>> The UK is broke and in debt.

This is nonsensical. Public debt is nothing like private debt, you can't apply prudent financial advice from the context of an individual to that of a currency issuer. The difference being that they are a currency issuer. The Bank of England is a great starting point: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/explainers/how-is-money-crea...

Key points:

You can't save in a currency you issue. If a state issues its own fiat currency, it does not need to save in that currency because:

    - It cannot run out of its own currency.
    - It can always credit accounts via fiscal or monetary operations.
    - “Saving” in the conventional sense implies a constraint that doesn’t apply to sovereign issuers.

Every single pound the UK gov spends, is a brand new pound that's never existed before - NB: it wasn't collected by tax. From the Bank of England: “The central bank can create money in the form of central bank reserves by lending to the banking sector… or by purchasing assets. This money is new—it did not exist before.” https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-... - that is to say, government spending results in the creation of new money, rather than the recycling of pre-existing tax revenues.

The limits to pay attention to are real resources in the economy, not money; you can have all the money in the world but if you can't procure steel then you simply can't build that bridge.

You clearly don't understand how country/nation finances work, especially when you have your own currency.

It's not like a personal finance regime.

"Fiat" means "let it be". All you have to do is make sure that everyone else believes you. That is also largely the basis behind a public offering for a company.

Keep up!

This ARIA program’s budget is apparently only about 800 million pounds, which is a tiny fraction of UK’s overall budget of over a trillion pounds.

These types of highly speculative projects are inherently risky, making them unappealing for profit-driven investors. That’s why it’s important for non-profit organizations and governments to fund them.

Scientific breakthroughs don’t happen in a vacuum. They are the product of dedicated research requiring years of consistent funding.

Ahh, something approximating a substantive criticism! You should have put this in your first comment.

Smart countries always spare money for speculative research.

Do you really think governments should stop investing in the future?

Why is it always "Blackrock" in these borderline economic-illiterate rants? My guess is just that people see "Blackrock 7.23%" or whatever on the stockholder list of every major company, and thus reduce that Blackrock = Elders of Sion or some shit.