Would Britain still be an industrial nation if it wasn't for her?
Very likely.
No.
The socialists spent more time striking than working.
>>440871
>The socialists spent more time striking than working
That didn't help but it was hardly the main problem.
>>440863
They aren't anymore?
>>440863
>>440867
>>440925
No. After world war 2, the rest of the world was a shattered hulk of what it was. Only America and the commonwealth escaped unscathed and so could literally not produce fast enough to fill demand, leading to the golden age of capitalism. In the late seventies and eighties, the world had sufficiently recovered to be competition once more. This led to de industrialization as we were forced to compete with the lean and hungry hordes of SE Asia and Latin America.
>>440939
Brits barely produce anything these days, instead they're completely dependent on their financial sector. Take away the money juggling scamster of London and the whole country would be utterly fucked.
>>440871
that's a mighty big claim friendo hope you have a source to back it up
>>440863
>implying the UK would be better off as an industrial nation
>>440957
mostly true, but the UK was very heavily effected by the war. Nationalising the major industries was so we could pay for the damage caused by the blitz
>>440957
Germany faced the same challenges during 80s and managed to retain a lot of its industry.
It's down to policy, same reason the US became less industrialized during that period.
>wanting to be an industrial nation
>wanting to be Vietnam, China or Bangladesh
Deindustrialisation is a natural part of the development process.
>>441167
>Deindustrialisation is a natural part of the development process.
Development into what?
>>440960
Welsh coal miner detected
>>441175
A service-based economy.
>>441183
Do you want to supply some citations for that long bow you've just drawn? I'm really looking for multiple review articles or a "seminal" text. And in more than just "economics" pop books. You'll need some industrial sociology and history of work.
>>441183
Sure, and when shit hits the fan the economy has nowhere to turn to. Besides, you really don't want to offshore strategic industry sectors.
>>441188
No.
>>441196
>when shit hits the fan the economy has nowhere to turn to
How so? And why would it be different with an industrial economy?
>you really don't want to offshore strategic industry sectors.
Yes, I do. Why not?
>>441167
>wanting to be a nation of bankster leeches who don't contribute anything to world production
It's going to come crashing down eventually, m8
>>441198
Nice. As you're unwilling to source large speculative claims this is who you are
YOU ARE A CUNT.
>>441204
I really don't have the time or energy to explain the importance of trade balance. Google it or take an economics class.
>>441207
>don't contribute anything to world production
That is like saying that entrepreneurs and factory owners don't contribute anything to the economy. They are the ones investing, taking risks, employing and indirectly producing goods.
>>441209
No need for name-calling,
>>441230
There is every need for name calling with people who break the basic courtesies of disciplinary communication. They are cunts.
>>441223
Current account deficits are not exactly a problem.
>>441236
I didn't brake anything or I insult anyone. You did.
>>441244
You were asked to adequately source large and extraordinary claims. You refused to. You are a cunt.
>>441239
Not an immediate problem as long as you have access to credit. In the long run this will eventually dry up when creditors lose their patience.
>>441236
You don't necessarily need citations to figure that one out. What happens when a country builds a sophisticated business infrastructure internally while being able to find cheap labor abroad? They move much of the industrial jobs to those cheap labor areas while building up a supply of educated workers who focus on management and strategy - a.k.a a service economy.
>>441246
Logic is my source.
Yes.
>>441254
This sounds like a large number of empirical claims within a theoretical perspective, none of which are demonstrated; and, especially not the teleology in the claim.
This is PRECISELY the kind of thing which would be incredibly interesting if true, and thus in disciplinary practice we require VERY GOOD PROOFS FOR.
>>441258
>Austrian
>>>/biz/
>>441252
When has that ever happened? The US has a massive current account deficit. No problems so far. American companies based in China make products for american costumers. Both the US and China get wealthier.
>>441272
>When has that ever happened?
A fuckton of times though I wasn't talking specifically about the US but let's take that example. Let's assume the country is never going to run out of credit, what happens when the countries you rely on for manufacturing decide to make the same switch to services?
>>441268
>Anything but Austrian
>>>/shit/
>>441279
Companies will jump to another country that offers reduced costs.
>>441285
Still can't prove me wrong.
>>441286
That's eventually going to dry up, it's a dirty job that nobody wants to do and every single country has its own fantasy that they can do away with manufacturing. What then?
>>441227
inventors, researchers and workers contribute to the economy. "managers" and "investors" are leeches that can be done without.
>>441291
That's because you can't be proved wrong. Austrians make no falsifiable claims because they don't reference external reality.
>>441292
Companies will keep on jumping everytime a country offers reduced costs, e.g. during a recession. That is one if the reasons why free trade and unrestricted movement of capital is so important.
>>441301
>t. commie
>>441301
ebin
>>441305
No mate. Commies who use a value form analysis know that managers both produce value and reduce costs while increasing the absolute and relative surplus extracted, while investors (Capital III) discipline low rate of profit producers.
Have you even read Capital? Marxists don't make these spurious judgements about "contribution." They seek to ABOLISH the economy.
>>441302
You also haven't offered a single piece of evidence to back up your point of view
>>441308
>t. lunatic
>>441313
Stop doing the t. thing you absolute cunt.
>>441316
Make me.
>>441316
someones not up to date on Finnish culture.
>>441309
>You also haven't offered a single piece of evidence to back up your point of view
Popper on Falsification.
Mises on Austrian methodology.
The Sticky on what this board is.
The rest is straight forward argument.
>>441325
I've been wondering where that shit came from, figures
>>441316
t. upset dolan
>>441326
>Popper
Trying hard not to ad hominem
>Mises on Austrian methodology
So what? Praxeology? What's the problem with it?
>Sticky
That has nothing to do with my point.
>>441355
Well, chap, as I have REPEATEDLY stated:
The humanities (Sticky) require empirical test outside of analytical philosophy. Empirical test involves reflection on the external world (Popper, Hume). Praxeology explicitly denies reflection on the external world (Mises). Therefore you should take your Austrian shit to another board. Try >>>/biz/
>>441365
That is just your opinion. Still, another poster has explicitly explained why deindustrialisation leads to a service-based economy. Is he wrong?
>>442463
This is from fucking IMF
https://www.imf.org/EXTERNAL/PUBS/FT/ISSUES10/INDEX.HTM
>>442525
>This is from fucking IMF
I see you've not done a history degree.
Its an edit down for a general readership of a single working paper, produced in a non-peer reviewed mode. This is normally called "grey" literature in academic circles and is considered sub-low grade for theory formation and reporting research, and difficult to use as an archival source.
Given that there are no citations, even by name reference, let's look at their material (produced for the IMF, a partisan organisation).
They're attempting to counter a believed truism in economic history since 1970, on trade, by presenting an alternative.
And their evidence is a single hypothetical regression.
>The analysis on which this paper is based assumes that between 1970 and 1994 real output in manufacturing and services remained constant, but that productivity in each sector grew at the rate actually observed in the advanced economies (productivity in manufacturing, of course, growing faster). This simulation exercise shows…
>The most important finding of this analysis remains the conclusion that differences in relative productivity growth have been by far the most significant factor and account for more than 60 percent of the fall in the share of manufacturing employment within the industrial world as a whole.
Sounds like variable picking to me.
Do you see why I asked for seminal monographs from multiple disciplines now?
>>440863
No, she wiped away the last remnants of the industrial age which was horrifically unproductive and a burden to the state since everything valuable had gone overseas to places like China.
>>442658
>I see you have not done a history degree
No, I haven't. I've majored in economics, which gives me a lot more authority to talk about subjects related to it and because I value having a job.
Honestly, I don't I don't give a shit if my source does not follow your precise standards. It is a paper produced by one of the most important international organisations in the world and arguably the biggest authority in economics. It explicitly states that deindustralisation is part of a nation's development process and I still can't see you providing any sources saying the contrary.
>>440863
Britain just didn't have the scientific or technical base to transition into high-tech manufacturing like America, Germany or Japan.
>>442838
>Honestly, I don't I don't give a shit if my source does not follow your precise standards.
You don't care about epistemological validity or empirical fact? Ladies and gentlemen: the economist.
>cheap tu quoque
I'm not trying to disprove your statement, I'm asking you to demonstrate it to the standards of the…Humanities. If you'd like to admit that either you're incapable of providing such proof, or as you seem to have just done that you reject such standards of proof, then there is a board set aside for your discipline >>>/biz/. Around here, we prefer political economy.
>>442894
Who are you to say what kind of economics this board prefers? I have been here from the very first day it was created and always had a nice discussion with posters with different points of view. You are trying to find reasons to invalidate my sources instead of refuting the central point of my argument.
>>442943
>Who are you to say what kind of economics
Political economy isn't a form of "economics." You've done a pretty poor degree when you can't elucidate what makes your discipline distinct from all the others, and identify what doesn't belong in your discipline.
>You are trying to find reasons to invalidate my sources
Yes! I am. This is EXACTLY how the humanities work, and historiography IN PARTICULAR.
If I can show that the evidence you use is not worth attending to, we don't need to determine if your argument has validity. Should angels exist, then it might be worth determining n= for n being the number capable of simultaneous dancing on the head of a pin. "Should."
>>442955
It is a form of what we nowadays call economics. Although not a school of thought nor a theory, it is studied inside the field of "economics". As such, you can consider it to be one of its many branches.
About your second point, I am sorry if I am not discussing my field exactly the way you, probably a historian, expects me to. Provided you have no arguments yourself to debate my points, there is no reason to continue discussing the subject.
>>443032
>It is a form of what we nowadays call economics.
Not at all. Political economy rejected the marginalist's reaction to utilitarianism's abject failure to ascribe value to utility and persevered with systems analysis, Marxian LTV, I/O analyses.
>Specious fucking taxonomy.
By the same reasoning I can taxonomise you a duck, it doesn't change anything.
Regarding your abject failure to support the bases of your theoretical position, and your similar failure to supply evidence that the object of your theory exists at all, let alone operates in the manner provided, except for one biased as fuck grey-text where they did a single hypothetical regression and their assumptions were proved to have been their assumptions, I agree: further discussion with you is not worth while except for the value in publicly shaming you.
>>>/biz/
>>442943
not him, but if you have invalid sources upon which your basing your argument and using your evidence, then that is a red flag senpai
>>443059
I honestly believe that your field was incapable of giving you the necessary information to discuss anything related to economics. Therefore, the only thing you can hold on onto during a debate is what you have learned about citations and sources, which have no practical applicability. I also bet you were dying to be in a situation where you would finally be given the chance to use what you spent five years learning about. Unfortunately, this one is not quite it.
>>443078
It is completely valid from an economist's point of view. It just not seems to be up to the magical standards of someone who has majored in history.
>>440966
This desu. Why wouldnt you want to be a services and financial economy?
>>441236
>Well know fact that economies evolve from commodity extraction and production, to manufacturing, to service and finance as they develop.
>Do you want to supply some citations for that long bow you've just drawn? I'm really looking for multiple review articles or a "seminal" text. And in more than just "economics" pop books. You'll need some industrial sociology and history of work.
>>443097
>>443087
Don't make claims outside your discipline then. One fanciful regression study has shown that the assumptions are the conclusions. Nice job.
>>443121
Have you read any concrete histories of the development of the commodity form? It proceeded from manufacture, back through some extractive industries, a strong detour into agriculture, always financialising, took a solid detour through enslavement and the first "factory" system (Federici, Caliban and the Witch)…
The first green text of yours is a blatant lie for anyone who has read the least about the development of the commodity form in actual human social relations.
FYAD
>>440863
Britain is an industrial nation. The industrial sector expanded under thatcher. Large industries like steel declined but smaller high tech companies expanded, it grew in aggregate.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/
>>443134
Do you want to put a label on your fucking Y axis and explain the index method?
>>443129
The subject is not outside my discipline. It is outside yours.
>>443129
What on Earth have you been reading if you dont know that economies have evolved from agrarian/extractive, to manufacturing-based thanks to industrialization, to service based in what are known as post-industrial economies?
>>443149
The concrete history of the development of human economic relations is outside of the scope of the historian.
Well done chap.
>>443129
It just stikes me that your constant, almost obsessive, need for specific sources is due to the fact that you are unable to think for yourself.
>>443154
Generally I've been reading monographs centred in archival research that don't impose terms produced from whole cloth, but rather develop terminology and theory through close testing in sources.
The development of an agrarian "economy" post-dated slave manufacturing.
Enclosure and the European factory method coincided in time.
The earliest forms of capitalism are found in purely informational, service and financial economies such as long distance commercial trade, banking or printing.
Your theoretical schema are bunk crystal candy castles in the sky.
>>443158
I was nos not sure about that before, but it now seems to be clear that it is.
No. The energy price drop in the early 1980s made coal completely unprofitable to produce anywhere in the west, particularly in unionized well-paying industries. And of course there's Taiwan and China in the 1990s.
The financialization and tertiarization of western economies would have affected the UK too sooner or later. Thatcher just made it arrive more prepared to that point.
>>443168
I really worry for the teaching in your area. None of the economic historians, accounting historians or historians of business I get on the piss with are as ignorant of economic history as you cunts.
Can someone fill me in on what are the 2/3 anons in the thread arguing over?
>>443184
Possibly because we are not restricted to the history circle-jerk and our higher income doesn't give us the need to prove ourselves.
>>443226
I think he is some kind of marxist actually
>>443226
Make me
>>443144
The graph is from the link provided. The article used these government figures.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/iop/index-of-production/index.html
>Index of Production
>Measures the volume of production at base year prices for the manufacturing, mining and quarrying and energy supply industries. These are seasonally adjusted figures on the index of output of the production industries.
On page 15 of the September 2014 Statistical Bulletin you can see a historical chart comparing manufacturing as a whole with textiles which fits the assertion that although some industries declined, manufacturing increased in aggregate.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_383335.pdf
>>443245
Dude.
>>443241
The exact opposite, actually.
>>443251
That is manufacturing as a proportion, a comparison to other sectors of the economy.
Imagine one person is an electrician and another is a programmer. Both earn $30000 a year, then one year the programmer is promoted and now earns $60000 while the electrician only gets a $1500 pay rise.
Beforehand the proportions were 50/50, now they are 34/66. Does this mean the electrician is earning less?
>>443202
Read the thread and take your own conclusions.
>>440863
Britain isn't industrialized anymore? Did they like revert to the stone age or something?
>>443275
Of course not in individual terms, but this is not how you evaluate national macroeconomic trends.
>>443277
One guy being anal and arrogant and the other being a yuppie douchebag.
>>443183
>The financialization and tertiarization of western economies would have affected the UK too sooner or later. Thatcher just made it arrive more prepared to that point.
I would argue that it was the failure of the UK to keep up with the rest of the industrialized world in technology that led to the collapse of UK manufacturing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-33473694
>>443290
I hope you are not serious.
>>443304
I think personally that Britain was always more disposed towards the financial sector. It definitely had a strong competitive edge during the industrial revolution and the following period, but after all of Europe and North America became industrialized this competitive edge began to wane, which happened already in the early 20th century. The country just didn't feel it as much during the war which obviously was a huge industrial boost (women's emancipation is also a factor).
Remember, mines and factories were closing down in Britain since the 1920 or so, long before Thatcher, while the London City has always been a thing.
>>443362
You better back that up with sources, monographs and shit.
>>443109
More susceptible to shocks and recessions.
>>443362
>the London City has always been a thing.
Yeah. Nah. Certainly not in the 16th and 17th centuries. The run on the money goldsmiths is indicative of the "weakness" of any concept of "The City."
>>443387
Why is that?
>>443404
With the low capitalisation of "services" capital can rapidly start and cease in certain areas. The low levels of labour skill (read: successful restriction on hiring by labourers) mean that capital can leverage this by seeking new proletarians.
Financialisation also presents inherent risks to the extent that it increases the circulation and leverage of financial as opposed to productive capital. (Vol III, Mandel)
Proletarianisation theses pose that the particular commodity is of no interest to capital, and that mechanisation is used as a response to successful class warfare to limit the working day, intensity of work or raise wages. (Grundriesse, Tronti, Bologna, Negri) This can lead to both system instability (Napoleon III), perceived negative life outcomes regardless of actual changes in "useful" consumption (Chartism). From the perspective of the first three generations to undergo proletarianisation and mechanisation, their lives are usually perceived and narrated as ones of repression, terror and listlessness (Hammond & Hammond, Labourers trilogy).
>>442891
But uk was more techniqually advanced up to ww 2 dumbass.
>>443422
The industrial sector (traditionally, nowadays it's different) also has higher degree of unionization. Which may or may not provide stability (it usually promotes centralization).
>>443422
t. commie
>>443441
The "traditional" "industrial" sector didn't have lawful unions, in any meaningful sense of being able to take industrial action to advance collective interest, until the 1870s in the United Kingdom IIRC.
"New Unionism" as opposed to charism, was somewhat encouraged to prevent a replay of chartism. There were also some schematic suggestions in the past of the cultivation of a labour aristocracy, but buy-offs seem to be much more regionalised rather than stratified.
>>443422
What you said makes perfect sense, but only inside a marxist view.
>>443446
That was about as bourgeois a reading of Marx and Marxism as I'm willing to make.
>>443463
By traditional I meant labor-intensive, big shop sort of manufactory, as opposed to IT for example.
>>443476
There's been some fairly good work done on labour versus capital intensiveness in "IT" from the Processed World journal through nick dyer-witheford's cybermarx work. Significantly the largest body of circulating capital flows through labour-intensive production such as Amazon stackers, Indian COBOL coders or menial clerks.
Stop looking at Google or the Sheffield steel plants, start looking at the large bodies of capital in flow.
>>441268
What are you talking about? This trends has been happening for DECADES. An introductory class to human geography or management would probably give you enough sources to prove that this is the direction that a lot of developed countries are headed.
>>443519
And yet in 1960 everyone was talking about manufacturing as the basis of a social-wage near the apex of its importance, and despite a new area of commodification and proletarianisation already having been gestated inside the womb of manufacturing production for war.
Proletarianisation has been happening for CENTURIES and this process isn't commodity specific and doesn't follow the fatuous teleological progress painted above. The actual history of commodification and proletarianisation has followed flows through and across different commodity productions based on the perceived level of opposition sector by sector. Sugar, involving intense manufacturing work, wages, specialisation of production, came long before textile factories. The first changes to textile production involved extensive outwork, at exactly the same time as the world-system developed highly developed financial tools in Holland.
North Italy, prior to this, saw specialised manufactory in the military industrial sector with a wave of financialisation. The first major sector in Germany was publishing, not extractive materials.
China's proto-capitalisms were focused, again, on financialisation and outwork, not extractive or agrarian industry.
>>440863
Only if the China do a state transfer to an another planet.
>>443293
If proportions are not how you evaluate macroeconomic trends then the proportion of national output would also be invalid.
I believe proportions are a good way to observe macroeconomic trends, you have just wrongly interpreted the trend here >>443251
Manufacturing has not declined, it is growing, it has just not grown as fast as other sectors of the economy. You can argue that steel and textiles have declined but manufacturing and industry as a whole has not declined.
>>440863
Gratuitous
>>443303
That is true. I get the impression we might be discussing semantics over what it means to be an "industrial nation" here.
Though if anyone meant that Britain is merely no longer proportionately dominated by industry then there are 2 issues that arise.
1: Manufacturing has not employed more than 40% of the economy since 1840 and after ww1 more people worked in services than manufacturing by a wide margin.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/170-years-of-industry/170-years-of-industrial-changeponent.html
2: It is not a bad thing. If manufacturing did not decline, just lowered as a proportion of the economy, it is not a criticism of Margaret Thatcher.
>>441272
>no problems so far
>hey I slit my wrists and I'm bleeding out pretty heavily
>no problems so far
>>443097
I'm not talking about history, but all academia. If the article you cited hasn't been peer reviewed and accepted by scholars in your field, in this case economics, that is a good indicator that your working outside of accepted standards.
>>440863
She literally sent Britain into eternal irrelevance with her retarded lolbertarian policies
>>443742
Blair did that.
>>443763
Oh yeah, him too
Seriously, why were British PM's so shitty in the last few decades?
>>443435
>But uk was more techniqually advanced up to ww 2 dumbass.
It's not exactly a novel thesis:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23702805?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I mean, how many British high-tech brand names can you name off the top of head?
>>443947
Nice paper.
>>440863
No. What would happen is that the industries would be propped up despite failing, desperately encouraging some form of proto-Blairism early on in order to establish a nation which isn't being destroyed economically.
I'm not even a capitalist, but within our current infrastructure this would be the most likely event. Thatcher just did what needed to be done faster than any other leader would.
>>443742
t. Corbyn
>>441325
Nor do I want to be.
>>443742
>read "literally"
>stopped reading
If you want people to take you seriously, stop talking like a stoned Californian surfer.
