World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Brexit - ciao Britain? She doesn't go anywhere
date
newest »
newest »
You probably won't like this but the German growth was a clear consequence of Hitler's economics. Hitler needed technological growth, so at the end of the war, there were a large number of trained technicians and engineers, both mechanical and chemical. Further, while the Allies flattened just about every German city, the industrial base was surprisingly undamaged. The Allies knew the industries were outside of the cities, but they still mainly bombed cities. They wanted to kill Germans, and the war was almost a side issue to bomber command.Hitler had required any reasonable technological development proceed; the only reason not to was because it would not work. The banking sector would finance it. Anyone obstructing progress could have a meeting with R Heydrich, who was not known for his soft touch.
The net result was that after the war, Germany still had infrastructure, it had skilled workers, it had people who knew they had to make things work, the Boards of larger German companies always had some technological representatives, and the banks had a lot of practice at working out what could proceed.
The British did not have that, and worse, they had what amounted to a class war going on. Add in to that politicians nationalizing industries and being far less competent to run anything, and, well, look at what happened to the British coal and steel industries.
So we are back to my thesis of British self sabotage by poor management.
Certainly British management was a major contributor, but there were further circumstances.Regarding the management, it is worth looking at ICI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperia...), at one time one of the biggest chemical companies anywhere. From 1991 it kept selling off its profitable businesses, and well, without profitable businesses it converted to nothing this century.
Britain's mismanagement would take a major thesis or ten. Ian mentioned class. The UK's elite has rarely valued scientific and technical engineering education over arts. This is demonstrated in degrees held by politicians and civil servants. PPE from Ox-Bridge is seen as better than a degree in civil engineering. Thatcher had a degree in chemistry - a notable exception. The PM is just the tip of the iceberg. Even heads of NHS don't have medical degrees!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
The greats of the past such as Brunel were always outsiders.
Take Frank Whittle (Jet engines) - a British lead lost or Hydro-electric power by Armstrong. Computing thanks to a host of development out of Bletchley Park - Alan Turing was sidelined not just because of his sexuality.
Far too often it was the right background with the right school and right University.
Personal experience from the military and without a good war to sort the wheat from the chaff it was again about connections, school and family. Heroes led by donkeys.
The UK never had a revolution (Except Cromwell) to clear the elite out. Post WWII it was a socialist change but the elite hunkered down and regained control.
Unfortunately, this still plays now.
No great power lasts for ever. Persia didn't, neither did Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, the Dutch, France, Britain, the USSR, the list goes on. The US will go the same way.
I certainly don't want to go down the route of blaming war debt for Britain's relative decline because
decline from a dominant position is as inevitable as night following day. Whatever we'd have done, it was always going to happen.
Alsi, the US sacrificed lives in Europe in both world wars. They helped swing the balance in both of them too. If that, or the debt arrangement, was ultimately in their own interests - well, I wouldn't expect anything else from any self-respecting nation state.
My problem was never with the old British elite either. I think an Oxbridge degree in PPE is a good foundation to govern. With the exception of Ian, every scientist I've ever met has had a below average understanding of everything bar their own specialist subject. They would make appalling leaders. They need to be consulted on their speciality and then put back in their box before they get delusions of grandeur and do any serious damage.
My problem with the elite now centres around an opinion I have, which is contrary to Philip's, in that i don't believe they are the same old elite we've always had. During the Blair era (read Clinton for the US), IMO the old elite was replaced in a silent revolution by a new breed - those that were economic neo liberals and socially 'progressive'.
The old school tie brigade, I could live with. They knew how to govern, were patriots and by and large looked after their people. It hadn't always been that way, but it had evolved to be the case. Ordinary people had decent opportunities for advancement. One knew where one stood with the old elite.
This new breed are not so good. They do nothing but enrich themselves, while preaching their 'progressive' nonsense at the rest of us. It's designed to divide and rule, so they can deflect attention from their own antics. Unfortunately, many well meaning people fail to see this and lap it all up, little realising they are being used.
The old British elite were okay. The new version are complete hypocrites and charlatans, every single one of them.
I certainly don't want to go down the route of blaming war debt for Britain's relative decline because
decline from a dominant position is as inevitable as night following day. Whatever we'd have done, it was always going to happen.
Alsi, the US sacrificed lives in Europe in both world wars. They helped swing the balance in both of them too. If that, or the debt arrangement, was ultimately in their own interests - well, I wouldn't expect anything else from any self-respecting nation state.
My problem was never with the old British elite either. I think an Oxbridge degree in PPE is a good foundation to govern. With the exception of Ian, every scientist I've ever met has had a below average understanding of everything bar their own specialist subject. They would make appalling leaders. They need to be consulted on their speciality and then put back in their box before they get delusions of grandeur and do any serious damage.
My problem with the elite now centres around an opinion I have, which is contrary to Philip's, in that i don't believe they are the same old elite we've always had. During the Blair era (read Clinton for the US), IMO the old elite was replaced in a silent revolution by a new breed - those that were economic neo liberals and socially 'progressive'.
The old school tie brigade, I could live with. They knew how to govern, were patriots and by and large looked after their people. It hadn't always been that way, but it had evolved to be the case. Ordinary people had decent opportunities for advancement. One knew where one stood with the old elite.
This new breed are not so good. They do nothing but enrich themselves, while preaching their 'progressive' nonsense at the rest of us. It's designed to divide and rule, so they can deflect attention from their own antics. Unfortunately, many well meaning people fail to see this and lap it all up, little realising they are being used.
The old British elite were okay. The new version are complete hypocrites and charlatans, every single one of them.
Beau wrote: "No great power lasts for ever. Persia didn't, neither did Egypt, Greece, Rome, Spain, the Dutch, France, Britain, the USSR, the list goes on. The US will go the same way.I certainly don't want to..."
Wheel of Time fatalism is a dangerous position in that it leads to self-fulfilling prophecies. It's easy to say that Egypt, Imperial China, and Rome all fell. But that overlooks Pharaonic Egypt having lasted over three thousand years, Rome lasting well over a millennium, and Dynastic China lasting about two millennia. Seriously, Cleopatra lived far closer to us than to the Great Pyramids, Constantinople fell only a thirty-nine years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and the Emperor Qin Shi Huang United China almost two centuries before Christ. The Endless Waltz is a warning, not a prophecy.
If the peerage didn't turn to s*** until the 1990s, why was there such a marked decline in the quality of governance in the preceding decades?
But not a marked decline in ordinary people's living standards and quality of life, J. They continued to improve despite decline in the country's global standing.
The new elite put paid to that, while enriching themselves by unprecedented levels.
The new elite put paid to that, while enriching themselves by unprecedented levels.
And a definite correlation between proximity to the present and shortness of time as a power.
Checks watch...I think the US's time as the global superpower is drawing to a close.
Checks watch...I think the US's time as the global superpower is drawing to a close.
Beau wrote: "And a definite correlation between proximity to the present and shortness of time as a power.Checks watch...I think the US's time as the global superpower is drawing to a close."
Perhaps, but not every card is on the table.
Also, before anyone draws attention to Dave and Boris being Old Etonians, PMs and Govts come and go. The real elite consists of the unseen levers of power - the senior civil servants, media barons, heads of public institutions, captains of industry and the like - those just below the radar, the cogs in the wheel of power.
And if I'm wrong and the people themselves haven't really changed, their attitudes most certainly have done.
And if I'm wrong and the people themselves haven't really changed, their attitudes most certainly have done.
Beau wrote: "Also, before anyone draws attention to Dave and Boris being Old Etonians, PMs and Govts come and go. The real elite consists of the unseen levers of power - the senior civil servants, media barons,..."Like the well placed Patricians who threw these guys under the bus?
Jimmy Savile report: The five senior BBC employees who knew about sexual predators but did not act
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...
Well, it's pretty clear that there were senior people at the BBC who knew what was going on and turned a blind eye to it. Why, I have no idea.
But appalling tho that saga was, it doesn't have any bearing on the great political matters of the day. And my big argument, across many threads, is that we are not governed as effectively as we were in the latter half of the last century. There's been a widening of the wealth gap, a narrowing of opportunities, and a manufactured focus on 'progressive' issues to try and deflect attention away from what's really happening.
But appalling tho that saga was, it doesn't have any bearing on the great political matters of the day. And my big argument, across many threads, is that we are not governed as effectively as we were in the latter half of the last century. There's been a widening of the wealth gap, a narrowing of opportunities, and a manufactured focus on 'progressive' issues to try and deflect attention away from what's really happening.
My view of why we are not governed as well as we were is quite simple. Somewhere about rthe time of Reagan, Thatcher, etc, there was a move that "governments were the problem" so the politicians responded by not actually doing very much other than speaking on TV and persuading the population they were better than the other lot.We have an election coming up, and all we see are promises to fiddle with tax rates, and assertions that if they get in they will do good things. But they don't actually do much at all, and on a given issue they really do n ot understand much. All they are good at is giving good TV interviews and getting elected.
Beau wrote: "And a definite correlation between proximity to the present and shortness of time as a power.Checks watch...I think the US's time as the global superpower is drawing to a close."
That is interesting. I think the 21st century will be the American century. Why do you think the United States power is going to ebb?
Ian wrote: "My view of why we are not governed as well as we were is quite simple. Somewhere about rthe time of Reagan, Thatcher, etc, there was a move that "governments were the problem" so the politicians re..."I think it is much more complicated that just that, although I do think there is a dichotomy between different political thought. I suspect things to become more fiscally conservative within the next twenty years as Baby Boomers age out and become the past.
Beau wrote: "Well, it's pretty clear that there were senior people at the BBC who knew what was going on and turned a blind eye to it. Why, I have no idea...."As bad as it was, it was also a different time and private life was protected. Jimmy Savile was what he was and ruined all the good work he did. Times were certainly different and especially with both celebrity and social standing.
Beau wrote: "Well, it's pretty clear that there were senior people at the BBC who knew what was going on and turned a blind eye to it. Why, I have no idea.But appalling tho that saga was, it doesn't have any ..."
You listed the "media barons" among those with their hands on the levers of power. I'm betting that it the same ones now as then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...This is what I mean about senior civil servants - an admission and confirmation of behaviour at the top of UK’s FCO. They wanted a different result, then a 2nd ref to get that result then a different negotiation. No wonder politicians failed. They were undermined by the very staff who should be implementing GOV Policy, not creating it.
We recently had a similar problem here. The senior civil servants who were supposed to be enforcing certain restrictions let all sorts of rubbish through just to get their performance numbers up. My view is they should be prosecuted and jailed, but it won't happen
Overcoming big wars and dire economic straits crowned by the disintegration of the biggest ideological rival gave a false sense of utopian prosperity, love and peace in the West, resulting in petty leaders, dealing with petty issues, oblivious to outside tendencies and meltdown of any ideological postulates. Some agenda was invented and then amplified out of thin air, just to stir sleepy societies with new goals, many of which sound hollow or exaggerated. Meanwhile, the euphoria was shattered and the cruel real world came knocking at the door, posing new challenges.It's sometimes how you cope with the challenge defines how good a leader you are. If anything, Trump sank because of corona. Who would have known Zelensky, hadn't he taken the war on the chin?
Moreover, imperfect as they always were, everything gets exposed about the leaders in the current CCTVed era, so many veils hitherto wrapping them around are off for all to see.
I won't be revealing a secret that many dislike US primarily money motivated approach, but although an adept of multipolar world, frankly I don't see a better alternative. russia and china are definitely not it. Europe could be, but it has to shed flaccidness and restore adequateness to the rest of the world
Papaphilly, the 20thC was the American century. I think the 21stC will belong to the global South - China, India and others. Goldman Sachs forecast that by 2050 these BRICS economies will dominate the global economy. Also, what we think of as global positions are increasingly becoming just Western positions, eg arming Ukraine. They're not listening to us like they used to because they no longer need to.
J, you could be right about the media barons (and others). As I don't know anyone within the elite, I concede it's possible that it's not them but simply their values that have changed.
Ian, you're right that the economic landscape changed in the 80s, with Thatcher and Reagan, but these leaders were still socially conservative. In the 90s, the Blairs and Clintons took the laissez-faire economic experiment to an even more extreme level, while introducing 'progressive' social policies into the equation. As I've said before, this 'progressive' ideology has no real substance to it and is just a smokescreen designed to deflect attention from extremely cruel right-wing economic policies, which now seem to be accepted as the norm across the political spectrum.
Finally, if anyone in the UK thinks politicians hold real power, ask yourself how a Conservative government with an 80-odd seat majority has been unable to implement any conservative policies. They've been forced into u-turn after u-turn because their hands are tied by the people who really hold the power.
J, you could be right about the media barons (and others). As I don't know anyone within the elite, I concede it's possible that it's not them but simply their values that have changed.
Ian, you're right that the economic landscape changed in the 80s, with Thatcher and Reagan, but these leaders were still socially conservative. In the 90s, the Blairs and Clintons took the laissez-faire economic experiment to an even more extreme level, while introducing 'progressive' social policies into the equation. As I've said before, this 'progressive' ideology has no real substance to it and is just a smokescreen designed to deflect attention from extremely cruel right-wing economic policies, which now seem to be accepted as the norm across the political spectrum.
Finally, if anyone in the UK thinks politicians hold real power, ask yourself how a Conservative government with an 80-odd seat majority has been unable to implement any conservative policies. They've been forced into u-turn after u-turn because their hands are tied by the people who really hold the power.
Let developing countries develop! Sometimes, more developed, less violent work. So what if Japan overtook UK and France at some stage? No big deal. We should worry not to deteriorate ourselves and strive to be self sustainable just in case we don’t want to appease different dictators
One current problem is most cannot be self-sustainable. Too many countries have sold out their economies to the big money-men, with the net result the world is hopelessly tangled economically. The Western economies, at least, are now slowly drifting towards the Corporate governance model predicted by J K Galbraith. (In fairness, he had lots of models and one joke waas that if there were twelve possible economic models, Galbraith supported all fifteen.) The problem is once that happens governments do not have the freedom to act that they once had. A major industry in a small country can be shut down simply because it is more convenient for the master to make its money elsewhere.
Beau wrote: "...it's possible that it's not them but simply their values that have changed."You think so?
Fair Warning: The link below will give you a deep seated hatred of your own government.
(view spoiler)
I don't remember the story (the link is several years old) but headlines like that don't surprise me, J.
Got to be careful who you accuse of such crimes, though, because we had a case of a fantasist throwing similar accusations at politicians and senior figures before, before ending up discredited and in jail.
Got to be careful who you accuse of such crimes, though, because we had a case of a fantasist throwing similar accusations at politicians and senior figures before, before ending up discredited and in jail.
But what happened next? One would expect heads to roll and both a police and media investigation.
I'm not dismissing the story (criminals and incompetents are found in all walks of life), but I'm wary of buying into some of these establishment paedo cover ups. Yes, there was BBC/ Saville but we've also seen some hoaxes.
Similar situ with some of the Biden stories. If you throw that sort of mud at people, you've got to be certain. Unless the evidence is cast iron, I'd rather attack politicians on policy.
I'm not dismissing the story (criminals and incompetents are found in all walks of life), but I'm wary of buying into some of these establishment paedo cover ups. Yes, there was BBC/ Saville but we've also seen some hoaxes.
Similar situ with some of the Biden stories. If you throw that sort of mud at people, you've got to be certain. Unless the evidence is cast iron, I'd rather attack politicians on policy.
Beau wrote: "But what happened next? One would expect heads to roll and both a police and media investigation.I'm not dismissing the story (criminals and incompetents are found in all walks of life), but I'm ..."
Enjoy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westm...
TL;DR: There's no evidence. Of course that is now that the evidence is missing. And Epstein hanged himself. We would show you the video but the camera was broken.
Absolutely. These situations stink. But then you go down the conspiracy route I felt with the response to covid and you're always left with the question - what are you going to do about it?
The problem with a lot of the anti-government conspiracy guys, like Qanon, is they'll stir up a situation but they don't propose actually doing anything about it, other than retreating into the wilderness with a gun. One holds up an alternative politician or party, and they'll shoot them down in flames too.
I want to preserve but change society - not radically, just sensibly. To do that, you've got to have an element of trust in the system, even if it occasionally lets you down. Politicians don't have to be bad. The state doesn't have to be bad. You just have to keep fighting to make them/ it better.
The problem with a lot of the anti-government conspiracy guys, like Qanon, is they'll stir up a situation but they don't propose actually doing anything about it, other than retreating into the wilderness with a gun. One holds up an alternative politician or party, and they'll shoot them down in flames too.
I want to preserve but change society - not radically, just sensibly. To do that, you've got to have an element of trust in the system, even if it occasionally lets you down. Politicians don't have to be bad. The state doesn't have to be bad. You just have to keep fighting to make them/ it better.
I've eaten fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil so I cannot return to Eden. I must dwell in the land of Nod, listening to the ghosts of Nikolai Gogol, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and George Santayana.
That seems a fairly accurate statement although it misses some points. I don't think the EU can continue paying the agricultural subsidies to Europe as it is, let alone an expanded EU. Previously, the bulk of the money came from Germany, France and Britain, plus useful contributions from the Benelux, however, France and the Benelux were initially the big beneficiaries of EU largesse. Now Britain has gone, and German heavy industry is in trouble due to energy costs.Should be interesting to see how that vote goes.
May raise a glass or two for Keir tomorrow if he shows decent results.. Not sure many have high hopes, but a change seems needed. On a personal note, hope Britain will remain strongly on Israeli and Ukrainian side.
I suspect Starmer's main job, if he wants to be re-elected next time, is to fix the economy and things like the NHS. The first is going to need to avoid printing money and the second is to spend more, and spend it more efficiently. Good luck with getting both right.
So, Starmer's government must raise taxes.
Ian, surely Starmer can't print more money? We printed it all responding to covid.
Like J said, unless we're going to have another period of austerity, taxes are going up.
Labour aren't going to put them up for millionaire, London-based lawyers, ie themselves, so who are they going to put them up for?
Us.
Like J said, unless we're going to have another period of austerity, taxes are going up.
Labour aren't going to put them up for millionaire, London-based lawyers, ie themselves, so who are they going to put them up for?
Us.
Indeed, taxes must rise. The algternative is to try to cut unnecessary spending, which is the strategy our government is currently following. They are firing very large numbers of public servants, What the effect of this will be remains unknown
Beau wrote: "Ian, surely Starmer can't print more money? We printed it all responding to covid. Like J said, unless we're going to have another period of austerity, taxes are going up.
Labour aren't going t..."
Wonder how long they last then.
I believe they have five years, and what happens in the first two years will probably be forgotten unless it is dire.
We shall have to wait and see what the new Minister of Finance has to say - copious quantities of missiles or a working NHS for the working class?
Who said Britain is less glorious than before? All looks good: https://youtu.be/UqH2kPv93yA?si=RT5NT...
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/deputy...
This period of domestic unrest seems a bad time for British politicians to be partying on the Continent. And this might be considered conduct unbecoming of the British equivalent of the US Vice President. Maybe I'm being an uncouth American.Perhaps one of our British members could weigh in on her vacation.
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
Thirty Years from Now (other topics)Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nikolai Gogol (other topics)Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (other topics)
George Santayana (other topics)
Hitler focused a lot on technology. When Germany fell, there were a very large number of skilled people trained in engineering, chemical engineering, etc, and those people came from all society. The British class system held back a lot of potential growth. Hitler had also insisted that banks support good ideas (simply being obstructive led to the attention of a certain R. Heydrich, and nobody on their right mind wanted to argue with him), and so after the war the money men in Frankfurt knew how to evaluate projects. They know what it took to make them work. The Boards of German companies had some members who were technologically highly competent so they also could recognize a good idea, and they were prepared to invest in the company.
Unfortunately, British management tended to be short of technological value. It is also true that British politicians, once they entered the nationalization stage, were even less competent at managing companies. All you have to do is to look at what happened to the British coal and steel industries.