How Thatcherism Failed The Majority

[Mr Jib Fingers]

No.

At least not in any way we would currently recognise. After a collapse it would be highly regulated to prevent any such thing happening again. That is in those nations where democracy survived.

Some nations would of course fall into despotism or similar. Basically it would be a rerun of the 1930's. Now just as then the hardships that occur would give rise to extremist political movements and governments. In fact we can already see it happening in the euro countries. I think though that the madness of the world wars is drilled in enough, that another hitler won't arise, and if he did he would not be able to start a world war.

So if we don't continue to give the bankers all our money then Hitler will be back in a couple of years?

I'm not buying this to be honest, Iceland aren't returning to despotism as far as I can see. In fact the countries doing the worst like Greece are the ones that were bailed out.

Sometimes you need a reset and 2008 seemed like a perfect time.

[byron78]

Yep. I don't get how we can all agree that the housing market is completely rigged by the government to keep prices high and yet it is somehow an example of how a free market has gone wrong.

Can't we just agree that the government is screwing it up and it has nothing to do with free markets whatsoever?

What's not to get?

Who do you think the government are propping prices for?

The banks yes, but there's a whole "free" market being propped here.

Certainly the government is rigging the housing market, but one of the biggest benefactors in that rigging are the major housebuilders.

Look at their share prices between the financial crisis to now.

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=BDEV:LSE

They crashed with the "free" market, yet have quadrupled in price again thanks to the banking bailout, tight planning restrictions preventing individual home construction, and help-to-buy.

They spend millions lobbying to have the government's ear and it seems they have it.

In fact the UK lobbying "industry" - where free market companies pay to have the UK government listen to them - is worth 2 billion quid now.

If that sort of cash doesn't buy them at least some say so in UK government policy I'm at a loss as to why it's spent in the first place.

I'm frankly surprised people still think governments dictate to the free market and not the other way around.

Edited May 22, 2014 by byron78

[THE BALD MAN]

What's not to get?

Who do you think the government are propping prices for?

The banks yes, but there's a whole "free" market being propped here.

Certainly the government is rigging the housing market, but one of the biggest benefactors in that rigging are the major housebuilders.

Look at their share prices between the financial crisis to now.

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=BDEV:LSE

They crashed with the "free" market, yet have quadrupled in price again thanks to the banking bailout, tight planning restrictions preventing individual home construction, and help-to-buy.

They spend millions lobbying to have the government's ear and it seems they have it.

+1. there are very few free markets. Most are rigged either by companies working in collaboration or governments artificially supporting a sector. If there was a free market there would be no banks in the format we see now.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

What's not to get?

Who do you think the government are propping prices for?

The banks yes, but there's a whole "free" market being propped here.

Certainly the government is rigging the housing market, but one of the biggest benefactors in that rigging are the major housebuilders.

Look at their share prices between the financial crisis to now.

http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=BDEV:LSE

They crashed with the "free" market, yet have quadrupled in price again thanks to the banking bailout, tight planning restrictions preventing individual home construction, and help-to-buy.

They spend millions lobbying to have the government's ear and it seems they have it.

Eh? How is propping stuff up for special interests a free market exactly?

Just because there is a private company involved somewhere down the line it doesn't mean what you think it means.

[byron78]

Eh? How is propping stuff up for special interests a free market exactly?

Just because there is a private company involved somewhere down the line it doesn't mean what you think it means.

So the UK's 2 billion lobby industry isn't about special interests? What is it for then?

[Mr Jib Fingers]

So the UK's 2 billion lobby industry isn't about special interests? What is it for then?

I must have forgotten when I said the UK's 2 billion lobby industry isn't about special interests, although I'm pretty sure I didn't mention them.

[byron78]

I must have forgotten when I said the UK's 2 billion lobby industry isn't about special interests, although I'm pretty sure I didn't mention them.

We're almost there then.

Why do you think businessmen in the free-market pay companies 2 billion a year to influence the government?

Edited May 22, 2014 by byron78

[Mr Jib Fingers]

We're almost there then.

Why do you think businessmen in the free-market pay companies 2 billion a year to influence the government?

I'm confused. What exactly do you think I don't get?

You do know the earth rotates around the sun and not the other way around don't you?

Edited May 22, 2014 by Mr Jib Fingers

[byron78]

I'm confused. What exactly do you think I don't get?

You do know the earth rotates around the sun and not the other way around don't you?

The free market controls the government, not the other way around.

To suggest failure of government policy is all well and good, but it exists as it currently exists because that's precisely what the established free market wants.

It's obviously not free, but then the free market obviously isn't.

[thecrashingisles]

The free market controls the government, not the other way around.

To suggest failure of government policy is all well and good, but it exists as it currently exists because that's precisely what the established free market wants.

It's obviously not free, but then the free market obviously isn't.

'Private sector' is not a synonym of 'free market'. It's you who seems confused.

[byron78]

'Private sector' is not a synonym of 'free market'. It's you who seems confused.

Semantics.

How many companies in the free market aren't private sector then?

[Mr Jib Fingers]

The free market controls the government, not the other way around.

To suggest failure of government policy is all well and good, but it exists as it currently exists because that's precisely what the established free market wants.

It's obviously not free, but then the free market obviously isn't.

Of course special interests are going to try to influence the government.

The bit that isn't free in this case is the government interference. So proposing yet more intereference to fix the last lot isn't really going to work is it?

[byron78]

Of course special interests are going to try to influence the government.

The bit that isn't free in this case is the government interference. So proposing yet more intereference to fix the last lot isn't really going to work is it?

I get that.

But how do you get rid of that interference if that interference still only exists because it's been left in place by the free market (cough: private sector) because it's beneficial to them and prevents competition?

In fact Tory proposals have seen private housebuilding firms invited round the table to help redraft legislation themselves. I don't think they'll call for a radical cutting of red tape (in fact they haven't).

Edited May 22, 2014 by byron78

[Mr Jib Fingers]

I get that.

But how do you get rid of that interference if that interference still only exists because it's been left in place by the free market (cough: private sector) because it's beneficial to them and prevents competition?

In fact Tory proposals have seen private housebuilders invited round the table to help redraft legislation themselves. I don't think they'll call for a radical cutting of red tape (in fact they haven't)

The problem is the government rigging markets so the solution is to stop the government rigging the markets.

The idea that private house building companies can stop you building on your own land without government interference is nonsense.

[Neverwhere]

Right. Which is why free marketeers are all reformists, or should be. Indeed, they should be radicals.

Hence why neoliberalism is a bit of a swear word. It's an excuse to lump free marketeers in with crony capitalists. A line which you see INCESSANTLY used to defend an even bigger state. I mean lookit what I was replying to with the above quotation, a fine example on this very page. Blaming free markets for what we have is just black comedy.

I'm pretty sure the crony capitalists started it by choosing to term themselves neo-liberal in order to pretend they were free marketeers and therefore make themselves appear palatable to the general public. This has then confused the idea of what it means to be either a free marketeer or neo-liberal in many people's minds, as hans kammler pointed out:

This seems to be where we are now, neo liberalism has evolved as it grew and controlled the markets. That's why so many posters are having a hard time figuring it out, they are clinging to the past.

[byron78]

The problem is the government rigging markets so the solution is to stop the government rigging the markets.

How?

Government isn't going anywhere.

You will never have small government - I'm not even sure the free market actually wants that.

Better to have the thing you drive than have people drive themselves.

Serious question: has government ever got significantly smaller in a free market country?

[Mr Jib Fingers]

If the definition of neo-liberlism has changed since Thatcher's day then the idea that what is happening is just continuing her work is therefore a load of old rubbish.

[Neverwhere]

The problem is the government rigging markets so the solution is to stop the government rigging the markets.

And the cartels. And the monopolies. Free markets cannot exist with these any more than they can exist with government rigging.

[Neverwhere]

If the definition of neo-liberlism has changed since Thatcher's day then the idea that what is happening is just continuing her work is therefore a load of old rubbish.

It has changed but I'm not sure it was ever actually libertarian to begin with. No point in assigning blame in any case, it serves no useful purpose at this point.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

How?

Government isn't going anywhere.

You will never have small government - I'm not even sure the free market actually wants that.

Better to have the thing you drive than have people drive themselves.

Serious question: has government ever got significantly smaller in a free market country?

A government can either reform itself or it will eventually collapse. I'm hoping for the former, but it will probably be the latter.

We're on the same page about whether a state this large can reform itself. The trick is to not let it get too big in the first place.

My problem is when people say that a free market won't work because look at all the government market rigging it causes. It is nonsense. A government that believed in a free market would not allow this to happen on the current scale.

[byron78]

If the definition of neo-liberlism has changed since Thatcher's day then the idea that what is happening is just continuing her work is therefore a load of old rubbish.

I personally don't think Thatcher herself would agree with that.

She understood the world and markets constantly evolve and change.

We're where we are, globally, as a result of continuing down a road started in her era.

It's the fact we don't currently have leaders capable of understanding or reacting to that change that's different.

This government in particular seem to think nothing's amiss and it's still full 1980s steam ahead.

Edited May 22, 2014 by byron78

[Mr Jib Fingers]

And the cartels. And the monopolies. Free markets cannot exist with these any more than they can exist with government rigging.

With cartels and monopolies there is always a chance of an outsider coming in and shaking the market up. There's been numerous examples of that throughout history. With government rigging there's no chance of that as everyone has to follow their laws.

So of the two I'd say government rigging is far worse.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

I personally don't think Thatcher herself would agree with that.

She understood the world and markets constantly evolve and change.

We're where we are, globally, as a result of continuing down a road started in her era.

It's the fact we don't currently have leaders capable of understanding or reacting to that change that's different.

This government in particular seem to think nothing's amiss and it's still full 1980s steam ahead.

I'm not sure. The idea that if you start something and others take your ideas to extremes is "carrying on your work" is a bit of a shaky one.

Agreed the current government have no clue whatsoever, the perfect example being Cameron talking about his first flat that even his salary can't afford these days.

[byron78]

My problem is when people say that a free market won't work because look at all the government market rigging it causes. It is nonsense. A government that believed in a free market would not allow this to happen on the current scale.

It would work perfectly if every government was clean of market rigging I agree.

But then communism as an ideal would work as well.

The real world obviously isn't ideal, and I just don't see how you'll ever have governments free from rigging I'm afraid. Has it ever happened? I can't think of a "clean government" and certainly America's is probably the dirtiest (going right back 100 years to the banana wars).

[byron78]

I'm not sure. The idea that if you start something and others take your ideas to extremes is "carrying on your work" is a bit of a shaky one.

Agreed the current government have no clue whatsoever, the perfect example being Cameron talking about his first flat that even his salary can't afford these days.

Yes you're right, and I wouldn't say others have carried on as Thatcher would, just that the system she helped usher in has obviously had to carry on without her.