Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Feb 2007 00:41 unsettled wrote: > Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: > >>>unsettled wrote: > >>>>Eeyore wrote: > >>>>>unsettled wrote: > >>>>>>Eeyore wrote: > > > >>>>>>>Also, as for Blair's idea that we can do 'R&D' instead of manufacturing, he's > >>>>>>>barking mad. Doesn't he know who it is who needs that R&D ? > >>>> > >>>>>>Once again spoken like a tech. The future needs today's R&D. > >>>> > >>>>>Of course it's required by companies. Now explain how a country with little > >>>>>manufacturing industry can support a large R&D industry. > >>>> > >>>>Immediately switch from being a socialist economy to a capitalism. > >>> > >>>Would you care to elaborate how you see socialism and capitalism fitting into the > >>> above? In other words which you associate with what ? > > > Lack of answer noted. > > Buy some economics books. There is a lot of well written economic > theory scattered around the internet. If you're going to suggest that manufacturing is associated with capitalism, I'll have you know that it was the political right here that 'abandoned' it in favour of service industry and the political left who have traditionally supported and encouraged it ! Graham
From: unsettled on 6 Feb 2007 07:21 Eeyore wrote: > > unsettled wrote: > > >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >>> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>Also, as for Blair's idea that we can do 'R&D' instead of manufacturing, he's >>>>>>>>>barking mad. Doesn't he know who it is who needs that R&D ? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>Once again spoken like a tech. The future needs today's R&D. >>>>>> >>>>>>>Of course it's required by companies. Now explain how a country with little >>>>>>>manufacturing industry can support a large R&D industry. >>>>>> >>>>>>Immediately switch from being a socialist economy to a capitalism. >>>>> >>>>>Would you care to elaborate how you see socialism and capitalism fitting into the >>>>>above? In other words which you associate with what ? >> >>>Lack of answer noted. >> >>Buy some economics books. There is a lot of well written economic >>theory scattered around the internet. > > > If you're going to suggest that manufacturing is associated with capitalism, I'll have you know > that it was the political right here that 'abandoned' it in favour of service industry and the > political left who have traditionally supported and encouraged it ! That's not exactly true. The right does a cost analysis and sheds wasteful subsidies. When coal is cheaper coming from elsewhere, import it. (You're sitting on an island of coal and can't figure out how to extract it in a way that's competitive with importing it.) In your case, and ours, that eliminated heavy industry which in the US had difficulty competing with foreign sources. Our steel industry was ancient and inefficient. Japan's was all new and highly efficient. Japan was able to import everything needed for steel making, manufacture the steel, and ship it across the Pacific to the US for less than we could make the same steel locally. I imagine your economy was pretty much in the same state. So common sense decisions were made. I know that our steel industry would have been dead by now anyway because with rising fuel prices and their inefficiency they simply could not have been able to compete even if a high tariff had been imposed. Take a look backwards at the state of your steel making infrastructure. I'll bet it was similar antiquated. We now see Korea and others taking business away from Japan by undercutting Japanese prices. While the left favors heavy industry, much as the Soviets did, they're also cutting their own throats with overadvocacy of greenism. The SU had a political theory that embraced heavy industry even when it placed enormous financial strain on the country. People working was the most important thing. In their own ways both left and right insisted on exporting pollution to regions that welcomed hard currency in exchange for polluting the environment there instead of here. As Wake has said, too many of your young people are university bound. They all have this idea that they're going to be upper middle class elite in life. Many/most won't make it that far. At the point in their lives where they realize that, they've not got training in some earnings category that they can do well at. Wake rightly complains that establishing a child's entire future at age 11 or 12 isn't reasonable or fair, and I agree with him. However looking at the problem from the top down somehow a culling needs to be made at some reasonable point in a person's life otherwise you end up with the extreme you're presently facing. As we say here in the US, you can't be successful if you have all chiefs. Of course the situation has even more facets to be considered, but these I mentioned were alone enough to take us from manufacturing giants to our present day post industrial status. To return to extensive manufacturing would also require a return to a class structure that modern western nations don't seem to like, along with an accompanying change in mindset about worker efficiency. Our unit of production per US$ is lower than the pacific rim. That's the result of a combination of pay scales and the willingnesss of workers to stick with their job and to do it to the best of their abilities. Here in the US every young version of MP, starting out as a car mechanic someplace, has dreams of becoming another Donald Trump or Bill Gates. Desires to achieve upward mobility seem to have lost reasonability. Usenet gives them an outlet with helps them to delude themselves into believing that they're more than they are. There, got enough drift to chew on for a while? LOL
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2007 07:22 In article <apydnSufhMo__FrYnZ2dnUVZ8sWhnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eq79n9$8qk_008(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <45C6525A.BB423643(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >There's a Cambridge Mass too. >>>> >>>> Son, that is a town; it is not a school. >>> >>>City actually. Same as ours. >> >> I think it's a town. I'd have to check what it's carter is. >> I don't remember a mayor of Cambridge. >>> >>>Cambridge is a city in the Greater Boston area of Massachusetts, United >> States. >>>It was named in honor of Cambridge, England. >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge%2C_Massachusetts >>> >>>The city of Cambridge is an old English university town and the >> administrative >>>centre of the county of Cambridgeshire. >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge >> >> The difference between town and city is the style of government. > >Do you think this applies universally? Here, it does. The reason you three have hared off into some strange direction in this thread is Eeyore's suggestion that the reference to Cambridge might have been the Massachusetts town. It was not. If the guy had gone to one of the schools in Cambridge, Mass., he would not have written _at_ Cambridge; this is a unique phrasing in England and not done in the US. The guy would have acquired American phrasing and not British phrasing if he had gone to MIT or Harvard. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2007 07:28 In article <ROqdnZTArpclwFrYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: <snip> >The value of the pound cuts both ways, thanks to BAH's heroine Oh, good grief. First you demand a reference. I give it to you. Now you are blathering that I must believe that Thatcher couldn't do any wrong. If I referenced _Mein Kamph_(sp?) would also claim that Hilter was my hero? <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Feb 2007 07:36
In article <45C80196.8DA7B028(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >unsettled wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > unsettled wrote: >> >>Eeyore wrote: >> >>>unsettled wrote: >> >>>>Eeyore wrote: >> >> >> >>>>>Look at the difficulty in getting kids to study science now for example. I'm >> >>>>>sure the kids are right to tend to avoid it since they've seen so many >> >>>>>'scientific' jobs disappear. >> >> >> >>>>Spoken like a tech. Science isn't a "job", it is a calling. >> >>>> >> >>>>Perhaps you meant to say "engineering". >> >> >> >>>I used the term science quite intentionally. Hence the quote marks. Not least >> >>>because that's what politicans here call it. Engineering has become a dirty word. >> >>>There's another problem. >> >> >> >>So what you actually meant is technological jobs? >> > >> > That covers a very broad range. >> > >> >>I was told that a man whose job related education consisted of an solely of an >> >>apprenticeship at Rolls Royce (automobiles) was "an engineer" I almost fell out of >> >>my chair. His "maths" consisted of what we call "shop math" over and above the >> >>regular schooling all children get. >> > >> > I'd say that person was perhaaps a technician but the it's become popular for people to >> > be given more important sounding names for their positions these days. >> > >> > Below the technician in an aero engine company would be a mechanic / fitter >> > historically. >> > >> > I have difficulty explaining to 'average ppl' today what an electronics design engineer >> > does. Typically I'm asked if that means I solder things ! When I say I design circuitry >> > and enter it on a CAD system most ppl look very perplexed. If I mention software, > ppl >> tend to ask if that means I do phone support. >> > >> > >> >>>>>Also, as for Blair's idea that we can do 'R&D' instead of manufacturing, he's >> >>>>>barking mad. Doesn't he know who it is who needs that R&D ? >> >> >> >>>>Once again spoken like a tech. The future needs today's R&D. >> >> >> >>>Of course it's required by companies. Now explain how a country with little >> >>>manufacturing industry can support a large R&D industry. >> >> >> >>Immediately switch from being a socialist economy to a capitalism. >> > >> > Would you care to elaborate how you see socialism and capitalism fitting into the > above >> ? In other words which you associate with what ? > >Lack of answer noted. > > >> >>R&D is an investment just like any other. How can you *not* afford that? >> > >> > >> > I agree in principle but who wants ( can use ) the R&D if there aren't any >> > manufacturing companies ? >> >> The product of R&D is an asset like any other. > >I know. You still need customers though. R&D isn't a freely tradeable commodity like oil or >corn. No. It is not. No one can predict the results that an R&D group will produce. In the R&D context, which you are talking about-- this is not generally science research--, the group will have 1000 ideas but only 1 will be profitable over the short term. /BAH |