Where did all the fuel go?

[john.wigley]

My own interest stems from my time at RR (1965-78), Alan. I worked mainly on tha Adour (Hawk / Jaguar), Phantom and, later, the RB211engines, so after the age of piston powered aircraft. My late FIL was a Draughtsman there from just before the war until he retired in 1979, and my MIL was a Tracer- it is how they met. They both also worked in a shadow factory near Derby (it was a 'reserved occupation') during the years of conflict.

I have worked on test beds doing relight tests on reheated jets, but that dosen't even come close to a 'Spit' or a 'Lanc' on full chat. Talking films, I still watch the 'Dambusters' on DVD from time to time. It is highly evocative even now, but, more importantly, it serves as a permanent reminder of, as you say, what our parents' generation did and endured to secure our future.

Thank you for what you do to ensure that memory is perpetuated and that we never forget.

Regards, John.

[Whippy]

I used to own a third of a boat, at full chat, 160 ltrs ph.

[pinballdave]

Originally Posted by Othen

I don't think anyone is pretending we have uncontrolled free market economy here in the UK are they pinballdave?

No, you're completely correct in that regard. But likewise I don't think anyone is pretending there is any likelihood of a Soviet style communist state ever replacing any western government. So why does it always seem to be trotted out by those on the right who want to reduce a left leaning argument into an absurd binary choice.

The left wingers have their own absurdist comparisons, and I find them equally childish and tiresome, and believe that anyone using them should be called out and ridiculed into submission.

[Othen]

I have deliberately not mentioned politics pinballdave. My thesis was that a market economy (including a very highly regulated one such as in the UK) will drive down margins and therefore costs, but there will always be consequent risks. The alternative to a market economy (regardless of how regulated) is a centrally controlled economy. That much is logical (and I think irrefutable); this is what I said.

Originally Posted by Othen

That is an interesting point. The market drives down margins, which we are all happy with because it makes things cheap in the shops, but the consequence is little redundancy. The alternative is a centrally planned and controlled economy, but we saw that the communist experiment in the former USSR failed to supply the population well over the 70 years it lasted.

Our issues here in the UK are a large and wealthy population that has an enormous but unpredictable appetite. If cerise Nike trainers are suddenly in vogue then there will be a shortage of them, but the aubergine ones will be unsold on the shelves - but as you say Tannaton: no one will go without :-).

Alan

You chose to interpret what I had said as an 'uncontrolled free market economy' , here is what you said [sic]:

Originally Posted by pinballdave

Why does the alternative to an uncontrolled free market economy have to be full on communism? Maybe all the market needs is a little light touch regulation to temper the extremes of capitalism that may lead to a fragile economy, or maybe like in the case of the fuel crisis, the media and PR departments need a little guidance to be less sensationalist and not trigger a panic.

We seem to be living in polarised times, where a choice of two extreme views seems to be presented as the only options available, even when a perfectly acceptable compromise would seem to be the way forward.

I corrected you with this piece, which is irrefutable given the above:

Originally Posted by Othen

I don't think anyone is pretending we have uncontrolled free market economy here in the UK are they pinballdave? We have heaps of regulations, laws, rules and customs - some of which are helpful and others not. I certainly wouldn't advocate any more red tape or state involvement, we have seen very clearly how ineffective centrally controlled economies are in improving peoples' lives.

Alan

You concede the piece about the market economy in the UK not being uncontrolled, that much is fine. You then go on to belittle my thesis (which if you remember was about a market economy vs a centrally controlled economy, not about left and right wing politics (although there is a non-causal connection)):

Originally Posted by pinballdave

No, you're completely correct in that regard. But likewise I don't think anyone is pretending there is any likelihood of a Soviet style communist state ever replacing any western government. So why does it always seem to be trotted out by those on the right who want to reduce a left leaning argument into an absurd binary choice.

The left wingers have their own absurdist comparisons, and I find them equally childish and tiresome, and believe that anyone using them should be called out and ridiculed into submission.

I had no intention (and still do not) of making any political point. I do not know or care what are your political leanings, but I don't like you inferring things I have not said and then calling them 'equally childish and tiresome'.

This is a Volvo motor cars forum (and an excellent one which I find really useful). From time to time we enjoy discussing other vaguely associated matters and most correspondents do that in a respectful and usually light hearted manner (for example I enjoyed the discussion with John above about Lancaster bombers). I find it irritating that some correspondents feel the need to twist the subject towards support their own political or social views; perhaps I'll stop contributing to non-technical threads.

Good fortune to you,

Alan

[pinballdave]

Originally Posted by Othen

I have deliberately not mentioned politics pinballdave.

Your original post mentioned "the communist experiment in the former USSR", how is that not mentioning politics? If you didn't want to make political point, then why did you even mention communism?

In your original thesis, you appeared to be theorising that the alternative to allowing businesses to operate freely would to lead to a communist state.

I was arguing that the theory was absurd as we already have market regulations for various economic and safety reasons and it has not lead to a communist state.

Originally Posted by Othen

The alternative to a market economy (regardless of how regulated) is a centrally controlled economy. That much is logical (and I think irrefutable); this is what I said.

And that is where I see your original hypothesis as being an absurdist black -vs- white argument. In the real world the alternative to a regulated market economy, is another regulated market economy but with slight tweaks to the regulations, it is not and never will be a centrally controlled economy, and to suggest it as the only possible alternative is patently absurd.

Originally Posted by Othen

I corrected you with this piece, which is irrefutable given the above:

Nothing in this world is irrefutable. Even the laws of physics are only our best guess at how the universe operates based on our observations and experiments, and are constantly changing as we make new observations.

What is irrefutable in your eyes is just one persons opinion in the eyes of someone who disagrees with your opinion. You have offered no examples of market driven economies that have suddenly turned into communist states due to some tweaking of the market regulations, so I fail to see your irrefutable evidence.

Originally Posted by Othen

You concede the piece about the market economy in the UK not being uncontrolled, that much is fine.

I never said the UK economy was not controlled, I used the example of an uncontrolled free market economy as an equally extreme counter-point to the extremes of your centrally controlled economy, to demonstrate the absurdness of using an extreme viewpoint to discredit any dissenting opinions.

Originally Posted by Othen

You then go on to belittle my thesis

My post was intended as a counterpoint to your thesis, not a personal attack, I'm sorry if you took it that way.

Originally Posted by Othen

I find it irritating that some correspondents feel the need to twist the subject towards support their own political or social views;

As do I, which is why I replied to your original thesis which appeared to me to be making a somewhat political point akin to 'If we do anything about it, it will lead to communism'.


Anyway, I fully agree with you that this is not the most appropriate place to be having this discussion, so at this point I will take my leave and let this rest. If you would like to continue with this, then I would request that you take it to private messages.

Dave.