BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Currently.Jezyboy said:
Meh, Apple could set up their own manufacturing operations in Asia or Mexico (or South America) or even some rust belt backwater. Instead they farm it out to Foxconn.pblakeney said:
Has that not got more to do with Samsung being based in Asia to begin with?Jezyboy said:We're getting further from Brexit with every post but...
For every Apple there's a Samsung, one's a good example of running things one way, one a good example of doing more of the manufacturing yourself.
I honestly think its frequently more to do with the latest fashion among managers than any insightful tactic.
They farm it out to whoever provides what they require. Including Samsung.
Outsourcing is hardly an Apple exclusive.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
first one to say "value proposition" wins...rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.0 -
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I think there are some very loose definitions in that first paragraph.rick_chasey said:If you look at all the golden ages in the world it is they all co-incide with liberal, 'trades freely with the world', liberal economic policy, pro free-market policies.
Demanding things be made within your own country to throw some red meat to the poor is just self defeating.
Why not create an economy where even the poor earn a lot, because they are adding a lot of value? Invest in education, infrastructure blah blah blah. So that even the poor are internationally competitive?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Not all manufacturing has been shifted overseas for sound commercial reasons.
Some has happened solely for PE to asset strip and extract cash short term.
That is not a good benefit for a nation. It is short termism and drives money outwards where it could legitimately be inwards.
Like I say, Germany is a very productive nation and they are not renowned for low wages. That is how we should be modelling our manufacturing sector.
I liken it to somebody bragging about how low they have made their taxes. Whilst driving a very expensive car and yet complaining about the poor state of the roads.
I.e. disconnected thinking.1 -
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.0 -
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.0 -
In some areas we might not be good at making stuff, but in some areas we are actually very good. Also, we still produce great designers and engineers in this country, we're very good at innovating new products.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.0 -
I'm not massively pro services. I just don't understand everyone's obsession with one part of the economy.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
Hell, Holland, which punches way above its weight given size, is one of the world's biggest vegetable exporters. Massive business. Huge. I think it's great.
A diversified economy is absolutely helpful. No-one's saying it isn't.
But saying all "services" are the same is wrong, just like not all manufacturing or farming or whatever is the same.
It doesn't really matter what you do for the world, (ethical and environmental considerations aside), as long as it's competitive.
What's quite nice with a lot of services is they are hard to replicate well. Same goes with certain types of farming, manufacturing etc.
I don't know why everyone bangs on about manufacturing so much. It's no better than anything else.0 -
I don't think anyone is 'banging on about it'?rick_chasey said:
I'm not massively pro services. I just don't understand everyone's obsession with one part of the economy.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
Hell, Holland, which punches way above its weight given size, is one of the world's biggest vegetable exporters. Massive business. Huge. I think it's great.
A diversified economy is absolutely helpful. No-one's saying it isn't.
But saying all "services" are the same is wrong, just like not all manufacturing or farming or whatever is the same.
It doesn't really matter what you do for the world, (ethical and environmental considerations aside), as long as it's competitive.
What's quite nice with a lot of services is they are hard to replicate well. Same goes with certain types of farming, manufacturing etc.
I don't know why everyone bangs on about manufacturing so much. It's no better than anything else.0 -
rick_chasey said:
I'm not massively pro services. I just don't understand everyone's obsession with one part of the economy.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
Hell, Holland, which punches way above its weight given size, is one of the world's biggest vegetable exporters. Massive business. Huge. I think it's great.
A diversified economy is absolutely helpful. No-one's saying it isn't.
But saying all "services" are the same is wrong, just like not all manufacturing or farming or whatever is the same.
It doesn't really matter what you do for the world, (ethical and environmental considerations aside), as long as it's competitive.
What's quite nice with a lot of services is they are hard to replicate well. Same goes with certain types of farming, manufacturing etc.
I don't know why everyone bangs on about manufacturing so much. It's no better than anything else.
At least it's better than banging on about fish.0 -
People are just trying to find practical solutions to the lack of fridges.0
-
It is honestly the only sector people seem to want to be given a leg up, either on here, or in the press. It's the only sector that captures the imagination.0
-
Seeing as I’m the main one arguing for manufacturing, do you care to point out where I’ve argued it’s more important than any other area?rick_chasey said:
I'm not massively pro services. I just don't understand everyone's obsession with one part of the economy.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
Hell, Holland, which punches way above its weight given size, is one of the world's biggest vegetable exporters. Massive business. Huge. I think it's great.
A diversified economy is absolutely helpful. No-one's saying it isn't.
But saying all "services" are the same is wrong, just like not all manufacturing or farming or whatever is the same.
It doesn't really matter what you do for the world, (ethical and environmental considerations aside), as long as it's competitive.
What's quite nice with a lot of services is they are hard to replicate well. Same goes with certain types of farming, manufacturing etc.
I don't know why everyone bangs on about manufacturing so much. It's no better than anything else.
You’ll struggle because I haven’t.
My argument is the exact opposite of the one you are making. I am saying we can have a vibrant manufacturing sector at zero harm to our service sector. Policy has just focussed on the one big cash cow whilst totally ignoring other parts of the economy. I personally think that is poor management.
Manufacturing can increase productivity and GDP. As I have said repeatedly and is mentioned by others just a few posts above this one, not everybody can or should work in services. There is an under-utilised labour resource that can increase GDP for the good of all of us.
Productivity and society are not disconnected.
Plus, stop portraying yourself as a victim in some anti services culture war. That’s a populist tactic you’re using right there.
2 -
Probably simply just because there is a visible end product.rick_chasey said:It is honestly the only sector people seem to want to be given a leg up, either on here, or in the press. It's the only sector that captures the imagination.
And products we need and use as evidenced. 😉The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Money in the account is what matters!pblakeney said:
Probably simply just because there is a visible end product.rick_chasey said:It is honestly the only sector people seem to want to be given a leg up, either on here, or in the press. It's the only sector that captures the imagination.
And products we need and use as evidenced. 😉0 -
Money won't keep your food cold thoughrick_chasey said:
Money in the account is what matters!pblakeney said:
Probably simply just because there is a visible end product.rick_chasey said:It is honestly the only sector people seem to want to be given a leg up, either on here, or in the press. It's the only sector that captures the imagination.
And products we need and use as evidenced. 😉- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
-
Hmmm, an overly simplistic and narrow view.rick_chasey said:
Money in the account is what matters!pblakeney said:
Probably simply just because there is a visible end product.rick_chasey said:It is honestly the only sector people seem to want to be given a leg up, either on here, or in the press. It's the only sector that captures the imagination.
And products we need and use as evidenced. 😉
Phillip Green leveraged (I won’t use the word made) a shit tonne of money for himself and his wife. How would a nation of Phillip Greens fare?
Forestry, why bother planting new trees? They are simply a cost that won’t be harvested in your tenure.
Need more examples of why bigger picture thinking may be beneficial?0 -
Out of interest, in what direction? Fridge you wanted, different fridge that will fit, or a better fridge and the kitchen configuration changes?rick_chasey said:Ha, I have thrown money at the problem and it is sorting itself out.
0 -
Genuine questions;morstar said:
Seeing as I’m the main one arguing for manufacturing, do you care to point out where I’ve argued it’s more important than any other area?rick_chasey said:
I'm not massively pro services. I just don't understand everyone's obsession with one part of the economy.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
Hell, Holland, which punches way above its weight given size, is one of the world's biggest vegetable exporters. Massive business. Huge. I think it's great.
A diversified economy is absolutely helpful. No-one's saying it isn't.
But saying all "services" are the same is wrong, just like not all manufacturing or farming or whatever is the same.
It doesn't really matter what you do for the world, (ethical and environmental considerations aside), as long as it's competitive.
What's quite nice with a lot of services is they are hard to replicate well. Same goes with certain types of farming, manufacturing etc.
I don't know why everyone bangs on about manufacturing so much. It's no better than anything else.
You’ll struggle because I haven’t.
My argument is the exact opposite of the one you are making. I am saying we can have a vibrant manufacturing sector at zero harm to our service sector. Policy has just focussed on the one big cash cow whilst totally ignoring other parts of the economy. I personally think that is poor management.
Manufacturing can increase productivity and GDP. As I have said repeatedly and is mentioned by others just a few posts above this one, not everybody can or should work in services. There is an under-utilised labour resource that can increase GDP for the good of all of us.
Productivity and society are not disconnected.
Plus, stop portraying yourself as a victim in some anti services culture war. That’s a populist tactic you’re using right there.
How has policy favoured services?
Why has manufacturing not flourished without Govt support?
What should the Govt do to develop industries?0 -
-
Other opinions are available.rick_chasey said:
Money in the account is what matters!pblakeney said:
Probably simply just because there is a visible end product.rick_chasey said:It is honestly the only sector people seem to want to be given a leg up, either on here, or in the press. It's the only sector that captures the imagination.
And products we need and use as evidenced. 😉
I was simply giving a reason why manufacturing is on people's radar. Not saying it is the be all.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Fair questions.surrey_commuter said:
Genuine questions;morstar said:
Seeing as I’m the main one arguing for manufacturing, do you care to point out where I’ve argued it’s more important than any other area?rick_chasey said:
I'm not massively pro services. I just don't understand everyone's obsession with one part of the economy.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
Hell, Holland, which punches way above its weight given size, is one of the world's biggest vegetable exporters. Massive business. Huge. I think it's great.
A diversified economy is absolutely helpful. No-one's saying it isn't.
But saying all "services" are the same is wrong, just like not all manufacturing or farming or whatever is the same.
It doesn't really matter what you do for the world, (ethical and environmental considerations aside), as long as it's competitive.
What's quite nice with a lot of services is they are hard to replicate well. Same goes with certain types of farming, manufacturing etc.
I don't know why everyone bangs on about manufacturing so much. It's no better than anything else.
You’ll struggle because I haven’t.
My argument is the exact opposite of the one you are making. I am saying we can have a vibrant manufacturing sector at zero harm to our service sector. Policy has just focussed on the one big cash cow whilst totally ignoring other parts of the economy. I personally think that is poor management.
Manufacturing can increase productivity and GDP. As I have said repeatedly and is mentioned by others just a few posts above this one, not everybody can or should work in services. There is an under-utilised labour resource that can increase GDP for the good of all of us.
Productivity and society are not disconnected.
Plus, stop portraying yourself as a victim in some anti services culture war. That’s a populist tactic you’re using right there.
How has policy favoured services?
Why has manufacturing not flourished without Govt support?
What should the Govt do to develop industries?
So firstly, I don’t profess to have in depth knowledge of FS so I’m there to be shot down as an ignorant layman.
However, as a working current example.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cityam.com/uk-remains-europes-most-attractive-spot-for-financial-services-investment/amp/
We are viewed as having the most attractive post Covid recovery plans. So that has clearly been effective policy making. What those policies are exactly, I don’t profess to know.
You also need to recognise the FS influence throughout the top tier of government. Of course policy is favourable in exactly the same way an industrialist parliament would make industry favourable policies in Victorian times.
Re the manufacturing, I actually think it is significantly a legacy issue throwing back to the 80’s. The need to dismantle the unions saw manufacturing sectors dismantled. A booming FS sector was simultaneously making great returns so happy days from a GDP perspective. Not so happy from a social cohesion perspective.
Reversing decline is difficult. But the biggest current problem is asset stripping of viable businesses by PE. I would say dis incentivising this practice is more important than propping up or artificially creating industries. Not saying there’s an easy mechanism to do that though.
Although I do think supporting manufacturing businesses with potential should be seen as a significant investment opportunity. That is what China has done very well.0 -
-
I think that statement shows just how little you know about how to run a successful country. Do you ever step back when you are recruiting and think yes I am getting paid but are any of these jobs either suitable for those not in the top 50% of intelligence or socially worthwhile. It is funny listening to you whinge about a fridge though.rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
0 -
My understanding is that any Govt policy to promote FS has been light touch regulation. What I don't understand is why this is detrimental to other parts of ths economy, other than being a drain on talent.morstar said:
Fair questions.surrey_commuter said:
Genuine questions;morstar said:
Seeing as I’m the main one arguing for manufacturing, do you care to point out where I’ve argued it’s more important than any other area?rick_chasey said:
I'm not massively pro services. I just don't understand everyone's obsession with one part of the economy.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
Hell, Holland, which punches way above its weight given size, is one of the world's biggest vegetable exporters. Massive business. Huge. I think it's great.
A diversified economy is absolutely helpful. No-one's saying it isn't.
But saying all "services" are the same is wrong, just like not all manufacturing or farming or whatever is the same.
It doesn't really matter what you do for the world, (ethical and environmental considerations aside), as long as it's competitive.
What's quite nice with a lot of services is they are hard to replicate well. Same goes with certain types of farming, manufacturing etc.
I don't know why everyone bangs on about manufacturing so much. It's no better than anything else.
You’ll struggle because I haven’t.
My argument is the exact opposite of the one you are making. I am saying we can have a vibrant manufacturing sector at zero harm to our service sector. Policy has just focussed on the one big cash cow whilst totally ignoring other parts of the economy. I personally think that is poor management.
Manufacturing can increase productivity and GDP. As I have said repeatedly and is mentioned by others just a few posts above this one, not everybody can or should work in services. There is an under-utilised labour resource that can increase GDP for the good of all of us.
Productivity and society are not disconnected.
Plus, stop portraying yourself as a victim in some anti services culture war. That’s a populist tactic you’re using right there.
How has policy favoured services?
Why has manufacturing not flourished without Govt support?
What should the Govt do to develop industries?
So firstly, I don’t profess to have in depth knowledge of FS so I’m there to be shot down as an ignorant layman.
However, as a working current example.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cityam.com/uk-remains-europes-most-attractive-spot-for-financial-services-investment/amp/
We are viewed as having the most attractive post Covid recovery plans. So that has clearly been effective policy making. What those policies are exactly, I don’t profess to know.
You also need to recognise the FS influence throughout the top tier of government. Of course policy is favourable in exactly the same way an industrialist parliament would make industry favourable policies in Victorian times.
Re the manufacturing, I actually think it is significantly a legacy issue throwing back to the 80’s. The need to dismantle the unions saw manufacturing sectors dismantled. A booming FS sector was simultaneously making great returns so happy days from a GDP perspective. Not so happy from a social cohesion perspective.
Reversing decline is difficult. But the biggest current problem is asset stripping of viable businesses by PE. I would say dis incentivising this practice is more important than propping up or artificially creating industries. Not saying there’s an easy mechanism to do that though.
Although I do think supporting manufacturing businesses with potential should be seen as a significant investment opportunity. That is what China has done very well.
Believing that manufacturing was dismantled to dismantle the unions just sounds paranoid unless you have some sources to support it.
Again blaming it all on PE sounds a little paranoid but even I feel that the Govt should have a less laissez faire attitude towards takeovers and that we could bring ourselves into line with other OECD countries.
I really do not believe that the Govt can pick winners and that the best they can do is to remove (and stop creating) impediments to success0 -
Services includes retailing, restaurants and entertainment.john80 said:
I think that statement shows just how little you know about how to run a successful country. Do you ever step back when you are recruiting and think yes I am getting paid but are any of these jobs either suitable for those not in the top 50% of intelligence or socially worthwhile. It is funny listening to you whinge about a fridge though.rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
0 -
You cannot compare FS and manufacturing. In manufacturing there are probably over 10 companies involved in the manufacture of product such as a fridge. Each company needs the other. You want to make a fridge you will need a steel mill, a injection moulding company with suitable plastic feedstock and an insulation company among others. Sure you could bring everything in house but in many cases you don't have the scale to make this work. When you don't have a good source of these interlinked companies and market stability then you go out of business pretty quick. Industry is easy to destroy and hard to maintain. Politicians and the public that vote for them are pretty uneducated as to the affect their decision today might impact something in the future.surrey_commuter said:
My understanding is that any Govt policy to promote FS has been light touch regulation. What I don't understand is why this is detrimental to other parts of ths economy, other than being a drain on talent.morstar said:
Fair questions.surrey_commuter said:
Genuine questions;morstar said:
Seeing as I’m the main one arguing for manufacturing, do you care to point out where I’ve argued it’s more important than any other area?rick_chasey said:
I'm not massively pro services. I just don't understand everyone's obsession with one part of the economy.elbowloh said:
I guess it's better and more resilient to have a broader based economy, not a one trick pony, and not everyone wants to or is suited to work in services?rick_chasey said:
What's the obsession with manufacturing ffs. If you're making money, who cares.rjsterry said:
That and invading places so you could have a nice captive market. And labour was cheap. It is now not so we have moved the manufacturing to where it is.rick_chasey said:
Sure. But the govt can’t create the next google. You need the iterative process of a truly free market to weed out the 999999 useless versions first.morstar said:
Missed my point which is my bad.rick_chasey said:I am meh about apple but they're a good example of both letting the market do it's thing and b) specialisation.
They design the stuff in California, but the manufacture is all over the place.
The bulk of the money is in the design of it, which is the value add stuff. Else the manufacturers of the iphones and the ipads would be the biggest company in the world.
They don't even manufacture the phones themselves. There's a whole industry of different firms who make the various things that go into phones and ipads and macs etc all over the world.
Apple would not be so big nor so valuable if they were forced to manufacture the entire contents of the phones etc in the states.
Apple are a marketing company. They create demand for what they make. And do loads of anti competitive stuff too.
I would be more sympathetic to the argument that sometimes it is worthwhile raising barriers in an attempt to incubate firms with a few to getting them into a position to be internationally competitive (IIRC Samsung is an example of this) but I absolutely maintain there is no logical economic reason to create artificial trade barriers in order to stimulate an otherwise uncompetitive business or industry in order to keep more people of a certain class in a dying job.
That is what john80 and others are suggesting.
If you are voting for Brexit to raise barriers to trade for you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Britain became great in the 19th century as it was as pure a trading nation as it would get for the era. Anyone and everyone would trade.
Trade makes you rich. Throwing up barriers to trade does not.
Hell, Holland, which punches way above its weight given size, is one of the world's biggest vegetable exporters. Massive business. Huge. I think it's great.
A diversified economy is absolutely helpful. No-one's saying it isn't.
But saying all "services" are the same is wrong, just like not all manufacturing or farming or whatever is the same.
It doesn't really matter what you do for the world, (ethical and environmental considerations aside), as long as it's competitive.
What's quite nice with a lot of services is they are hard to replicate well. Same goes with certain types of farming, manufacturing etc.
I don't know why everyone bangs on about manufacturing so much. It's no better than anything else.
You’ll struggle because I haven’t.
My argument is the exact opposite of the one you are making. I am saying we can have a vibrant manufacturing sector at zero harm to our service sector. Policy has just focussed on the one big cash cow whilst totally ignoring other parts of the economy. I personally think that is poor management.
Manufacturing can increase productivity and GDP. As I have said repeatedly and is mentioned by others just a few posts above this one, not everybody can or should work in services. There is an under-utilised labour resource that can increase GDP for the good of all of us.
Productivity and society are not disconnected.
Plus, stop portraying yourself as a victim in some anti services culture war. That’s a populist tactic you’re using right there.
How has policy favoured services?
Why has manufacturing not flourished without Govt support?
What should the Govt do to develop industries?
So firstly, I don’t profess to have in depth knowledge of FS so I’m there to be shot down as an ignorant layman.
However, as a working current example.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cityam.com/uk-remains-europes-most-attractive-spot-for-financial-services-investment/amp/
We are viewed as having the most attractive post Covid recovery plans. So that has clearly been effective policy making. What those policies are exactly, I don’t profess to know.
You also need to recognise the FS influence throughout the top tier of government. Of course policy is favourable in exactly the same way an industrialist parliament would make industry favourable policies in Victorian times.
Re the manufacturing, I actually think it is significantly a legacy issue throwing back to the 80’s. The need to dismantle the unions saw manufacturing sectors dismantled. A booming FS sector was simultaneously making great returns so happy days from a GDP perspective. Not so happy from a social cohesion perspective.
Reversing decline is difficult. But the biggest current problem is asset stripping of viable businesses by PE. I would say dis incentivising this practice is more important than propping up or artificially creating industries. Not saying there’s an easy mechanism to do that though.
Although I do think supporting manufacturing businesses with potential should be seen as a significant investment opportunity. That is what China has done very well.
Believing that manufacturing was dismantled to dismantle the unions just sounds paranoid unless you have some sources to support it.
Again blaming it all on PE sounds a little paranoid but even I feel that the Govt should have a less laissez faire attitude towards takeovers and that we could bring ourselves into line with other OECD countries.
I really do not believe that the Govt can pick winners and that the best they can do is to remove (and stop creating) impediments to success
0
