Are we heading towards a third world Britain ?

Dgh

Westerberg wrote:

Tories recognise that free enterprise is the best way of making the already rich, much richer, a select few poor people richer and the majority of poor, poorer still

Fixed this for you.

That's a myth about the market but the reality of socialism!

daviesee

A slight tangent to the original thread.

30% of the people vote. 90% of the people complain.

These figures need to be reversed. :evil:

Westerberg

Dgh wrote:

Westerberg wrote:

Tories recognise that free enterprise is the best way of making the already rich, much richer, a select few poor people richer and the majority of poor, poorer still

Fixed this for you.

That's a myth about the market but the reality of socialism!

Ah, so the Thatcher years was Socialism in action then.

Dgh

Westerberg wrote:

Dgh wrote:

Westerberg wrote:

Tories recognise that free enterprise is the best way of making the already rich, much richer, a select few poor people richer and the majority of poor, poorer still

Fixed this for you.

That's a myth about the market but the reality of socialism!

Ah, so the Thatcher years was Socialism in action then.

In the 1980's the rich got richer, but what's wrong with that? Shouldn't those who take risks get rewarded? Anyway, how do people get richer? By supplying goods and services that people want to buy! No injustice there.

I haven't said the free market is perfect, but it is a lot fairer than the state. Which is easier to get, a loaf of bread or a place in a decent state school? The answer shows that we have more power as consumers than we do as voters.

teagar

Dgh wrote:

Westerberg wrote:

Dgh wrote:

Westerberg wrote:

Tories recognise that free enterprise is the best way of making the already rich, much richer, a select few poor people richer and the majority of poor, poorer still

Fixed this for you.

That's a myth about the market but the reality of socialism!

Ah, so the Thatcher years was Socialism in action then.

In the 1980's the rich got richer, but what's wrong with that? Shouldn't those who take risks get rewarded? Anyway, how do people get richer? By supplying goods and services that people want to buy! No injustice there.

I haven't said the free market is perfect, but it is a lot fairer than the state. Which is easier to get, a loaf of bread or a place in a decent state school? The answer shows that we have more power as consumers than we do as voters.

I take it you haven't spent much time in the well off, and much more equal tax and spend states of Sweden and the Netherlands?

TheStone

Dgh wrote:

In the 1980's the rich got richer, but what's wrong with that? Shouldn't those who take risks get rewarded? Anyway, how do people get richer? By supplying goods and services that people want to buy! No injustice there.

But a lot of the time it's just a gamble. Turns out the state was underwriting most of
those gambles anyway, so where was the risk.

Nothing against people making money, but people should be rewarded for proper
investment, job creation and sustainability, not one sided gambles at the cost to everyone
else. .... oddly, I think this is where Labour went most wrong.

Most of those gamblers should be wiped out now, but they've been protected and
rewarded again by monetary policy.

teagar

TheStone wrote:

Dgh wrote:

In the 1980's the rich got richer, but what's wrong with that? Shouldn't those who take risks get rewarded? Anyway, how do people get richer? By supplying goods and services that people want to buy! No injustice there.

But a lot of the time it's just a gamble. Turns out the state was underwriting most of
those gambles anyway, so where was the risk.

Nothing against people making money, but people should be rewarded for proper
investment, job creation and sustainability, not one sided gambles at the cost to everyone
else. .... oddly, I think this is where Labour went most wrong.

Most of those gamblers should be wiped out now, but they've been protected and
rewarded again by monetary policy.

The gambling's ok, as long as those gambling are directly exposed to the risk as well as the reward. As you say, they haven't been thus far.

rake

proto wrote:

Of corse we are heading towards Third World status, but it will take a very long time. We've been in decline for best part of 100 years so nothing new.

The reason? We don't dig anything out of the ground to sell. We don't make anything (or not very much) to sell. We don't grow enough food foor ourselves or others. Our trade defecits are bleeding the country of wealth, but we were very wealthy so have a long way to go.

agreed . britain thrived by being an exporting nation with money coming in. britain now produces nearly nothing and buys in everything from food, gas,water,electricity, clothing,cars, which represent massive spending and its an endless list. its blindingly simple we now cast money away to buy these things and scrap the jobs = poor. its very simple. we cant all work in administration and services if theres nothing to serve and administer which is what britain seems to be trying to do. the gambling has come back to bite as well. meanwhile the likes of china and india are getting their heads down and cracking on with production. i wonder why their economy is growing rapidly.

bails87

proto wrote:

Of corse we are heading towards Third World status, but it will take a very long time. We've been in decline for best part of 100 years so nothing new.

Yes. Life in Britain is definitely worse than it was in 1915.

Sweet zombie Jesus, what's that, an indoor toilet? And over there, central heating! And coming over the horizon, why it's 'free at the point of need' healthcare. Thanks for pointing those out Susan. Wait, Susan? Shouldn't you be in the kitchen or the maternity ward, hmmm, I'm oretty sure you should because we're going back to the good old days!


[/Sarcasm]

rake

we eat fast food get fat and idle using 1/3 nhs budget on type 2 diabetes and have to drop your own baby because there are no midwives. grreeat.

bagpusscp

teagar wrote:

bagpusscp wrote:

Yep.Tony and now Gordon have spent the last 13? years of new Labour redistrubuting the country wealth.
1/ The rich,got richer.
2/ The lowest income /no income group no better off.

So voting tory is going to solve that?! I thought everyone knew they were the party to help those who can already help themselves.

3/ Middle income mostly up to their eye balls in debt.Now having to bail the goverment out of right mess.
4/ For years now the real balance of trade figures are seldom in the news.They are that bad.

As said earlier - you can't blame the gov't for the average punter taking a massive mortage out.

My understanding of economic reasoning is that the BoP is a largely irrelevant economic indicator.

To top it all ,RBS are lending UK tax payers money to Kraft to buy Cadbury.

The problem with the Kraft/Cadbury's takeover is not anything to do with nationalism, and everything to do with the motives of Kraft.

I think the party that win the next election will pick up a poisoned challis.Do the tories really want a bigger mess than they got when they came to power during the late 1970's.
House price are so high now ,how can people trying to get on to the property ladder not have a large mortage ?in order to own a house.We do not have the amount of private rental or state owned housing stock any longer.Maggie saw to that.Sure fire way to stop strikes .Lets make sure everyone has a mortage to pay and lose your home if you are out on strike. no wages /no payments .
Since when did spending more than you earn [B O P] not make relvant economic sense!!
I understand kraft owe millions of dollars to US banks .

bails87

Whether you're paying mortgage or rent, you still need to pay it and will be evicted/have the house repossessed if you don't. I don't see how it's different.

rake

bails87 wrote:

Whether you're paying mortgage or rent, you still need to pay it and will be evicted/have the house repossessed if you don't. I don't see how it's different.

its different because you can loose a lot of money with a mortgage.

mroli

Obviously, anyone posting that the UK is slipping towards being a third world country has absolutely no idea.

In relation to the comments made about streetlighting and highways being potholed, it may well be worth looking and seeing if your local council has signed a PFI Contract in relation to these services. If they have, then it is no longer the Council's responsibility (and cost) to repair these - it is the PFI Contractor that has signed a contract to take responsibility for them. In most cases, there will be a "Performance Threshold" that the Contracotr has to meet in relation to notified defects - failure to reach this (ie mend the light/hole), results in cash being withheld from the Contractor until they do so. That is then a sharp kick up the arse to the Contractor to get on and fix the thing.

As the Council has budgeted for the price of the Contract (hopefully!), it is included within its spending plans and therefore it should not matter to the Councils' budget whether or not you report a hole or a light out - they've paid in advance and it is the Contractor's responsibility. So (as you should do in any event, because if they don't know, it ain't gonna get fixed) report holes/lights out etc etc away!

nolf

rake wrote:

proto wrote:

Of corse we are heading towards Third World status, but it will take a very long time. We've been in decline for best part of 100 years so nothing new.

The reason? We don't dig anything out of the ground to sell. We don't make anything (or not very much) to sell. We don't grow enough food foor ourselves or others. Our trade defecits are bleeding the country of wealth, but we were very wealthy so have a long way to go.

agreed . britain thrived by being an exporting nation with money coming in. britain now produces nearly nothing and buys in everything from food, gas,water,electricity, clothing,cars, which represent massive spending and its an endless list. its blindingly simple we now cast money away to buy these things and scrap the jobs = poor. its very simple. we cant all work in administration and services if theres nothing to serve and administer which is what britain seems to be trying to do. the gambling has come back to bite as well. meanwhile the likes of china and india are getting their heads down and cracking on with production. i wonder why their economy is growing rapidly.

As mentioned earlier, about 75% of UK GDP comes from services...
But ignore numbers. Crack on.

Also exports, as again mentioned earlier, formed a useful pressure release valve alloing us to buy and spend loads without having ridiculous inflation.

proto

nolf wrote:

As mentioned earlier, about 75% of UK GDP comes from services...
But ignore numbers. Crack on.

Also exports, as again mentioned earlier, formed a useful pressure release valve alloing us to buy and spend loads without having ridiculous inflation.

I'll crack on then. The service economy is like playing pass the parcel with an ever decreasing pile of 'wealth'. Cash is flowing out of the country to buy the stuff we don't make (almost everything) or grow (almost everything). So we borrow. And borrow some more.

Anyone notice that the countries that are getting wealthier are the ones that add value to a commodity and sell it abroad. We used to do that. We reached the top of the economic greasy pole a couple of hundred years back and stayed there for quite a while, but since the early twentieth century it has been very slow decline. This will continue until we are able to compete with other manufacturing nations, and that won't happen until we get a lot poorer and people will work all day for bowl of rice, or Lancashire hot pot.

nolf

proto wrote:

nolf wrote:

As mentioned earlier, about 75% of UK GDP comes from services...
But ignore numbers. Crack on.

Also exports, as again mentioned earlier, formed a useful pressure release valve alloing us to buy and spend loads without having ridiculous inflation.

I'll crack on then. The service economy is like playing pass the parcel with an ever decreasing pile of 'wealth'. Cash is flowing out of the country to buy the stuff we don't make (almost everything) or grow (almost everything). So we borrow. And borrow some more.

Anyone notice that the countries that are getting wealthier are the ones that add value to a commodity and sell it abroad. We used to do that. We reached the top of the economic greasy pole a couple of hundred years back and stayed there for quite a while, but since the early twentieth century it has been very slow decline. This will continue until we are able to compete with other manufacturing nations, and that won't happen until we get a lot poorer and people will work all day for bowl of rice, or Lancashire hot pot.

The service sector does add value, creative industries, marketing, research (in a range of fields), financial services, education, training etc. These all add value.

People wouldn't pay for things which don't add value. Thats how a free market works, you need a product that people will pay money for, the fact we have a growing economy and such a rich society is an indication that people are willing to pay for these services, both domestically and abroad.

It's not up to a govt. to determine what course of action a countries economy takes, if you want to set up a manufacturing company in the UK, go ahead! It's a free market, you can do what you want!

Anonymous

Unfortunately the rise of computerised production, just in time stock levels, massive automation and large corporate greed have been factors in the demise of manufacturing in the UK.

For instance, a friend of mine has just been informed he is being made redundant. He is a middle manager for a company that fits windscreens. He and his secretary process orders, order the parts required, allocate a fitter his joblist and communicates with the customer. He and his secretaries job no longer exist due to a computerised black box that does his job and has been issued to the windscreen fitter, who incidentally has had a pay reduction this year.
Is this progress ?
The more automation and computerisation we use in any job reduces the workforce. If you have a nationally reduced workforce, then who buys goods ? Less people. It is an ever decreasing circle. I am not saying to go back to the dark days of the early 70's, when unions strangled the economy, but something has to be wrong with waht we have now. A country built on a service industry and huge corporate greed iis on a road that is pretty grim. IMHO.

proto

nolf wrote:

The service sector does add value, creative industries, marketing, research (in a range of fields), financial services, education, training etc. These all add value.

People wouldn't pay for things which don't add value. Thats how a free market works, you need a product that people will pay money for, the fact we have a growing economy and such a rich society is an indication that people are willing to pay for these services, both domestically and abroad.

It's not up to a govt. to determine what course of action a countries economy takes, if you want to set up a manufacturing company in the UK, go ahead! It's a free market, you can do what you want!

After much thought, Mr and Mrs Proto have decided to give take on board the service economy concept and have given up our jobs. We have decided that I will pay her to clean the house, prepare food and keep us healthy. She in turn will pay me to maintain the house, cars, bikes, chop wood, keep us safe.We will both pay each other for any food we grow. Proto Jr will be paid to mow the lawns, run errands, teach the younger children. Our other children will be paid by Mr& Mrs and Jr to do anything else that needs doing - window cleaning, hanging out the washing and so on. The children will pay me for allowing them to live in my house, and will pay Mrs Proto for what she does. A perfect arrangement, all fully employed, all earning a wage. How long do you think we'll be able to keep going?

PS

if you want to set up a manufacturing company in the UK, go ahead! It's a free market, you can do what you want!

Thank you, but I already have.

bails87

Proto: That's not a 'service economy', that's just an isolated household economy :?

teagar

This is an issue that's been touched on in another thread.

People lament a national economy which is no longer autarkic. But economies are not islands, and the world has never been more integrated economically.

As a result, each nation/region has learnt to specialise in what it does best. If you want high added value services, the UK will have a good selection. If you want a stash of plastic kids toys, going to the UK is pretty expensive! Every economy benefits from the gains of trade.

It doesn't matter if the UK doesn't produce much physical stuff, because the economic role it does play, and the value it does add, effectively pays for it to be bought in where it's cheaper to be made.

I never heard cries in East Anglia that their region was rubbish because they couldn't mine their own coal, instead importing it from Yorkshire.

The problems that dmc highlights are to do with that adjustment - people need to be economically re-adjusted to a decline in manufacturing, and manufacturing developments - which causes many problems. That's where the gov't needs to step in to ease that transition, and provide the people with the necessary resources, training etc to become employable once again. Re-training is expensive and for the unemployed, unsustainable, so the gov't should have a responsibility to provide that.

bagpusscp

Britain was once know as the workshop of the world .
Boney said we were a nation of shop keepers prior to that.
I recent times the banking capital of the world.
So now we are the service centre of the world?

More ,much more needs to go into R&D something we have always been rather good at!

teagar

bagpusscp wrote:

Britain was once know as the workshop of the world .
Boney said we were a nation of shop keepers prior to that.
I recent times the banking capital of the world.
So now we are the service centre of the world?

More ,much more needs to go into R&D something we have always been rather good at!

The UK is easily one of the world leaders in R&D. It's only second to the States because the States is HUGE.

bails87

teagar wrote:

. But economies are not islands, and the world has never been more integrated economically.............

+1, well put.

passout

I'm sure that I'm not the only one on here who has been to a third world country. Clearly we are lucky to live in one of the richest countries in the world. Anyway...

Our economy is not just a 'service' one although that is the most important sector. We are also a knowledge based economy. Overseas students flock to our Universities, we are a R&D centre, highly specialist / skilled engineering still exists here, we are a world centre in fashion & music, and our economy is a creative one.

We have our problems at the moment (debt issues and the financial sector for instance) but overseas investors do not pour money into our economy for fun - it'sdbecause we have a relatively stable economy with reasonable prospects.

The BRIC countries will shadow over us but that is an opportunity for british Business as much as a threat.

teagar

Agreed ^^

rake

teagar wrote:

This is an issue that's been touched on in another thread.

People lament a national economy which is no longer autarkic. But economies are not islands, and the world has never been more integrated economically.

As a result, each nation/region has learnt to specialise in what it does best. If you want high added value services, the UK will have a good selection. If you want a stash of plastic kids toys, going to the UK is pretty expensive! Every economy benefits from the gains of trade.

It doesn't matter if the UK doesn't produce much physical stuff, because the economic role it does play, and the value it does add, effectively pays for it to be bought in where it's cheaper to be made.

I never heard cries in East Anglia that their region was rubbish because they couldn't mine their own coal, instead importing it from Yorkshire.

The problems that dmc highlights are to do with that adjustment - people need to be economically re-adjusted to a decline in manufacturing, and manufacturing developments - which causes many problems. That's where the gov't needs to step in to ease that transition, and provide the people with the necessary resources, training etc to become employable once again. Re-training is expensive and for the unemployed, unsustainable, so the gov't should have a responsibility to provide that.

buying goods in is a constant outflow of wealth. services arent exported likewise to return that wealth. this leaves a big imbalance of more outgoing and hardly any incoming wealth. when protos car or clothes wear out and he needs new ones where will the money come from to buy new ones . if he manufactured them himself the whole cycle could continue. this is why were going backwards fast . waits for politician to completely not address the point in his answer

bails87

So we pay China to make clothes. China pays us to design things (that may be ultimately made in China.)

I don't understand why you're finding it hard to grasp. Is it because you can picture a pair of trainers physically leaving China and arriving in the UK, but you can't do the same for creative or financial services going the other way? Because an investment portfoli doesn't physically need to be 'made' by a worker? It doesn't really matter if nothing's going out, at the end of the day the money for those intangible goods is still coming into the economy.

If i've missed something then what is it?

passout

bails87 wrote:

So we pay China to make clothes. China pays us to design things (that may be ultimately made in China.)

I don't understand why you're finding it hard to grasp. Is it because you can picture a pair of trainers physically leaving China and arriving in the UK, but you can't do the same for creative or financial services going the other way? Because an investment portfoli doesn't physically need to be 'made' by a worker? It doesn't really matter if nothing's going out, at the end of the day the money for those intangible goods is still coming into the economy.

If i've missed something then what is it?

Yes, incoming tourism is a good example of this - no tangible product but brings in money. To stick to the analogy, perhaps the house is a B+B? Tourism more generally accounts for 4% for GDP.

teagar

Maybe Rake's commenting on the BoP rather than an emphasis on a tertiary sector based economy.

In which case, it's a tricker issue - from little browing it seems that economists have, in light of the recession, reopened the debate on the significant (or not) of the BoP.

I take the more recent established view that worrying about your BoP doesn't do very much. That's what some people are now contesting.