What is it and how long will it endure ?
My own view is Thatcherism won hands down in this country and much of the political debate here is still if not framed, certainly informed by it.
The compassionate conservatism of Cameroon's party, beneath the veneer remains a thatcherite party.
To me 'New labour' was a cyprt-thatcherite movement, that over time became evidently a form of soft-thatcherism, Tony Blair being the son of thatcher she never had.
As for the LibDems, were will they to go, now that the old Liberal party ethos has been dropped and the social democratic thread is dying out too ?
Her most enduring legacy both in and out of britain is establishing that national prosperity is achieved with free market mechanisms, not socialist planning mechanisms. She effectively ended the debate over which produced more value. Today the debate is now about how much economic vigour we are willing to "spend" on social cohesion through redistribution. The idea that the government should own economic resources is gone, at worst the government regulates natural and common resources but does not own them.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
Her most enduring legacy both in and out of britain is establishing that national prosperity is achieved with free market mechanisms, not socialist planning mechanisms. She effectively ended the debate over which produced more value. Today the debate is now about how much economic vigour we are willing to "spend" on social cohesion through redistribution. The idea that the government should own economic resources is gone, at worst the government regulates natural and common resources but does not own them.
Each and every view proven wrong by the last 5 years or so.
I think her legacy, while very significant indeed, is a little overstated. For me, the major items are:
Breaking the unions - they remain broken and that's not going to change
Demolishing heavy industry in favour of services - no resurrection but everyone agrees that the economy is entirely out of balance. Howveer the City has become a huge exporter even if much maligned post-1989.
Holding the line of social conservatism - her legacy absolutely overturned. Instead of clause 28 we have the Tory party proposing gay marriage
Moneterism - nobody talks about the money supply anymore.
Selling council houses - huge success, nobody is going to change that policy
Health, education, law and order - no legacy of any note.
Foreign/defence - things move on too quickly to detect a legacy. She was cold war warrior.
Europe - she would be seen to be on the extreme Europhile wing of the Tory party now.
Privatisation: Hugely significant and an enduring and irreversible legacy
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:36:32 AM
Each and every view proven wrong by the last 5 years or so.
So...you think large scale government ownership of economic resources has been proven correct by the last 5 years?
The primary thing I think the last five years has proven is the disastrous combination of economic downturns coupled with large budget deficits.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:36:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
Her most enduring legacy both in and out of britain is establishing that national prosperity is achieved with free market mechanisms, not socialist planning mechanisms. She effectively ended the debate over which produced more value. Today the debate is now about how much economic vigour we are willing to "spend" on social cohesion through redistribution. The idea that the government should own economic resources is gone, at worst the government regulates natural and common resources but does not own them.
Each and every view proven wrong by the last 5 years or so.
No. It does not follow from "capitalism not perfect" that "socialism is perfect". You'r falling for a false dichotomy here.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:36:32 AM
Each and every view proven wrong by the last 5 years or so.
So...you think large scale government ownership of economic resources has been proven correct by the last 5 years?
The primary thing I think the last five years has proven is the disastrous combination of economic downturns coupled with large budget deficits.
Even Adam Smith realized long ago that running perpetual deficits was bad and that cheap loans not supported by collateral were unsustainable.
Her political legacy? She fixed a completely broken country, both domestically and internationally.
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2013, 10:45:19 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:36:32 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 08, 2013, 10:17:44 AM
Her most enduring legacy both in and out of britain is establishing that national prosperity is achieved with free market mechanisms, not socialist planning mechanisms. She effectively ended the debate over which produced more value. Today the debate is now about how much economic vigour we are willing to "spend" on social cohesion through redistribution. The idea that the government should own economic resources is gone, at worst the government regulates natural and common resources but does not own them.
Each and every view proven wrong by the last 5 years or so.
No. It does not follow from "capitalism not perfect" that "socialism is perfect". You'r falling for a false dichotomy here.
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.
Anyway, my true British friends are already celebrating on Facebook. It seems she is liked by people who either were kids when she ruled Britain or lived elsewhere. :P
Quote from: Gups on April 08, 2013, 10:43:21 AM
I think her legacy, while very significant indeed, is a little overstated. For me, the major items are:
Breaking the unions - they remain broken and that's not going to change
Demolishing heavy industry in favour of services - no resurrection but everyone agrees that the economy is entirely out of balance. Howveer the City has become a huge exporter even if much maligned post-1989.
Holding the line of social conservatism - her legacy absolutely overturned. Instead of clause 28 we have the Tory party proposing gay marriage
Moneterism - nobody talks about the money supply anymore.
Selling council houses - huge success, nobody is going to change that policy
Health, education, law and order - no legacy of any note.
Foreign/defence - things move on too quickly to detect a legacy. She was cold war warrior.
Europe - she would be seen to be on the extreme Europhile wing of the Tory party now.
Privatisation: Hugely significant and an enduring and irreversible legacy
Agreed with one caveat - on foreign affairs, at least, she (along with Reagan and John Paul II) is worshiped in Poland and credited with dismantling communism. Also, the (misguided) reason why many Poles believe that Tories and Republicans are our international friends.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:36:32 AM
Each and every view proven wrong by the last 5 years or so.
So...you think large scale government ownership of economic resources has been proven correct by the last 5 years?
The primary thing I think the last five years has proven is the disastrous combination of economic downturns coupled with large budget deficits.
Explain to me why German economy has been doing so much better than the UK one over the last 5 years, then.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:49:39 AM
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.
Anyway, my true British friends are already celebrating on Facebook. It seems she is liked by people who either were kids when she ruled Britain or lived elsewhere. :P
The British are delusional in this department which is why I make fun of them here all the time. I don't think Thatcher was some great genius but they seem to dream that somehow the modern world would never have intruded on Britain if she had never lived. She did nothing but preside over the end of systems that had long since ceased to be viable thanks to idiotic policies of the previous decades. Do these idiots really think Britain would still be dominated by coal mines and heavy industry if she had never lived? That somehow the clock only moved forward and the modern economy only exists because of Thatcher? The detachement from reality is ridiculous. "Hard" industry had ceased to be anything more than a joke in Britain, a really burdensome economy sucking joke, for sometime by the time she showed up.
She may have taken things a bit too far...but things would be only slightly different otherwise. She is rather over-rated IMO both by her detractors and supporters.
The Germans seems to be doing pretty well with a large manufacturing sector. Why couldn't the UK?
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Explain to me why German economy has been doing so much better than the UK one over the last 5 years, then.
The German economy has consistently done better than the British economy for fifty years.
But this is sorta funny. The German economy has hardly been booming.
I wouldn't confuse Tyr with teh Birtish public in general.
Maggie remains a divisive figure but just as many people lover her as hate her and the largest single group are thsoe who think she did some great things and some bad ones.
Things woudl have been very different without her or someone like her. The unions in particular (who had a huge amount of control over the country) could only have been broken by a Tory PM and few Tory politicians would have seen it out in the way she did. She got very lucky on a number of issues though - she coudl well have lost the 1983 election had it not been for teh Falklands and the money the country got from North Sea oil made the realignment of the economy and the huge sums of welfare paid out possible.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on April 08, 2013, 10:59:14 AM
The Germans seems to be doing pretty well with a large manufacturing sector. Why couldn't the UK?
We couldn't do corporatism, the Germans could. We couldn't do decent management, the Germans could.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:36:32 AM
Each and every view proven wrong by the last 5 years or so.
So...you think large scale government ownership of economic resources has been proven correct by the last 5 years?
The primary thing I think the last five years has proven is the disastrous combination of economic downturns coupled with large budget deficits.
Explain to me why German economy has been doing so much better than the UK one over the last 5 years, then.
Partly because it did so much worse in the 15 years preceding the past 5.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 10:56:23 AM
She may have taken things a bit too far...but things would be only slightly different otherwise. She is rather over-rated IMO both by her detractors and supporters.
I think that you are correct that she simply did, in a lot of ways, what her successor would have been forced to do had she not done them. The British economic model of her predecessors was utterly unsustainable. Had Britain elected a competent PM in the late 60s or early 70s, that PM could have accomplished what she did with less pain. Her successors would have done it with more pain. I give her credit for seeing what bullet needed to be bitten, and biting it. But you are right that she was no revolutionary.
She was a change, and one that, in retrospect, seems to me to have done far more good than harm to Britain. If she had a fault, it was staying in office too long.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 10:56:23 AM
I don't think Thatcher was some great genius but they seem to dream that somehow the modern world would never have intruded on Britain if she had never lived.
Agreed. Has Pittsburg recovered from Reagan era?
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 11:02:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:55:20 AM
Explain to me why German economy has been doing so much better than the UK one over the last 5 years, then.
The German economy has consistently done better than the British economy for fifty years.
But this is sorta funny. The German economy has hardly been booming.
And what goes along with one of those ?
Hint: Cal will like the answer. :P
Don't forget that the IMF was called in back in 1976 and the necessary cuts made were far greater than any made by a Thatcher government. The adjustment started (under duress) during a Labour government and continued under Mrs Thatcher's Tory government. Both critics and fans of Mrs Thatcher should bear this in mind.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 08, 2013, 11:04:24 AM
Partly because it did so much worse in the 15 years preceding the past 5.
This. The UK briefly surpassed Germany in GDP/capita in the early 2000s. Germany was called the sick man of Europe a decade ago. Just like Britain before Thatcher. Schröder's Agenda 2010 was not as divisive and far-reaching as Thatcher's reforms, but he is also loathed by many Germans.
On foreign policy, Thatcher's record is mixed.
She won the Falklands, but her government's own defence review before the Argentine invasion nearly meant the UK did not have the capability to take them back, given its focus on North Atlantic ASW rather than expeditionary operations.
She lost badly the argument on German reunification, but she called it on the collapse of Yugoslavia better than her party did, who had little clue with how to deal with a disintegrating multi-ethnic federation in post-Cold War Europe.
On Northern Ireland, her stance was actually quite pragmatic, recently declassified documents show. Even while she turned up the public rhetoric, Thatcher was actually willing to use back channels of communication and suggest compromises.
A strong stance against communism was matched by a failure to make a stand against Apartheid, which regrettably has to be a serious stain on her foreign-policy record.
I can't really comment on her domestic policies for lack of knowledge. I think she was wrong to oppose German reunification though. That was a historical chance that had to be taken.
She was also wrong to cuddle with Pinochet. I think she was classic cold war politician - devoid of morals and simply supporting enemies of enemies.
Why is it that conservative politicians seem to be prone to dementia late in their lives? Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet all were going mentally long before going physically.
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:26:48 AM
Why is it that conservative politicians seem to be prone to dementia late in their lives? Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet all were going mentally long before going physically.
Your sample size is 3?
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 11:16:34 AM
On foreign policy, Thatcher's record is mixed.
She won the Falklands, but her government's own defence review before the Argentine invasion nearly meant the UK did not have the capability to take them back, given its focus on North Atlantic ASW rather than expeditionary operations.
Considering the state of NATO/WP relations in the 60s and 70s, that wasn't an unrealistic defense/defence posture/pocture, and a necessary one.
And concerning the Falklands, quite frankly I don't think anybody had expected the UK to ever fight another colonial war and require an 8,000 mile force projection capability.
Privatising Margaret Thatcher's funeral would be a fitting tribute to her legacy
The Iron Lady herself would surely agree that poor taxpayers should not be further burdened in these times of austerity
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/22/privatising-thatchers-funeral-fitting-tribute-legacy
:lol:
Quote from: fahdiz on April 08, 2013, 11:27:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:26:48 AM
Why is it that conservative politicians seem to be prone to dementia late in their lives? Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet all were going mentally long before going physically.
Your sample size is 3?
Those were the three conservative icons of that era. Who else is there?
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 11:18:06 AM
I think she was wrong to oppose German reunification though. That was a historical chance that had to be taken.
A lot of people opposed German reunification at the time, and with good fucking reason. In fact, there are some excellent films on that very topic BUT THEY ARE ALL IN BLACK AND WHITE.
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:33:28 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 08, 2013, 11:27:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:26:48 AM
Why is it that conservative politicians seem to be prone to dementia late in their lives? Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet all were going mentally long before going physically.
Your sample size is 3?
Those were the three conservative icons of that era. Who else is there?
You said "conservative politicians". I didn't realize you only meant "icons".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 11:31:07 AM
Considering the state of NATO/WP relations in the 60s and 70s, that wasn't an unrealistic defense/defence posture/pocture, and a necessary one.
And concerning the Falklands, quite frankly I don't think anybody had expected the UK to ever fight another colonial war and require an 8,000 mile force projection capability.
Nothing wrong with focusing on NATO duties. But Britain had a non-discretionary commitment to defend the islands, and other bits of territory besides, so nearly not having the ability to do so - whether to deter or expel invaders - has to be a black mark.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 08, 2013, 11:34:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:33:28 AM
Those were the three conservative icons of that era. Who else is there?
You said "conservative politicians". I didn't realize you only meant "icons".
Only fruity ass Euros put Pinochet in the "Conservative Icon" category. Like that fool even mattered in the big picture.
Fucking Euros and their Amnesty International fetishes.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 11:18:06 AM
I think she was wrong to oppose German reunification though. That was a historical chance that had to be taken.
A lot of people opposed German reunification at the time, and with good fucking reason. In fact, there are some excellent films on that very topic BUT THEY ARE ALL IN BLACK AND WHITE.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on April 08, 2013, 11:39:04 AM
:rolleyes:
Save it for the latex shit porn convention, derKraut.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 11:38:03 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 08, 2013, 11:34:40 AM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:33:28 AM
Those were the three conservative icons of that era. Who else is there?
You said "conservative politicians". I didn't realize you only meant "icons".
Only fruity ass Euros put Pinochet in the "Conservative Icon" category. Like that fool even mattered in the big picture.
Fucking Euros and their Amnesty International fetishes.
In relation to the size and profile of his country, he definitely mattered.
Quote from: Gups on April 08, 2013, 10:43:21 AM
I think her legacy, while very significant indeed, is a little overstated.
Easy with hindsight for poeple to say that what she did was inevitable. Back then it didnt seem so inevitable. Rather it was very much an uphill battle against the tendancies of not just the UK but also the US (and other western democracies including Canada for that matter). She wasnt called the Iron Lady for nothing.
Breaking the unions - they remain broken and that's not going to changeI think we have to be a bit careful about the rhetoric here. If by "breaking" one means the control the unions had over UK politics then yes that control was broken but that went hand in hand with limiting government involvement in industry. One of her lasting contributions.
Selling council houses - huge success, nobody is going to change that policyPart of her core policy of getting government out of the lives of the individual. She firmly believed that if a person owned it would be better for society and the individual for a whole range of reasons. She was absolutely correct. We in Canada still havent quite figured that out when it comes to things like housing on Indian Reservations but hopefully that day will come. But her legacy continues to have long lasting effects. Even with a leftist party in power in Vancouver with an agenda to end homelessness nobody is suggesting that the City become a landlord. That is largely thanks to the work Thatcher did.
Privatisation: Hugely significant and an enduring and irreversible legacyPrivitisation is really just the catch word people now apply to her underlying policy initiatives which were to limit governments role in people's lives which included the UK government getting out of the business of running businesses.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 11:18:06 AM
I think she was wrong to oppose German reunification though. That was a historical chance that had to be taken.
A lot of people opposed German reunification at the time, and with good fucking reason. In fact, there are some excellent films on that very topic BUT THEY ARE ALL IN BLACK AND WHITE.
George H.W. Bush thankfully didn't share your idiotic views.
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 11:35:55 AM
But Britain had a non-discretionary commitment to defend the islands, and other bits of territory besides, so nearly not having the ability to do so - whether to deter or expel invaders - has to be a black mark.
It got done, didn't it? There, no black mark. :hug:
And by the looks of things these days, the UK no longer possess that non-discretionary commitment anymore.
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 11:44:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 11:18:06 AM
I think she was wrong to oppose German reunification though. That was a historical chance that had to be taken.
A lot of people opposed German reunification at the time, and with good fucking reason. In fact, there are some excellent films on that very topic BUT THEY ARE ALL IN BLACK AND WHITE.
George H.W. Bush thankfully didn't share your idiotic views.
Who says there were my views, Hauptmann Sensitive? All I said was that there were those that didn't, and they had good fucking reasons: at least I or II of them.
Ah, Seedy is trolling :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 11:46:17 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 11:44:02 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 11:34:15 AM
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 11:18:06 AM
I think she was wrong to oppose German reunification though. That was a historical chance that had to be taken.
A lot of people opposed German reunification at the time, and with good fucking reason. In fact, there are some excellent films on that very topic BUT THEY ARE ALL IN BLACK AND WHITE.
George H.W. Bush thankfully didn't share your idiotic views.
Who says there were my views, Hauptmann Sensitive? All I said was that there were those that didn't, and they had good fucking reasons: at least I or II of them.
A reason is less fucking good if it's based on an outdated modelling of European politics.
@Canuck
Let's be clear that Thatcher's belief that the state should interfere with the individual as little as possible was limited to the economic sphere, She was no liberterian, far from it e.g. extensive new police powers and resources, massive prison building, ludicrously ineffective censorship (e.g. Spycatcher and Sinn Fein leaders).
She really did want to beak the unions. She hated their leaders and everything the stood for. It may have dovetailed nicely with other policies but even if it hadn't she would still have destroyed them. See also, the abolition of the GLC, a terrible mistake and a disater for London, made for no other reason than that she hated Ken Livingstone.
Not just the GLC, she also got rid of the other metropolitan county councils, Tyne & Wear, Greater Manchester etc
Yep, but I have less idea of whether that was a good idea or a bad one.
A grave error, since all these metropolitan councils were natural units of government and benefited from their constituent boroughs seeing the big picture re public transport etc..
Of course all these big city places were full of lefties, immigrants, homosexuals and all the other types of people that Mrs Thatcher never really understood.
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 11:53:51 AM
A reason is less fucking good if it's based on an outdated modelling of European politics.
Yeah, like ethnic politics. Because we all know that's an outdated modelling of European politics that went out of style so long ago.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 12:15:14 PM
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 11:53:51 AM
A reason is less fucking good if it's based on an outdated modelling of European politics.
Yeah, like ethnic politics. Because we all know that's an outdated modelling of European politics that went out of style so long ago.
List the German diaspora populations in 1989. Continental United States doesn't count.
Quote from: Legbiter on April 08, 2013, 11:07:57 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 10:56:23 AM
I don't think Thatcher was some great genius but they seem to dream that somehow the modern world would never have intruded on Britain if she had never lived.
Agreed. Has Pittsburg recovered from Reagan era?
IMO, in foreign policy and international relations, her impact was significant. In economics, it was merely a speedbump along the path of inevitability.
I'm not certain McKinnock would have gone to war over the Falklands, for example.
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 12:16:56 PM
List the German diaspora populations in 1989. Continental United States doesn't count.
How about we list Yugoslavian population dips for 1991-1999 instead?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 12:19:46 PM
Why not?
Even Michael Foot was bellowing for "action, not words".
@ Gups,
I dont think anyone would accuse Thatcher of being a saint. Of course she had a poltical axe to grind. So did her opposition. Her legacy is making the economic changes which today we think of as being inevitable and common sense at a time when there were very much against the political grain.
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 12:16:56 PM
List the German diaspora populations in 1989. Continental United States doesn't count.
Mallorca.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 12:16:56 PM
List the German diaspora populations in 1989. Continental United States doesn't count.
How about we list Yugoslavian population dips for 1991-1999 instead?
They just needed to get all that out of their system.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 12:19:46 PM
In economics, it was merely a speedbump along the path of inevitability.
Hardly. The success model of the 21st century so far is state intervention economics Asian style, not Thatcherism. It was certainly influential, but I think it is past its apogee nowadays.
EDIT: Thinking about it, it's not past its apogee, but it's certainly no longer the force it used to be. Privatization is all well and good in some sectors, but the wholesale dissolution of state services has become quite unpopular here. That won't win you elections anymore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 08, 2013, 12:20:23 PM
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 12:16:56 PM
List the German diaspora populations in 1989. Continental United States doesn't count.
How about we list Yugoslavian population dips for 1991-1999 instead?
I don't think Thatcher was opposed to East joining West because the Ossies were going to surround and start shelling Kreuzberg.
Interesting article on the legacy of Thatcher, from last year: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/not-all-socialists-want-to-dance-on-margaret-thatchers-grave-i-want-her-to-go-on-and-on-8143089.html - reasonable IMO, from a left wing perspective.
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 12:31:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 12:19:46 PM
In economics, it was merely a speedbump along the path of inevitability.
Hardly. The success model of the 21st century so far is state intervention economics Asian style, not Thatcherism. It was certainly influential, but I think it is past its apogee nowadays.
:huh:
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 12:32:33 PM
Interesting article on the legacy of Thatcher, from last year: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/not-all-socialists-want-to-dance-on-margaret-thatchers-grave-i-want-her-to-go-on-and-on-8143089.html - reasonable IMO, from a left wing perspective.
:huh:
What part of that was reasonable? The only reason he didnt want to dance on her grave (even though he really did want to do it) is because of the media backlash to such boorish behaviour.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 12:32:52 PMQuote
Hardly. The success model of the 21st century so far is state intervention economics Asian style, not Thatcherism. It was certainly influential, but I think it is past its apogee nowadays.
:huh:
Which part is :huh: ? I added another sentence to clarify the second part. The first part is just a fact, no way around it.
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 12:32:52 PMQuote
Hardly. The success model of the 21st century so far is state intervention economics Asian style, not Thatcherism. It was certainly influential, but I think it is past its apogee nowadays.
:huh:
Which part is :huh: ? I added another sentence to clarify the second part. The first part is just a fact, no way around it.
The first part is an assertion of fact laden with all kinds of difficulties which earned you a well deserved. :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 12:39:44 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 12:37:51 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 12:32:52 PMQuote
Hardly. The success model of the 21st century so far is state intervention economics Asian style, not Thatcherism. It was certainly influential, but I think it is past its apogee nowadays.
:huh:
Which part is :huh: ? I added another sentence to clarify the second part. The first part is just a fact, no way around it.
The first part is an assertion of fact laden with all kinds of difficulties which earned you a well deserved. :huh:
Maybe he's talking about fragile, short-term successes rather than longer-term, less-stable-but-less-fragile-to-catastrophic-shocks successes?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 08, 2013, 12:00:02 PM
Not just the GLC, she also got rid of the other metropolitan county councils, Tyne & Wear, Greater Manchester etc
Yeah. I think centralisation's one of her legacies too. Admittedly I'm from Liverpool where destroying local government was probably a bit deserving :blush: :bleeding:
I liked Iain Martin and Andrew Sullivan's pieces. From Sullivan's:
QuoteThatcher, Liberator
APR 8 2013 @ 12:01PM
...
I owe my entire political obsession to the one person in British politics who refused to accept this state of affairs. You can read elsewhere the weighing of her legacy – but she definitively ended a truly poisonous, envious, inert period in Britain's history. She divided the country deeply – and still does. She divided her opponents even more deeply, which was how she kept winning elections. She made some serious mistakes – the poll tax, opposition to German unification, insisting that Nelson Mandela was a terrorist – but few doubt she altered her country permanently, re-establishing the core basics of a free society and a free economy that Britain had intellectually bequeathed to the world and yet somehow lost in its own class-ridden, envy-choked socialist detour to immiseration.
I was a teenage Thatcherite, an uber-politics nerd who loved her for her utter lack of apology for who she was. I sensed in her, as others did, a final rebuke to the collectivist, egalitarian oppression of the individual produced by socialism and the stultifying privileges and caste identities of the class system. And part of that identity – the part no one ever truly gave her credit for – was her gender. She came from a small grocer's shop in a northern town and went on to educate herself in chemistry at Oxford, and then law. To put it mildly, those were not traditional decisions for a young woman with few means in the 1950s. She married a smart businessman, reared two children and forged a political career from scratch in the most male-dominated institution imaginable: the Tory party.
She relished this individualist feminism and wielded it – coining a new and very transitive verb, handbagging, to describe her evisceration of ill-prepared ministers or clueless interviewers. Perhaps in Toynbee's defense, Thatcher was not a feminist in the left-liberal sense: she never truly reflected on her pioneering role as a female leader; she never appointed a single other woman to her cabinet over eleven years; she was contemptuous toward identity politics; and the only tears she ever deployed (unlike Hillary Clinton) were as she departed from office, ousted by an internal coup, undefeated in any election she had ever run in as party leader.
Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir preceded her; but Thatcher's three election victories, the longest prime ministership since the 1820s, her alliance with the US in defeating the Soviet Union, and her liberation of the British economy place her above their achievements. What inspires me still is the thought of a young woman in a chemistry lab at Oxford daring to believe that she could one day be prime minister – and not just any prime minister, but the defining public figure in British post-war political history.
That took vision and self-confidence of a quite extraordinary degree. It was infectious. And it made Thatcher and Thatcherism a much more complicated thing than many analyses contain.
Thatcher's economic liberalization came to culturally transform Britain. Women were empowered by new opportunities; immigrants, especially from South Asia, became engineers of growth; millions owned homes for the first time; the media broke free from union chains and fractured and multiplied in subversive and dynamic ways. Her very draconian posture provoked a punk radicalism in the popular culture that changed a generation. The seeds of today's multicultural, global London – epitomized by that Olympic ceremony – were sown by Thatcher's will-power.
And that was why she ultimately failed, as every politician always ultimately does. She wanted to return Britain to the tradition of her thrifty, traditional father; instead she turned it into a country for the likes of her son, a wayward, money-making opportunist. The ripple effect of new money, a new middle class, a new individualism meant that Blair's re-branded Britain – cool Britannia, with its rave subculture, its fashionistas, its new cuisine, its gay explosion, its street-art, its pop music – was in fact something Blair inherited from Thatcher.
She was, in that sense, a liberator. She didn't constantly (or even ever) argue for women's equality; she just lived it. She didn't just usher in greater economic freedom; she unwittingly brought with it cultural transformation – because there is nothing more culturally disruptive than individualism and capitalism. Her 1940s values never re-took: the Brits engaged in spending and borrowing binges long after she had left the scene, and what last vestiges of prudery were left in the dust.
...
And Iain Martin:
QuoteMargaret Thatcher was a truly great leader with flaws. She should not be treated like a religious icon
By Iain Martin Politics Last updated: April 8th, 2013
Margaret Thatcher was a great Prime Minister. It is a claim that would have validity even if it rested on her foreign policy achievements alone. Under her leadership a country at a post-imperial low, which had spent decades going down the plug-hole of international affairs, arrested decline and demonstrated that it still had a proper role to play. There would be no return to the past, but Britain need not assume that it must continue to be trampled upon. She was a pivotal figure in the battles against communism and totalitarianism and the truth is that parts of the extreme Left – where hatred of country is not uncommon – have never forgiven her for it.
Yet her legacy on the domestic front was much more contested. For that reason the reaction to her death was always going to be like this. It only took seconds after the announcement by Lord Bell for the idiocy to manifest itself. Various attention-hungry Left-wing comedians, such as George Galloway, made vile comments on Twitter and elsewhere that will, inevitably, lead to a heated debate that will last for days on what it means. In essence it means that some people lack manners and grace, as they always have, but thanks to the wonders of social media they can now advertise this fact widely. Where their ancestors muttered under their breath, or shook their head when a newsreel was shown in the cinema, nowadays there is national competition to see who can shout loudest in 140 characters.
Historically, Thatcher was (I had to stop myself from writing is) much too interesting a figure to be reduced to a giant Twitter spat between abusive morons and those demanding that her critics recognise her greatness or shut up.
As the news broke I was on a train that had just left Glasgow. The train heading south passes a few remaining rotting hulks of industrial plants long since closed. For all the efforts at regeneration it is still a post-industrial landscape, of brownfield land stretching on for miles, all waiting to be reclaimed. Motorways cut across it, pointing at the City centre where the new Glasgow economy resides, based on retail and the service sector.
Margaret Thatcher's critics north of the border are clear about what happened, even though the story of industrial decline did not start in 1979 and is much more complex than is usually credited. For many decades Scotland had coasted, relying on the inheritance of the industrial revolution and empire. Poor management, rampant trade unions and capital flight (as investors sought higher returns in countries such as the US) combined to create complacency and a lack of innovation. One can dispute how Thatcher responded, but she appeared on the scene, in terms of this story, at five minutes to midnight. She couldn't instantly unpick decades of poor policy and transform central Scotland or the North East of England into the equivalent of the ultra-efficient German industrial heartland. She was trying to conquer the menace of inflation, which bedevilled the British economy.
Still, no politician of the modern era has a hold on the popular imagination like Thatcher does. Scotland, or the Scottish political class, will be insufferable in the days ahead, as its representatives compete to scramble onto the low ground, mistaking it for the high ground. The Scottish Left, which means most politics is Scotland, is consumed with the idea of Caledonian supposed moral superiority and the supposed crimes of Thatcherism.
Our train then passed through the North West, where there were actually plenty of Thatcher fans, as the election results of the 1980s show. Now we are in the Midlands. Here there was deindustrialisation, or necessary economic reinvention. Voters in their millions were attracted by Thatcher's aspirational credo. Soon we'll pass through the South East, and some of the Tory strongholds where her voters grasped that she instinctively understood their desires, not because she had been shown the findings of a focus group but because she really was one of them. And soon we'll be back in London, home to the metropolitan bubble.
Thatcher was great, but the legacy she leaves is a complex one. There is no point pretending otherwise, or treating her like a religious icon, unless we want to leave our brains at the door. Her economic revolution produced enormous benefits for many, but there were unintended consequences, one of which was the financialisation of the economy which contributed to the British end of the 2007-2008 banking disaster. She took on and defeated the trade unions, whose leaders thought, arrogantly, they had the country by the balls. She was a true patriot, yet in some parts of the country she was seen, unfairly in my eyes, as other and alien. Ultimately, the work it fell to her to undertake at a critical time in the nation's history was so difficult that it was always going to be impossible for her to be universally loved.
However, Britain's first female Prime Minister was widely respected, and deservedly so. The impeccable and brave way she conducted herself after the horror of the Brighton bomb stands out as an example of her extraordinary determination and capacity for endurance. The Tories and the country were lucky to be led by a conviction politician with deeply held values, epic style, and an understanding – until 1989 – of the art of wielding power.
Margaret Thatcher at her peak was disputatious. She tended to call it as she saw it, so why shouldn't we? She was a truly great Prime Minister of grand historical proportions, who also had significant flaws.
Incidentally I don't think her changes or her legacy were inevitable.
Edit: Also I'd love to see a longer piece on the differences between the memories of Thatcher and Reagan.
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 12:31:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 12:19:46 PM
In economics, it was merely a speedbump along the path of inevitability.
Hardly. The success model of the 21st century so far is state intervention economics Asian style, not Thatcherism. It was certainly influential, but I think it is past its apogee nowadays.
EDIT: Thinking about it, it's not past its apogee, but it's certainly no longer the force it used to be. Privatization is all well and good in some sectors, but the wholesale dissolution of state services has become quite unpopular here. That won't win you elections anymore.
That's why it was a speedbump, yes.
Quote from: Warspite on April 08, 2013, 12:32:15 PM
I don't think Thatcher was opposed to East joining West because the Ossies were going to surround and start shelling Kreuzberg.
I'm not the one contesting ethnic politics as an "outdated modelling of European politics", you are. So there.
You Euros have the same fucking hang-ups you've always had.
Thanks for posting those Sheilbh.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 12:52:49 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 12:31:13 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 12:19:46 PM
In economics, it was merely a speedbump along the path of inevitability.
Hardly. The success model of the 21st century so far is state intervention economics Asian style, not Thatcherism. It was certainly influential, but I think it is past its apogee nowadays.
EDIT: Thinking about it, it's not past its apogee, but it's certainly no longer the force it used to be. Privatization is all well and good in some sectors, but the wholesale dissolution of state services has become quite unpopular here. That won't win you elections anymore.
That's why it was a speedbump, yes.
Eh, we'll continue to get rude awakening after rude awakening...and we'll continue to centralize and intervene economically. I don't necessarily have a philosophical problem with that as much as I have a practical problem with it. The more structure we build around these services, the more we have tiny numbers of people tipping the scales this way and that, the more fragile we make our complex economic system to violent shocks...just like bacteria become more resistant the more antibiotics we throw at them.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 12:51:38 PM
Incidentally I don't think her changes or her legacy were inevitable.
Your article suggests they were. 'Five minutes to midnight' and all that.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 01:02:20 PMYour article suggests they were. 'Five minutes to midnight' and all that.
Yeah, that doesn't mean we'd get Thatcherism.
I can't think of any country that has experienced economic success with the pre-Thatcher model of state ownership of money-losing overpaid heavy industry.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
Yeah, that doesn't mean we'd get Thatcherism.
Besides putting the dying animal of the British industrial system mercifully to sleep but else is there to Thatcherism?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 01:09:04 PM
I can't think of any country that has experienced economic success with the pre-Thatcher model of state ownership of money-losing overpaid heavy industry.
I didnt want to clutter the other thread with this discussion so I will post a response to Jacob's assertion that the communities she "destroyed" were prosperous before her policies were implemented. Stuff and nonsense. Unless by prosperous he means reliant on government funding to support industry that could no support itself.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 01:20:18 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 08, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
Yeah, that doesn't mean we'd get Thatcherism.
Besides putting the dying animal of the British industrial system mercifully to sleep but else is there to Thatcherism?
Gups already put up a pretty good list. You should read it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 01:09:04 PM
I can't think of any country that has experienced economic success with the pre-Thatcher model of state ownership of money-losing overpaid heavy industry.
I think that the point to make on that is that other countries carried out similar policies of restructuring their industrial sectors without becoming reviled in the process.
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 01:09:04 PM
I can't think of any country that has experienced economic success with the pre-Thatcher model of state ownership of money-losing overpaid heavy industry.
I think that the point to make on that is that other countries carried out similar policies of restructuring their industrial sectors without becoming reviled in the process.
Name one that went through as dramatic a change as the UK?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 01:09:04 PM
I can't think of any country that has experienced economic success with the pre-Thatcher model of state ownership of money-losing overpaid heavy industry.
I think that the point to make on that is that other countries carried out similar policies of restructuring their industrial sectors without becoming reviled in the process.
Name one that went through as dramatic a change as the UK?
Spain did, at roughly the same time, during the mid 80s, following a similar pattern. My hometown had some pretty badass riots because of the restructuring of the shipbuilding sector. Other regions had reforms in mining, or in steel mills. And it was all done by a left wing PM, and he managed to be reelected after that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:21:00 PMI didnt want to clutter the other thread with this discussion so I will post a response to Jacob's assertion that the communities she "destroyed" were prosperous before her policies were implemented. Stuff and nonsense. Unless by prosperous he means reliant on government funding to support industry that could no support itself.
I actually meant it in the eyes of the residents.
You may well be right that they were parasites living off the government. Thatcher's policies may well have been the best way of dealing with the issue - that does seem to be the prevailing view on languish.
I was trying to explain the antipathy. And I think the explanation stands; if you're called out as a parasite and have what you see as your economic future destroyed from under you, and you watch your community crumble; you're probably not going to like the person who leads that effort. Even if there is no shortage of people willing to proclaim that she's in fact right and you are a parasite.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Name one that went through as dramatic a change as the UK?
There's not much heavy industry left in Denmark either. We used to be one of the premier ship-builders globally (at least given our size). The wharfs pretty much all shut down in that same period.
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 01:31:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 01:09:04 PM
I can't think of any country that has experienced economic success with the pre-Thatcher model of state ownership of money-losing overpaid heavy industry.
I think that the point to make on that is that other countries carried out similar policies of restructuring their industrial sectors without becoming reviled in the process.
Name one that went through as dramatic a change as the UK?
Spain did, at roughly the same time, during the mid 80s, following a similar pattern. My hometown had some pretty badass riots because of the restructuring of the shipbuilding sector. Other regions had reforms in mining, or in steel mills. And it was all done by a left wing PM, and he managed to be reelected after that.
There is a difference between reforming some aspects of the economy and what Thatcher did. Granted there were many Western countries that had reforms. They had to after the disasterous post war policies (and particularly those of the 60s and 70s of government intervention in the economy. But non of those reforms were on the scale of taking on a union that effectively controlled the political process. What she did was not just end government subsidies. She ended the government role in running the largest industry in the UK and in the process she ended the rule of the union that controlled it.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 01:35:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Name one that went through as dramatic a change as the UK?
There's not much heavy industry left in Denmark either. We used to be one of the premier ship-builders globally (at least given our size). The wharfs pretty much all shut down in that same period.
What does absence of industry have to do with it? Did the shipbuiding unions in Denmark control the political process? Did the Danish government control the shipbuilding industry? Did some courageous Danish politician say no to all of that?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Name one that went through as dramatic a change as the UK?
East Germany.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:21:00 PMI didnt want to clutter the other thread with this discussion so I will post a response to Jacob's assertion that the communities she "destroyed" were prosperous before her policies were implemented. Stuff and nonsense. Unless by prosperous he means reliant on government funding to support industry that could no support itself.
I actually meant it in the eyes of the residents.
You may well be right that they were parasites living off the government. Thatcher's policies may well have been the best way of dealing with the issue - that does seem to be the prevailing view on languish.
I was trying to explain the antipathy. And I think the explanation stands; if you're called out as a parasite and have what you see as your economic future destroyed from under you, and you watch your community crumble; you're probably not going to like the person who leads that effort. Even if there is no shortage of people willing to proclaim that she's in fact right and you are a parasite.
If you realize that you are a parasite living off the goverment tit and you still think that you are prosperous then you have a real problem.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 08, 2013, 01:01:34 PM
Eh, we'll continue to get rude awakening after rude awakening...and we'll continue to centralize and intervene economically. I don't necessarily have a philosophical problem with that as much as I have a practical problem with it. The more structure we build around these services, the more we have tiny numbers of people tipping the scales this way and that, the more fragile we make our complex economic system to violent shocks...just like bacteria become more resistant the more antibiotics we throw at them.
I just read a book you might like. (http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Gain-Disorder/dp/1400067820)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 08, 2013, 01:01:34 PM
Eh, we'll continue to get rude awakening after rude awakening...and we'll continue to centralize and intervene economically. I don't necessarily have a philosophical problem with that as much as I have a practical problem with it. The more structure we build around these services, the more we have tiny numbers of people tipping the scales this way and that, the more fragile we make our complex economic system to violent shocks...just like bacteria become more resistant the more antibiotics we throw at them.
I just read a book you might like. (http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Gain-Disorder/dp/1400067820)
Cool story, bro.
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
I think that the point to make on that is that other countries carried out similar policies of restructuring their industrial sectors without becoming reviled in the process.
Perhaps that says something about the people doing the reviled and not the object of revulsion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 02:02:04 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
I think that the point to make on that is that other countries carried out similar policies of restructuring their industrial sectors without becoming reviled in the process.
Perhaps that says something about the people doing the reviled and not the object of revulsion.
It's still completely understandable.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:39:56 PMIf you realize that you are a parasite living off the goverment tit and you still think that you are prosperous then you have a real problem.
Well, I think the point of contention is that the people you and Thatcher label parasites didn't think of themselves like that.
And continuously telling them that you are right, and they are (or were) in fact parasites, is not going to make them like you anymore. In fact, it may result in them celebrating your passing.
I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of Thatcher's policies. My point was to suggest to derSpiess
why I think she is loathed so viscerally by so many Brits. Arguing - as you seem to be doing - that she was right and what she did was necessary doesn't really change anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 02:02:04 PMPerhaps that says something about the people doing the reviled and not the object of revulsion.
That they went through a harder time?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:26:40 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 01:09:04 PM
I can't think of any country that has experienced economic success with the pre-Thatcher model of state ownership of money-losing overpaid heavy industry.
I think that the point to make on that is that other countries carried out similar policies of restructuring their industrial sectors without becoming reviled in the process.
Name one that went through as dramatic a change as the UK?
Pretty much every single country of the ex-communist bloc went through changes much much dramatic.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:07:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 01:39:56 PMIf you realize that you are a parasite living off the goverment tit and you still think that you are prosperous then you have a real problem.
Well, I think the point of contention is that the people you and Thatcher label parasites didn't think of themselves like that.
You were the one that called them parasites. If you want to "win" an argument that way be my guest but I wont participate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 02:20:45 PMYou were the one that called them parasites. If you want to "win" an argument that way be my guest but I wont participate.
There's no argument to "win", I don't think :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 02:02:04 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 01:23:45 PM
I think that the point to make on that is that other countries carried out similar policies of restructuring their industrial sectors without becoming reviled in the process.
Perhaps that says something about the people doing the reviled and not the object of revulsion.
Or that reforms done everywhere else were not implemented with the same vindictiveness. All the comments on the ones done by Thatcher make a point on their nastiness, almost on a personal level.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 01:55:47 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 08, 2013, 01:01:34 PM
Eh, we'll continue to get rude awakening after rude awakening...and we'll continue to centralize and intervene economically. I don't necessarily have a philosophical problem with that as much as I have a practical problem with it. The more structure we build around these services, the more we have tiny numbers of people tipping the scales this way and that, the more fragile we make our complex economic system to violent shocks...just like bacteria become more resistant the more antibiotics we throw at them.
I just read a book you might like. (http://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Gain-Disorder/dp/1400067820)
I just finished it a week or so ago actually :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 01:09:04 PM
I can't think of any country that has experienced economic success with the pre-Thatcher model of state ownership of money-losing overpaid heavy industry.
China has state ownership and large, wasteful capital expenditure in transport and construction.
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 02:24:01 PM
Or that reforms done everywhere else were not implemented with the same vindictiveness. All the comments on the ones done by Thatcher make a point on their nastiness, almost on a personal level.
That could be true or it could just another way of phrasing the subjectivity. It would help to know what people are specifically referring to so we could judge for ourselves.
About respecting public figures when they pass away: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
Quote from: Glenn Greenwald...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 08, 2013, 02:48:46 PM
Quote from: The Larch on April 08, 2013, 02:24:01 PM
Or that reforms done everywhere else were not implemented with the same vindictiveness. All the comments on the ones done by Thatcher make a point on their nastiness, almost on a personal level.
That could be true or it could just another way of phrasing the subjectivity. It would help to know what people are specifically referring to so we could judge for ourselves.
I believe Sheilbh just talked about it on the other thread, and how it all boiled down to Maggie's personality and way of conducting politics, which hugely antagonized her opposition.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
About respecting public figures when they pass away: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
Quote from: Glenn Greenwald...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
That sounds very reasonable to me. The problem isn't with people criticizing the deceased, but with crowing about their death. It can be tough, depending on the figure, to avoid crossing that line.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
About respecting public figures when they pass away: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
Quote from: Glenn Greenwald...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
First: Glenn Greenwald :wub:
Second I agree entirely with what he said here. I have no problem with people hating Thatcher I just think they are mistaken as to her impact.
I wonder if she was able to get away with being so confrontational because she was the first female PM. Or if she had to be so confrontational in order to become the first female PM.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
About respecting public figures when they pass away: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
Quote from: Glenn Greenwald...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
There is a distinction between fighting "false history" and celebrating the death.
I vaguely recall pieces in the media shortly after she became PM for the first time; there was some speculation that with a woman in charge that government might become more caring, more family-friendly and whatnot.........heigh-ho :D
She was an outsider in British politics, I'm still stunned that she became leader of the Tory party, her personality must have been truly formidable to achieve that.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 08, 2013, 03:04:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
About respecting public figures when they pass away: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
Quote from: Glenn Greenwald...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
That sounds very reasonable to me. The problem isn't with people criticizing the deceased, but with crowing about their death. It can be tough, depending on the figure, to avoid crossing that line.
But it can also be very easy to accuse others of crossing that line.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
About respecting public figures when they pass away: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
Quote from: Glenn Greenwald...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
There is a distinction between fighting "false history" and celebrating the death.
That's an interesting point. The problem is that you would need to adopt that attitude towards any death, no matter how vile the person - once you cross that line and make it acceptable for a member of a society to celebrate a death - any death, be it of Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot - then someone who thinks Thatcher was as bad as Hitler (this may be a wrong opinion, but it is an opinion that is allowed in free society) is in his or her right to celebrate her death.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 03:21:27 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on April 08, 2013, 03:04:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:49:55 PM
About respecting public figures when they pass away: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-death-etiquette
Quote from: Glenn Greenwald...the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms.
That sounds very reasonable to me. The problem isn't with people criticizing the deceased, but with crowing about their death. It can be tough, depending on the figure, to avoid crossing that line.
But it can also be very easy to accuse others of crossing that line.
Ok,
but one is a reasoned analysis and one is posting :cheers:
Surely you can see the difference?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 03:09:52 PMThere is a distinction between fighting "false history" and celebrating the death.
True enough.
And I think we can agree that the reported street parties in Glasgow and Brixton is squarely in the "celebrating the death" category.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 03:26:35 PM
That's an interesting point. The problem is that you would need to adopt that attitude towards any death, no matter how vile the person - once you cross that line and make it acceptable for a member of a society to celebrate a death - any death, be it of Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot - then someone who thinks Thatcher was as bad as Hitler (this may be a wrong opinion, but it is an opinion that is allowed in free society) is in his or her right to celebrate her death.
If you need to bring in Hitler to make a point the best policy is simply to not hit the post button.
Did you seriously just equate Hitler with Thatcher?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 03:29:45 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 03:26:35 PM
That's an interesting point. The problem is that you would need to adopt that attitude towards any death, no matter how vile the person - once you cross that line and make it acceptable for a member of a society to celebrate a death - any death, be it of Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot - then someone who thinks Thatcher was as bad as Hitler (this may be a wrong opinion, but it is an opinion that is allowed in free society) is in his or her right to celebrate her death.
If you need to bring in Hitler to make a point the best policy is simply to not hit the post button.
Did you seriously just equate Hitler with Thatcher?
No. Can you read? I said that someone might think she was as bad as Hitler. And if you say that you can celebrate death of some people, and not of others, then you are being a hypocrite - since everyone will be judged differently by different people.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 03:31:23 PM
No. Can you read? I said that someone might think she was as bad as Hitler.
Marti you are most likely the only person on face of the earth who would think to make that comparison. As I said, just dont hit the post button next time you think of adding the word Hitler to a post.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.spoof-media.com%2Fthespoof%2Fpolitics%2FThatcher2.jpg&hash=4ee513e5f29ea18df1ac76c3cb28fd99e633e543)
Welcome to the internet. No matter how silly, someone has already thought of it before. :P
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 03:46:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.spoof-media.com%2Fthespoof%2Fpolitics%2FThatcher2.jpg&hash=4ee513e5f29ea18df1ac76c3cb28fd99e633e543)
Welcome to the internet. No matter how silly, someone has already thought of it before. :P
Is that Martinus in a Nazi uniform and wearing a wig?
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 03:46:19 PM
Welcome to the internet. No matter how silly, someone has already thought of it before. :P
:D
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: Zanza on April 08, 2013, 03:46:19 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.spoof-media.com%2Fthespoof%2Fpolitics%2FThatcher2.jpg&hash=4ee513e5f29ea18df1ac76c3cb28fd99e633e543)
Welcome to the internet. No matter how silly, someone has already thought of it before. :P
Is that Martinus in a Nazi uniform and wearing a wig?
Some, after all, might find Martinus as bad as Hitler.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 03:39:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 03:31:23 PM
No. Can you read? I said that someone might think she was as bad as Hitler.
Marti you are most likely the only person on face of the earth who would think to make that comparison. As I said, just dont hit the post button next time you think of adding the word Hitler to a post.
I think you'd be surprised; judging by some of the language used in Britain in the Eighties, anyway.
In fact, a google search using the term "Thatcher worse than Hitler" brings up as the first result a document that I really, really hope is a joke*...and not much further down we have various forum results with people saying she's "worse than Hitler".
*Which seems to consider free market reforms the equivalent of Pol Pot's killing fields etc.
-
--
---
----
Oh, and here's one of the "best" comments under an MSN article...
Quotethis bitch was most evil since hitler she did to working classes what hitler did to jews with out the gas she destroyed our industry railways cars mines and building trade if the want to cut cost of funeral send body to scotland we will despose of her for free shes only been in hell few hours and already shut down 3 furneces
33 likes...30 dislikes...and I already thought the world was mad before today. :(
Quote from: Agelastus on April 08, 2013, 04:44:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2013, 03:39:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 03:31:23 PM
No. Can you read? I said that someone might think she was as bad as Hitler.
Marti you are most likely the only person on face of the earth who would think to make that comparison. As I said, just dont hit the post button next time you think of adding the word Hitler to a post.
I think you'd be surprised; judging by some of the language used in Britain in the Eighties, anyway.
In fact, a google search using the term "Thatcher worse than Hitler" brings up as the first result a document that I really, really hope is a joke*...and not much further down we have various forum results with people saying she's "worse than Hitler".
*Which seems to consider free market reforms the equivalent of Pol Pot's killing fields etc.
-
--
---
----
Oh, and here's one of the "best" comments under an MSN article...
Quotethis bitch was most evil since hitler she did to working classes what hitler did to jews with out the gas she destroyed our industry railways cars mines and building trade if the want to cut cost of funeral send body to scotland we will despose of her for free shes only been in hell few hours and already shut down 3 furneces
33 likes...30 dislikes...and I already thought the world was mad before today. :(
I think you found what you set out to find.
Not sure it tells you anything meaningful about her political or social legacy.
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:26:48 AM
Why is it that conservative politicians seem to be prone to dementia late in their lives? Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet all were going mentally long before going physically.
Guilt.
;)
Quote from: mongers on April 08, 2013, 04:49:08 PM
I think you found what you set out to find.
Not sure it tells you anything meaningful about her political or social legacy.
Nope; nothing meaningful at all - I couldn't agree with you more. Just what I expected to find, actually.
That's why if I want to discuss anything meaningful I come to Languish and one or two other select, congenial civilised forums.
And yes, despite the (often witty) insults that fly around here, Languish really is a congenial and civilised place compared to the majority of the internet.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 04:51:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:26:48 AM
Why is it that conservative politicians seem to be prone to dementia late in their lives? Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet all were going mentally long before going physically.
Guilt.
;)
Or one can only burn brightly for so long. So some great years followed by terrible ones vs a lifetime of mediocrity. :smarty:
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:07:57 PM
I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of Thatcher's policies. My point was to suggest to derSpiess why I think she is loathed so viscerally by so many Brits. Arguing - as you seem to be doing - that she was right and what she did was necessary doesn't really change anything.
But they don't seem to get that and that's why political discussion on here is becoming so increasingly frustrating. There is only one side to their arguments all the time.
Quote from: Habbaku on April 08, 2013, 03:04:25 PM
That sounds very reasonable to me. The problem isn't with people criticizing the deceased, but with crowing about their death. It can be tough, depending on the figure, to avoid crossing that line.
You crowed in the Chavez thread though (post #8)
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2013, 04:59:33 PM
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 04:51:42 PM
Quote from: DGuller on April 08, 2013, 11:26:48 AM
Why is it that conservative politicians seem to be prone to dementia late in their lives? Reagan, Thatcher, and Pinochet all were going mentally long before going physically.
Guilt.
;)
Or one can only burn brightly for so long. So some great years followed by terrible ones vs a lifetime of mediocrity. :smarty:
Fair enough. ;)
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 05:00:05 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 02:07:57 PM
I'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of Thatcher's policies. My point was to suggest to derSpiess why I think she is loathed so viscerally by so many Brits. Arguing - as you seem to be doing - that she was right and what she did was necessary doesn't really change anything.
But they don't seem to get that and that's why political discussion on here is becoming so increasingly frustrating. There is only one side to their arguments all the time.
Who is this monolithic group with only one side on Languish? I think we tend to have a lot of diverse opinions here - though it is true that for the most part there's little from the fringe crazies.
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2013, 05:05:59 PMWho is this monolithic group with only one side on Languish? I think we tend to have a lot of diverse opinions here - though it is true that for the most part there's little from the fringe crazies.
We've got some libertarians here.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 05:00:05 PM
But they don't seem to get that and that's why political discussion on here is becoming so increasingly frustrating. There is only one side to their arguments all the time.
I completely get it. If you give people free money long enough, they stop seeing it as a kindness and start to view it as an entitlement. Then they get pissed when you stop.
Right. I'm off to wind down by killing some zombies.
In closing, I will say this. 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.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 05:14:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2013, 05:05:59 PMWho is this monolithic group with only one side on Languish? I think we tend to have a lot of diverse opinions here - though it is true that for the most part there's little from the fringe crazies.
We've got some libertarians here.
For the most part. :P
Another Thatcher legacy: Hong Kong to the PRC with a minimum of fuss.
What's the languish verdict on that?
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 11:24:59 PM
Another Thatcher legacy: Hong Kong to the PRC with a minimum of fuss.
What's the languish verdict on that?
I think it was a travesty that the UK did not allow anybody who wanted to leave to get UK citizenship. 150+ years of being sorta loyal British subjects should have at least afforded the people of Hong Kong that much. That was done before she became PM though IIRC.
As it was I thought she got as good a deal from the PRC as could be expected, it was not like she had much leverage.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 11:27:55 PM
I think it was a travesty that the UK did not allow anybody who wanted to leave to get UK citizenship. 150+ years of being sorta loyal British subjects should have at least afforded the people of Hong Kong that much. That was done before she became PM though IIRC.
I think it was done after. I think Chris Patten (the last Governor) in the 90s called for passports for most if not Hong Kong citizens and the government rejected it.
Yeah it was handled pretty well, but I think a lot of the credit for that goes to Deng. As Valmy says Britain had no leverage.
Agree with Valmy about the passport business. As it happened it didn't really matter as the PRC played pretty fair. It ran the risk though of being in the same category as our failure to let European Jews into Britain back in 1938/9.
Quote from: Jacob on April 08, 2013, 05:14:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 08, 2013, 05:05:59 PMWho is this monolithic group with only one side on Languish? I think we tend to have a lot of diverse opinions here - though it is true that for the most part there's little from the fringe crazies.
We've got some libertarians here.
Yeah, you get those if you don't fumigate.
The Kong Kong handover was 7 years after she had left office.
I thought the treaty was signed in the 1980's.
Yes, 1984/5 according to this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong
Quote from: Agelastus on April 08, 2013, 04:44:07 PMshes only been in hell few hours and already shut down 3 furneces
I laughed :lol:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 08, 2013, 03:08:14 PM
Or if she had to be so confrontational in order to become the first female PM.
This.
Hi, Ed!
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 11:27:55 PM
I think it was a travesty that the UK did not allow anybody who wanted to leave to get UK citizenship. 150+ years of being sorta loyal British subjects should have at least afforded the people of Hong Kong that much. That was done before she became PM though IIRC.
The Nationalities or whatever it was act was one of the low points of her early years; done because they didn't like the idea of up to a million Chinese immigrants arriving out of the three million of Hong Kong. I disagreed with the policy as a child and I disagree with it now.
The number of immigrants we've let into our country both voluntarily and involuntarily since makes it seem even more ludicrous in hindsight.
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 11:27:55 PMAs it was I thought she got as good a deal from the PRC as could be expected, it was not like she had much leverage.
Well, while I can remember laughing at the commentators in certain newspapers who advocated handing Hong Kong over to the ROC rather than the PRC she actually had more leverage than you think, I believe. Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were British; only the New Territories had to be returned. And unlike Portugal in the case of Goa and India the Chinese wouldn't have risked a unilateral occupation of the area given Britain's status as a nuclear power.
However, most people in Britain considered Hong Kong and Kowloon to be unviable as a Territory without the New Territories so everything was on the table from the start (as I understand it.)
In hindsight, I also wonder if Thatcher's reaction to the invasion of the Falklands was also helpful during the negotiations in getting concessions from the Chinese. :hmm:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 09, 2013, 04:17:13 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on April 08, 2013, 04:44:07 PMshes only been in hell few hours and already shut down 3 furneces
I laughed :lol:
Yeah, I thought that was the only redeeming feature of the post myself, if only because an image of her lecturing the devil on inefficiency is so...apt... :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 11:27:55 PM
I think it was a travesty that the UK did not allow anybody who wanted to leave to get UK citizenship.
Whoever may have been at fault for that it certainly benefited Vancouver as we were the recipient of a large number of those people.
There is one thing about the Hong Kong handover that sort of puzzles me. It is not shocking just sorta surprising. The Chinese could have mandated all the roads get renamed and all the statues get torn down but they left them be...almost as a reverence for the history of the place. A reminder of past Chinese humiliations to strengthen their resolve in future confrontations with Western Imperialism? Hong Kong has a fondness (I know Latin America both loves and hates Spain at the same time) for the British so they didn't want to step on any toes? Just to signal that things wouldn't change that much? I just find it surprising.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 09, 2013, 11:15:37 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 08, 2013, 11:27:55 PM
I think it was a travesty that the UK did not allow anybody who wanted to leave to get UK citizenship.
Whoever may have been at fault for that it certainly benefited Vancouver as we were the recipient of a large number of those people.
It was just Britain's last chance to appear to be softer gentler sorts of Imperialists who really cared about their subjects and they blew the test. Eh I guess it was a fitting end to that empire, the British would never commit to a global Britain. The people in the empire were always going to be second class citizens.
Quote from: Gups on April 09, 2013, 02:32:24 AM
The Kong Kong handover was 7 years after she had left office.
The Chinese give her the credit, though. As far as they're concerned, that's the main noteworthy thing about her government.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 11:22:22 AM
It was just Britain's last chance to appear to be softer gentler sorts of Imperialists who really cared about their subjects and they blew the test. Eh I guess it was a fitting end to that empire, the British would never commit to a global Britain. The people in the empire were always going to be second class citizens.
Is that really a bad thing though? Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2013, 02:36:34 PM
Is that really a bad thing though? Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.
It is bad if what you wanted was a British Empire that was going to endure and be a positive force in the world. It would have had to become everybody's empire not just those people living in Blighty. Eventually there would have had to be Indian politicians running it and so forth, just like the Illyrians running the Roman Empire. They toyed with that idea several times, in fact it was Benjamin Franklin's grand vision back when he supported it, but it never really took hold.
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2013, 02:36:34 PM
Is that really a bad thing though? Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.
Epecially if ethnic Albertans are permitted across Provincial lines.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 11:18:08 AM
There is one thing about the Hong Kong handover that sort of puzzles me. It is not shocking just sorta surprising. The Chinese could have mandated all the roads get renamed and all the statues get torn down but they left them be...almost as a reverence for the history of the place. A reminder of past Chinese humiliations to strengthen their resolve in future confrontations with Western Imperialism? Hong Kong has a fondness (I know Latin America both loves and hates Spain at the same time) for the British so they didn't want to step on any toes? Just to signal that things wouldn't change that much? I just find it surprising.
This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing it's for two related reasons, both derived from Deng and his followers:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 02:40:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2013, 02:36:34 PM
Is that really a bad thing though? Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.
It is bad if what you wanted was a British Empire that was going to endure and be a positive force in the world. It would have had to become everybody's empire not just those people living in Blighty. Eventually there would have had to be Indian politicians running it and so forth, just like the Illyrians running the Roman Empire. They toyed with that idea several times, in fact it was Benjamin Franklin's grand vision back when he supported it, but it never really took hold.
The British Empire was long gone by the time anybody had to make that choice.
Besides, letting the barbarians run the country sounds like a recipe for disaster. It certainly was for the Romans.
Quote from: Jacob on April 09, 2013, 03:06:37 PM
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?
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:49:39 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2013, 09:29:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:49:39 AM
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.
:hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 03:12:34 PMI 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.
Quote from: mongers on April 09, 2013, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: dps on April 09, 2013, 09:29:35 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2013, 10:49:39 AM
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.
:hmm:
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...
Quote from: Warspite on April 10, 2013, 04:18:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Josephus on April 08, 2013, 05:26:54 PM
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.
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).
It's deja vu all over again.
Quote from: Tyr on April 11, 2013, 07:33:55 PM
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
Quote from: Tyr on April 11, 2013, 07:33:55 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 08:04:22 PM
Quote from: Tyr on April 11, 2013, 07:33:55 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 08:31:39 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tyr on April 11, 2013, 08:56:59 PM
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.
QuotePeople actually have to want to buy things that you're manufacturing, though. That's where the "economy" piece you're skirting around comes in.
:unsure:
Obviously.
I'm not sure what you're implying.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 09:07:13 PM
Then what the fuck are you bringing Germany up for?
Because they're the country doing it best.
Quote
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.
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 09:07:13 PMAnd 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.
QuotePeople 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.
Quote from: Tyr on April 11, 2013, 09:16:18 PM
QuotePeople actually have to want to buy things that you're manufacturing, though. That's where the "economy" piece you're skirting around comes in.
:unsure:
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 09:07:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2013, 09:21:51 PM
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.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 11, 2013, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2013, 09:21:51 PM
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. :contract:
Quote
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 09:19:47 PM
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.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 11, 2013, 09:32:20 PMGod. 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 :P
Quote from: fahdiz on April 11, 2013, 09:32:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2013, 09:21:51 PM
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?)
Quote from: Tyr on April 11, 2013, 09:37:46 PM
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? :huh:
Quoteshe 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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 09:48:06 PM
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.
Quote("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.
Weirdo English.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 09:54:44 PM
Weirdo English.
Like your boy Bashir pronouncing 'migrane' as meegrane. What a Fucking Michael Jackson cocksucking idiot.
You hate him because he's smarter than you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 10:00:35 PM
You hate him because he's smarter than you.
I hate him because he is a twit and a Limey. He can get back on the banana boat.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 11, 2013, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 10:00:35 PM
You hate him because he's smarter than you.
I hate him because he is a twit and a Limey. He can get back on the banana boat.
I'd have him back if you keep Piers Morgan...
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2013, 09:53:20 PM
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.
Quote
This is ridiculous Shelf. Listen to yourself for a second.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2013, 10:02:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 11, 2013, 10:01:39 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 10:00:35 PM
You hate him because he's smarter than you.
I hate him because he is a twit and a Limey. He can get back on the banana boat.
I'd have him back if you keep Piers Morgan...
It is a package deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 09:51:37 PM
Why? :huh:
Why not? :huh:
It does a lot of good in employing people and earning money. Where's the negative?
Quote
How do money losing companies help the country come out ahead?
If by removing 500 loss making jobs you destroy 5,000 profit making jobs then it's probally worth considering taking the hit on those 500.
See, this is why I'm still a Capitalist.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 11, 2013, 10:00:35 PM
You hate him because he's smarter than you.
But he hates everybody.
Oh. OK.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 09:48:06 PMOf course not. But a handout received while peforming work, at a state-owned company or anywhere else, is still a handout.
How do you differentiate a "handout while performing work" from "wages earned"?
Is it if a company is making a loss, all wages paid are a handout? (so by bringing the company into profitability, no handouts are given out)
Or is it if a company is state owned, all wages paid are a handout? (so all public service employees are receiving handouts, as are employees of crown corporations, scientists at say NASA and the FDA, as well as anyone employed at say a state owned oil company)
Is it a combination - state owned and non-profitable? (so most public service employees again)
Or is it people working for state-owned enterprises which you don't approve of?
I'd say its irrelevant to the worker and whether their job is real or a handout if their company is state owned or private, making a loss or a profit.
To the average man on the factory floor the job is the same. Its only once you get up to the higher management levels that the job becomes less real and more of a handout.
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2013, 11:10:03 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 09:48:06 PMOf course not. But a handout received while peforming work, at a state-owned company or anywhere else, is still a handout.
How do you differentiate a "handout while performing work" from "wages earned"?
Is it if a company is making a loss, all wages paid are a handout? (so by bringing the company into profitability, no handouts are given out)
Or is it if a company is state owned, all wages paid are a handout? (so all public service employees are receiving handouts, as are employees of crown corporations, scientists at say NASA and the FDA, as well as anyone employed at say a state owned oil company)
Is it a combination - state owned and non-profitable? (so most public service employees again)
Or is it people working for state-owned enterprises which you don't approve of?
I think Yi means anyone he doesn't approve of.
But if it's a firefighter who saves him from an electrical fire, caused by an untested, grey imported inadequately made heater, then that guy isn't working for a handout.
But obviously the laid off woman who used to work at the government 'trading standards'/public safety body, was in receipt of a hand-out and so had to be let go, to make a leaner fitter government. :P
Quote from: Tyr on April 11, 2013, 10:28:37 PM
Why not? :huh:
It does a lot of good in employing people and earning money. Where's the negative?
The negative is the money you take from somebody else to give to the profitable company.
Quote
If by removing 500 loss making jobs you destroy 5,000 profit making jobs then it's probally worth considering taking the hit on those 500.
Not sure how you get a situation where 500 money losing jobs are supporting 5,000 money making jobs. :huh:
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2013, 11:10:03 PM
How do you differentiate a "handout while performing work" from "wages earned"?
Is it if a company is making a loss, all wages paid are a handout? (so by bringing the company into profitability, no handouts are given out)
Or is it if a company is state owned, all wages paid are a handout? (so all public service employees are receiving handouts, as are employees of crown corporations, scientists at say NASA and the FDA, as well as anyone employed at say a state owned oil company)
Is it a combination - state owned and non-profitable? (so most public service employees again)
Or is it people working for state-owned enterprises which you don't approve of?
If the employer is private, and not receiving any money from the government, there is no handout.
If the employer is private and receiving money from the government, it's a handout. If the condition of the money is continued employment of X workers, the workers are getting a handout. If the the condition is about production (i.e. a production subsidy), it's a handout to the consumers of the company's product. If there are no strings attached, it's a handout to the owners.
If the employer is the state and the enterprise is one that generates a product or service for private consumption (such as coal), and it is operating at a loss, the above applies.
If the employer si the state and the enterprise is one that generates a public good (such as NASA) there is not necessarily a handout, but it might be wasted spending depending on how you view the desirability of the public good.
Quote from: mongers on April 11, 2013, 11:21:16 PM
I think Yi means anyone he doesn't approve of.
But if it's a firefighter who saves him from an electrical fire, caused by an untested, grey imported inadequately made heater, then that guy isn't working for a handout.
But obviously the laid off woman who used to work at the government 'trading standards'/public safety body, was in receipt of a hand-out and so had to be let go, to make a leaner fitter government. :P
You're a twit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 11, 2013, 10:01:39 PM
I hate him because he is a twit and a Limey. He can get back on the banana boat.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent6.flixster.com%2Fquestion%2F65%2F22%2F56%2F6522564_std.jpg&hash=e124457d7c59bbd30ee695df228894984dfe9730)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 11:34:26 PM
Quote from: mongers on April 11, 2013, 11:21:16 PM
I think Yi means anyone he doesn't approve of. :P
You're a twit.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoug-johnson.squarespace.com%2Fstorage%2Ftwit3.jpg&hash=65a1d2e6ab2bd3717b610e698ecb8aa782f7ad3b)
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2013, 11:10:03 PM
Is it if a company is making a loss, all wages paid are a handout? (so by bringing the company into profitability, no handouts are given out)
I missed this one.
A loss making private company pays wages in the hope/expectation that conditions will improve, not as an act of charity. Not a handout.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 11:23:53 PM
The negative is the money you take from somebody else to give to the profitable company.
If its profitable why are you giving them money?
Quote
Not sure how you get a situation where 500 money losing jobs are supporting 5,000 money making jobs. :huh:
Its pretty common in the world at large- doctors, fire fighters, the police, etc....
But to give a more direct and relevant to the subject answer.
I'm sure I've written something similar before but...imagine a town with 10,000 people, one of its major employers is a factory that employs 500 people. The government decides since that factory is losing money it needs to be closed down.
- It's a pretty reasonable assumption that more than those 500 people actually working at the factory depend on it for their livlihood. To be conservative we're probally talking another 1000 people, assuming every factory worker has a non-working wife and a kid (big assumption but a fair thing to average out at)
- Lots of small businesses operate almost purely by serving that factory. The catering firm which delivers sandwiches to the factory, the pub by the factory gates, parts and materials suppliers, etc... So another few hundred jobs gone there
- Shops, taxi firms, restaurants, etc... in the town have now lost 2,000 people (depends exactly how much supporting industry the factory has, could be a lot less than 500, is probally a lot more, albeit not all in this one town) from the wealthier segment of their customer base. Even assuming the other 8,000 are all working and not retired, already unemployed, children, etc... a 1/5 drop in customers could be pretty dodgy, some will survive but some will go under, and with them going under those that remain will have customers with even less to spend
- Now the factory has gone maybe the railway link serving the town is deemed unecessary and closed. Now people can't get to/from the town for work.
- Now the town is dying it is perhaps seen as less important and companies are less inclined to expand there, especially given its bad transport links now the railway is gone. A caring government could mitigate this with offering a lot of incentives for investing in such deprived areas, others (MT) half arse it, if they care at all.
- Where before a wife of the factory workers might technically be counted as employed due to being a full time home maker she now has to start looking for a job herself and starts taking unemployment benefits
So many ways things could unravel by removing one key part of a local economy.
Quote from: Tyr on April 12, 2013, 12:20:50 AM
If its profitable why are you giving them money?
Quote
:huh: Dude, that was my question to you.
QuoteContinued government support for the profit making parts of the industries is a no brainer
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2013, 12:28:40 AM
:huh: Dude, that was my question to you.
Support doesn't just mean throwing money at them.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2013, 02:40:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 09, 2013, 02:36:34 PM
Is that really a bad thing though? Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.
It is bad if what you wanted was a British Empire that was going to endure and be a positive force in the world. It would have had to become everybody's empire not just those people living in Blighty. Eventually there would have had to be Indian politicians running it and so forth, just like the Illyrian9s running the Roman Empire. They toyed with that idea several times, in fact it was Benjamin Franklin's grand vision back when he supported it, but it never really took hold.
That idea was doomed as soon as they fucked up with America and we rebelled.
With America they British Empire would still bestride the world like a collosus.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 11:33:47 PM
If the employer is private and receiving money from the government, it's a handout. If the condition of the money is continued employment of X workers, the workers are getting a handout. If the the condition is about production (i.e. a production subsidy), it's a handout to the consumers of the company's product. If there are no strings attached, it's a handout to the owners.
Does changing the accounting make it less of a handout? I.e. if the money comes in the form of a tax credit, does it make it not a handout?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 11, 2013, 11:49:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 11, 2013, 11:10:03 PM
Is it if a company is making a loss, all wages paid are a handout? (so by bringing the company into profitability, no handouts are given out)
I missed this one.
A loss making private company pays wages in the hope/expectation that conditions will improve, not as an act of charity. Not a handout.
If the government hopes/expects conditions will improve, does it make it not a handout?
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2013, 12:42:57 AM
If the government hopes/expects conditions will improve, does it make it not a handout?
Is this all going somewhere Jake?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2013, 12:51:13 AM
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2013, 12:42:57 AM
If the government hopes/expects conditions will improve, does it make it not a handout?
Is this all going somewhere Jake?
Yes.
It seems to me that by your definition there are very many handouts extant in Western economies. Thus it seems a bit curious to get so fixated on a particular set of them.
Quote from: Jacob on April 12, 2013, 01:12:15 AM
Yes.
It seems to me that by your definition there are very many handouts extant in Western economies. Thus it seems a bit curious to get so fixated on a particular set of them.
I do not think there are very many handouts.
Hey Yi, what about tax cuts directed at a certain business? Is that a handout? Oh, or if the government renders a service to business such as preventing employees from striking? Is that a handout?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2013, 04:00:22 AM
Hey Yi, what about tax cuts directed at a certain business? Is that a handout?
How can a preferential tax cut aimed at a "certain business" be anything but a handout?
Or were you referring to a tax change for a particular industry or sector in general, such as telecommunications or Automotive, which would not be a handout?
I dunno. It happens all the time. Cities will attract a business to the area by not collecting property tax for a certain amount of time. If that counts as a handout, then vast number of businesses receive handouts. Another trick is for a city to build road and sewer service out to where a business is promising to relocate.
Oh, and here's another one, what about a business that provides services to a "handout business". Like a business that provides roofing or legal services for a business that gets subsidies? Are they receiving a handout?
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2013, 04:32:02 AM
I dunno. It happens all the time. Cities will attract a business to the area by not collecting property tax for a certain amount of time. If that counts as a handout, then vast number of businesses receive handouts. Another trick is for a city to build road and sewer service out to where a business is promising to relocate.
All of which are handouts; beneficial and worthwhile ones on the face of it*, but still handouts. A handout isn't neccessarily a bad thing as part of an overall plan - I find Tyr's point exaggerated (there's only certain industries with that kind of major knock-on effect, the most famous one being automotive) but I agree with his point that there are sometimes valid reasons for giving handouts/government support. Once again I suspect he and I would differ greatly in the application of said policy... ;)
*I say on the face ot it since I can remember reading recent articles that suggested that once you started giving out these handouts to attract the business a lot of them keep coming back for more handouts every few years in order to stay there - thus reducing the value gained from the initial handout. To be honest I suspect the article was posted on Languish - I remember thinking that I hoped that the local authorities concerned understood that it's perfectly legitimate to say no if the costs escalated beyond the benefits.
This would make pretty much every manufacturer in the US a recipient of handouts, which is something that is anathema to the GOP.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2013, 05:08:09 AM
This would make pretty much every manufacturer in the US a recipient of handouts, which is something that is anathema to the GOP.
It may be anathema, but "euphemisms" are a very useful tool in this case I would imagine; surely it's the very basis of so-called "Pork Barrel" politics that I was under the impression both sides indulged in?
"A handout by any other name..." :)
Out of interest, where would you draw the line for the term "handout"? With just the ones you think are bad or unneccessary as most modern politicians seem to do these days or somewhere else? I'm curious.
Honestly, I don't concern my self with being critical of handouts. I think it's the governments job to help out occasionally.
Manufacturing and mining was going to decline in Britain no matter what. But there is a difference between a gradual decline that allows space and time for the workforce to adjust and sudden catastrophic drops that decimate entire working communities. The problem here re Thatcher was not so much the staredown of the more militant unions (which I agree had to happen) but a disasterous anti-stabilization macro-economic policy that engineered a depression at the same time. In effect, overnight she doubled the trend rate of unemployment and the UK economy never really recovered from that until after she was gone.
As for fahdiz's argument that work for its own sake should not be valued, I accept that as a theological proposition, but not an economic or sociological one. Long term unemployment, particularly if concentrated geographically, can have devastating long-run hysteresis effects in terms of eroding worker skill bases and permanently reducing the the skill levels and work habits of the next generation. As to whether those effects could justify temporary policies of subsidization of employment, I think that is at the very least an open question.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 09:21:27 AM
Manufacturing and mining was going to decline in Britain no matter what. But there is a difference between a gradual decline that allows space and time for the workforce to adjust and sudden catastrophic drops that decimate entire working communities.
I can accept that.
My only question would be was that possible under the political circumstances? This sort of reminds me of the idea that we can gradually reduce the budget deficit and that just means we increase it less quickly. Sometimes the band-aid has to be pulled off when you have the chance. Maybe you are right, but in my experience gradual transitions to unpopular policies are next to impossible because of political resistance.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2013, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 11, 2013, 09:32:20 PMGod. 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.
I agree. In my experience there is nothing more soul (psychological not theological) destroying then not being able to work.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 09:21:27 AM
Manufacturing and mining was going to decline in Britain no matter what. But there is a difference between a gradual decline that allows space and time for the workforce to adjust and sudden catastrophic drops that decimate entire working communities.
I am not sure what you are advocating for here. Coal mining had been nationalized since, I think, the 40s. I am not sure how one ends state control and subsidy of that sector "gradually".
Quote from: Valmy on April 12, 2013, 09:35:55 AM
My only question would be was that possible under the political circumstances? This sort of reminds me of the idea that we can gradually reduce the budget deficit and that just means we increase it less quickly. Sometimes the band-aid has to be pulled off when you have the chance. Maybe you are right, but in my experience gradual transitions to unpopular policies are next to impossible because of political resistance.
This wasn't about different methods of pulling off band-aids; it was just bad policy based on bad theory.
Thatcher's advisors decided it would be neat idea to make the UK into a giant laboratory to test Milton Friedman's theory that you could run economic policy by simply targeting broad monetary aggreagates.
That turned out to be a terrific contribution to academic macro because the empirical experience established pretty definitively that this didn't work. Unfortunately the UK economy paid the price for this experiment.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 09:21:27 AM
Manufacturing and mining was going to decline in Britain no matter what. But there is a difference between a gradual decline that allows space and time for the workforce to adjust and sudden catastrophic drops that decimate entire working communities.
I am not sure what you are advocating for here. Coal mining had been nationalized since, I think, the 40s. I am not sure how one ends state control and subsidy of that sector "gradually".
Focusing narrowly on coal mining, seems to me state control makes that easier . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 09:49:19 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 09:43:42 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 09:21:27 AM
Manufacturing and mining was going to decline in Britain no matter what. But there is a difference between a gradual decline that allows space and time for the workforce to adjust and sudden catastrophic drops that decimate entire working communities.
I am not sure what you are advocating for here. Coal mining had been nationalized since, I think, the 40s. I am not sure how one ends state control and subsidy of that sector "gradually".
Focusing narrowly on coal mining, seems to me state control makes that easier . . .
Again, I am not sure what you are advocating for. The coal mines and associated industries that were profitable remained open. Earlier you said that her "stare down" with the union was necessary but now you seem to be suggesting that it was not and that she should not have tried to close down the money losing pits.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 09:51:22 AM
Again, I am not sure what you are advocating for. The coal mines and associated industries that were profitable remained open. Earlier you said that her "stare down" with the union was necessary but now you seem to be suggesting that it was not and that she should not have tried to close down the money losing pits.
Sorry if I was unclear. I do think the overall policy on the coal mines was sound as I understand it: gradually reduce employment levels, focus investments in the more profitable mines, and phase out the others. I also think she had not other good options in the mid-80s strike. My gripe is with the destablizing macro policies of the earlier period 79-81, which impacted all industry.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 10:00:27 AM
My gripe is with the destablizing macro policies of the earlier period 79-81, which impacted all industry.
Ok, I understand you point now. But could you provide a brief description of those macro policies and the alternative policies that would have been better to implement?
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 09:40:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2013, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 11, 2013, 09:32:20 PMGod. 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.
I agree. In my experience there is nothing more soul (psychological not theological) destroying then not being able to work.
One summer I was a dishwasher and on housekeeping staff at a convalescent home. I guarantee you that was more soul-destroying than unemployment.
Anyway, the point is that work in the service of something greater might be a virtue, but drudgery? It may be useful and have a modicum of value, but there's nothing particularly virtuous about it.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 09:51:22 AM
Again, I am not sure what you are advocating for. The coal mines and associated industries that were profitable remained open. Earlier you said that her "stare down" with the union was necessary but now you seem to be suggesting that it was not and that she should not have tried to close down the money losing pits.
Sorry if I was unclear. I do think the overall policy on the coal mines was sound as I understand it: gradually reduce employment levels, focus investments in the more profitable mines, and phase out the others. I also think she had not other good options in the mid-80s strike. My gripe is with the destablizing macro policies of the earlier period 79-81, which impacted all industry.
Thanks JR for you thoughtful contributions to this thread.
Yes, that period of idealogical motivated government policy tends to get glossed over for some reason.
I can remember living through it and with the consequences, one of which was Thatcher was set to loose the 83/84 election, if she wasn't toppled by a palace coup before than, but the war saved her bacon.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 12, 2013, 11:04:31 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 09:40:32 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2013, 09:38:44 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 11, 2013, 09:32:20 PMGod. 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.
I agree. In my experience there is nothing more soul (psychological not theological) destroying then not being able to work.
One summer I was a dishwasher and on housekeeping staff at a convalescent home. I guarantee you that was more soul-destroying than unemployment.
You may be an outlier then. I have had many a shit job in my time. But I have always felt worse when I did not have a job. Growing up I also witnessed first hand what unemployment did to friends, my parents, parents of friends and the community in which we lived.
Yeah, shit jobs are, by definition, shitty. But the alternative is worse.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
You may be an outlier then. I have had many a shit job in my time. But I have always felt worse when I did not have a job. Growing up I also witnessed first hand what unemployment did to friends, my parents, parents of friends and the community in which we lived.
Yeah, shit jobs are, by definition, shitty. But the alternative is worse.
I'm going to agree with fhdz. While on the whole 2010 was a downpatch for me given the whole depression (and my large lack of desire to do anything during the day), I think I had more fun partying every night then I had working at that first job I had out of college - even once my disability payments dried up. Though, of course, that first job was soul destroying and had been a primary trigger for my depression.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
You may be an outlier then.
Judging by the number of people who have written throughout the centuries about the mind-and-soul-deadening of drudgery, I am not sure you are using the word outlier correctly. Seems like your definition is more along the lines of "disagrees with me".
QuoteI have had many a shit job in my time. But I have always felt worse when I did not have a job. Growing up I also witnessed first hand what unemployment did to friends, my parents, parents of friends and the community in which we lived.
Yeah, shit jobs are, by definition, shitty. But the alternative is worse.
A job is a means to an end. For me, the end is "that I have enough money to support myself and my kids so I can actually enjoy the time I am *not* at work, and do the things I love to do". It'd be wonderful if my job and those things I love to do were actually one and the same, but that doesn't happen for very many people.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 10:00:27 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 09:51:22 AM
Again, I am not sure what you are advocating for. The coal mines and associated industries that were profitable remained open. Earlier you said that her "stare down" with the union was necessary but now you seem to be suggesting that it was not and that she should not have tried to close down the money losing pits.
Sorry if I was unclear. I do think the overall policy on the coal mines was sound as I understand it: gradually reduce employment levels, focus investments in the more profitable mines, and phase out the others. I also think she had not other good options in the mid-80s strike. My gripe is with the destablizing macro policies of the earlier period 79-81, which impacted all industry.
This is the sort of evidenced critique of Thatcherite economic policy that's sorely lacking in our own press.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2013, 04:00:22 AM
Hey Yi, what about tax cuts directed at a certain business? Is that a handout? Oh, or if the government renders a service to business such as preventing employees from striking? Is that a handout?
If the tax break is an inducement for an activity the business would not otherwise be doing, then I would not call it a handout.
Not sure what you mean by preventing employees from striking. You mean like prodding them back to the assembly line at bayonet point?
What Joan is talking about, if I'm not mistaken, is the tightening of money supply pursued by the BoE concurrently with the Volker-led Fed in order to kill inflation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2013, 11:40:48 AM
If the tax break is an inducement for an activity the business would not otherwise be doing, then I would not call it a handout.
I must be missing a nuance in your argument, because that would seem to be to include "keeping otherwise unprofitable industries/ worksites going".
I would say there's a useful difference between giving industries a shot in the arm and putting them on life support.
Quote from: Warspite on April 12, 2013, 11:36:42 AM
This is the sort of evidenced critique of Thatcherite economic policy that's sorely lacking in our own press.
No way. We're a bunch of know-it-all Yanks who "weren't there" :contract:
It seems to me that the gradual approach would have worked. I mean, from some graphs posted in paradox, it looks like the manufacturing % of the UK economy shrank much more under Blair than it did in the 1972-1990 period, and that wasn't a time of shock and unemployment.
Quote from: derspiess on April 12, 2013, 11:54:15 AMNo way. We're a bunch of know-it-all Yanks who "weren't there" :contract:
Minsky sets a great example :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 10:49:46 AM
Ok, I understand you point now. But could you provide a brief description of those macro policies and the alternative policies that would have been better to implement?
Brief is hard; I'll try.
The Monetarists believed that inflation was entirely a monetary phenonemon; but while rejecting various variants of Keynsian stabilization policies, they accepted the potential need for economic stabilization. Their view was (and still is) that monetary policy alone would be sufficient.
The question was how to achieve stabilization through monetary means. Milton Friedman theorized that an economy could be kept on a relatively stable low inflation equilibrium if the money supply could be targeted to grow at a steady rate sufficient enough to accomodate real economic growth plus a low inflation rate (a kernel of this idea lives on today with the "market monetarists" who advocate NGDP targeting). Friedman advocated that this could best be achieved through the adoption by the central bank of a fixed "rule" whereby the bank targeted a set rate of growth for a broad monetary aggregate (e.g. M3).
The problem with the theory is that in practice it is impossible for a capitalist market economy -- even a mixed one like 1970s Britain -- to directly control either the rate of growth of broad money creation by the private financial system or its velocity of circulation. The Monetarists theorized that it might be possible to control these things indirectly by using policy tools like controlling base money or by manipulating the fiscal deficit (note the tension between the last and the anti-keynsian position however). This assumption was heavily criticized and it turns out that it was wrong. Exhibit A is the Thatcher policy. Thathcer set a formal target for M3 growth. But her government failed to hit the target every year; in fact they were way off. In the desperate effort to hit the target however, Thatcher simultaneously cut spending, raised VAT, and clamped down on base money creation. Keynsian theory would suggest that doing so in the weakened condition of the British economy in 1979 would tip the economy into depression. In fact, that is exactly what happened; unemployment leaped. Moreoever, the demand effects fell particular hard on the industrial sector, because one consequence of the Thatcher policy was to push up the value of sterling in 79-81, at the very moment in time when the British economy was beginning to be subject to Dutch Disease effects from North Sea Oil. So British industry was suddenly faced with the double whammy of collapsing domestic demand, and a weakened external competitiveness.
This is a long about way of saying that ripping the band-aid off may not be such a good idea if the wound is still free flowing and surrounded by a vat of dangerous bacteria.
Quote from: Warspite on April 12, 2013, 11:52:45 AM
I would say there's a useful difference between giving industries a shot in the arm and putting them on life support.
Agreed, but that may require some nuance in the arguments and definitions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 02:54:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 10:49:46 AM
Ok, I understand you point now. But could you provide a brief description of those macro policies and the alternative policies that would have been better to implement?
Brief is hard; I'll try.
The Monetarists believed that inflation was entirely a monetary phenonemon; but while rejecting various variants of Keynsian stabilization policies, they accepted the potential need for economic stabilization. Their view was (and still is) that monetary policy alone would be sufficient.
The question was how to achieve stabilization through monetary means. Milton Friedman theorized that an economy could be kept on a relatively stable low inflation equilibrium if the money supply could be targeted to grow at a steady rate sufficient enough to accomodate real economic growth plus a low inflation rate (a kernel of this idea lives on today with the "market monetarists" who advocate NGDP targeting). Friedman advocated that this could best be achieved through the adoption by the central bank of a fixed "rule" whereby the bank targeted a set rate of growth for a broad monetary aggregate (e.g. M3).
The problem with the theory is that in practice it is impossible for a capitalist market economy -- even a mixed one like 1970s Britain -- to directly control either the rate of growth of broad money creation by the private financial system or its velocity of circulation. The Monetarists theorized that it might be possible to control these things indirectly by using policy tools like controlling base money or by manipulating the fiscal deficit (note the tension between the last and the anti-keynsian position however). This assumption was heavily criticized and it turns out that it was wrong. Exhibit A is the Thatcher policy. Thathcer set a formal target for M3 growth. But her government failed to hit the target every year; in fact they were way off. In the desperate effort to hit the target however, Thatcher simultaneously cut spending, raised VAT, and clamped down on base money creation. Keynsian theory would suggest that doing so in the weakened condition of the British economy in 1979 would tip the economy into depression. In fact, that is exactly what happened; unemployment leaped. Moreoever, the demand effects fell particular hard on the industrial sector, because one consequence of the Thatcher policy was to push up the value of sterling in 79-81, at the very moment in time when the British economy was beginning to be subject to Dutch Disease effects from North Sea Oil. So British industry was suddenly faced with the double whammy of collapsing domestic demand, and a weakened external competitiveness.
This is a long about way of saying that ripping the band-aid off may not be such a good idea if the wound is still free flowing and surrounded by a vat of dangerous bacteria.
Thank you JR. Very much appreciated.
Thanks, though I didn't know anything about the monetary thing when I brought up the band-aid metaphor. I was talking about proping up uneconomic industries. The timing indeed could have been better given that context.
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 11:18:10 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2013, 11:13:22 AM
You may be an outlier then. I have had many a shit job in my time. But I have always felt worse when I did not have a job. Growing up I also witnessed first hand what unemployment did to friends, my parents, parents of friends and the community in which we lived.
Yeah, shit jobs are, by definition, shitty. But the alternative is worse.
I'm going to agree with fhdz. While on the whole 2010 was a downpatch for me given the whole depression (and my large lack of desire to do anything during the day), I think I had more fun partying every night then I had working at that first job I had out of college - even once my disability payments dried up. Though, of course, that first job was soul destroying and had been a primary trigger for my depression.
We're talking about soul-destroying. Gays don't have souls.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 02:54:25 PM
This is a long about way of saying that ripping the band-aid off may not be such a good idea if the wound is still free flowing and surrounded by a vat of dangerous bacteria.
Depends on your priorities. After all, the economy recovered eventually, but the once-in-a-century chance for the destruction of the internal enemies of one's country is priceless.
Quote from: Neil on April 12, 2013, 03:36:31 PM
We're talking about soul-destroying. Gays don't have souls.
Oh okay. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 12, 2013, 11:40:48 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2013, 04:00:22 AM
Hey Yi, what about tax cuts directed at a certain business? Is that a handout? Oh, or if the government renders a service to business such as preventing employees from striking? Is that a handout?
If the tax break is an inducement for an activity the business would not otherwise be doing, then I would not call it a handout.
Not sure what you mean by preventing employees from striking. You mean like prodding them back to the assembly line at bayonet point?
What Joan is talking about, if I'm not mistaken, is the tightening of money supply pursued by the BoE concurrently with the Volker-led Fed in order to kill inflation.
There are lots of ways to prevent strikes. Using soldiers is a tried and true method, but also using government resources for labor spies or passing laws that prevent certain types of strikes, using police to harassing labor organizers, etc.
Jake's response to what you wrote about handouts is the same as mine so I don't have to repeat it.
Quote from: citizen k on April 11, 2013, 11:41:08 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoug-johnson.squarespace.com%2Fstorage%2Ftwit3.jpg&hash=65a1d2e6ab2bd3717b610e698ecb8aa782f7ad3b)
Stop that. This is getting rather silly now.
Quote from: Josephus on April 12, 2013, 05:34:38 PM
Quote from: citizen k on April 11, 2013, 11:41:08 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdoug-johnson.squarespace.com%2Fstorage%2Ftwit3.jpg&hash=65a1d2e6ab2bd3717b610e698ecb8aa782f7ad3b)
Stop that. This is getting rather silly now.
He didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Quote from: Agelastus on April 12, 2013, 04:42:36 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 12, 2013, 04:32:02 AM
I dunno. It happens all the time. Cities will attract a business to the area by not collecting property tax for a certain amount of time. If that counts as a handout, then vast number of businesses receive handouts. Another trick is for a city to build road and sewer service out to where a business is promising to relocate.
All of which are handouts; beneficial and worthwhile ones on the face of it*, but still handouts. A handout isn't neccessarily a bad thing as part of an overall plan - I find Tyr's point exaggerated (there's only certain industries with that kind of major knock-on effect, the most famous one being automotive) but I agree with his point that there are sometimes valid reasons for giving handouts/government support. Once again I suspect he and I would differ greatly in the application of said policy... ;)
*I say on the face ot it since I can remember reading recent articles that suggested that once you started giving out these handouts to attract the business a lot of them keep coming back for more handouts every few years in order to stay there - thus reducing the value gained from the initial handout. To be honest I suspect the article was posted on Languish - I remember thinking that I hoped that the local authorities concerned understood that it's perfectly legitimate to say no if the costs escalated beyond the benefits.
Is that really a handout though? Say I'm City Z and I want to attract business to my city so I offer incentives to businesses (let's say reduced taxes for 5 years). Those reduced taxes that I collected for 5 years and the full taxes that I'll make from the businesses, if it works, will be much more than I "lost" by offering reduced taxes to get businesses to my city (leaving aside sales/prop tax from the new citizens and workers). That doesn't seem much different from when a store has a sale where customers get some items for cheap for a limited time and now having gone to that store are more likely to make another purchase at full price somewhere down the line. Did the store give the customers a handout?
Quote from: garbon on April 12, 2013, 06:16:54 PM
Is that really a handout though? Say I'm City Z and I want to attract business to my city so I offer incentives to businesses (let's say reduced taxes for 5 years). Those reduced taxes that I collected for 5 years and the full taxes that I'll make from the businesses, if it works, will be much more than I "lost" by offering reduced taxes to get businesses to my city (leaving aside sales/prop tax from the new citizens and workers). That doesn't seem much different from when a store has a sale where customers get some items for cheap for a limited time and now having gone to that store are more likely to make another purchase at full price somewhere down the line. Did the store give the customers a handout?
In both cases, there is no opportunity cost, so I'd say no.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 12, 2013, 09:21:27 AM
As for fahdiz's argument that work for its own sake should not be valued, I accept that as a theological proposition, but not an economic or sociological one. Long term unemployment, particularly if concentrated geographically, can have devastating long-run hysteresis effects in terms of eroding worker skill bases and permanently reducing the the skill levels and work habits of the next generation.
I agree. I'd add that I think this was particularly severe in coal-mining areas because the private owners and, later, the National Coal Board discouraged other employers establishing in the area - that's probably one of the reasons the miners were generally badly paid (until the mid-70s).
The other particular Thatcherite problem is that she was a very centralising PM. So at a time when you had concentrated areas of high unemployment local government wasn't able to respond or for there to be different styles of response. That whole American idea of local government being the lab of democracy just didn't happen, which I think exacerbated the problem.
I mean unemployment was a problem for about 15 years from the early 80s. There was some improvement in some cities during New Labour - Manchester springs to mind. But still not enough.
I thought this poll was interesting:
QuoteThatcher: divisive, half right and not "the greatest"
By John Rentoul
Eagle Eye
Saturday, 13 April 2013 at 7:26 pm
Voters disagree with David Cameron's description of Margaret Thatcher as "the greatest British peacetime prime minister" by 41 per cent to 33 per cent, according to a ComRes poll for tomorrow's Independent on Sunday, shared with the Sunday Mirror. And 60 per cent oppose taxpayer funding for next week's funeral.
The poll, taken on Wednesday and Thursday this week, found little evidence of a "Thatcher effect" on voting intentions, putting Labour's lead at eight points, down just one point since last month. UKIP are two points down on last month's record high:
Conservatives 30% (+2)
Labour 38% (+1)
UKIP 15% (-2)
Lib Dem 8% (-1)
Others 9% (0)
(Change since last month's ComRes online poll for Independent on Sunday & Sunday Mirror.)
Do you agree or disagree:
Margaret Thatcher was Britain's greatest peacetime Prime Minister
Agree 33% Disagree 41% Don't know 26%
Only in the 65-plus age group do more people agree (46%) than disagree (38%).
Public attitudes to her are apparently contradictory, with a majority agreeing both that she was "the most divisive prime minister this country has had" and that Britain needs more "conviction politicians" like her:
Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive Prime Minister this country has had that I can remember
Agree 59% Disagree 18%
Britain today needs more 'conviction politicians' like Margaret Thatcher
Agree 56% Disagree 26%
Conservative voters agree by 88% to 3%; Labour voters are more likely to disagree (47%) than agree (34%).
Margaret Thatcher's ceremonial funeral should not be funded by taxpayers
Agree 60% Disagree 25%
A third (32%) of Conservative voters agree, as do a majority of voters from every other party.
Margaret Thatcher was right to require trade unions to hold secret ballots before strikes
Agree 52% Disagree 20% Don't know 28%
We received a better level of service from gas, electricity and telephone companies after privatisation
Agree 25% Disagree 38% Don't know 38%
Overall, Margaret Thatcher's policies were right for the country at the time
Agree 45% Disagree 34%
Margaret Thatcher's economic policies did more harm than good
Agree 39% Disagree 35% Don't know 26%
Which of the following, if any, will you most remember Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for?
Curbing the power of trade unions / the miners' strike 49%
The Falklands War 47%
The Poll Tax 39%
Privatisation of nationalised industries e.g. gas, electricity, telecoms 30%
Council housing 'right to buy' 27%
Unemployment 17%
Her role in ending the Cold War 8%
Her relationship with Europe 5%
Northern Ireland / hunger strikes 4%
None of the above 8%
Respondents could choose up to three.
ComRes interviewed 2,012 GB adults online on 10 and 11 April 2013. Data were weighted to be demographically representative of all GB adults. Data were also weighted by past vote recall. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Full tables at ComRes.
Edit: Incidentally I think one of the bigger political legacies is the damage that her reign, betrayal and behaviour as the 'unbeaten' leader caused the Tories.
I've been unemployed for like a decade, and I'm fine. :)
Quote from: Razgovory on April 13, 2013, 09:44:19 PM
I've been unemployed for like a decade, and I'm fine. :)
Unemployed isn't the same as unemployable, and you're not fine.
Dunno if anyone caught this over the weekend:
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/history-of-punk/n35542
:D
Yeah, I laughed.