29 ms·

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.

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.