Nonsense
There seems to be a lot of nonsense in the news recently. First off, there is the strange claim that magnets can create energy. Following close second, the claim that market forces are the best way to run a country is hidden within an article apparently about the lack / surplus of UK scientists.
Lets have a look at the perpetual motion machine ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H ^H marvellous new free energy invention. It is, of course, impossible to rule out, but it seems to run counter to at least 150 years of science and a good deal longer of observed natural law. This reminds me of the whole “cold fusion” thing. I guess its technically impossible to prove the first law of thermodynamics and what we’re seeing may be the first counterexample, which would be very exciting, but my cynicism is telling me (and some other people) that they’ve made some mistake; maybe they’re somehow extracting energy from the magnets or ambient (broadcast) electromagnetic waves. Anyway, hopefully it’ll be all sorted when their “jury” of 12 scientists is able to publish papers about it.
Moving on to the ill-thought-out scheme to extend the rule of market forces to every sector of society, which Ian quotes (maybe as a joke?). The central thesis of the article is that there is no shortage of UK scientists and we shouldn’t feel the need to “keep up” with the scientist-production of other countries any more than we’d keep up with the production of any other commodity, but seems to creep into the territory of extreme free-marketism. It ends with a couple of choice paragraphs, which I shall quote (with attribution totally to Jamie Whyte!) here:
Alas, the urge does overcome them when it comes to skills. Science degrees, like all degrees, are already massively subsidised. Students pay well under half the cost of providing a science degree, even though they receive well over half its benefits. So there is almost certainly a surplus of British scientists. Which would explain why scientists earn relatively little – a fact that the science lobby always complains about, except when it is too busy bemoaning the shortage of scientists.
Right. So we shouldn’t have state schools (school kids pay nothing, but receive all of its benefits?), a police, judiciary or armed forces? Maybe the government agrees, which is why it keeps trying to cripple the NHS? I completely fail to see his argument – is it that we should pay for all services we use? Should we pay proportionally to the amount to which it increases our prospects? Maybe our kids should pay more for their ‘A’ grades than for failing (on their huge student debt, of course)? I should have to send cheques to the BBC whenever I watch something educational on TV.
The next paragraph is even better:
Those who lobby for state support – be they French farmers, US steel-makers or British scientists – claim to be the backbone of the nation, the foundation of the future or something similarly fabulous. But it is a perverse argument. If what you produce is so valuable, why can you not find willing buyers at the unsubsidised market price? Let us hope that educational standards soon rise to the level where the producers of such self-serving nonsense can find no one willing to buy it.
This argument is facetious. These groups lobby for government support precisely because the products or services they provide are undervalued by the market. In the case of farming, this is usually due to the low wholesale prices offered by supermarkets in the face of cheap imports from countries where the cost of production is lower. In the case of scientists, it is because they may be conducting research into so-called “pure” areas where the commercial sector is not interested, or possibly because they want to work outside of “big pharma” and allow any discoveries they produce to be used gratis, for the benefit of all mankind.
I actually agree with some of the stuff he’s saying: Its true that there are easily enough scientists and engineers to fill the demand in the UK economy. (Thats why I’m paid so badly…) But I felt the need to refute the idiocy that the free market is always right, which is what he seems to be suggesting.
14 comments August 22nd, 2006