Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Here's your trophy, Sir. Indeed China is irrelevant, you are so right!
Thank you. I'd like to thank my comrades, mother and all those who believed in me all these years ...
How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
521–530 of 531 posts
Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the most powerful country in the world by far is the United States, and other than China, other Western countries that have followed this "myopia". > rare earths Rare earths are not a manufacturing product, but a natural resource. That's not an applicable example here. Also, China is more dependent on the rest of the world than vice-versa; China has power, but certainly hasn't brought anyone to their knees…
The reason your original post was downvoted was because the events of the last few years have so thoroughly damaged your neoliberal ideas and of course this follow up just confirms how poorly you are informed.
If I understand you, you have no argument but you feel threatened by what I say ?
Generally we don't talk about up/downvoting on HN, but it's especially odd when someone else talks about it.
Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#523Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason your original post was downvoted was because the events of the last few years have so thoroughly damaged your neoliberal ideas and of course this follow up just confirms how poorly you are informed.
If I understand you, you have no argument but you feel threatened by what I say ? Generally we don't talk about up/downvoting on HN, but it's especially odd when someone else talks about it.
I have plenty of arguments but have learned arguing to be a complete waste of time. Neoliberals are experts at ignoring/dismissing real life evidence to maintain their thought bubbles.
The point of my post was what it says, express why your thinking is no longer popular, even though it was main stream just a short while ago.
Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aside from you apparently replying to some other comment than mine: Russia honors no treaties or alliances except when it's convenient.
> Russia honors no treaties or alliances except when it's convenient. Russia has a strong historical track record of honoring its treaties and commitments with India and many other Asian nations. Also, one could point at the US and apply your statement more accurately.
That's the convenient part. There is no shared border or waters; there is no conflicting interests to make a compromise over on the paper. They are not in a military alliance. There isn't really anything to uphold. And the pivot to India started only with Sino-Soviet split.
Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#525Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should take a look at the price of food after Russia launched their full scale invasion in Ukraine. A significant increase, 15% at its peak and lowering thereafter to about 5%. Still, it is above pandemic levels. You rise food prices and there's a domino effect on the economy, everything else also increases in price. It is important the EU is able to produce its own food at acceptable prices.
if food security is important then the EU should pay for cost-effectiveness, economic sustainability, ecological resilience, storage capacity, and so on. AFAIK right now it pays the same for a huge unproductive monoculture of non-edible corn (ie. for bioethanol) as it pays for wheat. (though there's finally talk about some changes to CAP, mostly to stop paying already rich big farms.) food prices are pretty volatile…
Hungary is facing a stagnant economy, with poorly targetted subsidies and overall high corruption. Inflation was already high since 2019 compared to other OECD countries with similar GDP per capita (checked Estonia, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia). They have also continued to engage with Russia economically despite sanctions (even outside the energy sector) leading to sometimes having exemptions or attempting to use that as leverage against EU policies. All of this has further destabilized their economy, given neighbours will hesitate in trade.
Hungary is the worst example you could pick from the EU.
Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#526Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, neoliberal bullshit only works out the long term in a political fantasy world.
The impression is that you must know nothing about the merits and this is all you have - name-calling, swearing, condescension. But most of that is unnecessary and definitely inappropriate to HN: What makes you think you can treat people this way? Because they have economic ideas you don't like - and, it seems, don't understand?
I don’t think I insulted anyone, I said neoliberal ideas are bullshit. Because they’re demonstrably so. In the UK, Thatcherism resulted in terrible decision after terrible decision, and we must all live with the consequences.
Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#527Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Who are you to decide these priorities for other people? A democratically elected, competent government I would imagine.
So it's up to them to decide whether they want to "be able to defend [themselves], without reliance on allies, as a national priority", ain't it?
Except for most of Europe know it doesn’t stop there.
Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#528This article radically downplays the role that unions had in killing the UK shipbuilding industry. While it's true that shipbuilders were reluctant to introduce new technologies and techniques due to capital requirements, the much bigger reason they did not was the impediment put up by unions. Yes, capital expenditure is painful in a cyclical industry, but in previous eras of shipbuilding, companies did invest in mod…
Enjoy your two days off this week. Glad you safely made it this far.
From a Reddit post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/comments/1bbvvxb/comme...
You will often hear historians talk about working hours. They explain how Trade Unions and Socialist campaigners brought about a much reduced work day. That happened mostly over the 19th century and the 20th century. This is true, but I think the presentations of it tend to be myopic.
In the early 19th century across the whole world people were very poor by modern standards. Due to the Industrial Revolution that changed and in Europe wages increased significantly. In the UK wages in 1900 were more than twice what they had been in 1800. That's in real terms, adjusted for inflation.
Some workers campaigned for shorter working hours because they could afford it. Of course, if working hours are lower then total wages are too. Everyone knew this. By the end of the 19th century wages had risen enough that many workers were prepared to sacrifice lower total wages for more leisure time. The labour organizations would never have successfully talked their members into these campaigns unless those members were in this situation. As growth continued in the 20th century and spread to other countries there were more and more people willing to sacrifice some wage for more free time.
Suppose that there had been a law in, say, 1770 which forced people to work less than 35 hours per day. In that case many people would probably have flouted the law because their incomes were so low that they considered more work necessary to buy things. Similarly, if people find the standard working week too long then they can search out employers who offer part-time work which covers a shorter part of the week.
It's worth mentioning that in a sense, employers never control the amount of time worked. Employment contracts may specify an amount of working time, but people can leave employment. It has always been possible to work for a few years, then quit your job and enjoy some leisure time. Then take up another job. Economists call changes to the number of hours worked over the short-run changes to the intensive margin. The changes to the number of hours worked over the long-run are changes to the extensive margin - changes that come about from the decision to work or not. Of course, this doesn't mean that changes to the intensive margin are irrelevant. When the labour campaigners succeeded in bringing down weekly working hours they really did change things for many workers. Quitting jobs and restarting is inconvenient and risky in times of high unemployment. Of course, some people don't have the willpower to save up for long periods of time either. However, it's also true that changes to the length of the full-time working week probably have much less effect on total working hours than people think. For example, people will tell you that the standard working week in the US is 40 hours. In a sense this is true for full-time employees. Despite that though, working hours have continued to fall from the 1950s to the present day. This is partially because of part-time work, but also because of people taking time off by quitting.
Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#529Re: How the UK lost its shipbuilding industry
#530[flagged]