Thatcher's Politicial Legacy.

[Valmy]

1. Hong Kong had the kind of prosperity China wanted. As such it was a model for the economic liberalization that China was about to have; destroying it would have been counter productive.

2. Huge parts of the CPC is incredibly venal and corrupt; nonetheless, there are also reformist impulses that are interested in good governance, the elimination of corruption, and greater democracy. Hong Kong is and was a contained area to experiment in.

I think I get where you are coming from here but just to be clear: you are saying the things like the statues of British monarchs and streets named after former Royal governors and all that are symbols Hong Kong and its particular way of doing things?

[dps]

But her insistence on destroying "hard" industry, which got replaced by financial services centre in London as the primary source of Britain's GDP, is a big reason for the mess the Britain is in now.

Nothing she did destroyed "hard" industry in Britian--it had largely been dead for decades.  She just the "Weekend at Bernie's" charade that heavy industry in the UK was alive and well.

[mongers]

But her insistence on destroying "hard" industry, which got replaced by financial services centre in London as the primary source of Britain's GDP, is a big reason for the mess the Britain is in now.

Nothing she did destroyed "hard" industry in Britian--it had largely been dead for decades.  She just the "Weekend at Bernie's" charade that heavy industry in the UK was alive and well.

[Jacob]

I think I get where you are coming from here but just to be clear: you are saying the things like the statues of British monarchs and streets named after former Royal governors and all that are symbols Hong Kong and its particular way of doing things?

I think changing symbols so thoroughly would send a pretty damn strong signal; and that such a strong signal would be accompanied by other less symbolic gestures as well.

That sort of symbolism seems pretty central to how the CCP governs.

[Warspite]

But her insistence on destroying "hard" industry, which got replaced by financial services centre in London as the primary source of Britain's GDP, is a big reason for the mess the Britain is in now.

Nothing she did destroyed "hard" industry in Britian--it had largely been dead for decades.  She just the "Weekend at Bernie's" charade that heavy industry in the UK was alive and well.

British Steel was rescued under her watch, right? It shed half the workforce, yes, but it did start to be able to turn a profit again. Need to find my data...

[Gups]

British Steel was rescued under her watch, right? It shed half the workforce, yes, but it did start to be able to turn a profit again. Need to find my data...

The narrative for these things is never as simple as that.

Large-scale closures and job losses and the reorginsation  of British Steel were announced in 1975 following an extensive review. This took place throughout the late 1970s and was completed in 1980. More than half the workforce were laid off. Management and productivity improved significantly and the company was making very good profits in the years before it was privatised in 1988.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is one aspect of Thatcher that I do like and admire. And that is the iron will that bred her nickname. Far too many leaders today, of all stripes, say one thing and do another, bend like flowers in the wind to the opinions of the pollsters and lobbyists. The minute they're elected they start thinking of how they're going to win the next election. Thatcher, from what I gather, was resolute and stuck to her guns despite criticism, even from within her own party at times. For this I'll give her credit. As a famous man once said, "I'd rather you were black or white than anything in between." She was mistaken, yes, but at least consistent in her views and ideology. For that I'll tip my hat to her.

My view is close to the opposite of this.  I think her worst and most dangerous quality was her stubborness to realize when she was wrong and fix the problem.  The poll tax perhaps the most spectacular example, but the "I'm not turning" episode is also illustrative.  She chose fidelity to a flawed theoretical construct over the practical needs of the people who elected her.  One consequence was an employment crisis that took 15 years to recover from.

[Josquius]

Many industrial sectors as a whole were not doing so well, shrinkage was inevitable, there are statistics out there about how massively various industries shrunk in the post-war period, even pre-Thatcher. It was an on-going, gradual process.
Thatcher came in though...and she was on an ideological crusade. Bigger picture thinking went out of the window. It was a case of "Is a mine losing £100,000 a year? Close it down!" completely ignoring that this £100,000 loss might be supporting the broader economy of a town of several thousand people and the cost in benefits of them all going out of work would be substantially higher.

People say that history has proven she was right because no subsequent prime minister radically altered things- and look where that got us. 2008 proved she was utterly wrong. Britain with its invisible economy is utterly screwed whilst Germany is proving that manufacturing is a very valid option for a first world country.

Given that the 80s saw the beginning of north sea oil and gas profits and the British computer industry becoming a world leader (a massive game changer) the time should have been right to drastically modernise British industry. Its one of those horrible mistakes of history that her mistakes in causing the Falklands War ended up saving her and still lead to her being well regarded today, its shocking how few people know aout the lead up to the war and all they see is Maggie standing up to Britain being invaded as if no other PM would have done that.

So yeah. IMO long term her poltiical legacy will be rightly regarded as a bad thing as our flirtations with neo-liberalism will be regarded as a major mistake and manufacturing begins to take hold again (costs of manufacturing in the UK vs. China are fast approaching equality).

[Admiral Yi]

It's deja vu all over again.

[Agelastus]

People say that history has proven she was right because no subsequent prime minister radically altered things- and look where that got us. 2008 proved she was utterly wrong. Britain with its invisible economy is utterly screwed whilst Germany is proving that manufacturing is a very valid option for a first world country.

While I'm off to bed shortly and cannot reply properly, a quick search found an interesting Guardian article - take a look at table 6 since it provides an interesting picture that doesn't entirely agree with received wisdom that the Thatcher years were the worst for manufacturing's decline.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

[Admiral Yi]

So yeah. IMO long term her poltiical legacy will be rightly regarded as a bad thing as our flirtations with neo-liberalism will be regarded as a major mistake and manufacturing begins to take hold again (costs of manufacturing in the UK vs. China are fast approaching equality).

You know Squeeze, if manufacturing returns to the UK because costs are equalizing with China, that's proof of the logic of neo-liberalism, not a sign of its failure.

[Josquius]

So yeah. IMO long term her poltiical legacy will be rightly regarded as a bad thing as our flirtations with neo-liberalism will be regarded as a major mistake and manufacturing begins to take hold again (costs of manufacturing in the UK vs. China are fast approaching equality).

You know Squeeze, if manufacturing returns to the UK because costs are equalizing with China, that's proof of the logic of neo-liberalism, not a sign of its failure.

That shows nothing.
The better country that results will show us she was wrong.

[Admiral Yi]

The argument you seem to be making Squeeze, is that manufacturing creates such a powerful dynamic in a country (or a "positive externality" to use the neo-liberal term) that it's worthwhile for country to take money from tax revenue and operate those industries at a loss, because they will come out ahead.

Is that right?

The problem with your positive proof is that German manufacturing is *not* propped up by the government.  It's profitable.  The closer comparitor is France, which does throw all kinds of money at Renault and its ilk.

And of course the most powerful counter-example is the Soviet bloc, which industrialized like a motherfucker and ended up in the shitbox of history.

[Josquius]

The argument you seem to be making Squeeze, is that manufacturing creates such a powerful dynamic in a country (or a "positive externality" to use the neo-liberal term) that it's worthwhile for country to take money from tax revenue and operate those industries at a loss, because they will come out ahead.

Is that right?
The problem with your positive proof is that German manufacturing is *not* propped up by the government.  It's profitable.  The closer comparitor is France, which does throw all kinds of money at Renault and its ilk.

And of course the most powerful counter-example is the Soviet bloc, which industrialized like a motherfucker and ended up in the shitbox of history.

No. Economics is the means to the end, not the end goal. How the manufacturing is there is not the important factor, merely that it is.
Having a large manufacturing sector in a country provides opportunities even to those who are not academically inclined and produces a society where anyone can succeed and generations aren't condemned to a life of unemployment.

[Admiral Yi]

Then what the fuck are you bringing Germany up for?

And I've got to say a lifetime of handouts is not most people's idea of succeeding.