Manufacturing

I've just wached the first episode of "Made in Britain", presented by Evan Davies. It was an interesting and well presented programme. It was hard not to ne impressed by the technology on display (from BAe, and McLaren), or to be endeared to Brompton, Britain's biggest bicycle manufacturer

However, I have some issues:

Evan opined that we should all save more, so that £ can be invested in hi tech machinery to maintain  and improve our exports. Our exports do not pay for our imports. What other economies are saying that? The word total exports must equal imports. Which countries are going to step forward and import more than they export?

Evan euphemistically called the BAe fighter jet "controversial". Quite. This is a killing machine. We need to sell more of these to boost our economy? For what reason would people buy more of them?

The McLaren sports car costs (I think) £160,000, so is only available to rich people. It is not a practical piece of transport equipment in any sense, and aptly represents exactly what conspicuous consumption is. How do people get rich enough town one of these  badges of wealth?

At keast the Brompton bicycle is a rather more benign example of a high end product, but as it is so useful and well designed and made, the obvious thing to do in a sane world is share the knowledge needed to make it. Evan explained at one point in the programme how Britain made a technological leap to become more efficient in a certain area of manufacturing, but all manufacturing on the planet needs to be efficient. As a planet, we shouldn't be inefficient just so that we can have competition. Competition is supposed to create efficiency, but not for its own preservation.


If we are not efficient as a planet then we are using the planet's resources more quickly than we are able to, and bringing forward our own demise as a species. I would like to see Evan devoyte his considerable skills as a writer / presenter to that issue, which supersedes any economic recovery.

"Ultimate Capitalist Weapon" inventor dies

The obituary I read of Samuel T Cohen, who invented the neutron bomb, quotes his perverted relativism in calling his invention "the most sane and moral weapon ever devised",  He claimed it would have saved 50,000 US lives by shortening the Vietnam War. He worked on the atom bomb in the 1940s and the devastation it wrought led him to conceive this weapon that kills people but leaves property intact.

700 warheads were built but never deployed. The move convinced Cohen that politicians were beneath contempt. They night be, but they saved him from being an accessory to yet more "murders", using his "sane weapon".

We know arms companies like wars, because they sell weapons for them, paid for by tax payers, to both sides. We know construction companies like buildings being destroyed, because they can make money rebuilding them, but the neutron bomb would be no good for that.

There's nothing 'sane' or 'moral' about any of this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11903795