Live data from Hacker News

Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

theguardian.com

91–100 of 115 posts

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason China dropped out of super power status was tremendous sabotage/criminality by the top 5 economies of the world. There rise is not a fluke, this is an inevitability of the planet we live on, India is next and it will outperform China by the end of this century (like it did in the past, pre-British invasion). General ignorance of world history in the West will make this transition harder than it needs…

The biggest saboteur of the Chinese economy was Mao. If you're going to pin this on the west, then pin it on Rousseau, not (say) Adam Smith.

[deleted]

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason China dropped out of super power status was tremendous sabotage/criminality by the top 5 economies of the world. There rise is not a fluke, this is an inevitability of the planet we live on, India is next and it will outperform China by the end of this century (like it did in the past, pre-British invasion). General ignorance of world history in the West will make this transition harder than it needs…

Bit more perspective. At the end of 1800’s and start of 1900’s China was still almost feudal agrarian society that didn’t modernise due to internal reasons. Neighbouring Japan had their Meiji restoration that made it a powerful modern country, that happily joined others in bashing China. So at that point China was already decades behind Japan. After this came the Chinese civil war between Kuomingtang and the Communis…

>Bit more perspective. At the end of 1800’s and start of 1900’s China was still almost feudal agrarian society

Starting in the 20th century? Skipping the first 100 years of Western criminality in China is like talking about the Titanic sinking and ignoring the iceberg it hit.

Western powers collapsed Chinese/Indian/African trade routes. An industrial revolution is great, but it works even better if you murder/colonize/enslave all the competition.

Western powers engaged in industrial espionage and stole trade secrets (Ex. Notice the countries with tea industries (the most consumed beverage on the planet)? Almost all didn't exist before this UK crime in the 1800s). In fact Chinese leadership even offered tons of free tea (one of the most valuable commodities at the time) to the UK if they could just stop producing poison (opium) around the world. The UK ended up stealing tea production secrets from China instead of accepting this offer.

Western power's "opium as a way to avoid trade deficits" policy not only led to countless murders and abuses but also led to 30% of the under 25 population being addicted to opium in China. Even worse, when this turned into an epidemic, Christian missionaries then started giving opium addicts morphine and promoting it as a cure (not a doctor but quite sure that is adding gas to a fire).

Western powers (primarily US) gave the Japanese authorization to expand West into Asia in 1905, after all the drugging they did for the better part of a century (Teddy Roosevelt was a douchebag and his wealth was mostly inherited drug money, unpopular historical fact). If you don't know why Pearl Harbor happened, it is because we reneged on this secret treaty with Japan and assisted China in the 2nd Sino-Japanese war.

The problem with popularized historical narratives (very true in the US especially) is they can be manipulated and mischaracterized for propagandizing effect. Economic history, on the other hand, cannot be played with the same way and what originally was characterized as exceptionalism now we can see is just criminality on an unprecedented scale. We can track most of the opium money, domestic and international trade flows, and economic outcomes of these countries during this period more accurately and thoroughly than using any other set of data points, like political speeches/rhetoric etc...

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#93
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not tax the merely rich too? I'm probably going to be one of them in a few years. I want to pay more tax to help benefit the society that let me get to where I'm going, but I absolutely want everyone else in my position to pay too. Anyway, I agree with your idea about the south east. As the article points out, Thatcher's policies focused on the south east and ignored the "North" (part of the problem being no one…

I want to pay more tax to help benefit the society that let me get to where I'm going Well, you can do that anytime you like. Just make a donation to your local hospital, they’ll be more than happy to accept it.

Like the parent, I'm also in favour of proper taxation. And as they said, it needs to be a policy. Nobody is striving to place themselves alone in disadvantaged position, as you surely understand. The rhetoric of it being possible to donate one's money is utterly unhelpful.

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#94
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of the problem is that so much of the problem-causing wealth sloshing around the country is from overseas, and often from questionably lawless petro-states like Russia and Saudi Arabia. The most basic start would be to have a proper non-capped property tax. Let's copy socialist New Jersey and charge people 1.89% of their property value a year.

How does that 1.89% work with mortgages? Do I pay that tax on the amount I have currently returned to the bank or on the full property?

I can't speak for the American system, but as I would propose for the UK it would work like council tax, assessed on the value that you own - which is the full value of the property. We kind of gave up on tax subsidies for mortgage borrowers with MIRAS.

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#95
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not tax the merely rich too? I'm probably going to be one of them in a few years. I want to pay more tax to help benefit the society that let me get to where I'm going, but I absolutely want everyone else in my position to pay too. Anyway, I agree with your idea about the south east. As the article points out, Thatcher's policies focused on the south east and ignored the "North" (part of the problem being no one…

I want to pay more tax to help benefit the society that let me get to where I'm going Well, you can do that anytime you like. Just make a donation to your local hospital, they’ll be more than happy to accept it.

I specifically said I want to pay more as long as everyone else in my position also pays more. I also don't want hospitals to have to rely on altruism, they should rely on tax.

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#96
post #17

All of the main parties in the UK keep skirting around the start of the solution to "rebalancing" the economy: massively increased taxes on the rich to pay for the required investment. This is not a new idea; low taxes for the wealthy are a relatively modern phenomenon yet the social mobility gap has been getting wider. There is surely enough support for it among a properly informed plebiscite, but they are never giv…

"Despite Joseph's assertions, the middle-aged engineers who were laid off didn't go away and become software engineers – they largely landed up in worse jobs or on the scrapheap." Reminds me of something a popular 2020 candidate says regularly about retraining failures as automation arrives to suck up jobs. UK might need a Yang like $1000 pound/month citizen's dividend.

These minimum guaranteed income ideas are really interesting to me. It would remove a lot of the ritual humiliation we put benefit claimants through when they are desperate and often feeling worthless before we push them to sell themselves into a job. Not to mention the reduction in the cost to administrate the welfare system. Some might choose to use their income to take a stress break from work or write a novel or paint something; there may be untold benefits to such a system to society.

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#97
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the biggest reason. The pound has been over-valued for entire generation, making hard to export. The second biggest problem - my opinion - is the class / education system in the UK suppressed the possibility of the type of talent you need in upper and middle management to enable companies to scale. You need professionals that worked their way up on the basis of merit and ability and are used to self-learning…

It's not always easy in the US, either. Michael Dell famously got his start by selling PCs out of his dorm room at the University of Texas. As could be expected, as his business gained momentum his grades took a dive, and eventually he dropped out. Later, when he realized he had a real business on his hands, he tried to go back and take some additional business courses, and the university told him to get lost. Ultima…

I don't get it. Either they didn't have enough space in the classes or his grades weren't good enough that they thought he would do well in the classes. Should the business school give preference to applicants who say they have a real business in their hands?

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason China dropped out of super power status was tremendous sabotage/criminality by the top 5 economies of the world. There rise is not a fluke, this is an inevitability of the planet we live on, India is next and it will outperform China by the end of this century (like it did in the past, pre-British invasion). General ignorance of world history in the West will make this transition harder than it needs…

The biggest saboteur of the Chinese economy was Mao. If you're going to pin this on the west, then pin it on Rousseau, not (say) Adam Smith.

The problems with the Chinese economy did not begin in the 1950s, this is quite a misunderstanding of history.

To fully understand China's economic path, you would at least need to study the economic terrain/decisions/outcomes starting in the 1750s-1800s.

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#99
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Largely you are correct. It works like this. If you are a net exporter, you are essentially giving away your own output to a foreign nation in exchange for bits of paper. The reason you can't spend that paper is that it would destroy your exports (your own currency would go sky high as the system tried to eliminate the imbalance) and you'd have to find something else for the people working in exports to do, or you'd…

Does anyone know where petrodollars fit in this picture? Do they give the US a particular economic advantage?

If the US priced oil in gold, it would hurt the US economy in a big way, you are correct. This is part of the reason Saddam and Gaddafi were put in the ground, they wanted to do just that.

Not only does the US get to print the currency that oil is traded in willy-nilly. US also gets to export the resulting inflation (from excessive printing) to the rest of the world.

Re: Why doesn't Britain make things any more? (2011)

#100
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not always easy in the US, either. Michael Dell famously got his start by selling PCs out of his dorm room at the University of Texas. As could be expected, as his business gained momentum his grades took a dive, and eventually he dropped out. Later, when he realized he had a real business on his hands, he tried to go back and take some additional business courses, and the university told him to get lost. Ultima…

I don't get it. Either they didn't have enough space in the classes or his grades weren't good enough that they thought he would do well in the classes. Should the business school give preference to applicants who say they have a real business in their hands?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN