Talk:Economic history of the United Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

Suggestions - Could we incorporate something about Ireland, which was part of the United Kingdom during the 19th century - the Potato Famine at least should get a mention. - It might be an idea to split the 'First Industrial Revolution' and the 'Breakdown of Pax Britannica' into smaller sections, or maybe whittle them down and have a 'see Main Article' format as the Second Industrial Revolution currently has. 129.67.20.193 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be something about Britain going cap-in-hand to the IMF in 1976 for a bailout [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.7.38 (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who Wrote This Rubbish?

It puts the economic problems of the UK in the 1960/70s as being inflicted only by the unions. The unions were a symptom not the cause. The country was suffering from lack of investment, in plant, training and education. Compounded by outdated Victorian industry and ideas. There was a loss of guaranteed markets as the country de-empired and unable to compete in the open market as products were poorly designed and made compared to competitors. The pyche of the British management was one of cheap labour not high quality education and training - points made by unions. This directly affected the economy, not unions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.8.140 (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- it does seem rather biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.127.127 (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_ I'd say incomplete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.165.122 (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to point to published sources rather than come up with an original theory, remember wikipedia doesn't allow
Opposition to trade unions#Unemployment). As well as Hayek, who argues they contribute to inflation rather than price stability (empirically typified by the 70s). I think the accepted theme here as well as on the pages dedicated to Margaret Thatcher is that she broke the power of the unions and ushered in an age of economic prosperity. It would be good to expand the critics section of this view, but only through published sources. --Dmg46664 (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Economic History of England prior to 1707?

A search for "Economic History of England" redirects to this page, but this page only includes the history of the United Kingdom following 1707. Where's all the information on what happened during the mercantilist period and the post-Armada growth of empire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.178.28.18 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same confusion just now, and added a note to the start of the article, including a link to Economy of England in the Middle Ages. However that article only covers up to about 1500, which apparently leaves us with no coverage for the seventeenth century. The closest I could find so far were a section on early modern England and the article on the Stuart period --Dowcet (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This is an opening for someone to create a new article. For example, the economic circumstances around the great recoinage of 1695 deserve an in depth article. I suppose this could be a place to start on that particular subject. Mlewan (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment levels

The article mentions that unemployment is now down to levels last seen in the 1970s. Nonsense - the way unemployment levels are measured has changed significantly in the last 40 years, the article needs to at least mention the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob2uk (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mllionaires

Removed this as it seemed to belong in a differnt article: A quarterly report prepared by the Economist Intelligence Unit on behalf of Barclays Wealth in 2007 estimated that there were 4,000,000 dollar millionaires in the UK, second only to the USA.[1] BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Barclays Wealth Insights, Volume 5: Evolving Fortunes, page 7. Barclays Wealth 2008.

Output Per Head

Is this an established measure? How is it measured? If it is an established measure, surely we should have a page on it? Pkearney (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another way of saying "output per capita." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.149.75.88 (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

21st century, Great Recession and Austerity

This article is terrible at describing the problems of the post-2008 economic depression. It makes absolutely no mention of the U.K. government's austerity measures and their impact. It doesn't even give numbers as to the depth of the recession, especially comparing it to past recessions. A little help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.149.75.88 (talk) 04:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split

Shouldn't we split this article into Economic history of Great Britain (18th century) and Economic history of the United Kingdom (starting in 19th century)? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article now outdated and factually incorrect - in severe need of updating

Most of this section on Economic history only leads up to mid-2012 and needs updating, for example the article states that "while the UK had no double dip recession it did however experience stagnant growth" - this is of course incorrect as the UK economy re-entered recession in 2012. There are further inaccuracies in the most recent information as well. In need of cleanup and updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.228.187 (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economic history of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reactionary nonsense

From the Imperialism section:

"In terms of trade, however, India turned only a small profit for British business.[68]

There was pride and glory in the Empire, as the most talented young Britons vied for positions in the Indian Civil Service and for similar oversees career opportunities."

This is just so horrendously wrong that words simply fail me. Plus, "oversees" is a bit of a giveaway. MinorProphet (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what part in your personal viewpoint do you believe to be incorrect? look at J.A. Mangan - 2013 - ‎"Diplomats, clerks, soldiers and other establishment figures saluted the contribution to Empire of the public schoolboy ... Haileyburians not to idle at home but to do a hand's turn for the Empire and keep in mind the glory of the imperial idea" see also East India Company College 21:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Rjensen (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ MinorProphet (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economic history of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term GDP chart

This article could use a chart of GDP per capita over the long term. I was particularly interested in the 1700s and 1800s, to the degree information is available. -- Beland (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1840s - protectionism

"After 1840, it abandoned mercantilism and practised "free trade," with no tariffs or quotas or restrictions[citation needed]. "

This is not correct, or at least an oversimplification. The abolition of the corn laws was in 1846, it took another 15-20 years for the UK to eliminate most tariffs. They were not completely eliminated. Revenue raising tariffs remained on wine, rum, sugar, coffee, tea and tobacco. Source: [2] Table p44. Also [3] JAC Esquire (talk) 11:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annus Mirabilis of 1759
missing despite huge impact on economy

Defeats and high costs from 1650 to 1674. After the G.R., "the Dutch merchant elite began to use

gross national product of the Kingdom of Great Britain
surpassed that of the Dutch. Whereas in the 17th century the commercial success of the Dutch had inspired English jealousy and admiration, in the late 18th century the growth of British power, and the concurrent loss of Amsterdam's preeminence, led to Dutch resentment."
Great Britain in the Seven Years' War gained control of British India, the source of wealth and growth for the UK. No mention in the article?--Chianti (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The first sentence is:

The economic history of the United Kingdom relates the economic development in the British state from the absorption of Wales into the Kingdom of England after 1535 to the modern United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the early 21st century.

This is awful prose. "Economic history of the United Kingdom" is a descriptive title, not a term that needs defining; per

MOS:FIRST the usual approach of "answer the question 'What is it?'" is inapplicable. Instead the lead section should provide a brief summary of the topic in its full scope. It seems this article in particular relates to England and Wales, then Great Britain from 1708, and the United Kingdom from 1801, whereas medieval England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own articles (the last shared with Ireland both pre- and post-partition). But currently the lead section seems to start at the 17th century. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Pro-American bias

For a page about British history, why is it so America-centric? The pre-industrial area is particularly poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.215.1 (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second Paragraph of 1945-2001

The paragraph which I have added an inline citation needed tag to contains a lot of claims and statements without any form of attribution given. I'm also concerned the first sentence of it is somewhat unbalanced especially given the lack of citation. Words like 'squandered' and 'jeopardised' are quite strong and are only substantiated by a further series of uncited statements. RavingWelsh (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

Which was the biggest sector of the economy in 1688 41.18.200.95 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economic_history_of_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1196371687"