[banach]

A pathetic example of the ideological myopia that plagues Europe these days. States have provided services to their inhabitants since prehistory, and the notion that this infrastructure does not need financing is as healthy as a corporation that thinks it does not need to invest to succeed. At best, this strategy of living off of investments made by previous generations is doomed to underperform compared to states that take an active role in their own development.

[noahtallen]

We don’t even have to zoom in on Europe. In the US, it’s quite common for folks to expect public services (like public transit or even the USPS) to be profitable. Which means these services don’t get the investment they really need.

[userabchn]

If it was providing a service of as much value as was being spent on it, then why shouldn't it be profitable?

[tomcam]

What percentage of US taxpayer money should go to subsidize money-losing services?

[Aloha]

I don't know if this is a European wide problem or just a UK one.

[solarkraft]

Definitely applies to Germany. Our infrastructure is deeply fucked and we missed all the chances to innovate after 16 years of conservative rule, but the balance sheets look nice though.

[philpem]

It certainly seems worst in the UK.

[skrebbel]

> compared to states that take an active role in their own development.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Which non-European states do you think do this well?

[AdrianB1]

Probably the Moon colony around year 2150.

[banach]

China