Rebirth of England.

Barron has also researched these things - the think tank he funded produces detailed reports for him every year on the industrial structure of England.

As Barron held a high position in England and learned more about the situation in England, he realized more deeply that England's future was destined to be difficult to return to the position of global hegemon, or even to maintain its current position. , are extremely difficult.

Speaking of which, Barron is not only the Duke of England now, but his industrial base is also in England. Even for the safety and inheritance of his own wealth, if possible, he will try to make England stronger - so that he can Able to obtain benefits by controlling a certain amount of British power.

But in reality, this is too difficult, and at most it can only be improved to a certain extent.

In fact, not only Britain, but also Western capital including Europe and the United States will face major challenges in the future, and they will increasingly be unable to cope with their capabilities.

This is the conclusion reached by Barron based on his analysis of the political, economic and industrial production conditions of these countries, as well as some future developments in his previous life.

It can be said that since Mrs. Thatcher’s economic privatization reform, Britain has completely lost the possibility of competing among the world’s largest powers.

why? It is precisely because of the free market reforms at that time that until now, almost all British state-owned enterprises have been turned into private enterprises.

How can the owners of private enterprises care that industry is the foundation of the country? They only pursue profits and need more income.

If we combine it with the electoral system of Western countries such as England, then for enterprises, they can achieve development with very few constraints, but for the country, almost all the future has been lost - this may be too pessimistic. , but at least it has lost the possibility of becoming an industrial power.

This must be viewed from two aspects. For private enterprises, profit is the most important - if you can make money more easily through finance or foreign investment, who will go through the hard work of manufacturing?

Even if industrial manufacturing such as automobiles, electrical equipment, daily necessities, etc. can choose to open factories in Asia, South America and other regions where labor costs are lower, who would open a factory in England, a place with such high labor costs?

In the end, the only things that can be left in the British mainland are the financial industry, tourism and other service industries, and high-precision and high-profit manufacturing.

As for the government’s guiding role?

This is to say that the most fatal flaw of the so-called democratic electoral system is that parliamentary elections are held every five years, so that each government can only see the results in five years, or even three years - they They only pursue short-term interests and are unable to make longer-term plans.

Because many long-term plans may even cause economic stagnation or decline in the short term. Only after breaking through a certain limit will it enter a period of fast growth.

But every five-year British government has to clean up the mess of the previous government in the first two years. After all, it can win because the previous government did not do satisfactorily in many places or caused a crisis. Then the term only lasts for There are only three years left. For the next election, will you choose policies that are quick and quick to achieve results in the short term, or policies that will take five or ten years to be reflected but are very beneficial to the long-term development of the country? Woolen cloth?

Under this kind of system that caters to voters, it is destined to be unable to guarantee the continuity of policies, and in the end can only seek quick success and quick benefits...

If you look at it this way, then even if you maintain high-tech manufacturing and financial industries, you can still earn good profits and maintain the welfare of the people...

Yes, but the premise is that you need to maintain your technological advantages and always have barriers in high-precision manufacturing.

But other countries are developing rapidly, climbing to industrial pearls one after another, and lowering their prices, compressing profits!

Why did the European and American West fear the Soviet Union? It's not just because of the social system, nor just because of the so-called "democracy" - you must know that the word democracy originally comes from the Soviet Union. At that time, the Soviet Union had an institutional advantage over the West.

For the West, the most terrifying thing about the Soviet Union is not the above, nor their army, but the long-term plan that lasts for five or ten years, which can ensure that they concentrate their efforts to overcome technical difficulties one after another. This continuous, continuous, How can one be reassured by the feeling of being chased and having their technical barriers broken down as the norm?

Every time a technical barrier is broken, it means that the high profits of an industry are buried, and several small "developed countries" may be knocked out of the world...

Facing such a behemoth, they can only hope that the other party will make mistakes.

Fortunately, the Soviet Union did make mistakes and eventually collapsed.

But can they continue to be so lucky?

"We can't just place our hopes on the other party making mistakes, even if we still have the advantage in terms of media and overall strength..."

Barron once said this to the crown prince and Brown:

"Any country can make mistakes, including the United States, so we also need to ensure that we can stand by the other side when needed - we need to keep any possibility open."

No one knows his former motherland better than Barron. It is not as aggressive as the West and only wants to do business. In fact, their wishes have long been written on the Tiananmen Gate Tower, "Unite the People of the World." Long live"……

As for British industrial manufacturing...

Barron can only guarantee more investment in Britain in high-end manufacturing where profits are sufficient.

On the other hand, there is the London Technology City that he promoted. Barron hopes that in the Internet field, at least Britain can keep up with the pace of the United States and China.

Not to say they are comparable, but at least in some future directions, such as cloud computing and AI, it can help Europe not fall behind too far.

Of course, this will indeed be somewhat difficult, because Internet products are not like other industries, such as manufacturing. It depends on how many customers you want to have, at least you need to manufacture a corresponding number of products - but Internet products are different, for example, if you develop a game , or after a piece of software, the number of users you have depends on how large a range of user groups you can market these games and software to...

The reason why the United States and China will be the two most powerful countries in the Internet industry in the future is that they have the largest markets - the United States has a global market dominated by English, while China has a sufficiently broad Chinese-speaking market...

As for Europe, to put it bluntly, Internet products occupy the European market, and it is not even as good as the American market for development. After all, although the value of European users is relatively high, in this continent with an area similar to China and the United States, In addition to English, there are also French, German, Italian, Spanish... This is a very diverse multi-lingual market.

But the problem is that it is really not easy to compete with Silicon Valley in the American market. The current London Technology City can only gain an advantage in the British market first, and then seek the European market.