Germany versus Britain - shocking statistics

[sasguru]

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...

That post is a steaming heap of manure, full of illogic (laissez faire grows industrial bases in countries in the moden world - what about Germany?), blinkered vision (private enterprise will suddenly create a ship-bulding or car industry - when did this last happen? ), spurious and naive understanding of the economy (the government gave cheap money to banks for the last decade, interest rates were lower in Germany), inflation is measured using flawed methods (what's your training in statistics? ) .
For that reason I am out. You're too ignorant, uneducated, blinkered and stupid.
HTH

[BrilloPad]

Trying to get an answer from assguru is like trying to catch smoke with your hands. Soon as he can't find some sort of hand waving argument he will resort to insults.

That post is a steaming heap of manure, blah blah blah.
For that reason I am out. You're too ignorant, uneducated, blinkered and stupid.
HTH

[RasputinDude]

More interesting to note in this context is the active industrial strategy Germany follows with government, firms and workers acting in concert, and long-term strategic goals given priority over short-term market diktats* - the exact opposite of the generally laissez-faire policies espoused by Britain since the 80s.

* to the extent that, as happened in 2008-2011 and is still active policy, the government will subsidise firms to keep on temporily redundant workers if it judges that demand is only temporarily low.

^^^This, I think is one of the reasons that our Teutonic cousins are so successful. The government and trades unions aren't continually trying to kill the golden goose that is revenue generating business. They also recognise that businesses ebb and flow in their existence and that it's a stupid idea to shut down a business simply because it is going through a lean patch.

[Robinho]

That post is a steaming heap of manure, full of illogic (laissez faire grows industrial bases in countries in the moden world - what about Germany?), blinkered vision (private enterprise will suddenly create a ship-bulding or car industry - when did this last happen? ), spurious and naive understanding of the economy (the government gave cheap money to banks for the last decade, interest rates were lower in Germany), inflation is measured using flawed methods (what's your training in statistics? ) .
For that reason I am out. You're too ignorant, uneducated, blinkered and stupid.
HTH

Ok sas so why did the world experience the biggest period of industrial growth during the lassez faire period of the industrial revolution when the government was tiny compared to modern standards?

That's the thing you seem unable to answer sas.

[EternalOptimist]

Surely the Russians won because the winter crippled the German advances and then the Russians simply threw people forward even if they did not have a gun.

It depends on how you look at things but Britain seems to have been saved by:

• The channel
• The RAF
• Hitler over estimating his progress through Russia
• Radar
• Hitler's poor choice in having large numbers of smaller bomber built (rather than smaller numbers of large bombers) to make a more impressive display over rallies.
• Hitler's poor choice to switching bombing campaigns to cities rather than military targets (like air fields etc).
• America
• Japan (attacking America and getting them all worked up over fighting)

and probably a dozen other things. I think it is pretty harsh to describe the British performance as mediocre though. The initial stages of the war saw a heavily armed and well prepared German combined force hitting various nations who were not fully prepared.

It is like saying that you performed poorly in a bar room brawl because you legged it when your opponent brought in a baseball bat and you were unarmed.

Although, to be fair I am hardly an expert on WW2 but I have read a couple of books about it here and there.

Not only are you a dunce at ancient and medieval warfare, but now you are spouting crap about WWII.
time to shut gob and open ears

[EternalOptimist]

As the Nips proved off Malaya when they sank the two battleships "Prince of Wales" and "Illustrious".

Twas an indication of the change of emphasis from battleships to aircraft carriers.

Not that this should concern us any longer since we don't have examples of either class.

That would be the POW and the Repulse. Repulse was actually a battlecruiser, but a mighty warship nontheless.

Illustrious was an aircraft carrier

[sasguru]

Ok sas so why did the world experience the biggest period of industrial growth during the lassez faire period of the industrial revolution when the government was tiny compared to modern standards?

That's the thing you seem unable to answer sas.

In the 18th C, there were many reasons for British success some of which doodab has alluded to. By luck and serendipidity Britain was the first to have an IR, so had first mover advantage. Also some not so laissez faire advantages such as cheap raw marterial from the colonies and captive markets which it manipulated (look at the cotton industry e.g).

Point is none of this applies now. Countries like Japan, S.Korea and Taiwan's governments drove industrialisation in the 19th/20th centuries and they are richer than us now.

Free enterprise is not going to give us the extra 1 trillion dollars in exports we need. Not ever.

[BrilloPad]

For that reason I am out. You're too ignorant, uneducated, blinkered and stupid.
HTH

In the 18th C, blah blah blah

I thought you were out?

[MyUserName]

Not only are you a dunce at ancient and medieval warfare, but now you are spouting crap about WWII.
time to shut gob and open ears

Ah yes, I guess if you can just insult me then that proves you are right.

Just like when you tried arguing that single handed swords were superior to polearms on medieval battlefields and claimed that various armies like Samurai (not an army) and Teutonic knights (not an army and did not use single handed swords as primaries anyway) as additional examples after I explained why the Romans were freak exceptions to the rule.

You seemed to struggle to explain why a single handed sword (with at most 5 foot range) was better than a (polearm which has at the most about 17 feet of range).

Also you seemed to struggle with the idea that a padded jack and maille shirt renders single handed swords close to useless unless you thrust - in which case you simply have a very short spear. Whereas halberd, poleaxes etc will simply shatter the bones of the person wearing said armour.

Well, I suppose you do not need to make reasoned points when you can just throw insults.

Although, I did specify in my post that WW2 was not my period, perhaps you could explain why all of the points I mentioned are 'crap'?

I would genuinely like to know, I love to learn new things.

Although please try to use a little more reasoning and facts than last time, I felt like I was kicking a puppy and also you might not fail quite so badly?

[Robinho]

In the 18th C, there were many reasons for British success some of which doodab has alluded to. By luck and serendipidity Britain was the first to have an IR, so had first mover advantage.

The industrial revolution happened in many many countries sas, not just Britain, although Britain was first.

Point is none of this applies now.

Why, have the laws of economics changed? People still demand things and entrepreneurs still want to supply them.

Free enterprise is not going to give us the extra 1 trillion dollars in exports we need. Not ever.

It would if we fixed the money supply and let the market set the interest rates (also stopped deficit spending) and we would have never lost it all in the first place.