Skip to main content

DYSON SPHERE IN THE UK!

I reserve the right to be wrong...



Engineering is the UK's deliverance, says James Dyson of fabulous vacuum-cleaner fame. While I would agree with the broad brush-strokes of his argument that the UK education system produces too few engineers, I cannot subscribe to a world-view like his that accepts the present-day production-line model of education.

Dyson sees his company's problem - a paucity of engineers - and ascribes national calamity or salvation to the next few years' engineering graduation rates. More will lead to glory, less or the same number to ruin. I have to take issue here.

First of all, the UK as a whole is not an economic actor in its own right. Hell, the nation doesn't even exist except on paper and in people's minds. It's a load of people with more power than sense who shape policies that we all have to live in accordance with, lest we incur the wrath of officialdom.

Secondly, the government decides educational priorities and ultimately shapes the university playing field that college-leavers (high-school to any Americans reading) must navigate. So I don't think blaming poor national priorities is really terribly helpful. They are national priorities, and so by definition do not fit the real lives, temperament, and desires of actual young people.

And finally, we have to recognise that Dyson humself is a businessman, not an economist. Admittedly simply being an economist is not the answer to understanding what's right and wrong with the UK's education sector, but a firm grounding in the methodological individualism, the catallactics, and praxeology of the Austrian School offers the intellectual tools to see all statism for what it really is; aggression.

Yes, the UK education, healthcare and welfare industries are great big aggressors against persons and property of the people of these Isles. Once you get to grips with that, the final solution to the engineer problem becomes clear. First, admit that there is no engineer problem.

The problem is simply that education is cut off from the warp and weft of supply and demand active in most of the sectors that graduates would then go to work in. Then it's obvious that merely ending state involvement in education will solve the problems of education's disconnect from the job market.



I still reserve the right to be wrong...

Popular posts from this blog

Will Automation Make All of the Jobs Disappear?

... No.

There is no reason to suggest that automation will dramatically increase unemployment in the short term, or at all in the long term.

Seriously, it will not.

Do read the links in the order in which they appear please. Finding the right comments in the third link might be quite interesting. They are all by a user called BestTrousers and start with "RI" meaning R1.

The main argument used by HealthcareEconomist3 is to give a survey of several works, while BestTrousers goes for comparative advantage.

Why I Am Not a Historical Materialist

Hopefully you good folks can indulge me by forgiving this post. It is an unfinished mess because I wanted it out there as the anchor for a hyperlink from a Reddit thread.
At the momebt everything below is a jumble of notes, but I will be reworking it bit by bit starting today.
Hopefully this post will be sorted out and typed in full before the end of April 2017.


~~~


Historical materialism is the idea that history progresses in stages - slavery, then feudalism, then capitalism, then socialism, then communism - driven by changes in the technologies or techniques of production, and that any human civilisation will exemplify this process.

This makes historical materialism an exercise in both historicism and materialism.

Historicism is the idea that studying the past can reveal history's in-built course or narrative, and so show you the future.

Materialism is the idea that ideas ( and institutions) ultimately* don't matter in determining our destinies, and that therefore only material…

Capital & Labor in the Race to Exploit the Other

The idea that labor exploits capital is equally as plausible, sans assumptions*, as the idea that capital exploits labor. This is only intended as a response to the formal concept, descriptive or normative, of exploitation in Marx's schema from Capital Volume I.

* Assumptions include the power relation whereby capital is just assumed to be above labor hierarchically.

~
~ Capital exploits labor because... ... Capital earns income from production done by labor that capital didn't perform
&
~ Labor exploits Capital because... ... Labor earns income from capital that labor didn't buy
~
Basically in good old formal logic fashion both of those cases above, being factual descriptions, are true at once or are false at once.