Couldn't understand a lot of what was said after the "drip" part.

SICK!!

>> ^Porksandwich:

Couldn't understand a lot of what was said after the "drip" part.


There certainly was a lot of talking over each other, but this is what I heard:


Cox: "I think that just a drip of that quantative easing to the science budget would possibly transform our economy."

Campbell: "He could get into Downing Street anytime he wants, and why don't you stand for parliament?"

Cox: *Stammers*

Neil: "Good answer"

Cox: "Not much happens then does it, I think you've got to be ..."

Portillo: "don't you have a 15 year term in the House of Lords?"

Cox: " .. don't you have to be Prime Minister, at least, until you can get anything done?"

Does this account for inflation? What/Where are the actual numbers?

give me whatever you have... then double it.

>> ^Trancecoach:

Does this account for inflation? What/Where are the actual numbers?


Inflation would favour science - a payment today has a set value (bank bailouts) but payments in the past only stand to increase. If it doesn't account for inflation then i can't imagine how it would add up when you consider that the prices of HOUSES rapidly reduce to merely thousands of pounds when you go back only a hundred years (or less according to my nan) in britain.

This is one case of a trustable talking head though. I'm not a fan of brian cox but he is a very good physicist and he wouldn't say it if he hadn't thoroughly checked which is more than i can say for the others on the panel. I'd also like to see a simple chart though, because his words are wise - imagine what could be done if we weren't getting robbed blind and led by the fucking blind.

Cox would do well... Britain and America both have a history of electing penis pluralities to their governments.

The numbers aren't that hard to believe.

My first 8 seconds of Google searching tell me that British banks got somewhere between £850 Billion and £1.3 Trillion. Let's lowball it, and say £850 billion.

Let's also say the UK investment in science started about 100 years ago. So, over each of the last 100 years, accounting for inflation, the average expenditure would be 1% of that, or £8.5 billion.

Now, is it possible that the actual amount that the UK government spent on science on average over the last 100 years was less than billion? I think so.