Comment by 59percentmore
17 hours ago
On the last supposition: they've managed something better for themselves, which is an order where they have substantial control over public policy without being subject to the full brunt of public inquiry or responsibility. You would have to force Sam Altman to run for office; Oprah famously laughs when questioned about pursuing the presidency.
The article tries to imply this system 'worked', but Britain alreadt had an intercontinental colonial empire for 150 years prior to the Victorian era. Massive technological and scientific advances like the steam engine and calculus preceded the Victorian era. The hedonistic generation of leadership that came out of this era basically lost it all.
For better picture of what made Britain successful during this era look to folks like Isa Brunel... son of a French Revolutionary immigrant who was poor enough for debtors prison, but skilled enough in engineering and math to build some of the largest ships in the world.
> The hedonistic generation of leadership that came out of this era basically lost it all.
I don't think that's correct; the end of Empire was the two world wars. Much of the empire didn't leave until the late 40s/early 50s.
The article mentions Churchill who was a major leader in both world wars. He also served as a lancer at the Battle of Omduran and grew up during the time of Empire born smack dab in the middle of the Victorian Era (1870s). His generation formed the leadership of the empire during that period.
The British Empire controlled something like ~20% of the world and other European powers were adding in 10% here and there. Probably more than that weighted by economic and military strength. It is kinda on the British elite that the world wars even started. Even with the most charitable read we're talking about a situation where the message was "lets not break the power of Europe" and they couldn't sell it to Europe.
The world wars were a crisis that caused change, but that is a bit like going bankrupt. Just because the crisis is fast doesn't stop the process being slow.
2 replies →
> basically lost it all
Last week I worked up this one-liner: "Great Britain extracted the wealth of a vast empire, far less wealth than might have been created, pissed most of it away through bad domestic policy, and transferred the rest to the USA to pay for one-and-a-half world wars."
A failure to reinvest in domestic industrial tech; a painfully high-value currency; and low-mobility economic stratification. History does love its rhyming slams.
>>far less wealth than might have been created
Like the movie says, if they could have created wealth, they would have created wealth.
The Industrial Revolution was caused by capitalism. As other countries liberalized their economies, the British Empire faded. Even worse, the UK became more socialist over time.
You're on HN, don't you know!
> where they have substantial control over public policy
Substantial influence. The fact that America's rich are constantly mobilizing to promote or defeat ballot measures and candidates shows the limits of their power.
The government is always infighting.
> government is always infighting
By design. That's what separation of powers–and the division of power–is intended to do.
Huge pools of money got Trump elected, not sure what youre talking about.
Do those huge pools of money wanted restrictions on immigration and high tariffs?
Why is populism doing so well on the right? Is that what the pools of money want?
5 replies →
In 2016, Clinton spent $576.4 million and Trump spent $332.4 million. In 2024, total spending including PACs was $1.6B for Biden/Harris and $1.1B for Trump. There was less money behind Trump both times.