Live data from Hacker News

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

bbc.com

231–240 of 314 posts

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

#231

It's probably not a bad idea. Steel is one of the things that an industrialized country needs to produce to protect its own sovereignty. Letting it shut down and just hope you'll always be able to import enough steel from other countries is a bad long-term strategy. You'd be left unable to fend for yourself.

Steel on its own is inert and useless, you need to retain the entire downstream manufacturing ecosystem that consumes it. Like cars for example, producing steel but letting all your vehicle manufacturers sell off to foreign owners just so you can import BYDs doesn't do you any good.

The UK car industry had been doing quite well until Brexit.

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

#232

Perfect! Now do the same for the banking and financial sector, the chemistry industry, big pharma, energy, water

We did do that for banking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_United_Kingdom_bank_rescu...

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

#233

It's probably not a bad idea. Steel is one of the things that an industrialized country needs to produce to protect its own sovereignty. Letting it shut down and just hope you'll always be able to import enough steel from other countries is a bad long-term strategy. You'd be left unable to fend for yourself.

Having said that if you have no source of iron ore and no self sufficient energy production you’re stuffed anyway.

The UK ran out of both a fair while ago

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

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem for them wasn't the sales, it was the catches. The EU was good for farmers, not so good for fisheries. The EU fishing rules meant multiple countries could fish the same grounds meaning overfishing. The UK was much stricter on net sizes than Spain was.

> The EU was good for farmers, not so good for fisheries. It was good for industrial farming, not the farmers themselves, one of the big reasons for Norway refusing to join was the impact it would have on farmers.

That seems more a feelings than fact based view. The Norwegian referendum had many reasons, but as for Brexit they were not necessarily based on rational analysis. Norway is nominally independent but in every economic sector, including farming, pretty much integrated with the EU countries.

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

#235
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fishing holds similar role in the UK and France (at least). Tiny components of the overall economy, giant patriotic feels. I still think some manufacturing is simply strategic, and you should maintain a capability even at a (financial) loss though.

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…

Well since Mondelez night Caburies, Milka, and other major brands across Europe it has slowly been downgrading their quality. So unfortunately not a purely British problem and even more unfortunately an intentional business strategy by a Swiss conglomerate.

Kind of the best European chocolate option, if you want to avoid the Swiss and don't want to buy the premium for pralines is the JD Gross company which is mainly delivering to Lidl.

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

#236
I had not realised UK still had mining for iron ore, but it seems it's even a net exporter [1]. In that case it really makes sense to keep such a strategic industry alive as both the up- and downstream companies would suffer if it's shut down.

[1] https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/iron-ore/repo...

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

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lab leak people are probably wrong https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Testimony-Qu...

That is indeed the testimony of Steven C. Quay, one of "the lab leak people" that are asserted by GP to be probably wrong. Very few people would claim that there is no testimony for the lab leak claim, it's simply that relatively few domain scientists support that claim. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_C._Quay * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory

> relatively few domain scientists support that claim

I spent a decade at a national Science and Technology Research Center responsible for a twelfth of NSF's research budget. We studied biology at all scales and the algorithms it uses to solve difficult problems. I've looked for holes in Quay's testimony and didn't find any big ones. Most of his claims seem to be independently verified.

One thing I can say from my decade of experience is that scientists are not dumb people, and are acutely aware of how their work is perceived, and the connection that has to their research funding. You'll find as many scientists warning about the dangers of lax lab regulation as you will coal miners warning about climate change. Private conversations are very different.

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

#238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably with the exception of a country or two, governments never run a successful business when competition is involved. Never ever. So no, it is not desirable for the government to intervene in any way in private business and "save them".

They don't have to. Private business has to do at least as well as the government business or it won't make any sales, so quality increases and price decreases even if the government business doesn't sell anything.

You do know it is illegal in most places to sell under cost, right? So why would be legal for a government to sell something below cost but illegal for a company to do the same thing?

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

#239
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As long as the reform is to cut taxes for the rich Source? Strangely "tax" only has one hit within the wikipedia article, and it's not about tax cuts. If it's really such an important part of their editorial stance, you should update the article.

You are very naive about the neutrality of Wikipedia. Maintaining the Wikipedia page is part of what any PR/reputation management agency does.

Right, which is why the first part of my comment, before mentioning wikipedia at all is "Source?". Wikipedia might be biased, but it's a good starting point. Likewise, it's very hard to take you seriously when all you can do is complain about how wikipedia is biased/astroturfed, but can't provide any sources to contradict the wikipedia article, yet are willing to take a random commenter at face value.

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

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit of war is almost never worth the cost. It just tends to scale up from repeated mutual miscalculations. For instance WW1 started from a Bosnian Serb assassinating the Austro-Hungarian heir and the next thing you know Brits are killing Germans over it. Everybody would have certainly turned back the clock there if they could, even moreso given that "The War to End All Wars" directly set the stage for WW2. Bu…

It's nowhere near the same thing. This was supposed to be an imperialist land grab by Russia. This war did not emerge organically. Russia had a goal, to seize Ukraine - easily and quickly. Russia have failed at that goal. Failing is not winning. Not only have they failed to secure their objective, the attempt to do so has cost several orders of magnitude more than intended. The land they do control is of low value. A…

Would you say that Austria-Hungary choosing to outright invade Serbia because the assassin was a Bosnian Serb who might have had some backing from the government, was reasonable? Or was that a land grab? And when when Russia joins Serbia was it solely an action of obligation or because they thought they might be able to get a piece of Austria-Hungary? And similarly when Germany jumps in seeing they can now shift the balance back towards Austria-Hungary, and so on.

And then this just kept iterating until suddenly everybody's fighting everybody, tens of millions are dying, and absolutely nothing was achieved. Then you get the Treaty of Versailles which desperately tried to justify it all by being excruciatingly punitive on Germany, but of course that ultimately did nothing but essentially guarantee WW2 where tens of millions more would die again, and again for basically nothing, with a good chunk of Europe left in rubble.

In the modern war Russia claimed that their motivation for the war was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Their early movements were largely performative or Hail Marys (like the decapitation strike) and within 48 hours they were engaged in negotiations with Ukraine that involved 0 land concessions, but primarily focused on Ukraine not joining NATO. Ukraine chose to fight, at the urging of the West, and so here we are.

Post reply on HN