|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 3, 2024 12:26:14 GMT
Manufacturing as a percentage of GDP has fallen from about 30% in the 1960s to under 10% now. I've got a short video here to give you some stats on it.
To summarise, we had a large section of the global market in production, especially steel and the like. During the post war years first there was the rise of Germany, then the rise of Japan and now the rise of China. It is explained in the video that our technology failed to keep up with the new market players. It seems to me the decline set in somewhere around the late 70s and 80s. I remember that time well as I was just finishing my education. I'm sure quite a few here were finishing their education around this time too.
I know the usual bollox in reply to a question like this is, oh it was the government's fault. Well it is easy to blame everything on the government, but this is not really true. The technology comes from people and ideas, like like people like you and I. I think we need to ask why did these people during this time think technology was a waste of time. I was told not to be so interested in it by my teachers at school and eventually this idiocy ended up with me fighting the establishment. Funnily enough even then I recall I did get support from some teachers that the crap we were being taught just wasn't clever enough. It was kind of mickey mouse. I remember an increased emphasis on presentation over substance. Could it really be the Brits thought if we presented the products well then they would sell and hence complicated and difficult tech was unnecessary? It would be great to hear any anecdotal evidence of this time and what was said on the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jan 3, 2024 13:33:59 GMT
The process began in the last quarter of the 19C when 'gentlemen-capitalists' in the City fell out of love with domestic engineering and manufacturing and sought better returns through investing in railways in the Americas, raising beef in the Pampas, farming in Australia and New Zealand, lumber in Canada and oil and minerals across the globe.
Apart from brief re-engagement with industrial matters during times of war the pattern has remained the same ever since.
A look at the constituents of the FTSE, compared to other major stock exchanges around the world, will confirm this thesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jan 3, 2024 14:03:06 GMT
Technology and manufacturing are complementary though not the same thing.
While we do not manufacture much we certainly remain strong in technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 3, 2024 14:23:59 GMT
The process began in the last quarter of the 19C when 'gentlemen-capitalists' in the City fell out of love with domestic engineering and manufacturing and sought better returns through investing in railways in the Americas, raising beef in the Pampas, farming in Australia and New Zealand, lumber in Canada and oil and minerals across the globe. Apart from brief re-engagement with industrial matters during times of war the pattern has remained the same ever since. A look at the constituents of the FTSE, compared to other major stock exchanges around the world, will confirm this thesis. So basically what you are saying is the City controlled the economy through banking and so the money was allocated to investments other than British technology.
During the same period in America, last quarter of the 19c, there were the dual influences of the railways and the fuel, as per two industrialists, Carnegie and Rockefeller. The two industries benefitted from a synergy in that the trains delivered the fuel and the fuel itself benefitted from Rockefeller's investment in the development of the technology needed for refining. It was indeed the case the technology was driving industrial progress in America. It was what investors call low hanging fruit. Before the railways the population could hardly do anything after nightfall, but with fuel they could provide light to work in. Obviously this meant the country as a whole became far more productive.
We also had far more banks during this time. What happened to the independent banks? It seems to me we had a case of top-down, single point of failure scenario.
|
|
