9 ms·

The UK can go back to being the richest country in the world

42 points by jseliger 2y ago

throwukqw 2y ago
[flagged]
petermcneeley 2y ago
Betteridge's law of headlines honorary mention. Edit: I consider this being flagged as grossly unjust as the original headline has a Can ... ? The fact of the matter is that it is absurd to think that the England (UK) can be anything be a diminishing nation.
- strken 2y ago
  Diminishing in an absolute sense, a per-capita sense, or in terms of its share of the pie? The first and second seem quite debatable.
sublinear 2y ago
> Can the UK go back to being the richest country in the world? The original title is a question, not a statement.
- raverbashing 2y ago
  I believe this is the HN title declickbaiter, which made it worse this time
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  [dead]
rapidaneurism 2y ago
And yet the northern muppets went and voted a Torrie government back in 2019 that took the UK out of the EU, causing a significant damage to the economy in the form of lost GDP. Something about bicycle front wheels and sticks, under the sound of tiny violins.
- ultimatewhip 2y ago
  I think that is a bit unfair. Plenty of people living in cities in the north voted for Labour rather than the Conservatives. In 2019 constintuencies in Bradford and Leeds which were mentioned in the article voted Labour. The same problem exists in the USA where in a red state a county representing a large city votes Democrat but the rural areas or surburban enclaves vote Republican. Take Texas in 2020, Austin, Houston and San Antonio voted for blue rather than red.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    In the most recent general election the Labour Party had a landslide victory with only 1/3 of the popular vote. The first past the post system allots significantly more power than the vote actually mandates. People like to joke that democracy is a tyranny of the majority, but the FPP system is more like a tyranny of the largest minority.
  - thebruce87m 2y ago
    Note that Bradford and Leeds are not in the north of the UK. English people will refer to the north of England as “the north” even when talking in the context of the UK.
    - ultimatewhip 2y ago
      I mean they are considered to be in Northern England, unless you don't consider Yorkshire and the Humber area not to be northern. The area borders North West England and is more northern at its southern most point than North West England's southern most point.
      - thebruce87m 2y ago
        The article is about the UK and so is the comment chain. These places might be in the north of England, but at no point was the context switched to England, except implicitly by the commenter which is why I added the note. English people will implicitly change the context, and other English people will follow but this can be confusing for other readers since they might assume the north of the UK (Scotland) when they are really talking about the middle of the UK (north of England).
dboreham 2y ago
The UK is "MBAs eating the world" on steroids, except they're History graduates who went to Eton. Not interested in actually creating anything or making anything. Money can be magically made by...shuffling money around. North Sea oil revenues provided a generation-long cover for this but now that's done. Disclosure: former UK "subject". Oh, and I forgot: allowed their country to become the "host" for Rupert Murdoch while he developed his Jedi Mind Tricks for getting folk to vote against their own interests.
- mmarian 2y ago
  > The UK is "MBAs eating the world" on steroids, except they're History graduates who went to Eton Aren't political leaders from most democracies from an elite background? > Money can be magically made by...shuffling money around I assume you're referring to UK's financial sector. What's wrong with it being one of the leading drivers of the economy? It's not as if manufacturing pays well in a high cost-of-living country.
- Balgair 2y ago
  > ... except they're History graduates who went to Eton For the non-British readers here, Eton is a boarding school [0] west of London. It's where nearly all the elite members of British politics and society attend from ages 13 to 18. Like, all the royalty go there. And Harry Potter is like just cribbing from what these boarding schools do. When you hear some British actor in a movie or something say '... Old Boy, ...', they are referring being very wealthy and graduating from one of these boarding schools. Somewhat unsurprisingly, they are nearly all child abuse nightmare zones, Eton especially. Like, there's a wiki page dedicated to the controversies there [1]. I got into looking into Eton when I was researching the history of the various football codes. Eton was the birthplace of two of the nascent footballs: The Field game [2] and the Wall game [3]. I'll skip the history lesson here and the rules briefing. The thing that stood out to me about the Wall game was the ceremony around it. Specifically, that it's played on St Andrew's Day (November 30th) by the Collegers (rich boys) and the rest of the school (slightly less rich boys). Now, the Collegers have this tradition (500+ years old) where they all get roaring drunk the night before and are trying to play this wall game really hungover, which makes it all a bit more 'fair'. They traditionally get so drunk that the little headmater-y person in charge just up and leaves for the night. So, you have 13-18 year olds, all drunk as hell, all alone, all night long, and they all kinda hate each other. Like, come on dude. That little bit alone is just astounding to my non-British eyes and condemn the whole enterprise. But then you read a bit more about the place and it's just ghastly. Then these tortured and abused kids go on to repeat the cycle onto each other, for like hundreds of years, because tradition. Oh, and then they all go on to run Britain. So, next time you see some mention of Eton, just imagine Hogwarts but with just brontosaurs levels of abuse and abusers. Britain is mental my dudes. [0] The Limeys call them 'public schools', because something something Anglican (?) church something [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College_controversies [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_field_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_field_game [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_wall_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_wall_game
dmillar 2y ago
The UK still has a heavily embedded caste or caste-like social circumstance. Pharma and finance have somewhat eschewed this tradition, but even those industries still have its embedded lords and ladies. Many of their smartest head to the US (or elsewhere), and Brexit has set them back decades from achieving the "richest country" status. A software engineer can double their earnings by moving to the US (if they can manage to). The owners of capital are generally not creators, and until that changes nor will their economic station.
- intellix 2y ago
  or move into Europe where the weather is great and life is happier (from someone who did). It's miserable in the UK and everyone agrees, though not everyone has the situation or balls to make the leap...
  - zwnow 2y ago
    What makes you think we are generally happier? Europe is experiencing a right wing shift due to people being unhappy. The coming years won't be good for any of us to be honest.
    - throwup238 2y ago
      The UK experienced that same right wing shift 14 years ago and is now dealing with the fallout. Europe is still in its honeymoon phase with the latest batch of right wing demagogues.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > UK experienced that same right wing shift 14 years ago Not sure these are comparable. Britain’s shift was led by its elites. Europe’s is closer to a dumping of its elites. Taken to their logical ends, the Britain after its threatened political revolutions will still look recognisable. France post RN or Germany AfD would be completely remade.
paulpauper 2y ago
Wealth is hard to define. Monaco is wealthy but small for example. India is big but low median wealth
- malux85 2y ago
  SUM($) ?
- ggm 2y ago
  Monégasque are definitionally wealthy but also exclusive. You can't just become one at a drop of a hat. Nor Maltese for that matter or Gibralter or Jersey. Living in these places demands being HNW and not Monégasque, or Monégasque and content to enjoy the largesse. You probably work in the service or finance sector, or in specialist engineering industries like design or jewellry. Except I believe you can't break the bank, its forbidden to locals. You can't be "the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo" after all. If you can drive a pile driver or construct sea walls Maybe you could be french, and drive in? I suspect they have a tax treaty with France to limit these opportunities, but they do need construction workers to increase the size of the state: reclaimed land from the sea is their principle mechanism of peacefully gaining lebensraum.
majormajor 2y ago
> The interview was in London, the central city of three English regions (London, South East, and East) that have a total population of 20 million people that together hold Europe’s most populous urban area. The economy of this “Greater South East” of England is already stronger than any sizeable country in the EU and nearly as strong as the USA. > So why doesn’t the Greater South East feel richer than the Netherlands, Denmark, or Austria? And why don’t the people Matt speaks to there feel that they’re already living in a place as economically successful as the USA? I mean, for starters, isn't the fact that the strongest region is lower still than the full aggregate of those other countries a really bad sign? Their chart is 2019 GDP per capita in 2015 dollars, compare with 2019 California-alone GDP per capita in 2012 dollars: https://www.statista.com/statistics/304615/california-gdp-per-capita/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/304615/california-gdp-pe... which is still a pretty damn large and heterogenous region (roughly twice the size of the part of England they selected). 70k 2012 dollars for 2019 California, what looks like ~57k 2015 dollars for that region of 2019 England. Possibly the PPP adjustment brings that closer, but it's not exactly a cheap region. They then talk about the worse-off parts of England... and a lot about infrastructure specifically (trains especially), but of course the train infrastructure in California is pretty awful! And train infrastructure in some of the countries lower on that list than the UK is better than California's... So what else is going on? This doesn't seem like the right lens to look through to try to right that ship at all.
webwielder2 2y ago
Just as soon as “Step 2: ???” is worked out.
Abouteo 2y ago
Richest in the World? Only if "World" is interpreted in the reduced sense as "Europe".
- hcfman 2y ago
  I think he means culturally richest :) Or maybe spiritually the richest, through all the positive thinking.
testemailfordg2 2y ago
Well the colonial mindset is still there, to reap benefits from the north (oil) as much as possible rather than making it self sufficient and stand up to London, Oxford and Cambridge triangle.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  Yes, the UK is an empire, a much smaller one though. Scottish people haven't understood it the same way Indians did.
  - mr_toad 2y ago
    In terms of territory it is certainly smaller. But you might be surprised how much of the world’s assets are ultimately controlled from London. London reminds me of Constantinople, in that as a capital of a former empire it amassed and concentrated great wealth even as its empire shrank. It’s just that Constantinople’s wealth was more tangible.
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      "ultimately controlled from London" I found the book "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World" interesting which has a large junk on this topic. The tax havens don't have data centers or any infrastructure, the banks of tax havens of the former English Empire have their money with banks in London.
i2km 2y ago
Simple answer: no. The economy of SE England is largely comprised of: 1. Shuffling money around 2. Socialist-level ponzi government spending 3. A combination of property flipping and high-end property overseas sales used for tax evasion Innovation-wise, always looking for the easy wins without the hard work, unlike the US. As a Brit and former resident, happy to have emigrated and escaped the >50% (soon to be increased) tax rates.
- tebbers 2y ago
  Can I ask where you moved to?
- ggm 2y ago
  > As a Brit and former resident, happy to have emigrated and escaped the >50% (soon to be increased) tax rates. Hah. So you don't believe in the Scandi high-tax economy, or the Dutch one? Resentment of taxation is a perquisite of the rich, overwhelmingly. In fact, most people who are not rich pay reasonable rates of taxation except they pay far more percentage of their income as VAT/consumption taxes, which is of course nothing like 50% "nineteen for you and one for me" was George Harrison whining about super tax in the 60s. This isn't new.
  - maest 2y ago
    > they pay far more percentage of their income as VAT/consumption taxes, which is of course nothing like 50% I don't think that's true, unless you assume rich people either a. spend a lower percentage of their income (in which case, what's the point in having money) or b. they avoid VAT when they do spend.
    - Arn_Thor 2y ago
      > rich people either a. spend a lower percentage of their income (in which case, what's the point in having money) The point in having money is indeed NOT to spend it. It is to build a hoard so large you can live comfortably off the dividends and investment returns, or even to save most of that again and grow your hoard even faster, creating "fuck you" levels of money and intergenerational wealth. When people say "tax the rich" they don't mean "deprive the neurosurgeon or City banker off his biannual new Mercedes". (These people DO indeed spend a smaller share of their income than poorer folks but that's not the point) When people say "tax the rich" they mean "tax capital returns" so that the country can benefit from the wealth currently amassed and extracted by the hyper wealthy that couldn't spend all their annual portfolio gains if they bought ought all of Paris Fashion Week every year.
Animats 2y ago
The coal pits of the Midlands are gone, but the descendants of the miners are still poor.
dasil003 2y ago
How much of London's wealth comes from infrastructure versus financial engineering leveraging The City's unique rules and sovereignty arrangements?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
j7ake 2y ago
“I think the UK can go back to being pretty much the richest country in the world per capita, at least as rich as the USA” said Matthew Clifford This sounds very arrogant and wishful thinking considering the trajectory of UK in the last 20 years. At the global stage, UK is as irrelevant as countries like Canada and Australia, but at least Canadians and Australians don’t openly claim they can be the richest country in the world.
- twelvechairs 2y ago
  Canada and Australia are rich by natural resources per capita. UK is rich by the history of the 19th and 18th centuries. I know which I'd bet on lasting. Uk used to be top of the list for countries millionaires move to. It's rapidly fallen down that list over the last 10-20 years below those others mentioned now it's an exporter of wealthy individuals. That's big capital flight happening today
- hollerith 2y ago
  Neither Canada nor Australia used to be the wealthiest country.
  - j7ake 2y ago
    Does Netherlands or Spain claim to want to be wealthiest again? Many countries used to be wealthiest, and are no longer. uk is the one of the few arrogant ones that keeps thinking they will make a come back.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      We shouldn't conclude that UK is X or Y based on the writings of one person.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > UK is as irrelevant as countries like Canada and Australia The UK is the world’s 6th largest economy [1]. It clocks in next to India, the 5th. It is twice as large as Russia, the sick man of Europe and neighbourhood pest, and one of the other nine nuclear powers of the world [2]. The decline you cite is also the opportunity; if Britain could get its shit together, it could reasonably grow an entire Saudi Arabia (1%) or even Canada or Russia (2%) in a generation. (If it really clicked and maintained 3% growth for a generation, it would add to itself the entire economy of India.) Never underestimate the advantage of starting ahead. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_...
csomar 2y ago
The OP starts with a very wrong comparison; essentially comparing the London area with the American average. A proper comparison will be to compare it against the Washington or NYC metropolitan area. The numbers will be different. Then the article presents no arguments on how the UK can achieve such a feat other than having a bit better public transport. Public transport does certainly help and it’ll increase GDP; but I highly doubt it’s the determinant in creating the richest country per capita in the world. As for “can”, any country theoretically can become super-rich. Singapore did. Whether it will or not is another matter. The UK had particular circumstances in the 1700-1900. It does not have the same circumstances today. Lots of countries are also racing toward this goal. The UK is certainly better positioned than most countries in the world but not the best positioned out there.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Public transport does certainly help and it’ll increase GDP; but I highly doubt it’s the determinant in creating the richest country per capita in the world The UK is geographically blessed. That hasn’t been an advantage recently, because the EU seemed to be working, but Alexander Hamilton’s arguments against loose political unions seem prescient as ever amidst Europe’s present rightwing lurch [1]. If Britain can get its infrastructure in line and press its inherent energy-cost advantage relative to Europe, it could reasonably supplant Asia based on proximity, capital market depth and “friendshoring” advantage in many high-value supply chain elements. The problem is Britain has American-style public services and European bureaucracy; that prevents it from being the Singapore it reasonably aspires to be. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._7 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._7
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    The image thrown around in UK media about Singapore has nothing to do with Singapore
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > image thrown around in UK media about Singapore has nothing to do with Singapore Because the U.K.’s role wouldn’t be identical to Singapore. The analogy is fine. Singapore exists between China, Southeast Asia and the world; Britain between America, Europe and the world. Singapore has a logistical advantage in its proximity to the Straits; Britain a financial advantage in the City of London.
roenxi 2y ago
It has been 200 years since the industrial revolution - we know exactly what makes a society rich. Creating, or at least controlling, vast amounts of capital. Although it would be a mistake for the UK to be benchmarking itself against the rest of western Europe; much of the continent appears to be in trouble. The real question is why all the capital formation seems to have been in Asia for the last 50 years. As for the UK, to get into such a position they're going to have to recognise that to get to this sort of state they can't have had pro-prosperity governance for decades. It takes 20-40 years for a lack of investment to start to show up in reality.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  > The real question is why all the capital formation seems to have been in Asia for the last 50 years. Is there any doubt? If you spend less than you earn (for example by running a current account surplus) you naturally accumulate capital, and vice versa.
KingOfCoders 2y ago
I'd like to see the UK South-East compared to e.g. Bavaria/BaWü the richest parts of Germany. Otherwise the diagram doesn't make any sense at all.
hcfman 2y ago
So what he’s saying is that positive thinking can make it happen then? Think yourself rich ?
KingOfCoders 2y ago
"In 1920, North England’s economy as a whole was among the strongest in Europe and thus the world." Exploiting and stealing always makes you rich. An empire doesn't make sense if you don't get rich with it (Also see the connection of Slavery and the British Industrial Revolution). The only problems: It's amoral stealing and exploiting others and it's not infinite, people don't want to be exploited so the empire gets more and more expensive to run.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Exploiting and stealing always makes you rich Colonies have Britain an edge, but plenty of nations had colonies at the time (and have throughout history). Britain became rich because it industrialised first.
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    No. Second: "Cotton Capital: a special investigation 2023 Cotton Capital how slavery made Manchester the world’s first industrial city" https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/cotton-capital-how-slavery-made-manchester-the-worlds-first-industrial-city https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/...
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Again, plenty of civilisations across history had slaves, and many of Britain’s contemporaries did too.
      - KingOfCoders 2y ago
        Not sure I can follow that argument. "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves too!" Or is it "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves(-trade) too, but we were the richest, so I doesn't depend on slaves?" Could you elaborate on your logic?
cjbgkagh 2y ago
My prediction is that council taxes will be raised substantially out of necessity and the effect of this will lower house prices and reverse the 'wealth effect' which would impair peoples ability to pay that tax. The net effect is a further crushing the middle class. Lower per capita incomes, higher taxes, and a reverse wealth effect is not going to be a fun time. Basically the government needs a lot of money and there are not many places to get it from, rich people have big houses so such wealth taxes would be more popular with the average voter - so I think they will do this out of a combination of necessity and ability. I wonder how I would find evidence in support for this belief in the data or train an algorithm to make similar predictions. I guess I'm sampling a model of my beliefs of how governments work. Reverse wealth effects have not happened in the west for a very long time so there are not many modern examples to template on - especially at a time when inflation of the money supply is an option.
yyy888sss 2y ago
They should try catching up to their European neighbours first: https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4D22AQFfh_jg66bW1A/feedshare-shrink_800/0/1691737768168?e=1723680000&v=beta&t=05auHAqvXYAKWtWHbcleZDKzahHzJ_OZHGijdIapQ90 https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4D22AQFfh_jg66bW1A/feedsh...
maxglute 2y ago
Counter point: no it can't. Between schadenfreude from colonialism and brexit, I don't think many are invested in seeing UK succeed. If anything the opposite.
kstenerud 2y ago
> Britain had been the world’s strongest major economy for over a century since Napoleon crippled the Dutch economy and Britain invented modern industry. Yes, because they had the world's biggest navy and effectively controlled the sea route to the East. That would make anyone rich. > And unlike in Germany where these transfers have been shrinking for decades as the East of the country grows its economy, in Britain we become ever more reliant on the Greater South East and London in particular every year. Uhh... Outside of Leipzig (and obviously Berlin), things aren't going very well in the East of Germany. And even in Leipzig things were super shitty until property fever hit in 2017. Everybody with prospects still moves West in Germany, and the East remains relatively poor as a result (and unheard, which is why the AFD has gained a foothold here). Know what makes countries rich (besides conquest)? Long rivers big enough to pass container ships through without locks - connecting your resources and industrial bases to your markets with super cheap transport costs. The Mississippi. The Yangtze. The Rhine.
Nursie 2y ago
It’s been obvious for a very long time that London is a self-perpetuating black hole for money and talent in the UK, and it’s going to be tough to break that up. What’s missing is the social analysis here - ambitious people in the UK go to London where they can make more money, and ambitious companies that want ambitious people go to London because that’s where the staff are. London and the SE don’t just fund the rest of the country, they also drain the talent and workers from those areas. London does not have that great economy in isolation from its regions, it has it at least in part by feeding on them. Growing the northern economy (and really anywhere outside the London dormitory belt) is also going to require finding a way to break the low-pay, low-productivity, low-expectations trap that exists across most of the British economy. And doing that will to some extent limit London’s talent pool. It’s not a zero sum game, but also - TAANSTAFL.
29athrowaway 2y ago
The UK was a naval empire that got to the industrial revolution earlier than most. The high cost of labor and the abundance of coal deposits created an incentive for automation and that led to unprecedented technological innovation. This brought an era of prosperity and also created a power asymmetry. But that power asymmetry did not make it into the 21st century. The Suez canal crisis was officially the end of the UK as a world superpower. The UK has strong partnerships, is a member of many important institutions like the G7, UN security council, NATO and others, but is not a world superpower anymore. Economically it is in decline and politically is in crisis.
arichard123 2y ago
This is how I feel actually. I live in the UK and the new government has started doing very sensible things. They are actually dealing with a lot of points made in the comments here. I look at the weakness of the 2 presidential candidates in the US, the rise of the far-right in the two European powerhouses of France and Germany, and the risk of deflation in China and I think, gosh! Maybe this is right? We are looking like the stable sensible choice, at least for now. Maybe, we have, as a country all agreed the Brexit was terrible, and things can be done better and maybe we've handed power to the right people. Let me start with the Eton/Posh thing, the new cabinet is not that. The new parliament is not that. 80% of the cabinet are comprehensive educated: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/05/most-state-educated-mps-ever-in-house-of-commons/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/05/most-state-e... The head of health had Kidney cancer and was saved by the NHS. The head of housing grew up in a council house, the head of prisons is a well known employer of ex-prisoners, the head of science used to be the head of R&D at GSK. The list could go on. As Starmer would say, it's people with "skin in the game" having the power. And the fact they are bringing in non-politicians to get jobs done, superb. Specifically on the splitting of the country between north and south to do an analysis, I do think that is valid, and instructional. We have seen various countries over the last 150 years achieve high growth when they have got focused on catching up to the better countries. The US grew quickly when it was catching up to the UK after the industrial revolution, and the UK grew quickly when we were catching up after WWII. China grew quickly when it was catching up to the west. Then, once it's done, growth goes back to a normal 1-2%. Well, perhaps, the UK can have the North catch up to the south and provide the growth. I look at what Manchester was 15 years ago, what Leeds was 15 years ago, and I think, sure, that's completely do-able.

42 points by jseliger 2y ago

[flagged]

Betteridge's law of headlines honorary mention. Edit: I consider this being flagged as grossly unjust as the original headline has a Can ... ? The fact of the matter is that it is absurd to think that the England (UK) can be anything be a diminishing nation.

strken 2y ago
Diminishing in an absolute sense, a per-capita sense, or in terms of its share of the pie? The first and second seem quite debatable.

sublinear 2y ago

> Can the UK go back to being the richest country in the world? The original title is a question, not a statement.

raverbashing 2y ago
I believe this is the HN title declickbaiter, which made it worse this time
sieabahlpark 2y ago
[dead]

rapidaneurism 2y ago

And yet the northern muppets went and voted a Torrie government back in 2019 that took the UK out of the EU, causing a significant damage to the economy in the form of lost GDP. Something about bicycle front wheels and sticks, under the sound of tiny violins.

ultimatewhip 2y ago
I think that is a bit unfair. Plenty of people living in cities in the north voted for Labour rather than the Conservatives. In 2019 constintuencies in Bradford and Leeds which were mentioned in the article voted Labour. The same problem exists in the USA where in a red state a county representing a large city votes Democrat but the rural areas or surburban enclaves vote Republican. Take Texas in 2020, Austin, Houston and San Antonio voted for blue rather than red.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  In the most recent general election the Labour Party had a landslide victory with only 1/3 of the popular vote. The first past the post system allots significantly more power than the vote actually mandates. People like to joke that democracy is a tyranny of the majority, but the FPP system is more like a tyranny of the largest minority.
- thebruce87m 2y ago
  Note that Bradford and Leeds are not in the north of the UK. English people will refer to the north of England as “the north” even when talking in the context of the UK.
  - ultimatewhip 2y ago
    I mean they are considered to be in Northern England, unless you don't consider Yorkshire and the Humber area not to be northern. The area borders North West England and is more northern at its southern most point than North West England's southern most point.
    - thebruce87m 2y ago
      The article is about the UK and so is the comment chain. These places might be in the north of England, but at no point was the context switched to England, except implicitly by the commenter which is why I added the note. English people will implicitly change the context, and other English people will follow but this can be confusing for other readers since they might assume the north of the UK (Scotland) when they are really talking about the middle of the UK (north of England).

dboreham 2y ago

The UK is "MBAs eating the world" on steroids, except they're History graduates who went to Eton. Not interested in actually creating anything or making anything. Money can be magically made by...shuffling money around. North Sea oil revenues provided a generation-long cover for this but now that's done. Disclosure: former UK "subject". Oh, and I forgot: allowed their country to become the "host" for Rupert Murdoch while he developed his Jedi Mind Tricks for getting folk to vote against their own interests.

mmarian 2y ago
> The UK is "MBAs eating the world" on steroids, except they're History graduates who went to Eton Aren't political leaders from most democracies from an elite background? > Money can be magically made by...shuffling money around I assume you're referring to UK's financial sector. What's wrong with it being one of the leading drivers of the economy? It's not as if manufacturing pays well in a high cost-of-living country.
Balgair 2y ago
> ... except they're History graduates who went to Eton For the non-British readers here, Eton is a boarding school [0] west of London. It's where nearly all the elite members of British politics and society attend from ages 13 to 18. Like, all the royalty go there. And Harry Potter is like just cribbing from what these boarding schools do. When you hear some British actor in a movie or something say '... Old Boy, ...', they are referring being very wealthy and graduating from one of these boarding schools. Somewhat unsurprisingly, they are nearly all child abuse nightmare zones, Eton especially. Like, there's a wiki page dedicated to the controversies there [1]. I got into looking into Eton when I was researching the history of the various football codes. Eton was the birthplace of two of the nascent footballs: The Field game [2] and the Wall game [3]. I'll skip the history lesson here and the rules briefing. The thing that stood out to me about the Wall game was the ceremony around it. Specifically, that it's played on St Andrew's Day (November 30th) by the Collegers (rich boys) and the rest of the school (slightly less rich boys). Now, the Collegers have this tradition (500+ years old) where they all get roaring drunk the night before and are trying to play this wall game really hungover, which makes it all a bit more 'fair'. They traditionally get so drunk that the little headmater-y person in charge just up and leaves for the night. So, you have 13-18 year olds, all drunk as hell, all alone, all night long, and they all kinda hate each other. Like, come on dude. That little bit alone is just astounding to my non-British eyes and condemn the whole enterprise. But then you read a bit more about the place and it's just ghastly. Then these tortured and abused kids go on to repeat the cycle onto each other, for like hundreds of years, because tradition. Oh, and then they all go on to run Britain. So, next time you see some mention of Eton, just imagine Hogwarts but with just brontosaurs levels of abuse and abusers. Britain is mental my dudes. [0] The Limeys call them 'public schools', because something something Anglican (?) church something [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College_controversies [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_field_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_field_game [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_wall_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_wall_game

dmillar 2y ago

The UK still has a heavily embedded caste or caste-like social circumstance. Pharma and finance have somewhat eschewed this tradition, but even those industries still have its embedded lords and ladies. Many of their smartest head to the US (or elsewhere), and Brexit has set them back decades from achieving the "richest country" status. A software engineer can double their earnings by moving to the US (if they can manage to). The owners of capital are generally not creators, and until that changes nor will their economic station.

intellix 2y ago
or move into Europe where the weather is great and life is happier (from someone who did). It's miserable in the UK and everyone agrees, though not everyone has the situation or balls to make the leap...
- zwnow 2y ago
  What makes you think we are generally happier? Europe is experiencing a right wing shift due to people being unhappy. The coming years won't be good for any of us to be honest.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    The UK experienced that same right wing shift 14 years ago and is now dealing with the fallout. Europe is still in its honeymoon phase with the latest batch of right wing demagogues.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > UK experienced that same right wing shift 14 years ago Not sure these are comparable. Britain’s shift was led by its elites. Europe’s is closer to a dumping of its elites. Taken to their logical ends, the Britain after its threatened political revolutions will still look recognisable. France post RN or Germany AfD would be completely remade.

paulpauper 2y ago

Wealth is hard to define. Monaco is wealthy but small for example. India is big but low median wealth

malux85 2y ago
SUM($) ?
ggm 2y ago
Monégasque are definitionally wealthy but also exclusive. You can't just become one at a drop of a hat. Nor Maltese for that matter or Gibralter or Jersey. Living in these places demands being HNW and not Monégasque, or Monégasque and content to enjoy the largesse. You probably work in the service or finance sector, or in specialist engineering industries like design or jewellry. Except I believe you can't break the bank, its forbidden to locals. You can't be "the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo" after all. If you can drive a pile driver or construct sea walls Maybe you could be french, and drive in? I suspect they have a tax treaty with France to limit these opportunities, but they do need construction workers to increase the size of the state: reclaimed land from the sea is their principle mechanism of peacefully gaining lebensraum.

majormajor 2y ago

> The interview was in London, the central city of three English regions (London, South East, and East) that have a total population of 20 million people that together hold Europe’s most populous urban area. The economy of this “Greater South East” of England is already stronger than any sizeable country in the EU and nearly as strong as the USA. > So why doesn’t the Greater South East feel richer than the Netherlands, Denmark, or Austria? And why don’t the people Matt speaks to there feel that they’re already living in a place as economically successful as the USA? I mean, for starters, isn't the fact that the strongest region is lower still than the full aggregate of those other countries a really bad sign? Their chart is 2019 GDP per capita in 2015 dollars, compare with 2019 California-alone GDP per capita in 2012 dollars: https://www.statista.com/statistics/304615/california-gdp-per-capita/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/304615/california-gdp-pe... which is still a pretty damn large and heterogenous region (roughly twice the size of the part of England they selected). 70k 2012 dollars for 2019 California, what looks like ~57k 2015 dollars for that region of 2019 England. Possibly the PPP adjustment brings that closer, but it's not exactly a cheap region. They then talk about the worse-off parts of England... and a lot about infrastructure specifically (trains especially), but of course the train infrastructure in California is pretty awful! And train infrastructure in some of the countries lower on that list than the UK is better than California's... So what else is going on? This doesn't seem like the right lens to look through to try to right that ship at all.

webwielder2 2y ago

Just as soon as “Step 2: ???” is worked out.

Abouteo 2y ago

Richest in the World? Only if "World" is interpreted in the reduced sense as "Europe".

hcfman 2y ago
I think he means culturally richest :) Or maybe spiritually the richest, through all the positive thinking.

testemailfordg2 2y ago

Well the colonial mindset is still there, to reap benefits from the north (oil) as much as possible rather than making it self sufficient and stand up to London, Oxford and Cambridge triangle.

KingOfCoders 2y ago
Yes, the UK is an empire, a much smaller one though. Scottish people haven't understood it the same way Indians did.
- mr_toad 2y ago
  In terms of territory it is certainly smaller. But you might be surprised how much of the world’s assets are ultimately controlled from London. London reminds me of Constantinople, in that as a capital of a former empire it amassed and concentrated great wealth even as its empire shrank. It’s just that Constantinople’s wealth was more tangible.
  - KingOfCoders 2y ago
    "ultimately controlled from London" I found the book "Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men who Stole the World" interesting which has a large junk on this topic. The tax havens don't have data centers or any infrastructure, the banks of tax havens of the former English Empire have their money with banks in London.

i2km 2y ago

Simple answer: no. The economy of SE England is largely comprised of: 1. Shuffling money around 2. Socialist-level ponzi government spending 3. A combination of property flipping and high-end property overseas sales used for tax evasion Innovation-wise, always looking for the easy wins without the hard work, unlike the US. As a Brit and former resident, happy to have emigrated and escaped the >50% (soon to be increased) tax rates.

tebbers 2y ago
Can I ask where you moved to?
ggm 2y ago
> As a Brit and former resident, happy to have emigrated and escaped the >50% (soon to be increased) tax rates. Hah. So you don't believe in the Scandi high-tax economy, or the Dutch one? Resentment of taxation is a perquisite of the rich, overwhelmingly. In fact, most people who are not rich pay reasonable rates of taxation except they pay far more percentage of their income as VAT/consumption taxes, which is of course nothing like 50% "nineteen for you and one for me" was George Harrison whining about super tax in the 60s. This isn't new.
- maest 2y ago
  > they pay far more percentage of their income as VAT/consumption taxes, which is of course nothing like 50% I don't think that's true, unless you assume rich people either a. spend a lower percentage of their income (in which case, what's the point in having money) or b. they avoid VAT when they do spend.
  - Arn_Thor 2y ago
    > rich people either a. spend a lower percentage of their income (in which case, what's the point in having money) The point in having money is indeed NOT to spend it. It is to build a hoard so large you can live comfortably off the dividends and investment returns, or even to save most of that again and grow your hoard even faster, creating "fuck you" levels of money and intergenerational wealth. When people say "tax the rich" they don't mean "deprive the neurosurgeon or City banker off his biannual new Mercedes". (These people DO indeed spend a smaller share of their income than poorer folks but that's not the point) When people say "tax the rich" they mean "tax capital returns" so that the country can benefit from the wealth currently amassed and extracted by the hyper wealthy that couldn't spend all their annual portfolio gains if they bought ought all of Paris Fashion Week every year.

Animats 2y ago

The coal pits of the Midlands are gone, but the descendants of the miners are still poor.

dasil003 2y ago

How much of London's wealth comes from infrastructure versus financial engineering leveraging The City's unique rules and sovereignty arrangements?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

j7ake 2y ago

“I think the UK can go back to being pretty much the richest country in the world per capita, at least as rich as the USA” said Matthew Clifford This sounds very arrogant and wishful thinking considering the trajectory of UK in the last 20 years. At the global stage, UK is as irrelevant as countries like Canada and Australia, but at least Canadians and Australians don’t openly claim they can be the richest country in the world.

twelvechairs 2y ago
Canada and Australia are rich by natural resources per capita. UK is rich by the history of the 19th and 18th centuries. I know which I'd bet on lasting. Uk used to be top of the list for countries millionaires move to. It's rapidly fallen down that list over the last 10-20 years below those others mentioned now it's an exporter of wealthy individuals. That's big capital flight happening today
hollerith 2y ago
Neither Canada nor Australia used to be the wealthiest country.
- j7ake 2y ago
  Does Netherlands or Spain claim to want to be wealthiest again? Many countries used to be wealthiest, and are no longer. uk is the one of the few arrogant ones that keeps thinking they will make a come back.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    We shouldn't conclude that UK is X or Y based on the writings of one person.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> UK is as irrelevant as countries like Canada and Australia The UK is the world’s 6th largest economy [1]. It clocks in next to India, the 5th. It is twice as large as Russia, the sick man of Europe and neighbourhood pest, and one of the other nine nuclear powers of the world [2]. The decline you cite is also the opportunity; if Britain could get its shit together, it could reasonably grow an entire Saudi Arabia (1%) or even Canada or Russia (2%) in a generation. (If it really clicked and maintained 3% growth for a generation, it would add to itself the entire economy of India.) Never underestimate the advantage of starting ahead. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(no... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_...

csomar 2y ago

The OP starts with a very wrong comparison; essentially comparing the London area with the American average. A proper comparison will be to compare it against the Washington or NYC metropolitan area. The numbers will be different. Then the article presents no arguments on how the UK can achieve such a feat other than having a bit better public transport. Public transport does certainly help and it’ll increase GDP; but I highly doubt it’s the determinant in creating the richest country per capita in the world. As for “can”, any country theoretically can become super-rich. Singapore did. Whether it will or not is another matter. The UK had particular circumstances in the 1700-1900. It does not have the same circumstances today. Lots of countries are also racing toward this goal. The UK is certainly better positioned than most countries in the world but not the best positioned out there.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Public transport does certainly help and it’ll increase GDP; but I highly doubt it’s the determinant in creating the richest country per capita in the world The UK is geographically blessed. That hasn’t been an advantage recently, because the EU seemed to be working, but Alexander Hamilton’s arguments against loose political unions seem prescient as ever amidst Europe’s present rightwing lurch [1]. If Britain can get its infrastructure in line and press its inherent energy-cost advantage relative to Europe, it could reasonably supplant Asia based on proximity, capital market depth and “friendshoring” advantage in many high-value supply chain elements. The problem is Britain has American-style public services and European bureaucracy; that prevents it from being the Singapore it reasonably aspires to be. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._7 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._7
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  The image thrown around in UK media about Singapore has nothing to do with Singapore
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > image thrown around in UK media about Singapore has nothing to do with Singapore Because the U.K.’s role wouldn’t be identical to Singapore. The analogy is fine. Singapore exists between China, Southeast Asia and the world; Britain between America, Europe and the world. Singapore has a logistical advantage in its proximity to the Straits; Britain a financial advantage in the City of London.

roenxi 2y ago

It has been 200 years since the industrial revolution - we know exactly what makes a society rich. Creating, or at least controlling, vast amounts of capital. Although it would be a mistake for the UK to be benchmarking itself against the rest of western Europe; much of the continent appears to be in trouble. The real question is why all the capital formation seems to have been in Asia for the last 50 years. As for the UK, to get into such a position they're going to have to recognise that to get to this sort of state they can't have had pro-prosperity governance for decades. It takes 20-40 years for a lack of investment to start to show up in reality.

mr_toad 2y ago
> The real question is why all the capital formation seems to have been in Asia for the last 50 years. Is there any doubt? If you spend less than you earn (for example by running a current account surplus) you naturally accumulate capital, and vice versa.

KingOfCoders 2y ago

I'd like to see the UK South-East compared to e.g. Bavaria/BaWü the richest parts of Germany. Otherwise the diagram doesn't make any sense at all.

hcfman 2y ago

So what he’s saying is that positive thinking can make it happen then? Think yourself rich ?

KingOfCoders 2y ago

"In 1920, North England’s economy as a whole was among the strongest in Europe and thus the world." Exploiting and stealing always makes you rich. An empire doesn't make sense if you don't get rich with it (Also see the connection of Slavery and the British Industrial Revolution). The only problems: It's amoral stealing and exploiting others and it's not infinite, people don't want to be exploited so the empire gets more and more expensive to run.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Exploiting and stealing always makes you rich Colonies have Britain an edge, but plenty of nations had colonies at the time (and have throughout history). Britain became rich because it industrialised first.
- KingOfCoders 2y ago
  No. Second: "Cotton Capital: a special investigation 2023 Cotton Capital how slavery made Manchester the world’s first industrial city" https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/cotton-capital-how-slavery-made-manchester-the-worlds-first-industrial-city https://www.theguardian.com/news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/03/...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Again, plenty of civilisations across history had slaves, and many of Britain’s contemporaries did too.
    - KingOfCoders 2y ago
      Not sure I can follow that argument. "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves too!" Or is it "We can be rich again!" "But the wealth was based on slavery, that is no longer" "Others had slaves(-trade) too, but we were the richest, so I doesn't depend on slaves?" Could you elaborate on your logic?

cjbgkagh 2y ago

My prediction is that council taxes will be raised substantially out of necessity and the effect of this will lower house prices and reverse the 'wealth effect' which would impair peoples ability to pay that tax. The net effect is a further crushing the middle class. Lower per capita incomes, higher taxes, and a reverse wealth effect is not going to be a fun time. Basically the government needs a lot of money and there are not many places to get it from, rich people have big houses so such wealth taxes would be more popular with the average voter - so I think they will do this out of a combination of necessity and ability. I wonder how I would find evidence in support for this belief in the data or train an algorithm to make similar predictions. I guess I'm sampling a model of my beliefs of how governments work. Reverse wealth effects have not happened in the west for a very long time so there are not many modern examples to template on - especially at a time when inflation of the money supply is an option.

yyy888sss 2y ago

They should try catching up to their European neighbours first: https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4D22AQFfh_jg66bW1A/feedshare-shrink_800/0/1691737768168?e=1723680000&v=beta&t=05auHAqvXYAKWtWHbcleZDKzahHzJ_OZHGijdIapQ90 https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4D22AQFfh_jg66bW1A/feedsh...

maxglute 2y ago

Counter point: no it can't. Between schadenfreude from colonialism and brexit, I don't think many are invested in seeing UK succeed. If anything the opposite.

kstenerud 2y ago

> Britain had been the world’s strongest major economy for over a century since Napoleon crippled the Dutch economy and Britain invented modern industry. Yes, because they had the world's biggest navy and effectively controlled the sea route to the East. That would make anyone rich. > And unlike in Germany where these transfers have been shrinking for decades as the East of the country grows its economy, in Britain we become ever more reliant on the Greater South East and London in particular every year. Uhh... Outside of Leipzig (and obviously Berlin), things aren't going very well in the East of Germany. And even in Leipzig things were super shitty until property fever hit in 2017. Everybody with prospects still moves West in Germany, and the East remains relatively poor as a result (and unheard, which is why the AFD has gained a foothold here). Know what makes countries rich (besides conquest)? Long rivers big enough to pass container ships through without locks - connecting your resources and industrial bases to your markets with super cheap transport costs. The Mississippi. The Yangtze. The Rhine.

Nursie 2y ago

It’s been obvious for a very long time that London is a self-perpetuating black hole for money and talent in the UK, and it’s going to be tough to break that up. What’s missing is the social analysis here - ambitious people in the UK go to London where they can make more money, and ambitious companies that want ambitious people go to London because that’s where the staff are. London and the SE don’t just fund the rest of the country, they also drain the talent and workers from those areas. London does not have that great economy in isolation from its regions, it has it at least in part by feeding on them. Growing the northern economy (and really anywhere outside the London dormitory belt) is also going to require finding a way to break the low-pay, low-productivity, low-expectations trap that exists across most of the British economy. And doing that will to some extent limit London’s talent pool. It’s not a zero sum game, but also - TAANSTAFL.

29athrowaway 2y ago

The UK was a naval empire that got to the industrial revolution earlier than most. The high cost of labor and the abundance of coal deposits created an incentive for automation and that led to unprecedented technological innovation. This brought an era of prosperity and also created a power asymmetry. But that power asymmetry did not make it into the 21st century. The Suez canal crisis was officially the end of the UK as a world superpower. The UK has strong partnerships, is a member of many important institutions like the G7, UN security council, NATO and others, but is not a world superpower anymore. Economically it is in decline and politically is in crisis.

arichard123 2y ago

This is how I feel actually. I live in the UK and the new government has started doing very sensible things. They are actually dealing with a lot of points made in the comments here. I look at the weakness of the 2 presidential candidates in the US, the rise of the far-right in the two European powerhouses of France and Germany, and the risk of deflation in China and I think, gosh! Maybe this is right? We are looking like the stable sensible choice, at least for now. Maybe, we have, as a country all agreed the Brexit was terrible, and things can be done better and maybe we've handed power to the right people. Let me start with the Eton/Posh thing, the new cabinet is not that. The new parliament is not that. 80% of the cabinet are comprehensive educated: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/05/most-state-educated-mps-ever-in-house-of-commons/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/05/most-state-e... The head of health had Kidney cancer and was saved by the NHS. The head of housing grew up in a council house, the head of prisons is a well known employer of ex-prisoners, the head of science used to be the head of R&D at GSK. The list could go on. As Starmer would say, it's people with "skin in the game" having the power. And the fact they are bringing in non-politicians to get jobs done, superb. Specifically on the splitting of the country between north and south to do an analysis, I do think that is valid, and instructional. We have seen various countries over the last 150 years achieve high growth when they have got focused on catching up to the better countries. The US grew quickly when it was catching up to the UK after the industrial revolution, and the UK grew quickly when we were catching up after WWII. China grew quickly when it was catching up to the west. Then, once it's done, growth goes back to a normal 1-2%. Well, perhaps, the UK can have the North catch up to the south and provide the growth. I look at what Manchester was 15 years ago, what Leeds was 15 years ago, and I think, sure, that's completely do-able.