Episode 2 of BBC TV's Made in Britain focussed on the value chain - basically invention/innovation, manufacture, marketing and branding.

Value is a euphemism for price or money. The real value to you of a GSK pharmaceutical is whether it makes you well. The "value" to them is the money they get from selling the product. A direct conflict of interest. I'm not saying they want you to be ill, only that ot pays them if you buy their drugs.

Presenter Evan Davies was also in a supermarket (probably Tesco) and he pointed out his "favourite" bottled water. He claimed that people who are drawn to branding are 'sophisticated' (his show was really a meta commercial). What is sophisticated about branding water and selling it at a high proce, where elsewhere in the world people are walking miles to get hold of the stuff, or dying because they can't get any potable water?

Evan also featured Silicon Fen, where Cambridge braniacs work on high tech designs. He featured ARM, who design chips for all kinds of devices - especially mobile phones. They don't make them, they just design them and sell the right to make them. Clever and impressive, but this clustering of cleverness done at regional or even national level needs to be taken up to world level. Why is it good to collaborate in Cambridge, but to compete at national level?

The rest of value should be how well something adds to human well being, not just to the bank balance. If you can make a lower energy use, small, powerful chip, logic dictates you tell everyone how to do it, so that the planet can benefit, not that you keep it to yourself so you can make money. A more potent example would be an invention that halted global warming. It would be imperative to scale it up and implement it world wide, not to patent it and keep it to yourself to make money while the world fries.

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.