Germany versus Britain - shocking statistics

[Robinho]

Tell you what.
Go and read some history.
Then study some hard subject that requires logic and evaluating data like physics, maths or stats.
Then come back and you might be something more than the dull, OCD, one-issue, intellectual dwarf that you are.
And then you can debate with the big boys.

Aww Sas can't answer the question because it disproves his sad little baiting attempt.

[sasguru]

Aww Sas can't answer the question because it disproves his sad little baiting attempt.

You mean your standard straw man attempt was ignored.
When I call you a moron, I'm not being insulting, it's an observation based on data.

[Robinho]

You mean your standard straw man attempt was ignored.
When I call you a moron, I'm not being insulting, it's an observation based on data.

Not really a strawman argument was it? You claim the gov is needed for industrialistion, and i pointed out that this was not the case during the greatest period of industrialisation ever seen.

[MyUserName]

Churchill was exasperated by what he saw as a failure of the British troops to fight as well as their fathers and grandfathers did

He might have been but he was also being quite harsh IMHO. At the start of the war the British army was not as ready as the Germans were and paid the price. The Germans had also moved on in their combined arms strategy whereas Britain had not and the Germans were fighting closer to Germany and had planned this out in advance.

Britain and France seemed to be caught napping and complacent.

Very doubtful that anyone would be able to do that in enough number.

But surely all they have to do is get to the leaders and force a surrender? I am not arguing that a strong navy is not essential, merely that that is not all that is required.

If nothing else then a strong Navy will get sunk by a strong airforce!

[sasguru]

Not really a strawman argument was it? You claim the gov is needed for industrialistion, and i pointed out that this was not the case during the greatest period of industrialisation ever seen.

No I said government seems to be necessary for the preservation of the industrial sector.
As the data I presented shows: countries that have an active industrial strategy export more (in some cases much more) than similar countries that do not.

You really need to focus more, your mind is like a blancmange, immune to thrusts of reason or logic.

[Robinho]

No I said government seems to be necessary for the preservation of the industrial sector.
As the data I presented shows: countries that have an active industrial strategy export more (in some cases much more) than similar countries that do not.

You really need to focus more, your mind is like a blancmange, immune to thrusts of reason or logic.

Here's your words sas...

I'm inclined to think that (re)industrialisation can only happen with active government intervention, as happens and happened in China, Germany, France, Japan and South Korea.

I don't see the word presevation there.

[doodab]

Not really a strawman argument was it? You claim the gov is needed for industrialistion, and i pointed out that this was not the case during the greatest period of industrialisation ever seen.

There are two massive flaws with this statement. Firstly, we had a government during the industrial revolution. Secondly, conditions now are rather different than they were then.

What sas appears to be saying is that Britains industrial base isn't going to grow while the government pursues lassaiz faire economic policies and allows all parties to act purely out of short term self interest regardless of the long term impact on industry.

The firms of today are not the enlightened industrialists of the 19th century. The workers aren't psuedoserfs driven from the countryside by threat of famine. We aren't about to invent the steam engine and create a previously non existant market for manufactured goods.

[Coalman]

There are two massive flaws with this statement. Firstly, we had a government during the industrial revolution. Secondly, conditions now are rather different than they were then.

What sas appears to be saying is that Britains industrial base isn't going to grow while the government pursues lassaiz faire economic policies and allows all parties to act purely out of short term self interest regardless of the long term impact on industry.

The firms of today are not the enlightened industrialists of the 19th century. The workers aren't psuedoserfs driven from the countryside by threat of famine. We aren't about to invent the steam engine and create a previously non existant market for manufactured goods.

Well said sir.

[Robinho]

There are two massive flaws with this statement. Firstly, we had a government during the industrial revolution. Secondly, conditions now are rather different than they were then.

What sas appears to be saying is that Britains industrial base isn't going to grow while the government pursues lassaiz faire economic policies and allows all parties to act purely out of short term self interest regardless of the long term impact on industry.

The firms of today are not the enlightened industrialists of the 19th century. The workers aren't psuedoserfs driven from the countryside by threat of famine. We aren't about to invent the steam engine and create a previously non existant market for manufactured goods.

The government isn't pursuing lassaiz faire economic policies. If it were there might be a growth in the industrial sector, because as i have outlined, the government doesn't need to tell people to make things like during the industrial revolution. People make things because they see demand which they think they can fulfill and profit from.

The gov/BoE has spent the last decade or so giving banks cheap money which it creates on a computer and measuring inflation using incomplete and flawed methods. The result has been that money has been channeled into housing or sent abroad giving the false impression of wealth and meaning the focus on the economy has been on fighting to get the handouts of credit in the city and not on actually producing things that we can send abroad to earn money with.

However, the government, in its infinite wisdom has failed to see the error in its ways and continues to print money like there is no tomorrow hoping it can gain traction from the delay between printing money and the subsequent inflation. This is of course a vicious cycle which will continue until Sterling is water.

In short governmental manipulation of money and interest rates has resulted in the distorted signals being sent to UK businesses and gross malinvestment of the country's resources.

Here's a pretty graph...

[BrilloPad]

What sas appears to be saying is that Britains industrial base isn't going to grow while the government pursues lassaiz faire economic policies and allows all parties to act purely out of short term self interest regardless of the long term impact on industry.

Thank goodness someone is here to translate assguru's senile ramblings.

The government does not need to intervene to generate growth. It just needs to stop interfering. Slash red tape and taxes.