Home
> cultural commentary > Bank bailout vs. science
Comments (0)
Trackbacks (1)
Leave a comment
Trackback
-
December 8, 2012 at 12:31 pmWhere does the money go? | Cambridge University Eco Racing
Writing on Walls
Blogroll
- Alt.Fiction
- Artcore Derby
- Chris Cafferkey – photographer
- Criminology – a disorderly blog
- Earth and Hearth
- Empty Homes UK
- Fabrika/The Art Organisation
- From Dusk 2 Dawn
- Hermitage FM
- HOC Sound System
- ICS
- Institute of Customer Service
- Martin Meenagh
- Matt Dorn
- Me – on Tumblr
- Resonance FM
- Scarfolk Council
- Shortfuse Leicester
- States of Independence literary event
- Stench
- Streetfighters project
- The Speculators
- The Wall – rock radio
- Theaker's Quarterly Fiction Blogspot
- Webleedink
- WordPress.com
- WordPress.org
- Writing East Midlands
Categories
advertising
art
arts
banks
BBC
blogging
chriscaff
Christmas
conversation
copyright
creative
crime
culture
cuts
description
distance learning
Dracula
drugs
economy
education
electronic music
experiment
experimental music
Fabrika
fantasy
fashion
fiction
freelance
future
goth
history
horror
humor
humour
imagination
inspiration
knowledge
language
learning
Leicester
literature
mental illness
misc
miscellaneous
music
musing
oblique strategies
photography
poetry
publishing
random
rant
scam
science fiction
Shakespeare
Short Fuse
short story
sociology
Speculators
Stench
stories
story
study
teaching
thoughts
training
TV
vampire
work
writing
Writing East Midlands
writing on walls
Youtube
Y Theatre
zombie
Recent Posts
Archives
- February 2016 (1)
- January 2016 (1)
- August 2015 (1)
- April 2015 (2)
- February 2015 (1)
- January 2015 (1)
- November 2014 (1)
- September 2014 (3)
- August 2014 (1)
- July 2014 (1)
- June 2014 (1)
- March 2014 (2)
- January 2014 (1)
- September 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (1)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (3)
- April 2013 (1)
- March 2013 (1)
- January 2013 (1)
- November 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (4)
- September 2012 (5)
- August 2012 (6)
- July 2012 (4)
- June 2012 (3)
- May 2012 (2)
- April 2012 (2)
- March 2012 (3)
- February 2012 (2)
- January 2012 (5)
- December 2011 (1)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (5)
- April 2011 (5)
- March 2011 (8)
- February 2011 (10)
- January 2011 (12)
- December 2010 (15)
- November 2010 (7)
- October 2010 (9)
- September 2010 (3)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (5)
- May 2010 (9)
- April 2010 (7)
- March 2010 (13)
- February 2010 (5)
- January 2010 (6)
- December 2009 (2)
- November 2009 (1)
Join 281 other subscribers
Bank bailout vs. science
Another quasi-political post. Brian Cox, in an interview with the BBC, described the cost of the bank bailout in the UK as more than the entire since budget ‘since Jesus’.
You may have come across Brian Cox as a very telegenic presenter of science TV shows, and he’s also professor of particle physics at the University of Manchester (and one-time keyboard player in the band D:Ream in the 1980s). Given his scientific credentials I wondered how he’d come up with Jesus as a reference point.
But look, here are the (rather sketchy and broad brush) ‘facts’ of the case. In 2009 Reuters reported the UK Treasury had spent £850 billion on the bank bailout and this figure was also reported in The Independent newspaper. The Guardian news blog tried up update the figure and offered a range of calculations in September 2011. By then the £850 billion had risen to around £955 billion and fallen back to £512 billion, and by some estimates on the blog the total level of commitments to support had at one point gone some way over the £1 trillion mark. The range of figures varies because some of the headline costs were guarantees and indemnities that weren’t called on, interest on loans was being paid back to the government, some of the cost relates to the purchase of shares in banks whose value fluctuated, and so on.
However the total cost isn’t just the cost to the Treasury, because the crisis accounts for a loss of (probably) somewhere between 11 and 13% of GDP for an unquantified number of years.
But let’s take the headline figure of £850 billion for illustrative purposes. How does that compare to government spending on science?
First off, we have a bunch of definitional problems: does ‘science’ mean only ‘hard’ sciences like physics and chemistry or are social sciences included? Does it include money spent on developing research findings into usable applications and products? Which bits of government spending qualify as being part of an overall ‘science budget’? And so on.
However the headline figure, again, is around £4.6 billion annually in recent years. And obviously this has fluctuated over time, especially if you want to project figures back into history. The idea of ‘science’ as we know it, crucially, only began to exist in the late 1600s – a little over 300 years ago. Indeed ‘England’ as we now know it hasn’t been around all the back to Jesus, but only emerged after the time of Aethelstan in the 900s AD.
But consider the relationship between the two headine figures. The government has spent (or committed) enough money to address the banking crisis to fund around 185 years of scientific research at current expenditure levels. And it’s a reasonable assumption that in proportional terms the government wasn’t spending anything like that between, say, the late 1600s and the mid-1900s – a potted history of science funding in the UK is on Wikipedia.
And that makes it a reasonable point to make that more has been spent on the banking crisis that has been spent, in total, on science right to way back to, say, 1675 when the Royal Observatory was established in Greenwich, broadly speaking the first point at which the government of the day decided to fund ‘science’ in any form we’d recognise today.
And the same would hold true, obviously, of any date prior to that because the ‘science budget’ would have been effectively zero before then. So it might have been more accurate to use 1675 as the reference point. To say more has been spent on the crisis than the total spend on science ‘since the time of Jesus’ remains accurate and clearly makes a hard political point. To go further back and say ‘since the time Stonehenge was founded’ – well, that was between 3000 and 2000 BC, it cost a huge amount of time and effort in terms of the population of that time, and it might be regarded as a scientific project of its time.
But the point is, by any standards the disparity in spending is huge. And the disparity between fiscal and scientific results on virtually any value-for-money terms, even allowing for the fact that science requires a manufacturing and industrial base and some kind of financial regime in order to progress, has to be even larger.
Share this:
Related