Live data from Hacker News

How the U.K. broke its own economy

theatlantic.com

181–190 of 784 posts

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're surely joking. The IMF isn't bailing out the UK, and there aren't 3 day week debates because of the failing power supply. What's led to the death of the Conservative party is them doing exactly the opposite what a lot of Conservative voters want: bigger economy, and slower immigration.

The UK economy is already pretty small per-capita compared to other first-world countries. I'm certainly not one to argue for growth, but what is it about UK's conservatism that demands de growth? It strikes me as antithetical to the liberalisation that I would think would form the right flank of the spectrum. From my perspective, even economic concerns are driven by fear of immigration: it's just the same old "immig…

There is a finite amount of housing.

Britons do not, actually, wish to carpet their entire island w/ semidetached housing, so each and every immigrant occupying a flat is one less that a native could be living in.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't have competing companies on rails. Each companies having their own networks would be prohibitively expensive, or they have to share rails between each other which poses significant issues. You're also left with the issue of unprofitable stations, which is a lot of them. If you want an example of what a really privatized, deregulated rail system would look like, read about France in the early 20th century. B…

You can, Japan does it and they are considered best in the world. There are at least 10 different train companies in Tokyo, (probably more like 20 but I don't know all the smaller ones). Similarly in Osaka, Kyoto, etc.... > Rail should be a public service. No, it should be run for profit but the system put in place well designed so serving more customers better means the company does better. Japan accomplishes this A…

All of that is only possible because of network effects, and a nationalized JR built most of that network.

And honestly, I think you’re overstating the degree of choice you have as a rider. Different lines carved out their corners and companies avoid each other. Service level is generally high, to the point that it’s a non factor. You take whichever train is cheaper/faster, and that’s it.

The problem is that rail has huge positive externalities that are not captured by the operators. You can address that by letting operators speculate on real estate, or you could do it with taxes.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#183

Fascinatng that `brexit` isn't mentioned once in that article. Making trading harder with your closest neighbour can't be a great move for the economy.

Yes that’s really funny. Im not sure how you can write an article like this and never even mention it once. Brexit was the most stupid thing a country ever did to itself, and the full effects are just starting to come to the surface now. I dont think the UK will ever fully recover from it.

> Brexit was the most stupid thing a country ever did to itself

America: Hold my beer...

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#184
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the large scale turbines. I'm sure small scale or other designs are OK. But screw the large turbines. Where I grew up they outsourced the jobs and then we were left with ugly giants ruining the once beautiful mountains. It's on par with strip mining (aesthetically).

I like em.

People forget that the natural landscape of Britain is forest. The enclosed fields people think are natural countryside are in fact an entirely human creation.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#185
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then what happened to those nationalised industries? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O7PVEaPh6Fw&pp=ygUUYWRhbSBzbWl...

(Link from the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal thinktank)

The story of British Leyland is enough to scare anyone w/ even half a brain away from ever allowing British politicians to have even the least bit of influence over a company that competes anywhere near the consumer space.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hate the large scale turbines. I'm sure small scale or other designs are OK. But screw the large turbines. Where I grew up they outsourced the jobs and then we were left with ugly giants ruining the once beautiful mountains. It's on par with strip mining (aesthetically).

Aren't these also massive mass bird slayers ? The last I read, over half a million birds were killed (official under-estimate) by wind turbines in UK alone every year

I doubt that wind turbines are the only power source that kills birds. Marginal bird deaths per unit of power production is the interesting statistic. This MIT post [1] links to a 2009 study [2] which provides that comparison:

  Wind/nuclear: 0.3-0.4 birds/GWh
  Fossil: 5.2 birds/GWh
So if you’re pro bird you’re pro wind power.

[1]: https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds

[2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09601...

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#187
post #123
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were those prior mistakes?

[flagged]

The irony about being anti-immigration is that immigration fuels economic growth.

- Most developed countries have below-replacement child rates from citizens

- Without larger younger, working age generations, social safety nets and productivity investments are difficult to finance

- Immigration is the only thing fueling that population growth

The real argument should be about rates of cultural assimilation or acculturation, wealth disparities and concentration of poverty, and structural limits to economic prosperity.

Fighting immigration is just shooting oneself in their demographic foot. (See Japan and Russia)

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#188
post #5

Aren't higher energy prices exactly what we need to combat climate change though?

In the UK the energy market is broken, the costs of electricity is based on what the most expensive source is currently on the grid. The UK has a lot of wind (shallow waters, strong wind blasts from Atlantic etc) and wind is significantly cheaper, but because there's gas still on the grid everyone pays the higher gas based price even if energy is mostly coming from cheaper wind. Yes, the renewable cleaner energy is a…

That is a very common and overly simplistic view of the UK's energy market. What you have described is essentially the UK's day-ahead and spot energy markets. The whole point of those markets is to ensure demand is met with near 100% certainty. Setting the price to the last bidder is not unique to the UK for energy pricing, if it were not present then everyone would be speculating what the threshold would be and giving high bids and it would make the market unstable. There are other markets in the UK that behave very differently (such as the ones that green energy companies use to buy 100% renewable energy 6 months ahead of time).

In practice UK electricity prices _are_ much cheaper from wind and solar energy, most of the time, because virtually all of that capacity in the UK was built under what is known as a CFD (contracts for difference) basis. The exact mechanism is a bit subtle [1], but in essence renewables built that way have a fixed price per unit of energy (usually for 20 years after construction). This price is less than what the gas energy producers typically bid in the UK.

The reasons why electricity prices are still on average very high in the UK is because the rest of the energy market is _so_ exposed to gas prices and renewables can't produce electricity a lot of the time (because it's not always windy, and it's not always light outside). Renewable production is highly correlated with itself and not necessarily aligned with demand.

The UK also has other structural problems in the electricity system that have arisen from its exposure to renewables that come with associated costs. For example wind turbines in Scotland often get paid to _turn off_ because their power can't be transmitted to the south of England where it can be used - there are similar constraints with North sea production. Wind turbines and solar panels replacing traditional coal power stations means that the electricity grid has lost a lot of its traditional load balancing and stability mechanisms (conventional power plants provide a lot of stability because large rotational mass synchronised to the grid frequency provides inertia in the entire grid - wind turbine rotation is independent of the grid frequency). ESO now has to have more drastic and expensive mechanisms like demand reduction and rapid response hot reserves in-place. A lot of these issues are transient and will get cheaper over time, but they've become acute in the short-term with the UK's rapid grid decarbonisation.

[1] they get paid directly from the day-ahead, spot, and other markets at the last bidder price. But they either have to refund any amount over their fixed price, or they receive a top-up from the energy companies so that they effectively got the fixed price.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#189
post #187
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The irony about being anti-immigration is that immigration fuels economic growth. - Most developed countries have below-replacement child rates from citizens - Without larger younger, working age generations, social safety nets and productivity investments are difficult to finance - Immigration is the only thing fueling that population growth The real argument should be about rates of cultural assimilation or accultu…

In capitalism, almost everything generates economic growth if you ignore the externalities.

Re: How the U.K. broke its own economy

#190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only idiots think immigration is uncontrolled. Practically all immigration is from government granted visas.

My cousin migrated to UK to work as a nurse because it turns out UK’s hospitals are fucked up. Or, lacking manpower.

yeah, because despite the UK training a huge number of doctors and nurses, the government doesn't want to pay them enough to stop them emigrating the the US or Australia, which have a lot of demand and much higher wages. So then they try to import health workers from elsewhere. Great plan.
Post reply on HN