7 ms·

Really interesting and well researched read. The main take away seems to be that Britain has seen a lack of state funded infrastructure development and it's pay

Really interesting and well researched read. The main take away seems to be that Britain has seen a lack of state funded infrastructure development and it's paying the price for this, especially in the energy sector. I'm obviously oversimplifying, but I think that's an ok rough summary. I think it's well argued and evidenced in the article, but I'm interested in this question: why isn't the US stagnating? My understanding is that it has had a similarly low infrastructue development, but conversely is doing well economically. What's the deal?

glimshe 2y ago
The US has a more robust system for supplying infrastructure through private investment - including in the energy sector.
- hnlmorg 2y ago
  You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s. Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure. Having driven on both American roads and British roads, I’d say UK rural roads are to a much higher standard. However that I can give America a pass on that particular issue because the vast distances in some rural parts does change the problem somewhat. But it is another example of how private investment doesn’t reach all parts of the US infrastructure. Internet access in rural communities is much better in the UK. Mains water quality is to a higher standard and available to more rural communities. And let’s not even get started on the sorry state of US healthcare. The NHS might have its problems but at least it’s not leaving people choosing between medical treatments and bankruptcy. The problem is, whenever the US government tries to step in to improve things, the ultra conservatives and libertarians then compare those policies to communism. Which is absurd.
  - fidotron 2y ago
    > You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s. The energy disruptions the UK had in the 70s were how Thatcher came into power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
    - tempfile 2y ago
      The article you link to explains that the Three Day Week led to the collapse of the Conservative gov in 74, and while Thatcher became leader, she did not come into power until 79. If the power outages led to anything, it was to a Labour gov. (this is unrelated to the correct statement that there were widespread outages throughout the 70s)
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      Those "disruptions" occured because of political action. The disruptions in Texas are because their power grid and associated infrastructure is shite. Entirely different things.
  - glimshe 2y ago
    England is a small country, smaller than the US state of Georgia. It's much easier to maintain way shorter roads with its much higher population density. Nonetheless, the rural roads in the US are generally of good to excellent quality.
    - hnlmorg 2y ago
      > England is a small country, smaller than the US state of Georgia. It's much easier to maintain way shorter roads with its much higher population density. A point I made in my post.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure. You give the US a pass on roads due to great distances, but not on rail? Rail is even more expensive than roads. On the subject of roads, it is important to remember that US roads vary greatly in quality based on geography, weather, and economic conditions. Every state gets some federal money and fuel taxes to pay for roads. >Internet access in rural communities is much better in the UK. The US had plans to subsidize Starlink for rural communities but the current administration interfered with it for petty political reasons. Again with this, the distances involved matter a lot. >And let’s not even get started on the sorry state of US healthcare. The NHS might have its problems but at least it’s not leaving people choosing between medical treatments and bankruptcy. NHS has problems like, you might not get treatment in a timely manner despite the high taxes you pay for that service. The US has issues with cost. We pay more than practically any other country including on medication. I think that is due to corruption. The issue is not that the state does not pay for it. It often does end up paying exorbitant prices for people without insurance, or on government benefits, to be treated. A majority of elderly people in the US are collecting government benefits and healthcare. It's not much but it does cover a significant amount of stuff. >The problem is, whenever the US government tries to step in to improve things, the ultra conservatives and libertarians then compare those policies to communism. Which is absurd. It is true that government can invest in worthwhile things sometimes, but when the government messes things up on a regular basis then you instinctively reject whatever it proposes. Neither the UK nor the US can afford our existing social programs. Yet here you are proposing that we here in the US spend even more so we can be like the UK. No thanks, we have enough problems as it is without higher taxes and more government scams.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      > the current administration interfered with it for petty political reasons I'm not entirely sure that doubts about handing fistfuls of cash to a corporation headed by an increasingly politically extreme CEO whose 2nd generation satellites are leaking so much radio energy that radio astronomy in that band of the spectrum looks doomed is "petty".
  - shortrounddev2 2y ago
    The US has one of the largest freight rail networks in the world. We don't have as big of a passenger rail investment because nobody would ride most of it
    - avianlyric 2y ago
      Has it occurred to you that nobody rides passenger rail in the US because there’s zero investment in passenger rail, and as a consequence the U.S. has managed to build a rail system that more difficult to use that flights, and somehow still slower than cars. I can’t think of anywhere else in the developed world where the train system is the slowest form of motorised transport around.
      - shortrounddev2 2y ago
        People ride passenger rail where it makes sense. The acela line being a good example. But if they built a high speed rail between Texas and Ohio, nobody would ride that, because flying would still be faster. We could build some HSR between major cities in Texas, Florida, California, and the Northeast corridor, but it would account for a handful of straight railways. There are major problems with building these (California is several billion over budget on their high speed rail and I don't think they've even started building), so the criticism of US overregulation is valid, but the main reason we don't have as extensive of a passenger rail system is because it wouldn't be economically viable in a country as sparsely populated as the united states
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Many areas of the USA have population densities entirely comparable with large parts of Europe. The upper-central midwest (eastern MN, WI, IL, IA) is a good example - it compares favorably to most of France or Germany. This is another example of how it is almost always a mistake to use a unitary description of anything when it comes to the USA. Yes, certainly where I live (New Mexico), population density is extremely low and long-haul rail transportation likely makes little sense. But talk about that as if it applies to "the united states" is a category error.
lkrubner 2y ago
Since the crisis of 2008 the USA has had several trillion dollars in stimulus spending. Very roughly speaking, Europe pursued policies of austerity, whereas the USA followed a more Keynesian route of big spending. On this matter, the Keynesians have been vindicated. In 2007 the GDP of the EU was slightly larger than the USA, but now it has fallen far behind: $16 trillion ($18 trillion if it still had the UK) versus $25 trillion for the USA. And the most important policy difference since 2008 has been large stimulus spending in the USA, versus relative austerity in Europe. More recently, President Biden was able to push through some big infrastructure bills, which should power the USA through the 2020s. (There are some qualifiers to be added about weaknesses in the USA system of funding and allowing construction, in particular the aggressive system of "substantive due process" that allows for any project to be stalled by lawsuits, but despite that, the USA has done better than Europe.)
- machinekob 2y ago
  Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession. Also EU just stagnate from 1990 until now it is yearly losing global share of GDP.
  - lkrubner 2y ago
    "Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession." Yes, but why? There was a theory that massive stimulus spending would weaken the dollar because of the additional debt, but instead, the opposite happened. The USA did more stimulus spending and the dollar became stronger. Many people were surprised by this. Those people need to revisit their initial assumptions.
PaulKeeble 2y ago
Its also that its really expensive. The reasons given are the cost of planning but I also suspect given all that has been exposed over the past 40 years that widespread corruption by governments in power is actually a big part of the ballooning costs.
tommy5dollar 2y ago
I don't think "state funded" is the important part to take away from the piece, it's a shortage of infrastructure in general, both state and private, in part due to incredibly restrictive rules. These days you can easily trap a planned piece of infrastructure in court cases for years for largely spurious reasons.
- noja 2y ago
  > incredibly restrictive rules. Like what? Are you referring to the self-regulation at Grenfell Tower?
  - gadders 2y ago
    It was regulations that made the cladding be installed in the first place, I thought?
    - gm3dmo 2y ago
      Poor quality of regulation allows sociopath installer who well knows the risk to use lowest cost materials to line their pockets.
      - gadders 2y ago
        Yes, or no regulation at all an unsafe cladding is not installed.
  - dash2 2y ago
    OP is more likely to be referring to e.g. Green Belt planning restrictions.
  - shortrounddev2 2y ago
    The thames tunnel costing as much in planning as Norway spent actually building the longest tunnel in the world. Construction projects are so fraught with regulatory burden that most of these costs are going to legal fees. It's not that they're not spending money. It's that public infrastructure is a money pit of legal fees
machinekob 2y ago
US is energy independent and is desirable place for middle and higher class specialist. Compared to overtaxed and energy starved England which live from legacy sectors and cheap immigration workers and is not desirable for anyone not working in finances.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > live from legacy sectors Finance is a legacy sector now? > energy starved Importing energy while ramping up your own production with wind and tidal, and importantly, nuclear, is not "starved". Is there a lack of energy in the UK? Blackouts like the ones in Texas?
  - pjc50 2y ago
    No blackouts, but it's now very expensive. The system management is quite good but the cost is a serious political issue. (It's also an oddity that the Conservative government presided over a lot of green transition in the energy sector, but can't take credit for it because of their base)
  - machinekob 2y ago
    Man blackout != energy starved, you can have blackouts cause your infrastructure is attacked or just random natural disaster, look at energy prices compare it to China or even US not even speaking about oil rich countries. Finance in UK is indeed legacy it is mostly big old banks there is still a bit of fintech and ofc. head funds, but UK is bleeding both talent and market share to CN and US. Not even speaking about tech salaries 10 years ago London was one of the top paying places for finance tech, now it is (ofc.) USA and CN (especially with cost of living).
    - sofixa 2y ago
      > Finance in UK is indeed legacy it is mostly big old banks there is still a bit of fintech Many fintech b2c innovators come from the UK. Revolut and Monzo provide features with a UX and API that US banks couldn't even dream of. > Man blackout != energy starved, you can have blackouts cause your infrastructure is attacked or just random natural disaster, look at energy prices compare it to China or even US not even speaking about oil rich countries. Yes you can, but that's not why Texas has blackouts. The UK has expensive electricity, imports a lot, but on what planet is it "energy starved"?
nine_k 2y ago
The US has a huge internal market, with free interstate trade and no need for localization. The US has accumulated colossal scientific and R&D resources, which regularly produce industrial breakthroughs. Lower taxes help, too. (Lower taxes is what a country can afford for general benefit, not a sloppy pro-rich policy.) But most importantly, USD is effectively the world's reserve currency, so the US can literally print money, and much of the rest of the world would gladly take it; it's like gold, only buttressed by the US's economic and military might. The UK has none of these advantages. The British Empire had some of these, but it's gone. Another large factor is that the US emerged from WWII relatively unscathed, while Britain was badly hit, and could not grow as fast. (Edit: typos.)
- ignoramous 2y ago
  Another factor is that Quantitative Easing (QE) kind of works for the US, but not for the UK: https://youtube.com/watch?v=goA9kkaDfTE https://youtube.com/watch?v=goA9kkaDfTE / https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/goA9kkaDfTE https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/goA9kkaDfTE
  - foobarian 2y ago
    That's a consequence of being world's reserve currency
- regularfry 2y ago
  The UK emerged from WWII massively indebted to the US. That's not entirely unrelated to the UK's position post-war.
  - PolygonSheep 2y ago
    That security guarantee to Poland turned out quite expensive in the end.
    - amadeuspagel 2y ago
      You know, if you put it this way, it's really a miracle that britain as an independent country still exists at all, that it's not been conquered from the continent since 1066, and that has been in no small part thanks to a british foreign policy of making sure that no country in europe becomes so dominant that they might take on britain, a foreign policy which included that security guarantee to Poland.
bluescrn 2y ago
A lack of infrastructure development combined with a population being artificially increased by high levels of immigration, which is applying downward pressure on wages while pushing property costs (the source of most of the UK's problems) ever higher. A population increase of around 1% per year may not seem huge until you consider what 1% of the UK road network or 1% of the NHS actually looks like, and what it'd take to build infrastructure and expand services at that rate year upon year. The reality of building infrastructure in the UK is HS2 - a 20+ year project to build a little over 100 miles of high speed railway (with future northern phases predictably cancelled), at a cost over over half a billion quid per mile - it'll likely put any government off attempting any significant infrastructure construction ever again.
jandrewrogers 2y ago
An important aspect is that the US is that its economies and regional cultures are diverse and dispersed. The US is simply too decentralized to stagnate effectively. It is not a monoculture in any practical sense which creates a system that can respond quickly to evolutionary pressure. Everything good and bad you hear about the US usually only applies to a subset of the country and often only a handful of cities. There is a high degree of regional specialization in the US as a consequence. No matter what happens in the world, some part of the US is perfectly positioned to take advantage of that. Combine this with general American risk tolerance and business acumen, and you have a country that is unusually organically adaptive to changing global economies.

glimshe 2y ago

The US has a more robust system for supplying infrastructure through private investment - including in the energy sector.

hnlmorg 2y ago
You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s. Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure. Having driven on both American roads and British roads, I’d say UK rural roads are to a much higher standard. However that I can give America a pass on that particular issue because the vast distances in some rural parts does change the problem somewhat. But it is another example of how private investment doesn’t reach all parts of the US infrastructure. Internet access in rural communities is much better in the UK. Mains water quality is to a higher standard and available to more rural communities. And let’s not even get started on the sorry state of US healthcare. The NHS might have its problems but at least it’s not leaving people choosing between medical treatments and bankruptcy. The problem is, whenever the US government tries to step in to improve things, the ultra conservatives and libertarians then compare those policies to communism. Which is absurd.
- fidotron 2y ago
  > You say that but the UK has not experienced the kind of energy disruptions that, for example, the Texans have since the 1970s. The energy disruptions the UK had in the 70s were how Thatcher came into power. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
  - tempfile 2y ago
    The article you link to explains that the Three Day Week led to the collapse of the Conservative gov in 74, and while Thatcher became leader, she did not come into power until 79. If the power outages led to anything, it was to a Labour gov. (this is unrelated to the correct statement that there were widespread outages throughout the 70s)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    Those "disruptions" occured because of political action. The disruptions in Texas are because their power grid and associated infrastructure is shite. Entirely different things.
- glimshe 2y ago
  England is a small country, smaller than the US state of Georgia. It's much easier to maintain way shorter roads with its much higher population density. Nonetheless, the rural roads in the US are generally of good to excellent quality.
  - hnlmorg 2y ago
    > England is a small country, smaller than the US state of Georgia. It's much easier to maintain way shorter roads with its much higher population density. A point I made in my post.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >Let’s also not forget the railroad problems you face. You’re probably the only country that makes Britain look good for its rail infrastructure. You give the US a pass on roads due to great distances, but not on rail? Rail is even more expensive than roads. On the subject of roads, it is important to remember that US roads vary greatly in quality based on geography, weather, and economic conditions. Every state gets some federal money and fuel taxes to pay for roads. >Internet access in rural communities is much better in the UK. The US had plans to subsidize Starlink for rural communities but the current administration interfered with it for petty political reasons. Again with this, the distances involved matter a lot. >And let’s not even get started on the sorry state of US healthcare. The NHS might have its problems but at least it’s not leaving people choosing between medical treatments and bankruptcy. NHS has problems like, you might not get treatment in a timely manner despite the high taxes you pay for that service. The US has issues with cost. We pay more than practically any other country including on medication. I think that is due to corruption. The issue is not that the state does not pay for it. It often does end up paying exorbitant prices for people without insurance, or on government benefits, to be treated. A majority of elderly people in the US are collecting government benefits and healthcare. It's not much but it does cover a significant amount of stuff. >The problem is, whenever the US government tries to step in to improve things, the ultra conservatives and libertarians then compare those policies to communism. Which is absurd. It is true that government can invest in worthwhile things sometimes, but when the government messes things up on a regular basis then you instinctively reject whatever it proposes. Neither the UK nor the US can afford our existing social programs. Yet here you are proposing that we here in the US spend even more so we can be like the UK. No thanks, we have enough problems as it is without higher taxes and more government scams.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    > the current administration interfered with it for petty political reasons I'm not entirely sure that doubts about handing fistfuls of cash to a corporation headed by an increasingly politically extreme CEO whose 2nd generation satellites are leaking so much radio energy that radio astronomy in that band of the spectrum looks doomed is "petty".
- shortrounddev2 2y ago
  The US has one of the largest freight rail networks in the world. We don't have as big of a passenger rail investment because nobody would ride most of it
  - avianlyric 2y ago
    Has it occurred to you that nobody rides passenger rail in the US because there’s zero investment in passenger rail, and as a consequence the U.S. has managed to build a rail system that more difficult to use that flights, and somehow still slower than cars. I can’t think of anywhere else in the developed world where the train system is the slowest form of motorised transport around.
    - shortrounddev2 2y ago
      People ride passenger rail where it makes sense. The acela line being a good example. But if they built a high speed rail between Texas and Ohio, nobody would ride that, because flying would still be faster. We could build some HSR between major cities in Texas, Florida, California, and the Northeast corridor, but it would account for a handful of straight railways. There are major problems with building these (California is several billion over budget on their high speed rail and I don't think they've even started building), so the criticism of US overregulation is valid, but the main reason we don't have as extensive of a passenger rail system is because it wouldn't be economically viable in a country as sparsely populated as the united states
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        Many areas of the USA have population densities entirely comparable with large parts of Europe. The upper-central midwest (eastern MN, WI, IL, IA) is a good example - it compares favorably to most of France or Germany. This is another example of how it is almost always a mistake to use a unitary description of anything when it comes to the USA. Yes, certainly where I live (New Mexico), population density is extremely low and long-haul rail transportation likely makes little sense. But talk about that as if it applies to "the united states" is a category error.

lkrubner 2y ago

Since the crisis of 2008 the USA has had several trillion dollars in stimulus spending. Very roughly speaking, Europe pursued policies of austerity, whereas the USA followed a more Keynesian route of big spending. On this matter, the Keynesians have been vindicated. In 2007 the GDP of the EU was slightly larger than the USA, but now it has fallen far behind: $16 trillion ($18 trillion if it still had the UK) versus $25 trillion for the USA. And the most important policy difference since 2008 has been large stimulus spending in the USA, versus relative austerity in Europe. More recently, President Biden was able to push through some big infrastructure bills, which should power the USA through the 2020s. (There are some qualifiers to be added about weaknesses in the USA system of funding and allowing construction, in particular the aggressive system of "substantive due process" that allows for any project to be stalled by lawsuits, but despite that, the USA has done better than Europe.)

machinekob 2y ago
Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession. Also EU just stagnate from 1990 until now it is yearly losing global share of GDP.
- lkrubner 2y ago
  "Most of the difference in GDP was because Dollar was a lot cheaper compared to Euro pre Recession." Yes, but why? There was a theory that massive stimulus spending would weaken the dollar because of the additional debt, but instead, the opposite happened. The USA did more stimulus spending and the dollar became stronger. Many people were surprised by this. Those people need to revisit their initial assumptions.

PaulKeeble 2y ago

Its also that its really expensive. The reasons given are the cost of planning but I also suspect given all that has been exposed over the past 40 years that widespread corruption by governments in power is actually a big part of the ballooning costs.

tommy5dollar 2y ago

I don't think "state funded" is the important part to take away from the piece, it's a shortage of infrastructure in general, both state and private, in part due to incredibly restrictive rules. These days you can easily trap a planned piece of infrastructure in court cases for years for largely spurious reasons.

noja 2y ago
> incredibly restrictive rules. Like what? Are you referring to the self-regulation at Grenfell Tower?
- gadders 2y ago
  It was regulations that made the cladding be installed in the first place, I thought?
  - gm3dmo 2y ago
    Poor quality of regulation allows sociopath installer who well knows the risk to use lowest cost materials to line their pockets.
    - gadders 2y ago
      Yes, or no regulation at all an unsafe cladding is not installed.
- dash2 2y ago
  OP is more likely to be referring to e.g. Green Belt planning restrictions.
- shortrounddev2 2y ago
  The thames tunnel costing as much in planning as Norway spent actually building the longest tunnel in the world. Construction projects are so fraught with regulatory burden that most of these costs are going to legal fees. It's not that they're not spending money. It's that public infrastructure is a money pit of legal fees

machinekob 2y ago

US is energy independent and is desirable place for middle and higher class specialist. Compared to overtaxed and energy starved England which live from legacy sectors and cheap immigration workers and is not desirable for anyone not working in finances.

sofixa 2y ago
> live from legacy sectors Finance is a legacy sector now? > energy starved Importing energy while ramping up your own production with wind and tidal, and importantly, nuclear, is not "starved". Is there a lack of energy in the UK? Blackouts like the ones in Texas?
- pjc50 2y ago
  No blackouts, but it's now very expensive. The system management is quite good but the cost is a serious political issue. (It's also an oddity that the Conservative government presided over a lot of green transition in the energy sector, but can't take credit for it because of their base)
- machinekob 2y ago
  Man blackout != energy starved, you can have blackouts cause your infrastructure is attacked or just random natural disaster, look at energy prices compare it to China or even US not even speaking about oil rich countries. Finance in UK is indeed legacy it is mostly big old banks there is still a bit of fintech and ofc. head funds, but UK is bleeding both talent and market share to CN and US. Not even speaking about tech salaries 10 years ago London was one of the top paying places for finance tech, now it is (ofc.) USA and CN (especially with cost of living).
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > Finance in UK is indeed legacy it is mostly big old banks there is still a bit of fintech Many fintech b2c innovators come from the UK. Revolut and Monzo provide features with a UX and API that US banks couldn't even dream of. > Man blackout != energy starved, you can have blackouts cause your infrastructure is attacked or just random natural disaster, look at energy prices compare it to China or even US not even speaking about oil rich countries. Yes you can, but that's not why Texas has blackouts. The UK has expensive electricity, imports a lot, but on what planet is it "energy starved"?

nine_k 2y ago

The US has a huge internal market, with free interstate trade and no need for localization. The US has accumulated colossal scientific and R&D resources, which regularly produce industrial breakthroughs. Lower taxes help, too. (Lower taxes is what a country can afford for general benefit, not a sloppy pro-rich policy.) But most importantly, USD is effectively the world's reserve currency, so the US can literally print money, and much of the rest of the world would gladly take it; it's like gold, only buttressed by the US's economic and military might. The UK has none of these advantages. The British Empire had some of these, but it's gone. Another large factor is that the US emerged from WWII relatively unscathed, while Britain was badly hit, and could not grow as fast. (Edit: typos.)

ignoramous 2y ago
Another factor is that Quantitative Easing (QE) kind of works for the US, but not for the UK: https://youtube.com/watch?v=goA9kkaDfTE https://youtube.com/watch?v=goA9kkaDfTE / https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/goA9kkaDfTE https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/goA9kkaDfTE
- foobarian 2y ago
  That's a consequence of being world's reserve currency
regularfry 2y ago
The UK emerged from WWII massively indebted to the US. That's not entirely unrelated to the UK's position post-war.
- PolygonSheep 2y ago
  That security guarantee to Poland turned out quite expensive in the end.
  - amadeuspagel 2y ago
    You know, if you put it this way, it's really a miracle that britain as an independent country still exists at all, that it's not been conquered from the continent since 1066, and that has been in no small part thanks to a british foreign policy of making sure that no country in europe becomes so dominant that they might take on britain, a foreign policy which included that security guarantee to Poland.

bluescrn 2y ago

A lack of infrastructure development combined with a population being artificially increased by high levels of immigration, which is applying downward pressure on wages while pushing property costs (the source of most of the UK's problems) ever higher. A population increase of around 1% per year may not seem huge until you consider what 1% of the UK road network or 1% of the NHS actually looks like, and what it'd take to build infrastructure and expand services at that rate year upon year. The reality of building infrastructure in the UK is HS2 - a 20+ year project to build a little over 100 miles of high speed railway (with future northern phases predictably cancelled), at a cost over over half a billion quid per mile - it'll likely put any government off attempting any significant infrastructure construction ever again.

jandrewrogers 2y ago

An important aspect is that the US is that its economies and regional cultures are diverse and dispersed. The US is simply too decentralized to stagnate effectively. It is not a monoculture in any practical sense which creates a system that can respond quickly to evolutionary pressure. Everything good and bad you hear about the US usually only applies to a subset of the country and often only a handful of cities. There is a high degree of regional specialization in the US as a consequence. No matter what happens in the world, some part of the US is perfectly positioned to take advantage of that. Combine this with general American risk tolerance and business acumen, and you have a country that is unusually organically adaptive to changing global economies.