As global political power follow the means of production elsewhere, the publication I have been addicted to for an awfully long time serves us with an imaginative but oh so dewy-eyed analysis. Not good at all in my humble opinion, but too late to send it to the
Letters to the editor by now.
SIR - In The Economist Special Report on the subject of the so called "third industrial revolution" (April 21st) an unpleasantly naïve perspective on matters was incurred upon the readers in a way I would not expect from Your pages. Any 10-year old with minor experience of working with materials understand what is necessary to make things durable, yet such familiarisation is perhaps just what contemporary urban dwellers are highly deficient of. Something 3D-printed may work for a plastic case, but not for an engine.
The leader on the same topic wrote of blurring lines between manufacturing and services in an equally theoretical way, disregarding fundamental knowledge of how things work (and what Rolls Royce produce). Furthermore is the clinging to manufacturing not romanticism as production and refining is what creates actual growth. Services and finance on a social theory & engineering level much less so. Such mild dumbness was not concealed by the obvious and much correct remark that government subsidies does not have any place in the equation.
Allowing "design" to be the new manufacturing and we might as well get rid of the idea of being industrious altogether. We will not receive the revenue needed for infrastructure by cutting each others hair. But then I will have to ride a carpented horse carriage if cars are to be printed anyhow.
