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

How the U.K. broke its own economy

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 784 posts

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

#311

Post by throwaway2037 »

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…

    > In fact, it's the most expensive in Europe.
I just Googled and Gemini tells me:

    > According to most reports, public transport is most expensive in Switzerland across Europe, with cities like Zurich considered to have the highest individual ticket prices; the Netherlands also ranks very high in terms of expensive public transport costs.
Also, Norway is super expensive to ride the train.

So, yeah, I doubt that anyone can confidently say that UK public transport is the "most expensive in Europe".

The greater farce to me is "privatising" Thames Water. That will go down in history as one of the dumbest moves in UK economic history. It will soon be re-nationalised. So all the gains were privatised, but the losses were socialised. What a tragedy of weak governance.

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

#312

Post by throwaway2037 »

amrocha wrote: post #182
greggman25 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When JR was nationalised, the Japanese central gov't very carefully controlled where private lines could be built. This partly explains why no private lines ran inside of Yamanote line in Tokyo.

Also, the OP specifically mentioned Tokyo, Osaka, and Kyoto. These three cities are special because they have exceptionally high ratio of private train lines. (Yokohama should also be included.) Each of these train lines needed to apply with the Japanese central gov't to have their routes approved. If the competition to the JR national line was deemed too high, the proposal was denied.

Another thing that is frequently overlooked by outsiders who try to explain "rail success" in Japan: For more than 50 years, there was/is a tax deduction where employers buy a monthly rail/bus pass for employees. This was/is not restricted to JR national lines only -- private lines also qualify. As a result, this programme generates huge demand for rail service in Japan. I assume that Switzerland must have something very similar, as the outcome is incredibly similar (rail crazy by any measurement).

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

#313

Post by Nasrudith »

giantg2 wrote: post #152
alabastervlog wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're one of the only pieces of technology that I think often (not always) improve the appearance of a landscape. Maybe also lighthouses. Sometimes.

Lighthouses have only become aesthetic because of their rarity rendering them as quaint or nostalgic. Modern versions and their impacts would be largely protested.

I suspect the real reason behind objections to technology being visible is basically "It makes me feel old by highlighting that I came from a time before X and now everyone will just become accustomed to X!".

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

#314

Post by monkeycantype »

gosub100 wrote: post #130
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,…

Exactly. I think there's an entire political party that capitalizes on suffering, offering to jump in and rescue the poor victims. Like racketeering: create the problem and sell you the solution "if you just vote for us, we'll fix the devastating problems caused by $BADGUYS". but an absence of problems means you lose your voter base.

An interesting thing about this comment is I have no idea which side of politics you are criticising.

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

#315

Post by alwa »

yunesj wrote: post #242
xyzzy123 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens everywhere in enterprise and government because policies and processes are designed to avoid mistakes or embarassment at any cost (because those risks are internalised by the bureacracy and therefore "real") but do not account for the cost of not being able to get anything done, because those are externalised and everyone involved in the various committees and review processes gets paid regardless. I wis…

> I wish there were better ways to align incentives here. I have a crazy idea that might work to hold organizations accountable if they never get anything done.

Oo! Oo! Is it a free and fair public election?

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

#316

Post by phil21 »

notTooFarGone wrote: post #293
Manuel_D wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries aren't produced at remotely enough scale to be viable for grid storage. To put this in perspective, the world uses 60 TWh of electricity per day. By comparison global lithium ion battery production was 1.1 TWh [1]. Remember, production capacity is distinct from the actual production figures. It's typical for actual production figures to be ~50% of production capacity. Intermittent sources don't just experie…

Nobody, really nobody asks for the whole world consumption to be stored in batteries. This is such a bullshit argument it really paints the rest of your comment in a bad light. You can get so far by just storing up to 12 hours OF NIGHT TIME on a local level. Who cares about the 5% of times where we have to burn natural gas to stabilise the grid. 95% renewable is orders of magnitude better than today. Anyone saying di…

Because fuel costs only matter so much. You will still need exactly the same number of natural gas (or similar) plants with 12 hours of battery vs. 1 hour to cover seasonal events in most places on the planet. Until your battery backup can supply a week or more worth of power you have simply created an inevitable disaster in the making.

No one is building a natural gas plant to staff it and let it sit idle for 95% of the time. The natural gas burned is only a fraction of its input costs.

Battery storage is headed in the right direction but the fact almost all articles on the subject can’t even get the units correct as it would betray how ridiculously small the deployments actually are is quite telling in itself.

The grifting are those pretending magic natural gas backing plants are going to pop up out of nowhere and not including that capital or maintenance expense when quoting intermittent power source costs.

Right now those sources have been able to cherry pick the cheap and easy problems to solve since they’ve been using someone else’s power when they can’t meet demand. Eventually you run out of it though.

Cheap intermittent sources have their place, and should be used maximally wherever possible. For example every watt of hydro production should have a watt of solar or wind built on top of it. Store the water for when the intermittent sources can’t keep up with demand.

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

#317

Post by Sabinus »

robertlagrant wrote: post #34
rawgabbit wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sound bites drives political discussion. When a polluting industry poisons the air and the water and people go to the hospital because they are coughing or they have dysentery, who will pay to cleanup the mess? If you frame the discussion as about “price” it is a non-starter. I would argue it is better to talk about workers and their families. As in let us not shit in the river so our children don’t get sick and can…

This seems disingenuous twice: 1. You're welcome to argue that, but you haven't here. You've just stated it. 2. You shouldn't supplant one topic with another. High energy prices kill people, because energy drives the cost of everything, and people can direct less value into things that keep them healthy if they're spending a greater proportion of their income on survival. You can say "also air should be clean", fine,…

>High energy prices kill people

Indeed, and so does air pollution. Having (accurate) prices on both allows the market to reduce pollution and energy costs efficiently.

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

#318

Post by Nasrudith »

necubi wrote: post #56
reverendsteveii wrote: post #4

Everyone who bought into neoliberalism in the 80s is now experiencing economies that are mysteriously failing to thrive. Correlation isn't cause, except when it is.

The article is about how bad land and energy policies (essentially central planning)—dating from the post-war period—are holding back the British economy. Is that neoliberalism?

Neoliberalism is basically the economic equivalent of "allelopathic medicine" - it is a word used mostly by kooks who are out of the mainstream for damned good reasons.

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

#320

Post by matteotom »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #309
lotsofpulp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

$300k income, MFJ, $46k 401k contribution, $8k HSA contribution

After standard deduction ($29k), AGI is about $217k. That's the 24% bracket (barely), which adds up to $34,337 + 0.24*$16000 ~= $38,200 federal income tax

$38,200/$300k = 12.7%

You can get even lower with itemized deductions: mortgage interest (might be over $40k) plus SALT ($10k) plus a few donations ($5k) => AGI of $191k => federal tax rate of under 11%

Of course, this is just federal income tax. Most people also pay FICA (medicare+social security) and state and local tax.

Post reply on HN