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...

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …