4 ms·

They didn't run out of money just because they fought two wars. For some bizarre reason the UK has simply chosen to be (relatively) poor instead of embracing a

by nradov 11mo ago

They didn't run out of money just because they fought two wars. For some bizarre reason the UK has simply chosen to be (relatively) poor instead of embracing a growth policy. Despite all their potential advantages their GDP per capita is about equal to the poorest US state.

fakedang 11mo ago
Because everything in the US is inflated thanks to rampant printing of the USD. Healthcare? Inflated. Education? Inflated. Day-to-day stuff? Inflated. Property values? Inflated. Most of Europe has lower GDP per capita than the poorest states of the US, yet the lifestyle of European citizens in those countries is much better than the lifestyle of the poorest Americans. American growth is built on the backs of piss-poor healthcare, shoddy education and an overinflated perception of the tech sector which holds the rest of the world hostage (but not for long).
- mgfist 11mo ago
  UK has higher inflation than the US, and has had so since inflation first picked up in 2022.
- dangus 11mo ago
  I think you are making broad generalizations, so broad that the only statement it's clear you're trying to make is "The US is bad" and the broadness of your argument weakens it greatly. Cost inflation isn't unique to the United States. Europe isn't a single country. > yet the lifestyle of European citizens in those countries is much better than the lifestyle of the poorest Americans Does this include the Romani people? Does this include the Ukranians being attacked by Russia? Greece's housing cost burden is higher than 30 US states. Not all regions in the USA have faced serious property cost pressures. [1] [2] "Day to day stuff" is a very broad category, and that includes items that are flat or decreasing in cost. In that sense I will point out that VAT is much higher in the EU than sales tax in most US states, with VAT rates of >20% being very common while the highest combined sales tax in the USA is just over 10%. Sales tax/VAT is a very regressive tax that harms the poor the most. For someone on the poor end of the spectrum in Europe, buying something like a computer or television is a greater burden than someone in the US. I'm reminded of the natural gas price spikes in 2022 in Europe, and of how the EU's average electricity price is about 2-3x higher than it is in the US. The US has an extremely stable supply of basic needs like energy and food. Education costs have been flat or lower than the rate of inflation in the US since roughly 2016, so for the last 10 years the idea that education is becoming more expensive in the USA has been squarely false. [3] Healthcare, I'll give you that one, the US is not faring well. But we can look at some systems in Europe having their own difficulties like the UK and Spain and it's not like healthcare isn't a challenge elsewhere. I will also point out that the US does have public healthcare for the poorest (Medicaid) and for all people over 65 years old (Medicare), and Medicare is a standout in quality among public healthcare systems in some outcome categories. [1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/europes-housing-cost-burden-by-country/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/europes-housing-cost-burden... [2] https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/cost_burden https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/cost... [3] https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate
crimsoneer 11mo ago
It's worth pointing out this happened entirely post 2008. This is not some "decision" people took, or some long term loss of empire. The US recoevered from the 2008 crisis way better than everyone else, and nobody really understands why yet.
- lo_zamoyski 11mo ago
  > It's worth pointing out this happened entirely post 2008. Really? Because IIRC, Britain has been steadily declining for over a century. > The US recoevered from the 2008 crisis way better than everyone else, and nobody really understands why yet. And Poland avoided the recession entirely.
- DonHopkins 11mo ago
  Thanks Obama.
  - skippyboxedhero 11mo ago
    Decisions made in 2008 were also a huge part of this. The UK had a framework to liquidate financial institutions that was similar to the US, and this was deployed in early 2008 with Northern Rock and B&B. The end result was a multi-billion pound profit to the government. Gordon Brown then decided that he needed to lead the global economy (and he has written, at the last count, two books which explain in significant detail that he was a thought leader and economic visionary through this period) by bailing out banks that were large employers in his constituency. With RBS, this involved investing at a very high valuation and then shutting down all the profitable parts of the bank, the loss was £20-30bn. With HBOS, he forced the only safe bank to acquire them, this resulted in the safe bank going bankrupt a year after the financial crisis ended in the US, and another multi-billion pound loss. The US benefitted massively from having one of the most successful financial executives of the period, Hank Paulson, running the economy rather than (essentially) a random man from Edinburgh who have never had a job in the private sector (apart from law, obv) but held a seat with a huge number of constituents working at the banks he should have been shutting down (Brown himself had never worked in the private sector at all, parachuted into a safe seat after his doctorate). Geithner nearly suffered from that same fault, but did well with TARP (again though, iirc, this was Paulson's plan).
evmar 11mo ago
Since it's so germane, I'll share my little widget that compares EU countries to US states on various metrics: https://evmar.github.io/states/ https://evmar.github.io/states/
- jjmarr 11mo ago
  Does Czechia really have 4 million square miles and NaN population?
- belter 11mo ago
  Alabama has GDP per capita higher than Finland? Hard to believe.... Maybe you can afford Universal Health Care after all...
  - skirge 11mo ago
    then prices will decrease and thus GDP will be lower, isn't it?
  - MostlyStable 11mo ago
    This is actually the reason why I'm a proponent of the US Federal government doing far _far_ less. Things like Healthcare and other safety net things (along with most other things) should be done at the state level, and the the fact that European nations, which are near universally poorer than all US states, are able to do these things, are the proof that this would work. I'm convinced that the federal government doing more and more things is the root cause if the increasing toxicity of American politics. The further removed a populace is from their representatives the less control they have and the worse they feel. Everything should always be done at the most local level that it is possible to do it. Some things have to be done at a relatively high level, but Americans have increasingly been jumping straight to "this is a job for the federal government" when very often state, or even city governments in some cases, would be perfectly capable.
    - mothballed 11mo ago
      The federal government has no constitutional authority to provide universal health care, per the 10th amendment which leaves an extremely narrow constraint of enumerated powers to the federal government and the rest left to the people and the states. However, the feds already siphon about as much tax as the populace can bear just on accomplishing what it is allowed to do, so there is basically nothing left for the states to implement these kind of measures.
bpodgursky 11mo ago
The most concrete example is energy policy. The UK doesn't have to have the most expensive energy in the world. They chose that! But there are many similar examples in agriculture, manufacturing, etc.

by nradov 11mo ago

fakedang 11mo ago

Because everything in the US is inflated thanks to rampant printing of the USD. Healthcare? Inflated. Education? Inflated. Day-to-day stuff? Inflated. Property values? Inflated. Most of Europe has lower GDP per capita than the poorest states of the US, yet the lifestyle of European citizens in those countries is much better than the lifestyle of the poorest Americans. American growth is built on the backs of piss-poor healthcare, shoddy education and an overinflated perception of the tech sector which holds the rest of the world hostage (but not for long).

mgfist 11mo ago
UK has higher inflation than the US, and has had so since inflation first picked up in 2022.
dangus 11mo ago
I think you are making broad generalizations, so broad that the only statement it's clear you're trying to make is "The US is bad" and the broadness of your argument weakens it greatly. Cost inflation isn't unique to the United States. Europe isn't a single country. > yet the lifestyle of European citizens in those countries is much better than the lifestyle of the poorest Americans Does this include the Romani people? Does this include the Ukranians being attacked by Russia? Greece's housing cost burden is higher than 30 US states. Not all regions in the USA have faced serious property cost pressures. [1] [2] "Day to day stuff" is a very broad category, and that includes items that are flat or decreasing in cost. In that sense I will point out that VAT is much higher in the EU than sales tax in most US states, with VAT rates of >20% being very common while the highest combined sales tax in the USA is just over 10%. Sales tax/VAT is a very regressive tax that harms the poor the most. For someone on the poor end of the spectrum in Europe, buying something like a computer or television is a greater burden than someone in the US. I'm reminded of the natural gas price spikes in 2022 in Europe, and of how the EU's average electricity price is about 2-3x higher than it is in the US. The US has an extremely stable supply of basic needs like energy and food. Education costs have been flat or lower than the rate of inflation in the US since roughly 2016, so for the last 10 years the idea that education is becoming more expensive in the USA has been squarely false. [3] Healthcare, I'll give you that one, the US is not faring well. But we can look at some systems in Europe having their own difficulties like the UK and Spain and it's not like healthcare isn't a challenge elsewhere. I will also point out that the US does have public healthcare for the poorest (Medicaid) and for all people over 65 years old (Medicare), and Medicare is a standout in quality among public healthcare systems in some outcome categories. [1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/europes-housing-cost-burden-by-country/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/europes-housing-cost-burden... [2] https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/cost_burden https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/cost... [3] https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate https://educationdata.org/college-tuition-inflation-rate

crimsoneer 11mo ago

It's worth pointing out this happened entirely post 2008. This is not some "decision" people took, or some long term loss of empire. The US recoevered from the 2008 crisis way better than everyone else, and nobody really understands why yet.

lo_zamoyski 11mo ago
> It's worth pointing out this happened entirely post 2008. Really? Because IIRC, Britain has been steadily declining for over a century. > The US recoevered from the 2008 crisis way better than everyone else, and nobody really understands why yet. And Poland avoided the recession entirely.
DonHopkins 11mo ago
Thanks Obama.
- skippyboxedhero 11mo ago
  Decisions made in 2008 were also a huge part of this. The UK had a framework to liquidate financial institutions that was similar to the US, and this was deployed in early 2008 with Northern Rock and B&B. The end result was a multi-billion pound profit to the government. Gordon Brown then decided that he needed to lead the global economy (and he has written, at the last count, two books which explain in significant detail that he was a thought leader and economic visionary through this period) by bailing out banks that were large employers in his constituency. With RBS, this involved investing at a very high valuation and then shutting down all the profitable parts of the bank, the loss was £20-30bn. With HBOS, he forced the only safe bank to acquire them, this resulted in the safe bank going bankrupt a year after the financial crisis ended in the US, and another multi-billion pound loss. The US benefitted massively from having one of the most successful financial executives of the period, Hank Paulson, running the economy rather than (essentially) a random man from Edinburgh who have never had a job in the private sector (apart from law, obv) but held a seat with a huge number of constituents working at the banks he should have been shutting down (Brown himself had never worked in the private sector at all, parachuted into a safe seat after his doctorate). Geithner nearly suffered from that same fault, but did well with TARP (again though, iirc, this was Paulson's plan).

evmar 11mo ago

Since it's so germane, I'll share my little widget that compares EU countries to US states on various metrics: https://evmar.github.io/states/ https://evmar.github.io/states/

jjmarr 11mo ago
Does Czechia really have 4 million square miles and NaN population?
belter 11mo ago
Alabama has GDP per capita higher than Finland? Hard to believe.... Maybe you can afford Universal Health Care after all...
- skirge 11mo ago
  then prices will decrease and thus GDP will be lower, isn't it?
- MostlyStable 11mo ago
  This is actually the reason why I'm a proponent of the US Federal government doing far _far_ less. Things like Healthcare and other safety net things (along with most other things) should be done at the state level, and the the fact that European nations, which are near universally poorer than all US states, are able to do these things, are the proof that this would work. I'm convinced that the federal government doing more and more things is the root cause if the increasing toxicity of American politics. The further removed a populace is from their representatives the less control they have and the worse they feel. Everything should always be done at the most local level that it is possible to do it. Some things have to be done at a relatively high level, but Americans have increasingly been jumping straight to "this is a job for the federal government" when very often state, or even city governments in some cases, would be perfectly capable.
  - mothballed 11mo ago
    The federal government has no constitutional authority to provide universal health care, per the 10th amendment which leaves an extremely narrow constraint of enumerated powers to the federal government and the rest left to the people and the states. However, the feds already siphon about as much tax as the populace can bear just on accomplishing what it is allowed to do, so there is basically nothing left for the states to implement these kind of measures.

bpodgursky 11mo ago

The most concrete example is energy policy. The UK doesn't have to have the most expensive energy in the world. They chose that! But there are many similar examples in agriculture, manufacturing, etc.