How Thatcherism Failed The Majority

[renting til I die]

He shouts at the telly when HTB is mentioned! Forum profanity rules wouldn't allow me to tell you what he shouts when Gidiot is on I think this is in fact the cause of his pessimism: he thinks the market will be propped up forever, whereas I doubt that will be either possible or sufficient to prevent a HPC in the long term.

What he was essentially saying was assume transience and then try and work out what is the best kind of transient lifestyle that you can imagine but do not under any circumstances try for 2.4 kids salaried homeowner "normality" as your life will be sh*te.

I think he makes a fair point. I wish my father was as insightful!

[byron78]

Thatcherism falls under its own weight, because eventually you run out of North Sea oil money?

[Neverwhere]

I think he makes a fair point. I wish my father was as insightful!

I think things will be far more sanguine!

sanguine san|guine [sang-gwin]

adjective Optimistic or positive, especially in an apparently bad or difficult situation.

archaic Bloody or bloodthirsty.

[wonderpup]

"neo-liberalism" is a bit like 'fascism', it's almost devoid of actual meaning.

All it means is "a political ideology I as a left winger don't approve of".

It's a shorthand- like the term 'left winger'- both are moving targets but most people understand their general trajectory. If we spent our time on here trying to define precisely what terms like 'Neo Liberal' or 'left winger' meant that's all we would be doing.

[EUBanana]

It's a shorthand- like the term 'left winger'- both are moving targets but most people understand their general trajectory. If we spent our time on here trying to define precisely what terms like 'Neo Liberal' or 'left winger' meant that's all we would be doing.

Left winger or right winger usually means allegiance to some sort of recognised ideology though. It has meaning.

I'm honestly not sure what neoliberalism even is. When I first heard it I assumed it was a synonym for libertarianism, but it clearly is not given the things I see described as neoliberal. And when I consult the font of all human knowledge, I see

"American scholar Robert W. McChesney notes that the term neoliberalism, which he defines as "capitalism with the gloves off," is largely unknown by the general public, especially in the United States.^[8] Today the term is mostly used as a general condemnation of economic liberalization policies and its advocates.".

So it really is pretty much just a swear word with anti free market implications.

Edited May 21, 2014 by EUBanana

[alexw]

Your conclusion is logical if the data indeed supports it.

Frankly saying "any GDP growth in the Scandavian system isn't the result of their government, it's the result of the capitalist miracle of globalism" seems a pretty weak and irrelevant defence. If the data shows they're enjoying the same growth whilst using a more equal system, I'm not sure what the point of using a less equal system would be?

Any links to the GDP per capita data? Would love to look at it.

He references the online appendix and the raw data thats buried somewhere here - http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/en/capital21c2

[alexw]

The answer is obviously to be more like America.

Again you misrepresent my argument. Why are you doing that?

I did not say GDP or plain vanilla GDP per capita. I said the rate of growth of GDP per capita, because that metric represents how *good* an economic system is for fostering economic growth, and by that sweden's or denmark's system is just as good as the UK's or the US's.

Moreover plain vanilla GDP per capita is misleading because there are hidden variables that can make you think a system is better when in fact it is not. For example it takes no account of hours worked per year, when your average french citizen works ~1500 hours per year vs ~1700 for average americans.

In fact hours worked are falling faster in europe than the US, so if anything the rate of growth of GDP per capita underplays just how much better the european systems are.

So the answer is obviously *not* america.

Edited May 21, 2014 by alexw

[cybernoid]

It's a shorthand- like the term 'left winger'- both are moving targets but most people understand their general trajectory. If we spent our time on here trying to define precisely what terms like 'Neo Liberal' or 'left winger' meant that's all we would be doing.

Well we wouldn't want to divert valuable time away from the valuable insights a thread such as this presents would we

Still going, 14 pages long. Jesus wept, thatchers been out of office for the best part of 30 years, isn't it time the tedious drone focused on someone else to blame for their own failures?

If you people are still trying to convert anyone to communism they aren't reading anymore, just FYI. How about handing out leaflets at underground stations?

Edited May 21, 2014 by cybernoid

[Mr Jib Fingers]

Again you misrepresent my argument. Why are you doing that?

I did not say GDP or plain vanilla GDP per capita. I said the rate of growth of GDP per capita, because that metric represents how *good* an economic system is for fostering economic growth, and by that sweden's or denmark's system is just as good as the UK's or the US's.

Moreover plain vanilla GDP per capita is misleading because there are hidden variables that can make you think a system is better when in fact it is not. For example it takes no account of hours worked per year, when your average french citizen works ~1500 hours per year vs ~1700 for average americans.

In fact hours worked are falling faster in europe than the US, so if anything the rate of growth of GDP per capita underplays just how much better the european systems are.

So the answer is obviously *not* america.

How exactly are you characterising the Scandinavian economic system? What is it about it that you think works so well?

[cybernoid]

I'm honestly not sure what neoliberalism even is.

Its a term pseudo intellectuals use when they want to sound like they know what they're talking about, they hope no-ones heard of it before and won't raise any questions for fear of looking daft. It probably works in northern pubs.

[alexw]

"neo-liberalism" is a bit like 'fascism', it's almost devoid of actual meaning.

All it means is "a political ideology I as a left winger don't approve of".

Err no.

Neo-liberalism is pretty well defined. You can boil it down to "the market and it's agents know best". This is the mantra we have followed from 1980-2008, though it is changing now. Thus,

UK businesses sold to foreigners - markets know best.

Taxes on capital - since markets know best they must be as low as possible to incentivize market participants (and shift those taxes onto the plebs).

Regulation of markets/capital - markets know best so remove it.

House building - private house builders know best so no new council houses.

Privatization - privatize everything because markets and private operators know best.

Etc.

Between 1980-2008 both labour and conservatives followed this. Labour somewhat less than the conservatives but they still followed it.

Osborne has even confirmed all this today -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/10845206/Ukip-is-a-threat-to-economy-says-George-Osborne.html

"Rise of Ukip and prospect of Labour government threaten British “consensus” that governments should stay out of markets, warns Chancellor"

Edited May 21, 2014 by alexw

[alexw]

How exactly are you characterising the Scandinavian economic system? What is it about it that you think works so well?

My point is GDP per capita growth is exactly the same for the scandanavian nations as for the UK. Thus if growth rates are the same then the best system is the one that provides the highest living standards for the largest number of people at any fixed level of GDP. Given the marginal utility of each additional pound of income, that clearly is not the current neo-liberal system we have, but one close to what the scandanavian nations have adopted.

I make no statement on them working better, the point is they work just as well as the UK's system, but because of a more even distribution of income they offer a significantly higher quality of life for most citizens.

[cybernoid]

Well quite, if you actually want to know what thatcherism is why not ask thatcher at that time. All this fluff on here is several steps removed from the horses mouth, with all the bias and inaccuracy you would expect.

Its a point I made before. If anyone actually wants to know about anything, a nutjob on the internet ought not be your source of choice. People who actually KNOW due to living it or being close to it can be accessed, so do that. Your time is too valuable to waste on the likes of alexw.

[Mr Jib Fingers]

Err no.

Neo-liberalism is pretty well defined. You can boil it down to "the market and it's agents know best". This is the mantra we have followed from 1980-2008, though it is changing now. Thus,

House building - private house builders know best so no new council houses.

"Rise of Ukip and prospect of Labour government threaten British “consensus” that governments should stay out of markets, warns Chancellor"

Hang on so you think that the current housing crisis is purely due to the free market in houses?

Nothing to do with restrictive planning laws, bank bailouts, ultra low interest rates, help to buy and numerous other price-propping schemes. Not to mention the fact that the housing boom was centrally planned in the first place to stave off recession as admitted by Eddie George:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/exgovernor-george-says-bank-deliberately-fuelled-consumer-boom-28524833.html

[alexw]

Hang on so you think that the current housing crisis is purely due to the free market in houses?

Nothing to do with restrictive planning laws, bank bailouts, ultra low interest rates, help to buy and numerous other price-propping schemes. Not to mention the fact that the housing boom was centrally planned in the first place to stave off recession as admitted by Eddie George:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/exgovernor-george-says-bank-deliberately-fuelled-consumer-boom-28524833.html

No of course not, there are many factors to it. Moreover, my point was not about what is causing our housing problems but simply about who builds houses. Thus markets know best so zero council house building.

Most things that governments have done since 1980 have been made with this as their guiding principle. Ironically, most of the major times they have really gone against it, is when the government has had to make a choice between "the market knows best" and hurting electorally or economically powerful participants in the market.

Then, apparently, the market doesn't know best.

Edited May 21, 2014 by alexw

[byron78]

Hang on so you think that the current housing crisis is purely due to the free market in houses?

Nothing to do with restrictive planning laws, bank bailouts, ultra low interest rates, help to buy and numerous other price-propping schemes. Not to mention the fact that the housing boom was centrally planned in the first place to stave off recession as admitted by Eddie George:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/exgovernor-george-says-bank-deliberately-fuelled-consumer-boom-28524833.html

It's a combination of both (which is why I find it odd so many focus on one or the other).

You're spot on about all the red tape and other government interference BUT it's free-market private house-building companies that are using that to their advantage to drive a profit (they spend millions lobbying/on political donations and - guess what - it's not a removal of red tape they want as this would damage their monopoly). It's also the free-market banks that lobby and exploit the government to the point now where it really does seem they're deemed more important by our politicians than tax-paying voters.

Edited May 21, 2014 by byron78

[Mr Jib Fingers]

So if we're agreed that the markets are centrally planned and rigged, then how can we have been following neo-liberalism all this time which seeks to have markets as free as possible?

[EUBanana]

House building - private house builders know best so no new council houses.

See, it's farcical statements like that that just make me wanna choke. "Neoliberalism" responsible for that, yeah right.

[EUBanana]

As for Thatcher, she does seem rather honest and blunt compared to a modern politician, I'll give her that.

[byron78]

So if we're agreed that the markets are centrally planned and rigged, then how can we have been following neo-liberalism all this time which seeks to have markets as free as possible?

Because what we have now is a result of neoliberalist policy. It's where it's evolved to.

Neoliberalism seeks to free markets from government interference BUT (and this is crucial to explaining where we are now) it says nothing about markets interfering with government, which is precisely what we have now. The government interference left is the interference that is of benefit to the free market regardless of the social damage it causes (which actually does fit with neoliberal ideals, albeit in a perverse way).

Edited May 21, 2014 by byron78

[alexw]

See, it's farcical statements like that that just make me wanna choke. "Neoliberalism" responsible for that, yeah right.

I'm sorry but I just have to laugh.

Either you or one of the others with whom I debate with here who have view points like yours, has told me quite plainly that house building should be left in private sector hands, because the public sector can't build houses efficiently, and to paraphrase, the private sector knows best.

And yes that is what neoliberalism boils down to. The private sector (except when it hurts aforesaid interests) knows best.

If not then tell me why we stopped building council housing?

[oracle]

Because what we have now is a result of neoliberalist policy. It's where it's evolved to.

Neoliberalism seeks to free markets from government interference BUT (and this is crucial to explaining where we are now) it says nothing about markets interfering with government, which is precisely what we have now.

central planning,over regulation and a small clique of people deciding whats best for us whether you like it or not...tose that dissent being treated to a bit of "nudge" therapy is very very far from neo-liberal.

FWIW thatcher was one of the best PM's we've had.

I can speak from experience about right to buy...my folks bought their council house that way...and it was a massive help

..also the bursary/government assisted place scheme for private schools...which I was also lucky enough to benefit from and nu layabout did away with.

[oracle]

central planning,over regulation and a small clique of people deciding whats best for us whether you like it or not...those that dissent being treated to a bit of "nudge" therapy is very very far from neo-liberal.(actually closer to she spanish inquisition method of dealing with so-called heretics)

fine..I AM A HERETIC.chow down on this, bitch!

FWIW thatcher was one of the best PM's we've had.

I can speak from experience about right to buy...my folks bought their council house that way...and it was a massive help

..also the bursary/government assisted place scheme for private schools...which I was also lucky enough to benefit from and nu layabout did away with.

[alexw]

So if we're agreed that the markets are centrally planned and rigged, then how can we have been following neo-liberalism all this time which seeks to have markets as free as possible?

Neoliberalism seeks to have markets free as possible - until those free markets might hurt the electorally or economically powerful. This is what it has become anyway.

Heck, how many times pre-2008 did financiers say don't regulate us, and now after the bailouts are again saying don't regulate us.

The same is true of most of it. Which explains why so many people now are sick of it, they realise its free markets when it suits them, and gov intervention when it doesn't.

Now, there are some who at least say they never want gov interference, and some who might even mean it, but those have turned out to be a quite small minority.

Edited May 21, 2014 by alexw

[EUBanana]

Neoliberalism seeks to have markets free as possible - until those free markets might hurt the electorally or economically powerful. This is what it has become anyway.

Heck, how many times pre-2008 did financiers say don't regulate us, and now after the bailouts are again saying don't regulate us.

The same is true of most of it. Which explains why so many people now are sick of it, they realise its free markets when it suits them, and gov intervention when it doesn't.

Now, there are some who at least say they never want gov interference, and some who might even mean it, but those have turned out to be a quite small minority.

I'm not sure you'd find any voter in favour of that.