Live data from Hacker News

How the U.K. broke its own economy

theatlantic.com

551–560 of 784 posts

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

#551
post #542

> In February, the Bank of England reported an ongoing productivity slump so mysterious that its own economists “cannot account fully” for it. The UK has seen unprecedented mass immigration from outside the developed world over the last 25 years. 250,000/yr non-EU migrants in the 2000s, rising to 500,000/yr non-EU migrants by 2022. In 2023, the UK had 1.2M arrivals, comprising 968,000 non-EU nationals. Illegal immigr…

Indeed. GDP per capita has been decreasing for some years (effective recession) but this is hidden because the overall GDP is stagnant to minimally increasing via mass immigration.

Obviously it means that on everage immigrants earn less than average (thus bringing productivity down), which is not that surprising with the number you've quoted.

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

#552
post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If we are heating with electricity and cannot use gas storage to make up for the seasons, chemical batteries are nowhere near price effective, or even physically or projected to be available. You can find out how much energy Europe stores in gas fields to get through the winter. You can divide that number by what you think is a reasonable sCOP for your heat pump. That number you can put next to total battery capacity…

Of course burning that gas to generate electricity for use in heat pumps would get you the same heat for half the gas even before you include any wind power (or hydro etc.)

That then doubles your storage for gas that you may or may not need to burn depending on the weather.

So really the path to fully renewable just goes through a series of win-wins on the journey to fully phase out fossil fuels.

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

#553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coincidentally that's also roughly the birth-rate of the UK 20 years prior (2004: 715,996 [0]), a group of people I assume also arrived on the housing-market by now. The population (and this hasn't started with the current population) has a tendency to shag around and then make noise about the need of housing (and food, and education, and...) [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...

Except that with immigration you add adults and families that need housing as soon as they get into the country. Additionally the birth rate has now been below replacement rate for long enough that population would start to decrease without immigration (and the need for housing would obviously decrease with it). I can't understand this disparaging stance against anyone who brings the issue of immigration up. It is at…

[deleted]

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

#554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the year ending June 2024 the net migration into the UK was 728,000. That is the root cause. The government (and this hasn't started with the current government) has a policy of high immigration then makes noise about the need of doing more to solve the "housing crisis"...

UK's birth rate is 1.44. Someone is going to have to pay for your upkeep in old age. Most political problems of today stem from the fact that politicians are unwilling to explain this basic fact to their none-too-bright constituents. Reality is reality. This is why the fascist-lite Italian PM actually increased immigration from Africa after assuming office and taking one look at the numbers.

Someone is going to have to, but currently as much as immigration is raising the UK population, GDP per person is declining.

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

#555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coincidentally that's also roughly the birth-rate of the UK 20 years prior (2004: 715,996 [0]), a group of people I assume also arrived on the housing-market by now. The population (and this hasn't started with the current population) has a tendency to shag around and then make noise about the need of housing (and food, and education, and...) [0] https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/fre...

Except that with immigration you add adults and families that need housing as soon as they get into the country. Additionally the birth rate has now been below replacement rate for long enough that population would start to decrease without immigration (and the need for housing would obviously decrease with it). I can't understand this disparaging stance against anyone who brings the issue of immigration up. It is at…

[deleted]

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

#556
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UK's birth rate is 1.44. Someone is going to have to pay for your upkeep in old age. Most political problems of today stem from the fact that politicians are unwilling to explain this basic fact to their none-too-bright constituents. Reality is reality. This is why the fascist-lite Italian PM actually increased immigration from Africa after assuming office and taking one look at the numbers.

Lucky then, that immigrants don't age. Otherwise you'd be turning your country into one hell of a demographic Ponzi Scheme...

The are a few more things in the equation. Median age in the UK is ~40 while most immigration is from countries with medians in their 20s. Those families are more likely to have more children especially if they reach a stable and comfortable living situation. So it can be a Ponzi scheme but it can also be an investment.

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

#557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why? This market is pretty much ideal and sets the right incentives. Says whom? > Why should sellers of renewable energy be forced to sell at their marginal cost when they are selling a commodity where somebody else gets triple the price? It doesn't make sense to force them to sell at their marginal cost either (which is much less than their operating cost, consisting mostly of fixed costs). In fact, in real life,…

> Says whom? I do and given the practice is pretty common, it seems like most people would. To be clear, the incentive is: you make more money when you can produce energy cheaper than everybody else. > In the electricity world, this kind of pricing only makes sense for electricity produced from fossil fuel as the marginal cost represents most the underlying cost, but it makes zero sense for renewable or nuclear where…

> I do and given the practice is pretty common, it seems like most people would.

Definitely not “most people”, only the small number of economists and politicians that designed these scheme.

> To be clear, the incentive is: you make more money when you can produce energy cheaper than everybody else.

Which is a bad incentive for an electricity market, because as I said above, “energy” is free basically free for both renewable and nuclear. What ain't free is “installed power”. And what customers need is “available power”. If you design a virtual market around things that have nothing to do with the underlying physical reality of the actual value being produced, it's simply never going to work well.

> Are capital costs not real underlying costs? If I borrow money from a bank I have to return that money plus interest. I would argue that this is a very real cost.

It is a “real cost” indeed, but it cost you the same whether you produce electricity or not, it's a fixed, upfront, cost, not a marginal cost.

> Also, renewables do require maintenance. That is not as expensive as the ongoing cost of burning fossil fuel, but it’s still a cost

Most of maintenance aren't linked to how much electricity you've produced (for solar, for instance, it only depends on time, and cost you the exact same amount whether or not you've produced any electricity), so it's again not a marginal cost but a fixed one.

And let say you restrict yourself to the maintenance that depends on electricity production (for nuclear, refueling maintenance is like that) you'll end up with a marginal cost that is very low compared to your average cost, and if you price at marginal cost then you're going to go bankrupt.

For illustration say operating your 1GW solar plant cost 200 million a year in fixed costs (including maintenance and the cost of capital) and then it costs 0 to produce a MWh as long as the sun is up. If you price it at marginal cost, then you'll never make any money, so the only hope you have is that in a long enough period the market prices will be high due to the marginal cost of fossil fuel plants, in a way that it ends up covering your fixed costs. But, as a plant owner/manager, you have absolutely no control over that, you aren't being incentivized into doing anything.

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

#558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> something the tory party did nothing to address When PM Liz Truss tried, it ended with disaster.

> When PM Liz Truss tried, it ended with disaster. The plan Liz Truss proposed was to scrap the top rate of income tax, i.e. giving a tax break to the rich. And the markets, understanding that it was exactly what the economy needed, reacted accordingly. By crashing.

You have a point, I guess.

I'm wildly interested what's your (and hn community's in general) proposed macro policy mix. When accounted for workforce changes (demography+participation), there was absolutely no economic growth in all developed EU economies (+UK) since the GFC. Zero productivity growth.

That's stark difference compared to US. Did Europe over-auster when US massively increased it's debt? But , as above-mentioned example shows, fiscal expansion can be challenging…

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

#559
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lucky then, that immigrants don't age. Otherwise you'd be turning your country into one hell of a demographic Ponzi Scheme...

The are a few more things in the equation. Median age in the UK is ~40 while most immigration is from countries with medians in their 20s. Those families are more likely to have more children especially if they reach a stable and comfortable living situation. So it can be a Ponzi scheme but it can also be an investment.

It is a Ponzi scheme. The Ponzi scheme is that population has to grow forever, which is not sutainable and not possible, and coming to an end globally.

So high immigration now is just kicking the ball down the road while destroying your local culture and people in the process.

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

#560
post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a lot of irrational online hate for wind power - even going as far as wanting to dismantle offshore farms. I do wonder who is fermenting this - the obvious place to look here is the fossil fuel industry - they have the means, the motive and a track record of flexible morals. A lot of currently very rich and powerful people lose in a world where most countries and even people can generate most of the power they…

The same narrative is being pushed on Germany for instance. I think it’s quite simple. Renewable energy is a route to energy independence for various nations that were previously highly dependent on foreign nations and corporations and there are very powerful fossil fuel interconnected groups / nations that are terrified of that. Russia wants Germany to buy Russian gas. The U.S. wants Europe to buy their gas’s too. T…

Voting behaviors will seem strange if you look at things exclusively through the lens of a young-ish worker when you live in a society that is 35% retirees, 5% wealthy, and 5% living off the state.
Post reply on HN