Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    China is a civilisation more than a country. Arguably you should be comparing it to Europe rather than to a specific European state. Europeans have been fighting each other since the dawn of human settlement there (in fact, before it, if you count Neanderthals as Europeans), and it didn't hurt their progress through the Modern period. If anything it helped it. I don't think civil wars have any bearing on innovation.
    China is a country which the OP had discussed in comparison with the UK in the context of population size vs economy size. I am merely replying to the OP on his basis and theory. I did not initiate this comparison. It is your perspective that civil war has no bearing on innovation, I respect your opinion however much I disagree with it.


    You have backtracked hugely since your original statement: now that you have removed the parts I disagreed with, I agree with all of the above, except the fact that you 'did not say that Nazism was an educated movement' - you did say exactly that.
    I must ask you to quote exactly where I stated that Nazism was an educated movement.


    That is a more credible way of thinking about it compared to what you said before (perhaps I was taking you too literally - not having a consideration for the long-term consequences of your greed is still not the same as deliberately planning to make it uninhabitable).
    In technicality of course they are not deliberately damaging one's country with no reasons, but in the end result the country has been damaged by the direction chosen by its government, and corruption is one of the vested interests of the government to allow the damage to continue.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    China is a country which the OP had discussed in comparison with the UK in the context of population size vs economy size. I am merely replying to the OP on his basis and theory. I did not initiate this comparison. It is your perspective that civil war has no bearing on innovation, I respect your opinion however much I disagree with it.
    Can you give any evidence to support the fact that civil war damages innovation? The Roman Republic and part of the Imperial period was plagued by civil wars but seemed to do quite a lot of inovating. So was the medieval Islamic Caliphate, and the USA in the 19th Century, and France during the revolutionary period, and indeed most of the major centres of innovative thought throughout history, Britain being one of the few exceptions as one of the more peaceful countries in Europe over the past 300 years.

    I must ask you to quote exactly where I stated that Nazism was an educated movement.
    I will do so, for the second time. You said:

    "[Nazi Germany] did not engage in cultural suicide such as the 'Cultural Revolution', in which intellect is frowned upon and the uneducated class becomes the ruler of a nation."

    Actually I must make an apology here, since on further investigation, despite their deeply anti-intellectual philosophy, many leading Nazis were actually very well educated. Not Hitler himself or any of his military lieutenants such as Hoess and Bormann, but Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels were both very intelligent and well educated as were some other members of his civilian cabinet.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Can you give any evidence to support the fact that civil war damages innovation? The Roman Republic and part of the Imperial period was plagued by civil wars but seemed to do quite a lot of inovating. So was the medieval Islamic Caliphate, and the USA in the 19th Century, and France during the revolutionary period, and indeed most of the major centres of innovative thought throughout history, Britain being one of the few exceptions as one of the more peaceful countries in Europe over the past 300 years.
    Again you need to look at the context I used originally. I was describing China's tendency to regress their cultural progress by choosing to purge knowledge and fight against its own people. This was in reply to you when you stated that we should 'give them time'. History has shown that China does not have a good reputation of social cohesion, and they don't make good decisions in terms of advancing as a nation.

    You are suggesting the technological advancements during civil wars, but have you considered the advancements during civil peace times? Can you say with confidence that civil wars will result in more inventions than peace time? No 'evidence' can prove that civil wars damages innovation or otherwise encourage it, because there is no alternate scenario we can sample on, unless we also live in a parallel world.

    I will do so, for the second time. You said:

    "[Nazi Germany] did not engage in cultural suicide such as the 'Cultural Revolution', in which intellect is frowned upon and the uneducated class becomes the ruler of a nation."

    Actually I must make an apology here, since on further investigation, despite their deeply anti-intellectual philosophy, many leading Nazis were actually very well educated. Not Hitler himself or any of his military lieutenants such as Hoess and Bormann, but Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels were both very intelligent and well educated as were some other members of his civilian cabinet.
    I was describing the Cultural Revolution since these were its key characteristic, that was not a contrast to Germany. Even if you take it by that context I still did not suggest that the Nazis were educated, if anything it would suggest that they weren't uneducated which isn't saying much. The context would become, 'Simon is not stupid' for example, which doesn't exactly mean Simon is clever.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    OP does make a point which is that our relative position in the world is still declining and that so long as the size of your labour force dictates output then we will continue declining. It's probably worth saying though that by 2100 the ONS forcasts the UK population to be around 110m which is larger than Japan's, Germany's, France's and Russia's will be so we gain a few positions here. One can also say reasonably that the African and Muslim states will find a way to impoverish themselves due to their culture so i don't espect them to overtake us. If we view the Euro-zone as one then, i expect us to end the century around 10th,

    At any rate OP's point is also one which downplays our ability to succeed. Whether we are 5th or 10th, we'll survive quite comfortably.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    It's all lies. Obviously OP gets his salary from the EU!

    On a serious note, I've never understood why "we're the 5th biggest economy in the world" is a reason for leaving the #1 biggest economy in the world.
    It makes no logical sense. It's like saying California should leave the US because on its own, it's the 7th biggest economy in the world. Maybe it is, but surely its better to be part of the biggest?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It makes no logical sense. It's like saying California should leave the US because on its own, it's the 7th biggest economy in the world. Maybe it is, but surely its better to be part of the biggest?
    It's not hard to understand the difference between economic union and political union.
    Offline

    17
    typonaut


    I do not for one moment believe that UK is the fifth largest economy. I think the word 'economy' has been used very loosely in the UK sense. You have China, USA, India, Hong Kong, Venezuela, Japan etc. These countries are the real heavyweights. What does the UK have? Nothing.

    The reason why it's able to sustain the economy is because the very rich are taxed which is why schooling and NHS is free for ordinary citizens, the benefits system will continue to be maintained so that almost anyone can claim it either genuinely or fraudulently and so on.Without the mega-rich people in the UK and cut off of supply of rich people from overseas who buy UK properties up, UK would be nothing. So I don't buy this argument about UK being the fifth largest economy of the world.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It makes no logical sense. It's like saying California should leave the US because on its own, it's the 7th biggest economy in the world. Maybe it is, but surely its better to be part of the biggest?
    Power.

    California has never known anything but having a small role in a larger state. Britain ruled the world.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Drewski)
    For all those making the point about the 500m in the EU, what about the 2.6b in the commonwealth, of which we're the lead?
    What about the fact that even if we lost the market of 500m consumers in the EU, by making a single trade agreement with India - who again, just happen to be a commonwealth country - we'd have 1.6b consumers?

    Why are these points irrelevant?
    Last I checked we do not have, nor have any intentions, of having free travel arrangements with much of it

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    typonaut


    I do not for one moment believe that UK is the fifth largest economy.
    So you're saying that all the international bodies are incompetent when it comes to simply collecting numbers and therefore the UK does not have the 5th highest GDP in the world? Got anything to back up this statement?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Last I checked we do not have, nor have any intentions, of having free travel arrangements with much of it
    Quite correct, but that wasn't the angle of the conversation.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Power.

    California has never known anything but having a small role in a larger state. Britain ruled the world.
    Nostalgia about a lost role in world affairs (a role which incidentally was often extremely exploitative and oppressive) should not be a basis for deciding about current actions or future political affiliations.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Nostalgia about a lost role in world affairs (a role which incidentally was often extremely exploitative and oppressive) should not be a basis for deciding about current actions or future political affiliations.
    A role that implemented freedom, democracy, and common law to these places, there's a clear divide between the for!er British colonies and the former Iberian colonies, funnily enough the British ones are better (unless you want to be a despot).

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    A role that implemented freedom, democracy, and common law to these places, there's a clear divide between the for!er British colonies and the former Iberian colonies, funnily enough the British ones are better (unless you want to be a despot).
    And that also ushered in the industrial revolution across the globe, providing those countries with the ability to pick themselves up.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Again you need to look at the context I used originally. I was describing China's tendency to regress their cultural progress by choosing to purge knowledge and fight against its own people. This was in reply to you when you stated that we should 'give them time'. History has shown that China does not have a good reputation of social cohesion, and they don't make good decisions in terms of advancing as a nation.
    Anybody who uses the phrase 'history has shown' clearly does not understand history very well. Until the early modern period, history 'showed' that Britain was a backward and irrelevant island at the edge of Europe. It showed that the Americas were a separate zone of humanity with no connection to affairs in the Old World. If it shows us anything, it shows us that after a major revolution in human technological and scientific progress, the entire political dynamic of the globe completely changes. We are currently in the process of going through such a change - arguably the most significant change in humanity since the invention of agriculture, namely the digital and scientific revolutions. What happens from now on may have little to no bearing on what was happening for the past 2000 years.

    And anyhow, I say again, China does not have a history of 'purging knowledge' or 'fighting against its own people' any more than Europe did before the industrial revolution.

    You are suggesting the technological advancements during civil wars, but have you considered the advancements during civil peace times? Can you say with confidence that civil wars will result in more inventions than peace time? No 'evidence' can prove that civil wars damages innovation or otherwise encourage it, because there is no alternate scenario we can sample on, unless we also live in a parallel world.
    I never claimed that, I just said it is clearly not a hard and fast rule that civil wars clearly stall technological progress.

    I was describing the Cultural Revolution since these were its key characteristic, that was not a contrast to Germany. Even if you take it by that context I still did not suggest that the Nazis were educated, if anything it would suggest that they weren't uneducated which isn't saying much. The context would become, 'Simon is not stupid' for example, which doesn't exactly mean Simon is clever.
    You were comparing two different entities:

    'Simon, unlike Fred, is not a moron.'

    In other words, Fred is a moron.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Look at another "fact", the EU's population is 508 million, in the table referenced above that would place it third overall (even without the UK it would be 440 million, still well above the USA). Doesn't "biggest combined economy in the world" (the EU) for the next 10 years or so sound pretty good? Or "third largest combined economy" (the EU) if rankings are tied to population? Sounds a lot better to me than "22nd largest economy".
    According to the World Bank list you provided the largest national economy in the world is that of China, but China is not even in the top 50 of countries for highest living standards. If the goal of economic development is to provide good lives for the citizens of a country, the population size and therefore the total size of the economy hardly matters.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It makes no logical sense. It's like saying California should leave the US because on its own, it's the 7th biggest economy in the world. Maybe it is, but surely its better to be part of the biggest?
    I think the emphasis of this argument is "could", not "should". California would quite clearly be a viable independent country without the rest of the USA.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Small countries do not have to be in a union . New Zealand has the same GDP per capita as the UK and unemployment rate.

    What they have to be is associated very closely with bigger counties (Australia) or in a Union.
    That's a silly argument. Australia and New Zealand combined have a smaller population than England alone.

    What Australia and New Zealand show is that countries that are run like ours do well regardless of their location or trading arrangements, and regardless of their scale. Canada too was doing fine before it joined NAFTA.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Anybody who uses the phrase 'history has shown' clearly does not understand history very well. Until the early modern period, history 'showed' that Britain was a backward and irrelevant island at the edge of Europe. It showed that the Americas were a separate zone of humanity with no connection to affairs in the Old World. If it shows us anything, it shows us that after a major revolution in human technological and scientific progress, the entire political dynamic of the globe completely changes. We are currently in the process of going through such a change - arguably the most significant change in humanity since the invention of agriculture, namely the digital and scientific revolutions. What happens from now on may have little to no bearing on what was happening for the past 2000 years.

    And anyhow, I say again, China does not have a history of 'purging knowledge' or 'fighting against its own people' any more than Europe did before the industrial revolution.
    Why are you examining before the industrial revolution given that the OP was talking about modern history and the future? The civil war and cultural revolution happened in the mid-20th century whereas the industrial revolution was back in the 18th-19th century.

    The Chinese civil war and Cultural Revolution were very modern history and has real bearing. Their aftermaths form the daily lives of ordinary Chinese citizens.

    You are suggesting that I 'do not understand history very well'. To be quite frank I don't think you are at all familiar with Chinese history, let alone modern Chinese history. My grand parents survived the civil war and escaped Maoism seeing its impact on the daily lives of ordinary citizens. The fact that you are trying to counter our firsthand observation without even visited China is like telling a Holocaust survivor that he doesn't know the Holocaust very well.

    I never claimed that, I just said it is clearly not a hard and fast rule that civil wars clearly stall technological progress.
    Then I must tell you it is my perspective, my family, and those of my friends and their families, that from us witnessing the aftermath of the Chinese civil war we determined that the civil war was harmful to the Chinese society and technological advancement. More than 6 million people were killed and starvation was widespread, intellectuals were summoned to the battlefield. With the utmost respect, I would like to ask what personal experience you have had that qualifies you to make such a judgement on Chinese history?


    You were comparing two different entities:

    'Simon, unlike Fred, is not a moron.'

    In other words, Fred is a moron.
    You are reading this in a black or white context. In reality there are grey areas.

    "[Nazi Germany] did not engage in cultural suicide such as the 'Cultural Revolution', in which intellect is frowned upon and the uneducated class becomes the ruler of a nation."

    If I was using a contrast context, it should be read it as:

    "[In Nazi Germany], intellect is not frowned upon and the uneducated class does not become the ruler of a nation."

    By saying that the uneducated class does not become the ruler does not mean that the educated class becomes the ruler. There are different degrees of education, you don't call the majority of the public educated or uneducated because most are just moderately educated.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you're saying that all the international bodies are incompetent when it comes to simply collecting numbers and therefore the UK does not have the 5th highest GDP in the world? Got anything to back up this statement?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Read my post again. I said 'I do not believe that UK is the fifth largest economy in the world'. It is not a statement. Its an opinion. I am casting doubt on the fact that this fact has been bandit around.

    Put some of the international bodies aside like the IMF and so on. They are corrupt. It's only a matter of time before they're found out. Several of the UK institutions responsible for data are also suspect. They've been wrong on so many things before like the gold standard and adopting the Euro.

    You also need to disregard several of the lecturers in the universities who are harping on the vote to 'remain'. These lecturers are originally from EU. If UK votes to leave the EU, these lecturers will have to return to their home countries and then reapply for these lecturing positions again through the work permit system but this time there's a twist. They will have to compete with lecturers from the Commonwealth who speak English as their first language, respect the Common Law and whose ancestors fought alongside the British troops in the previous World War to defend Queen and country.

    The UK government from Tony Blair's time right up till now have been terrible which is why she's fraught with policy blunders one after another. I'm certain you know what there are. The list is endless. It's akin to watching re-runs of Twenty Twelve and The Office all over again.

    There's been talk that Cameron will be ousted after the referendum and Boris may stake a claim for the vacant post. It's difficult to see how Boris can be the PM when frankly, I don't know what he stands for, apart from Boris Bikes.

    Depending on how you see it, the only 3 great things about the UK have to be the monarchy, the judiciary in the higher courts and Nigel Farage. The other school of thought reckon that it's the welfare benefits system, NHS and free education right up to sixth form.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.