Category: Economy

Revitalising Manufacturing

Yes, it’s good to have good trading relations with other countries. With a degree of pragmatism – as many as possible. Naturally, there are lines drawn in cases where countries share little of the UK’s values or are dictator run aggressors. Counting the hundreds of sovereign countries there are around the globe, a majority are friendly and mostly interested in mutual wellbeing.

However, post-2016[1] we are still living in strange times in the UK. In the same breath as some people talk of sovereignty and surrender, they say an extremely wealthy man in the US can solve all the UK’s problems. This nonsense defies any kind of logic.

There’s a peculiar celebration of the UK joining the Asia-Pacific Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) bloc. As if we didn’t have a huge trading block on our immediate doorstep. Joining one that offers a tiny gain overtime whilst leaving the other has cost a massive economic hit. The one thousands of miles away is significantly culturally different but the one next door is one where we share a common history.

I learn that there’s no point even thinking that logic has any influence on a Brexit supporter. Non whatsoever. Their view of the world comes from some lost imperial age.

Sadly, Brexit talk is only mumbled in darkened corners. That whopping great elephant in the room continues to get ignored. Even the UK’s new Labour Government is carrying on as if there were the former Conservative bunglers. There’s some woolly talk of reconciliation. There’s a lot of right-wing scaremongering. Practically, not a lot is changing.

In real terms, both UK exports and imports of goods are lower than in 2016, having shrunk by 1% and 2%, respectively[2]. Which is crazy given the new economic horizons. Especially in the switch to the need for more environmentally responsible goods. We should be modernising and strengthening UK design and manufacturing. Not just a bit but putting a rocket under both. Half hearted nice words by minor Ministers don’t cut it.

International trade fantasies will not build a stronger domestic economy and that illusive positive growth that’s often talked about in political speeches. With the coming of highly advanced computing, like artificial intelligence, countries with predominantly service based economies are gong to struggle. Basic service orientated jobs are going to get more automated. Like the traditional factories Henry Ford would have recognised, office complexes are hollowing out.

At least the new Labour Government isn’t pushing wholesale reopening coal mines or returning to a dependency on North Sea oil rigs. That said, I’m unsure what their attitude and policy is to rock fracking and imported gas supplies.

To make real economic progress we (UK) must make Brexit history. With our colleagues in Europe, we can be an innovation powerhouse. Making home grown products for the world markets of the future. Not languishing in a tepid imperial past or tugging at the shirt tails of some mega weird pugilist.

[1] UK referendum result: Of those who voted, 51.89% voted to leave the EU (Leave), and 48.11% voted to remain a member of the EU (Remain).

[2] https://personal.lse.ac.uk/sampsont/BrexitUKTrade.pdf

What If Semiconductors Didn’t Exist?

There are moments when it’s dark and grey outside. Moments to ponder a what-if. That’s a what-if something hadn’t happened or physical laws aren’t what they have been found to be.

In my youth I do remember making a “crystal” radio receiver[1]. A relatively fragile germanium diode and a couple of other components scraped from junk radios, record players and TV sets. It worked quite well. It was a good introduction to the theory of amplitude modulation (AM). The diode detector demodulates the radio signal and provides a faint signal to listen to. The whole arrangement is crude but cheap and simple. It depends on that useful device – a semiconductor diode.

My what-if is right there in plain sight. Let’s put aside the physical laws that give certain materials their properties. What-if the whole world of semiconductors didn’t exist?

The most immediate repercussion is that this keyboard, screen and computer would look entirely different, if it existed at all. What I’m doing now is dependent upon millions of semiconductors all doing exactly what they’ve been designed to do. Easy to take for granted – isn’t it. Our modern world is enabled by semiconductors.

Electronics would still exist. Before semiconductors were understood thermionic valves provided the ways and means to control electrical signals. Don’t think that valves[2] have disappeared in the 21st century. There’re enthusiasts who prefer them for amplification. The sound is better (different) – so they say.

Unlike semiconductors, thermionic valves don’t lend themselves to miniaturisation. A world without semiconductors would be populated by machines that are considerably larger and heavier than those of today. But it wouldn’t be a world without sophistication. Just look at the English Electric Canberra[3]. An incredibly capable aircraft for its day. It lived a long life. Without a semiconductor in sight.

It’s difficult to imagine e-mail without semiconductors. It’s difficult to imagine the INTERNET or the mobile phone. Not that such key markets wouldn’t be satisfied by some other means. The transition to a global dependency on digital systems would probably have been considerably slowed. Maybe the pace of life wouldn’t have accelerated so much.

I don’t think we would have been trapped in a 1950s like society. Only that patterns of work would have taken a different developmental path. Would it have been the one painted in the grim tale of 1984? No. Even that takes a position of a freezing of the state of human progress.

A non-semiconductor existence would have meant less proliferation of electronic devices. It might have led to a less wasteful society where repairing equipment was given more weight.

I suspect that large global corporations would inevitably have a hold over whatever technology was most popular. That side of human behaviour is technology agnostic.

[1] https://www.nutsvolts.com/magazine/article/remembering-the-crystal-radio

[2] https://brimaruk.com/valves/

[3] https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/english-electric-canberra

Societal Change and AI

Societal change is inevitable. It seems hack to analogise with reference to the printing press. Look what happened, an explosion of communication. Dominance of the book for centuries. Expanding literacy. Progressive shaping of society resulting in this era.

We are only where we are because we stand on the shoulders of the giants who went before[1]. Not just the giants. There is massive amount of human contribution that is never accounted. The unseen heroes and the occasionally rediscovered thinkers and doers.

Along the way of history those who battle the battle of glass half full or glass half empty chatter away. We are either in a glorious age or a minute away from Armageddon. Polar ends of our future, both stories have merit. Who has a crystal ball that works?

I’ve been aware of neural-networks and joked about Bayesian Belief Networks for at least two decades. Having been involved in the business of data analysis that’s no surprise. Even so the rapid advance of a multitude of different forms of artificial intelligence (AI) is a surprise.

Talking generally, we have this foolish mental picture of the world that everything is linear. Progression from one state to another takes proportionate steps forward. It’s a hangover from the analogue world which is where we were until the 1960s/70s.

This fetish for straight lines and normal curves is deeply embedded. It’s odd. Although a lot of rules in nature do have a linear form, one that Sir Isaac Newton would recognise, there’s far more that follows other rules.

In the last few weeks this fetish played out at a global scale. We are all treating climate change as if it’s a water clock. Drip, drip by drip the climate changes. A reaction to a progressive degradation. Yet, environmental reality might have a step change in degradation ahead.

In my view it’s right to try to vision ahead about the path AI technology might take. It’s right to consider more than progressive development and evolutionary change. Information systems have a habit of either falling into disuse or marching on at the pace of Moore’s law[2].

Another example. The math of Fourier transforms has been around a long time. Doing Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) in the 1970s required a couple of chunky cabinet full of power-hungry electronics. For the few, not the many. Today, every smart phone[3] in the world can crunch FFT algorithms. For the many, not the few.

Can we use a simple graphical representation to say where AI is going[4]? Will “intelligence” double every year or two? Well, I suspect that developments will go faster than a doubling. Like Moore’s law these conditions tend to become self-fulfilling. It’s a technological race.

[Why? To a machine there’s no sleep. To a machine there’s 86,400 seconds in a day. Everyone is meaningful and useful. To a complete and successful electronic machine only a tiny fraction of its operating time needs to be spent fixing itself. Or that might be one job left to us.]

POST: The impact of this high speed race makes interesting study U.S. Should Build Capacity to Rapidly Detect and Respond to AI Developments – New Report Identifies Workforce Challenges and Opportunities | National Academies

[1] Sir Isaac Newton, English scientist, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

[2] https://www.asml.com/en/technology/all-about-microchips/moores-law

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38320198

[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03679-6

John Gray’s Critique

If a dose of despondency is your Sunday morning tipple, I recommend BBC Radio 4’s “A Point of View[1]”. I often catch it as an alternative to listening to the driving rain bashing against the window as I wake-up on a Sunday morning.

What I dislike the most about John Gray’s analysis is that it dismisses all the hard-working people who daily strive to make the world a better place. I know, you are asking who John Gray is and what does he know? Well, he’s a British philosopher and author of a pile of serious books. He dabbles in political thinking and doom mongering.

On Sundays in the past, I relied heavily on Will Self creating an air of depressed inevitability that all the bad things about humans will eventually overcome us. A dower British journalist and political commentator who always seems to see the dark cloud instead of the silver lining.

Despite the grim tales of these speakers, they often have, lost in their rhetoric, a smidgen of wisdom. This morning John Gray argues that we need a new response to the growth of the right-wing charlatans who are rapidly climbing the greasy pole of national political life.

Naturally, a lot of us thought that’s what the UK General Election last July was all about. A reoccupation of the centre ground of British politics by the Labour Party. A renewed liberal democratic political consensus would emerge and save us all. Strangely, it doesn’t seem to be working out that way. Although, it might be a bit harsh to judge after only a few months.

Last night, I watched the second episode of the BBC’s period drama Wolf Hall[2]. My God, it’s good entertainment. A little heavy in places. Sharp and brilliantly executed. That last word being the key one. Tudor history is a reminder of how vicious political manoeuvring can be. Having a master, a King, who is determined to make the world turn around him and no one else.

So, should I agree with the likes of John Gray? That a darkness slithers around in human hearts. That we’d better be prepared, shake-off the status-quo and look for new ways to head-off the marketing men’s populist politics. Voiced by bombastic demigods and radical twerps.

He’s right in the sense that today’s politics is behind the curve. British political parties were forged in a different age. Largely, baring the virtues they espouse, they are outdated. Sure, fairness, liberty, and equality have not fallen out of fashion. But maybe the language surrounding them belongs in the 19th and 20th centuries.

One thing is for sure, Willo the Wisps, like Kemi Badenoch offer nothing new. Reform is just a cover for the populist worst of human nature. Yes, we do need someone to break new ground in British politics.

Oh, for a more cheerful Sunday morning.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00254hz

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m002473m/wolf-hall

Labour’s IHT Policy: A Threat to Family Farms?

Labour is driving down a road it’s driven before. It’s a shame when the two biggest political parties in Britain are so captured by their past that they can no more look forward than a duck can master arithmetic.

Post Second World War the country was broke. Rising taxes were inevitable to pay down debt. The British State was far more directly involved in everyday economic decisions than it is now.

Inheritance Tax (IHT) got its status as a loathed tax partially because of the necessary actions of the post-1945 Government. At that time, “estate duty” was increased to 80%. This generated increase tax revenue but led to the breakup of large country estates up and down Britain. Ironically, the breakup of country estates created an opportunity for some tenant farmers. As the estates were sold off in lots so tenants could become owners, if they could raise the finance.

So, you might say farmers paying IHT at 20% isn’t so bad by comparison. The amount of generated increase tax revenue isn’t much. With one hand the Government is subsidising farmers and with the other hand it’s taking a cut of their lifetime acquired assets.

Another side of the coin is the cost-of-living crisis. Certainly, winter heating costs have been a matter of great concern for a lot of people. Food too is an absolutely essential expense. Hence, the growth of food banks in every part of the country. This shouldn’t be accepted as the norm.

All of this is happening at a time when the nation’s supermarkets are making healthy profits. Keeping cheap food on the shelves with, in some cases, the philosophy of sell it cheap and pile it high. Industrialised and highly processed food coming in at the lowest prices to the customer. At the other end of the supply chain, forcing down farm gate prices.

You would think that getting national food production, the job done by farmers, right would be an imperative for Government. You would think that a regular dialogue with farmers might be quite important. Wouldn’t you?

The problem with Labour’s 20% IHT and the threshold of 1 million is that it’s not going to have much impact of those who own large country estates to avoid other taxes, like CGT. It’s not going to have much impact on large corporate agricultural enterprises. It may not even have much overall impact on land prices. Afterall, they don’t make it anymore.

But it’s going to clobber small and medium sized enterprises, very often family farms. It will clobber far more than the Treasury’s last-minute calculations say[1]. The reason is clear. The profitability of family farming has been dire over recent years. Add a new tax bill and selling-up will be the most attractive option for many potential next generation farmers.

Then the question must be asked what’s it all about? What are the values underpinning this policy? There I go back to the start. Does Labour perceive these working people as “rich”. Their logic may go, why shouldn’t the rich pay more after the Conservative Government that they supported has made such a mess of the country? One way of seeing where we are.

Trouble is that they have aimed at the wrong target.

[1] https://www.channel4.com/news/how-many-farmers-will-have-to-pay-inheritance-tax

UK Farmers’ Unrest: Budget Shock and Political Implications

Yesterday, central London was full of British farmers. Far more than was anticipated. It’s a countryside revolt. Or at least the seed corn of unrest. It needs to be addressed quickly.

The UK Government Budget sprung an unexpected shock on farmers. Newly elected, everyone expected them to try to correct the spending mess left by their predecessors. However, few expected them to make-up last minute figures to do something they said they wouldn’t do.

Lots of family farmers could be singing the classic Beatles song “Yesterday”. Troubles seemed so far away before the general election. Now, they seem here to stay.

Like androids, and the Tories before them, Labour Members of Parliament (MPs) are trotting out lines prepared for them by their masters. The political excuse trotted out robotically is that the theoretical threshold for taxation is £3 million and not £1 million as everyone is saying. Therefore, they say, fewer farm businesses will be impacted by their new death tax.

When something goes wrong in Government one of the best strategies is to address the facts immediately, apologies for any error, take the temporary hit and move on quickly. Stonewalling and wibbling is an extremely poor approach.

For a start, many farmers will not be able to take-up the tax reliefs Labour MPs are talking about. Farming is a hazardous profession. Sadly, unexpected deaths are not unusual. If such an event occurs this could then result in compounded tragedy, that is the death of a family business too.

Farmers are pointing out that significantly wealthy people will still use land purchase to avoid tax. They will have complex and detailed tax planning services at their fingertips.

Agricultural land values have increased dramatically in recent decades. Yes, there is an issue to be addressed with respect to land value. Housing development land is an astronomical price. It’s one of the drivers that is making house prices unaffordable for many people.

Labour needs to recognise that it’s not food producers who are driving these negative phenomena. It’s not small and medium sized family farms who are the problem makers.

Not only is this new inheritance tax very poor politics by Labour, but it’s also not going to crack the problem that they might wisely wish to crack. I’d say, think again. At least consult.

Ignoring Climate Change?

In a way, I’m not immune from a little hypocrisy. Petrol prices go up and I’m not going to jump for joy. Prices go down. I’m not suddenly thinking that’s just going to encourage more consumption. No, I’m looking at the pound in my pocket. It will cost me less to fill up the tank.

There was a whole swath of apocalyptic tales of the world in the 1970s. The “oil crisis” of 1973 should have been a warning. Humanity might have taken the opportunity to look at the trends related to oil and gas consumption. There might have been a more sustained reaction.

Instead, alternative lifestyles, renewable energy projects and energy conservation were thought of as quaint novelties or scientific curiosities that would never really catch on. The political addiction to short-termism overrode consideration of substantial change. Increased exploration led to new sources of oil and gas being found.

Today, we should know better. The fight against climate change has a decade of talk behind it. Humanity knows that the link exists between burning hydrocarbon and a changing global climate. We are ignorant no more. Now, I almost wish I hadn’t written that last sentence.

Across the pond there’s a powerful nation. One that influences the behaviour of 100s of other nations. The US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. However, until the last few weeks it had recognised that maybe that isn’t a good formula for the future.

Back to that dollar in the pocket. Despite the US being a powerful nation many its people didn’t feel that way. All politics is local. When filling up with gas gets more expensive people do not jump for joy. In fact, there’s that human tendance to romanticise the past and remember when everything was cheaper. Life was easier. Can’t we go back?

It’s being reported that US President elect Trump’s choice for energy secretary is going to be like turning the clocks back. Prospect is that the fight against climate change is going to get a back seat. At least for the next 4-years.

Does this spell global disaster? Well, it certainly is a great big lost opportunity. Just like here in the UK, Brexit ignited the tendance to romanticise the past. It looks as if the same phenomena have taken root in the US. Burning more and more hydrocarbons is like a sugar rush. A boom to begin then followed by exhaustion. I expect after this presidential term the results will be one of regret. Just like Brexit. A wonderment – why on earth did we do that?

Still, there’s an opportunity for other countries to race ahead with advanced and alternative technologies to reduce energy dependency. It’s hard to think and act long-term. I’m confident it can be done. If it’s done successfully the prize will be great.

New Form of Monarchy in 2024?

An observation. There’s something strange going on across the Atlantic. You see, I have found inspiration in the story of America’s revolutionary struggle. The writings of Thomas Paine stirring up a radical movement. The strong desire to be independent of the rule of Kings and Queens. There’s a lot to be said for freeing a nation from imperial tyranny.

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 is a bold statement. Rejecting the royal authority of George III to set a new nation on an independent path. It proved to be a dynamic and prosperous democratic path. One that people across the world looked on with admiration.

It’s true that the United States has had its own dynasties. Powerful families and influential individuals that have shaped its history. However, since its independence, none of them have ruled as a monarch. None have wheeled massive power without checks and balances.

Yet here we are in 2024, and a form of pseudo monarch stands ready to take the reigns of power. Sure, democracy has played its part in putting one man in control. That, in of itself, is not unknown in the history books. The question to ask is when does a Republic tip over and become something quite different from what it has been?

I hope my observations are an exaggeration. It’s all to easy to see the News that commentators want us to see. I’ve often found that it’s most difficult to see things as they actual are as opposed to how they are shaped by personal beliefs and fleeting desires. Objectivity isn’t so easy.

This much can be said, the next four years are going to be turbulent ones. There’s a certainty in that conclusion. Even with the Atlantic in the way, just as the Jetstream brings us changeable weather, so unsettling waves of transformation will hit our shores.

The latest commentary coming from supporters of the new Trump regium in the US is one of polarisation. It’s the traditional stick-up. Choose between us and them. Our populous island off the shore of continental Europe must be squeezed into a choice between the US and the EU.

This monosyllabic way of framing a debate gets swallowed by the media. Overall, it’s nonsense. There’s no way that both will not be important for as far over the horizon as anyone can see. Both are going through periods of disruption. For once, domestically, the UK seems relatively stable. That’s putting aside the past damage done by Brexit and a Conservative government that fell into total disrepair. Yes, the UK can plot its path knowing that some internal consistency can be expected.

Everything I’ve written here is overshadowed by issues of global concern. Overshadowed being the sad reality. Climate change will not wait for the dust to settle from ardent disruptors. The planet’s atmosphere knows nothing of the exploits of prominent personalities. We desperately need to rediscover common interests and act on common concerns.

Travelling Post-Brexit

Ever since Brexit, I’ve had to have my passport stamped in and out of European countries. It’s like a reversion to the days when I got my first British passport. That was back in the late 70s.  It has a frighteningly youthful picture. Occupation – student.

I’m not so phased by the coming changes to European Union (EU) border controls. Naturally, it’s worth asking if Britian has become a more dangerous nation since the time before Brexit when we enjoyed freedom of movement. It’s a pity we didn’t value that freedom a lot more. It was thrown away far too easily.

Today, the electronic border controls expect us to stare at a camera. A securely held, I hope, database is used to check a list of biometric numbers against my image. I guess that’s a sure-fire way of saying that Mr Blogs is indeed someone who looks very much like Mr Blogs. Facial recognition technology has come a long way.

The next steps in tightening-up controls will be fingerprinting[1]. Not in the manner of Sherlock Holmes, with an ink pad. No, in the digital age an ominous machine will scan our fingers and check its records to see that not only does Mr Blogs look as he should but that he’s got the essential characteristics of Mr Blogs.

Certainly, in this new regime British citizens will not be able to overstay in European countries. Ones travel records will be a lot more quantifiable and precise than stamping a piece of paper. That is assuming such digital border control machines will be relatively error free.

One of the benefits of Brexit is that it will be easier to track the movements of British criminals in and out of the EU. The reciprocal will not be true. It will not be easier for British authorities to track continental European criminals in an out of the UK.

Ah the luxury of being a Third Country. Longer ques. More uncertainty. Less privileges.

What’s more is the introduction of the new EU border control systems will be “phased[2]”. This change will not be one big bang. So, different ports and airports will be doing different things at different times. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to see that confusion is most likely.

Travelling in 2025 is going to be more than the usual adventure.

[1] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/the-eu-entry-exit-system-and-eu-travel-authorisation-system/

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/eu-biometric-border-fingerprint-entry-delay-b2627645.html

Ethics of Medication

I don’t know about you but the whole idea of medicating people to increase the prosperity of society has a terrible echo of the worst kind of politics. Now, if we change the “p” word to protection of society, a policy of medication might make some reasonable sense. The COVID pandemic taught use that individual freedoms are not absolute. We know that allowing people to spread infection, whenever their personal beliefs, can kill other people. Reckless actions did exposed people to danger. Big name politicians did some dam stupid stuff just because they wanted to side with those who believed irrational, unscientific nonsense.

A UK Labour Health Minister saying that obese people would benefit from a jab so that they can get back to work makes me feel uneasy. It’s one thing to recognise that society has a problem with obesity but it’s entity another for the States to impose medication on specific groups of citizens. Expensive new medication that that.

I know it can be argued that the cost of obesity to the National Health Service (NHS) is high so there’s no zero cost answer. Having hammered down smoking deaths over decades of work it’s now obesity that’s the great societal challenge. The line between personal freedoms and social demands can be a fuzzy one.

The jab in question may have become fashionable as a weight loss aid[1]. That doesn’t justify a UK Minister, with all the power of the State, suggesting that overweight people be put on a regime of injections. And if they say “no” to the regime then be penalised in some vague manner.

It’s known that these new weight loss drugs have side effects. No everyone can take them without consequences. These drugs should only be used under medical supervision. That said, many people do take them without recourse to advice from a doctor.

To the Minister I say, don’t ague about the cost to the economy of obese people. Please ague for helping people to make weight management work for them as individuals. Obese people are not one amorphous mass of idle slobs who sit on the sofa all day. The Daily Mail characterisation of bludgeoning swarms of people burdening society with their indolent ways may chime with populists and the emerging Conservative Party. It’s no way for a Labour Minister to address a live challenge. 

National proposals to give unemployed obese people a jab to get them back to work has a ghastly ring to it. Yes, it’s not saying we (society) should send them down the salt mines but when the economic argument is the top one it does dehumanise the target audience.

Weight loss jabs may continue to have potential befits for many people. Let’s say that we are talking about health benefits, so that individuals can play their role in our society, whatever that role might be. State officials who attempt bring shame on people living with obesity, that’s just plain nasty.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c981044pgvyo