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

British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 314 posts

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#161

Post by RetroTechie »

pjc50 wrote: post #87
nialv7 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what a bizarre article, completely disconnected from reality. in what world is manufacturing, a sector that has been neglected for decades at this point, having any sway on politics in Britain. why does The Economist have so much disdain of manufacturing and people who work in it? look at China, look at their manufacturing industry and what they are able to do with it. then look at the UK, who is struggling to build…

The point is that manufacturing is a relatively small part of both the economy and the job market; AND the popular view of manufacturing (large plant staffed by a large number of men being the dominant employer of a nearby town or city) doesn't look anything like the reality of modern manufacturing (small run boutique high value stuff like satellites and turbines, highly automated and professionalized, relatively sma…

It's not boutique vs large plant. It's base materials (paper mills, steel smelters, plastic etc) that tend to be low in added value, versus higher up the stack (like your examples) that also tend to be higher in added value.

Most countries didn't care much for the former other than historic reasons, but like the latter for obvious reasons (add £ to GDP).

That's changing due to "sovereignty". You can't build a satellite without metal profiles, wiring, tubes etc. Which requires manufacturing capacity for those. Which requires steel/alu/copper smelters & plastic extruders. Which requires plastic & thus a chemical industry.

This whole 'sovereign movement' is about keeping/bringing back capabilities across the stack which are deemed critical (like steel).

But I suspect there are few (if any) countries that have these dependency chains mapped out in detail.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#162

Post by ExoticPearTree »

squigz wrote: post #159
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understood this selfish desire to stop people from killing themselves. What's it to you if a person jumps from a building or shots itself in the head? Did you ever think that they might have had actually good reasons for doing what they did?

It's not seflish though - who has to clean that up? What about the people nearby who have to witness it?

The coroner will take the body. Just as if that person was shot by a robber.

People nearby don't have to look if they don't want to.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#163

Post by squigz »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #162
squigz wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not seflish though - who has to clean that up? What about the people nearby who have to witness it?

The coroner will take the body. Just as if that person was shot by a robber. People nearby don't have to look if they don't want to.

You think that a coroner cleans that up? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#164

Post by IAmBroom »

8note wrote: post #110
p_l wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until something happens that disrupts the supply chains from abroad and suddenly there's an issue

if theres supply chain disruption abroad, its probably going to affect the ore and coke exports too

Far more fungible than steel plant products.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#165

Post by ExoticPearTree »

squigz wrote: post #163
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The coroner will take the body. Just as if that person was shot by a robber. People nearby don't have to look if they don't want to.

You think that a coroner cleans that up? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works.

Crime scene cleaners? The Sanitation Department?

Still cheaper than having 10-20 cops sitting around talking to the person.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#166

Post by squigz »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #165
squigz wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that a coroner cleans that up? I'm pretty sure that's not the way it works.

Crime scene cleaners? The Sanitation Department? Still cheaper than having 10-20 cops sitting around talking to the person.

Well at least we got to the heart of the issue - it's too costly to try to prevent people from killing themselves. Truly perfect example of how capitalism views life.

Of course, that most people regret their attempt after being saved by those 10-20 cops is irrelevant, right? I wonder what the benefits to society of that person being alive come out to, vs the costs to save them.

Anyway, you've completely missed my point (twice, in fact), so we're done here.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#167

Post by franktankbank »

pjc50 wrote: post #144
georgeecollins wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's imagine a hypothetical symmetrical war between two modern countries. One can disable the other's satellites and maintain their own fleet. The other can't get access to any third parties' satellites. You aren't going to send your steel navy out when one side can see you from space and you can't, almost regardless of the numbers. Your big army of steel tanks is useless against a bunch of drones directed by distri…

Everyone in this discussion seems to be forgetting Trident as well. There's a lot of assumption the next war will be helpfully similar to WW2, and some sort of reverse sweet spot where we are subject to naval interdiction but will not deploy the strategic nuclear deterrent, and at the same time have enough time to build things, but not things that require any of the rest of the supply chain than steel (I have bad new…

We follow a path governed only by the logic chain of previous mistakes. Our next recognition of one could be pretty brutal.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#168

Post by nephihaha »

flir wrote: post #149
nephihaha wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is because fishing has multiple other factors. For one, it is a major component of certain towns and villages, so while it isn't important to big cities, it is on the smaller scale in particular areas. It keeps harbours open and is also a draw for tourists, so I would say it has different implications than, say, shoe manufacturing. The British chocolate industry was a major employer in some places but has been d…

Fishing tourism? Like... commercial fishing with a net? Not sport fishing?

No, more like people going and seeing a harbour with actual fishing boats in it. It is a pretty sight...

But some do sightseeing trips, diving and sports fishing too.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#169

Post by p_l »

0x3f wrote: post #69
p_l wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, a lot of it is related to pretty obvious attempts at dismantling the NHS by Westminster

Are they seeding it with incompetent middle management as a psy-op?

No, some of it is disrupting funding and organizational structure, meaning that NHS regions in England and Wales became structurally less capable due to loss of pooled resources, which also increased coordination burden.

And that's before you get into high level scam/idiocies related to Tory-beloved outsourced providers in IT et al.

Re: British Steel taken into public ownership to protect 'vital' UK supply

#170

Post by XorNot »

pjc50 wrote: post #148
XorNot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccines aren't something you need urgently in a crisis. A wartime effort has to keep supplies moving daily, or the front collapses. Whereas the need for vaccines is heavily deferred - your population is already vaccinated in peacetime, and you are unlikely to need to make a novel vaccine over the course of a war, nor vaccinate new population during one either: that large vaccinated population providing herd immunity…

> Vaccines aren't something you need urgently in a crisis .. what were you doing in 2020? > you are unlikely to need to make a novel vaccine over the course of a war The lab leak people are probably wrong, but in the present era we're a lot closer to "hook AI up to a CRISPR machine and generate a biological weapon" than we have ever been. Everyone seems to assume that we might get in a war that we recognize and can f…

> .. what were you doing in 2020?

Waiting several years for widespread vaccine availability, and practicing good hygiene and social distancing.

Viruses aren't so good at seizing and holding territory.

Post reply on HN