[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

This question is probably easy to answer in regard to undemocratic countries, but why is it the case in developed countries with representative governments? The US and UK could cut their military spending by 90% and oust all financially corrupt politicians and still fail at doing it.

[alancalverd]

The theoretical problem is that it takes a long time to implement and collect taxes, but war, fire, flood, famine and pestilence just turn up unannounced and cost money to fix.

The principal practical problem in the UK is the infinite legacy of "Public Private Initiatives" where major public construction projects were financed by private investors who then lease the hospital/bridge/railway back to the taxpayer. Since the whole point was to balance the short-term budget, HM Taxpayer has no capital to replace said outdated and crumbling asset but the beneficial owner has the government over a barrel: nobody else is allowed to modify or repair it, and the cost of doing anything is whatever the owner, via his subcontractor brother, wishes to charge - currently about ?500 to replace a hospital light bulb.

Secondary problem, even without war, fire, etc., is the uncontrolled cost of a vanity project like HS2. With great fanfares and diligence, the project is announced and specified to the last penny, then it rains and central England tuns into a swamp (like every year, but it was planned by Computer Modelling on the best Digital Map, which doesn't include weather because that would increase the consultancy fees). The cost of draining the swamp or moving the track five meters to the east is whatever the contractor says, because The Line Must Be Completed (or abandoned, if it runs through safe Labour constituencies, but the consultancy fees and land purchases are not refundable) Regardless of Cost because We have Spent too Much Already.

In short, privatisation of public works. If you want anything done on time and in budget there are only two ways to do it: direct labor, or fixed cost private contract with 10% deposit and not a penny more than the remainder when the job is complete. Modern pseudo-governments talk about the private sector "bearing the risk", then make damn sure there is no risk if the contractor happens to be a relative or Party donor. 

The nearest anyone has come to rational cost and damage control recently was "lane leasing" for highway maintenance. You can take as long as you like, and have as much road as you want, but your fee will be discounted by ?200 per meter per day per lane. I think it has fallen out of favor as only Irish or German contractors ever made any money out of it, and they are not related to Tory politicians.

[Petrochemicals]

A funny fact is that governments do not try and balance their budget, future debt is to a point eaten up by inflation, governments can borrow very cheaply, depending on their responsibility rating. If you borrow for 5 years , the money is deflated by the time you wish to pay it back, so fiscally speaking they can borrow more today by estimating tax revenues tomorrow. Governments are not like people, when you pay tax for pensions etc the money is not held or loaned, but immediately payed back out in pensions to people today. Your pension will be paid by the workers of tomorrow. Effectively governments run their budgets poorly on purpous.

https://www.theconversation.com/amp/explainer-what-are-credit-ratings-and-why-do-they-matter-79336

https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_economics-theory-through-applications/s33-03-the-benefits-of-deficits.html#:~:text=By%20running%20a%20deficit%2C%20a,government%20to%20run%20a%20deficit.

The USA thing is loads of partisan warfare.

[Bored chemist]

Any government can print money so it can balance the budget.
The question is why don't they try to do so?

[alancalverd]

Some difference between public and private pensions. A private fund tries to invest money in productive ventures that will yield future income, whereas most government schemes are indeed simply redistributing tax revenue in real time. It would make more sense to invest some tax income in publicly-owned industries that provide infrastructure services at a profit.

Brexit offers the opportunity to do so, which is why it is not an inherently right-wing policy. Problem is to identify suitable targets, but there are ample examples. Small retail energy companies have withered and died but the big ones make a profit, so it's pretty clear than one national supplier, say of electricity, could make a bigger profit by cutting out several layers of management, not spending money on advertising, etc. AFAIK no railway makes a profit but it would make sense to subsidise fares, not shares, with taxpayers money. There's no reason that a national flag-carrying airline shouldn't run a profitable no-frills service and cross-subsidise "highlands and islands" routes. And once again, abolishing PPI in favor of direct investment, whilst not an immediate vote winner, would mean your children and grandchildren could have a national health service instead of an unlimited debt on crumbling buildings.

[Bored chemist]

Brexit offers the opportunity to do so,

How so?
Brexit has left the UK with less money to invest.
The rest of Europe is noted for investing more into publicly owned infrastructure so it's not "being in the EU" that stopped the UK doing it.
For example, we in the UK (via EDF) subsidise the French power industry. Brexit hasn't helped that.

PPI/ PFI was essentially government fraud launched by John major- pretending that you could borrow without borrowing.
I'd be happy to see all the PFI  schemes simply brought back into state ownership without compensation of the companies that took them on.
After all, the idea was that the private sector should carry the risk.

[alancalverd]

One of the founding principles of the EU was privatisation (as espoused by Thatcher) and the abolition of public subsidy to private enterprise, as ignored by France and Germany, with substantial controlling investments in infrastructure, and by UK Tory governments in bailing out their incompetent relatives.   

One good example is the privatisation of water supplies. In the UK, Tory donors and the French government own the water that falls on your land and all the process machinery thereafter, but in France the government owns the water and infrastructure, and merely issues short-term contracts to process and manage the retail supply. Result: if Joe Bloggs Water Company pollutes the river and poisons the population, they get a trivial fine and a subsidy to carry on, but if Eaux LePont fail to meet the contract specification they are imprisoned and sued to bankruptcy. 

There is a rider to this. British public water, as supplied by those disgraceful socialist water authorities  since Victorian times, was specified to industrial quality - in essence, no biological content at the point of delivery. In the name of profit and level-playing-field competition the EU relaxed the specification to "potable", which allows all sorts of non-toxic algae to flourish and jam up non-human machinery. 

The combination of Brexit and a secure Labour majority might just get the UK back to the 20th century in terms of public health and safety.

[Bored chemist]

One of the founding principles of the EU was privatisation

You can tell- because they didn't do much of it for 30 years.

[alancalverd]

Probably not, but when the UK joined it became a driving (or more correctly, retarding) force in government sponsorship of industry, as I recall from my misspent youth in the Department thereof. As I pointed out above, our socalled partners outsourced a few managerial and support jobs but generally retained a controlling share in public assets.

For example  Direction des Services de la navigation aerienne (DSNA, France) is a nonprofit government agency, whereas  NATS (UK) was reorganised into a limited company on 1 April 1996.

[Petrochemicals]

Probably not, but when the UK joined it became a driving (or more correctly, retarding) force in government sponsorship of industry, as I recall from my misspent youth in the Department thereof. As I pointed out above, our socalled partners outsourced a few managerial and support jobs but generally retained a controlling share in public assets.

For example  Direction des Services de la navigation aerienne (DSNA, France) is a nonprofit government agency, whereas  NATS (UK) was reorganised into a limited company on 1 April 1996.

Lack of investment has been present in UK industry for decades before 1980, it is still present now, probably to an even greater extent, to much money to shareholders, not enough reinvested. The mines where publicly run and suffered from under investment, one reason some where unprofitable in 1980.

[alancalverd]

The mines where publicly run and suffered from under investment, one reason some where unprofitable in 1980.

The problem in the 1970s and 1980s was the availability of Polish coal, shipped to UK power stations at much lower cost than it could be mined here.

The relative costs of living (particularly housing) between the UK and eastern Europe have continued to plague the UK economy. 10 years ago I could employ a Romanian medical consultant for less than a British junior, and a group of Polish builders gave me a very good fixed price for every job because the return fare to Warsaw, where the money would buy two to three times as much as in London, was about ?40, so they worked four 12-hour days and went home to a very happy family every weekend.

[Bored chemist]

For example  Direction des Services de la navigation aerienne (DSNA, France) is a nonprofit government agency, whereas  NATS (UK) was reorganised into a limited company on 1 April 1996.

That's proof that being in the EU didn't rule out, or rule in, either system.
It's proof that the UK govt's bad decisions about nationalisation were nothing to do with the EU and thus that Brexit won't improve them.

[Bored chemist]

a group of Polish builders gave me a very good fixed price for every job because the return fare to Warsaw, where the money would buy two to three times as much as in London, was about ?40, so they worked four 12-hour days and went home to a very happy family every weekend.

And Brexit has all but banned them from doing the same  today.
Yet you still seem to think it's a god thing.

[alancalverd]

There is no visa requirement, and plenty of flights, between Poland and the UK. The legacy of WWII means that there is a significant resident population of Polish-speaking Brits with flourishing trade and social connections.

I've always said that the EU was good for business, bad for Britain.

[alancalverd]

That's proof that being in the EU didn't rule out, or rule in, either system.

It ruled it out nationalisation, but only if you played by the rules as interpreted by the Tory party (including B Liar).

It's proof that the UK govt's bad decisions about nationalisation were nothing to do with the EU and thus that Brexit won't improve them.

I'm not sure that past performance is a reliable guide to future stupidity. Personal ambition and corruption certainly is, so we need a less corrupt and longer-sighted government. 

[Petrochemicals]

The mines where publicly run and suffered from under investment, one reason some where unprofitable in 1980.

The problem in the 1970s and 1980s was the availability of Polish coal, shipped to UK power stations at much lower cost than it could be mined here.

Yes open cast is largely far cheaper, but most of the polish German coal is low quality, most of the UK coal is high quality, much suitable for coaking. Some UK mines in the UK had reached the end  of their life, some where unprofitable of which many where suffering from a lack of investment. British motor vehicle, ship building, steel etc all suffered from alack of investment, once they where world leaders (triumph Austin etc) that where ran into the floor. Some got government help to merge into other things like British Leyland but the lack of investment remained.

Polish builders gave me a very good fixed price for every job

I hear polish pilots are also as cheap as chips and far better workers.

[Bored chemist]

There is no visa requirement,

Here's the application form for the visa that you say they don't need.
https://www.gov.uk/skilled-worker-visa

It ruled it out nationalisation, but only if you played by the rules as interpreted by the Tory party (including B Liar).

So, in fact, it didn't; neither in the UK nor, for example, in France or Germany.

we need a less corrupt and longer-sighted government. 

I knew there must be something we agreed about.

But what Brexit has actually given us is a more corrupt government than ever before.
The Tories got in by convincing racists that they could "take control".
Without that lie to pitch as an election promise, they wouldn't be in power.

[alancalverd]

The Tories got in by convincing racists that they could "take control".

Round here, the Tory got elected because this old socialist couldn't possibly vote for any of three candidates who wanted to have another referendum in the hope of supporting an incompetent and unaccountable right-wing administration in Brussels. But as I'd rather die than vote Conservative, I just stayed at home and wept.