Was the UK deindustrialising a good idea or not


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Was the UK deindustrialising a good idea or not

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    baz wants 5 quid a day, chang wants 5 quid a year, you do the math

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Norferners can’t get their head around this. British manufacturing was already in pretty dire straights by the 70s due to superior competition coming from Western Europe or Japan. Outsourcing was a death knell for our industrial base. It should be said that Britain does still rank within the top ten manufacturers globally, but it’s either heavily automated or focused on high-tech or precision stuff the chinks can’t do very well (Rolls Royce and their aircraft engines for example). The kind of lower end manufacturing like textiles, or heavy industries like Steel or Shipbuilding that used to employ millions will never return.

      Thatcher cut off a gangrenous limb from the economy. She was still a cunt though.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        So rather than improving English methods and practices to match other nations, she just sold off their industrial base wholesale. Leaving nothing but low volume industry for luxury clients.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >So rather than improving English methods and practices to match other nations
          You are aware that entails what you would likely consider "deindustrialization," correct? Improving industrial methods over the past half century or so means increasing efficiency and drastically cutting the workforce.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            In which case you can expand production for the same amount of workers and push other countries out of the market.
            Or keep said production to the same levels and maintain the strength in negotiating and production that it gives you in international affairs.

            The level of investment, the disruption to the industrial base, and the number of heads that would need to roll to get to the point of merely being in a position to plot how they might one day reach the same level as Germany would be infeasible.
            There's no 'Press X to not suck' button, especially when you're starting with a century's worth of inertia and vested interests.

            Scraping it all is hardly a better or more logical solution. Service economies are by their nature fragile and limit potential avenues for expressing soft power internationally.
            It takes a lot to not suck. Correct. But the Germans and Japanese didn't get there through magic either.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >In which case you can expand production for the same amount of workers
              Inflating supply while unnecessarily inflating costs, making the whole thing an unprofitable money sink. This is what was wrong with British industry before Thatcher.
              >and push other countries out of the market.
              I'm sure engaging in a trade war with America and the rest of Europe would have done wonders for British industry. Who needs industrial exports, anyways?
              >and maintain the strength in negotiating and production that it gives you in international affairs.
              What strength? How would sticking to inferior and outdated methods of production have given Britain any sort of advantage?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Producing for other countries is what built the British Empire in the first place. What made it the workshop of the world.
                Returning to an export focused economy was the wisest plan, especially when it came to interfacing with the Commonwealth.

                If you want to remain self-sufficient, being willing and capable to handle trade disputes is part of that.
                Putting British steel in Dutch construction is the key to giving Britain soft-power vis a vis the Netherlands. And so on. Today we see that with China, that has immense soft power from being a manufacturing titan. And once before that was the US. And before that the British themselves.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Putting British steel in Dutch construction is the key to giving Britain soft-power vis a vis the Netherlands.
                Yes, and part of that entails enhancing the competitiveness of British steel so the Dutch don't buy it from the Germans or the French instead. This means maximizing efficiency, shuttering unproductive mills, etc., all of which entail a downsizing of the workforce. Being competitive means being lithe.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Being competitive means producing at mass scale. Lithe is a another way of saying small scale. Which is useful for luxury goods where scaling production up and down is useful for rapid shifts in demand.
                Not at all the same as making the steel that is going to form the bedrock of foreign economies. You think that modern Chinese steel plants are 'lithe'? Not at all, they're massive and bulky produce at massive scale in order to find efficiency through production size.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Being competitive means producing at mass scale.
                Until you outpace demand and start running at a loss.
                >You think that modern Chinese steel plants are 'lithe'?
                Compared to Western plants 50 years ago they absolutely are. China's production capacity is just so big because they have a massive source of demand, namely their own internal market and their regional trading partners who, like China, are developing nations in need of products like steel to build themselves up.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then you start looking outside your borders for who needs materials.
                I mentioned the Commonwealth purposefully earlier. India, Afghanistan, Africa, the Caribbean, were all full of developing nations with preexisting contacts with the UK that were ripe markets for selling industrial materials to. And much of Europe at that time was going through infrastructure booms of some sort or another, that also could have functioned as markets for British production.

                China also put itself in the middle of all the world's demand too.
                For decades as its internal markets were plagued with poverty China made much profit on being the producer for other countries like the US or the Europeans. Now they aim both in and outwards, but the export section of China's economy is still very important to it's economic stability and contributes significant geopolitical power for the nation.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Until you outpace demand and start running at a loss.
                Then you produce too much of wrong things. Why would you produce something that you don't need and nobody wants to buy? (yes, I think the reason is money lending)

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Being competitive means producing at mass scale
                Only if your productivity is high enough. Otherwise, especially if you're using Open Hearth and the competition have BOP or EAF, you're 'taking a loss on every product and making up for it with volume'.
                > modern Chinese steel plants
                Heavily subsidized by the state, which the state can better afford to do thanks to a rapidly growing economy and a plentiful supply of labor. And even with that, the World Bank has them at only a quarter higher than Italy, export-wise.
                https://wits.worldbank.org/trade/comtrade/en/country/ALL/year/2019/tradeflow/Exports/partner/WLD/product/731450

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Returning to an export focused economy
                That wasn't possible. Other countries had labor productivity 2-4x higher and newer, larger plants in many industries. Many of them had lower wages. Even setting aside specifics of the UK situation, comparative advantage was always going to shift. Japan surpassed the USA in several areas, only to be surpassed in turn by South Korea.
                >Putting British steel in Dutch construction
                Why wouldn't the Dutch just buy from the Germans? Or the French? Or the Belgians?

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >you can expand production for the same amount of workers
              Without someone willing to subsidize your attempts at market share (like in East Asia), overproduction lowers your revenues, worsening your financial situation at the very time that you're trying to maintain an elevated cost-basis.
              >maintain the strength in negotiating and production that it gives you in international affairs
              In many cases, like the Basic Oxygen Process or the Electric Arc Furnace, the amount of workers needed is simply lower. And absent capital investment to expand the plant (at a time of stagnant or decreasing demand for steel), you'd have a bunch of idle blokes collecting salary; hardly the basis of power.
              >Scraping it all is hardly a better or more logical solution
              They didn't scrap it all. UK steel, for instance, is at half the pre-steel crisis levels.
              >. Service economies are by their nature fragile
              Not any more so than an initial industrial economy.
              >the Germans and Japanese didn't get there through magic either.
              They were (especially after WW2) essentially starting from a clean slate. That's inherently easier than attempting to retrofit.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            germany and japan had no problem maintaining their heavy industry

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          The level of investment, the disruption to the industrial base, and the number of heads that would need to roll to get to the point of merely being in a position to plot how they might one day reach the same level as Germany would be infeasible.
          There's no 'Press X to not suck' button, especially when you're starting with a century's worth of inertia and vested interests.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Even her Tory predecessors (MacMillian) thought Thatcherite policies of selling everything off and privitising was a poor choice, saying it was like selling off the family silver.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Even her Tory predecessors (MacMillian)

            Her Tory predecessors were basically on the same page as Labour economically so what’s your point

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        A lot of British industrial plant was obsolete, and much of the management left much to be desired. The cost-basis and the quality rendered many industries uncompetitive against foreign interests.
        Many industries (such as aviation) confronted ever-rising cost and complexity of their products in the face of a mature market, which would leave them capital-poor and unable to properly invest.
        The scenario where they actively attempt to minimize shrinkage is one of an increasingly middling economy where everyone struggles even to do the same with progressively less.

        It's always a bad idea. You need to import what you don't make and you need to export enough to pay for these imports.

        China deindustrializing will be brutal. A 100 million uemployed peasants deported back to the country side. Denied residency in the cities due to internal passport control. Looks like a maoist rrvolution is back on the menu boys

        Deindustrializing to where? Who's going to take it up? Africa? Where do you expect the industries to move?

        People simply moved from secondary sector to the tertiary sector, this is normal in an advanced economy.

        Bullshit made up to claim that western economies didn't actually decline.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Importing things isn't bad if it frees up ressources to develop your economy elsewhere idiot.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >We keep the high margin, skilled jobs and send our menial tasks to underdeveloped countries
      >they are retarded third worlders so there's no chance they'll ever use it as leverage against us or even compete with us on the jobs we kept
      >And there might be some ecological problems, but someone will figure out something I guess
      >fuck, there are still some of those menial tasks that we can't offshore
      >I know, let's bring some people from those countries
      >Sure there might be some unhappy people in our population and among immigrants kids but what's the problem? Don't tell me you're a racist.
      >What do you mean you don't think that's a sound plan?
      >What do you mean privatization of profits and socialization of losses?
      >Haven't you heard of Ricardo? Fucking commies I swear

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      you could have just gone the Germany route and use your Oxfords and Cambridge prestige to transition to high-tech manufacturing

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thatcher did nothing wrong and we should have listened. If normies adopted her values they would...

      1: see a return of conservative christian values, higher birth rates and less need for immigration
      2: have proper border controls and less people immigrating who hate this country and the people in it
      3: as a result, pay less tax if they are wealthy and receive higher incomes and share of social welfare if poor
      4: gain a better work ethic, less dependent on welfare, better prospects in life
      5: stop dragging others down just because they are better than them with the benefits for the sovl this entails
      6: enjoy all the prosperity and freedom of modernity without the drawbacks of degeneracy
      7: renew the policy of expansionism naively abandoned after the war so that one day the rest of the planet is under control and put to good use

      Things would be far less shit in general today and everyone would have benefited, but they were misled.

      >implying anything Tories do economically is good for the country and not entirely based on mass transfer of taxpayer money to people who donate to their party

      lel

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You WILL lose your job because you have a sense of dignity and refuse to work in slave conditions, and you WILL like it.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good because it destroyed any possibilities of the perfidious albion to return to power

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      I never thought of it this way

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of British industrial plant was obsolete, and much of the management left much to be desired. The cost-basis and the quality rendered many industries uncompetitive against foreign interests.
    Many industries (such as aviation) confronted ever-rising cost and complexity of their products in the face of a mature market, which would leave them capital-poor and unable to properly invest.
    The scenario where they actively attempt to minimize shrinkage is one of an increasingly middling economy where everyone struggles even to do the same with progressively less.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      People simply moved from secondary sector to the tertiary sector, this is normal in an advanced economy.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The scenario where they actively attempt to minimize shrinkage is one of an increasingly middling economy where everyone struggles even to do the same with progressively less.
      The scenario they did instead lead to the exact same place

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    China deindustrializing will be brutal. A 100 million uemployed peasants deported back to the country side. Denied residency in the cities due to internal passport control. Looks like a maoist rrvolution is back on the menu boys

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >China deindustrializing
      Chinks will happily cover the entire planet in factories if they find themselves in a position of power to do so

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >china deindustrialising

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    loaded question, the UK was not "deindustrialized", manufacturing actually grew under thatcher

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >graph of types of industries, not factory employment or % of the economy

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Percentages and proportions are not the same as size. This is middle school level mathematics.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          thats the size of a list of types of industries, not their share of the economy lmao

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >DUDE LMAO SO FUNNY HAHA
            cringe

            It is the index of production of manufacturing industries.

            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GBRPROINDMISMEI

            What next? What creative method will you use to deny facts shoved in front of your face?

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              The problem with the OECD data this is based on, is that they don't define units for this well.
              Their data table is a bit of a headache to work with and it likes to crash, but the problem is that there aren't any units defined when it describes the 'index' for the total. Whether that be gross tonnage, £ value, number of types of products, or something else.
              Its defined as
              >The indices measure monthly change in the volume of net output.
              >Classification(s) used
              >UK SIC 2003 - Standard Industrial Classification (compatible with NACE Rev.1.1)
              >Imputation
              >When data are temporarily missing, data from the previous period are carried forward.
              >Weights
              >Indices of the output of individual industries are combined using weights proportional to the contribution of each industry to gross domestic product in the chosen reference year.

              As certain industries die off, say steel working, its proportion drops down and the loss in its value disappears as other industries take over in weight.
              And what the exact indexes are based around is vague as well. If its based on £ value volume, then by nature of rising production costs in the modern day (such as its divorced from inflation), you're going to see higher indexes in more recent years regardless, all other aspects remaining equal. If its something else, thats hard to ascertain.
              And beyond that, manufacturing methods like finishing touch manufacturing, where parts that are made elsewhere are 'assembled' domestically and claimed to be domestic products aren't separated out from the rest (potentially because doing so is very difficult). In the US for example, its very common for companies to hodgepodge together a bunch of Chinese and Mexican parts into one product and call it American.

              I don't think the data is misinformation. I think that it has to be treated as information that doesn't fully communicate what its being presented as communicating.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              How is the "index" calculated?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Factory employment is an input, one that can be substituted. It's not a good metric of the health of industry, and in the long run, tends to decrease and shift towards value-addition around the process of manufacturing (like QC personnel).
        Percentage of the economy similarly is not a metric, and tends to decrease past a certain point. Demand for goods has a lower ceiling than for services, so achieving any such target ultimately requires crippling the economy.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >DUDE LMAO SO FUNNY HAHA
          cringe

          It is the index of production of manufacturing industries.

          https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GBRPROINDMISMEI

          What next? What creative method will you use to deny facts shoved in front of your face?

          youre assuming shit anon, literally my only point was that that graph sucked ass, and isn't what 99.99% of people would think of when you talk about "growing manufacturing"

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >manufacturing output growing isn't what people think of when they think of growing manufacturing
            >when they bother to think about manufacturing
            >always without any actual knowledge or research into the subject

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              this graph

              loaded question, the UK was not "deindustrialized", manufacturing actually grew under thatcher

              isn't output, it's industries
              Y axis tops out at 120
              I don't know why this is hard for you

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            99.99% of people think specifically that you are talking about increasing manufacturing as a proportion of GDP and believe this is somehow profoundly relevant and constitutes "deindustrialising" even if industrial output has increased in real terms? Normies sure are interested in your niche internetspun rendition of economics.

            I'm just saying OP is full of shit about "deindustrialising", and he is. The entire thread, wherever you people come from and whyever you push this meme is horseshit and you're going to get called out on it on LULZ outside your safespace. I'm guessing /leftypol/ but you could equally be from /misc/.

            Tell me. Who is responsible? israelites or bourgeois? Do you believe there is something to conspiracy theories about da jooz?

            this graph
            [...]
            isn't output, it's industries
            Y axis tops out at 120
            I don't know why this is hard for you

            See

            >DUDE LMAO SO FUNNY HAHA
            cringe

            It is the index of production of manufacturing industries.

            https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GBRPROINDMISMEI

            What next? What creative method will you use to deny facts shoved in front of your face?

            . It is the size of manufacturing relative to a base year, set at 100 for brevity.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              99.99% of people think that saying "manufacturing increased" means you have more jobs or factories, not types of factories you doof, yes
              Which is irrelevant, because my ONLY point was that that graph was shit, while

              >DUDE LMAO SO FUNNY HAHA
              cringe

              It is the index of production of manufacturing industries.

              https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GBRPROINDMISMEI

              What next? What creative method will you use to deny facts shoved in front of your face?

              this one actually has relevant info

              loaded question, the UK was not "deindustrialized", manufacturing actually grew under thatcher

              this has no key or any identifying info to say what it even means

              Youre the one getting weirdly political

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Was the UK deindustrialising a good idea or not

    No way. The UK has always found success by being a manufacturing hub, importing natural resources, and exporting finished goods. They're doomed now.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      hot takes, fresh from 70 years ago

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's a 70 year old question you stupid, pedantic homosexual.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Switching to FIRE economies will be the death knell of the West.

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Thatcher did nothing wrong and we should have listened. If normies adopted her values they would...

    1: see a return of conservative christian values, higher birth rates and less need for immigration
    2: have proper border controls and less people immigrating who hate this country and the people in it
    3: as a result, pay less tax if they are wealthy and receive higher incomes and share of social welfare if poor
    4: gain a better work ethic, less dependent on welfare, better prospects in life
    5: stop dragging others down just because they are better than them with the benefits for the sovl this entails
    6: enjoy all the prosperity and freedom of modernity without the drawbacks of degeneracy
    7: renew the policy of expansionism naively abandoned after the war so that one day the rest of the planet is under control and put to good use

    Things would be far less shit in general today and everyone would have benefited, but they were misled.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Tories stopping immigration KEKW

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Deindustrialization is soulful

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Deindustrialisation is never a good idea.

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It wasn't an idea, it was a reality that could no longer be held back. British Industry got pummelled in the sixties and seventies, only British government bailouts and macro-economic policy kept it afloat.

    The irony is that finance was going the same way, before it was turned around with significant government intervention (but not funds).

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, insofar as anything that harms and impoverishes Anglos is a good idea.

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    UK is doing good

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It was the way things were going, I think if not Thatcher someone else would start the process.

  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    good idea if you were upper class and wanted to punish the working class for having won decent lives for a few decades, bad idea if you were working class and wanted to work. the sad thing is that those who rule britain prefer a nation of obese drug addicts confined to council estates living off the dole than one that's full of men with dignified work with the ability to move up

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *