I'm curious - can anyone name a high quality industry product made by brits ?

[Boris Godunov]

Canada already has one of the world's largest nuclear arsenals at its disposal. By agreement a Canadian officer assumes command of NORAD one shift out of three, so the Canadians have 1/3 control of America's nukes.

Oh that's what we tell them, but when the Canadian is on shift, all of the authority is secretly transfered to an American administrative assistant to make sure nothing goes awry.

[Hueij]

Name a British car brand that is NOT owned by non-British. Jaguar, Rolls-Royce, MINI, Bentley... all owned by American and German companies.

If they're still built in Britain, then it's still industrial products made by Brits.

Morgan!

[Dinner]

TVR.

[Saras]

Which German automaker is the national champion?

Also, what is the ratio of BMW's profits vs combined profits of PSA Peugeot Citroën and Renault?

What is the average hourly net wage at BMW? PSA Peugeot Citroën? Renault?

[Provost Harrison]

I once had a Peugeot. Never again

[Perfection]

Media over there seems to miss the fact that BP are 50% US owned. I guess it's the name?

Those "Americans" are all Crypto-Brits.

[Dinner]

Which German automaker is the national champion?

Germany never had a national champions policy the way France had though it does have a very strong national industrial policy to promote exports and discourage outsourcing. Just the fact that German law requires unions to get a seat on the board helps to make sure things are more equitable and that as much work as possible is kept local.

[notyoueither]

The whole "Canada can be a nuclear power in 2 weeks" is asinine bull****, which shows NYE doesn't really understand what the hell he is talking about.

Under his loony toons understanding of the defense industry the possession of civilian nuclear plants means that Canada can rapidly become a nuclear power, even though there are no fabrication plants or delivery systems(I'm not even sure that the CF-18s are wired for use of nuclear weapons) or expierienced nuclear bomb making engineers.

Can you tell me whose reactors were used by India to get the material for their weapons?

It's not my idea. It's something I've heard more than once from people in positions to know something about the subject, which I'm fairly certain you are not.

Note, I did not say ICBMs, nor did I specify anything about warheads. I assume that the people who have made these statements are talking about small warheads and primitive bombs, so you can relax now cowboy.

[notyoueither]

Being able to eventually build factories is very different from actually having factories on hand to increase output should you so need it. Once again it comes back to needing on hand domestic manufacturing capacity made possible by having a national industrial policy. Heck, even BAE is an example of a government merged (or at least allowed if not directed because it swallowed most of the British defense industry left over from WW2) national champion. If we followed Thatcher's policy ideas used in the break up, privitization, and sale of the utility industry (or you could use the car industry or the coal industry or the steel industry or just about any heavy industry since she ****ed them all up) the companies would have broken up and sold to the highest bidder to "help create competition". Thankfully, there were enough old guard folks still around who knew a nation needs to keep that kind of defense manufacturing know how so instead of selling defense contractors to foreigners they kept merging them into BAE. Thus now Britain retains that specialized capacity and no how even if it was half assed done.

They should be following a similar policy for all heavy industry. You'd still get foreign investment but instead you'd have large domestic automakers, steel makers, aircraft makers, etc... Just like the French due so that way those skills are kept in the nation instead of letting them die and becoming dependent upon other nations. Sure, it's partially economic nationalism but it is smart policy and you can still have plenty of competition even though you've hedged your bets and kept a few irons in the fire. Sadly, this requires long term planning and English speaking countries are terrible with that normally caring more about next quarter then about the results 10 years from now. It's the same reason the Asians keep killing us economically even though they use the national champions strategy.

The UK has no steel mills? There are no aircraft or autos built in the UK?

[Zevico]

I'd like to welcome our new readers from the FBI.

I for one welcome our new FBI overlords. I'd like to remind them at as a trusted poster, I can be helpful in in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

[Dinner]

The UK has no steel mills? There are no aircraft or autos built in the UK?

Much, much fewer then it used to have. In 1950 they had the second largest auto making business on Earth and now they get beat by such car making giants as Spain, Poland, and Malaysia. France and Germany have done a much better job preventing the lose of industrial jobs.

Then there is the whole repatriation of profits thing which can't be gotten around. Sure, foreign owned makers are better then nothing and even valuable to have but domestic companies keep the profits in the country while foreign owned companies send the profits back to their corporate HQ in another country so the profits leave the country.

[Hauldren Collider]

Is GM a 'champion' for the US, Oerdin?

Hondas and Toyotas that are driven in America are manufactured in America. Some are even designed here.

Also, service economies are a lot better in recessions than manufacturing economies.

[Hauldren Collider]

Why would we need nukes? As a deterrence, just guide people to poly and let them read a few threads

CFC would be more effective.

[notyoueither]

Much, much fewer then it used to have. In 1950 they had the second largest auto making business on Earth and now they get beat by such car making giants as Spain, Poland, and Malaysia. France and Germany have done a much better job preventing the lose of industrial jobs.

Then there is the whole repatriation of profits thing which can't be gotten around. Sure, foreign owned makers are better then nothing and even valuable to have but domestic companies keep the profits in the country while foreign owned companies send the profits back to their corporate HQ in another country so the profits leave the country.

You mentioned keeping skills in the nation and specified steel, aircraft, and autos. They do make all those things in the UK, so they are keeping those skills, yes?

Those 'foreign' owned companies can pay their dividends to British shareholders just as well as a British company could.

So the British get the industries, and they avoid the costs that the French statists enjoy. Wasn't it discussed earlier that the UK still has greater industrial output than France?

Are there areas where British industries beat the French hands down? Like maybe in banking and finance, perhaps having something to do with the environment being more market oriented? I'm just supposing a why.

[Dinner]

There are upsides to do it both ways. Sometimes one route works out better sometimes the other does. I happen to think one way is better in the long run though.