8 ms·

what a bizarre article, completely disconnected from reality. in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, havin

by nialv7 2mo ago

what a bizarre article, completely disconnected from reality. in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain. why does The Economist have so much disdain of manufacturing and people who work in it? look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it. then look at the UK, who is struggling to build Hinkley Point C, or HS2 (projected to be the most expensive high-speed rail in the world btw). The Economist is an absolute f*ing joke.

pjc50 2mo ago
The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market; AND the popular view of manufacturing (large plant staffed by a large number of men being the dominant employer of a nearby town or city) doesn't look anything like the reality of modern manufacturing (small run boutique high value stuff like satellites and turbines, highly automated and professionalized, relatively small number of employees). This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry.
- lysace 2mo ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jul/14/university-job-cuts-humanities-social-sciences https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jul/14/university... Thousands of university job cuts in humanities and social sciences are creating widespread cold spots for languages, classics and theology degrees, the British Academy has warned. [...] The subjects with the biggest staff cuts were social work (-9%), English and classics (both -8%), anthropology (-7%) and linguistics (-6%).
  - pjc50 2mo ago
    https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/town-and-gown/universities-as-international-exporters/ https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/town-and-gown/univers... "Universities brought in an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy from abroad in 2022. They provide services (education) to international students who bring money to the institutions from abroad through international fees. These students also bring money to the local economy by spending on goods and services while they are studying" (presumably there's an attempt to imply that those are bad courses in some way, but you haven't shown your working)
    - linksnapzz 2mo ago
      How many destroyer keels has U. Essex laid down this decade?
      - pjc50 2mo ago
        None? That's not really its job?
        linksnapzz 2mo ago
        whoosh
      - t0mpr1c3 2mo ago
        You'll find Colchester lads undeniably tasty around closing time on a Saturday.
- RetroTechie 2mo ago
  It's not boutique vs large plant. It's base materials (paper mills, steel smelters, plastic etc) that tend to be low in added value, versus higher up the stack (like your examples) that also tend to be higher in added value. Most countries didn't care much for the former other than historic reasons, but like the latter for obvious reasons (add £ to GDP). That's changing due to "sovereignty". You can't build a satellite without metal profiles, wiring, tubes etc. Which requires manufacturing capacity for those. Which requires steel/alu/copper smelters & plastic extruders. Which requires plastic & thus a chemical industry. This whole 'sovereign movement' is about keeping/bringing back capabilities across the stack which are deemed critical (like steel). But I suspect there are few (if any) countries that have these dependency chains mapped out in detail.
- modo_mario 2mo ago
  >The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market Yes because the UK is overfinancialised to a ridiculous degree. It has deindustralised in doing so. >This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry. I'd call it more of a major import industry. At the same time your doctors and such are leaving the country. Besides, if these are so profitable why are they making the cuts you think? Is it that those degrees aren't exactly paying off in an economy that can't consist of HR departments and other PMC's?
traceroute66 2mo ago
> look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it. "look at China" what ? Have you seen the population size of China ? Have you seen the geographic size of China ? Remember what is often said when Mr Trump talks about bringing tech manufacturing back to the US .... Yes great idea Mr Trump. But even with the most generously optimistic figures, due to the lack of available workforce and space the US could only ever provide the capacity equivalent to one Chinese manufacturing town of which the Chinese have dozens.
- pjc50 2mo ago
  > Have you seen the population size of China ? Have you seen the geographic size of China ? British thinking seems to be that because we won the Opium War we should just expect a country with 20 times our population and a vast land area to be poorer, both per capita and in total, than our island, forever.
  - lazide 2mo ago
    It did work for awhile though, eh?
  - psd1 2mo ago
    I think you're ascribing intent to a stochastic outcome. China's rise comes because it acquired, from inauspicious beginnings, competence at planning an economy. Britain's decline relative to China comes because it is a democracy - which is to say, vacillating. Britain has been particularly callow over the part decade, because we indulged ourselves in a bunfight about Brexit to the exclusion of all other concerns. This created a purge of ministerial talent and a sequence of governments primarily occupied with propping themselves up. Elections have been fought on Get Brexit Done and I Would Have A Pint With That Man, not on policy. The entire edifice is deeply stupid, but it is a stupidity orthogonal to questions of industrial policy. Ministers haven't been in post long enough to reveal any strategy about such. In a microcosm, the compulsory land purchases were done for HS2 and it was as on-track as infrastructure projects get, when Sunak cancelled half of it, writing off the sunk costs but crippling the long-term value of the project. Meanwhile, China laid more track than the test of the world combined, because it has the will to make large long-term investments.
gruez 2mo ago
>in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain. Are you confusing the lack of effective interventions with "neglect"? Nearly every administration in the past decade had some sort of an industrial policy, but even though they failed to bring manufacturing back to britain, that doesn't mean "neglect". It just means the forces of globalization is too strong.
linksnapzz 2mo ago
The Economist is a mouthpiece for the money power, specifically the banking interests of the Rothschild and Cadbury families. The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them.
- gruez 2mo ago
  >The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Econom... They're pro free trade against government intervention. That's not the same as "making things ... is anathema to them". They're for planning reform in uk, to help build infrastructure and homes, for instance.
  - linksnapzz 2mo ago
    They're pro-offshoring of any sort of industrial base. Line-goes-up!
    - psd1 2mo ago
      It is candid about the negatives of off-shoring. It certainly does have its back foot in economic orthodoxy, but a mouthpiece for the Rothschilds? Read three editions and see if you still think so.
      - linksnapzz 2mo ago
        I've read plenty; even aside from their glazing of finance, the unsigned articles & snotty-brit house style are grating.
  - owebmaster 2mo ago
    > They're for planning reform in uk As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich
    - 2mo ago
ifwinterco 2mo ago
The economist is pravda for the global globalist class. It's not at all surprising that they're hostile to the idea of a nation doing anything to take its fate into its own hands when it comes to supply chains etc.

by nialv7 2mo ago

pjc50 2mo ago

The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market; AND the popular view of manufacturing (large plant staffed by a large number of men being the dominant employer of a nearby town or city) doesn't look anything like the reality of modern manufacturing (small run boutique high value stuff like satellites and turbines, highly automated and professionalized, relatively small number of employees). This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry.

lysace 2mo ago
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jul/14/university-job-cuts-humanities-social-sciences https://www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jul/14/university... Thousands of university job cuts in humanities and social sciences are creating widespread cold spots for languages, classics and theology degrees, the British Academy has warned. [...] The subjects with the biggest staff cuts were social work (-9%), English and classics (both -8%), anthropology (-7%) and linguistics (-6%).
- pjc50 2mo ago
  https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/town-and-gown/universities-as-international-exporters/ https://www.centreforcities.org/reader/town-and-gown/univers... "Universities brought in an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy from abroad in 2022. They provide services (education) to international students who bring money to the institutions from abroad through international fees. These students also bring money to the local economy by spending on goods and services while they are studying" (presumably there's an attempt to imply that those are bad courses in some way, but you haven't shown your working)
  - linksnapzz 2mo ago
    How many destroyer keels has U. Essex laid down this decade?
    - pjc50 2mo ago
      None? That's not really its job?
      - linksnapzz 2mo ago
        whoosh
    - t0mpr1c3 2mo ago
      You'll find Colchester lads undeniably tasty around closing time on a Saturday.
RetroTechie 2mo ago
It's not boutique vs large plant. It's base materials (paper mills, steel smelters, plastic etc) that tend to be low in added value, versus higher up the stack (like your examples) that also tend to be higher in added value. Most countries didn't care much for the former other than historic reasons, but like the latter for obvious reasons (add £ to GDP). That's changing due to "sovereignty". You can't build a satellite without metal profiles, wiring, tubes etc. Which requires manufacturing capacity for those. Which requires steel/alu/copper smelters & plastic extruders. Which requires plastic & thus a chemical industry. This whole 'sovereign movement' is about keeping/bringing back capabilities across the stack which are deemed critical (like steel). But I suspect there are few (if any) countries that have these dependency chains mapped out in detail.
modo_mario 2mo ago
>The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market Yes because the UK is overfinancialised to a ridiculous degree. It has deindustralised in doing so. >This leads to stupid decisions like gutting the university sector, which is a major export industry. I'd call it more of a major import industry. At the same time your doctors and such are leaving the country. Besides, if these are so profitable why are they making the cuts you think? Is it that those degrees aren't exactly paying off in an economy that can't consist of HR departments and other PMC's?

traceroute66 2mo ago

> look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it. "look at China" what ? Have you seen the population size of China ? Have you seen the geographic size of China ? Remember what is often said when Mr Trump talks about bringing tech manufacturing back to the US .... Yes great idea Mr Trump. But even with the most generously optimistic figures, due to the lack of available workforce and space the US could only ever provide the capacity equivalent to one Chinese manufacturing town of which the Chinese have dozens.

pjc50 2mo ago
> Have you seen the population size of China ? Have you seen the geographic size of China ? British thinking seems to be that because we won the Opium War we should just expect a country with 20 times our population and a vast land area to be poorer, both per capita and in total, than our island, forever.
- lazide 2mo ago
  It did work for awhile though, eh?
- psd1 2mo ago
  I think you're ascribing intent to a stochastic outcome. China's rise comes because it acquired, from inauspicious beginnings, competence at planning an economy. Britain's decline relative to China comes because it is a democracy - which is to say, vacillating. Britain has been particularly callow over the part decade, because we indulged ourselves in a bunfight about Brexit to the exclusion of all other concerns. This created a purge of ministerial talent and a sequence of governments primarily occupied with propping themselves up. Elections have been fought on Get Brexit Done and I Would Have A Pint With That Man, not on policy. The entire edifice is deeply stupid, but it is a stupidity orthogonal to questions of industrial policy. Ministers haven't been in post long enough to reveal any strategy about such. In a microcosm, the compulsory land purchases were done for HS2 and it was as on-track as infrastructure projects get, when Sunak cancelled half of it, writing off the sunk costs but crippling the long-term value of the project. Meanwhile, China laid more track than the test of the world combined, because it has the will to make large long-term investments.

gruez 2mo ago

>in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain. Are you confusing the lack of effective interventions with "neglect"? Nearly every administration in the past decade had some sort of an industrial policy, but even though they failed to bring manufacturing back to britain, that doesn't mean "neglect". It just means the forces of globalization is too strong.

linksnapzz 2mo ago

The Economist is a mouthpiece for the money power, specifically the banking interests of the Rothschild and Cadbury families. The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them.

gruez 2mo ago
>The idea of making money by making things (as opposed to arbitrage) is anathema to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Economist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_stance_of_The_Econom... They're pro free trade against government intervention. That's not the same as "making things ... is anathema to them". They're for planning reform in uk, to help build infrastructure and homes, for instance.
- linksnapzz 2mo ago
  They're pro-offshoring of any sort of industrial base. Line-goes-up!
  - psd1 2mo ago
    It is candid about the negatives of off-shoring. It certainly does have its back foot in economic orthodoxy, but a mouthpiece for the Rothschilds? Read three editions and see if you still think so.
    - linksnapzz 2mo ago
      I've read plenty; even aside from their glazing of finance, the unsigned articles & snotty-brit house style are grating.
- owebmaster 2mo ago
  > They're for planning reform in uk As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich
  - 2mo ago

ifwinterco 2mo ago

The economist is pravda for the global globalist class. It's not at all surprising that they're hostile to the idea of a nation doing anything to take its fate into its own hands when it comes to supply chains etc.