How the U.K. broke its own economy • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by seabass-labrax » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 5:47 AM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #96

PaulRobinson wrote: post #64

The core argument - that the state is getting in the way of the private sector fixing everything - is clearly false, at least in the case of the UK. If that were the case, public transport (which underwent radical privatisation and deregulation across the UK some 40+ years ago), would be the cheapest and most effective in Europe. In fact, it's the most expensive in Europe. It is all currently being wrestled back into…

> public transport ... would be the cheapest and most effective in Europe. While that is generally the argument, I wouldn't expect it to hold when governments remove subsidies as is often the case with regulated transport systems. The argument is actually one of efficiency. I had a great argument with someone one time on the classic subject of deregulating roads. The interlocutor made a point that I initially struggl…

I enjoyed reading your comment but didn't wholly agree with this bit:

> If subsidies were good without drawbacks, we'd subsidise everything.

Many voters are sensitive to what they perceive as wasteful use of public funds, so your claim only makes sense in a sort of idealized, platonic dictatorship. Admittedly, governments do waste funds occasionally so the concerns are not necessarily baseless. However I can easily see a government choosing not to subsidize a 'perfect' project simply because they want to appear frugal to voters - after all, that is a significant reason why the UK has had so many austerity policies that have slowed public investment.

> And land is a famous special case; there should be a land tax to weed out people trying to make money from owning undeveloped land.

Henry George, is that you? I can certainly get behind that argument!

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

#302

Post by kergonath » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 5:56 AM UTC

Sabinus wrote: post #108

monkeycantype wrote: post #97

I want to see more discussion from the perspective that the economy and government is not just a process, an institution, but a contest, an arena. Outcomes which are presented as a failure, are not merely a failure, but like a punch in a boxing match that misses its mark, occurs in a wider context, and against deliberate opposition. A failed project might be a failure for most, but for opponents it may be a victory,…

Are you referring to the libertarians who like to see government fail so they have a reason to dismantle it?

These libertarians are mostly an American phenomenon. In Europe it’s “small-government” conservatives who do this. (They are not really about small government, though, and they never reduce deficits; they are just for upwards wealth redistribution).

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

#303

Post by throwaway2037 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 5:57 AM UTC

cupcakecommons wrote: post #213

bryanlarsen wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cheapest source is accurate. It may not eliminate the need for expensive LPG, but reducing the amount needed is still a massive benefit to the economy.

[flagged]

    > low capacity factor power

I never heard this term before so I Googled it. Gemini (Google AI) defined it as:

    > "Low capacity factor power" refers to a power source that generates electricity at a significantly lower average output compared to its maximum potential, meaning it doesn't operate at full capacity for a large portion of the time, typically due to factors like weather dependence or intermittent availability; examples include solar and wind power, which experience fluctuations based on sunlight and wind speed respectively, resulting in a lower capacity factor compared to more consistent sources like nuclear power.

Ok, sure, makes sense, but what are the alternatives to wind and solar for carbon neutral power sources? (Yes, we all know that nuclear power can do it, but almost no highly developed countries are interested in making large nuclear power investments at this point.) Our power supply structure will need to fundamentally change over the next 30 years. Probably, home- and utility-scale batteries will play a much bigger role.

Another point: Isn't the purpose of building wind turbines on the open ocean to capture more regular winds (compared to land-based wind turbines)? Wouldn't that improve capacity factor power?

About "soul-crushingly ugly": I never once saw a chemical refinery, nor a large-scale, modern hospital, that was anything other than "soul-crushingly ugly", but we need them in a modern society. So we try to carefully plan where/when/how they are built.

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

#304

Post by marcosdumay » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:00 AM UTC

viraptor wrote: post #251

cupcakecommons wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You distribute pv and wind over large areas and they get destroyed by weather, get dirty, require significant maintenance. If individuals want to have wind turbines or pv installations that's great - but these things are a giant mess at grid scale - absolutely awful.

> they get destroyed by weather We get anything from storms to hail few times a year here. My patio roof got holes in it from the ice balls, but the panels are fine. Are you missing some qualifiers on that one? > get dirty You clean them every few months or monitor for issues per group of panels. > require significant maintenance Just like every other device out in the real world. Coal, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, the…

What I think the GP is blowing completely out of proportion is:

> they get destroyed by weather

A few of them, every year. It makes a visible dent on their average longevity.

But I don't think distributing them has any impact on this. They just create a risk situation that nobody seems to be insuring and that large farms will self insure without problems. (Anyway, with the price going down the way it is, that will soon become irrelevant.)

> get dirty

Each person stopping to clean their own panels is much less efficient than professional cleaning centralized panels. It does increase your electricity costs.

> require significant maintenance

Home maintenance is an entire other level of inefficiency. That extends to any kind of equipment in your home.

But again, none of those is a big deal. Solar is mostly operation-free, so distribution mostly doesn't matter.

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

#305

Post by alvah » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:06 AM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #174

alvah wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The cheapest source of energy" trope again. Intermittent energy (electricity) != on demand electricity.

Cheapest source is accurate. It may not eliminate the need for expensive LPG, but reducing the amount needed is still a massive benefit to the economy.

It's misleading, and those who use it generally know it's misleading. It's used to persuade the layperson that electricity generated by wind turbines is cheaper to the consumer or industry than electricity generated by thermal sources or hydro turbines, when in fact that is only true if you disregard the requirement for said electricity to be available on demand - a fairly important omission.

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

#306

Post by throwaway2037 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:09 AM UTC

lurk2 wrote: post #203

xyzzy123 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP but look at the difference between what governments can do when there is a sense of urgency (i.e it is wartime or one is in recent memory) vs what they do when it's not. My lizard brain interprets this in the following way: Elites in response to external competition or in the presence of existential threat experience strong incentives to make "real" progress. When there's little external competition, leade…

> Not the OP but look at the difference between what governments can do when there is a sense of urgency (i.e it is wartime or one is in recent memory) vs what they do when it's not. Every example I can think of involved rushing through legislation and policy changes that were not looked upon kindly given a moment of retrospection. The New Deal, Japanese internment camps, the PATRIOT Act, Zero COVID policies, etc. Th…

    > Every example I can think of involved rushing through legislation and policy changes that were not looked upon kindly given a moment of retrospection.

The New Deal?

    > rushing

Really? This was rushed?

Wiki says:

    > During Roosevelt's first hundred days in office in 1933 until 1935, he introduced what historians refer to as the "First New Deal", which focused on the "3 R's": relief for the unemployed and for the poor, recovery of the economy back to normal levels, and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression.

Further:

    > From 1935 to 1938, the "Second New Deal" introduced further legislation and additional agencies which focused on job creation and on improving the conditions of the elderly, workers, and the poor.

Next you wrote:

    > not looked upon kindly given a moment of retrospection

Really? Read the intro from Wiki about this programme. Its impact was staggering then, and remains today.

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

#307

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:12 AM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #303

cupcakecommons wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> low capacity factor power I never heard this term before so I Googled it. Gemini (Google AI) defined it as: > "Low capacity factor power" refers to a power source that generates electricity at a significantly lower average output compared to its maximum potential, meaning it doesn't operate at full capacity for a large portion of the time, typically due to factors like weather dependence or intermittent availabilit…

[deleted]

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

#308

Post by throwaway2037 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:13 AM UTC

gottorf wrote: post #208

olddustytrail wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Only idiots think immigration is uncontrolled. Practically all immigration is from government granted visas. "Uncontrolled" in this context doesn't mean people hopping the border unbeknownst to the authorities. It means immigration at a rate high enough that it's beyond the capacity of the host nation to integrate the newcomers to its culture. A village of a thousand people can accept one additional person per year…

    > It means immigration at a rate high enough that it's beyond the capacity of the host nation to integrate the newcomers to its culture.

This resistance falls away quickly when food price inflation spirals out of control because you cannot find cheap labour for your harvests. (In 2025, there are zero highly developed nations, (yes, including Japan!) that do not heavily depend upon seasonal migrant labour to help with harvests.) Same when sick and elderly people have unreasonably long wait times at clinic or hospital due to doctor/nurse shortage.

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

#309

Post by throwaway2037 » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:19 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #94

mistrial9 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you are an employee and that is direct compensation (not deferred capital gains) then your taxes are lower than California

Is this including the use of tax advantaged accounts like HSAs/401Ks/IRAs/etc? In the US, it should be possible to get a 95th percentile household income ($300k, married filing joint) effective federal income tax rate down to 10% to 15%. Including total health insurance costs (employer + employee) plus some amount of deductible/out of pocket maximum for a family of 4 would bump it up to 20% to 25%. And then on top of…

    > In the US, it should be possible to get a 95th percentile household income ($300k, married filing joint) effective federal income tax rate down to 10% to 15%.

I cannot believe it. Do you have a worked example?

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

#310

Post by drawfloat » Tue, Mar 04, 2025, 6:22 AM UTC

nikkwong wrote: post #116

kmeisthax wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brexit is a symptom, not the cause. The people who were most screwed by Britain's prior mistakes voted for it in a vain attempt at fixing the problem by throwing misguided nostalgia at it.

The British economy was doing quite well before Brexit. Now it's absolutely crippled.

We’d had a decade of zero growth and 30 years of industrial decline in the North. The country was not doing well, that’s the primary reason it was inevitable putting a big button marked “do not press, posh boy David Cameron says he doesn’t want you to but has no other solutions. Ignore the people saying it will fix the country” would result in the button being pressed.

The economy was doing well for some parts of the country, but you can only ignore the rest for so long.