| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:16 - Sep 11 with 829 views | DJR |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 05:53 - Sep 11 by balcombeblue |
Hedge funds provide essential market liquidity and a means of investment that has significant economic benefit. It’s absolutely Guardian level economics to blame them for the 2008 crash. This was caused by sub-prime lending by regulated banks ironically!
In a capitalist economy (which makes us all better off, look around the world) there has to be an element of risk to generate profit. From risk people gain and people lose. But without people willing to invest in others you have no system.
It’s extraordinary that Brexit gets mentioned along with virtually any economic or even personal criticism. Employment rights have not fundamentally changed post Brexit. Hedge funds took risks around economic movements post Brexit, there were winners and losers.
We should do whatever we can to attract business to the UK. Employing people to then generate wealth and better living standards for everyone. That’s how poorer people get lifted out of poverty and their lives improved.
It amuses me greatly to read articles in the guardian by supposed “doyens” of economics like that great Keynesian Will Hutton. Always banging on about needing more public investment:
1. Who is going to pay for that then Will? Surely you’re not advocating for more borrowing when gilt yields are the highest they have ever been?
2. What about the other half of the Keynesian view? Namely saving money in good years to pay for the bad.
We are very deeply indebted. The cost of borrowing is historically high yet the left spends their time criticising those who generate the wealth. This is ok though apparently because it’s “punching up”. Absolute rubbish, the poor suffer the most from any economic downturn. |
Hedging was at the root of the 2008 crash, and hedge funds played their part.
https://explaininghistory.org/
"The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) of 2000 overturned this framework. Lobbied for by financial industry heavyweights—including former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Senator Phil Gramm of Texas—the CFMA specifically exempted over-the-counter derivatives, including credit default swaps, from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The act declared that OTC derivatives were not “futures” contracts subject to the Commodity Exchange Act. It carved out exemptions for “eligible contract participants”—a category that included virtually every bank, hedge fund, and insurance company—allowing them to trade derivatives freely without oversight."
"By 2007, the synthetic CDO market had become enormous. In April 2007, Goldman Sachs sold a $2 billion synthetic CDO called ABACUS 2007-AC1 to investors. The basket of reference assets was a set of credit default swaps on subprime mortgage bonds. What Goldman did not disclose to investors was that the hedge fund Paulson & Co. , which had helped select the reference portfolio, was simultaneously buying credit default swap protection on that same portfolio—betting that it would fail. When the subprime market collapsed, Paulson made billions of dollars, while investors in ABACUS lost nearly everything. Goldman Sachs later paid a $550 million fine to the SEC for failing to disclose Paulson’s role." [Post edited 11 Sep 9:44]
|  | |  |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:21 - Sep 11 with 800 views | Churchman |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 08:10 - Sep 11 by Swansea_Blue |
I didn’t blame them for causing the crash. I said as far as I’m aware they played a role. Not to cause it, but possibly didn’t help.
I don’t read economics articles in the Guardian so can’t comment on whatever they’re saying. I’m also not criticising anyone generating wealth. SME workers will generate FAR more tax than this single bloke in any given year, probably by a one or two orders of magnitude. I’d expect them to adhere to the same tax rules. Same for anyone. We have a tax system (as complex and dysfunctional as it is) and think it should apply to all, that’s all. |
The problem is Swansea that while a tax system should apply to all, in reality it doesn’t. People will use the tax rules to pay the minimum possible. Others have enough money and mobility to go somewhere where they’ll get rinsed less. Some will bend the rules and if they can get away with them altogether.
And then we get on to the politicians. Under austerity HMRC tax inspectors were told by government that everyone is honest. And on that pretext they got rid of 1000s by paying them off using taxpayers money. In a project meeting I asked how it could be logical to bin out at cost specialists who bring in way in excess of their salary and couldn’t be replaced?
I was told not to be so naive. The only game in town was headcount. Get rid. Out of the door. What about tax shortfall? No interested ‘we can print money’.
Later my tax inspector chum who worked for Serious Crime in Home office going after tax from mega rich criminals and after certain dodgy politicians and the odd football club was told that the government did not see serious crime as a priority or the £millions recovered by a very small team as important. They were binned. Headcount and salaries saved! He retired early.
Does the current government see the £60bn tax gap as important? No. Not interested. Possibly because any scrutiny on that might put them under the spotlight, including the ones that accidentally I’m sure failed to pay stamp duty. Does it have any interest in making the system fairer where more than just those on PAYE pay their dues? No. Why bother when the easy targets can be shaken down or we can go after those that don’t vote for us?
So today we see a person who paid £330m in tax on his way. Legally. He’s broken no law. Just exercised choice. The losers? Us all, especially those who rely on services the most. So while I agree the system should be fairer, it goes a lot further for me than a man who has saved himself £330m next year. |  | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:26 - Sep 11 with 786 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:07 - Sep 11 by nrb1985 |
I realise this isn't the crux of this thread but there's some absolute bobbins here - and while nobody needs to know the innner workings of a HF or otherwise, if you make assumptions about somebody's profession or character, having a half decent grasp of the subject matter at hand is probably a bear minimum.
As somebody else has already pointed out - hedge funds are an essential part of market functioning and short selling is an important part of an efficient market. It helps with price discovery and often uncovers things like fraud.
As for somebody else's money - Rokos started his fund with $500m of his own funds...which at the time was probably most of his net worth. A hedge fund that's "fast and loose" with somebody else's money is hardly like to exist very long as it's clients will leave...He took risks, he made a fortune, he paid tax - who are you to tell him where he can and can't live?
As for profiteering - I think you're one of the champions of Gary Stevenson on the board perhaps? A man who can't wait to tell any cnt willing to listen, at every available opportunity, how much money he made/makes off betting against the UK economy...
I assume that's ok though because his politics align with your own?
And on my point 2, as I said, they probably should but that's never going to happen. |
Who’s Gary Stevenson? And what are Rokos’ politics? I’ve no idea what Rokos’ politics are. And where did I say Hedge Funds weren’t important?
I’ve clearly hit a nerve and it sounds like you may be involved in some way. That’s fine; I’m not claiming to have any particular insight; I don’t. I can only go off stuff I see, such as this summary blog: https://flexfunds.com/flexfund (from a fund itself, so I assume not biased against them).
Seems pretty obvious to me that they have been problematic in the past. Hugely significant due to their size and control of course; but that can also adversely impact us.
There’s been UK Parliamentary sessions about the risks around Hedge Funds and borrowing too this year, but I’m sure you know more about that than me. Yet we seem to be deregulating them, so presumably Labour want to see their role increase? |  |
| |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:41 - Sep 11 with 760 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:16 - Sep 11 by DJR |
Hedging was at the root of the 2008 crash, and hedge funds played their part.
https://explaininghistory.org/
"The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) of 2000 overturned this framework. Lobbied for by financial industry heavyweights—including former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Senator Phil Gramm of Texas—the CFMA specifically exempted over-the-counter derivatives, including credit default swaps, from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The act declared that OTC derivatives were not “futures” contracts subject to the Commodity Exchange Act. It carved out exemptions for “eligible contract participants”—a category that included virtually every bank, hedge fund, and insurance company—allowing them to trade derivatives freely without oversight."
"By 2007, the synthetic CDO market had become enormous. In April 2007, Goldman Sachs sold a $2 billion synthetic CDO called ABACUS 2007-AC1 to investors. The basket of reference assets was a set of credit default swaps on subprime mortgage bonds. What Goldman did not disclose to investors was that the hedge fund Paulson & Co. , which had helped select the reference portfolio, was simultaneously buying credit default swap protection on that same portfolio—betting that it would fail. When the subprime market collapsed, Paulson made billions of dollars, while investors in ABACUS lost nearly everything. Goldman Sachs later paid a $550 million fine to the SEC for failing to disclose Paulson’s role." [Post edited 11 Sep 9:44]
|
Hedging isn't the same thing as hedge funds.
And you aren't talking about hedging you're talking about the derivatives market which can be used for hedging/protecting downside but can also be used for taking directional bets on most assets.
This may have exarcebated things but you're talking bobbins when you say it was at the root of the problems. Nothing to do then with banks who offered the mortgages, the ratings agencies who gave the bonds AAA or people like Dick Fuld who allowed one systemically important bank to get into an absurdly concentrated position or the regulators who turned a blind eye because everyone was making a fortune... |  | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:42 - Sep 11 with 758 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:26 - Sep 11 by Swansea_Blue |
Who’s Gary Stevenson? And what are Rokos’ politics? I’ve no idea what Rokos’ politics are. And where did I say Hedge Funds weren’t important?
I’ve clearly hit a nerve and it sounds like you may be involved in some way. That’s fine; I’m not claiming to have any particular insight; I don’t. I can only go off stuff I see, such as this summary blog: https://flexfunds.com/flexfund (from a fund itself, so I assume not biased against them).
Seems pretty obvious to me that they have been problematic in the past. Hugely significant due to their size and control of course; but that can also adversely impact us.
There’s been UK Parliamentary sessions about the risks around Hedge Funds and borrowing too this year, but I’m sure you know more about that than me. Yet we seem to be deregulating them, so presumably Labour want to see their role increase? |
Who's Gary Stevenson?
Ok mate we'll leave it there, not engaging with anybody in bad faith so to speak. [Post edited 11 Sep 12:49]
| | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:43 - Sep 11 with 757 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:21 - Sep 11 by Churchman |
The problem is Swansea that while a tax system should apply to all, in reality it doesn’t. People will use the tax rules to pay the minimum possible. Others have enough money and mobility to go somewhere where they’ll get rinsed less. Some will bend the rules and if they can get away with them altogether.
And then we get on to the politicians. Under austerity HMRC tax inspectors were told by government that everyone is honest. And on that pretext they got rid of 1000s by paying them off using taxpayers money. In a project meeting I asked how it could be logical to bin out at cost specialists who bring in way in excess of their salary and couldn’t be replaced?
I was told not to be so naive. The only game in town was headcount. Get rid. Out of the door. What about tax shortfall? No interested ‘we can print money’.
Later my tax inspector chum who worked for Serious Crime in Home office going after tax from mega rich criminals and after certain dodgy politicians and the odd football club was told that the government did not see serious crime as a priority or the £millions recovered by a very small team as important. They were binned. Headcount and salaries saved! He retired early.
Does the current government see the £60bn tax gap as important? No. Not interested. Possibly because any scrutiny on that might put them under the spotlight, including the ones that accidentally I’m sure failed to pay stamp duty. Does it have any interest in making the system fairer where more than just those on PAYE pay their dues? No. Why bother when the easy targets can be shaken down or we can go after those that don’t vote for us?
So today we see a person who paid £330m in tax on his way. Legally. He’s broken no law. Just exercised choice. The losers? Us all, especially those who rely on services the most. So while I agree the system should be fairer, it goes a lot further for me than a man who has saved himself £330m next year. |
I understand people will look for loopholes and use ways to minimise tax. It’s more making a special case for individuals I’ve an issue with. We can all move our wealth into assets; many of us have already even if it’s our main residence (we all get the same tax relief on that of course). We can all invest and take any realised capital returns at 20%. It’s just that we have a few quid to play with rather than billions. I’ve no problem with that. I do have a problem with the argument that these uber rich should have special treatment. They don’t need special treatment.
Life’s not fair and I suppose I should just suck it up. Those are interesting insights from inside HMRC though. I’m not surprised in the least. Historians are going to have a field day with 2010-2026 and the self-inflicted damage done.
I’d like to see the actual evidence out there around whether giving tax breaks to the super rich does actually benefit us (which is what’s being proposed unless I’m mistaken). There must be a butt-tonne of academic studies on this sort of stuff. And do we need to compete with Greece, for example? Is their fixed term lower rate for the mega wealthy going to have an impact on normal Greeks? Etc., etc. The arguments feel very emotive to me with not a lot of evidence. | |
| |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:47 - Sep 11 with 742 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:42 - Sep 11 by nrb1985 |
Who's Gary Stevenson?
Ok mate we'll leave it there, not engaging with anybody in bad faith so to speak. [Post edited 11 Sep 12:49]
|
Ok, I’ve Googled him. He’s popped up on here hasn’t he? Not bad faith at all - I’m not on social media, don’t watch his stuff and have no interest in him.
You’re the one that seems to be making this political; I haven’t mentioned politics once.
Yes, let’s leave it there and I’ll speak to the others who want to be not odd.
Edit - yes, I should have remembered as he’s popped up on here before
He’s not someone I’m interested in. [Post edited 11 Sep 9:53]
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:53 - Sep 11 with 714 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:46 - Sep 11 by DJR |
Did you read the article?
As it is, I later amended my post to make it clear that hedge funds played their part.
Given this, I don't think you can say what I said is bobbins.
And try to enjoy the tennis.  [Post edited 11 Sep 11:20]
|
Of course it’s bobbins.
Had there not been a whole host of catastrophic regulatory failings before that then these enormous risks building under the surface would never have happened and nobody would have had anything to bet against.
And while I skimmed the article, I started my career in 2007 and like many in my industry am still fairly haunted by 2008. Coming into work not knowing if you had a job from one day to the next.
So thanks but I don’t need to be told by that article nor anybody else what happened and what the causes were.
Ps I’ll try to enjoy the tennis! Will keep my mind off selhurst park tomorrow.., [Post edited 11 Sep 9:55]
| | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:57 - Sep 11 with 700 views | DJR |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:53 - Sep 11 by nrb1985 |
Of course it’s bobbins.
Had there not been a whole host of catastrophic regulatory failings before that then these enormous risks building under the surface would never have happened and nobody would have had anything to bet against.
And while I skimmed the article, I started my career in 2007 and like many in my industry am still fairly haunted by 2008. Coming into work not knowing if you had a job from one day to the next.
So thanks but I don’t need to be told by that article nor anybody else what happened and what the causes were.
Ps I’ll try to enjoy the tennis! Will keep my mind off selhurst park tomorrow.., [Post edited 11 Sep 9:55]
|
As it is, I was working on derivatives legislation at the time, so followed thing very closely and am far from misinformed.
I also know how perilous things were for the whole financial system, not just those employed in it.
But I was always amused (and partly alarmed) by synthetic CDOs.
"The synthetic CDO allowed investors to place bets on subprime mortgages without ever owning a mortgage security, and without providing any capital to the housing market. It was pure speculation—a side bet on whether homeowners would pay their bills."
[Post edited 11 Sep 10:12]
| | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:33 - Sep 11 with 628 views | WeWereZombies |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 08:13 - Sep 11 by balcombeblue |
Scientific advance requires capital. Free trade and markets are social co-operation. Nice that we agree |
Does science need capital ? It is a knowledge that intellect discovers or synthesises and how it is used determines outcomes that are advantageous or disadvantageous to some or all human beings (maybe for some of the time but not all of the time...maybe) so socialism, distributism, even anarchy can utilise science effectively, partially or hamrfully, as can capitalism. They are just methods and it is probably dangerous to elevate a method above the end goal of the common good. Use whichever is likely to be most effective and politically acceptable and don't get too hung up on ideologies. So, no, you are mistaken, we don't completely agree. |  |
| |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:36 - Sep 11 with 624 views | nrb1985 |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:57 - Sep 11 by DJR |
As it is, I was working on derivatives legislation at the time, so followed thing very closely and am far from misinformed.
I also know how perilous things were for the whole financial system, not just those employed in it.
But I was always amused (and partly alarmed) by synthetic CDOs.
"The synthetic CDO allowed investors to place bets on subprime mortgages without ever owning a mortgage security, and without providing any capital to the housing market. It was pure speculation—a side bet on whether homeowners would pay their bills."
[Post edited 11 Sep 10:12]
|
I didn't say you were misinformed I said I didn't need to be told what happened! | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:06 - Sep 11 with 586 views | DJR |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:36 - Sep 11 by nrb1985 |
I didn't say you were misinformed I said I didn't need to be told what happened! |
And your take is different to mine.
But that's the beauty of life. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:07 - Sep 11 with 581 views | balcombeblue |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:41 - Sep 11 by nrb1985 |
Hedging isn't the same thing as hedge funds.
And you aren't talking about hedging you're talking about the derivatives market which can be used for hedging/protecting downside but can also be used for taking directional bets on most assets.
This may have exarcebated things but you're talking bobbins when you say it was at the root of the problems. Nothing to do then with banks who offered the mortgages, the ratings agencies who gave the bonds AAA or people like Dick Fuld who allowed one systemically important bank to get into an absurdly concentrated position or the regulators who turned a blind eye because everyone was making a fortune... |
I have to agree with this.
There is obviously some market inter-connectivity, but not the root problem at all |  | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:14 - Sep 11 with 569 views | balcombeblue |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 10:33 - Sep 11 by WeWereZombies |
Does science need capital ? It is a knowledge that intellect discovers or synthesises and how it is used determines outcomes that are advantageous or disadvantageous to some or all human beings (maybe for some of the time but not all of the time...maybe) so socialism, distributism, even anarchy can utilise science effectively, partially or hamrfully, as can capitalism. They are just methods and it is probably dangerous to elevate a method above the end goal of the common good. Use whichever is likely to be most effective and politically acceptable and don't get too hung up on ideologies. So, no, you are mistaken, we don't completely agree. |
Does science need capital ?
erm yes. Where do you think capital comes from under socialism?
as an example: if intellect alone drives science, why did the Soviet Union's state-controlled scientific labs completely stagnate compared to the Western market explosion in computing and medicine
I was too quick to mention alignment. I couldn't be more against socialism and centralised control. | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:25 - Sep 11 with 544 views | DJR |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:14 - Sep 11 by nrb1985 |
"But as I have said above I don't think it can be down to income tax because the top rate of 45% has been the same since 2011"
While that's true, Greece's own "non dom" scheme hasn't been around all that long (2019) so I'm sure that's a valid point re 2011.
My broader point is, while Rokos isn't a non dom, it highlights that so many other countries are now trying mimick our own previous succesful non dom regime - and for the anti non dom brigade on here, I've asked several times why they think that is? |
Let's not get onto non-doms? | | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:32 - Sep 11 with 537 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 09:53 - Sep 11 by nrb1985 |
Of course it’s bobbins.
Had there not been a whole host of catastrophic regulatory failings before that then these enormous risks building under the surface would never have happened and nobody would have had anything to bet against.
And while I skimmed the article, I started my career in 2007 and like many in my industry am still fairly haunted by 2008. Coming into work not knowing if you had a job from one day to the next.
So thanks but I don’t need to be told by that article nor anybody else what happened and what the causes were.
Ps I’ll try to enjoy the tennis! Will keep my mind off selhurst park tomorrow.., [Post edited 11 Sep 9:55]
|
I have no background in financil markets as is, or will be, obvious from my contributions to the debate. However I have a dumb question prompted by this:
"Had there not been a whole host of catastrophic regulatory failings before that then these enormous risks building under the surface would never have happened and nobody would have had anything to bet against."
So my question is, "How did we reach a situation where a nation's and its citizens' well being became dependent on what, to me, appears to be the equivalent of the success or otherwise of a bet on the 3:15 at York racing (enter sporting gambling example of choice here)?"
I did warn you it was a dumb question. 
I also appreciate that a full answer may require lengthy explanations most of which will go right over my head - in which case please just confirm it's a dumb question and leave it at that (woud be best for sanity reasons I suspect). [Post edited 11 Sep 11:33]
|  |
| |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:32 - Sep 11 with 535 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:14 - Sep 11 by balcombeblue |
Does science need capital ?
erm yes. Where do you think capital comes from under socialism?
as an example: if intellect alone drives science, why did the Soviet Union's state-controlled scientific labs completely stagnate compared to the Western market explosion in computing and medicine
I was too quick to mention alignment. I couldn't be more against socialism and centralised control. |
It’s certainly been an important driver. That doesn’t necessarily answer the question whether research needs private capital. Much of the science in universities is funded through government - are you treating that the same as private capital? We have a lot of state funded labs, but also a number of state controlled ones too. The state funded ones provide outputs mostly available for society, the privately funded ones outputs aimed at profit (although can also benefit of course). Both approaches work together - we always found it almost impossible to secure any private capital for early stage development. Businesses want to come in when there’s proof of both concept and scalability. So you need state funding and you probably also need private capital to commercialise the ideas and make affordable products at scale.
There are shed loads of scientific breakthroughs that have been made through public funding, from penicillin, antibiotics, the WWW, radar, the first computers, carbon fibre, the jet engine.
That’s all getting a bit semantic though. (And I may have misunderstood your point). [Post edited 11 Sep 11:35]
| |
| |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 12:25 - Sep 11 with 460 views | WeWereZombies |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:14 - Sep 11 by balcombeblue |
Does science need capital ?
erm yes. Where do you think capital comes from under socialism?
as an example: if intellect alone drives science, why did the Soviet Union's state-controlled scientific labs completely stagnate compared to the Western market explosion in computing and medicine
I was too quick to mention alignment. I couldn't be more against socialism and centralised control. |
You've misunderstood the question. | |
| |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 14:56 - Sep 11 with 379 views | DJR |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 12:02 - Sep 11 by nrb1985 |
Not a stupid question at all.
I could give you a long answer about inter connectivity, counterparties, systemically important banks and fractional reserve banking.
Probably easier to sum it up as greed and stupidity though! Unfortunately from a handful of people in US mainly that have given our entire industry a bad rep for two decades now.
Fortunately AI and tech bosses seem to be taking over the mantle now! |
So far as concerns the role of derivatives in the great financial crash, I am not aware of any objections from the finance industry to the relaxation of regulations.
"The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) of 2000 overturned this framework. Lobbied for by financial industry heavyweights—including former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and Senator Phil Gramm of Texas—the CFMA specifically exempted over-the-counter derivatives, including credit default swaps, from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The act declared that OTC derivatives were not “futures” contracts subject to the Commodity Exchange Act. It carved out exemptions for “eligible contract participants”—a category that included virtually every bank, hedge fund, and insurance company—allowing them to trade derivatives freely without oversight."
But as you say stupidity played a part because no one saw it coming apart from Warren Buffet who warned in 2003 that derivates were weapons of financial mass destruction.
And as well as greed, the nature of competition presumably stoked things because a particular financial firm was hardly going to stand by while another firm was making hay. [Post edited 11 Sep 15:49]
| | | |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 16:29 - Sep 11 with 324 views | DJR |
| Another £330 million per annum slips out of the Coffers. on 11:32 - Sep 11 by Swansea_Blue |
It’s certainly been an important driver. That doesn’t necessarily answer the question whether research needs private capital. Much of the science in universities is funded through government - are you treating that the same as private capital? We have a lot of state funded labs, but also a number of state controlled ones too. The state funded ones provide outputs mostly available for society, the privately funded ones outputs aimed at profit (although can also benefit of course). Both approaches work together - we always found it almost impossible to secure any private capital for early stage development. Businesses want to come in when there’s proof of both concept and scalability. So you need state funding and you probably also need private capital to commercialise the ideas and make affordable products at scale.
There are shed loads of scientific breakthroughs that have been made through public funding, from penicillin, antibiotics, the WWW, radar, the first computers, carbon fibre, the jet engine.
That’s all getting a bit semantic though. (And I may have misunderstood your point). [Post edited 11 Sep 11:35]
|
And let's not forget that not all scientific research or discoveries are capable of being developed commercially or otherwise, as opposed to forming the basis for further advances with respect to which that might be possible.
Take James Clark Maxell.
"When the history of science is told, names like Newton, Einstein, and Galileo are often spoken in awe. Yet behind the scenes of every light bulb, radio signal, and smartphone lies the work of a quiet Scottish mathematician who changed the world forever—James Clerk Maxwell.
He did not merely discover facts; he uncovered the hidden architecture of reality. His equations united electricity, magnetism, and light into a single framework—the electromagnetic field—a concept so profound that Albert Einstein later called Maxwell’s work the “most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton.”
And Stephen Hawkings said the following.
"Each generation stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before them, just as I did as a young PhD student in Cambridge, inspired by the work of Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein."
[Post edited 11 Sep 17:17]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
