Coming from a country with a strong communitarian ethos based on solidarity, safety, equality, and minimising risk of harm or upset, the UK, it’s interesting to visit one with a national character more based around freedom, independence, and progress at any cost, France. 🧵
The UK has very low speed limits — the top one is only around 110kmh, and these are enforced aggressively with radars and cameras to make sure few die on roads. By contrast the top French speed limit is about 82mph, and it is rarely enforced. The priority is on speedy movement.
You actually reach these speeds because motorways are tolled. I spent €60 on tolls today; in exchange I put the cruise control on at 130kph for hours at a time. French attitude to paying for good things is relaxed. In egalitarian UK, the public prefers equal traffic for all.
This extends to infra like tunnels. I went about 10km underneath Paris today, part of the A86 (one of Paris’s three ring roads) — for which I paid €9, reflecting the more ruggedly individualistic, swashbuckling attitude the French have. No traffic. Wish we had same in London!
This is also reflected in attitude to risk vs progress. In the UK we shy away from things considered ‘risky’ like nuclear power, preferring higher electricity prices and lower energy consumption. France is a ‘more more more’ country, willing to take disruptive risks.
The same attitude is clear with growth. The UK has a strong view to protect its countryside and prevent industrial and residential growth. London has grown around 2% in extent since 1938. Paris has tripled. This is visible everywhere.
As an Englishman, I am obviously biased and have a soft spot for our conservatism and social solidarity, but my trip makes me wonder whether we could learn from the French and their individualistic, libertarian national ethos, and by being slightly more relaxed about risk.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the 2000s we discovered an amazing tool to literally bring inventions from the far future forward to the present, or near future. Despite its huge power we have barely used it since. So Works in Progress has produced a practical easy-to-follow guide that anyone could copy. 🧵
In 2007, Gavi, funded by the UK govt and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, promised Big Pharma that if they invented a vaccine for pneuomococcal disease they would buy it. By 2011, GSK and Pfizer had met their specifications. So far this vaccine has saved 700,000 lives.
This mechanism to buy inventions from the future is called an 'advance market commitment'. Basically, you say you'll buy something if companies or scientists can invent it and produce enough for you. It's part of a broad range of 'market-shaping mechanisms'
In the 1960s and 1970s the UK was pumping huge demand subsidies into the housing market, but rationing mortgages. Houses got smaller every year. By 1980, private homes were smaller than council houses. And they got worse: fewer had washing machines or fridges. How? 🧵
A standard pair of semi-detached houses in the 1960s (L), and their equivalent from the 1930s (R). Across Europe, homes were getting bigger and more modern. But in Britain, they were getting worse, despite rapidly rising incomes and huge demand subsidies.
These demand subsidies were generous. Taxes were very high – the top income tax rate was over 90% from the late 1940s to 1979 – but you could deduct your mortgage from your income, even though you weren't taxed on imputed rent. Top taxpayers actually got paid to buy more house.
The master sculptors of history did not chip away at a block of stone to get at the statue inside. Instead, they made plaster models (right), which unnamed skilled craftsmen turned into statues with precise pointing machines (left). Ornament has *always* been industrialised.
Canova, Thorvaldsen, and Rodin all worked this way. They produced moulds, which were turned by others into statues and sculptures. This type of art was always meant to be mass produced.
Romans did this too. Ornament might have been relatively cheap, but high transport costs before the 1700s, and slow speeds, meant no economies of scale.
Between 2005 and 2010, Israel gave apartment owners the right to agree by supermajority to demolish their rickety pre-1980 building and replace it with a bigger, better, newer one. Here is a thread of five before and afters one architect there sent me. 🧵
Every single one of these is the same building, and where possible I tried to get an identical perspective. That wasn't always perfectly achievable: there were loads of 'after' images, but not always lots of 'befores'.
Very little in history has been more difficult than land reform – who owns agricultural land, or what can be done with modern residential land – zoning or planning reform.
But Pyotr Stolypin squared the circle in Imperial Russia. 🧵
First, the context. Imperial Russia in 1905 was a vast, sprawling almost-feudal state. It had grown dramatically over the past 400 years.
This system allowed them to field enormous armies, which were often sufficient to win wars on pure scale.
An incredible 2001 paper re-analysed every then-available dataset on historical European homicide rates. This turned up an amazing trove of estimates.
Firstly, England. Note that it's a log scale – 1300s England was a war zone!
These estimates come from a range of sources. Local court data, combined with separate population estimates. One particularly good series following Kent for a long time. And then, from the 1800s, official data.
England is in some sense the canonical story because we have the best data and the clearest overall path: something like a steady decline from the 1500s to around 1950, when crime started increasing.