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

281–290 of 344 posts

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#281

Post by dukeyukey »

ninalanyon wrote: post #238
dukeyukey wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Housing state of repair and a country's manufacturing sector aren't much to do with each other. Like, at all.

Not at all? Someone has to manufacture the parts and materials and surely they could be in the same country. Having to buy those things from another country, especially now that the UK is out of the EU is surely a more complicated thing than buying them in the country. So surely there must be some connection.

The parts and material for building repair are a vanishingly small portion of almost any countries' economy.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#282

Post by dukeyukey »

gadders wrote: post #195
jamespo wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, that's not one of the lowest really is it

"One of"

If your point is the UK is just about in the lowest 50% of European countries by social mobility (keeping in mind Europe is pretty good on a global scale for social mobility), it's basically a non-point altogether. If the UK were at the end of the scale it might, but it's not, so it doesn't.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#283

Post by dukeyukey »

matthewmorgan wrote: post #21
JCM9 wrote: post #4

The UK was, and to some senses still is, a culture that strongly values who your parents are vs what you’ve personally accomplished. The head of state is the child of the previous head of state. The House of Lords is still a thing. Prestige based on family lineage is considered a big deal. In the US and other parts of Europe it’s very different. People value you a lot more because of what you’ve done vs who you are a…

Not sure who could be down voting you, because you're right. If your parents didn't send you to the right school to learn the right plummy accent, you don't stand much chance.

I mean, depends on the field. Journalism, possibly. Tech, wat?

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#284

Post by lkrubner »

machinekob wrote: post #55
lkrubner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the crisis of 2008 the USA has had several trillion dollars in stimulus spending. Very roughly speaking, Europe pursued policies of austerity, whereas the USA followed a more Keynesian route of big spending. On this matter, the Keynesians have been vindicated. In 2007 the GDP of the EU was slightly larger than the USA, but now it has fallen far behind: $16 trillion ($18 trillion if it still had the UK) versus $…

Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession. Also EU just stagnate from 1990 until now it is yearly losing global share of GDP.

"Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession."

Yes, but why? There was a theory that massive stimulus spending would weaken the dollar because of the additional debt, but instead, the opposite happened. The USA did more stimulus spending and the dollar became stronger. Many people were surprised by this. Those people need to revisit their initial assumptions.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#285

Post by PolygonSheep »

regularfry wrote: post #229
nine_k wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a huge internal market, with free interstate trade and no need for localization. The US has accumulated colossal scientific and R&D resources, which regularly produce industrial breakthroughs. Lower taxes help, too. (Lower taxes is what a country can afford for general benefit, not a sloppy pro-rich policy.) But most importantly, USD is effectively the world's reserve currency, so the US can literally prin…

The UK emerged from WWII massively indebted to the US. That's not entirely unrelated to the UK's position post-war.

That security guarantee to Poland turned out quite expensive in the end.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#286

Post by tptacek »

apwell23 wrote: post #127
benjaminwootton wrote: post #38

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…

> 2 weeks to see a Dr, a year for an operation Its the same in USA if you want to see a specialist. There is a worldwide shortage of qualified doctors. I waited about 1.5yrs to get a routine endoscopy at northwestern hospital in chicago. We've gone to northwestern in downtown for decades and have never seen waits this bad.

Endoscopy wait times are kind of a notorious worst-case, right? There's something weird going on with them here. I had specialist care in Chicago (at Rush, not NWU) booked and delivered inside of a couple weeks.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#287

Post by avianlyric »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #216
avianlyric wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not so much restrictive rules, as it is a planning system that prioritises local concerns, regardless of how minor, or incorrect, over any kind of national priority. Our planning system is literally designed to maximally empower NIMBYism. There are no well defined planning rules, or zoning, or planning process. Every council develops their own planning policy, and broadly has the power to block any project. The…

While not denying in any way that this sort of thing is a real problem, I think you're overstating differences between the UK and "the rest of the world". Although zoning in the USA does work to a degree as you say (" must be approved if you ..."), in reality lots of projects that seem as if they ought to be a sure thing for approval face years of process-based objections from local groups, leading to them never bein…

The UKs planning system is pretty much unique. Almost no other country in the world operates a planning system where every local authority basically gets to make up their own rules around planning, and where it’s practically impossible for national government to enforce simple things like minimum house building quotas.

If you want to understand why building infrastructure in the UK is so difficult, then you need to look no further than our planning system. It has uniquely managed to completely strangle infrastructure building. Sure NIBYism exists in the U.S., and there’s lots of planning red tape, and plenty of very poorly considered planning rules (such as single use zoning, and a strange obsession with single family homes). But in comparison to the UK, it’s practically pleasant to work with.

Of course it helps that the U.S. has a crap ton of spare land just handing around. Much easier to build a new shopping mall, highway or suburb on a completely empty plot with no neighbours in sight. But in the UK you, you can’t swing a cat without hitting an existing building, or actively worked farm.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#288

Post by kasey_junk »

tptacek wrote: post #286
apwell23 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2 weeks to see a Dr, a year for an operation Its the same in USA if you want to see a specialist. There is a worldwide shortage of qualified doctors. I waited about 1.5yrs to get a routine endoscopy at northwestern hospital in chicago. We've gone to northwestern in downtown for decades and have never seen waits this bad.

Endoscopy wait times are kind of a notorious worst-case, right? There's something weird going on with them here. I had specialist care in Chicago (at Rush, not NWU) booked and delivered inside of a couple weeks.

I think 2 things are true at the same time, some specialists are impossible to get access to and others are easy.

I’ve been able to get an orthopedic surgery issue diagnosed and booked in weeks (Rush). But routine care with my pain specialist (Northwestern) can need months long lead times.

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#289

Post by kasey_junk »

gramie wrote: post #190
diggan wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a worldwide shortage of qualified doctors. I'm not sure you can extrapolate that it's worldwide because things are the same in UK and US. FWIW, I had surgery in Spain recently and had to wait like two-three months tops. Probably depends a lot on the type of surgery and how urgent it is.

My brother had a hip replacement in Paris this week. He booked the operation two weeks ago. His angiogram (required for the surgery) was performed 3 hours after his consultation with the surgeon. The clinic is considered the best one specializing in joint replacement surgery in all of France. Total cost for surgery, follow-up, and 3 days in hospital (he lives in a French Overseas Department so he gets reimbursed): 18…

How are you calculating the total cost?

Re: Foundations: Why Britain Has Stagnated

#290

Post by avianlyric »

shortrounddev2 wrote: post #175
avianlyric wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it occurred to you that nobody rides passenger rail in the US because there’s zero investment in passenger rail, and as a consequence the U.S. has managed to build a rail system that more difficult to use that flights, and somehow still slower than cars. I can’t think of anywhere else in the developed world where the train system is the slowest form of motorised transport around.

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…

It’s an ironic comment to make, given the U.S. was literally built using railways. Passenger railways covered the entire U.S. long before highways ever did.

The only reason why passenger rail doesn’t exist today, is because the U.S. chose to stop investing in rail, and instead chose to only invest in car infrastructure. There’s was a huge period where auto manufacturers were buying up local rail and trams systems, for the sole purpose of running them into the ground, and forcing people into cars instead.

There’s absolutely no reason you can’t build high speed passenger rail today. High speed rail takes up less space than a highway, for far higher speeds and capacities. And building high speed rail using highway style construction in one of the most cost effective ways of building passenger rail (it’s how countries like France can build high speed rail at such low costs).

For some reason nobody thinks it’s silly to link up U.S. cities with highways, but for some reason, rail is too hard (despite being the faster, higher throughput, and more economical, form of transportation).

Post reply on HN