Long term solution to our economic woes

[Murph7355]

Steffan said:

... now that is a fact.

I'm really not convinced it is Steffan. It's your somewhat prejudiced opinion in all likelihood unless you have empirical evidence to back it up.

For the record I agree that more money needs to go into science and engineering. Though whether the taxpayer should be the main contributor is less clear to me.

But back to your "fact".

The mess we are in will only be gotten out of by addressing our deficit and then paying off our National Debt.

These things will happen by a combination of spending less and increasing income.

Relative to each other (scientific research v finance sector):

- how much public expenditure has been sunk into them (try to make this real money rather than funny money)
- how much income has resulted from them

In truth I suspect the answers will be all but impossible to calculate, and the numbers involved can likely be spun to suit any viewpoint. Which means your "fact" is actually conjecture.

[Use Psychology]

AJS- said:

Not ignoring it, it was a genuine question more than a challenge. Just reading a bit about MRI and it's a bit of a stretch to say its development was funded by the tax payer. Mansfield's part in it yes, but only because pretty much the entirely UK university system is nationalised anyway. Significant parts of the work were done in the US too.


So anyway, long term economic stability by throwing money at university science departments and hoping they invent something? Is that right?

I think the point about art was that you could equally throw money at millions of artists and one of them will turn out to be a Da Vinci, a Mozart or a John Lennon and the investment will pay off. It's hardly a recipe for long term economic stability though.

fair enough AJS - the ignoring comment was unwarranted

yep, MRI was a multi-pronged effort. but the key breakthrough that enabled us to use NMR technology to generated images of 'stuff' was made by Mansfield, in the UK. Science and scientific breakthroughs nowadays rarely come from 'one man in a basement' type set ups. You speak as if was inevitable someone would invent MRI, whether Mansfield worked in a university or not. I don't think so - you need the whole system to train the scientists, have a place to do the work, you need the 'space' to take the risks (i.e. to make mistakes). You need to be surrounded by other scientists too, to talk to and eat lunch with. Companies won't pay for this - for the same reasons you don't like it - but someone needs to, or we won't learn new stuff.

Art doesn't generate the same economic returns as science, though does it? Knowledge can be used over and over again and used to design items which can be sold in great quanitities. Put this way: would you rather own the mona lisa or the commercial rights to the iPod? Art is a lovely thing to have and to have around us but it's science that has improved our lot.

and to be clear - I'm not saying 'science will save us all'. I am claiming that the basis for a productive economy in the future is a strong investment in basic science and technology today. It's not the only recipe for success, but it is a major factor in positing out economy in a strong position.

and to come back to it all... how did banks make a lot of money? trading. how did they trade? they used complex computer models and very rapid trading platforms. Who developed the models and the computer systems? people who did science and maths PhDs and then went to work for banks.

So there you go...

[AJS-]

It does, but government has such an abysmal record of making successful investments that I would rather leave it to the private sector. Further more I see balancing the budget and reducing the overall cost of the state as being much more fundamental to our long term economic stability than increasing the research grants for academics.

[Use Psychology]

but the government doesn't choose what science to fund. It hands a wad of cash to the research councils and they allocate it, based largely on the opinions of scientists. scientists choose what to fund. not the government.

I agree with reducing state spending - but I think the money needs to be spent in the right areas - 'enabling areas' that benefit the country. If the government is going to spend money I'd rather it spent money that generated the highest returns. I think money on science does this. I am not convinced money on olympics or on people who don't want to work or on (maybe) armies and navies does.

Edited by Use Psychology on Wednesday 11th July 11:22

[The Don of Croy]

Use Psychology said:

but the government doesn't choose what science to fund. It hands a wad of cash to the research councils and they allocate it, based largely on the opinions of scientists. scientists choose what to fund. not the government.

I agree with reducing state spending - but I think the money needs to be spent in the right areas - 'enabling areas' that benefit the country. If the government is going to spend money I'd rather it spent money that generated the highest returns. I think money on science does this. I am not convinced money on olympics or on people who don't want to work or on (maybe) armies and navies does.

Edited by Use Psychology on Wednesday 11th July 11:22

One of the problems I'm having with your points is the talk of 'highest returns' and science in the same sentence. I'm struggling to note a scientific breakthrough that has become a significant commercial earner up there with the PC or Apple, ARM chip or Honda C90 (perhaps in pharmceuticals?).

MRI scanners etc do great things for human understanding of humans, but are they in themselves big earners? Was not the fax machine (remember them?) a bigger worldwide commercial success? Silly comparison?

I'm not against science in any way, but just adding to this discussion to get a better understanding...

[Use Psychology]

you have to think about the science which underpins computing, which is getting on for 60-70 years old. there is a long lead time between the fundamental discoveries/inventions (transistor, integrated circuits) and the commericial realisation (which really took off for computing in the 1980s). But where was the first transistor made? in the US. And where did Intel start? in the US.

As for MRI scanner being big earners? probably not. but they can help to prolong life which means that economically productive members of society can remain productive for longer. Good healthcare is important because your society will have more expertise for longer (you don't train people only for them to die, losing their experience and knowledge).

[AJS-]

Art produces phenomenal returns if you get it right - the Mona Lisa is a difficult example because it's pretty much priceless owing simply to the fact that it is the Mona Lisa. But if you look at the revenues from music, literature, film etc I wouldn't be surprised to find that they're comparable to the revenues from "science" at least so far as patents etc go. Furthermore "research" in these areas is relatively cheap, so if the government for instance were to allocate extra funding to ensure that every secondary school child was involved in music or acting then the returns could be enormous.

You could argue the same for sport, management, design, engineering and so on.

Not that I'm not suggesting this as a policy, just pointing out that there are numerous candidates for government money who claim to be especially worthy of it because of they produce great benefits for the economy as a whole. The end game though is a planned economy which is invariably ruins the economy as a whole.

[The Don of Croy]

IIRC most of the big leaps forward were from 'desperation is the mother of invention' - WAR. The last war hastened the development of (among many others) atomic science, radio wave applications, streamlined mass production with documented QA, stainless steel, computing, rocketry, jet engines, etc etc

Not that I'm advocating a World War as the answer, but if we've tried all the alternatives?

[Use Psychology]

AJS- said:

Art produces phenomenal returns if you get it right - the Mona Lisa is a difficult example because it's pretty much priceless owing simply to the fact that it is the Mona Lisa. But if you look at the revenues from music, literature, film etc I wouldn't be surprised to find that they're comparable to the revenues from "science" at least so far as patents etc go. Furthermore "research" in these areas is relatively cheap, so if the government for instance were to allocate extra funding to ensure that every secondary school child was involved in music or acting then the returns could be enormous.

You could argue the same for sport, management, design, engineering and so on.

Not that I'm not suggesting this as a policy, just pointing out that there are numerous candidates for government money who claim to be especially worthy of it because of they produce great benefits for the economy as a whole. The end game though is a planned economy which is invariably ruins the economy as a whole.

but you're talking about the funding of 'art' as an economic activity.

I'm talking about the funding of science as an 'uneconomic activity' (it costs money, with no direct returns) which has a positive impact on the (unplanned) economy.

[AJS-]

They bare a lot of similarities in that sense though. Both require a lot of funding, of usually unpopular and off beat ideas until one strikes gold and makes a big impact, and then a lot of money.

Both are valid components of an economy, but I don't see why one is inherently more worthy of economic subsidy than the other.

[Murph7355]

The Don of Croy said:

...The last war...

"Last"?

[s2art]

AJS- said:

They bare a lot of similarities in that sense though. Both require a lot of funding, of usually unpopular and off beat ideas until one strikes gold and makes a big impact, and then a lot of money.

Both are valid components of an economy, but I don't see why one is inherently more worthy of economic subsidy than the other.

Historically the arts were well subsidised by various patrons, but the economy only went exponential after the scientific and industrial revolution. This suggests were the money should go, after all much modern 'art' (movies, music etc) are only possible due to technological and scientific advances.

[Use Psychology]

AJS- said:

They bare a lot of similarities in that sense though. Both require a lot of funding, of usually unpopular and off beat ideas until one strikes gold and makes a big impact, and then a lot of money.

Both are valid components of an economy, but I don't see why one is inherently more worthy of economic subsidy than the other.

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.

[steveT350C]

Use Psychology said:

AJS- said:

They bare a lot of similarities in that sense though. Both require a lot of funding, of usually unpopular and off beat ideas until one strikes gold and makes a big impact, and then a lot of money.

Both are valid components of an economy, but I don't see why one is inherently more worthy of economic subsidy than the other.

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.

Do we remember Tony Blair courting Oasis et al, Cool Britannia?

I guess that was a government investing in the arts.

Not long term though...

[Scootersp]

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.

amen! .....this may appear to be a bit strong but I've personally found it quite painful to read the blatant ignorance of how science effects our lives on all levels and how important previous research/funding has been.

[Johnnytheboy]

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'?

[AJS-]

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.

[greygoose]

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.

[AJS-]

Britain doesn't really make any car to the standard of an ordinary BMW/Audi/Mercedes though. JLR are having a good stab at it at the moment and it seems (at least from the number I see in Bangkok) that people are prepared to pay for it, if the quality is right.

People do pay a premium for quality products from Britain, and not just Aston Martins - Cadbury, Dulux, Johnnie Walker, Marks & Spencer, Pringle etc etc. Of course we can't manufacture things competitively with low wage countries, but we can and do have premium brands, and it's not usually much to do with government money.

[Murph7355]

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).