Long term solution to our economic woes

[XCP]

Randy Winkman said:

I'm an atheist and I think that Jesus probably existed about 2,000 years ago.

Me too. I am quite happy to accept that a prophet of that name existed. I just don't worship him.

[speedy_thrills]

The problem is investing in science is a bit of a roll of the dice really. You have to take a long view to funding research, way beyond the duration of any single government or research project.

It's not a quick fix and that's what governments want. Much easier to play with numbers on balance sheets or drag out an asset bubble with ZIRP than build balanced and sustainable economic growth. Voters are fickle, have short memories and often exercise poor judgement.

[rs1952]

AndrewW-G said:

We waste £12b a year on aid, why not simply invest that in Education and research . . . . . .we could even allocate part of it to solving the problems, of the countries to whom we currently gift Merc S classes and private jets!

At the risk of going off topic:

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but when we see foreign aid going to countries with their own space and nuclear programmes (such as India), I see no justification for it all.

Unless, in truth it is being used as "palm oil" for certain people at a high level in Indian politics and commerce who then keep UK order books fuller than they otherwise would by buying stuff from us.

If this is the case, perhaps its time that those in power in the UK admitted that that's the way the real world works and be up front about it, rather than spout the "holier than thou because these countries need the money" attitude we've become used to.

[AndrewW-G]

rs1952 said:

AndrewW-G said:

We waste £12b a year on aid, why not simply invest that in Education and research . . . . . .we could even allocate part of it to solving the problems, of the countries to whom we currently gift Merc S classes and private jets!

At the risk of going off topic:

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you will, but when we see foreign aid going to countries with their own space and nuclear programmes (such as India), I see no justification for it all.

Unless, in truth it is being used as "palm oil" for certain people at a high level in Indian politics and commerce who then keep UK order books fuller than they otherwise would by buying stuff from us.

If this is the case, perhaps its time that those in power in the UK admitted that that's the way the real world works and be up front about it, rather than spout the "holier than thou because these countries need the money" attitude we've become used to.

Most people would agree with you . . . . .yet if we take India as an example, they neither want our aid, or as we've seen recently, the don't want to buy our fighter planes.

I'd rather we spent the money on making our scientific community and by extension, our high tech industries, the best in the world, which would in my naive mind, make them the obvious choice for others to want to buy

[Jasandjules]

Stop the Govt p***ng billions away. That's got to be a start.

[randlemarcus]

AJS- said:

Maybe lawyers and financiers wouldn't get such a big say if the government didn't spend so much time making laws and spending money?

Paraphrasing someone else on PH, we pay the feckers to make laws and spend our money, so we can't complain unduly when they do that. We need something new, not just the current shades of beige.

[hollydog]

Stop paying massive wages and bonuses out to ceo's and footballers. And stop big companies hording the money with massive profits.

[markh1973]

tubbystu said:

Hasn't R&D recently been moved from one side of the tax break to the other ? It used to be tax deductable and now isn't IIRC.

Enhanced tax deduction still available. Cash payments available if you don't make profits.

[turbobloke]

hollydog said:

Stop paying massive wages and bonuses out to ceo's and footballers. And stop big companies hording the money with massive profits.

Famous actors and actresses will be pleased you left them alone, as will small companies making massive profits and hoarding money. You're quite generous really.

[Derek Smith]

XCP said:

Randy Winkman said:

I'm an atheist and I think that Jesus probably existed about 2,000 years ago.

Me too. I am quite happy to accept that a prophet of that name existed. I just don't worship him.

There were a considerable number of messiahs around then, even one with the Jewish equivalent of Brian no doubt. It is distinclty possible there was a Jesus but it is equally possible that he is a conglomerate. You only have to look at the vast number of gospels rejected by Constantine when he invented christianity to realise that it was something of an industry.

I like to think, perhaps hope, that he did exist. Seems like a sensible chap.

[Otispunkmeyer]

London424 said:

steveT350C said:

Derek Chevalier said:

steveT350C said:

It's not rocket science.



It's all science!



"more money was spent in just one year bailing out our banks than has been spent on science since Jesus was alive"

Quote from Prof Brian Cox on Thursday night's This Week.



A few minutes of eye opening viewing here, start at 35:00. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/bigscreen/tv/episode/...

Does science pay corporation tax?

Science invents stuff that can be made into products and sold by companies that will pay corporation tax.


The example of graphene is on the iplayer link.

Don't companies have nice expensive R&D departments coming up with the science type stuff?

They do, but as I currently work in research ( engineering and science) there are plenty of companies who basically get universities and the like to do the really out there (read risky) stuff and sometimes with financial backing from the government. Basically gives the company an almost free ride in some cases. The prject I work on is part funded by a company, but the vast majority of the cash is government. This means the company could get a game changing new technology for minimal outlay. Big companies do have R&D depts, but they are very risk averse, so they don't always push the envelope in case they end up spending lots on something that eventually bares no fruit.

And at the moment I haven't yet met a physicist that doesnt do government funded research (and isn't chronically under funded). The real blue sky physics stuff is very risky, but it's the stuff that advances us the most when it works.... The other thing is this type of research doesn't usually lead to a ready to sell product, sometimes for years and years. So companies just don't do it. It's down to government to spend the money on this type of science.

[steveT350C]

Otispunkmeyer said:

London424 said:

steveT350C said:

Derek Chevalier said:

steveT350C said:

It's not rocket science.



It's all science!



"more money was spent in just one year bailing out our banks than has been spent on science since Jesus was alive"

Quote from Prof Brian Cox on Thursday night's This Week.



A few minutes of eye opening viewing here, start at 35:00. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/bigscreen/tv/episode/...

Does science pay corporation tax?

Science invents stuff that can be made into products and sold by companies that will pay corporation tax.


The example of graphene is on the iplayer link.

Don't companies have nice expensive R&D departments coming up with the science type stuff?

They do, but as I currently work in research ( engineering and science) there are plenty of companies who basically get universities and the like to do the really out there (read risky) stuff and sometimes with financial backing from the government. Basically gives the company an almost free ride in some cases. The prject I work on is part funded by a company, but the vast majority of the cash is government. This means the company could get a game changing new technology for minimal outlay. Big companies do have R&D depts, but they are very risk averse, so they don't always push the envelope in case they end up spending lots on something that eventually bares no fruit.

And at the moment I haven't yet met a physicist that doesnt do government funded research (and isn't chronically under funded). The real blue sky physics stuff is very risky, but it's the stuff that advances us the most when it works.... The other thing is this type of research doesn't usually lead to a ready to sell product, sometimes for years and years. So companies just don't do it. It's down to government to spend the money on this type of science.

Thank you Otispunkmeyer. Your explanation using blue sky physics and risk aversion is exactly the point I wanted to make earlier.

In fact, the point of this thread was to discuss the idea that providing more funding to pay for scientists to have more of a free reign for blue sky science will reap huge benefits.

Edited by steveT350C on Sunday 8th July 10:47

Edited by steveT350C on Sunday 8th July 10:48

[Crafty_]

Don't worry, good old Ed has the solution, get the banks to sell high street branches to newcomers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

[Scootersp]

It may be cliche'd but we owe a lot to people that first and foremost pursue truth and knowledge. They may spend a massive proportion of their working life proving (or not proving which sometimes equally worthy) a theory or creating revolutionary materials or engineering solutons.

I think we massively take these things for granted, the exceptionally intelligent/deligent create these new technologies and the very intelligent then understand and make use of the new knowledge and to be frank the vast majority of end users have no idea of the work or effort that has gone into their everyday object.

I'm typing this looking at my relatively ancient Nokia mobile and you can marvel at the technology it contains that is a result of the work or people mentioned above, the battery technology, electronics, even the stainless steel pressed cover.

The results of scientific breakthroughs (of their day) are everywhere you look in pretty much everything you use.

[AJS-]

randlemarcus said:

AJS- said:

Maybe lawyers and financiers wouldn't get such a big say if the government didn't spend so much time making laws and spending money?

Paraphrasing someone else on PH, we pay the feckers to make laws and spend our money, so we can't complain unduly when they do that. We need something new, not just the current shades of beige.

Well if we elected some who would repeal laws and cut spending, we might be getting somewhere.

As for a long term solution, how about a legally binding cap on the percentage of GDP the government are allowed to spend?

[Du1point8]

Crafty_ said:

Don't worry, good old Ed has the solution, get the banks to sell high street branches to newcomers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Watch the big 5 banks line up to get rid of their retail branches as they are not much more than a money pit for them, the next step is wholly online... they would love to get rid of their branches to someone else and move out of retail all together.

[elster]

Du1point8 said:

Crafty_ said:

Don't worry, good old Ed has the solution, get the banks to sell high street branches to newcomers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Watch the big 5 banks line up to get rid of their retail branches as they are not much more than a money pit for them, the next step is wholly online... they would love to get rid of their branches to someone else and move out of retail all together.

The banks must be loving the fact they can now get rid of the high street outlets.

Especially those that are a drain on resources.

[DSM2]

fesuvious said:

Science - seeks to prove things

There is no proof whatsoever Jesus existed, yet his supposed existence is used as a fact by a man speaking in support of science.

I'm confused

But there is some evidence that he might have existed, he just wasn't all that he was cracked up to be, son of god and all that........

[johnfm]

elster said:

Du1point8 said:

Crafty_ said:

Don't worry, good old Ed has the solution, get the banks to sell high street branches to newcomers: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/ba...

Watch the big 5 banks line up to get rid of their retail branches as they are not much more than a money pit for them, the next step is wholly online... they would love to get rid of their branches to someone else and move out of retail all together.

The banks must be loving the fact they can now get rid of the high street outlets.

Especially those that are a drain on resources.

Yep. And then consumers will see the real cost of retail banking, like they do in Australia. Everything is charged for over there last time I heard.

[Steffan]

Jasandjules said:

Stop the Govt p***ng billions away. That's got to be a start.

That is the essence of this problem. We have lost the art of electing politicians who actually have any real sense of responsibility and desire to actually correct the successive overspending by politicians buying votes through the Benefits Society. Celebrity status and achieving huge personal wealth drives modern politics I am afraid. Hence the fiddles and overspending.

The problem is totally caused by the continuous and totally unaffordable public borrowing requirement that constant government overspending has caused within the UK. The taxpayer cannot afford the dreams and callous vote rigging attempted by modern politicians through benefits largesse.

There has to be a new approach in politics. No political grandstanding, largesse, no massive meaningless summits, no, utterly pointless photo opportunities and no, celebrity culture in politics. A big dose of "we cannot afford it" is needed throughout government, local government and public administration.

The solution is not, in itself, difficult. The real problem, is how we achieve that solution, with the idiots in charge hell bent on celebrity and glory at our expense. I have absolutely no idea. But that is the answer in a nutshell.