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
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
jamoor said:
Where do immigrants come into your little theories?
They aren't "little" theories. Quite the reverse, they deal with the much bigger underlying social trends over a larger timescale than a couple of governments.By and large, immigrants are needed to compensate for an ageing population. Unless we have more younger workers, our problems will increase dramatically. Of course, we need to ensure that we control immigration and ensure that those who come to live here will make a positive contribution.
Edited by AlexKP on Tuesday 17th March 22:17
fido said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Erm, not sure i can lay the ills of society on 'working men', well aside from punch-ups outside my local Wetherspoons; it's the non-working ones that i am concerned about.Of course there are many exceptions to the rule, but I am necessarily dealig in macro-trends and generalisations as such a discussion requires. It is not a condemnation of the less intellectually able, more a lament of the fact that a post-industrial society will struggle to have need for them.
Swilly said:
AlexP said:
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.
By this quote alone I claim my £5 by pronouncing you a delirious idiot !!
ks, explain why. I am not making value judgements on people here per se, just taking a dispassionate view of this country's social development.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.
Read what I said again. There is no "false premise" - I certaily didn't say we got rich solely because we were exploiting other countries, and I clearly did reference the Industrial Revolution by talking about the change from working the land to working in cities manufacturing goods.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.
I am not sure abou the subsidising the Empire claim. Can you explain this further?
I agree with your sentiments about a failure to capitalise on technology and innovation. Indeed, the 1950's and 60's were probably the last chance we really had to slow our decline.
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.... ;-)
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:
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.
There is no doubt in mymind that needless over-consumption has become the defining economic characteristic of our society.
And I am as guilty, if not more so, as anyone. I have far too much "stuff" - the vast majority of it unnecessary.
Our all pervasive media has been a key factor in this excess - but equally perhaps people have become convinced that it is possessions that give them personal value and signify success.
Perhaps a period of extended enforced austerity might ultimately do us good? Now there's a thought....
And I am as guilty, if not more so, as anyone. I have far too much "stuff" - the vast majority of it unnecessary.
Our all pervasive media has been a key factor in this excess - but equally perhaps people have become convinced that it is possessions that give them personal value and signify success.
Perhaps a period of extended enforced austerity might ultimately do us good? Now there's a thought....
s2art said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
If we only had stuff that was 'necessary' we would be back to living in grass/mud huts. It is the drive to own 'unnecessary' things which has driven the economy for a long time. Like I said, I am dreadful for buying stuff I don't need but think I do. I am a consumer par excellence, but a part of my conscience is beginning to question whether all this consumption has been a good thing.
Clearly our economy has been largely built on sand, is not a new approach needed?
However, I do largely agree with you and I doubt if human nature will change overnight. The desire to possess goods has become intrinsically entwined with our perception of success.
That doesn't necessarily sensible or sustainable does it?
bosscerbera said:
Britain is fubar, there's no question about it. Our predicament is the worst in the world in my opinion but, by varying degrees, our major trading partners are in similar boats. Those not in substantial debt need those who are to be their customers. It doesn't work.
This is where economics starts to wander into the realms of philosophy. Really, what the hell are we playing at?
Etc.
An excellent post BC - and kinda what I was driving at in my OP of this thread. We have become the victims of our own system. I still believe that much of the detail mentioned on this thread is, while interesting, perceptive and valid, largely irrelevant in the final analysis.This is where economics starts to wander into the realms of philosophy. Really, what the hell are we playing at?
Etc.
Society on a local and global scale is dynamic. Just because we have enjoyed a period of a couple of hundred years of comparitive prosperity does not mean it has to last, or even that it will last. Our economic and political system has worked quite well in some respects for two centuries, but that is a very short period of time in the grand scheme of things.
It may now be time, for the reasons I mentioned and others cited on here, for the balance of economic and political power to shift. Our systems appear to be failing, and it isn't as a result of specific decisions, but more as a result of a system that never could be sustainable indefinitely.
(I note also that one poster said "there's a whole universe out there" - to my mind this is actually the key to human development. The sooner we start to expand outwards from our home planet and begin to utilise the solar system the better. We are getting perilously close to exhausting the potential of this planet. The global population is currently 6 billion. (The global population grows by the equivalent of the entire UK population of 60million every year). By 2030 it will be over eight billion, and while we remain solely dependent upon Earth, our resources and land space are, by definition, limited.)
derestrictor said:
It may seem like a rather banal, trite issue to refocus upon but I think Alex mentions the pertinent issue behind all of this - overpopulation.
Well, in many ways everything ultimately comes back to this.I recall reading some years ago that "experts" stated that the planet was theoretically able to sustain a population of 10 billion, and that the human population would, once reaching this figure effectively stabilise. I don't recall what the detailed reasoning behind this was/is, but of course if the planet were to sustain such a vast population there would have to be a worldwide redistribution of resources including food and water of course.
And for that to happen there will have to be a global shift in government - toward a single government world with semi-autonomous regions.
Some might argue that we are seeing the first tentative steps toward such a shift - no opposing superpowers, increased co-operation between countries, the UN, a reduction in the number of dictatorships etc. And that perhaps this global financial meltdown is another step toward a new and improved system of co-operative governance.
AJS- said:
We might have to start using space more efficiently, but my approach to this would be more market based than creating a global government. Scrap farm subsidies, building controls, planning laws and migration controls I think we could sustain double the present population.
That's a pretty bold step.I wonder what a virtually unregulated world would look like? Would it not be akin to anarchy?
To my mind, it is lack of effective regulation that has got us into the current mess. Regulation, intelligently applied, has to be in the collective interest surely?
What you are suggesting would lead to massive exploitation, an increase in the gap between rich and poor, collosal damage to vital areas of natural resource (ie chop down all the rain forests to build new shanty towns) and huge population movements as people followed short term needs rather than focussed on longer term development and planning...
Surely?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff