[nialv7]

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]

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.

[modo_mario]

>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?

[lysace]

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]

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]

How many destroyer keels has U. Essex laid down this decade?

[t0mpr1c3]

You'll find Colchester lads undeniably tasty around closing time on a Saturday.

[pjc50]

None? That's not really its job?

[linksnapzz]

whoosh

[RetroTechie]

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.

[gruez]

>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.

[ifwinterco]

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.

[linksnapzz]

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]

>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_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]

They're pro-offshoring of any sort of industrial base. Line-goes-up!

[psd1]

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]

I've read plenty; even aside from their glazing of finance, the unsigned articles & snotty-brit house style are grating.

[owebmaster]

> They're for planning reform in uk

As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich

[gruez]

>As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich

Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article.

[Chu4eeno]

You are very naive about the neutrality of Wikipedia.

Maintaining the Wikipedia page is part of what any PR/reputation management agency does.

[gruez]

Right, which is why the first part of my comment, before mentioning wikipedia at all is "Source?". Wikipedia might be biased, but it's a good starting point. Likewise, it's very hard to take you seriously when all you can do is complain about how wikipedia is biased/astroturfed, but can't provide any sources to contradict the wikipedia article, yet are willing to take a random commenter at face value.

[traceroute66]

> 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]

> 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.

[psd1]

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.

[lazide]

It did work for awhile though, eh?

[8note]

the US and china are basically the same size geographically though? and the US federally owns tons of land it can create manufacturing cities out of

[traceroute66]

> and the US federally owns tons of land it can create manufacturing cities out of

Ok, being generous and accepting your point at face value ....

What about the people staffing those manufacturing cities ? Is the state creating them too ?

I seem to recall reading somewhere that – at most – the US could "find" 200,000 people for new manufacturing plants.

Sounds about right to me, no ?

I think even with a generous mind the US would struggle to "find" much more than that, let alone getting to or exceeding 1 million which is the value you would need for seriously thinking about >1 manufacturing city.

[nradov]

The US labor force participation rate is currently at a relatively low level. There is plenty of surplus labor available with the right economic incentives.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

[gruez]

Isn't that just due to people retiring?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060

[nradov]

No, the labor force metrics only include people of working age.

[8note]

as far as people go, the US could grant citizenship to all those people its trying to deport?

and there isnt a lack of people that would accept working in one of said manufacturing towns for 10 years or something to get US citizenship?

If manufacturing was a serious problem, the US could definitely solve that problem too.