
Originally Posted by
Uwork4menow
Comparing the value of a currency now with where it was 50 years ago is nearly pointless given the wider circumstances of a global economy not only that but Sterling was subjected to various artificial controls throughout the 20th century at the behest of the Americans so it is really only of academic interest. It does show however, that governments should refrain from messing around with monetary policy in such clumsy and direct ways.
It is popular to moan about the fact that Britain no longer exports tangible goods and that Thatcher shut the ship yards, aircraft industries and coal mines. This is actually quite true, however in the meantime, the UK altered its economy into a more global one and it is now highly services driven. It would therefore, be false to claim this country does not export anything. It certainly does, my knowledge is totally out of date but from memory last time I looked this country exported something like 700 billion quids worth of something, even though it was not International tractors, British Leyland trucks, Scottish Coal or Avro Vulcans. In addition, the British are rather good at attracting foreign investors (step forward Mr Tata) who are keen to continue building product in this country. The fact that an Indian businessman now owns a British brand and factory does not matter a jot, because whilst foreign businesses have been investing here, clever people in the City of London have been loaning businesses in other countries money, or selling them insurance or directly investing funds in businesses abroad at the behest of their clients who have money and who are keen to try to get it to make them more money than if it was sat in their current account earning them barely enough to keep up with inflation. Now again, I don't have a clue what this figure would amount to annually, but I would safely say it exceeds the value of our exports very easily.
Of course British manufacturing was always going to contract. The Cold war ended. There was no need for dozens of naval vessels, or battalions of armoured vehicles, or factories making bombers to deter the reds, government policy changed, the money stopped. The factories had nothing to do so they closed.
Car manufacture, like everything else, became more complex, and more expensive, partly driven by regulation (environmental and safety regulations are a classic) but also competition and consumer tastes changed. It is no suprise then that the UK now manufactures jet engines, and the wings for airbuses, but we don't actually churn out complete airbuses- to produce the whole item in this country would be rather difficult, not only would you struggle to find the workforce (bearing in mind we are now reaching about 70% employment out of a working population of about 30 million, but geographically it would be downright mental to bring all the components to the UK to assemble them when the bulk of the aircraft is made on the continent.
Contrast this situation with the far East, where you have a legion of people all seeking work, and who will accept vastly lower wages than any European can afford to, and it is no wonder the heavy industries are located there. The steel, aluminium and other materials are all made there, so it makes sense for people running on large amounts of this material to locate nearby.
The same is true in many other countries. Many European nations experienced a lot of industrial contraction, the US car industry experienced Armageddon on a scale which made the demise of the UK industry look piffling, partly because of protectionist government policy brought on by the big three, but also because of their immense labour unions. Not only that but they actively sought to stop the Japanese makers setting up shop over there- not so the UK, where Nissan and Honda were welcomed in with open arms, and of course, subsequently, they get taxed same as any UK business.
As for farming and the EU, it is clear that the EU are the least capable organisation on earth when it comes to regulating such a complex industry. As with most EU projects, they have demonstrated they are limited to reactionary movements and policy is so wrapped around the axle with bureaucracy that it is largely pointless. The EU has become a graveyard for gopher politicians many of whom were no good at all in their domestic roles. Neil Kinnock, is a classic example, a failed politician whose name no one remembers, but lo and behold where has that muppet got a job? And boy oh boy, some of these EU politicos are paid some serious money, the deputy EU president has never had a real job yet gets paid more money than President Obama, despite never having been elected through democratic means, would the pro-EU lobby please explain that logic to me?
And as Jack has illustrated, member state countries are now appreciably suffering by being part of this French and German construct which seeks to govern a continent in the same uniform way, irrespective of local issues or differing cultures. If you want to see some really angry characters who are upset with the EU, don't ask the Spanish or Italians, go to Cyprus, who basically had a load of money swiped directly from bank accounts by the EU commission! Bet the Russians aren't fond of Junker or Merkel!