Long term solution to our economic woes
Discussion
I come back to my original comments about infrastructure - a workplace where employees shoelaces are tied together would not be a very productive one, but that's the reality for many otherwise economically viable areas of the UK.
Are year or so back, one of our firms bought new CNC machinery. None of the firms providing the kit were based within Birmingham - what we would think of as the natural home of engieering and metal bashing - but were instead located places near, but outside of the connurbation. The simple reason is transport and congestion.
Birmgingham ought to be a thriving centre for manufacturing skills and expertise in general, but the logistics of getting professional staff, supplies and products in and out are a major disincentive for investment.
Birmingham is just an example, but it's a pretty big one. It is, as many often forget, still the second city (even if Madchester/Salford/Stockport is actually larger) and ought to be enabled to pull it's weight.
Are year or so back, one of our firms bought new CNC machinery. None of the firms providing the kit were based within Birmingham - what we would think of as the natural home of engieering and metal bashing - but were instead located places near, but outside of the connurbation. The simple reason is transport and congestion.
Birmgingham ought to be a thriving centre for manufacturing skills and expertise in general, but the logistics of getting professional staff, supplies and products in and out are a major disincentive for investment.
Birmingham is just an example, but it's a pretty big one. It is, as many often forget, still the second city (even if Madchester/Salford/Stockport is actually larger) and ought to be enabled to pull it's weight.
Murph7355 said:
Use Psychology said:
then you don't understand where medicine, electricity, electronics, microelectronics, semiconductors, superconductors, lasers, motor cars, trains, aeroplanes, oil tankers, motorways, communications satellites, computers, the internet, plastics, television, batteries, telephones, radio, and on and on and on come from.
Out of interest, how many of those items are significant earners for UK plc today?I suspect a large number of them are far more profitable for other nations now than the UK.
Which I know isn't really the point of science. But equally the govt has a set of books to balance (unfortunately).
AJS- said:
s2art
I'm not knoccking science as valuable though. I'm saying it shouldn't have government money tipped down it in the hope of bringing an economic return, from an economic point of view.
Use Psychology
I understand where they come from. From an economic point of view though, where are the greatest returns? In inventing these things in a laboratory, which may be spurred on by increased public subsidy, or in implementing and marketing these things, which may be hampered by a bloated state hoovering up good scientists and available resources.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying science is bad, or that arts should be subsidised. I'm saying the state should concentrate on reducing it's size and stay right out of the economy as far as possible.
I think my point is that science operates outside the economy - you won't find many companies doing 'blue skies' research, because the commercial applications are too distant. They would be uncompetitive doing this. Nevertheless, this blue skies research is essential for the development of new technologies and products, which is what drives the birth and growth of companies (and the death of old ones). I'm not knoccking science as valuable though. I'm saying it shouldn't have government money tipped down it in the hope of bringing an economic return, from an economic point of view.
Use Psychology
I understand where they come from. From an economic point of view though, where are the greatest returns? In inventing these things in a laboratory, which may be spurred on by increased public subsidy, or in implementing and marketing these things, which may be hampered by a bloated state hoovering up good scientists and available resources.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying science is bad, or that arts should be subsidised. I'm saying the state should concentrate on reducing it's size and stay right out of the economy as far as possible.
i.e. for the healthy economy of which you speak, a solid investment in basic scientific research is a prerequisite. The more you spend on this the stronger a position your economy will occupy. private companies are not in a position to spend on this. so the government has to. having reached this position (which in my opinion is unarguable) then it makes sense to spend more, certainly, at least as much as our global competitors. otherwise how do you expect to maintain competitiveness globally?
I agree that governments should minimise public spending as far as possible, but I feel that there are certain things that absolutely require government funding - and fundamental science is one of them.
AJS- said:
Britain doesn't really make any car to the standard of an ordinary BMW/Audi/Mercedes though.
Surely Jagusr are near, and they can't be any more unreliable than BMW?http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motoring/jaguar-...
Use Psychology said:
you're asking the wrong question - how many of the 'significant earners' for UK plc today would be impossible without these things?
Fair point.I wonder if direct govt funding is the correct avenue though? Perhaps indirect funding by way of tax breaks on private fund investment would be better? (Or the private firms benefitting simply investing regardless).
Use Psychology said:
I think my point is that science operates outside the economy - you won't find many companies doing 'blue skies' research, because the commercial applications are too distant. They would be uncompetitive doing this. Nevertheless, this blue skies research is essential for the development of new technologies and products, which is what drives the birth and growth of companies (and the death of old ones).
[b]
i.e. for the healthy economy of which you speak, a solid investment in basic scientific research is a prerequisite. The more you spend on this the stronger a position your economy will occupy.[/b] private companies are not in a position to spend on this. so the government has to. having reached this position (which in my opinion is unarguable) then it makes sense to spend more, certainly, at least as much as our global competitors. otherwise how do you expect to maintain competitiveness globally?
I agree that governments should minimise public spending as far as possible, but I feel that there are certain things that absolutely require government funding - and fundamental science is one of them.
Two very strong statements there.[b]
i.e. for the healthy economy of which you speak, a solid investment in basic scientific research is a prerequisite. The more you spend on this the stronger a position your economy will occupy.[/b] private companies are not in a position to spend on this. so the government has to. having reached this position (which in my opinion is unarguable) then it makes sense to spend more, certainly, at least as much as our global competitors. otherwise how do you expect to maintain competitiveness globally?
I agree that governments should minimise public spending as far as possible, but I feel that there are certain things that absolutely require government funding - and fundamental science is one of them.
1) Science does not operate outside the economy any more than the economy operates outside science. Scientists, assistants, laboratories and equipment all must be paid for, and as you rightly say science has economic consequences.
2) I wouldn't dispute that scientific advances have positive economic consequences, but is there anything anywhere to show any causal link between public spending on scientific research and economic growth?
Derek
I mentioned Jaguar-Land Rover, they do seem to be making a good effort of producing quality high end cars, and good luck to them.
Having been following this thread I'd say the arguments for and against state involvement are compelling!
I don't think anyone is saying there should be no funding of science or science based research in the UK. But just consider what science has been telling us recently as regards 'anthropomorphic global warming', wherein the 'science is settled' etc etc.
The graphene example is very interesting - maybe in 20 years we'll be able to judge what effect it has had.
I think what a lot of people want to know - me especially - is what can, and should, be done NOW to help UK PLC get up and running again. Scientific research has it's place - as it always has done in this country. But over and above all this we have certain fundamental economic matters that need work.
It includes education (what type, where, who?), taxation, the role of the state etc.
I don't think anyone is saying there should be no funding of science or science based research in the UK. But just consider what science has been telling us recently as regards 'anthropomorphic global warming', wherein the 'science is settled' etc etc.
The graphene example is very interesting - maybe in 20 years we'll be able to judge what effect it has had.
I think what a lot of people want to know - me especially - is what can, and should, be done NOW to help UK PLC get up and running again. Scientific research has it's place - as it always has done in this country. But over and above all this we have certain fundamental economic matters that need work.
It includes education (what type, where, who?), taxation, the role of the state etc.
Quote from AJS
2) I wouldn't dispute that scientific advances have positive economic consequences, but is there anything anywhere to show any causal link between public spending on scientific research and economic growth?
http://www.harriman-house.com/bookfiles/spinouts/S...
A review of a book looking at companies set up as spinoffs from University research.
A brief summary:
Oxford Uni invested £70m building new chemistry lab in 2004. £22m came from venture capital. Why do this?
It did this because since the 1980s, companies set up as spinoffs from its chemistry dept had generated £80m of funds for the University, as well as creating jobs and paying corporation tax.
This is one example, from one university, from one of its departments.
2) I wouldn't dispute that scientific advances have positive economic consequences, but is there anything anywhere to show any causal link between public spending on scientific research and economic growth?
http://www.harriman-house.com/bookfiles/spinouts/S...
A review of a book looking at companies set up as spinoffs from University research.
A brief summary:
Oxford Uni invested £70m building new chemistry lab in 2004. £22m came from venture capital. Why do this?
It did this because since the 1980s, companies set up as spinoffs from its chemistry dept had generated £80m of funds for the University, as well as creating jobs and paying corporation tax.
This is one example, from one university, from one of its departments.
greygoose said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I don't know if it's been covered but I've always got the impression that the UK's invention industry (for want of a better phrase) are very good at inventing things, but very bad at making and selling versions of the things they invented.
So if funding is finite should it not be targetted at this 'product development gap'?
I think we can make certain things well and sell them but seem to inevitably run into the problem of being uncompetitive in producing things at a price suitable for the market, Dyson being an example of moving production abroad. Whilst the world seems willing to pay a premium for German engineered products (bog standard Audi/BMW/Mercedes) they are less willing to buy an "ordinary" car with a British badge it seems.So if funding is finite should it not be targetted at this 'product development gap'?
As johnnytheboy says, the UK is actually pretty good at inventing stuff but not so good at commercialising it. I think its easy to get hung up on "retail" products such as car manufacture or Dyson vacuum cleaners, but I don't think that's really where the issues lie. Retail stuff is very visible and prestigious, but its the result of many other layers of industry which is where we fall down - we don't have the correct foundations to build these end products competitively.
For example, the company I am working is in the process of diversifying into producing industrial machines/automation. We are effectively acting as an integrator for a device/process, which the UK is at the forefront of development for - so in this instance we are getting the science right, and we are getting the direct application of that science right - great! The next stage is where the UK falls down - we need to incorporate this tech into a useful machine yet virtually none of the rest of the technology that makes up the machine is from the UK. I would estimate that these parts (which are the building blocks of applying any clever tech) are probably 70% German, maybe 15% Italian and 15% from other places. Without intermediate stages like this, is it any wonder we can't deliver the end product competitively?
A postbox that was painted gold in Jessica Ennis's home city to celebrate her Olympic triumph has been vandalised.
Graffiti was daubed on the box in Barkers Pool in Sheffield city centre, which has already become a tourist attraction, within 24 hours of it being painted.
A new layer of gold has been applied by a Royal Mail ***ENGINEER***, a Sheffield City Council spokeswoman said.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jessicas-gold-postbox-van...
No wonder engineering has such a bad image in this country. The IMechE do nothing about protecting the title 'engineer', and this is one reason we are held in such low esteem by the masses, and another reason it's become an unattractive profession to join. An equivalent to the above article would never have appeared in Germany...
Graffiti was daubed on the box in Barkers Pool in Sheffield city centre, which has already become a tourist attraction, within 24 hours of it being painted.
A new layer of gold has been applied by a Royal Mail ***ENGINEER***, a Sheffield City Council spokeswoman said.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jessicas-gold-postbox-van...
No wonder engineering has such a bad image in this country. The IMechE do nothing about protecting the title 'engineer', and this is one reason we are held in such low esteem by the masses, and another reason it's become an unattractive profession to join. An equivalent to the above article would never have appeared in Germany...
dr_gn said:
A postbox that was painted gold in Jessica Ennis's home city to celebrate her Olympic triumph has been vandalised.
Graffiti was daubed on the box in Barkers Pool in Sheffield city centre, which has already become a tourist attraction, within 24 hours of it being painted.
A new layer of gold has been applied by a Royal Mail ***ENGINEER***, a Sheffield City Council spokeswoman said.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jessicas-gold-postbox-van...
No wonder engineering has such a bad image in this country. The IMechE do nothing about protecting the title 'engineer', and this is one reason we are held in such low esteem by the masses, and another reason it's become an unattractive profession to join. An equivalent to the above article would never have appeared in Germany...
I saw the same story on the BBC website, but managed to resist posting... They also have a nice photo of the aforementioned engineer in action.Graffiti was daubed on the box in Barkers Pool in Sheffield city centre, which has already become a tourist attraction, within 24 hours of it being painted.
A new layer of gold has been applied by a Royal Mail ***ENGINEER***, a Sheffield City Council spokeswoman said.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/jessicas-gold-postbox-van...
No wonder engineering has such a bad image in this country. The IMechE do nothing about protecting the title 'engineer', and this is one reason we are held in such low esteem by the masses, and another reason it's become an unattractive profession to join. An equivalent to the above article would never have appeared in Germany...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff