Jump to content

Because The United Kingdom?


Mr King

Recommended Posts

 

 

What is this?

I came here for bizarre British sex scandals. Dead ministers wrapped in silver duct tape found naked in horse stables, stuff of the legends.

 

Instead all I get is crappy weather.

 

 

Yeah, this is what it means to be British. Promised an Empire, Global domination, and all we get is shitty weather. I feel your pain. :D

 

 

Be honest; the 3 things that doomed the Empire are those which made life in the Isles vaguely tolerable: Indian cuisine, indoor plumbing, and the Macintosh. What made the Empire work was the urge for healthy young men to get the Bleep Out Of Blighty, in order to eat something with flavor, to dry off, and to take a dump without having to suit up first.

 

Nah, the Empire was gone before Indian cuisine and indoor plumbing impinged fully on the social consciousness of the majority of the denizens of this Sceptred Isle, and the Mackintosh came into its own well before in the trenches of the Western Front. :P :)

 

BillB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 9.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

 

 

 

What is this?

I came here for bizarre British sex scandals. Dead ministers wrapped in silver duct tape found naked in horse stables, stuff of the legends.

 

Instead all I get is crappy weather.

 

 

Yeah, this is what it means to be British. Promised an Empire, Global domination, and all we get is shitty weather. I feel your pain. :D

 

 

Be honest; the 3 things that doomed the Empire are those which made life in the Isles vaguely tolerable: Indian cuisine, indoor plumbing, and the Macintosh. What made the Empire work was the urge for healthy young men to get the Bleep Out Of Blighty, in order to eat something with flavor, to dry off, and to take a dump without having to suit up first.

 

Nah, the Empire was gone before Indian cuisine and indoor plumbing impinged fully on the social consciousness of the majority of the denizens of this Sceptred Isle, and the Mackintosh came into its own well before in the trenches of the Western Front. :P :)

 

BillB

 

 

Hell, y'all were in decline by about 1850. The last 75 years or so of Empire were simply momentum. One might hypothesize that the collapse correlates with the Scottish diaspora to the New World in the 19C. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was not doomed to happen. Or at least, ive never believed so. I think the real indication of what happened was from the Railway Mania bubble. From that point on, there were relatively few railways that were built in the UK, and those that were were economically questionable. Most of the investors preferred to put their money in India or South America where they got a higher return. I seem to recall perwar that we owned a lot of American banks for example?

 

Why did British industry decline? Because unlike Germany who planned for the future, many of our big industries were beset by people who didnt invest adequately, and took too much money out. A case in point, the decline of BSA under the Dockers. When you see the following you will begin to see some of the problem.

Sounds like the pursuit of wealth vice income. Something we've been having in the States in the late 20th and early 21st. Generally I believe that its an outcome of folks perceiving that future incomes are vulnerable to things outside of their control, i.e. political or strategic instability. But when its nation-wide, maybe there's a herd mentality. If rapidly growing corporations A, B, and C are maximizing short-term profit and minimizing investment, then the leaders of corporation D can't help but feel the urge to follow suit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the success reasons for industry is reinvestment. I would think the comparative higher taxes in the UK discouraged reinvestment, and encouraged currency exports to other countries, also with a high level of industrialization, but lower taxes. I'm not sure, but I don't think the bloody-minded labor unions encouraged reinvestment either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have discussed the issue of being first before. I think I mentioned a paper which (bizarrely) appeared in a European Space Agency journal that showed the energy cost per unit of GDP for nations as they industrialised. they followed a "humped" distribution - shallow start to a broad peak, tailing off again as time passed. This represents more or less the expense of developing the industrial capacity and the subsequent improvements in efficiency as everything "beds in".

 

Each country peaked at a different time, with each being more efficient than the previous, due to being able to take advantage of the lessons (and technology) produced by the previous. The peak cost for, say, Japan's industrialisation was perhaps no more than 1/3rd what it had been for the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or even before, remember the Highland Clearances

Not as much of 'em as widely imagined. Areas not subject to clearances had similar population declines, & population in the Highlands kept growing through most of the period. IIRC it didn't actually fall until the potato harvest failed in the 1840s, at the same time as in Ireland - & also some other European countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

What is this?

I came here for bizarre British sex scandals. Dead ministers wrapped in silver duct tape found naked in horse stables, stuff of the legends.

 

Instead all I get is crappy weather.

 

 

Yeah, this is what it means to be British. Promised an Empire, Global domination, and all we get is shitty weather. I feel your pain. :D

 

 

Be honest; the 3 things that doomed the Empire are those which made life in the Isles vaguely tolerable: Indian cuisine, indoor plumbing, and the Macintosh. What made the Empire work was the urge for healthy young men to get the Bleep Out Of Blighty, in order to eat something with flavor, to dry off, and to take a dump without having to suit up first.

 

Nah, the Empire was gone before Indian cuisine and indoor plumbing impinged fully on the social consciousness of the majority of the denizens of this Sceptred Isle, and the Mackintosh came into its own well before in the trenches of the Western Front. :P :)

 

BillB

 

 

Hell, y'all were in decline by about 1850. The last 75 years or so of Empire were simply momentum. One might hypothesize that the collapse correlates with the Scottish diaspora to the New World in the 19C. ;)

 

1860. Then were were coasting largely on momentum I guess. In fact I gather some estimates have suggested that Germany was equal with us in economic output by 1900-1914, and it was only 2 world wars that allowed us to maintain an economic lead.

It's generally accepted by economic historians that German industrial productivity had overtaken that of the UK by 1907 (there are debates about the margin), grew faster up to 1913, fell behind during WW1 - & caught up again by 1935 or so. Overall, German industrial production grew slower than British over that period, having grown much faster in the decades up to 1913.

 

Germany was poorer per head overall, mostly because of a bigger proportion of the work force & much lower productivity in agriculture (which was lower productivity than industry in both countries), & also because of lower productivity in services. But the German economy was a bit bigger - maybe 20% in 1913, 10% & growing in 1937. In 1950, E. & W. Germany combined had about 80% of the output of the UK, & industrial productivity in both was lower. So maybe there's something in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Re reinvestment, It was interesting to note that the Russian Navy was building ships inside over 115 years ago, well with their weather you had to. Im not aware we did anything similar till the late 1970s, early 80s. Also riveting, continued far longer here than the US where welding was used in ship construction. And it wasn't just private investment. When the Government nationalised many failing shipyards, they seemed as reluctant to invest in them as they did the other nationalised industries, ie coal, Steel and the railways.

 

 

Russian ship building in pre-1917 era was more expensive and of lower quality then ordering the same ships abroad – partly due to lower workforce qualification and less machinery, partly (during wooden ships era) due to poorer wood quality, partly just because of weather. As far as I understand early years of US Navy shipbuilding (early 1800th) got same problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with US and russian wood supply was more in handling the logs and keep them dry without much of an infrastructure to speak of. Both countries were basically wilderness back then. Which actually should.produce fine trees. Though both countries have had a lack of cripple forests (? is that the english term), that is plantations with intentionally warped trees for growing certain ship parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian ship building in pre-1917 era was more expensive and of lower quality then ordering the same ships abroad – partly due to lower workforce qualification and less machinery, partly (during wooden ships era) due to poorer wood quality, partly just because of weather. As far as I understand early years of US Navy shipbuilding (early 1800th) got same problems.

Really? poorer wood quality? Odd, i remember distinctly that a good part of the wood used in Cuba in the 80s was cut in Siberia, by Cuban workers using Russian machinery. They made quite a thing of it, it was the only way to preserve the Cuban precious woods, we no longer had the entire mahogany, ebony, quiebra hacha and whatnot forests, and the local pine varieties suck. So as a part of the soviet trade, we got Siberian woods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with US and russian wood supply was more in handling the logs and keep them dry without much of an infrastructure to speak of. Both countries were basically wilderness back then. Which actually should.produce fine trees. Though both countries have had a lack of cripple forests (? is that the english term), that is plantations with intentionally warped trees for growing certain ship parts.

I m far from being specialist in this field but according to abstracts from Rus book on the subject main problem was lack of oak forests (Russia is, mainly, too northern for natural oak forests and lacked central control to grow oak plantations, despite of some efforts made). Another problem was (especially in early years of intense shipbuilding) not enough time to dry logs. UK enjoyed both own oak forests and access to overseas one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I already pointed out, the russians have had a problem handling the logs properly. The trees from untouched forests will have been fine. But how to transport them to the ship yard over non-existant roads?

Float down rivers?

Edited by swerve
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's generally accepted by economic historians that German industrial productivity had overtaken that of the UK by 1907

 

One British naval historian contends 1900, but I dont disagree with you. It probably depends on how you measure it I suspect.

I'm referring to studies by leading economic historians, both British & German (Stephen Broadberry, Albrecht Ritschl & Carsten Burhop), using the British 1907 industrial census. They all agree on a German productivity lead in manufacturing & as a result in industry overall (but not all industrial sectors). I assume that a naval historian is likely to be quoting economic historians rather than doing comparable original work.

 

The Broadberry-Burhop estimate seems to have won the day, after both they & Ritschl accepted some of the others numbers, but with more movement by Ritschl. That means a lead of maybe 5-8% in 1907, & rough equality in 1936.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think the problem with US and russian wood supply was more in handling the logs and keep them dry without much of an infrastructure to speak of. Both countries were basically wilderness back then. Which actually should.produce fine trees. Though both countries have had a lack of cripple forests (? is that the english term), that is plantations with intentionally warped trees for growing certain ship parts.

I m far from being specialist in this field but according to abstracts from Rus book on the subject main problem was lack of oak forests (Russia is, mainly, too northern for natural oak forests and lacked central control to grow oak plantations, despite of some efforts made). Another problem was (especially in early years of intense shipbuilding) not enough time to dry logs. UK enjoyed both own oak forests and access to overseas one.

 

the area I live in was harvested for masts, Douglas fir and spruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The Broadberry-Burhop estimate seems to have won the day, after both they & Ritschl accepted some of the others numbers, but with more movement by Ritschl. That means a lead of maybe 5-8% in 1907, & rough equality in 1936.

 

Probably. It was Andrew Gordon in Rules of the Game IIRC.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the+rules+of+the+game+jutland&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Athe+rules+of+the+game+jutland

 

Looking at the prices on Amazon I sinceirely wish I had held onto my copy now...

 

I wonder if he is distant relative of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Gordon/ In modern Russia we got his distant offspring as relatively well-known TV host https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD,_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80_%D0%93%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...