|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 2, 2023 17:51:37 GMT
For goodness sake, stop spreading Tory propaganda. There was nothing wrong with British industry in 1945, it was full of high class gear used for the war effort. The problem was then and has always been the problem in that industrialists put bank accounts too far ahead of country. The UK had an open market in Europe, we failed because we sold inferior products. The likes of steel and the railways were nationalised because they were found wanting when the war broke out. The mindset at the time in terms of wars was that a war was likely around every 25 years. And private investment could not be relied upon to do the job. ALL because industrialists put their Bank accounts way too far ahead of the country's needs. LOL - that load of nonsense takes the biscuit for today.  After 6 years of wartime production and no investment the entire UK industrial sector was clapped out... The Wasting of Britain's Marshall AidThe root cause of this self-destructive British choice lies back in 1945, when Great Britain, as one of the 'Big Three' along with the United States and the Soviet Union, emerged from World War Two with the psychology of a victor but with her economic circumstances more resembling those of a defeated country. Despite the victory over Hitler, Britain was literally bankrupt, and faced the prospect of unbridgeable balance-of-payments deficits for years to come.
Clapped out another few months and we would have had to surrender. You sink lower with every post. Industrialists and entrepreneurs earn their worth by taking advantage of the market and the market in Europe was wide open to them in 1945. The UK had a fantastic time producing cars for Europe, we produced rubbish while the Germans were opening up car factories in other countries producing better cars than the UK. Thus brining to an end the missed fantastic opportunity for British industry. This country was still dependent upon the 'Little Lord Fauntleroy' mindset in 1945, of people who liked large estates where they could build follies. It is a sickness that was and still is with us today, the true British disease. I recall the complaints that the profits were paid out to the investors. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Apr 2, 2023 18:14:13 GMT
You said that once before, you were wrong then. I would certainly agree with see2 that private investment in the UK is short sighted and greedy. Exits of 5 years are very common with investors expecting to make 150% returns in that period. We had many such offers before we found our more long term investment. Post-war private investment wasn't an easy thing to secure, particularly as government, in their lunge to nationalise, were doing so little to make an investment in infrastructure or industry and commerce. They should, like Germany and Japan, have got heavily involved in regenerating Britain which in turn would have encouraged private investment; with rare exception little changed thereafter, whichever goverrnment was in power. Had they done the right thing, sorting management and unions out in the process, we would have emerged as a major industrial and commercial giant....then they could have attended to setting up a national health service and sorting out those national industries that needed sorting out, without nationalising all of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Apr 2, 2023 18:22:57 GMT
LOL - that load of nonsense takes the biscuit for today. After 6 years of wartime production and no investment the entire UK industrial sector was clapped out... The Wasting of Britain's Marshall AidThe root cause of this self-destructive British choice lies back in 1945, when Great Britain, as one of the 'Big Three' along with the United States and the Soviet Union, emerged from World War Two with the psychology of a victor but with her economic circumstances more resembling those of a defeated country. Despite the victory over Hitler, Britain was literally bankrupt, and faced the prospect of unbridgeable balance-of-payments deficits for years to come.
Clapped out another few months and we would have had to surrender. You sink lower with every post. Industrialists and entrepreneurs earn their worth by taking advantage of the market and the market in Europe was wide open to them in 1945. The UK had a fantastic time producing cars for Europe, we produced rubbish while the Germans were opening up car factories in other countries producing better cars than the UK. Thus brining to an end the missed fantastic opportunity for British industry. This country was still dependent upon the 'Little Lord Fauntleroy' mindset in 1945, of people who liked large estates where they could build follies. It is a sickness that was and still is with us today, the true British disease. I recall the complaints that the profits were paid out to the investors. Most of what you claim ignores the Attlee government's lack of properly using Marshall Aid money, including putting the Little Lord Fauntleroys in their place. But then, the Labour Party, as now, has its own share of Fauntleroys, their current leader being on who hasn't a clue about a real jobe and real people. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 18:29:20 GMT
I would certainly agree with see2 that private investment in the UK is short sighted and greedy. Exits of 5 years are very common with investors expecting to make 150% returns in that period. We had many such offers before we found our more long term investment. Post-war private investment wasn't an easy thing to secure, particularly as government, in their lunge to nationalise, were doing so little to make an investment in infrastructure or industry and commerce. They should, like Germany and Japan, have got heavily involved in regenerating Britain which in turn would have encouraged private investment; with rare exception little changed thereafter, whichever goverrnment was in power. Had they done the right thing, sorting management and unions out in the process, we would have emerged as a major industrial and commercial giant....then they could have attended to setting up a national health service and sorting out those national industries that needed sorting out, without nationalising all of them. Are you ready, sit down. brace. I agree totally. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 2, 2023 18:37:59 GMT
I would certainly agree with see2 that private investment in the UK is short sighted and greedy. Exits of 5 years are very common with investors expecting to make 150% returns in that period. We had many such offers before we found our more long term investment. Post-war private investment wasn't an easy thing to secure, particularly as government, in their lunge to nationalise, were doing so little to make an investment in infrastructure or industry and commerce. They should, like Germany and Japan, have got heavily involved in regenerating Britain which in turn would have encouraged private investment; with rare exception little changed thereafter, whichever goverrnment was in power. Had they done the right thing, sorting management and unions out in the process, we would have emerged as a major industrial and commercial giant....then they could have attended to setting up a national health service and sorting out those national industries that needed sorting out, without nationalising all of them. So the private sector dislike Government interference, Thatcher herself said she believed the 'Market should decide'. All I see is the rich saying 'Oh no!, its not our fault, its that nasty government not pampering us'. Nationalised industries: 1 in 10 British people worked in these nationalised industries. Output increased in several industries, for example coal. Working conditions in the coal industry improved as workers benefitted from paid holidays and sickness pay. Railway lines now linked the more remote areas together. Private companies would have seen this as a non-profit making idea and so may have avoided it. More countryside areas were electrified under this new ownership. The Government paid £2700 million in compensation to the previous industries. So what did the industrialists do with this huge bounty of unexpected wealth? They apparently failed to reinvest it in the British economy. It probably felt too good stuck in their Bank accounts, hmm, another new car up their driveway, foreign holidays, a new yacht, a new and better home, or maybe a Folly or two? I guess we will never know. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 18:48:29 GMT
Post-war private investment wasn't an easy thing to secure, particularly as government, in their lunge to nationalise, were doing so little to make an investment in infrastructure or industry and commerce. They should, like Germany and Japan, have got heavily involved in regenerating Britain which in turn would have encouraged private investment; with rare exception little changed thereafter, whichever goverrnment was in power. Had they done the right thing, sorting management and unions out in the process, we would have emerged as a major industrial and commercial giant....then they could have attended to setting up a national health service and sorting out those national industries that needed sorting out, without nationalising all of them. So the private sector dislike Government interference, Thatcher herself said she believed the 'Market should decide'. All I see is the rich saying 'Oh no!, its not our fault, its that nasty government not pampering us'. Nationalised industries: 1 in 10 British people worked in these nationalised industries. Output increased in several industries, for example coal. Working conditions in the coal industry improved as workers benefitted from paid holidays and sickness pay. Railway lines now linked the more remote areas together. Private companies would have seen this as a non-profit making idea and so may have avoided it. More countryside areas were electrified under this new ownership. The Government paid £2700 million in compensation to the previous industries. So what did the industrialists do with this huge bounty of unexpected wealth? They apparently failed to reinvest it in the British economy. It probably felt too good stuck in their Bank accounts, hmm, another new car up their driveway, foreign holidays, a new yacht, a new and better home, or maybe a Folly or two? I guess we will never know. The trouble with the British government is that they can never invest without interfering. New business needs financial support not advice from people who think they know better. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 2, 2023 18:55:39 GMT
Post-war private investment wasn't an easy thing to secure, particularly as government, in their lunge to nationalise, were doing so little to make an investment in infrastructure or industry and commerce. They should, like Germany and Japan, have got heavily involved in regenerating Britain which in turn would have encouraged private investment; with rare exception little changed thereafter, whichever goverrnment was in power. Had they done the right thing, sorting management and unions out in the process, we would have emerged as a major industrial and commercial giant....then they could have attended to setting up a national health service and sorting out those national industries that needed sorting out, without nationalising all of them. So the private sector dislike Government interference, Thatcher herself said she believed the 'Market should decide'. All I see is the rich saying 'Oh no!, its not our fault, its that nasty government not pampering us'. Nationalised industries: 1 in 10 British people worked in these nationalised industries. Output increased in several industries, for example coal. Working conditions in the coal industry improved as workers benefitted from paid holidays and sickness pay. Railway lines now linked the more remote areas together. Private companies would have seen this as a non-profit making idea and so may have avoided it. More countryside areas were electrified under this new ownership. The Government paid £2700 million in compensation to the previous industries. So what did the industrialists do with this huge bounty of unexpected wealth? They apparently failed to reinvest it in the British economy. It probably felt too good stuck in their Bank accounts, hmm, another new car up their driveway, foreign holidays, a new yacht, a new and better home, or maybe a Folly or two? I guess we will never know. In addition to the above. Attlee’s stances on public well-being and government assistance were framed by the hardships of poverty he witnessed as a young politician. Attlee’s government raised the cap on housing loans for the general public, established subsidies for public housing, provided emergency housing for the homeless, and introduced the New Towns Act of 1946, which fostered the development of new towns. Although not all of Attlee’s housing reform goals were fully met, his policies rehabilitated areas affected by the war, constructing one million new homes during 1945-1951. ----- I call that investment in the British economy.
The Attlee government also produced an array of education reforms, including the establishment of new nursery schools, university scholarships, free school meals, free secondary education, free county colleges, and higher wages for teachers. Government spending on education increased by 50%, and Attlee’s education policies became the building blocks for a comprehensive education system. ----- I call that investing in Britain's future. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 2, 2023 19:01:11 GMT
So the private sector dislike Government interference, Thatcher herself said she believed the 'Market should decide'. All I see is the rich saying 'Oh no!, its not our fault, its that nasty government not pampering us'. Nationalised industries: 1 in 10 British people worked in these nationalised industries. Output increased in several industries, for example coal. Working conditions in the coal industry improved as workers benefitted from paid holidays and sickness pay. Railway lines now linked the more remote areas together. Private companies would have seen this as a non-profit making idea and so may have avoided it. More countryside areas were electrified under this new ownership. The Government paid £2700 million in compensation to the previous industries. So what did the industrialists do with this huge bounty of unexpected wealth? They apparently failed to reinvest it in the British economy. It probably felt too good stuck in their Bank accounts, hmm, another new car up their driveway, foreign holidays, a new yacht, a new and better home, or maybe a Folly or two? I guess we will never know. The trouble with the British government is that they can never invest without interfering. New business needs financial support not advice from people who think they know better. I agree, while at the same time pointing out that borrowing is what the Banks are for. While laying down reasonable treatment of the workforce often needs 'interference' by government. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 19:09:42 GMT
The trouble with the British government is that they can never invest without interfering. New business needs financial support not advice from people who think they know better. I agree, while at the same time pointing out that borrowing is what the Banks are for. While laying down reasonable treatment of the workforce often needs 'interference' by government. Well you should know better than most what sharks our banks are, how they treat their personal customers. Well guess what, I don't know a single businessman that trusts their bank. As a new business with all the unexpected bumps and pains you hit along the way to success, you need a government bank, one that sees you as a future asset rather than a quick buck. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 2, 2023 19:17:25 GMT
Clapped out another few months and we would have had to surrender. You sink lower with every post. Industrialists and entrepreneurs earn their worth by taking advantage of the market and the market in Europe was wide open to them in 1945. The UK had a fantastic time producing cars for Europe, we produced rubbish while the Germans were opening up car factories in other countries producing better cars than the UK. Thus brining to an end the missed fantastic opportunity for British industry. This country was still dependent upon the 'Little Lord Fauntleroy' mindset in 1945, of people who liked large estates where they could build follies. It is a sickness that was and still is with us today, the true British disease. I recall the complaints that the profits were paid out to the investors. Most of what you claim ignores the Attlee government's lack of properly using Marshall Aid money, including putting the Little Lord Fauntleroys in their place. But then, the Labour Party, as now, has its own share of Fauntleroys, their current leader being on who hasn't a clue about a real jobe and real people. We won't know what Starmer is about until after his manifesto and a term as PM which may or may not happen. A truth While much of your post is just opinion. As for Attlee, I can't think of anything he did that was not reasonably needed at that time. Just think of the unbelievable horrors of society after decades of Tory governments before WWII. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Apr 2, 2023 19:25:24 GMT
I agree, while at the same time pointing out that borrowing is what the Banks are for. While laying down reasonable treatment of the workforce often needs 'interference' by government. Well you should know better than most what sharks our banks are, how they treat their personal customers. Well guess what, I don't know a single businessman that trusts their bank. As a new business with all the unexpected bumps and pains you hit along the way to success, you need a government bank, one that sees you as a future asset rather than a quick buck. True, and I believe that is what NL tried to set up. I recall talking to an industrialist, Company owner, back in the late 1980s, his main problem was the unreliable interest rates that made it impossible for him to manage long term economic management. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Apr 2, 2023 19:33:31 GMT
Well you should know better than most what sharks our banks are, how they treat their personal customers. Well guess what, I don't know a single businessman that trusts their bank. As a new business with all the unexpected bumps and pains you hit along the way to success, you need a government bank, one that sees you as a future asset rather than a quick buck. True, and I believe that is what NL tried to set up. I recall talking to an industrialist, Company owner, back in the late 1980s, his main problem was the unreliable interest rates that made it impossible for him to manage long term economic management. Unreliable interest rates? They were very reliable in the late 80s, my cash rich company put money into the overnight bank balancing system and earned £15K a year for three years. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 19:35:35 GMT
Well you should know better than most what sharks our banks are, how they treat their personal customers. Well guess what, I don't know a single businessman that trusts their bank. As a new business with all the unexpected bumps and pains you hit along the way to success, you need a government bank, one that sees you as a future asset rather than a quick buck. True, and I believe that is what NL tried to set up. I recall talking to an industrialist, Company owner, back in the late 1980s, his main problem was the unreliable interest rates that made it impossible for him to manage long term economic management. 100%. Running a business under the Tories was a nightmare unless you were already rich. Under new labour interest rates were virtually static which gave you confidence to borrow to expand. Those years certainly set me up, so that when I invented my new concept I had the money I needed to start it. Tories look after the rich, New Labour were about small business. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Apr 2, 2023 19:37:33 GMT
True, and I believe that is what NL tried to set up. I recall talking to an industrialist, Company owner, back in the late 1980s, his main problem was the unreliable interest rates that made it impossible for him to manage long term economic management. Unreliable interest rates? They were very reliable in the late 80s, my cash rich company put money into the overnight bank balancing system and earned £15K a year for three years. Yep, good if you already had money. The Tory slogan should be "Tories, milking the poor to make you richer." |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Apr 2, 2023 19:44:20 GMT
Most of what you claim ignores the Attlee government's lack of properly using Marshall Aid money, including putting the Little Lord Fauntleroys in their place. But then, the Labour Party, as now, has its own share of Fauntleroys, their current leader being on who hasn't a clue about a real jobe and real people. We won't know what Starmer is about until after his manifesto and a term as PM which may or may not happen. A truth While much of your post is just opinion. As for Attlee, I can't think of anything he did that was not reasonably needed at that time. Just think of the unbelievable horrors of society after decades of Tory governments before WWII. Don't be daft. Did you not know Boris, Truss, Trump and Biden were going to be useless before they were elected? He is populist who will say and do anything to get elected... which are not ideal traits for a PM. The Tory implosion is a once in a generation chance to make some real changes, yet all I am seeing is populism and fairytale economics. |
|
