Britain's decline was inevitable.
Discussion
This is a big question, but to summarise:-
There is nothing inevitable about Britain's position, but it is a relatively insignificant drift of mud and rock in the Atlantic, and somehow people have got this impression that they are special and entitled to a living for doing nothing. That is where the Paths of Imperial Glory lead.
There is nothing inevitable about Britain's position, but it is a relatively insignificant drift of mud and rock in the Atlantic, and somehow people have got this impression that they are special and entitled to a living for doing nothing. That is where the Paths of Imperial Glory lead.
cardigankid said:
...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...
My chum, Dunk76, who has a brain the size of a small archipelago, majors hugely on this subject and agrees wholeheartedly with the proposition.Stupendous post, btw.
Edited by derestrictor on Wednesday 18th March 15:20
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think you overestimated the impact of quantity instead of the quality of the students in China. Probably China produces more IQ talented students considering the huge population. But to translate those IQs into real growth of the general wealth of the country is a different matter. To do so those students really need to be good at applying their knowledge into the real world and doing things innovatively. On this aspect the majority of the Chinese students,if not all of them, are still way behind their counterpart in developed countries UK included. Here is why: In my age the education in China was very textbook-problem-solved oriented(I do not know how to say it in English. Basically I and my classmates were taught how to solve the problems in exams. The emphasis was always placed on how to get highest score in exams.We were not taught how to apply the knowledge we learned to the real world nor were we taught how to think critiquelly or innovatively. ). At the moment it is very unlikely that people educated in such a way could really compete with developed countries. I do not know how things would be like in the long term. But I do know that it will take a very very long time for China to tranform to a innovation-oriented education system. Until then I would say the huge number of Chinese college students do not make a real difference. bosscerbera said:
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.
You dont seem to have understood the point about the Empire. Its nothing to do with shareholders investing. Its the fact that having the Empire cost Britain more than it gained, from approx mid 19th century onwards.
WRT to selling price of manufactured goods in Britain. There was nothing stopping Britain from being competative. But it needed a rethink about the tax and regulatory regime, basically the state was absorbing too much of the economy.
derestrictor said:
cardigankid said:
...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...
My chum, Dunk76, who has a brain the size of a small archipelago, majors hudgely on this subject and agrees wholeheartedly with the proposition.Stupendous post, btw.
But we aren't the only ones on this path or in this mire, we've just been on the path longest ("Britain leads the way") and are in the mire deepest.
I'm inclined to agree with CardiganKid that the economic/industrial mismanagement started a good 150-200 years ago when we began to think we could put our feet up after inventing some machines. We've never recovered quite the same work ethic we had before Watt.
cardigankid said:
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.
Cracking post!!!!!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
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I don't think that holds water - technological advance is not an atomic thing assignable to a country as a whole. There are specialisations, centres of excellence and regions that act as focal points for specific advances. With globalisation sharing out the benefits of other countries' innovation, we are free to focus on areas that we can compete well within.So - China as a whole is not a innovator, there are vast tracts of farming and raw industrialisation that provide for the nation. Then there are specific regions (Shenzhen for instance) that focus on particular technologies. In that context, the UK can be competitive by acting like a 'province' that happens to be able to demonstrate and attract skills in specific areas. Look at the biotech research that goes on here and you'll see that the UK can pull in skilled workers from larger nations because we can provide an environment where a critical mass of research is successful. Investment in such research can make a huge impact (Cambridge saw the evolution of 'Silicon Fen' in the 80's and 90's and still has a worldwide reputation for electronic and computational innovation).
In fact I don't think the UK is wanting in terms of innovation (though there is a need for stronger funding to beat the curve) - we do however suck at business. We are disasters when it comes to exploiting and protecting the advances we do make. Hell, we can't even run a simple think like a bank.
Again though, I think this comes down to an unwillingness to plan ahead. We as a nation are much happier with easy short term results and relative comfort rather than longer term success. We continue to specialise when that specialisation cuts us off from the wider market. We also fight shy of a culture of success and reward, preferring the plucky underdog to the successful businessman. The trouble is the plucky underdog, innovating in his garden shed tends to defy all odds only once in his career if he's lucky. By contrast, a successful businessman can build on one success with another, and absorb the inevitable failures on the way.
cardigankid said:
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
My apologies for the use of the phrase "Stage Five of the Socio-Demographic Transition Model", I tried to shorten it to SFOTSDTM, but I didn't think anyone would know what that was. ;-)
I disagree with your point on manufacturing - we have neither the raw materials within our territory, or the labour force (despite automation most areas of manufacturing remain relatively labour intensive). We also now don't have the money to invest, or the people to work for comparitively low wages...
...of course this may change if the UK becomes a second world country in time.
I entirely agree with you agreeing with me about our economy based on pixie dust and not having the stomach for anything other than "services". You make a sound point about our lack of organisation - I think this really equates to lack of motivation - we became too "comfortable" in our pretend economy.
Your points about WW1 and WW2 destroying our wealth are good and valid - however they also gave us a huge technological advantage that we failed to capitalise on in the post war period )as other posters have also noted) - that is why I said later that the 1950's and 60's was probably the last chance we had to slow our decline.
We led the world in jet engine technology, computer technology, medicine and even rocketry for a brief period. But we gave it all away...
Edited by AlexKP on Wednesday 18th March 15:25
s2art said:
Similar things have been said about the Japanese. It didnt stop them from becoming a major industrial power (number 2?). And that is with approx 10% of the population of China. So what will China become? (or India)
Analagous to AlexKP's comparison of pre- and post- WWI Britain, India and to some extent China are no longer imperial powers, and are thus at the whims of popular demand (whether it be through the ballot box or a system of 'officials' as per China). In Japan there still appears to be more honour and thus less corruption in their society, and IMO their relative industrial success is due to this 'sense of common purpose' rather than size of population.Disclaimer: most of my 'facts' come from those Andrew Marr history programmes that the Beeb keep churning out ..
Edited by fido on Wednesday 18th March 15:33
fido said:
s2art said:
Similar things have been said about the Japanese. It didnt stop them from becoming a major industrial power (number 2?). And that is with approx 10% of the population of China. So what will China become? (or India)
Analagous to AlexKP's comparison of pre- and post- WWI Britain, India and to some extent China are no longer imperial powers, and are thus at the whims of popular demand (whether it be through the ballot box or a system of 'officials' as per China). In Japan there still appears to be more honour and thus less corruption in their society, and IMO their relative industrial success is due to this 'sense of common purpose' rather than size of population.This thread seems to have the usual manufacturing=good services= bad ethos on PHs.
Seriously what adds more to the economy a Cotton Mill or an R&D centre, international tax advice or banging some metal with a hammer.
What Britain requires is exports which may well be manufactured goods but not necessarily.
Moreover in terms of total manufacturing output we are not doing too badly. It is simply a declining share of the economy and employment due to higher productivity in that sector.
One final question if a manufacturing company subcontracts out it's cleaning, accounting, security etc to specialist firms, has manufacturing employment fallen and service sector employment grown?
Seriously what adds more to the economy a Cotton Mill or an R&D centre, international tax advice or banging some metal with a hammer.
What Britain requires is exports which may well be manufactured goods but not necessarily.
Moreover in terms of total manufacturing output we are not doing too badly. It is simply a declining share of the economy and employment due to higher productivity in that sector.
One final question if a manufacturing company subcontracts out it's cleaning, accounting, security etc to specialist firms, has manufacturing employment fallen and service sector employment grown?
s2art said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If that is the case then why can a company such as Triumph motorcycles compete with organisations much larger? Similar things can be said of other UK manufacturing companies.TVR was the same - limited market. Porsche probably spent more on designing a wing mirror than TVR spent on the whole car (and I am a big TVR fan).
Aston Martin is also the same - a trophy brand. They don't really compete with anyone, but then other than profile they are a fairly insignificant business - why else would Ford have let them go?
I don't disagree that British engineering is perhaps still world leading, but it is such small scale in the scheme of things as to be dwarfed by other countries.
s2art said:
Japan is a democratic society, so just as vulnerable to the whims of popular demand. But the point was that having an education system that emphasised facts and rote learning didnt stop Japan, and therefore will not stop China.
I have to disagree on both points. On the first point, and it is a subtle one, if 'New Labour' were to stay in power for over 50 years [god forbid] would you so easily describe this as a democratic society? Note that Japan has had the same party in power for a similar period. Secondly, I don't think their education system is as rigid as you describe - in fact they have produced many innovations or at least adapted new technologies from the turn of the 20th century .. it's that old myth that Japan simply copies .. though of course it makes sense to 'copy' to start of with, especially if you aren't the first country to industrialise (as with GB or Germany).anonymous said:
[redacted]
I believe there is (or was, dunno about today with the credit crunch in full swing) a waiting list for some Triumph models. So there is a demand.Calling them a niche manufacturer is a bit of a stretch, they compete in the 600cc market and above, against all the other bike manufacturers. Its true that only the high end of the market is attacked, but thats where the big margins are.
Re Aston Martin. Why Ford let them go? Good question. Why did they buy them in the first place?
I agree that underfunded small companies such as TVR were always going to struggle. But they almost did it, it was a bad decision by the old management that sank them; developing two! home grown engines.
There are plenty of manufacturing companies in the UK. How do they exist if your premise is correct?
fido said:
s2art said:
Japan is a democratic society, so just as vulnerable to the whims of popular demand. But the point was that having an education system that emphasised facts and rote learning didnt stop Japan, and therefore will not stop China.
I have to disagree on both points. On the first point, and it is a subtle one, if 'New Labour' were to stay in power for over 50 years [god forbid] would you so easily describe this as a democratic society? Note that Japan has had the same party in power for a similar period. Secondly, I don't think their education system is as rigid as you describe - in fact they have produced many innovations or at least adapted new technologies from the turn of the 20th century .. it's that old myth that Japan simply copies .. though of course it makes sense to 'copy' to start of with, especially if you aren't the first country to industrialise (as with GB or Germany).The debate was whether China, having an equally rigid education system, would fail to compete well. I argue not, and used the example of Japan.
The manufacturing vs. services debate sort of misses the point. Economic failure is inevitable if the government attempts to decide this sort of thing as a matter of policy. Left up to the market people will concentrate on the most profitable industries and government intervention can only serve to undermine this.
Our decline as a nation isn't so much down to the focus on X at the expense of Y, rather it's a direct consequence of having the government attempting to influence economic decisions that it doesn't fully understand. The relative success of America, Hong Kong etc is not attributable to their better policies nearly so much as the relatively small scope and volume of their policies. Similarly the utter failure of the Soviet Union was not because of worse policies but because they had so much more economic intervention.
Our decline as a nation isn't so much down to the focus on X at the expense of Y, rather it's a direct consequence of having the government attempting to influence economic decisions that it doesn't fully understand. The relative success of America, Hong Kong etc is not attributable to their better policies nearly so much as the relatively small scope and volume of their policies. Similarly the utter failure of the Soviet Union was not because of worse policies but because they had so much more economic intervention.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff