Productivity?

[MrGongGong]

All these things on public money are undoubtedly admirable but, like the NHS, they need a thriving private sector and economy to provide adequate support for them in the first place.

Prime priority, surely, is to be 'good at' that!

What on earth are you on about (again)????

Lets get rid of university music departments and the BBC while we are at it?

Why don't you go and join all the other small minded folk somewhere (that's the polite version)

[P. G. Tipps]

What on earth are you on about (again)????

Lets get rid of university music departments and the BBC while we are at it?

Why don't you go and join all the other small minded folk somewhere (that's the polite version)

But a somewhat less emotionally hysterical and meaningful response to my question is ... ?

[MrGongGong]

But a somewhat less emotionally hysterical and meaningful response to my question is ... ?

You didn't ask a question
just a load of the usual guff

(Questions usually have one of these at the end ??????)

Surely you don't believe in 'trickle down economics' ?

[P. G. Tipps]

You didn't ask a question
just a load of the usual guff

(Questions usually have one of these at the end ??????)

Surely you don't believe in 'trickle down economics' ?

No, you're right, I didn't ... and I don't.

I did however make a point which had absolutely nothing to do with 'trickle down economics' but rather challenged your apparent belief in the infinite supply of public money and your response was, as usual, ad hominem rather than to the point.

I suppose that in itself "answers" the point ...

[MrGongGong]

No, you're right, I didn't ... and I don't.

I did however make a point which had absolutely nothing to do with 'trickle down economics' but rather challenged your apparent belief in the infinite supply of public money and your response was, as usual, ad hominem rather than to the point.

I suppose that in itself "answers" the point ...

It doesn't answer anything at all
and I said absolutely nothing about "public money"
YOU just assumed that I did

WHY do you insist on posting on a MUSIC messageboard when you seem to think that we should have less of it?
Do you think we should have music in higher education institutions or not?
We actually do it very well indeed, which IS the point not some guff about "public money"


Back under the bridge for you before the goats see you

[P. G. Tipps]

It doesn't answer anything at all
and I said absolutely nothing about "public money"
YOU just assumed that I did

WHY do you insist on posting on a MUSIC messageboard when you seem to think that we should have less of it?
Do you think we should have music in higher education institutions or not?
We actually do it very well indeed, which IS the point not some guff about "public money"


Back under the bridge for you before the goats see you

You see, there you go again ... 'bridges', 'goats' 'guff' ... all very entertainingly amusing and deflective. You're a 'natural', Mr GG!

Nevertheless, Mr GG, I must inform you that I'm all for music education in both lower and higher education. I'm all for all sorts of education in both lower and higher education.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the provision of education requires money ... you know the thing which purchases physical essentials like books, instruments and teachers? Governments take that (money) from the population in the form of taxes or they can borrow at interest rates indefinitely and it (we) finally goes bust and can't provide any education at all. I assume, on balance, you'd favour the first course. I understand that nobody, as yet, has come up with a third alternative.

So, you see, the more productive the economy the more tax can be raised and the more education can be provided (including music). Yes, I know, the first part is a real pain, isn't it? Drat!

So on a dedicated thread about productivity it did seem appropriate to refer to productivity and not instead enthuse about how my local school's orchestra is so 'good at' performing Messiaen's Turangalila.

Maybe they should also teach the basic tenets of Logic in schools and colleges and, who knows, we might all end up being somewhat "better at" that before we pat ourselves on the shoulder at being 'good at' anything else?

[MrGongGong]

There's plenty of money

There you go again with your binary thinking

[P. G. Tipps]

There's plenty of money ...

Indeed there is, Mr GG! That's the very good news, undoubtedly.

However, I would point out that there is also plenty of sun around but that does not mean it will automatically come to us. Sometimes we just have to graft a bit in order to earn a tiny slice of that plentiful monetary supply to then be in a position to go and bask in those warming rays?

That often proves rather more challenging, I'm afraid ... :-)

[MrGongGong]

Here you are Scotty

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

[Serial_Apologist]

Equally important in this matter of productivity imv is the removal at all points in production chains of "slack", which started up in the 1980s with "just-in-time", a supply principle predicated on "pull through" rather than "push through", so that at any stage in, let's say, manufacturing to start with, the next stage dictates to the preceding one the exact numbers of components required within measurable time zones, rather than those numbers required determining quantities of inputs at the start of the process and thereafter at each stage. The latter was judged wasteful because it created too much "slack".

Now, from a sustainable pov, slack creation might seem rather a good idea because a) it's using up the earth's resources more slowly, and b) it's creating natural breaks for the workforce which, as every bit of research into this has shown, in the final analysis results in greater productivity per human unit of production. The ditching of this, so contrary to logic, one might have assumed, came about because by minimising momentary "idleness", firms adopting "just-in-time" both overcame the costs in terms of reduced value of part-made products lying all around the factory floor, and were in a position to out-compete their competitors. It all fitted rather nicely with our "inherited" model of human nature as defective and prone to laziness unless constantly on the ready for that sabre-toothed tiger lurking out there in the primaeval forest.

30 years on, with this principle applied throughout work feeding through to hours, we have the phenomenon just now announced on the news of ambulance drivers on 15-hour shifts falling asleep at the wheel. This contrasts rather meaningfully (pace false correlations) with the patient long-term work being carried out at its own pace by scientists working at CERN, supported by evidence-based motivated international governments.

The ramifications of all this, in terms of what savings could genuinely be made, by altogether doing away with firms operating at cut-throat levels of competition to outbid their fortunes as decided by speculators, all of it wasteful in every conceivable sense, and sharing the latest discovery or invention to the benefit of all, should be obvious to all but the P. G. Tippses of this world, and those high up the tree they admire, who periodically pat them gently on the head like faithful puppy dogs.

[P. G. Tipps]

I have to hand it to you, S_A ... when it comes to impressive-sounding political gobbledygook you are undoubtedly the forum master. I doubt any of the rest of us could possibly match that last post so credit where credit's due! That may be a back-handed compliment but it's a compliment nonetheless!

Nevertheless, a rough translation of your post seems to be that the great bulk of the UK population is thoroughly stupid, and are controlled by a few cunning and obviously very clever blighters at the top of society. A nation overwhelmingly populated by pathetic "Baldricks" would appear to be your (and those who share your fascinating ideology) view of modern Britain.

Naturally I do not share your very low and, I have to say, very socialist opinion of the working-people of this country. Some of the 'P. G. Tippses of this world' have been highly critical of much of top UK management on this very forum and are perfectly capable of doing so without looking down their noses at their fellow-workers.

Whatever you think of them (and we are all aware of the general consensus around here!) the Tories certainly got it right with their concentration on 'aspiration' at the Election. Most people have adequate-enough brains and just want the best-possible life for themselves and their families. They don't work to please their bosses, they do so to put bread and then hopefully cake on the table. Some of them also look forward to that holiday trip to the States, Asia or Australia, things that their parents would have scarcely believed possible only a few decades ago. In other words they want a life which provides those things and, human nature being what it is, they are especially content when they see some of their peers have not quite achieved the same. That's the human reality which no political ideology will ever change, so sensible politicians will recognise the inherent competitive nature (however tiny) in every human and seek to harness that for the general good.

Maybe the folk who really require the brains are those who simply appear quite unable to come to terms with that eternal human reality?

[jean]

I struggle to see what your post has to do with S-A's.

[MrGongGong]

the Tories certainly got it right with their concentration on 'aspiration' at the Election

A rather perverse use of the word 'right'

[Flosshilde]

I struggle to see what your post has to do with S-A's.

ScottyTipps' posts rarely have anything to do with anything.

[jean]

A rather perverse use of the word 'right'

You have to admit it worked for 36% of the electorate - which is all you need, so long as it's the right 36%.