Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

ukfoundations.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 344 posts

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#251

Post by jandrewrogers »

benrutter wrote: post #18

Really interesting and well researched read. The main take away seems to be that Britain has seen a lack of state funded infrastructure development and it's paying the price for this, especially in the energy sector. I'm obviously oversimplifying, but I think that's an ok rough summary. I think it's well argued and evidenced in the article, but I'm interested in this question: why isn't the US stagnating? My understa…

An important aspect is that the US is that its economies and regional cultures are diverse and dispersed. The US is simply too decentralized to stagnate effectively. It is not a monoculture in any practical sense which creates a system that can respond quickly to evolutionary pressure. Everything good and bad you hear about the US usually only applies to a subset of the country and often only a handful of cities.

There is a high degree of regional specialization in the US as a consequence. No matter what happens in the world, some part of the US is perfectly positioned to take advantage of that. Combine this with general American risk tolerance and business acumen, and you have a country that is unusually organically adaptive to changing global economies.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#252

Post by dxbydt »

card_zero wrote: post #164
lvoudour wrote: post #64

On a tangent, what is astonishing to me as an outsider is the cultural stagnation. Even in times of economic decline Britain was a cultural powerhouse. Modern music, theater, cinema, tv, literature, sports, etc. were permanently shaped by post-war Britain (especially in Europe). Whatever the cultural norm dictated by the behemoth that is the USA, Britain always had something new, something fresh to give. There's no p…

> There's no point listing specific examples, they are numerous. Four of them, if you include Ringo.

must commend this briton for his unparalleled sense of humor, razor-sharp wit, subtle, effortlessly charming and perfectly timed quips. While American humor tends to be more direct and sometimes louder, this dry, understated delivery is a unique gift.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#253

Post by throwaway48540 »

grumpy_coder wrote: post #241
throwaway48540 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could they possibly do that?

They are referring to the liz truss budget.

So it is the elected representatives who are responsible for choosing them and implementing whatever they suggested?

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#254

Post by inglor_cz »

lispm wrote: post #237
inglor_cz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe failed to keep its bureaucracy at bay. There were times in the 1990s when people like the Dutch commissioner Frits Bolkenstein sincerely tried to liberalize and open the internal market. But at least since Brexit, possibly earlier, the EU has made a turn towards protectionism and closedness (at least economically; as you mention, it is way, way easier to ship people from Africa into the EU than bananas), a Fre…

The British voted for Brexit to enjoy poorer standards. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/09/... Good luck with removing "red tape".

By putting red tape in scare quotes, do you want to express an opinion that every regulation is good and red tape is just a myth? More papers, more prosperity, without any limits or any inflection point?

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#255

Post by fidotron »

barry-cotter wrote: post #245
fidotron wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no plausible mechanism by which these people could have effected a radical change in the general British culture or the culture of the British civil service. These people were somehow capable of running India and yet at the same time could not cause a change in the UK if they returned en masse? > They weren’t different enough from the British population to have any noticeable effect You have a very odd vie…

>> They weren’t different enough from the British population to have any noticeable effect >You have a very odd view of life in the UK if you believe this. If all 250,000 Britons in the UAE returned to the UK in the next three months I would expect it to have no noticeable effect a year from now. By the same token I wouldn’t expect much from 100,000 Brits moving from India to the UK in 1947. West Indian migration sta…

> If all 250,000 Britons in the UAE returned to the UK in the next three months I would expect it to have no noticeable effect a year from now.

Those 250k Britons in the UAE are not state supported colonists, and so do not have the attitudes and culture of state supported colonists.

Edit: specifically the colonial attitude that the inhabitants of a colony exist as a natural resource to be exploited purely for the benefit of the colonists. This is now the attitude that exists throughout the UK state towards the inhabitants of the UK.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#256

Post by hnlmorg »

glimshe wrote: post #101
hnlmorg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s. Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure. Having driven on both American roads and British roads, I’d say UK rural roads are to a much higher standard. However that I can give America a pass…

England is a small country, smaller than the US state of Georgia. It's much easier to maintain way shorter roads with its much higher population density. Nonetheless, the rural roads in the US are generally of good to excellent quality.

> England is a small country, smaller than the US state of Georgia. It's much easier to maintain way shorter roads with its much higher population density.

A point I made in my post.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#257

Post by hnlmorg »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #223
shortrounddev2 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People ride passenger rail where it makes sense. The acela line being a good example. But if they built a high speed rail between Texas and Ohio, nobody would ride that, because flying would still be faster. We could build some HSR between major cities in Texas, Florida, California, and the Northeast corridor, but it would account for a handful of straight railways. There are major problems with building these (Calif…

Many areas of the USA have population densities entirely comparable with large parts of Europe. The upper-central midwest (eastern MN, WI, IL, IA) is a good example - it compares favorably to most of France or Germany. This is another example of how it is almost always a mistake to use a unitary description of anything when it comes to the USA. Yes, certainly where I live (New Mexico), population density is extremely…

It’s common to travel between European counties by rail instead of plane. In fact I’ve done this myself.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#258

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

hnlmorg wrote: post #257
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many areas of the USA have population densities entirely comparable with large parts of Europe. The upper-central midwest (eastern MN, WI, IL, IA) is a good example - it compares favorably to most of France or Germany. This is another example of how it is almost always a mistake to use a unitary description of anything when it comes to the USA. Yes, certainly where I live (New Mexico), population density is extremely…

It’s common to travel between European counties by rail instead of plane. In fact I’ve done this myself.

In the US southwest, it's not the distance, it's the very small numbers of people who are moving around that is the problem.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#259

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

throwaway48540 wrote: post #253
grumpy_coder wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are referring to the liz truss budget.

So it is the elected representatives who are responsible for choosing them and implementing whatever they suggested?

Being elected doesn't remove your obligations to follow sane, moral policies.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#260

Post by hnlmorg »

wakawaka28 wrote: post #115
hnlmorg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s. Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure. Having driven on both American roads and British roads, I’d say UK rural roads are to a much higher standard. However that I can give America a pass…

>Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure. You give the US a pass on roads due to great distances, but not on rail? Rail is even more expensive than roads. On the subject of roads, it is important to remember that US roads vary greatly in quality based on geography, weather, and economic conditions. Every state gets…

If you want to argue about distances then let’s talk about Europe as a wider entity rather than just one country. And Europe still comes out on top for quality of infrastructure.

The problem with the NHS is due to the amount of budget cuts from the Tory government.

The problem with the American health system is the exact opposite, it costs too much because private entities are greedy. Government intervention would be more legislative than financial.

Post reply on HN