lead may be it is going to be unsustainable against an onslaught of very bright new scientists and innovators.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
If you think we are inherently cleverer than they are, I think you are very mistaken. The fact that we industrialised first is a result of numerous socio-geographic factors, not because we are intrinsically smarter.
PS - I rarely read the Daily Mail, it is too depressing.... ;-)
I totally agree with that. We are sitting here complacently in our Nanny State believing that we are entitled to a comfortable living and carbon neutral 'accessible' environment while they have a sense of direction. What is intellectually superior about that?
Plus of course our 'capital resources' are F U C K E D .
Plus of course our 'capital resources' are F U C K E D .
Edited by cardigankid on Wednesday 18th March 14:18
anonymous said:
[redacted]
China and India may have growing economies and lots of higher educated working class etc...One thing that people dont realise is that China is better poised to beat all competition. What that means is that lots of indian working class are looking for white collar jobs rather than the productive active labour market force that is China's strength!!! Granted that India has a lot of labour available on the cheap.. but the mindset of people is not far off from Britain in the long run(100 yrs).And as the population starts moving away from poverty to basic acceptable living standards, the cheap labour slowly disappears. The same situation is why britain does not have a huge active labour force in manufacturing etc(EU immigrants benefiting)...benefits is better than working in a factory...and working in an office is better than in a factory! But in EU markets..this trend is less and therefore you have happily employed labour force from small villages to large cities with a good manufacturing capacity and latest technologies being used!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff