3 ms·

Good point. For example, I find it really strange that lots of money is spent on improving infrastructure in London rather than building new subways etc. in oth

Good point. For example, I find it really strange that lots of money is spent on improving infrastructure in London rather than building new subways etc. in other cities in the UK: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-... I wonder, is it the same in the US (and other countries)? Lots of money being spent in cities that are already large, rather than building new roads, tramways and subways in smaller cities?

DanBC 11y ago
The England situation is a bit odd because London is such a distortion. We've entered into a weird feedback loop - London generates so much money that companies and government locates there, so a bunch of infrastructure is built and maintained there, which makes it more attractive for businesses to locate there. Upgrading London transport has "trickle down"[1] benefits outside London. Some of the older London trains are sold off cheap to be used outside London, where they're newer that current stock. I'd love to see better transport links between Bristol, Swindon, Birmingham, Manchester, and London. And some tax incentives to make it easier for companies to locate outside London. And for more government departments to locate away from London. And I'd freaking love it if Houses of Parliament relocated and turned current Westminster into a museum. But I don't think any of that is going to happen. [1] I'm aware the term is tainted.
- RangerScience 11y ago
  The term might be tainted, but the taint may be reasonably spread - consider why trickle-down economics doesn't work (while trickle-up economics does) and consider whether those reasons would apply to this situation. I think they would, actually, so it's good you pointed out the similarity.

DanBC 11y ago

The England situation is a bit odd because London is such a distortion. We've entered into a weird feedback loop - London generates so much money that companies and government locates there, so a bunch of infrastructure is built and maintained there, which makes it more attractive for businesses to locate there. Upgrading London transport has "trickle down"[1] benefits outside London. Some of the older London trains are sold off cheap to be used outside London, where they're newer that current stock. I'd love to see better transport links between Bristol, Swindon, Birmingham, Manchester, and London. And some tax incentives to make it easier for companies to locate outside London. And for more government departments to locate away from London. And I'd freaking love it if Houses of Parliament relocated and turned current Westminster into a museum. But I don't think any of that is going to happen. [1] I'm aware the term is tainted.

RangerScience 11y ago
The term might be tainted, but the taint may be reasonably spread - consider why trickle-down economics doesn't work (while trickle-up economics does) and consider whether those reasons would apply to this situation. I think they would, actually, so it's good you pointed out the similarity.