Mintball wrote:Yes dear. That's right.

Dally wrote:Precisely, we earn more from higher value, niche products. We would be poor if all we did was concentrate on old, labour intensive, low value added productivity.

El Barbudo wrote:... and your statement that if we still mined coal and made textiles we would be little better than a "developing economy" is therefore absolute bloody tripe.

Dally wrote:I am afraid not. If we had mass employment in cheap textiles, coal mining and other such industries, we'd be alot poorer.

Chris28 wrote:Why?

(Genuine question, not stirring)

Dally wrote:Because if, say, we competed with the Far East, Africa, South America in producing cheap textiles we could only stay in business by matching their wage structure, working harder, or by having more modern machinery. Assumimg new entrants use state of the art machinery (not always the casew I know, but rapidly becomes so - think how Japan developed very quickly) that means we'd have to compete on unit labour cost. As they tend to work all the hours God's sends in emerging economies we couldn't really work longer for the same pay, we'd need to work for the same or less per hour.

Unless, of course, you took your view that we just mark up high production costs ......and go bust instead!

Horatio Yed wrote:We could just make a better product and let the quality sell itself, we used to do that, rather than having some naff 5 minute lifespan product we create real quality and hover around the middle to rich income markets.

Big Graeme wrote:Stick to whinging about the salary cap mate.

Mintball wrote::roll:

You talked of 'uneconomic' businesses. Child labour is one of the reasons that companies in some countries can undercut companies in the UK (and West generally), making them 'uneconomic'.

This works in tandem with people believing that they should goods at ever lower prices – without consideration of the consequences. See The Wal-Mart Effect by Charles Fishman for examples of just what this means for local (and national) economies.

It's quite easy to answer the question in terms of food alone.

I try to buy as much as I can locally, from small businesses and producers. I make the choice that I would rather support British farmers and producers than paying less for imported produce that is usually poorer too. I buy and cook and eat seasonally for these – and other – reasons.

It's the same with, say, having any work done in the flat: I try to find someone local who can do any such work rather than a big company – and therefore keep my money within the community.

With my clothing, I try to ensure that it's not from companies where the price is subsidised by child labour or by appalling working conditions etc.

Some of us like to think we have some morals. On the basis of what you say here, you consider money more important than people.

Fortunately, throughout the course of history, people have not had the same attitude as you, or we'd still be living in caves.

Here's a suggestion. Instead of bleating about how 'that's the way it is', etc etc , you could always answer the questions I put to you.

As it happens, I DIDN'T say we should still be making "girders". But if you think that the current situation, where around 75% of the national economy is based on the service and retail sectors, is sensible and sustainable – and not remotely related to the mess we're in – then you need to think again.

You might even try addressing the human cost – and not just posting like someone who believes that a world increasingly run by and for big business and finance is sensible, fair, coherent, sustainable and democratic.