Industry Revisited
Robert Billing
Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk "Annabel Smyth" writes:
> So can anybody think of an interesting topic for the summer term?
Now the flameware (I just typed flameware- now that's a lace edged
Freudian slip if ever I saw one- flameware for Win94 1/2, runs in
background and auto flames all the Americans on the group...)
Sorry, start again, now that the flameWAR has died down after the Tony
Blair thread, perhaps we could get the industry thread going again,
it's had a few outings, but usually fizzled out when people have been
AFK.
I'll start by making a few contentious statements, then put my
fireman's helmet on =C:-) and await results.
1) Doing anything for the people the bible tells us to look after
costs money.
2) The money for (1) has to come from somewhere.
3) The economy is not a zero-sum game, making someone richer doesn't
necessarily make anyone else poorer.
4) The converse is true, making rich people poorer doesn't
automatically make anyone else richer. If you doubt this ask
who is made richer by destroying a valuable object, for example
depth-charging a swimming pool.
5) Real industries create the wealth which enable us to look after
the poor, and are therefore a Good Thing.
6) Governments of all shades destroy wealth or obstruct its creation
and are therefore a Bad Thing.
There, that should have got about two dozen arguments going...
--
I am Robert Billing, Christian, inventor, traveller, cook and animal
lover, I live in England, near 0:46W 51:22N. "How strange-
indeed, how perverse- to weep for a machine! Even one with as complex
and temperamental a personality as the Mark I..." Arthur C Clarke
Annabel Smyth
uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk "Robert Billing" writes:
> Now the flameware (I just typed flameware- now that's a lace edged
> Freudian slip if ever I saw one- flameware for Win94 1/2, runs in
> background and auto flames all the Americans on the group...)
>
Is it a TSR, so that when they pop up again.....? :-)
> 1) Doing anything for the people the bible tells us to look after
> costs money.
Not necessarily (she says, for the sake of argument!) - it doesn't cost
anything (except possibly a telephone bill) to listen to people. And
you can often have someone for a meal - no, TO a meal - without it's
costing much more than you would have spent anyway. But I agree, doing
a "proper job" does cost money - although we don't have Levites to give
our tithes to any more.
>
> 2) The money for (1) has to come from somewhere.
Usually the pockets of those who are *already* giving 10% of their income
to the church, covenanted, and view that as a bare minimum after which
their giving can *really* start. The ones who give <1p in the pound of
their disposable income, after all their expenses have been paid, when
they can spare it (but who also spend at least a fiver on Lottery tickets
every week), don't bother. Oh dear, I do sound cynical - it's what comes
of being married to the Treasurer for all these years....
>
> 3) The economy is not a zero-sum game, making someone richer doesn't
> necessarily make anyone else poorer.
>
Except that if it doesn't it leads to inflation, so those on fixed
incomes *do* get poorer.
> 4) The converse is true, making rich people poorer doesn't
> automatically make anyone else richer. If you doubt this ask
> who is made richer by destroying a valuable object, for example
> depth-charging a swimming pool.
>
Now there I do agree, at least, I can't think of a counter-argument!
> 5) Real industries create the wealth which enable us to look after
> the poor, and are therefore a Good Thing.
Well, they would be if we did, but we don't, so are they? And, in any
case, doesn't the word "industry" resonate for you with associations
of "industrialist/grinding the faces of the poor/etc"? It rather
does for me.
Also, my church is in what's called a UPA (Urban Priority Area) and we
have occasionally experienced what can only be described as Being Done
Good To by members of wealthier churches in the other side of the
Episcopal Area - usually so insensitive as to be extremely amusing. But
one can see quite well how careful you have to be....
>
> 6) Governments of all shades destroy wealth or obstruct its creation
> and are therefore a Bad Thing.
>
And, even worse, they remove benefits from those from whom they have
already removed jobs.....
--
Annabel Smyth Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The countryside roundabout was gorgeous and extravagantly green. You
could be forgiven for thinking that the principle [sic] industry of
Britain is the manufacture of chlorophyll" Bill Bryson
Robert Billing
Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk "Annabel Smyth" writes:
> Except that if it doesn't it leads to inflation, so those on fixed
> incomes *do* get poorer.
It is perfectly possible for people to become rich in a zero or
slightly negative inflation economy, this is broadly what happened in
the last century. However taken to extremes this can lead to savings
accumulating and not being invested, which produces stagnation in the
economy and IIRC caused Keynes to be in favour of a little inflation.
> Well, they would be if we did, but we don't, so are they? And, in any
> case, doesn't the word "industry" resonate for you with associations
> of "industrialist/grinding the faces of the poor/etc"? It rather
> does for me.
No it doesn't. I remember being taken to see the steelworks in
Sheffield by my father when I was about five or six, and watching
entranced as huge lumps of red hot steel shot through a rolling mill,
and marvelling at the sheer size of the carbon electrodes in SP&T's
electric melting shop. It was about then that I knew I wanted to *make*
things, and I've never stopped.
It's hard to explain to someone who's never done it, but there is a
thrill to starting off with an idea, then converting it into a plan,
then watching a machine come to life under your hands, and then go off
to a customer who is pleased with what you have done for them. It never
wears off, and it's probably the biggest high you can get without
chemical assistance. I get paid for doing it, but I'd still do it even
if I wasn't paid- you've only got to look at the quantity of homebrewed
electronics in this house to know that it's true.
To me industry is about doing fascinating things with serious
hardware, and all this talk about "gtfotp" seems to have little or no
connection with the reality of the various industries I've worked in.
Annabel Smyth
uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk "Robert Billing" writes:
[quoting me]
> > Well, they would be if we did, but we don't, so are they? And, in any
> > case, doesn't the word "industry" resonate for you with associations
> > of "industrialist/grinding the faces of the poor/etc"? It rather
> > does for me.
>
> No it doesn't. I remember being taken to see the steelworks in
> Sheffield by my father when I was about five or six, and watching
> entranced as huge lumps of red hot steel shot through a rolling mill,
> and marvelling at the sheer size of the carbon electrodes in SP&T's
> electric melting shop. It was about then that I knew I wanted to *make*
> things, and I've never stopped.
>
> It's hard to explain to someone who's never done it, but there is a
> thrill to starting off with an idea, then converting it into a plan,
> then watching a machine come to life under your hands, and then go off
> to a customer who is pleased with what you have done for them. It never
> wears off, and it's probably the biggest high you can get without
> chemical assistance. I get paid for doing it, but I'd still do it even
> if I wasn't paid- you've only got to look at the quantity of homebrewed
> electronics in this house to know that it's true.
>
But that is creativity, not industry! "Industry", to me, is some poor
sod standing at an assembly line screwing a thingamajig to a whatsis
once every minute, without fail, for eight hours, and taking a rather
derisory pay packet home at the end of the week. Stultifying boredom.
What you are describing is very different, and something I do, in a
small way, myself, when making jerseys or cardigans, or even jewellery.
> To me industry is about doing fascinating things with serious
> hardware, and all this talk about "gtfotp" seems to have little or no
> connection with the reality of the various industries I've worked in.
>
But have you ever worked on an assembly line?
Paul Wheeler
> It's hard to explain to someone who's never done it, but there is a
> thrill to starting off with an idea, then converting it into a plan,
> then watching a machine come to life under your hands, and then go off
> to a customer who is pleased with what you have done for them.
You are a lucky thing. I would love to make things and have often tried,
but I have two left hands and ten thumbs. My efforts cause my family to
fall about laughing, so they are not wholly wasted. I feel a bit like
your description when I have written something good, or helped someone to
put themselves together after some disaster or other.
Tony Wheeler
Robert Billing
Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk "Annabel Smyth" writes:
> But that is creativity, not industry! "Industry", to me, is some poor
> sod standing at an assembly line screwing a thingamajig to a whatsis
> once every minute, without fail, for eight hours, and taking a rather
> derisory pay packet home at the end of the week. Stultifying boredom.
> What you are describing is very different, and something I do, in a
> small way, myself, when making jerseys or cardigans, or even jewellery.
That's not real industry, that's a rather bad way of making things
which certainly hasn't been in use in any factory I've worked in for
the last ten years or so. (I can't of course speak for any factories
that I haven't been in, I just haven't seen it). The main reason for
this is of course that it is a terribly bad use of manpower (quite an
expensive resource nowadays) to do repetitive tasks that are better
acomplished by a board-stuffing robot for example. You will of course
find that sort of line still in use in Shenzhen, Gangzhou and the rest
of the Pearl River area where labour is very cheap. This is simply
because of the communist system forcing wages down artificially, and
probably won't last once the workers get wise to it.
What you do in a small way is of course what I try to do on a bigger
scale, and there are now about 100 people worldwide employed full time
as a result of the stuff I've come up with. Not one of them is doing
the sort of job you describe. There are highly skilled test engineers
who take a fierce pride in their ability to go through a machine with
perhaps 4000 components and locate a fault in a few minutes, there are
buyers and salesmen, there are operators (highly creative people in
their own right) who make the equipment perform. There is a lady
employed full time training operators. There is the rest of the design
team, because I don't work alone. There are accountants and drivers,
support people and cleaners, but not a trace of an assembly line job
anywhere, honest.
What you are thinking of is the bad old days when, for example, you
built radios by having a long row of benches with people soldering
components onto boards by hand. The error rate was huge, and hence so
was the scrap rate, the operators took to chewing the solder to relieve
the boredom and got lead poisoning (I have heard of real cases) and
costs were impossible to control. The same task would now be performed
by a P&P and a flow solder machine in about one minute.
This changes the nature of industry of course. The skills that are now
needed are those which require an analytical mind which can work out
what to do if the robot stops working, or the products it turns out
have faults. This of course is part of the cause of the problem.
What I do find very sad is that we have had vacancies, almost right
through the recession, which we couldn't fill, because we can't find
candidates who can read, write, do simple arithmetic, follow
instructions and work in a team. I feel very strongly that our economic
failures are at least in part the fault of our educational system.
> > To me industry is about doing fascinating things with serious
> > hardware, and all this talk about "gtfotp" seems to have little or no
> > connection with the reality of the various industries I've worked in.
> >
> But have you ever worked on an assembly line?
Not that sort, see above. I don't think anyone should if it can be
avoided. However given a completely unskilled and uneducated workforce
it is sometimes the only way to get anything done.
BTW this is not a private argument between Annabel & myself, feel free
to join in.
Annabel Smyth
uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk "Robert Billing" writes:
>
> That's not real industry, that's a rather bad way of making things
> which certainly hasn't been in use in any factory I've worked in for
> the last ten years or so. (I can't of course speak for any factories
> that I haven't been in, I just haven't seen it). The main reason for
> this is of course that it is a terribly bad use of manpower (quite an
> expensive resource nowadays) to do repetitive tasks that are better
> acomplished by a board-stuffing robot for example. You will of course
> find that sort of line still in use in Shenzhen, Gangzhou and the rest
> of the Pearl River area where labour is very cheap. This is simply
> because of the communist system forcing wages down artificially, and
> probably won't last once the workers get wise to it.
Okay, point taken. But I don't expect I'm the only person who has that
sort of mental image of "industry". And, don't forget, when robots were
first introduced (remember that car ad "Designed by computer, built by
robots", and the graffiti that everyone added: "Driven by morons"?), a
great many people lost their jobs. "Productivity" and "Growth" became
the buzzwords, and a great deal of hardship ensued. Places like Brixton
didn't even notice that the recession in the early 80s ever came to
an end - they were still unemployed and with no real prospect of a job.
No "yuppies" here.... (Please note, Robert, I am absolutely NOT accusing
you of operating like this! I'm quite sure you care about your workforce
as people. But it does happen, and has happened, in companies with
less integrity).
[...]
> This changes the nature of industry of course. The skills that are now
> needed are those which require an analytical mind which can work out
> what to do if the robot stops working, or the products it turns out
> have faults. This of course is part of the cause of the problem.
>
> What I do find very sad is that we have had vacancies, almost right
> through the recession, which we couldn't fill, because we can't find
> candidates who can read, write, do simple arithmetic, follow
> instructions and work in a team. I feel very strongly that our economic
> failures are at least in part the fault of our educational system.
>
Or vice versa? The old mindset, of not educating people "above their
station" does, I think, die hard. Not so much among schools, but among
parents. I hope things are better now, but thirty years ago (when the
school-leaving age was 15), many girls were taken from school on their
15th birthdays and put to work in the local shop, or factory, or wherever,
to earn money to help the family budget. Twenty years ago I knew a young
woman who had taken "A" levels and was doing a very renowned two-year
language secretarial course, culminating in a placement in a firm abroad -
many young women, like this one, were offered a permanent contract in
their firms. This particular woman's father was a miner, or factory hand,
I forget which. Anyway, he was very proud of his daughter's achievements,
and supported her with all his might. But his workmates tended to feel,
"What's the likes of you doing with a daughter at college? Tuppence to
speak to you now, I suppose".
And even today I watch my daughter's contemporaries leave school at 16,
with perhaps one GCSE, if that, and settle into a life of unemployment,
taking casual painting and decorating jobs where they can get them, not
expecting to be employed or to have a career. There are exceptions, of
course, but all too many of the children she knew in her primary school
days are settling for the same old pattern. At least three girls in
Year 11 in one local girls' school have had to leave, discreetly, to
produce a baby.....
>
> BTW this is not a private argument between Annabel & myself, feel free
> to join in.
>
Yes, do! I do take Robert's point, incidentally; I just wish there were
more employers like him.
Robert Billing
Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk "Annabel Smyth" writes:
> Okay, point taken. But I don't expect I'm the only person who has that
> sort of mental image of "industry".
...but when people have a similar mental image of black people or Jews
or train spotters or inventors...
> Or vice versa? The old mindset, of not educating people "above their
> station" does, I think, die hard.
Worse than that is the anti science and technology bias (see my
diatribe published in "Electronics Weekly" a few years back) in
schools. Why is it that they don't see great engineers as stars in the
same way that they see footballers or musicians? How many famous
engineers can school leavers name?
This particular woman's father was a miner, or factory hand,
> I forget which. Anyway, he was very proud of his daughter's achievements,
> and supported her with all his might. But his workmates tended to feel,
> "What's the likes of you doing with a daughter at college? Tuppence to
> speak to you now, I suppose".
How many sermons on "thou shalt not covet" are preached? I've *never*
heard one. This sort of petty jealousy (for that's all it is) shows
just what unredeemed humanity is like.
> And even today I watch my daughter's contemporaries leave school at 16,
> with perhaps one GCSE, if that, and settle into a life of unemployment,
> taking casual painting and decorating jobs where they can get them, not
> expecting to be employed or to have a career.
Now, are the kids really without the mental equipment to do better? I
doubt it. I suspect that they have been let down jointly by their
parents and the schools.
> Yes, do! I do take Robert's point, incidentally; I just wish there were
> more employers like him.
BTW I don't run the firm, just a little part of it, but I *do* choose
where I work.
Robert Billing
peew...@cix.compulink.co.uk "Paul Wheeler" writes:
> You are a lucky thing. I would love to make things and have often tried,
> but I have two left hands and ten thumbs.
It's not luck, it's practice, just like playing the piano. You have to
start when you are about four, and work at it very hard for twenty
years or so.
For this reason I offer the following advice to budding inventors.
While you are practicing you have to avoid people who try to "take you
out of yourself" or induce you to "be like the others". It's also vital
to ensure that you aren't spotted by anyone who is "good with children"
who will want you to "take up a healthy occupation" as this usually
means a whole afternoon's inventing is wasted before you can get away.
Also, when explaining what you are doing to grown-ups, never assume
that because they are twenty years older they can follow what is going
on. "Never try to teach a pig to whistle, it wastes your time and
annoys the pig". Vicars are *fairly* safe, because they can at least
read & write, and usually want to make friends. Games masters never
understand what you are doing, and usually want you to stop so that
they can make you play football. In extreme cases develop a disease
which is not debilitating, but gets you a permanent "excused games"
chit.
Use the materials to hand, and squirrel away anything with reusable
parts, such as old clocks, light fittings, bits of old radios etc. If
anything is very oily wrap it in polythene before storing it under the
bed. This has no effect on the keeping quality, other than retarding
oxidation of the lubricants, but avoids wasting time arguing with your
mum when you could be doing something more interesting.
Watch all the TV science programmes, even the late night ones. This
will give you a good insight into basic physical laws, and will confuse
your parents. Do not be afraid of asking fool questions, because the
people who really know the answers will also know that the questions
were sensible.
Above all remember that school only lasts for ten years, but a really
good engineering career can be great fun for over forty.
Paul Wheeler
too late for me, unfortunately.) :-)
Thank you. I will remember those points should I ever be re-incarnated -
which I won`t be, of course. I would love to be an inventor.
Tony Wheeler
Dave Shield
<uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Do not be afraid of asking fool questions, because the
> people who really know the answers will also know that the questions
> were sensible.
And they'll probably know the answers to (most of) the questions
you might regard as foolish. As I keep telling the students here:
"I don't mind simple questions - I can answer those!"
If they don't know, then it wasn't a foolish question after all,
and you can tell them the answer when you find out.
Dave
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Shield D.T.S...@csc.liv.ac.uk
Dept. of Computer Science,
Liverpool University, "He who brings [computers] on to his premises
PO Box 147, should be absolutely liable ... for any mischief
Liverpool, L69 3BX that ensues." Haddock v. Computer 1578/32/W1
Frank Lane
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <830073...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk>
> Ann...@amsmyth.demon.co.uk "Annabel Smyth" writes:
>
>What I do find very sad is that we have had vacancies, almost right
>through the recession, which we couldn't fill, because we can't find
>candidates who can read, write, do simple arithmetic, follow
>instructions and work in a team. I feel very strongly that our economic
>failures are at least in part the fault of our educational system.
>
Ah, but if you're going to demand this high level of qualification they're
going to want to be paid for the job. :-}
Frank
*************************************
Frank Lane
la...@enterprise.net
http://homepages.enterprise.net/lane
*************************************
Robert Billing
la...@enterprise.net "Frank Lane" writes:
> Ah, but if you're going to demand this high level of qualification they're
> going to want to be paid for the job. :-}
Actually, we had noticed that too..
David Aldridge
Annabel Smyth wrote:
>
> In article <829857...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>
> uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk "Robert Billing" writes:
> > 4) The converse is true, making rich people poorer doesn't
> > automatically make anyone else richer. If you doubt this ask
> > who is made richer by destroying a valuable object, for example
> > depth-charging a swimming pool.
> >
> Now there I do agree, at least, I can't think of a counter-argument!
Haven't been following this thread, but it struck me that depth charging
a rich person's swimming pool would almost certainly make a builder and
possibly swimming pool installer richer, whil making the rich person
poorer.
Interestingly enough, my mum (who is a doctor and reasonably well paid
and very busy) had an interesting slant on this when discussing pay. I
had said something about how I didn't like the massive pay differences one
sees, and she (possibly) felt she had to justify her pay. She said that
she had a stressful and responsible job where people had to rely on her
constantly. To an extent she thinks it is then justified that she should
get a bit more for the amount of training, effort, reading, constant
updating of skills, responsibility, etc. required to do the job. She then
made the comment that she could (being intelligent and good with hands,
etc.) probably do plumbing, electrical work, decorating, etc. but didn't
want to spend her "free" time doing these thing (she has enough hassle just
doing her work). However, the better pay meant she could pay other people
to do these things, thus helping to keep them in jobs as well.
While I still don't advocate massive pay differences and "stupid" pay such
as given to Cedric Brown (Brit. Gas), this puts a slightly different slant
on things and makes one think. Certainly (in our economy) pay differences
seem to have at least some useful factors in them.
Of course, in an ideal community, everyone would be doing their part for
free, and the whole would work together for everyone's good. Thus we would
all have nicely decorated homes, and have doctors who can help us, etc.
Read "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" for more info/interest. As it
is, we are stuck with a market economy with little or no public pride or
ownership, and these days it's "everyone for themselves". Praise God the
community of God isn't like that!
David
--
David C. Aldridge
email: d...@ray.npl.co.uk / emp...@brunel.ac.uk
WWW: http://http1.brunel.ac.uk:8080/~empgdca/
If God had meant us to be naked, we would have been born that way.
If God had intended Man to Walk, He would have given him Feet.
If God had intended Man to Smoke, He would have set him on Fire.
Robert Billing
In article <31849F...@ray.npl.co.uk>
d...@ray.npl.co.uk "David Aldridge" writes:
> Haven't been following this thread, but it struck me that depth charging
> a rich person's swimming pool would almost certainly make a builder and
> possibly swimming pool installer richer, whil making the rich person
> poorer.
No, rebuilding the swimming pool would, but until it is rebuilt, the
only result is to replace a swimming pool (valuable) with a smoking
crater (less valuable).
I think you have really hit the point here. It is the action of the
builder that creates value (the swimming pool) out of raw materials
that have less "value". It is the business of any well-ordered state to
ensure that as far as possible those who can create "value" (I use the
word in a semi-technical sense) are encouraged to do it. That way more
"value", which can be things like swimming pools and cheese and
bicycles, or services such as driving or teaching or banking are
created, which is to everyone's benefit.
Have you ever seen Fritz Lang's 1920-something film "Metropolis"? The
workers are inspired to revolt because they are lead to believe that
the "owners" are exploiting them. When they shut down the industry they
discover that it was producing the things that they were consuming
*themselves*...
> Interestingly enough, my mum (who is a doctor and reasonably well paid
> and very busy) had an interesting slant on this when discussing pay. I
[snip]
> doing her work). However, the better pay meant she could pay other people
> to do these things, thus helping to keep them in jobs as well.
Well done, you have just discovered the "trickle down" theory of
economics, and are well on the way to re-inventing Thatcherism.
A parting thought. If I want a large shed built, and it costs 1000
pounds, and I have the money, then I could do it. The builder pays
(say) 400 pounds into the bank and 600 to his suppliers, who pay it
into the bank. The bank now has my 1000 pounds, which they lend to
someone else who wants a shed. They pay it to a builder who pays it...
The bank now has the 1000 pounds back *again* and lend it to build a
*third* shed, and so on. Now *where* is the money to build all these
sheds coming from? I know because I used to work for a bank, but it
seems to baffle most people. The answer is quite horrifying when you
find out.
Paul Wheeler
> David C. Aldridge wrote about his mother and pay differentials
I think she has a point. Also, she was a long time in training during
which plumbers were earning so her working life is shorter. Also she has
to read The Lancet regularly and other boring things in her spare time,
and discuss her trade in thieves latin in case her patients should twig
what they are suffering from. Anyway, who wants to examine varicose
veins all day, not to mention ferreting about in smelly and unmentionable
cavities. She deserves her piles of money. :-)
I reckon doctors earn their pay on the whole.
Tony Wheeler
M.F. Heath
In article <831075...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk>,
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think you have really hit the point here. It is the action of the
>builder that creates value (the swimming pool) out of raw materials
>that have less "value".
Iisn't it the desire of the prospective user which creates the value? The
action of the builder just creates the swimming pool, which would have no
value if no one wanted swimming pools.
Malcolm Heath
Paul Wheeler
Uncle Bob says :
> A parting thought. If I want a large shed built, and it costs 1000
> pounds, and I have the money, then I could do it. The builder pays
> (say) 400 pounds into the bank and 600 to his suppliers, who pay it
> into the bank. The bank now has my 1000 pounds, which they lend to
> someone else who wants a shed. They pay it to a builder who pays it...
> The bank now has the 1000 pounds back *again* and lend it to build a
> *third* shed, and so on. Now *where* is the money to build all these
> sheds coming from? I know because I used to work for a bank, but it
> seems to baffle most people. The answer is quite horrifying when you
> find out.
Well, don`t leave us in suspense. Horrify us as promised. I don`t know
anything about finance. Where did it come from?
Tony Wheeler
Gareth Jones
CLA...@leeds.ac.uk (M.F. Heath) wrote:
Very good! However, as swimming pools are generally desired, people
who create them, create value.
Gareth
>Malcolm Heath
Alan Zanker
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A parting thought. If I want a large shed built, and it costs 1000
>pounds, and I have the money, then I could do it. The builder pays
>(say) 400 pounds into the bank and 600 to his suppliers, who pay it
>into the bank. The bank now has my 1000 pounds, which they lend to
>someone else who wants a shed. They pay it to a builder who pays it...
>The bank now has the 1000 pounds back *again* and lend it to build a
>*third* shed, and so on. Now *where* is the money to build all these
>sheds coming from? I know because I used to work for a bank, but it
>seems to baffle most people. The answer is quite horrifying when you
>find out.
Creatio ex nihilo?
Alan
--
Alan Zanker | e-mail:al...@bittern.demon.co.uk
Leeds |
Frank Lane
In article <31849F...@ray.npl.co.uk>,
David Aldridge <d...@ray.npl.co.uk> wrote:
> She said that
>she had a stressful and responsible job where people had to rely on her
>constantly. To an extent she thinks it is then justified that she should
>get a bit more for the amount of training, effort, reading, constant
>updating of skills, responsibility, etc. required to do the job.
The railway signalmen who fought for, and were denied, a reasonable rate of
pay in recent years also have a stressful job. The lives of whole trainsful of
commuters is in their hands.
Nurses might also demand a mention and I'm sure a long list of poorly paid
people with stressful and low paid, responsible jobs might also be made. This
is not to deny the right of a doctor to earn good money - just adjusting that
slant you mentioned.
Frank
Love, Peace and Joy in Jesus
Robert Billing
In article <318af72...@news.demon.co.uk>
al...@bittern.demon.co.uk "Alan Zanker" writes:
> >*third* shed, and so on. Now *where* is the money to build all these
> >sheds coming from? I know because I used to work for a bank, but it
> >seems to baffle most people. The answer is quite horrifying when you
> >find out.
>
> Creatio ex nihilo?
Correct, money is a medium of exchange, and has no intrinsic value, so
it may be created and destroyed freely by the actions of the banks.
If the banking system really worked in the way I describe, the money
supply would explode and its value drop to zero overnight. This is what
happened with the German hyperinflation between the wars, and what was
beginning to happen in pre-Thatcher Britain. However the banks are
regulated only to lend four-fifths of their deposits IIRC, and so they
can only "create" four times as much money as is issued by the
government.
You may work out the remaining lemmas for yourself.
Rhiannon Macfie
Robert Billing appears to have typed something along the lines of:
> > Creatio ex nihilo?
> Correct, money is a medium of exchange, and has no intrinsic value, so
> it may be created and destroyed freely by the actions of the banks.
If all the people in the world withdrew their money at once, there
would`t be enough money in the world for them all.
Andrew Foakes
Robert Billing <uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> wrote, re the money supply:
==> ... money is a medium of exchange, and has no intrinsic value, so
==> it may be created and destroyed freely by the actions of the banks.
==>
==> If the banking system really worked in the way I describe, the money
==> supply would explode and its value drop to zero overnight. This is what
==> happened with the German hyperinflation between the wars, and what was
==> beginning to happen in pre-Thatcher Britain. However the banks are
==> regulated only to lend four-fifths of their deposits IIRC, and so they
==> can only "create" four times as much money as is issued by the
==> government.
Err ... is that right? If I remember my economics lessons correctly (which
I probably don't), this was not what happened to Germany (it was an
explosion in M1 in responce to Government cash flow shortage) and it was
not happening in pre-Thatcher Britain when the 80% rule already applied.
Remember that Thatcher's great moneterist principle was that M1 and ONLY
M1's growth fuelled inflation as other types of money supply where
automatically linked to economic activity and had a clear cost (i.e.
interest). In fact, the debate at the time was whether M0 rather than M1
was all that was needed. It was Labour trying to print their way out of
trouble that Thatcher criticised (though they had already stopped doing
that by the last election - inflation was at 11% and falling when she got
in).
Yours,
Andrew
* ====================================================================== *
Now running NetBSD-1.1 (sometimes)
FILENAME=`ls -l | awk '{print $1}'` on a Mac!
Robert Billing
In article <4mkt25$9...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>
r...@tattoo.ed.ac.uk "Rhiannon Macfie" writes:
> If all the people in the world withdrew their money at once, there
> would`t be enough money in the world for them all.
This is entirely true, and is known as a "run on the bank". It has
occurred on several occasions when confidence in a particular bank has
failed. In general banks form organisations such as the FDIC in the
states and something similar in the UK to insure against it.
Robert Billing
.769...@news.demon.co.uk> <831296...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk> <ADB3CFF4...@foakes.demon.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 06 May 96 22:42:21 GMT
Reply-To: uncl...@tnglwood.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 16
In article <ADB3CFF4...@foakes.demon.co.uk>
and...@foakes.demon.co.uk "Andrew Foakes" writes:
> Err ... is that right? If I remember my economics lessons correctly (which
> I probably don't), this was not what happened to Germany (it was an
> explosion in M1 in responce to Government cash flow shortage) and it was
> not happening in pre-Thatcher Britain when the 80% rule already applied.
On re-reading my original posting I think I didn't say quite
what I meant. You are therefore right.
Lucy Hyatt
la...@enterprise.net (Frank Lane) wrote:
>
>Nurses might also demand a mention and I'm sure a long list of >poorly paid people with stressful and low paid, responsible jobs >m=
ight also be made. This is not to deny the right of a doctor to >earn good money - just adjusting that slant you mentioned.
>
My sister was a nurse working on a research project into the effect stress had on the health of civil servants. Although we all joke=
d about it at the time, the results showed very clearly that it was those at the bottom of the hierarchy who suffered more from stre=
ss. They had no control over their work and were not being as well paid as their counterparts in industry. If pay was awarded accord=
ing to the amount of stress people were under . . .hmmmm, interesting.
Lucy Hyatt
oclh...@usthk.ust.hk