Britain didn't run out of coal, it's just in deep seams that are uneconomic to extract compared to strip-mined lignite.

Newcastle is proverbially built on top of the stuff.

Although renewable energy sources and electric arc furnaces that consume scrap are preferred these days.

Notably, things like that is why they had their colonies.

Supply chains are so diversified that self sufficiency is only feasible for countries the size of US and China.

Russia has been forced to cannibalize jet planes because sanctions have starved it of spare parts.

Even the US Navy gets its ships built in South Korea now.

Britain's remaining industries are very niche. With a small domestic market, you can't get economies of scale. You have to specialize.

Everyone in this discussion seems to be forgetting Trident as well. There's a lot of assumption the next war will be helpfully similar to WW2, and some sort of reverse sweet spot where we are subject to naval interdiction but will not deploy the strategic nuclear deterrent, and at the same time have enough time to build things, but not things that require any of the rest of the supply chain than steel (I have bad news about the number of ASIC fabs in the UK).

Back to "dead men dominate UK politics". In this case, we're trying to refight a war from 70 years ago.

For Americans wondering why they were making a Judas Priest album public property, it's actually a company based in S****horpe.

In a defensive war, a steel navy sitting in spitting distance of your shores and an army of steel tanks will still do a lot to keep the enemy at bay. And you can swap the tank turrets for Gatling guns on some of your newly produced tanks to help against drones

You wouldn't be able to win the war in your scenario, but you could still do a lot to make sure the other side isn't winning either.

Drone and satellites don't hold territory.

The UK car industry had been doing quite well until Brexit.

Sometimes a pimp slap is what is needed, but no one ever signs up for one voluntarily.

The food example, is the exact reason for large farming subsidies in the European Union. These were implemented as a founding initiative, due to the experience of food shortages during the second world war. A great number of things could be considered critical. Due to the nature of when access could be cut off, the main thing countries likely worry about being able to access, is things humans need to stay alive, and things needed to wage war.

Obviously there are a lot of important things you need to keep a country running, but steel is a key input a in a huge number of very important sectors (infrastructure, military, automotive etc.) so having some ability to produce your own steel seems a sensible hedge.

Food tends to be a lot easier to produce, and many countries do often subsidize their food production, as well as have mercantilistic policies to ensure food production is kept locally.

Vaccines is a more interesting one, and would be something that might indeed be of interest to a nation. On the other hand I don't think many governments are that concerned about another pandemic, sometimes the discourse regarding it very much sounds like "what are the odds it'll happen again"

Steel comes from iron, which you can't grow. It's more critical than food, which you can grow. Same for vaccines.

>Why is steel any more critical than food or vaccines or the like?

Countries that import large shares of their food and medical supply chains are constantly trying to develop domestic capacity.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

> 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.

> Fishing holds similar role in the UK

Indeed and ironically most British people refuse to eat the species commonly found in UK waters, e.g. mackerel etc.

Because the Brits are so fussy, most fish eaten in the UK has always been imported, e.g. Icelandic cod.

And the fact the UK fishermen were die-hard pro-Brexit is odd given they should have been aware that the majority of their regular catch was sold to EU buyers.

In the US that's farming. The "family farm" which is rare ends up being the justification for tons of agribusiness subsidies.

The good news is the USA produces lots of food.

That is because fishing has multiple other factors. For one, it is a major component of certain towns and villages, so while it isn't important to big cities, it is on the smaller scale in particular areas. It keeps harbours open and is also a draw for tourists, so I would say it has different implications than, say, shoe manufacturing.

The British chocolate industry was a major employer in some places but has been decimated. British chocolate was certainly not the best in the world but it was better than what it has been turned into in the last few years, thanks to palm oil, international take overs etc.

> much of the electorate worships the same. They all have parents too, naturally.

Well, yes. But not many of them worship the generation who were mostly responsible for voting in favour of Brexit (60% support among those aged 65 and over at the time of the vote).

Half of all steel in the UK is imported anyway, and there are many places to obtain it. Unless the UK goes to war with most of the world at the same time, it’s not going to have trouble getting steel.

In Switzerland this fictional imputed rent is actually extremly real. We have to pay taxes as if it was earned income.

So you live in your fully owned flat, pretend to rent it to yourself and then pay income taxes on that amount. The point is your government can make this "fake" value very real.

Luckily we recently voted to abolish this tax so it will be gone in some years. This tax was introduced as an emergency measure in ww1.

Sounds like classic private equity, no? Buy it, sell off all the valuable parts, close it down, repeat.

Who needs the Chinese to ruin your country when your own people will happily kill successful companies for the tiniest scrap of profit?

I don't know what happened in that particular case but worldwide declining birth rates will inevitably force many schools to close.

UK private schools spent decades ingratiating themselves to Eastern European gangsters, Arab tyrants and the scions of Asian oligarchs probably including CCP kids. China-pandering has also undermined university education, although the individual Chinese students tend 5o be okay.

I suppose you reap what you sow.

if theres supply chain disruption abroad, its probably going to affect the ore and coke exports too

right - but in the context of this thread, manganese is a vital ingredient to smelting iron - so Australia seems it is no longer self sufficient.

The annoying thing about the BBC paywall is that it is implemented by using different domains, so (for example here) people in the UK go to bbc.com instead of bbc.co.uk

Wait what? Is the NYT not paywalled somewhere?

I'm not seeing this particular paywall, but disturbing in that the BBC is so awful and stupid at this, presumably.

For many years I would have gladly paid the BBC $20/mo for some way to legally watch Top Gear and Doctor Who. That's it, just two shows and I'll give you more than I give Netflix. They never offered a single legal mechanism available to US citizens, so, well.....don't admit to crimes on the internet and all that.

An increasing proportion of UK citizens are deciding not to pay for a TV licence that funds the BBC as consumption patterns have changed.

The BBC will be a zombie in 10 years unless they stop being emotionally driven and sort out their funding.

> When I buy something, it doesn't cost my employer, it costs me.

If someone takes something from you by force and spends it, they're spending your money.

> as its "not other peoples money" is a monetary system that the government lets us use

The government doesn't "let" us use it. If we don't use it (e.g. by swapping services directly) then the government gets annoyed and tries to insert taxable transactions into that direct value swap. It makes us use it.