Live data from Hacker News

Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

ukfoundations.co

261–270 of 344 posts

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#261
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Finance in UK is indeed legacy it is mostly big old banks there is still a bit of fintech Many fintech b2c innovators come from the UK. Revolut and Monzo provide features with a UX and API that US banks couldn't even dream of. > Man blackout != energy starved, you can have blackouts cause your infrastructure is attacked or just random natural disaster, look at energy prices compare it to China or even US not even s…

I mean isn't UK starving? it can't produce enough energy, it cost is extremely high to produce anything and it can't get proper industrial/manufacture power base cause of that? (and a lot of other stupid reasons)

> I mean isn't UK starving

No?

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's my point. Crazy economists are not responsible for the damage, it's the elected people who listened to them and followed through. To create an intentionally extreme parallel, imagine they have chosen a group of idk, satanists. Would you blame the group of satanists for being satanists, or the people in charge of a country who contacted a group of satanists for advice?

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the authors is from the Centre for Policy Studies. Another is from the Adam Smith Institute. These are the gang of shady right-wing think tanks that brought us Truss and Kwarteng. That tells you everything you need to know about their economic competence.

Their solution is to allow private funds to fund essential infrastructure, it seems. Which to me just rings hollow, or at best, only a part of the answer. They're correct on some aspects of it, other parts they just gloss over. IE They say that there has been an "erosion" of the industrial base in the UK, while actually the blame could be laid at the feet of Thatcher's service-led policies.

[deleted]

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, I meant to reply to the person before you about how people chose to fly rather than go by rail.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#265
The list of things the consider is long almost exhaustive. Most of the points have already been made, some by other people too, if you follow these things online. While there is nothing there earth-shattering, it's good to see it all nicely laid out. People dismissing everything with a sentence, are not doing it justice.

However. The report is thin on recommendations "What is to be done now?", or did I miss them really!? That really surprises me. If I were to define it in two sentences: UK central gov is ultra centralised in Whitehall (#1) (almost Stalinist in that respect!!), and then that centralised power is further held in a strangle hold by the Treasury Brain - Deep State - OBR complex (#2). So together they are like Centralisation^2.

Atm that ensures - #1 nothing can be done by anyone else, and #2 they've settled on "do nothing" b/c everything costs money, and #2 care disproportionally more about that cost, and much less about what capability assets etc that cost buys UK. Once nothing tangible is done, laziness is naturally encouraged, activity punished, and every promotion every jostling in the hierarchy becomes entirely a beauty contest, divorced from any real-word results. All this seen afar by outsider without any insider knowledge. Just listening to Rory Stewart and Dominic Cummings relying info about the inner workings of UK gov machine.

So any intervention would have to come (walking backwards) into point #2, and or at point #1.

Point #2 means smashing the power of the Treasury. They are good servant, but a bad master. No.10 (the PM) needs to re-assert itself over and above No.11 (the FinMin) by 1st-ly taking decision powers out of No.11 hands. No.10 would have to work much more on getting things done, take interest in that, and leave behind the media PR Circus it's totally devoted to atm. Just assume you will serve 1 term (or less!), drop the "permanent electioneering mode" (that nowadays the position goes into while in gov??), don't think of re-election and try get stuff done, assuming you've run out of time. Can't see how a change like that can come but directly from the top, from the PM. Supported by legislation and votes to dismantle the 1000 roadblocks, via the political power of MPs voting in Parliament.

Point #1 means decentralisation of power. UK for a long time used to have vigorous local authorities that could innovate in various ways. Admired once at the riches of local gov building in Birmingham (UK 2nd largest city). The idea that some pimply fresh graduate 20yo SpAd 120 miles away in London would be telling these people how many pencils they should buy I presume would have seemed to the people running the City gov absurd, like a Monty Python sketch to us.

Mid-term UK needs to build another 10mil strong cities agglomeration, e.g. Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - Sheffield - Hull, by connecting them with transport links, and building housing along the links for commuting whichever way people fancy. With Birmingham half-way between this new MegaCity and the old London. So London gets some competition, and raises its game too. Atm feels London is coasting because TINA.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#266
post #140

This website makes some claims about what has caused both growth and decline that are pretty contentious. I think that many would argue that the growth following the second world war was the result of massive state investment in public services like creating the NHS and the building of council housing. They baffelingly attribute yhat growth to the Conservative Govrernment of the 1930s rather than the post war labour…

None of what the website says is actually contentious outside of Labour/left wing circles. Economic growth isn't that complicated when coming from behind - but as they say, it's hard if there isn't enough energy or housing.

> I think that many would argue that the growth following the second world war was the result of massive state investment

I don't think anyone with a strong grip on economics or British history would argue that. The fact is that post-war rationing continued longer in the UK than it did in Germany, the country that actually lost the war, and Germany recovered far faster in other ways too. Decades of very left wing governments left the UK in a terrible state by the 1970s relative to its peers - it was called the sick man of Europe and needed an IMF bailout - a situation fixed only by Thatcher. This history is well known not only in the UK but internationally. The website provides supporting evidence if you aren't familiar with this.

> our water companies that have been private since the 80s and have done nothing but pay dividends to shareholders

That this sort of absurdly false belief gets repeated unchallenged so often in Britain is exactly why it's falling behind. Thames Tideway, one of the largest engineering projects in Europe and the biggest upgrade to London's sewage system ever, is organized and financed by the private sector (pension funds, Allianz, Amber IG, Dalmore Capital and DIF).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Tideway_Tunnel#Funding_...

It's literally being built right now and yet you claim the private sector hasn't invested. The reality is the opposite. As the website points out, British governments have historically struggled to do capital investments because the moment money becomes available the unions always take it all. Only the private sector has sufficiently good labour relations to actually build things and the water industry is a good example of that in action. Compare to the NHS where the government has regularly tried to ringfence money for capital investments (repairing leaking hospital roofs etc), only to see its direct orders ignored and the money used for pay rewards instead.

> 55% of stations were axed due to a /reduction/ of state infrastructure

The stations were axed due to long term decline in passenger numbers, a situation that reversed immediately upon privatization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#...

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#267

> Nor can austerity or the hangover from the financial crisis explain Britain’s malaise. The financial crisis was at least as turbulent in the United States as here. Yes it can. For the UK the financial sector was a dramatically important one, more so than practically for any other major country. London was the undisputed financial center for whole Europe and beyond, a legacy of Empire days, the pound as reserve curr…

The financial crisis was a specific event and other countries had put it behind them within a few years. The UK's growth inflected around that time and never recovered since. It doesn't make much sense to argue a temporary event changed UK productivity or economic growth permanently, especially as the only reason to think that is rough temporal proximity. There were other things going on at that time too that are equally or more plausible e.g. mass immigration from eastern Europe was kicking into gear around that time as well, which created a glut of cheap labour. Cheap labour always kills productivity growth because there's no reason to invest in automation.

> Yes, despite what that British lady said, there is an emergent phenomenon called "society" and if you deny its existence you will get devoured by demons of its own creation.

Thatcher was responding to people who asserted that for any given problem, "society" should solve it or pay for it. Her answer made the obvious point: when it comes to taxation, there really is no such thing as society. To complete the quote: "they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families".

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#268
post #155

Ctrl-f "class" -> "world-class". Checks out. One thing I will never forget from my short time living in London is how un-insulated the homes there were. Single or thin double-glazed windows, full-brick homes without a hint of thermal insulation. Sure there were exceptions but not many. At the time in Central Europe the movement to heavily insulated, nearly-passive homes was already in full swing. Many central Europea…

As I understand it from a couple of my British friends talking about insulation, the old homes were built to breathe, so you can't just seal them up and put insulation in, because you'll end up with humidity problems.

I think Karl Marx only serves as an expensive lesson in what destructive ideas look like. Everywhere that has implemented any version of it has ended up impoverished, unfree, and frequently with millions killed. China's success came only after they junked Marxism, and Xi Jinping's quasi return to it has seen Chinese prosperity slowly drop.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#269

I’ll need to sit down and read this properly, but I would say there is a real stench of decline in England at the moment and pretty much everyone here would agree. It’s readily apparent the new government won’t save us already. Public services in particular: 2 weeks to see a Dr, a year for an operation, unlikely for the police to attend your call out, stagnant economy, high cost of living and low wages. And all whils…

> It’s readily apparent the new government won’t save us already. I dont follow this line of reasoning too well. The conservative party was in power for fourteen years, 2010 to 2024. The new Labour government has been in power for less than fourteen weeks. Isnt it too soon to make any claims about their performance fixing the structural issues identified in this report?

Maybe but probably not by this point. If Starmer were engaged and keen to fix these problems, he would have clearly articulated the problems outlined on the website, stated a plan to solve them and now be doing things to advance it.

What he's actually done is the opposite. For example, the website makes the point that British governments often don't do enough capital investment so state-controlled infrastructure rots away. Instead spending rises get used to buy off unions. Sure enough, within just months of Labour coming into power it's already handed out around £10 billion/yr worth of pay rises:

https://inews.co.uk/news/public-sector-pay-deals-cost-323074...

This type of behavior led to pay spirals in the 60s and 70s.

We see this problem elsewhere. Labour's plan to build new prisons is simply to override local councils that are blocking planning applications, but that won't yield funds for actually building them. Where's the capital going to come from in a government that capitulates immediately to union pay demands, and which is already financially over-stretched? To do this they would need to make major cutbacks in other areas, but they have no plans to do this.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#270
post #155

Ctrl-f "class" -> "world-class". Checks out. One thing I will never forget from my short time living in London is how un-insulated the homes there were. Single or thin double-glazed windows, full-brick homes without a hint of thermal insulation. Sure there were exceptions but not many. At the time in Central Europe the movement to heavily insulated, nearly-passive homes was already in full swing. Many central Europea…

As I understand it from a couple of my British friends talking about insulation, the old homes were built to breathe, so you can't just seal them up and put insulation in, because you'll end up with humidity problems. I think Karl Marx only serves as an expensive lesson in what destructive ideas look like. Everywhere that has implemented any version of it has ended up impoverished, unfree, and frequently with million…

> the old homes were built to breathe

Yes, but there are ways to handle that. Even the insulation can let water vapor through, of course you can't in that case use the cheapest styropor.

> I think Karl Marx only serves as an expensive lesson in what destructive ideas look like.

I fully agree implementing his dumb ideas mostly from the Communist Manifest led to huge tragedies, but they were implemented partly because he was a hugely influential philosopher and that was not some random success. His critique of capitalism is worth reading, or at least reading about.

Post reply on HN