Whitelocke
@cokeynesian.bsky.social
Ideologically idiosyncratic. On polichron.substack.com
Smith, like many Americans, is desperately searching for comfort to help him deal with the state of his own country.
November 11, 2025 at 2:28 PM
Smith, like many Americans, is desperately searching for comfort to help him deal with the state of his own country.
Yeah but economic history nowadays is mostly a subset of economics, practised by people trained as economists (as Tooze was).
November 11, 2025 at 12:52 AM
Yeah but economic history nowadays is mostly a subset of economics, practised by people trained as economists (as Tooze was).
Northern Ireland was not unresolved because the parties involved were too pig-headed or vain. There was a basic conflict between deeply held principles on both sides that could not be waved away.
November 11, 2025 at 12:12 AM
Northern Ireland was not unresolved because the parties involved were too pig-headed or vain. There was a basic conflict between deeply held principles on both sides that could not be waved away.
And you're point is?
November 11, 2025 at 12:10 AM
And you're point is?
Yes, and the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973 effectively accepted the Irish border because it stated that the status of Northern Ireland could not be changed without the "consent" of its people. And everyone knew that consent wouldn't happen any time soon.
November 10, 2025 at 11:59 PM
Yes, and the Sunningdale Agreement in 1973 effectively accepted the Irish border because it stated that the status of Northern Ireland could not be changed without the "consent" of its people. And everyone knew that consent wouldn't happen any time soon.
The German-Polish border wasn't formally settled until 1990, not that long before the GFA settled the Irish border.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%...
German–Polish Border Treaty - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
November 10, 2025 at 11:49 PM
The German-Polish border wasn't formally settled until 1990, not that long before the GFA settled the Irish border.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%...
Eh, simping for a hostile country that you were not actually at war with was never de jure treason IIRC. Though if you took money for them that would bring you under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the US.
November 10, 2025 at 11:45 PM
Eh, simping for a hostile country that you were not actually at war with was never de jure treason IIRC. Though if you took money for them that would bring you under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the US.
There should be a fixed fee (say, 5% of the new development's cost) paid by the developer to the council, ringfenced for local services and transport.
Crucially, this should be transparent and predictable, so developers have a clear idea of what they will have to pay in advance.
Crucially, this should be transparent and predictable, so developers have a clear idea of what they will have to pay in advance.
November 10, 2025 at 4:29 PM
There should be a fixed fee (say, 5% of the new development's cost) paid by the developer to the council, ringfenced for local services and transport.
Crucially, this should be transparent and predictable, so developers have a clear idea of what they will have to pay in advance.
Crucially, this should be transparent and predictable, so developers have a clear idea of what they will have to pay in advance.
I personally would like to see Local Government given Redcliffe-Maud boundaries with the new counties given power over zoning, but with a provision that their plans should zone for 150% of their present population and be updated decennially.
November 10, 2025 at 4:27 PM
I personally would like to see Local Government given Redcliffe-Maud boundaries with the new counties given power over zoning, but with a provision that their plans should zone for 150% of their present population and be updated decennially.
I don't understand why so many people embrace the command-and-control approach to land use. A simple zoning system would balance democratic control and economic freedom. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
November 10, 2025 at 11:05 AM
I don't understand why so many people embrace the command-and-control approach to land use. A simple zoning system would balance democratic control and economic freedom. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.
It was always a ridiculous cop out to actually doing the hard work of simplifying the planning system. Very typical Starmer gimmick.
November 10, 2025 at 3:17 AM
It was always a ridiculous cop out to actually doing the hard work of simplifying the planning system. Very typical Starmer gimmick.
The British Labour Party's inquiry into why it lost the 1959 General Election began with the sentence "We were defeated by prosperity".
November 10, 2025 at 3:16 AM
The British Labour Party's inquiry into why it lost the 1959 General Election began with the sentence "We were defeated by prosperity".
People forget how rubbish cars were until the Japanese started making them.
November 10, 2025 at 3:03 AM
People forget how rubbish cars were until the Japanese started making them.
For me the infuriating bit is that their reforms to the planning system weren't radical at all, but minor tinkering.
November 8, 2025 at 12:08 PM
For me the infuriating bit is that their reforms to the planning system weren't radical at all, but minor tinkering.
Tbf to NASA, the Shuttle they got was not the Shuttle they wanted. Congress and the Air Force forced all sorts of problematic compromises on the design.
A key advantage SpaceX has is that, as a private (and not publicly traded) company, it can basically do what it wants.
A key advantage SpaceX has is that, as a private (and not publicly traded) company, it can basically do what it wants.
November 7, 2025 at 2:46 PM
Tbf to NASA, the Shuttle they got was not the Shuttle they wanted. Congress and the Air Force forced all sorts of problematic compromises on the design.
A key advantage SpaceX has is that, as a private (and not publicly traded) company, it can basically do what it wants.
A key advantage SpaceX has is that, as a private (and not publicly traded) company, it can basically do what it wants.
Hence, Musk's dominance. Tho his politics have now become an embarrassment for the company.
He was very lucky in having some brilliant engineers, and excellent lieutenant (Gwynne Shotwell, who actually ran the show), and pretty feckless competitors.
He was very lucky in having some brilliant engineers, and excellent lieutenant (Gwynne Shotwell, who actually ran the show), and pretty feckless competitors.
November 7, 2025 at 1:36 PM
Hence, Musk's dominance. Tho his politics have now become an embarrassment for the company.
He was very lucky in having some brilliant engineers, and excellent lieutenant (Gwynne Shotwell, who actually ran the show), and pretty feckless competitors.
He was very lucky in having some brilliant engineers, and excellent lieutenant (Gwynne Shotwell, who actually ran the show), and pretty feckless competitors.
NASA never intended for SpaceX to become as dominant as it did. SpaceX had plenty of competitors, often on the same contract.
Boeing was awarded more money than SpaceX to make the same sort of capsule to take astronauts to the ISS. But SpaceX's capsule worked. Boeing's still doesn't.
Boeing was awarded more money than SpaceX to make the same sort of capsule to take astronauts to the ISS. But SpaceX's capsule worked. Boeing's still doesn't.
November 7, 2025 at 1:36 PM
NASA never intended for SpaceX to become as dominant as it did. SpaceX had plenty of competitors, often on the same contract.
Boeing was awarded more money than SpaceX to make the same sort of capsule to take astronauts to the ISS. But SpaceX's capsule worked. Boeing's still doesn't.
Boeing was awarded more money than SpaceX to make the same sort of capsule to take astronauts to the ISS. But SpaceX's capsule worked. Boeing's still doesn't.
The tragedy of the Shuttle was that it was supposed to do what the Falcon 9 ultimately did: make space travel safe, routine, and affordable. But for various reasons, the Shuttle ended up being the exact opposite.
November 7, 2025 at 1:36 PM
The tragedy of the Shuttle was that it was supposed to do what the Falcon 9 ultimately did: make space travel safe, routine, and affordable. But for various reasons, the Shuttle ended up being the exact opposite.
SpaceX promised Silicon Valley-style disruption. And, amazingly, they delivered it.
The key was that they made the Falcon 9 reusable (something the old players in the industry thought impossible or unwise), which completely changed the game.
The key was that they made the Falcon 9 reusable (something the old players in the industry thought impossible or unwise), which completely changed the game.
November 7, 2025 at 1:36 PM
SpaceX promised Silicon Valley-style disruption. And, amazingly, they delivered it.
The key was that they made the Falcon 9 reusable (something the old players in the industry thought impossible or unwise), which completely changed the game.
The key was that they made the Falcon 9 reusable (something the old players in the industry thought impossible or unwise), which completely changed the game.
It really can't be emphasised enough that a huge factor in SpaceX's success was that its competitors were utterly useless. Because of the "cost-plus" contract system, they had little incentive to innovate or reduce costs. There was very little commercial risk-taking either.
November 7, 2025 at 1:36 PM
It really can't be emphasised enough that a huge factor in SpaceX's success was that its competitors were utterly useless. Because of the "cost-plus" contract system, they had little incentive to innovate or reduce costs. There was very little commercial risk-taking either.
It was partly ideological, but also because the results of NASA's traditional development methods had become deeply disappointing. Everything was overtime and overbudget. The big existing contractors had gotten fat on "cost-plus" contracts and, frankly, were lazy.
November 7, 2025 at 1:36 PM
It was partly ideological, but also because the results of NASA's traditional development methods had become deeply disappointing. Everything was overtime and overbudget. The big existing contractors had gotten fat on "cost-plus" contracts and, frankly, were lazy.
Actually it began in the Bush admin with COTS and CRS, but Obama carries it through to fruition.
November 7, 2025 at 1:05 PM
Actually it began in the Bush admin with COTS and CRS, but Obama carries it through to fruition.
The COTS and CRS contracts that birthed SpaceX were fantastically successful on their own terms.
The Falcon 9 rocket that developed from them revolutionised space access, and it cost taxpayers far less than what traditionally acquired one would have.
The Falcon 9 rocket that developed from them revolutionised space access, and it cost taxpayers far less than what traditionally acquired one would have.
November 7, 2025 at 1:04 PM
The COTS and CRS contracts that birthed SpaceX were fantastically successful on their own terms.
The Falcon 9 rocket that developed from them revolutionised space access, and it cost taxpayers far less than what traditionally acquired one would have.
The Falcon 9 rocket that developed from them revolutionised space access, and it cost taxpayers far less than what traditionally acquired one would have.