Anonymous 1 needed this 'Off the Record'

Still on Life Support
I am afraid that I d not agree with you either.
The Three M's are minnows, form which one cannot extrapalate to large world class economies like the UK, and bigger still like the USA. The sample size is too small..
Old Soviet economies have their own specific problems which do not again apply to other economies like the UK, and other developed economies. No correlation there.
As a general rule economies that approach 80% Services, e.g. USA find themselves in trouble, and incur a big debt problem. The only reason their debt problem is tolerated is that they are the home of Debt Agencies, their size, and because it would not be in the long term interests of China to upset the apple cart by selling their huge holdings of USA debt.

Prof Eman

To give a taste of the enormous amount of academic effort that goes into labour market research here is a relatively accessible paper. There are links between getting a top job and academic qualifications combined with on the job training and the benefits (or not) of moving between firms.

It is worth a read for anyone with recent gradates in the family.

Anders Frederiksen, Takao Kato:

Human Capital and Career Success: Evidence from Linked Employer-Employee Data

Abstract:
Denmark's registry data provide accurate and complete career history data along with detailed personal characteristics (e.g., education, gender, work experience, tenure and others) for the population of Danish workers longitudinally. By using such data from 1992 to 2002, we provide rigorous evidence for the first time for the population of workers in an entire economy (as opposed to case study evidence) on the effects of the nature and scope of human capital on career success (measured by appointments to top management). First, we confirm the beneficial effect of acquiring general human capital formally through schooling for career success, as well as the gender gap in career success rates. Second, broadening the scope of human capital by experiencing various occupations (becoming a generalist) is found to be advantageous for career success. Third, initial human capital earned through formal schooling and subsequent human capital obtained informally on the job are found to be complements in the production of career success. Fourth, though there is a large body of the literature on the relationship between firm-specific human capital and wages, the relative value of firm-specific human capital has been rarely studied in the context of career success. We find that it is more beneficial to broaden the breadth of human capital within the firm than without, pointing to the significance of firm-specific human capital for career success.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp5764.pdf

engineertony

http://www.bankofengland...nknotes/about/index.htm

Did you try to place your article with the Financial Times? They have a lot of articles on infrastructure, PFI and such. I don't know if they employ any qualified engineers but they are bright. Secondly, have you tried to interest your MP in the subject? If he is not directly interested, you can ask him to put you in touch with various Select Committees and you can ask him to place your research in the House of Commons Library (not sure about the Lords). MPs who want information that their own researchers cannot provide often ask the librarians to compile research for them. Some of the librarians have scientific training.

http://www.parliament.uk...search/briefing-papers/

http://www.parliament.uk...volved/contact-your-mp/

http://www.parliament.uk...nvolved/contact-a-lord/

http://www.parliament.uk...ords/about-lords/lords/

Some of the Lords have scientific or engineering training e.g. Lord Winston in embryology and television science programmes. Baroness Greenfield is another. Some of them can get television producers interested.

http://www.publications....o/ld16sctk/ld16sctk.htm

Have a look at this site:
http://sciencecampaign.org.uk/?p=840

You might like to contact this chap who is a science writer with a geology degree and a lot of contacts.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/Gr...sWho/Staff/BobWard.aspx

Afternoon, think this will be my last post here as it has taken up quite a lot of time, and regardless of the evidence presented to the contrary, it seems that I in a minority of 1 in my belief that the UK problems do not all stem from having a significant banking sector and wider service sector.

I will leave with a few key points;

The UK is in fact the world’s sixth largest manufacturer and 6th in the league table of GDP therefore we are certainly punching our weight in terms of manufacturing .

The size of the manufacturing sector as a proportion of the overall economy is often quoted and its clear that yes it has fallen. Depending on your measures, back in the 1970’s manufacturing made up approximately 22% of the economy and had fallen to around 9%; it now stands at somewhere near 12%. Worth considering our neighbours though, France’s equivalent percentages reveal a not dissimilar reduction from 17% to 13%.
Really interesting is Germany, the internationally lauded centre of European manufacturing and example for us all of balanced economy. Here the figures reduced from 35% to 21%, which is a greater percentage drop than the UK. As prof said, when 80% non-manufacturing is reached, it causes a problem so watch this space for German news

Japan meanwhile is 2nd or third on the size league table, is the third largest manufacturer in the world as yet has experienced little or no growth for 20 years. Contrast that the US who have the largest service sector in the world and who has experienced consistently positive GDP growth every year from 1991 to 2008 and has been ahead of Germany for all but 4 of those years. The UK meanwhile has largely tracked the US. Admittedly China has been ahead, but considering the low base that they have come from, much of that growth can be explained by improvements in efficiency.

Finally, I have undertaken a little backgorund reading and have concluded the following. There have been a number of theories on the causes of economic growth including classical (Adam Smith & friends), Neo-classical (Solow, Swan), Endogenous Growth, Unified Growth, Big Push, Schumpeter, Friedman and of course Keynes, and so far, other than a few lines from Adam Smith, which was then discredited by David Ricardo, I can find no model, case study or theory that places great emphasis on the proporation of services to manufacturing in an economy as a driver of GDP growth. There are a multitude of other influences quoted including public sector debt, private sector debt (levels and availability), free exchange rates, value and stock of commodities, wage inflation, employment level, absolute level of wealth (eg the higher is get, the more slowly it grows), production efficiency and productivity per head, free movement of capital and of labour, and technological advances.

Prof Eman, Im afraid that I am more inclined to believe this point of view over yours at this point, although in the spirit of balance, I will of course re-evaluate that position should you choose to publish you previous theory and it withstands the rigorous academic test that would then ensue.

Over and out

Racketeering in insurance.
Jack Straw is taking steps to curb the racketeering in the insuarnce business. Quoted on radio 4 today, only 24% of what we pay in goes on repairs, and the repairs are inflated when the favoured garage knows it's an "insurance job". Payments are being syphoned off in all directions, agents and bent lawyers looking for accident claims, even the police have been getting a bit for reporting on likely accidents, and some other kind of intermediaries which I didn't quite grasp. Add in the fat cats in the actual insurance companies, plush offices everywhere and their "shareholders" and it all smells pretty foul.
Bottom line is that we motorists could be paying 5 times more than we need, around 80% of what we pay is circulating services, making nothing, getting a good living.
I backed into a Discovery on my drive, we had visitors staying with us, dented the back plastic bumper, needed replacing. If that same plastic was shaped as a chair in B&Q it would be £10, but because it's shaped as a back bumper and bought from a Land Rover agent it's £200. So when we add in the inflated spare parts we are really being screwed, more and more people living without making any real contribution to either goods or services.