Margaret Thatcher's Funeral

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The facts don't lie, that's why they're called facts.

Facts about economics you mean.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Facts about economics you mean.

And what is economics only a science that analyses the distribution of goods. The very thing you based your argument on!

jank

Happyman42 wrote: »

What Thatcher created was not a 'free' market. She in fact created a very confined market and she managed to exclude a great many from it's benefits. What happened on the streets a few years ago is a direct result of that. A symptom of an illness at the heart of British society, eveidence of which is everywhere. Call them what ever you want, their motivation is fuelled by disaffection. Thatcher condemmed generations to that.

Not at all, during Thatchers term private home ownership increased massively. More than two million household now own their home, a home bought from a local council. What is better? A person paying rent to the local council indefinitely or owning their own home?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311559/Thatcher-death-party-organiser-150-000-council-home-bought-PM-s-right-buy-scheme.html

Poor people greatly benefited in the long run from Thatchers term in office but people always dwell on the mines and the old industrial revolution-esque industries. These industries were well past their sell by date. Tell me do you think these industries would be alive and kicking today? Should there be a huge mining industry in the UK even if it wasn't sustainable?

You keep mentioning the riots of 2011 where a bunch of spoilt brats went on the rampage because they felt entitled to the latest fashion and electronic gear. They were taking back what was theirs was the usual mantra laid out to the media, as they paid their taxes (what taxes now?). There was no real political agenda here, no real target just their own communities which the looted and pillaged like mindless idiots.

Another thing that you keep mentioning is that Thatcher did most of her economic damage to the North of England yet, there was no riots there! All the riots occurred in the Midlands and the South, mainly London. So you are trying to argue two separate points as one but it doesn't match. You cant square that round hole. Would the riots have been concentrated around say Leeds or Sheffield?

Happyman42 wrote: »

The alternative is a society that treats everybody with respect, which looks after it's minorities, etnicities and seeks to minimise disenfranchisement. Thatcher never came close and chose to do the opposite, as is plainly evident.

First of all its not plainly evident. Tell, where does this country exist? Empty words I think.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what is economics only a science that analyses the distribution of goods. The very thing you based your argument on!

Obviously, it's anything you want to make it in your glorification of a divisive PM.

jank wrote: »

Not at all, during Thatchers term private home ownership increased massively. More than two million household now own their home, a home bought from a local council. What is better? A person paying rent to the local council indefinitely or owning their own home?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311559/Thatcher-death-party-organiser-150-000-council-home-bought-PM-s-right-buy-scheme.html

You can demonstrate almost the same thing happening in every other country in western Europe without the social division.

Poor people greatly benefited in the long run from Thatchers term in office but people always dwell on the mines and the old industrial revolution-esque industries. These industries were well past their sell by date. Tell me do you think these industries would be alive and kicking today? Should there be a huge mining industry in the UK even if it wasn't sustainable?

Industries and unions needed reform, of that there is no doubt, you and IWASFROZEN will not listen to what is being said. It is not what she did, so much as HOW she did it. She did it in a way that caused severe and longlasting division that still continues to blight Britain. I her decade of rule unemployment rose from under 6% to a high of 12% (3 million people approx) fell back a bit and was on the rise when her Poll Tax (designed to further impoverish the already poor) got her booted from office by her own party. It eventually rose to over 10% again before being brought down to 5% during Labour's recent reign and is now on the way back up (currently over 8%)
Under Thatcher, poverty in children rose from 20% to over 30%, in adults it rose from 16% to over 25% and in among pensioners it rose from 22% to 35%.
In amongst all those figures are PEOPLE, real people.
Those who mythologise Thatcher refuse to admit the affects of this, look at any studies that show the effects of long term unemployment and poverty on the educational attainment of children and you will plainly see the rot that causes down the line.
Those poverty figures have barely changed in the time since her reign, and yet we have a Tory led government introducing swinging cuts to welfare and education and health.

You keep mentioning the riots of 2011 where a bunch of spoilt brats went on the rampage because they felt entitled to the latest fashion and electronic gear. They were taking back what was theirs was the usual mantra laid out to the media, as they paid their taxes (what taxes now?). There was no real political agenda here, no real target just their own communities which the looted and pillaged like mindless idiots.

Try and see them as a symptom of the rot engendered by Thatcher. Try and find a reason for the outbreak of hostility and renewed hate on news of her death, don't take the Daily Mail line, try and see them as real people.

Another thing that you keep mentioning is that Thatcher did most of her economic damage to the North of England yet, there was no riots there! All the riots occurred in the Midlands and the South, mainly London. So you are trying to argue two separate points as one but it doesn't match. You cant square that round hole. Would the riots have been concentrated around say Leeds or Sheffield?

Another trend in the mythologising process is to bury your head in the sand and ignore what reasonable and sensible and informed people are saying. Warnings from people working with those that rioted where and are being ignored. We will see more of it. Glib redtop comments like 'lazy scrots' etc etc do not explain what happened. It is plain that there is an underclass who feel constrained by their circumstances, and who are deprived of social mobility, no matter what they do. That underclass is made up of the sons and daughters of those blighted by Thatcher. The Tories are currently ignoring the existence of that class, at Britains peril.

First of all its not plainly evident. Tell, where does this country exist? Empty words I think.

Look around you, how many western European countries want to 'tramp the dirt' down on the grave of a former leader?

jank

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can demonstrate almost the same thing happening in every other country in western Europe without the social division.

Em, France, Italy, Spain off the top of my head. These countries probably have bigger social divisions and poverty than the UK. There were riots in France last year in Aimes and much bigger ones in 2005. Do you deny there is NO social division in France?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

Happyman42 wrote: »

Industries and unions needed reform, ….
….fare and education and health.

All that is well and good but the UK have no money now after Labours binge and are engaged in QE in a bid to try and restart their economy. Labour got into power, continued Thatchers policies BUT increased government spending enormously. Now the Torries have to cut back because the deficit in unsustainable.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Try and see them as a symptom of the rot engendered by Thatcher. Try and find a reason for the outbreak of hostility and renewed hate on news of her death, don't take the Daily Mail line, try and see them as real people.

Who? The rioters of 2011? You mean we should feel sorry for them? The poor devils, instead of getting up and getting a job or staying in school, improving ones’ own life they just should go out rob/burn/damage/loot someone else’s off their private property cause you know, its not their fault! It’s the Torries fault, especially Thatcher even though she was out of power 20 years by then!! You do realise that 6 people died during those riots, yet you give them a pass cause ‘they’ are the ‘real’ victims!

Happyman42 wrote: »

Another trend in the mythologising process is to bury your head in the sand and ignore what reasonable and sensible and informed people are saying. Warnings from people working with those that rioted where and are being ignored. We will see more of it. Glib redtop comments like 'lazy scrots' etc etc do not explain what happened. It is plain that there is an underclass who feel constrained by their circumstances, and who are deprived of social mobility, no matter what they do. That underclass is made up of the sons and daughters of those blighted by Thatcher. The Tories are currently ignoring the existence of that class, at Britains peril.

What crap is this!! Seriously, just because I don’t have sky TV doesn’t mean I go out and loot a shop because I 'feel' entitled to it. There is NO right to riot. This riot was pure opportunistic by a bunch of entitled prince and princesses who have grown up with the frame of mind that the state will provide for them regardless of what they do and because they don’t earn 100k a week like Ashley Cole, they feel its OK to commit crimes to get the nice things that other people have.
Instead of blaming others for their own $hitty existence, maybe they should point the finger at themselves. By, the way plenty of middle class youngsters got involved as well. The riots were pure opportunistic, nothing more.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Look around you, how many western European countries want to 'tramp the dirt' down on the grave of a former leader?

I am sure harsh words will be labelled at Berties and Cowen when their time comes but that is a very poor requirement for your argument. Just because there is a juvenile hatred of thatcher from the left, doesn’t mean that she was a failure. I think the level of hatred spun out against her just shows how successful she was actually. She modernised the UK, New Labour and Tony Blair is the star witness this.

By the way, she has had an influence in Australia and NZ too by freeing up the country to trade and investment. Australia has not been in recession since 1991, mainly because of Thatcherism which the liberal party embraced in the 90’s and used as a bedrock of their economic policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Rationalism

Happyman42

jank wrote: »

Do you deny there is NO social division in France?

No, I do not.
I am talking about social divisions caused by the actions of one Government and one PM. You are insisting on claiming credit for her and her government, credits that would have happened and did happen anyway, elsehere.

All that is well and good but the UK have no money now after Labours binge and are engaged in QE in a bid to try and restart their economy. Labour got into power, continued Thatchers policies BUT increased government spending enormously. Now the Torries have to cut back because the deficit in unsustainable.

Simplistic and typically Tory. Many of Britain's current woes are as a direct result of Thatcher's Big Bang greed fest and New Labour's banking dereg fiasco.

Who? The rioters of 2011? You mean we should feel sorry for them? The poor devils, instead of getting up and getting a job or staying in school, improving ones’ own life they just should go out rob/burn/damage/loot someone else’s off their private property cause you know, its not their fault! It’s the Torries fault, especially Thatcher even though she was out of power 20 years by then!! You do realise that 6 people died during those riots, yet you give them a pass cause ‘they’ are the ‘real’ victims!

I never said any of that. Understanding why something happens does not mean you agree or condone it.

What crap is this!! Seriously, just because I don’t have sky TV doesn’t mean I go out and loot a shop because I 'feel' entitled to it. There is NO right to riot. This riot was pure opportunistic by a bunch of entitled prince and princesses who have grown up with the frame of mind that the state will provide for them regardless of what they do and because they don’t earn 100k a week like Ashley Cole, they feel its OK to commit crimes to get the nice things that other people have.
Instead of blaming others for their own $hitty existence, maybe they should point the finger at themselves. By, the way plenty of middle class youngsters got involved as well. The riots were pure opportunistic, nothing more.

Glad to get that off your chest? You have ignored almost everything I said and projected your own redtop bile at it. If you believe it was all that then perhaps you are part of the problem.

I am sure harsh words will be labelled at Berties and Cowen when their time comes but that is a very poor requirement for your argument. Just because there is a juvenile hatred of thatcher from the left, doesn’t mean that she was a failure. I think the level of hatred spun out against her just shows how successful she was actually. She modernised the UK, New Labour and Tony Blair is the star witness this.

By the way, she has had an influence in Australia and NZ too by freeing up the country to trade and investment. Australia has not been in recession since 1991, mainly because of Thatcherism which the liberal party embraced in the 90’s and used as a bedrock of their economic policy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Rationalism

You still haven't made any intellectual attempt to understand or explain why the division is so entrenched and bitter. Words like 'juvenile' and 'from the left' don't really cut it, I'm afraid.
There is no doubt Thatcher has had influence I'm afraid. Mythologising what she achieved is wrong though as those unemployment and poverty figures I posted and which you blithely ignored, show.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Obviously, it's anything you want to make it in your glorification of a divisive PM.

No That's not obvious at all you can't just redefine words. Here I'll look up the definition of economics:

Dictionary.com wrote:

• The branch of knowledge concerned with the production, consumption, and transfer of wealth.
• The condition of a region or group as regards material prosperity.

Secondly I'm not glorifying her I've presented you with facts and figures that explain how her policies were good for the economy and good for the average person but you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and hum.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can demonstrate almost the same thing happening in every other country in western Europe without the social division.

Jesus H Christ we've been through this.

"In 1979, when Margaret Thatcher became prime minister, out of the 4 major European countries, the United Kingdom was the poorest. It had a lower gdp per capita than Germany, France and Italy.

But the U.K subsequently grew faster than the other European countries. By 2008, the latest available year, the U.K was the richest out of the 4.

White the U.K in per capita terms was 7% poorer than France in 1979, it was 10% richer than France in 2008.

This graph shows real per capita GDP (from OECD) for the U.K, and a population weighted average of the other 3 major west European nations: Germany, France and Italy. As you see they start of richer than the U.K in 1979, but by the end of the period the U.K is richer than the average (and richer than any individual country)."



Source

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No That's not obvious at all you can't just redefine words. Here I'll look up the definition of economics:

Secondly I'm not glorifying her I've presented you with facts and figures that explain how her policies were good for the economy and good for the average person but you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and hum.

Yes you are glorifying her if you refuse to take on board her failure to share the wealth. It is not a government's job to see to it that only some get the benefit of their policies, which your graphs and diagrams don't show. Thatcher left whole communities to rot and her 'legacy' and Britain will pay the price for that. Look at those people living in generational poverty figures a bit closer and with a bit of compassion if not humanity. Just as governments create wealth they can also create poverty and all it's attendant problems. Thatcher most definately achieved poverty for an awful lot of people.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes you are glorifying her if you refuse to take on board her failure to share the wealth. It is not a government's job to see to it that only some get the benefit of their policies, which your graphs and diagrams don't show. Thatcher left whole communities to rot and her 'legacy' and Britain will pay the price for that. Look at those people living in generational poverty figures a bit closer and with a bit of compassion if not humanity. Just as governments create wealth they can also create poverty and all it's attendant problems. Thatcher most definately achieved poverty for an awful lot of people.

You say that Thatcher created huge inequalities not seen in other countries but if you look at the Gini index that's just not the case.

esteve

"Growth is a funny sort of concept. For example, our GNP increases every time we build a prison. Well, okay, it’s growth in a sense…"

Noam Chomsky

Happyman42

esteve wrote: »

"Growth is a funny sort of concept. For example, our GNP increases every time we build a prison. Well, okay, it’s growth in a sense…"

Noam Chomsky

It's interesting to read Chomsky on MT before the spin and glorification machine got cranked into life.

"Thatcher’s Britain" is another good choice to illustrate "free market gospel." Just to keep to a few revelations of early 1997, "during the period of maximum pressure to make arms sales to Turkey," the London Observer reported, Prime Minister Thatcher "personally intervened to ensure a payment of 22 million pounds was made out of Britain’s overseas aid budget, to help build a metro in the Turkish capital of Ankara. The project was uneconomical, and in 1995 it was admitted" by Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd that it was "unlawful." The incident was particularly noteworthy in the aftermath of the Pergau Dam scandal, which revealed illegal Thatcherite subsidies "to ‘sweeten’ arms deals with the Malaysian regime," with a High Court judgment against Hurd. That’s aside from government credit guarantees and financing arrangements, and the rest of the panoply of devices to transfer public funds to "defense industry," yielding a familiar range of benefits to advanced industry generally.
A few days before, the same journal reported that "up to 2 million British children are suffering ill-health and stunted growth because of malnutrition" as a result of "poverty on a scale not seen since the 1930s." The trend to increasing child health has reversed and childhood diseases that had been controlled are now on the upswing thanks to the (highly selective) "free market gospel" that is much admired by the beneficiaries.
A few months earlier, a lead headline reported "One in three British babies born in poverty," as "child poverty has increased as much as three-fold since Margaret Thatcher was elected." "Dickensian diseases return to haunt today’s Britain," another headline reads, reporting studies concluding that "social conditions in Britain are returning to those of a century ago." Particularly grim are the effects of cutting off gas, electricity, water, and telephones to "a high number of households" as privatization takes its natural course, with a variety of devices that favor "more affluent customers" and amount to a "surcharge on the poor," leading to a "growing gulf in energy between rich and poor," also in water supply and other services. The "savage cuts" in social programs are placing the nation "in the grip of panic about imminent social collapse." But industry and finance are benefiting very nicely from the same policy choices. To top it all off, public spending after 17 years of Thatcherite gospel was the same 42 1/4 percent of GDP that it was when she took over.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199705--.htm

Iwasfrozen

esteve wrote: »

"Growth is a funny sort of concept. For example, our GNP increases every time we build a prison. Well, okay, it’s growth in a sense…"

Noam Chomsky

Why wouldn't it, prisons provide employment. What's your point?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

It's interesting to read Chomsky on MT before the spin and glorification machine got cranked into life.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199705--.htm

Except I've already provided you a figures that show gdp per capita sky rocketed in comparison to other European countries over the same period. And before you say "yeah well gdp per capita rose but so did inequality" (paraphrasing) I've also shown you gini figures which contradict that. Facts and figures are more reliable then the quotation of a self admitted socialist on the opposite side of the spectrum to Thatcher.

The fact you continue to deny the facts laid before you and just admit you were wrong is mind boggling. And to be honest it's a little frustrating deaing with you.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Except I've already provided you a figures that show gdp per capita sky rocketed in comparison to other European countries over the same period. And before you say "yeah well gdp per capita rose but so did inequality" (paraphrasing) I've also shown you gini figures which contradict that. Facts and figures are more reliable then the quotation of a self admitted socialist on the opposite side of the spectrum to Thatcher.

The fact you continue to deny the facts laid before you and just admit you were wrong is mind boggling. And to be honest it's a little frustrating deaing with you.

I supplied the facts and figures on child and adult poverty that Chomsky referred to, a few posts back but you ignored them. Would you consider child poverty, both physical and poverty of opportunity the responsibility of a good government at all?

Rascasse

Happyman42 wrote: »

I supplied the facts and figures on child and adult poverty that Chomsky referred to, a few posts back but you ignored them. Would you consider child poverty, both physical and poverty of opportunity the responsibility of a good government at all?

Rising poverty happens nearly everywhere when a countries economy improves. Because the poverty line moves up (increasing the numbers that live and are born below it) does not mean those below it have become poorer. It's a complicated subject, and it's late, but basically the poverty line is a poor (excuse the pun) way of measuring wealth/standard of living etc.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why wouldn't it, prisons provide employment. What's your point?

Its rather self-explanatory. The fact that it provides employment is one thing, and completely one dimensional. But this employment is based on the fact that their is an increase in the need for prisons, that is the point. In Nazi Germany unemployment was incredibly low and productivity was high thanks to the policies of Hitler. Thank god i dont look at this in your one dimensional way as a good thing.....

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Facts and figures are more reliable then the quotation of a self admitted socialist on the opposite side of the spectrum to Thatcher.

Oh dear oh dear, at least know about the man you are trying to criticise. He has never said he is a socialist, in any way or form. But right wing blogs and mainstream media like to label him as such. Its very sad that a man who is considered the greatest intellect of our time is completely misunderstood by you. Maybe stick to the crazyivan blogs your are reading. Little short essays with no substance would be easier for you to digest than one of Chomskys books or lectures, of which there are countless.

Iwasfrozen

esteve wrote: »

Its rather self-explanatory but let me spoon feed it to you. The fact that it provides employment is one thing, and completely one dimensional. But this employment is based on the fact that their is an increase in the need for prisons, that is the point. In Nazi Germany unemployment was incredibly low and productivity was high thanks to the policies of Hitler. Thank god i dont look at this in your one dimensional way as a good thing.....

Crime rates and inflation seem to be positively correlated. Drop the inflation and it seems you drop the crime rates.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44578241/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/crime-decline-why-low-inflation-among-theories/#.UXcb_8rtpmc

Rascasse

esteve wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear, at least know about the man you are trying to criticise. He has never said he is a socialist, in any way or form.

Really? I've always known him a socialist.

I know Wikipedia may not be the most high brow of sources but still;

. He describes his views as "fairly traditional anarchist ones, with origins in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism",[27] and often identifies with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism.

esteve

Rascasse wrote: »

Really? I've always known him a socialist.

I know Wikipedia may not be the most high brow of sources but still;

I can trust wikipedia in this case, so where does it say he is a socialist? It seems to say that his political affiliation is based on may different ideals, as you have pointed out, and these are left leaning yes, but there is nothing there saying he is a staunch socialist or anything as such for that matter. In fact he is quite libertarian, and one of his main beliefs, or philosophies is the following...

""What I focus on, frankly, is based on a very elementary moral principle. I realize it's almost universally rejected, but I'd still like to reiterate it. Our prime concern should be our own responsibilities. The prime concern for anybody should be the predictable consequences of your own actions."

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Crime rates and inflation seem to be positively correlated. Drop the inflation and it seems you drop the crime rates.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44578241/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/crime-decline-why-low-inflation-among-theories/#.UXcb_8rtpmc

Yes i would agree with this, that lowering inflation would lower crime rates. But also better education lowers crime rates, amongst other things. I live in Brazil and in the 70s Brazil was more or less on par, if not ahead of South Korea. Korea invested heavily in different areas, especially education. Brazil didn't and currently has one of the highest murder rates in the world and one of the lowest rated education systems in the world. But this is getting completely off topic.

I am not completely anti-thatcher, i think she had to deal with the unions, and there were different ways to do this, and she chose her way. I cannot however, as is the case in most media and by her supporters, ignore her foreign policy record, with regard to Suharto and Pinochet. For me, this act defines her, just as Iraq has more or less defined Bush's legacy.

Iwasfrozen

esteve wrote: »

Yes i would agree with this, that lowering inflation would lower crime rates. But also better education lowers crime rates, amongst other things. I live in Brazil and in the 70s Brazil was more or less on par, if not ahead of South Korea. Korea invested heavily in different areas, especially education. Brazil didn't and currently has one of the highest murder rates in the world and one of the lowest rated education systems in the world. But this is getting completely off topic.

I am not completely anti-thatcher, i think she had to deal with the unions, and there were different ways to do this, and she chose her way. I cannot however, as is the case in most media and by her supporters, ignore her foreign policy record, with regard to Suharto and Pinochet. For me, this act defines her, just as Iraq has more or less defined Bush's legacy.

I don't ignore her foreign policy record but I don't think it should define her. We should all be defined by our own actions only and Maggie was no dictator herself.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't ignore her foreign policy record but I don't think it should define her. We should all be defined by our own actions only and Maggie was no dictator herself.

Fair enough, i respect that.

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

prisons provide employment

So does digging holes and then filling them in again only someone has to pay for it. Prisons are full of those who are incarcerated because of 'moral policing'. That's destruction of wealth on a grand scale and that's without considering the ethics of incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

self admitted socialist

This lame McCarthyite attempt to discredit Chomsky is lazy bullshit. If you have a problem with what Chomsky has written then exercise a little intellectual integrity and refute his individual points.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So does digging holes and then filling them in again only someone has to pay for it. Prisons are full of those who are incarcerated because of 'moral policing'. That's destruction of wealth on a grand scale and that's without considering the ethics of incarcerating people for victimless crimes.

Did you read my link above about inflation rates being linked to crime rates?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

This lame McCarthyite attempt to discredit Chomsky is lazy bullshit. If you have a problem with what Chomsky has written then exercise a little intellectual integrity and refute his individual points.

I'm not trying to discredit the poor guy I'm gust saying someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum would have an unfavourable view of the iron lady.

Socialist hates Thatcher shock!

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm gust saying someone from the opposite end of the political spectrum would have an unfavourable view of the iron lady.

They're only unfavourable in the opinion of Thatcher disciples which is neither here nor there. Chomsky's points are either facts or they're not regardless of whether he's a socialist, capitalist, communist, anarchist or numismatist.

If Chomsky's points are not facts then it would be easy for you to demonstrate this and if you read the posting guide you'll see that this is fairly standard.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They're only unfavourable in the opinion of Thatcher disciples which is neither here nor there. Chomsky's points are either facts or they're not regardless of whether he's a socialist, capitalist, communist, anarchist or numismatist.

If Chomsky's points are not facts then it would be easy for you to demonstrate this and if you read the posting guide you'll see that this is fairly standard.

What part do you want me to comment on? Though it'll probably have to wait 'til tomorrow

Chuck Stone

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What part do you want me to comment on? Though it'll probably have to wait 'til tomorrow

I don't want you to comment on anything, I was simply pointing out that 'OMG he's a Socialist' is not an argument. Chomsky is known for being pretty rigorous with his sources so good luck with refuting his points.

Also, I'm sure you're aware that GNP/GDP are reductive economic measurements. I'd imagine putting 500 thousand slaves to work 16 hours a day 7 days a week would improve economic measurements considerably but no very few people would advocate that.

jank

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I do not.
I am talking about social divisions caused by the actions of one Government and one PM. You are insisting on claiming credit for her and her government, credits that would have happened and did happen anyway, elsehere..

So on one had you think the economic free market revolution would have happened anyway but critising her is fair game regardless. Certain individuals have huge influence on history and whether you agree with her or disagree with her you cannot deny that of her. History did not just sweep her by…

Elsewhere? Yeap, the 80’s was a great time for Ireland, about 300,000 people left these shores most of them to the UK to work. Many a meal put on an Irish table was bought by a wage earner working in Thatchers UK.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Simplistic and typically Tory. Many of Britain's current woes are as a direct result of Thatcher's Big Bang greed fest and New Labour's banking dereg fiasco...

Tell me, how is Thatcher is responsible for the current 120 billion deficit? The banks make up a tiny tiny amount of the deficit. A picture speaks a thousand words

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg

Happyman42 wrote: »

I never said any of that. Understanding why something happens does not mean you agree or condone it.
..

The thing is you don’t understand. You want to blame policies of an old dead woman to score a cheap point rather than blame young criminals, because that is what they were. Again, why was there NO riots in Wales or the North of England where most of the industries Thatcher closed were based. Surely they were the ones that should have rioted?

Happyman42 wrote: »

Glad to get that off your chest? You have ignored almost everything I said and projected your own redtop bile at it. If you believe it was all that then perhaps you are part of the problem.
..

I am responsible for my own actions. I don’t want nor need a government handout. I don’t rob or loot peoples shops or homes because I want something. I go out and earn it. But sure ‘I’ am the problem. People are responsible for their own actions. It speaks volumes that you want to give these criminals a pass. Go off to North Korea and have a look at their egalitarian paradise. I hear it’s a very equal society.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You still haven't made any intellectual attempt to understand or explain why the division is so entrenched and bitter. Words like 'juvenile' and 'from the left' don't really cut it, I'm afraid.
There is no doubt Thatcher has had influence I'm afraid. Mythologising what she achieved is wrong though as those unemployment and poverty figures I posted and which you blithely ignored, show.

It’s so bitter because she won, basically. Nobody remembers the losers. Socialists in the 70’s were dreaming of a time when the whole world would join up in their left wing revolution, where the west and its downtrodden workers would join the east in unity. Kind of ironic that miners in Poland wanted out! A decade later it was all over, the Berlin wall fell and the socialist/communist world of united workers that many yearned for was over forever. I suppose she made people wake up to reality of the world. A reality that a capitalist, liberal and the free market for all its flaws, works much much better than any other system.
Its understandable of course, when you have a nice dream and you wake up, you want to go straight back to sleep to continue that dream, but knowing you cannot makes you pissed. She was there at the closing bell of the communist utopian world, no wonder many resent her. However, one can continue to hate or get on with life.

Iwasfrozen

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't want you to comment on anything, I was simply pointing out that 'OMG he's a Socialist' is not an argument. Chomsky is known for being pretty rigorous with his sources so good luck with refuting his points.

Where did I say "OMG he's a Socialist?" Fact is I've never even heard of this guy before so I have no preconceived hatred of him. Unlike I suspect you and Maggie.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Also, I'm sure you're aware that GNP/GDP are reductive economic measurements. I'd imagine putting 500 thousand slaves to work 16 hours a day 7 days a week would improve economic measurements considerably but no very few people would advocate that.

Actually it wouldn't, slaves cannot consume the products they produce so your country would be left as a net exporter with no way to progress to knowledge or service based.

Happyman42

jank wrote: »

So on one had you think the economic free market revolution would have happened anyway but critising her is fair game regardless. Certain individuals have huge influence on history and whether you agree with her or disagree with her you cannot deny that of her. History did not just sweep her by…

Elsewhere? Yeap, the 80’s was a great time for Ireland, about 300,000 people left these shores most of them to the UK to work. Many a meal put on an Irish table was bought by a wage earner working in Thatchers UK.





Tell me, how is Thatcher is responsible for the current 120 billion deficit? The banks make up a tiny tiny amount of the deficit. A picture speaks a thousand words

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg







The thing is you don’t understand. You want to blame policies of an old dead woman to score a cheap point rather than blame young criminals, because that is what they were. Again, why was there NO riots in Wales or the North of England where most of the industries Thatcher closed were based. Surely they were the ones that should have rioted?






I am responsible for my own actions. I don’t want nor need a government handout. I don’t rob or loot peoples shops or homes because I want something. I go out and earn it. But sure ‘I’ am the problem. People are responsible for their own actions. It speaks volumes that you want to give these criminals a pass. Go off to North Korea and have a look at their egalitarian paradise. I hear it’s a very equal society.










It’s so bitter because she won, basically. Nobody remembers the losers. Socialists in the 70’s were dreaming of a time when the whole world would join up in their left wing revolution, where the west and its downtrodden workers would join the east in unity. Kind of ironic that miners in Poland wanted out! A decade later it was all over, the Berlin wall fell and the socialist/communist world of united workers that many yearned for was over forever. I suppose she made people wake up to reality of the world. A reality that a capitalist, liberal and the free market for all its flaws, works much much better than any other system.
Its understandable of course, when you have a nice dream and you wake up, you want to go straight back to sleep to continue that dream, but knowing you cannot makes you pissed. She was there at the closing bell of the communist utopian world, no wonder many resent her. However, one can continue to hate or get on with life.

Socialism and versions of it hasn't gone away you know! I have already said she had great influence, that is why so many want to 'tramp the dirt down'.
And it is hilarious that anybody would be trumpeting capitalism and free markets at the moment, given that the world is frantically trying to put back on the lid Thatcher and Reagan so irresponsibly took off.
Again, nobody is saying that the rioters are or where right, but the only way you are going to stop them happenng is to understand what caused them, and there are many reasons for that, chief among them being, deprivation, lack of educational opportunities and the abscense of hope. I know who I look to, to provide that.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Where did I say "OMG he's a Socialist?" Fact is I've never even heard of this guy before so I have no preconceived hatred of him. Unlike I suspect you and Maggie.

Brilliant, 'I don't know who he is but I know he's a socialist?'

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

Brilliant, 'I don't know who he is but I know he's a socialist?'

You're unbelievable, I put the evidence down in front of you and show you why free market capitalism works but you stubbornly refuse to accept the evidence and change your mind. Go on then enlighten me why socialism is not a total failure of an ideology. Show me facts and figures and who knows I may admit I'm wrong. Unlike you my mind is for changing.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You're unbelievable, I put the evidence down in front of you and show you why free market capitalism works but you stubbornly refuse to accept the evidence and change your mind. Go on then enlighten me why socialism is not a total failure of an ideology. Show me facts and figures and who knows I may admit I'm wrong. Unlike you my mind is for changing.

You put some evidence down in front of us, which doesn't tell the real social story. Refuting those graphs, are the poverty stats that I and Chomsky posted which you still haven't responded to or refuted, prefering instead to attack the messengers. Loads more graphs and stats on availibility of education, uptake of education etc etc etc also refute it.
You'll have to ask a 'Socialist' to defend that ideology as I never said I was one.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You put some evidence down in front of us, which doesn't tell the real social story. Refuting those graphs, are the poverty stats that I and Chomsky posted which you still haven't responded to or refuted, prefering instead to attack the messengers. Loads more graphs and stats on availibility of education, uptake of education etc etc etc also refute it.
You'll have to ask a 'Socialist' to defend that ideology as I never said I was one.

Where? What you posted was a critique of thatcherism. It does not show how socialism could have achieved a better result. That's what I want you to prove. That socialism leads to higher welfare then capitalism.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It does not show how socialism could have achieved a better result.

And I said that where?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

And I said that where?

Ah ok so you think thatcherism was the best foreseeable solution to Britain's problems. I agree.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ah ok so you think thatcherism was the best foreseeable solution to Britain's problems. I agree.

You didn't find it then?

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You didn't find it then?

I didn't say I had ever found it I asked you a question. And I'll ask you again now because you don't want to answer it. Do you support socialism over thatcherism? If so provide me with evidence to back up that view. Now note I'm not looking for a critique of thatcherism because I accept that ideology was not perfect. I'm looking for evidence from you, facts and figures, that show socialism could have done a better job.

If you can't provide this evidence I shall assume that you like me favour thatcherism over socialism and this debate is over.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I didn't say I had ever found it I asked you a question. And I'll ask you again now because you don't want to answer it. Do you support socialism over thatcherism? If so provide me with evidence to back up that view. Now note I'm not looking for a critique of thatcherism because I accept that ideology was not perfect. I'm looking for evidence from you, facts and figures, that show socialism could have done a better job.

If you can't provide this evidence I shall assume that you like me favour thatcherism over socialism and this debate is over.

You can do your level best to turn this into a thread about capitalism v socialism, I ain't playing. And your exit strategy is as transperant as your glorification and revisionism of Thatcher's reign.
How about you refute what Chomsky and I are actually saying, not what you think we are saying?

esteve

Capitalism can exist within a socialist system, and socialism can exist within a capitalist system. To believe that there is only one system that truely works, whether that be pure ´free´market capitalism, or pure socialism is an extreme ideology. And worth mentioning, there is absolutely nothing free about the current system, except that it uses the word ´free´, marketing at its best if you ask me.

This thread has gone completely off topic, maybe aother thread is needed for this.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can do your level best to turn this into a thread about capitalism v socialism, I ain't playing. And your exit strategy is as transperant as your glorification and revisionism of Thatcher's reign.
How about you refute what Chomsky and I are actually saying, not what you think we are saying?

lol my exit strategy? If I want an exit strategy I click the little red X on the top right hand side of my screen.

I don't want to refute Chomsky's points because I accept that Thatcherism/Capitalism is not perfect but it's the best system we have. But you and Chomsky disagree with this. You say socialism is a better system to capitalism so I want you to show me in facts and figures why Socialism would have done a better job to raise the gdp per capita of the United Kingdom over the same time period. Providing I have already demonstrated that GDP per capita is linked positively with HDI.

And I don't mean a critique of Thatcherism, if I google critique of Thatcherism a million pages will come up, I never said Thatcherism was perfect but i want you to show me why Socialism is better. Focus on the positives not the negatives.

Happyman42

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

lol my exit strategy? If I want an exit strategy I click the little red X on the top right hand side of my screen.

I don't want to refute Chomsky's points because I accept that Thatcherism/Capitalism is not perfect but it's the best system we have. But you and Chomsky disagree with this. You say socialism is a better system to capitalism so I want you to show me in facts and figures why Socialism would have done a better job to raise the gdp per capita of the United Kingdom over the same time period. Providing I have already demonstrated that GDP per capita is linked positively with HDI.

And I don't mean a critique of Thatcherism, if I google critique of Thatcherism a million pages will come up, I never said Thatcherism was perfect but i want you to show me why Socialism is better. Focus on the positives not the negatives.

No, I will not defend something I never declared, you are really reaching now.
I laid out why I think MT failed and why her government was bad for Britain. It goes beyond mere economic success.
If children and adults are living in poverty, if they are deprived by lack of educational resourcing of a way out, then I deem any government overseeing that as a failure. If a society is riven apart by draconian and forced change then I blame the force for that. Thatcher did more than oversee that, she convinced decent people to see the poor as freeloaders and pariahs and she turned her country on itself and would have further divided it, until her own party turned on her.
Again, it was not what she did so much as HOW she did it.

Iwasfrozen

Happyman42 wrote: »

No, I will not defend something I never declared, you are really reaching now.
I laid out why I think MT failed and why her government was bad for Britain. It goes beyond mere economic success.
If children and adults are living in poverty, if they are deprived by lack of educational resourcing of a way out, then I deem any government overseeing that as a failure. If a society is riven apart by draconian and forced change then I blame the force for that. Thatcher did more than oversee that, she convinced decent people to see the poor as freeloaders and pariahs and she turned her country on itself and would have further divided it, until her own party turned on her.
Again, it was not what she did so much as HOW she did it.

How she did it? There is no other way to achieve those results, if you disagree prove me wrong. Again I don't want a critique of Thatcherism
I want you to show how your preferred method would achieve better GDP per capita. Keeping in mind GDP per capita is linked with HDI and I'm sure you'll agree a higher HDI is a good thing.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

There is no other way to achieve those results, if you disagree prove me wrong.

To be honest, i believe it is you who has to prove such a statement. We will never know if other methods may have in fact worked better, but to say that her way was the only way to achieve such results is impossible to say and to conclude.

Iwasfrozen

esteve wrote: »

To be honest, i believe it is you who has to prove such a statement. We will never know if other methods may have in fact worked better, but to say that her way was the only way to achieve such results is impossible to say and to conclude.

Well that's the thing. There is no other way in my view. But Happy holds a contradicting view so I want him to argue something that isn't just a critique of Thatcher.

esteve

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well that's the thing. There is no other way in my view. But Happy holds a contradicting view so I want him to argue something that isn't just a critique of Thatcher.

Okay, but her way, in your view, was the only way to achieve such results, but as this is impossible to conclude, it is therefore debatable, hence boards.ie. I do think her policies are somewhat responsible for the following, whether this is a good or bad thing is another question...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21934564

Iwasfrozen

esteve wrote: »

Okay, but her way, in your view, was the only way to achieve such results, but as this is impossible to conclude, it is therefore debatable, hence boards.ie. I do think her policies are somewhat responsible for the following, whether this is a good or bad thing is another question...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21934564

Looks like a good thing to me, if London isn't the capital of the world it's going to be NYC. Might as well have the money closer to home.

I understand what you're saying but I provided happy with figures to support my view but all he's supplied so far is a criticism of thatcher. I want him to actually move on from this and provide figures to support his view. It's pointless pointing out Thatcher's flaws because I'm well aware of them. I never said she was perfect.

Happyman42

esteve is right, there is no way to know if 'different' would have been better, all we can do is assess what was done.
But for what it is worth, I will concentrate here on what I think was her 'negative' impacts on Britain. I will leave out her dubious and damaging foreign policy and relationships.
The myth that Thatcher had a singular vision is complete nonsense and revisionism, she was an oppurtunist and extremely lucky a number of times during her reign. Tories and her faithful lapdogs like to quote her soundbite 'The lady's not for turning' as something heroic when the fact is the lady did 'turn'. It was THATCHER who granted publc sector workers huge pay rises, doubled VAT rates and sent the consumer price index through the roof. Thatcher, not the Unions. After 18 months and with unemployment having rocketed to 3 million in 2 yrs (think about that figure...3 million 'people') and manufacturing decimated she abandoned her skewed version of monetarism policies and slavish pursuit of lower inflation. Inflation rose from 10% to 22% in that period and wages exploded.
The Thatcher government caused the above by it's monetarist policy, which was abandoned...hence - IT DIDN'T NEED TO HAPPEN THAT WAY'.
Basically Thatcher decided she could live wth high unemployment, it didn't concern her because she had no concern or compassion for people. Her early years where an unmitigated disaster for real people. Yes she brought inflation down but she wrecked manufacturing and the lives of many many people, who would never recover and where never helped to recover.
All that need not have happened if the government had taken a structured approach to the economy that protected jobs and consequently, people.
A few figures
Between 1980 and 1983 industrial capacity fell by 25%
The overall tax burden rose from 39% to 43%
The top rate of tax for the rich fell from 83% when she took office to 40% when she left.
VAT, which affects the poor most, rose from 7% to 15% and income tax for the poor rose by 6%

She wasted and squandered North Sea Oil revenues by using them to uderwrite tax cuts instead of (like Norway) investing them for her peoples future.
The cash from privatisation allowed Nigel Lawson to balance the budget, thus saving her skin. That privatisation did not create 'free markets' as all she did was hand vital utilities over to monopolistic cartels, which went on to exploit the hardest hit...the poor.
SHe intefered in Schools, local government and massively cut funding to both and imposed draconian laws on trade unions. Her battle with the miners cost Britain a conservatively estimated 2.5 Billion, not to mention the social damage it done. Many of her colleagues claim that her prompt and unstructured closure of the pits was motivated by sheer bloodyminedness and bitterness. IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE DONE LIKE THAT, the rest of Europe downsized it's mining industry in a structured way for the exact same reasons that Britain did, but it didn't result in the same division and destruction of people.
Her 'property owning' policy of selling council houses has resulted in the present crisis in housing in Britain and the chronic shortage of social housing. British taxpayers are STILL paying billions in housing benefits most of which goes to a Thatcher created private landlord class.
Crime rose dramatically during her term to an incredible 79%. Riots in Toxeth and Brixton marked her begining and riots throughout Britain over the Poll Tax marked her end.

She did defeat the Left and the Unions, but that is not neccesarily a good thing, as all responsible, moral and compassionate government must have elements of both the left and the right.

Rascasse

Sorry to drag this back on topic, but as expected the cost of Thatchers funeral was grossly exaggerated by the left wing press. Total cost of £3.6m pounds. £1.6m for the service and £2m for police pay.

This doesn't take into account how many of those police would have been working anyway, so that £2m in reality would be less.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4903067/Thatcher-funeral-cost-just-36m-a-THIRD-of-reported-figure.html