Moderator: Andreas Wideroe
Yeah I'm upper class me. God Save the Queen.MovieStuff wrote:Too bad you aren't one of the many, many wonderful exceptions to that generalization. ;)npcoombs wrote: Yeah well I'm one of the least nationalistic people you will ever meet. Britain is one of the most class-ridden elitist countries in the world. Not an insult - a fact!
Roger
Well, Britain was a terrible place. I can fully understand why everyone jumped ship.downix wrote:The irony of course being that I'm decendend from displaced former landholders in brittan....
Foolish move. Economies are based on production. Everything else is based off of that production. Don't produce anything, you then are unable to achieve sustainable growth, and will eventually collapse.npcoombs wrote:Well, Britain was a terrible place. I can fully understand why everyone jumped ship.downix wrote:The irony of course being that I'm decendend from displaced former landholders in brittan....
Nowadays if you happen to be in London or another metropolitan area with a well-paid job, you are fine. The rest of the country is rotting as the British government pursues its craven adulation to the financial sector in London and de-industrialises the rest of the country.
This is why the £ is so strong, to attract capital inflows, and why manufacturing and exports are at an all-time low. So our provincial towns are just strips of Poundlands and charity shops, where ex car makers and engineers are forced to work in McDonalds or call centers.
The British government's strategy seems to be based on the assumption that they can sustain a division of labour whereby the Third World produces all the basic manufactured items and so forth and we specialize in services, creative industries and high-tech development.downix wrote:Don't produce anything, you then are unable to achieve sustainable growth, and will eventually collapse.
I did a nice essay on the folley of the "service based economy" and the eventual economic collapse that would follow.
That corporate profits at the expense of locally produced goods would lead to a severe recession at home (which is what's been happening since 2001) which only a few relatively minor incidents could push to a full depression or absolute collapse. That the very model used (the one you mentioned about using third world producers) was inverted, that rather than other countries producing goods for the US (I'm from the US, so I was us-focused) it should be the US being the producer for the world, supporting them, developing them. The producer-based economy was far more sustainable during times of crisis, and was the only method for long-term survivability.npcoombs wrote:The British government's strategy seems to be based on the assumption that they can sustain a division of labour whereby the Third World produces all the basic manufactured items and so forth and we specialize in services, creative industries and high-tech development.downix wrote:Don't produce anything, you then are unable to achieve sustainable growth, and will eventually collapse.
I did a nice essay on the folley of the "service based economy" and the eventual economic collapse that would follow.
A number of problems though:
1) This is based mainly on China's suppression of its currency, but one day the current account deficit will cause this to collapse and suddenly those imports will not be so cheap.
2)R&D investment here is pitiful. The idea that we will be world leaders in high-tech industries is a joke.
So what we are left with it just services. Which as you point out is unsustainable.
What was your main argument in your essay?
I'm not sure its a British versus Texan thing, but there are limits to how much you can discuss things as complicated as social history and political economy in a breezy folksy way.steve hyde wrote:Roger,
Your attack on the language Nathan chooses to use to express himself speaks volumes about you. He is British you are Texan. Get used to living in a world where people speak differently than you do!!! (the point of this thread)
Nathan's points are very clearly argued and well worth consideration.
Steve
Yeah, inflammatory when people are predisposed to reflex national identification and defensiveness.steve hyde wrote:...now I see the inflammatory comment was about geography. Surely the U.S. isn't least educated. Saying that is bound to start a fire. I overlooked that when I made the reply to Roger...
Respectfully, Steve, you don't know a single thing about me that would apply here. My entire life has been in the arts. I am an experienced writer and probably one of the most literate people on this forum. But you don't need to be one of the "many, many wonderful exceptions" to Nathan's insulting generalization about the US to recognize self-serving BS.steve hyde wrote:Roger,
Your attack on the language Nathan chooses to use to express himself speaks volumes about you. He is British you are Texan. Get used to living in a world where people speak differently than you do!!!
Oh, I have no doubt that the society, in general, seems to embrace education less and less. I have made that same comment my self many times. But I would never try to make the UK a distinction, knowing all the while that my own country and other countries suffer the same problem. It is a societal problem and not something unique to the US, despite Nathan's proclamations. Anyone that has to resort to baseless insults to make their point has no point worth consideration, in my opinion.steve hyde wrote:Nathan's points are very clearly argued and well worth consideration.
You are such an inexperienced young man, Nathan. There is more to education than books and more to life than the assumptions with which you frame your misplaced and ill-serving conceit. For someone that aspires to be a director, you sure know very little about people and the importance of tact.npcoombs wrote: I would say of the the rich, developed countries Americans are certainly (on average) the most apathetic about knowledge of international matters and social critique. I think this is undeniable.
I'm with you. American's are more apathetic about international matters and social critique. It is undeniable. This is not to say that there is not apathy among other *rich* so-called "developed" countries.npcoombs wrote:Yeah, inflammatory when people are predisposed to reflex national identification and defensiveness.steve hyde wrote:...now I see the inflammatory comment was about geography. Surely the U.S. isn't least educated. Saying that is bound to start a fire. I overlooked that when I made the reply to Roger...
I would say of the the rich, developed countries Americans are certainly (on average) the most apathetic about knowledge of international matters and social critique. I think this is undeniable. All countries have their faults, but again this is not a moral failing of middle America or the MTV generation, this is how they grow up, the ideology of a society formed by people and forces greater than any individual.
His comment insulted you. My read is that insulting was not his intent. His argument, might lack tact, but it is far from mere "baseless" insult.MovieStuff wrote:
Respectfully, Steve, you don't know a single thing about me that would apply here. My entire life has been in the arts. I am an experienced writer and probably one of the most literate people on this forum. But you don't need to be one of the "many, many wonderful exceptions" to Nathan's insulting generalization about the US to recognize self-serving BS.
Oh, I have no doubt that the society, in general, seems to embrace education less and less. I have made that same comment my self many times. But I would never try to make the UK a distinction, knowing all the while that my own country and other countries suffer the same problem. It is a societal problem and not something unique to the US, despite Nathan's proclamations. Anyone that has to resort to baseless insults to make their point has no point worth consideration, in my opinion.
