It's kicking off in London...

[silverclaws]

My view is what Britain was at the time of the empire is one thing, but what is now is different. The empire has gone, so, those past surefire labour saving tools are largely obsolete. What we have to do now as a nation that is to survive, is exist as if the empire never existed, and that means compete on the world market as everyone else, newbies to the flavour of the day.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I do perceive an arrogance with Brits, an arrogance from times past. We need to forget the past and live for the present as people with ideas that may be presented to the world market as if we were paupers that can see a better way of doing things. A level playing field so to speak that everone feels comfortable with.

 

[one-eyed_jim]

Ah, come on Jim.... You can do better than that!!!

Now just hold on a minute! Here's where I came in:

Young people wanted to go to university, but they didn't want to study the "boring" ... subjects like maths, science or engineering. They wanted to study "fun" subjects like media studies, comparative religion, French literature, drama and sociology ...

If those young people rioting yesterday had really wanted to secure the future of university funding in this country, they would have chosen to study a subject that would financially contribute to this country's tax coffers.

So in fact you weren't saying she should put down her Petit Robert: you were saying she should never even have picked it up!

People have different interests and competences. That much seems obvious to me. My two brothers both qualified in engineering (civil and mechanical, respectively). Neither of them could hope to develop the language skills required to appreciate French literature, and it's not something that interests them. My brother's girlfriend teaches French and German. She doesn't have any inclination towards engineering or science. Many of my physics classmates were lacking in language skills, social skills, spatial skills, and in reasoning. They were numerate and obedient. We live in a world of increasing specialisation, and it would be entirely counterproductive to force people into specialisations that don't correspond to their aptitudes and interests.

The Institute of Physics report I posted previously specifically identifies rising levels of student debt as a factor influencing the exodus of brighter students from postgraduate study when far better salaries are available in other sectors of the economy (notably in finance).

I completely appreciate your argument here, but I still that it's a problem that has to be solved, not walked away from.

If debt is forcing young scientists out of careers in research, and government proposals would increase tuition fee caps threefold, the only reasonable course of action for someone who wants to promote excellence in the sciences is to protest against the proposals.

Whenever a service transaction has an international counterparty, a service is exported. That can include banking, finance, insurance...

Are we still relying on those? :shock:

People and companies need banking services and insurance. Entrepreneurs need investors just as much as investors need entrepreneurs. The sector needs appropriate oversight and regulation, of course.

...advertising, translating...

True, but those projects tend to be "one-offs" and are very labour intensive

One-offs? Advertising is an ongoing requirement of any industry that relies on selling consumer goods. In the context of providing employment, I would have thought it obvious that "labour intensive" is a good thing!

But for a country like Germany for example, I'm just not sure how well the income from tourism and education compares with the income generated by Bosch, Volkswagen, Siemens, BMW, Braun or Mercedes.

That's all well and good "for a country like Germany" with an underdeveloped service sector...

Germany's an interesting example, but it's also an exceptional example, and it remains to be seen how Germany will fare in the face of increasing competition from the East. It's interesting to note that Germany also has a history of high taxation, and strong public funding.

Jim, I've really enjoyed debating with you, but I have to put some hours into a small web venture that I'm trying to start, and that means that I can't devote so much time to composing lengthy posts on the RB forums.

Likewise.

 

[gibbleking]

leave the eu and all its wasteful economic ideas behind and do our own thing and stop investing billions in other countries who cant be bothered to pay their taxes.....

 

[JohnH]

But there is also money in brand new production methods; British Aerospace have a method for joining two pieces of steel together that defies explanation,

Fine - until demand becomes so great that British Aerospace realises it can increase profits by outsourcing.

In the rest of the paragraph that you quoted dbmtb, I said "...the details are highly secret because no-one else in the world knows how to do it."

The industrial revolution happened in the UK because we had the science, the money and the will to solve problems (power generation from fossil fuels, mass production, mass transportation) that no-one else in the world had solved. And once we knew how to turn a manual textile loom that produced 3 metres of fabric per day into a mechanised textile loom that produced 3,000 metres of fabric per day, the British economy engaged warp drive while rivals like France and Germany were left in the dust. That's the power of a competitive advantage.

If BAe outsourced their steel "blending" process, that would mean handing the operational details over to an economically competitive country -- which wouldn't be a very smart thing to do.

 

[JohnH]

Maybe your class was just perceived to need more help to get where it was going.... (JUST KIDDING)

dbmtb, let me tell you something: I watched very smart people drop out of that course, either because the pressure got to them and they cracked or because they failed the end-of-year exams -- which at a place like Manchester Uni were f**king difficult. Meanwhile, tossers that I knew who were on 10-hours-lectures-per-week courses and who had spent 3 years drinking, smoking, watching daytime TV and f**king each other (and yes, I am jealous about that last one) breezed out of that place with a piece of paper under their arm, and permission to refer to themselves as a 'graduate'.

Joking aside, I see where you are coming from on this, but fail to comprehend your apparent need to belittle subjects other than the one you yourself chose, thereby making yourself appear to be a pompous ass when you otherwise make some pertinent, well-written points.

We started this thread with the student protests in London. Aside from the violence, the protesters were trying to get a message to the UK government that said "Hey! Young people from working class backgrounds need to get a good education because it's their one-and-only chance to better themselves and escape a low-income lifetime".

I know where they're coming from because in the early 1990s, I was in that very position. My family was working class, so even at the age of 17, I realised that this chance wasn't ever going to come around again and if I was going to go to Uni, I should get something very useful out of it. At that point I knew I was going for science or engineering.

Since then, I have been horrified to see the numbers of university science/engineering applicants spiraling downwards and I don't understand it. My perspective was, "if you wanted to seize the chance to get a degree to improve your chances in the world, why the hell wouldn't you choose to study something that was as applied as possible?". Hence my dismay at the audacity of student protesters, 60 to 70 percent of whom will be studying arts/humanities subjects.

So I haven't been trying to "belittle" subjects other than engineering; I've been pointing out that studying a science/engineering subject would have

• exempted students from the latest rises in tuition fees
• given them a qualification that would have offered a better chance of a better wage in a more secure job
• enabled them to pay more taxes into an education system that they claim to care about

Hearing sermons on maximising young people's life chances from students who've elected to study drama at uni seems like outright hypocrisy to me.

If you'd spent more time concentrating on your namby-pamby-non-scientific-a-level-about-people-not-metal, you would have realised that this was a very ineffective way of putting your point across.

Getting a lesson on human interaction from someone who infers that all scientists are boring or who makes sweeping assumptions about my standard of living or who makes personal attacks with words like "condescending" or "pompous"... well to be honest mate, that feels a bit like getting a speeding ticket from Michael Schumacher.

 

[dbmtb]

[once we knew how to turn a manual textile loom that produced 3 metres of fabric per day into a mechanised textile loom that produced 3,000 metres of fabric per day, the British economy engaged warp drive while rivals like France and Germany were left in the dust.

To blow your own argument out of the water, where exactly are the thousands of metres of fabric per day produced these days?

I fail to share your optimism - as soon as there is money to be made by moving manufacturing overseas (to top-secret facilities if need be), then most companies will do it. British Aerospace can't keep the UK economy ticking over all by itself. That's the sad economic reality. We are all in the hands of the multinationals these days.

 

[dbmtb]

someone who infers that all scientists are boring or who makes sweeping assumptions about my standard of living or who makes personal attacks with words like "condescending" or "pompous"... well to be honest mate, that feels a bit like getting a speeding ticket from Michael Schumacher.

I didn't infer that all scientists were boring. You just took it that way. But a society where ONLY scientists or ONLY artists decided everything would be pretty lop-sided and thereby dull.

I didn't make an assumption about your standard of living. But it's probably fair to assume it's better than that of most people in Thailand or Malaysia.

"Condescending" or "pompous"? Well I make no apologies or excuses for that. We've both made our beds. Let's lie in them.

 

[JohnH]

To blow your own argument out of the water, where exactly are the thousands of metres of fabric per day produced these days?

Tell you what dbmtb... I'll reprint what I said earlier, and you see if you can read it all the way to the end of the paragraph before you get the urge to hit the "Reply" key to rattle off another smart-arse, two-line post...

But there is also money in brand new production methods; British Aerospace have a method for joining two pieces of steel together that defies explanation, but the best I can do is to say that a machine tool "blends" the two pieces of steel together without heating them to their melting point. The process has been shown on TV but the details are highly secret because no-one else in the world knows how to do it. So it is possible to keep very high-tech production processes in this country whilst paying factory employees a decent wage. The secret is to stay ahead of everybody else.

Of course the UK wasn't going to stay the centre of the textile manufacturing universe -- other countries caught on, and within 50 years, they'd built their own steam engines, "manufactories", steel works and transport infrastructures. That's why you don't hand over your secret manufacturing processes to your competitors -- because they pinch the technology for the benefit of their own economy. That's why you have to keep producing scientists and engineers: you have to keep innovating to stay ahead of your competitors. Bloody sociology graduates will not design and manufacture the next iPad or electric car. :roll:

I fail to share your optimism - as soon as there is money to be made by moving manufacturing overseas (to top-secret facilities if need be), then most companies will do it. British Aerospace can't keep the UK economy ticking over all by itself. That's the sad economic reality. We are all in the hands of the multinationals these days.

Well, what's your alternative plan, dbmtb? Sitting around watching soap operas, while this country sinks into oblivion?

 

[dbmtb]

hit the "Reply" key to rattle off another smart-arse, two-line post...

For what it's worth, I really don't have the time or inclination to write long discourses. If that makes me a smart-arse - then so be it.

I don't like where this discussion is going so be my guest - have the last word and let's have done with it. We're clearly never going to agree.

 

[JohnH]

For what it's worth, I really don't have the time or inclination to write long discourses. If that makes me a smart-arse - then so be it.

I owe you an apology; the term "smart arse" wasn't very respectful.

It's just that talking about "blowing my argument out of the water" came across more like 'point-scoring' than constructively debating an issue. Even so, I shouldn't have snapped at you...

I don't like where this discussion is going so be my guest - have the last word and let's have done with it. We're clearly never going to agree.

Even if we did agree dbmtb, all of my bluster isn't going to change a damn thing. We went into World War One with less than half the engineers that the Germans had and we still won that one, so who knows? Maybe the tiny cadre of boffins this country already has will be enough to pull us through....