Thatcher's Politicial Legacy.

[fhdz]

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.

People actually have to want to buy things that you're manufacturing, though. That's where the "economy" piece you're skirting around comes in.

[Josquius]

People actually have to want to buy things that you're manufacturing, though. That's where the "economy" piece you're skirting around comes in.

Obviously.
I'm not sure what you're implying.

Then what the fuck are you bringing Germany up for?

Because they're the country doing it best.

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

Exactly. And that's where we are now.

[Admiral Yi]

OK, so now it seems that loss-making, subsidized industry is not what your are arguing in favor of.

It seems that Maggie's sin was rather her failure to turn the UK's outdated, money-bleeding losers into gleaming technological marvels like BMW and Siemens.

Is this right Squeeze?

[Sheilbh]

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

Being in work for a state-owned company isn't a handout, it's work which is a virtue.

This is the criticism of Thatcher's legacy. As the Chancellor recently put it, people getting 'parked on benefits' started with the very high levels of unemployment in the 80s.

I think the argument that welfare dependency exists and can cause problems across generations is true. So any system with people moving from work to unemployment to disability and staying there is problematic. I think kids are better off and more likely to succeed if their parents are in work than on the dole, though there'll be exceptions. So when you have communities and cities with far higher rates of welfare I think that's a problem for social mobility.

If it's just the cost that's not an issue. We could support Glasgow for a very long time before it would be too costly. For me it's a problem of social mobility and equality.

People actually have to want to buy things that you're manufacturing, though. That's where the "economy" piece you're skirting around comes in.

Yep. But this is where the failures of British management, the lack of sufficient competition and class come into it.

[fhdz]

People actually have to want to buy things that you're manufacturing, though. That's where the "economy" piece you're skirting around comes in.

Obviously.
I'm not sure what you're implying.

If your manufacturing sector is running consistent losses, to the point that it must be propped up by the government to survive, it means that not enough people want to buy what you're making. Either it costs too much, or it's not innovative enough, etc etc. The point of manufacturing isn't to employ people, it's to make things. Of course you have to employ people to make things, but at some point if they are making substandard things that no one wants or that others can make much more inexpensively, what is the point?

[CountDeMoney]

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

The GOP seems convinced it is.  What with all those black people doing it and all.

[fhdz]

Being in work for a state-owned company isn't a handout, it's work which is a virtue.

God. Work, for its own sake, is SO NOT a virtue. That's one of the most disgusting leftovers of Protestantism.

[ulmont]

Being in work for a state-owned company isn't a handout, it's work which is a virtue.

God. Work, for its own sake, is SO NOT a virtue. That's one of the most disgusting leftovers of Protestantism.

You ain't fucking joking. 

[Josquius]

If your manufacturing sector is running consistent losses, to the point that it must be propped up by the government to survive, it means that not enough people want to buy what you're making. Either it costs too much, or it's not innovative enough, etc etc. The point of manufacturing isn't to employ people, it's to make things. Of course you have to employ people to make things, but at some point if they are making substandard things that no one wants or that others can make much more inexpensively, what is the point?

In the 19th century yes, production was all important.
Increasingly however things have shifted with our ability to produce being far greater than our ability to consume. Keeping people employed is a very important part of the economy in its own right. Not to mention the social benefits which are the primary concern.

I think you're seeing things too much in absolutes here. Employing people just for the sake of them being employed with absolutely nothing useful being done and literally nobody wanting to buy what they make- yes, that is a bad idea.
Employing people in an industry which runs a slight loss but keeps thousands off the dole line and allows them to buy things that means as a whole the country runs a profit out of them- this is a very good idea. Having them employed in profitable industries in their own right would of course be preferable but this is drastically better than nothing. Even in the short term let alone thinking generationally.

OK, so now it seems that loss-making, subsidized industry is not what your are arguing in favor of.

It seems that Maggie's sin was rather her failure to turn the UK's outdated, money-bleeding losers into gleaming technological marvels like BMW and Siemens.

Is this right Squeeze?

Neither yet both.

Keeping everything exactly as it was before Thatcher is stupid, nobody argues for that, it's impossible anyway given the inertia that was already there. She should however have continued to subsidise industry and kept on the pre-existing path of steadily winding it down rather than just throwing a grenade down the mineshaft which still had people in it. Continued government support for the profit making parts of the industries is a no brainer, she should have done a lot more of that, she should also have kept up support for more parts which were technically making small losses but overall allowed the country to come out ahead.
It wasn't just outdated money bleeding losers she should have given more support to but modern industries too like our IT industry. In the 80s Britain was doing wonderfully there. The government didn't give enough support however and by the 90s we were all but gone (Acorn did eventually make a nice transition into mobile processors but... not much else to be seen).

'She' (hard to imagine her doing it, more accurate to say the government Britain needed at the time) should also have done far more to encourage the emergance of British companies like BMW and Siemens. This isn't something you can just wave a magic wand and do of course but the conditions for Britain to be able to do so were certainly in place given the mechanisation of industry in the 70s and 80s meaning the fact that we had failed to modernise before hand wasn't quite the disadvantage it would otherwise be. The time was right for Britain to turn things around, we should have thrived, instead thanks to her policies we just about managed to keep our heads above water.

Where Germany does particularly well is in its vocational education system which maintains heavy links to industries. Yet instead of strengthening and modernising our pre-existing apprenticeship system it declined massively in the 80s. It wasn't until the 90s the government paid attention here but the damage is done and in the UK it really isn't seen as the valid path it is in Germany.

[Sheilbh]

God. Work, for its own sake, is SO NOT a virtue. That's one of the most disgusting leftovers of Protestantism.

I disagree, I think work's a virtue. I think it's better for people and communities than either permanent welfare or Downtown Abbey.

Obviously having said that I mean work in a broad European sense with a few national/religious holidays, a month's holiday leave a year and a British indifference to face-time

[CountDeMoney]

God. Work, for its own sake, is SO NOT a virtue. That's one of the most disgusting leftovers of Protestantism.

It's not thievery, and it's not exploitation.  So yes, it is in fact virtuous.

[Admiral Yi]

Being in work for a state-owned company isn't a handout, it's work which is a virtue.

Of course not.  But a handout received while peforming work, at a state-owned company or anywhere else, is still a handout.


("In" work?  Really?  At hospital, in work?)

[Admiral Yi]

Continued government support for the profit making parts of the industries is a no brainer, she should have done a lot more of that,

Why? 

she should also have kept up support for more parts which were technically making small losses but overall allowed the country to come out ahead.

How do money losing companies help the country come out ahead?

[Sheilbh]

Of course not.  But a handout received while peforming work, at a state-owned company or anywhere else, is still a handout.

Handout is morally loaded. You get it not because of what you've done but because you're in need ('they need a hand-up, not a handout'). If you're working, regardless of who it's for you're not getting a handout you're getting paid for your work.

The state-owned company may be getting a handout, the employees aren't.

("In" work?  Really?  At hospital, in work?)

You say 'out of work' right? The opposite is 'in work'.

Also 'in hospital' is fine, but it's a bit more personal. If someone told me they're in hospital I'd assume they meant they were getting treated themselves. If they were at the hospital it could be visiting, with someone else or whatever.

[CountDeMoney]

Weirdo English.