4 ms·

In a fair world, where there is equal access to basic things required for living life (food, health services, education), the UK has no business being a top eco

In a fair world, where there is equal access to basic things required for living life (food, health services, education), the UK has no business being a top economy. They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources. They were propped up by the colonialism for a bit but now are fast going back to be a small inconsequential country.

weatherlite 2y ago
Well in a fair world why do some countries get to have lots of land area and resources and some don't ? Because they "got there first"? Why should Saudi Arabia or Canada be extremely wealthy?
- fujincodes 2y ago
  Yeah, luck plays a part too. Saudi Arabia got lucky with oil, without which it was just warring desert tribes. I happened to see pictures of UAE Sheikhs before the discovery of oil, and they were not very royal, to say the least. Canada has a ton of natural resources, they ought to be wealthy.
- radicalbyte 2y ago
  You have it the wrong way around. Look at the US. They have it because they "got there LAST", took their diseases with them and wiped out the natives.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
  The "fair world" positioning of their comment makes little sense. It reads as if they believe that a economy should be based solely on resource extraction and if a country doesn't have plentiful resources in their borders, then they don't believe the country should be a "top economy".
zoky 2y ago
> They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources. If those are the determining criteria, how do you explain Singapore?
- defrost 2y ago
  Singapore's "natural resource" is location, location, location. It secured early the role of small secure island for trade transfer and is now a massively automated transit hub for a huge regional population. In world history choke points and traffic funnels have frequently been acquired, captured, secured for profit, control and influence.
- realusername 2y ago
  Singapore is a tax haven first and foremost. Same reason why Luxembourg is wealthy. Their wealth was built on questionable origins, no matter how much they boast about governance.
  - delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
    Singapore is nowhere close to being as tax-haveny as Luxembourg, any of the Caribbean islands administered by a foreign power, the Isle of Man, or the Channel islands. Singapore saw a sustained ~8-10% real GDP growth from almost immediately after independence. It relied on manufacturing, reprocessing, and assembly to get there. Only in the past ~20 years has it really shifted to being a financial economy—and even then, it still has a pretty strong manufacturing base.
    - realusername 2y ago
      There's multiple degrees of tax haven and Singapore definitely belongs in this list. Their economy would take a hit if they would give up on the shell companies. I'd argue is even more of a tax haven nowadays due to the relocation of the business from Hong Kong.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  The poster clearly speaks of «top economy» in terms of absolute GDP (and related), not per-capita; just observes that some powers are non-proportional. Of course history is magnitudes more complex than a sketchy model.
- TeaBrain 2y ago
brazzy 2y ago
That's a bizarrely simplistic and reductive view. And, of course, entirely wrong. Resources help with economic performance, but can also be a hindrance (see "Dutch disease"). Colonies were often acquired for prestige, but turned out an economic loss. They certainly did not play a part in the economic development of Germany, and countries like South Korea or Taiwan have very successfully grown their economies after being colonies. What matters for long term economic growth is political stability and institutions that protect investments and limit corruption.
- nindalf 2y ago
  I think simplistic and reductive views is what people are capable of adopting unless they really make an effort and invest time in understanding. Most of the time most people will take the simplistic view.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > Most of the time most people will take the simplistic view Are you aware that we call that a social cost and condemn it? Why are you stating a tautology, "good work requires effort"?
    - nindalf 2y ago
      “Are you aware” - are you aware that you sound condescending or did you do that deliberately? “Condemn it” - but I didn’t condemn it? I was just pointing it out. You assumed I made a value judgment when I didn’t. “Good work requires effort” - that’s well known. Anything big or complex does require effort and no one expects different. My contribution (such as it was) was that even something that appears simple like gathering the facts and coming to a reasonable conclusion before sharing an opinion is too much effort. Far easier to take the simplistic view, share that and move on. I hope that meets your high bar for a comment and you won’t come after me with further critique. And if you do, I hope you actually read what I’ve written and not imagine I’ve written something else.
      - 2y ago
01100011 2y ago
So cultural, scientific and technical achievements should either bring zero economic benefits to a country or you believe in your fair world these things are evenly produced per capita/land area?
- blackoil 2y ago
  That gives a temporary (relative) advantage but without any fundamental advantage, your competitor would copy and catchup.
  - aikinai 2y ago
    Only if your competitor has the same education, culture, etc.
mattlondon 2y ago
It is not a fair world unfortunately. Regardless, is it so bad if the UK becomes an inconsequential country? I feel like Brexit only happened because people here thought the UK was somehow special or important.
- daedalus_f 2y ago
  I’d agree nationalism played a big role, but I’d also argue that was being driven by a right wing press that had used Europe as a scapegoat for decades to explain away economic disparity. Meanwhile there are legitimate complaints about the EU, its opaque democracy and extensive bureaucracy.
YZF 2y ago
Imagine there's no countries.. And no religion too. You may say I'm a dreamer... The UK does have some natural resources, also they have an Island, from my memory of playing Risk that's worth something. Can be defended and not easily invaded. The UK was a place of importance well before modern colonialism, that's why the Romans and the Vikings visited. Culture also plays a role. It's possible the UK will become less consequential but they'll probably still have some weight for some time. Their colonial past still plays some role in terms of their relationships with various countries, connections also matter.
silisili 2y ago
Land area, population, and natural resources have next to nothing to do with wealth or GDP. The UK will never be a small inconsequential country in any of our lifetimes.
mdp2021 2y ago
It takes more than systemic fair basic access for the population to make GDP results proportional to general resources.
m101 2y ago
The UK is a large island nation with full access to the world's oceans. This is also the main geographical advantage that the US has. This is an extreme advantage. Look to Ukraine for proof.
TeaBrain 2y ago
>In a fair world, where there is equal access to basic things required for living life (food, health services, education) >They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources. These two parts framing the idea about how the "UK has no business being a top economy" were complete non-sequiturs.

weatherlite 2y ago

Well in a fair world why do some countries get to have lots of land area and resources and some don't ? Because they "got there first"? Why should Saudi Arabia or Canada be extremely wealthy?

fujincodes 2y ago
Yeah, luck plays a part too. Saudi Arabia got lucky with oil, without which it was just warring desert tribes. I happened to see pictures of UAE Sheikhs before the discovery of oil, and they were not very royal, to say the least. Canada has a ton of natural resources, they ought to be wealthy.
radicalbyte 2y ago
You have it the wrong way around. Look at the US. They have it because they "got there LAST", took their diseases with them and wiped out the natives.
TeaBrain 2y ago
The "fair world" positioning of their comment makes little sense. It reads as if they believe that a economy should be based solely on resource extraction and if a country doesn't have plentiful resources in their borders, then they don't believe the country should be a "top economy".

zoky 2y ago

> They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources. If those are the determining criteria, how do you explain Singapore?

defrost 2y ago
Singapore's "natural resource" is location, location, location. It secured early the role of small secure island for trade transfer and is now a massively automated transit hub for a huge regional population. In world history choke points and traffic funnels have frequently been acquired, captured, secured for profit, control and influence.
realusername 2y ago
Singapore is a tax haven first and foremost. Same reason why Luxembourg is wealthy. Their wealth was built on questionable origins, no matter how much they boast about governance.
- delta_p_delta_x 2y ago
  Singapore is nowhere close to being as tax-haveny as Luxembourg, any of the Caribbean islands administered by a foreign power, the Isle of Man, or the Channel islands. Singapore saw a sustained ~8-10% real GDP growth from almost immediately after independence. It relied on manufacturing, reprocessing, and assembly to get there. Only in the past ~20 years has it really shifted to being a financial economy—and even then, it still has a pretty strong manufacturing base.
  - realusername 2y ago
    There's multiple degrees of tax haven and Singapore definitely belongs in this list. Their economy would take a hit if they would give up on the shell companies. I'd argue is even more of a tax haven nowadays due to the relocation of the business from Hong Kong.
mdp2021 2y ago
The poster clearly speaks of «top economy» in terms of absolute GDP (and related), not per-capita; just observes that some powers are non-proportional. Of course history is magnitudes more complex than a sketchy model.
TeaBrain 2y ago

brazzy 2y ago

That's a bizarrely simplistic and reductive view. And, of course, entirely wrong. Resources help with economic performance, but can also be a hindrance (see "Dutch disease"). Colonies were often acquired for prestige, but turned out an economic loss. They certainly did not play a part in the economic development of Germany, and countries like South Korea or Taiwan have very successfully grown their economies after being colonies. What matters for long term economic growth is political stability and institutions that protect investments and limit corruption.

nindalf 2y ago
I think simplistic and reductive views is what people are capable of adopting unless they really make an effort and invest time in understanding. Most of the time most people will take the simplistic view.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > Most of the time most people will take the simplistic view Are you aware that we call that a social cost and condemn it? Why are you stating a tautology, "good work requires effort"?
  - nindalf 2y ago
    “Are you aware” - are you aware that you sound condescending or did you do that deliberately? “Condemn it” - but I didn’t condemn it? I was just pointing it out. You assumed I made a value judgment when I didn’t. “Good work requires effort” - that’s well known. Anything big or complex does require effort and no one expects different. My contribution (such as it was) was that even something that appears simple like gathering the facts and coming to a reasonable conclusion before sharing an opinion is too much effort. Far easier to take the simplistic view, share that and move on. I hope that meets your high bar for a comment and you won’t come after me with further critique. And if you do, I hope you actually read what I’ve written and not imagine I’ve written something else.
    - 2y ago

01100011 2y ago

So cultural, scientific and technical achievements should either bring zero economic benefits to a country or you believe in your fair world these things are evenly produced per capita/land area?

blackoil 2y ago
That gives a temporary (relative) advantage but without any fundamental advantage, your competitor would copy and catchup.
- aikinai 2y ago
  Only if your competitor has the same education, culture, etc.

mattlondon 2y ago

It is not a fair world unfortunately. Regardless, is it so bad if the UK becomes an inconsequential country? I feel like Brexit only happened because people here thought the UK was somehow special or important.

daedalus_f 2y ago
I’d agree nationalism played a big role, but I’d also argue that was being driven by a right wing press that had used Europe as a scapegoat for decades to explain away economic disparity. Meanwhile there are legitimate complaints about the EU, its opaque democracy and extensive bureaucracy.

YZF 2y ago

Imagine there's no countries.. And no religion too. You may say I'm a dreamer... The UK does have some natural resources, also they have an Island, from my memory of playing Risk that's worth something. Can be defended and not easily invaded. The UK was a place of importance well before modern colonialism, that's why the Romans and the Vikings visited. Culture also plays a role. It's possible the UK will become less consequential but they'll probably still have some weight for some time. Their colonial past still plays some role in terms of their relationships with various countries, connections also matter.

silisili 2y ago

Land area, population, and natural resources have next to nothing to do with wealth or GDP. The UK will never be a small inconsequential country in any of our lifetimes.

mdp2021 2y ago

It takes more than systemic fair basic access for the population to make GDP results proportional to general resources.

m101 2y ago

The UK is a large island nation with full access to the world's oceans. This is also the main geographical advantage that the US has. This is an extreme advantage. Look to Ukraine for proof.

TeaBrain 2y ago

>In a fair world, where there is equal access to basic things required for living life (food, health services, education) >They don't have the land area, nor the population, nor the natural resources. These two parts framing the idea about how the "UK has no business being a top economy" were complete non-sequiturs.