VolvoS60:


^^^^
Great thread. Very interesting exchange between the pro and anti thatcher groups.

I have a few questions for you mr katsumoto: what makes financial services and the banking sector so special? Which other sectors are bailed out by the government when they run into trouble? The same argument you put up above (your five reasons for a bailout) for banks could apply to any other sector. So why doesn't the government bailout the steel industry, shipbuilding, car manufacturing, etc. when they need help?

Obama saved the autombile industry in the US even though Republicans such as Romney wanted it to fail. The true test in saving an industry lies primarily in whether that industry will accept change. If someone else is doing the same thing you are doing at a cheaper price and doing it more efficiently, then you can't be saved. It is simple economics. It is for the same reason that China is losing to other Asian nations like Vietnam and cambodia.

The US auto industry was saved because the unions realised that it better it save it for some or lose it for everyone. Generous pension plans were slashed, labour rates went down, and jobs for life were abolished. If the unions didn't accept what was put in front of them, GM and Chrysler would have been out of business. Today, the US car manufacturers are back in the game.

cap28:

It's funny how you left out the rather important bit about the transatlantic slave trade.

You deserve honorary membership of the Conservative Party for your ability to gloss over britain's unsavoury past.

The British worked black african slaves to death on sugar and tobaccco plantations in the carribean and the enormous wealth generated from the slave trade propelled their industrial revolution - and yet you are full of praises for them - talk about self hatred.

You are funny.

Why would empire building not comprise slave trading?

Katsumoto:

You are funny.

Why would empire building not comprise slave trading?

so you are also an apologist of the transatlantic slave trade?

Wat will she b remebered4?

cap28:

so you are also an apologist of the transatlantic slave trade?

How can I be an apologist of slave trading? I am merely stating what gave Britain revenue.

In the course of building its empire, it traded in slaves. Why would you then think that empire building would not comprise slave trading?

Stop being so emotional.

Katsumoto:
So can you name one nation without poverty? All that doesn't take away from the FACT that Britain was the wealthiest nation in the world in the 19th century.

That wasn't my point... My point is that there was so much poverty in the UK back then, and the country was put back on track on the backs of the rich... So, your assertion that there will be capital flight if the rich were taxed more during the Thatcher era is flawed... If the rich didn't move their wealth and investments abroad during the 1800-1913 UK - what makes you think they would have done that during Thatcher's era??

There is no state of Utopia; there will always be imperfections in a society dominated by man.

Agreed... However, when a particular demographic within the society is being targeted with stringent policies and the others are left unscathed - then it becomes problematic... esp. when those targeted are the poor and vulnerable... There has to be a balance, period..

What stringent policies can Cameron implement? Please use specific examples.

What did Thatcher do that Cameron can do today? Can he break the unions? Can he nationalize public assets? Can he give people the right to own their own homes? Can he make the market freer (if he did would accuse him of extreme capitalism)?

My point is that Cameron can't tow that lane unless he wants anarchy in the UK...

Thatcher was a divisive leader and was somewhat racist - that's what she's going to be remembered for by people with supreme consciousness...

mko abiola: Wat will she b remebered4?

sir ur user name scared me mko abola, are you writing frm great beyond

plasgidy:

sir ur user name scared me mko abola, are you writing frm great beyond

U go fear MKO fan

Margaret Thatcher dies: tributes paid to groundbreaking but [size=18pt]divisive leader[/size]

But Neil Kinnock, the former Labour leader who was comprehensively defeated by Thatcher in the 1983 and 1987 general elections, broke with the consensus when he described her premiership as an "unmitigated disaster for Britain".

In a pre-recorded BBC interview, he said: "It was an unmitigated disaster for Britain. It commenced with a series of budget changes and use of interest rates which, combined with the fact that oil was monumentally coming on stream, pushed the price of the pound out of sight and succeeded in inflicting devastating harm on the productive base in Britain. That wasn't modernisation. That was devastation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-dies-tributes-pour

^^^^Enough said!!

Katsumoto:

How can I be an apologist of slave trading? I am merely stating what gave Britain revenue.

In the course of building its empire, it traded in slaves. Why would you then think that empire building would not comprise slave trading?

Stop being so emotional.

You were singing the praises of the British empire without acknowledging the fact that they had an unfair advantage over other nations because they used slave labour to build their wealth.

Giving credit to Britain for being an economic world power in the 18th and 19th century without stating that this was done as a result of exploitation and subjugation of others (particularly the african continent) is to distort history.

shymexx:

My point is that Cameron can't tow that lane unless he wants anarchy in the UK...

Thatcher was a divisive leader and was somewhat racist - that's what she's going to be remember for by people with supreme consciousness...

You are dodging every question I put to you. You said why isn't Cameron implementing Thatcher policies; I asked you what specific policies and you went off tangent about Thatcher being divisive and racist. What Thatcher policies can Cameron implement? What SPECIFIC policies can Cameron implement that will lead to anarchy? Its a simple and direct question.

I think I will let you be.

Katsumoto:

Obama saved the autombile industry in the US even though Republicans such as Romney wanted it to fail. The true test in saving an industry lies primarily in whether that industry will accept change. If someone else is doing the same thing you are doing at a cheaper price and doing it more efficiently, then you can't be saved. It is simple economics. It is for the same reason that China is losing to other Asian nations like Vietnam and cambodia.

The US auto industry was saved because the unions realised that it better it save it for some or lose it for everyone. Generous pension plans were slashed, labour rates went down, and jobs for life were abolished. If the unions didn't accept what was put in front of them, GM and Chrysler would have been out of business. Today, the US car manufacturers are back in the game.

^^^^I'm not sure I agree with your argument that the true test in saving an industry lies in its willingness to accept change. The question is: should the government in a so-called free market economy be "saving" any industry at all? What criteria is used to decide which industry is worth saving and when?

I also see that you concentrated on the US auto industry but said nothing about financial services. That industry (financial services) in my view is where the really hard questions should be asked. I'm sure you remember the case of the hedge fund (Long Term Capital Management) which the Clinton administration bailed out - this was long before the days of sub-prime mortages and Goldman Sachs etc. Why should a bank be saved because it is deemed "to big to fail"? Should size alone be the only criteria? Or are there more sinister reasons for this moral hazard that has come to define financial services in most so-called free market economies?

cap28:

You were singing the praises of the British empire without acknowledging the fact that they had an unfair advantage over other nations because they used slave labour to build their wealth.

Giving credit to Britain for being an economic world power in the 18th and 19th century without stating that this was done as a result of exploitation and subjugation of others (particularly the african continent) is to distort history.

Stop being so thick in the head. Do you have comprehension or reading problems?

Shymexx stated that Britain was in economic crisis in the 19th century and I countered by stating that how could the richest nation in the world be in economic crisis. How is that singing praises? Just trying to attack my person and not my position just makes you seem immature. Since you can't counter my position, you are now resorting to emotional blackmail.

Katsumoto:
You are dodging every question I put to you. You said why isn't Cameron implementing Thatcher policies; I asked you what specific policies and you went off tangent about Thatcher being divisive and racist. What Thatcher policies can Cameron implement? What SPECIFIC policies can Cameron implement that will lead to anarchy? Its a simple and direct question.

I think I will let you be.

You're the one who isn't comprehending my posts... You asserted that Lady Thatcher implemented those stringent and anti-people policies to save the country... and I asked you why David Cameron isn't effecting the same stringent policies since the two eras are interchangeable economically - if what she did was the right thing to do...

Obviously, David Cameron will never tow that lane because it was disastrous for the country and she single-handedly destroyed the production base of the UK...

CFCfan:

U go fear MKO fan

not realy, but dont derail the topic, many thanx sir

[size=14pt]Margaret Thatcher dies: 'A great day', says leader of miners[/size]
The death of Baroness Thatcher was a "great day" for coal miners, David Hopper, general secretary of the Durham Miners' Association said today.

The ex-miner, who turned 70 today, spent all of his working life at Wearmouth Colliery.


He said: "It looks like one of the best birthdays I have ever had.

"There's no sympathy from me for what she did to our community. She destroyed our community, our villages and our people.

"For the union this could not come soon enough and I'm pleased that I have outlived her.

"It's a great day for all the miners, I imagine we will have a counter demonstration when they have her funeral.

"Our children have got no jobs and the community is full of problems. There's no work and no money and it's very sad the legacy she has left behind.

"She absolutely hated working people and I have got very bitter memories of what she did. She turned all the nation against us and the violence that was meted out on us was terrible.

"I would say to those people who want to mourn her that they're lucky she did not treat them like she treated us."

Meanwhile, Baroness Thatcher's policies were called "fundamentally wrong" by former London mayor Ken Livingstone.

He told Sky News the former Conservative prime minister was responsible for "every real problem" faced in the UK today, as he claimed she had led millions of people out of work.

Mr Livingstone said: "Of course she was popular, she was offering people their homes at a cut price. But she didn't build any houses.

"She created today's housing crisis, she produced the banking crisis, she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefits rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly at full employment.

"She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed and the legacy of that, the benefits bill that we are still struggling with today.

"In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact she was fundamentally wrong."

He also said that it was to Tony Blair's "shame" that he "broadly carried on" most of her policies.

Mr Livingstone added: "She once claimed New Labour was her greatest legacy and I am not saying she was joking."

Paul Kenny, general secretary of the GMB union, said: "Mrs Thatcher was a powerful politician who will be remembered by many for the destructive and divisive policies she reigned over which in the end, even in the Tory party, proved to be her downfall.

"Her legacy involves the destruction of communities, the elevation of personal greed over social values and legitimising the exploitation of the weak by the strong."
[Margaret Thatcher dies at 87 following stroke]

Lindsey German, convenor of the Stop The War Coalition, said: "Margaret Thatcher laid the basis for policies which wrecked the lives of millions in Britain. But she should also be remembered as a warmonger.

"She led alongside Ronald Reagan the escalation of the Cold War. She introduced cruise missiles to Britain and fought the Falklands war. Her arms deals with Saudi Arabia were notorious. Her legacy was Tony Blair who built enthusiastically on her record."

Most of the country's leading unions preferred not to make any comment about her death.

Colleagues of Arthur Scargill, the former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers, who clashed bitterly with Mrs Thatcher during the 1984/85 miners' strike, said he was unlikely to make any comment.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/margaret-thatcher-dies-criticism-of-her-policies-132906942.html#H3O4q1O

Katsumoto:

You are dodging every question I put to you. You said why isn't Cameron implementing Thatcher policies; I asked you what specific policies and you went off tangent about Thatcher being divisive and racist. What Thatcher policies can Cameron implement? What SPECIFIC policies can Cameron implement that will lead to anarchy? Its a simple and direct question.

I think I will let you be.

Actually all post Thatcher labour govts and now the Cam Mo..ron coalition govt have CONTINUED thatcher's policies - the deregulation of the financial sector was a legacy of Thatcher and BLiar and Cam Mo..ron have not reversed any of these policies despite the fact these very policies resulted in the financial crisis of 2008.

VolvoS60:

^^^^I'm not sure I agree with your argument that the true test in saving an industry lies in its willingness to accept change. The question is: should the government in a so-called free market economy be "saving" any industry at all? What criteria is used to decide which industry is worth saving and when?

I also see that you concentrated on the US auto industry but said nothing about financial services. That industry (financial services) in my view is where the really hard questions should be asked. I'm sure you remember the case of the hedge fund (Long Term Capital Management) which the Clinton administration bailed out - this was long before the days of sub-prime mortages and Goldman Sachs etc. Why should a bank be saved because it is deemed "to big to fail"? Should size alone be the only criteria? Or are there more sinister reasons for this moral hazard that has come to define financial services in most so-called free market economies?

Governments will look at the the impact of failure of an industry on the economy in deciding whether to save it or not. There is no nation that has a completely free market; government will always interfere as it sees fit depending on the ideology of the government in power. Providing a lifeline to a temporarily bankrupt industry is not the same as a permanently bankrupt industry.

Both the finance/banking and auto industries have returned to profitability in the US and are providing returns to the tax payer. Allowing the financial industry to collapse would have been catastrophic for the US.

If you are insinuating that there are other reasons for saving certain industries, then you are probably right. But if you don't accept terms when they are put to you, then you may be allowed to fail. Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail as a lesson. After that, others fell into line.

Iron Margaret Thatcher, adieu!

cap28:

Actually all post Thatcher labour govts and now the Cam Mo..ron coalition govt have CONTINUED thatcher's policies - the deregulation of the financial sector was a legacy of Thatcher and BLiar and Cam Mo..ron have not reversed any of these policies despite the fact these very policies resulted in the financial crisis of 2008.

And was Thatcher responsible for the recession in the 70s and the 30s? One of the side effects of capitalism is boom and bust cycles. Is it better to have $15 over 10 years under socialism/communism or $100 over 10 years even though you may lose $30 during a bust period?

shymexx: I bet people are celebrating in Scotland and Northern England, right about now...

She wasn't perfect and she destroyed a lot of people's lives including the minorities... All those who lost their jobs and all the black kids who were left in foster homes because of the hardship she created for their immigrant parents might have something to say about her... And Africans will also have something to say about her support for the apartheid regime in South Africa...

However, she was a nationalist who was loved and adored by her conservative base and by most English people from the South... The UK will never forget the Falklands War..

Adieu!! You're better on the other side...

I don't normally post comment bt dis is striking!!!! Nail well hit

Desola:

couldn't agree more!

but u cant ignore the fact that there are massive street parties in southern UK in celebration of her death. Vox populi, vox de. I always look at issues objectively and with an open mind. I never really knew her well until today. But facts and popular opinion show clearly that she was a 'witch' and the whitch is dead. Just google her name now and learn.

Katsumoto:

And was Thatcher responsible for the recession in the 70s and the 30s? One of the side effects of capitalism is boom and bust cycles. Is it better to have $15 over 10 years under socialism/communism or $100 over 10 years even though you may lose $30 during a bust period?

The current bust that we are suffering today could have been avoided had Thatcher not deregulated the financial sector, gutted the manufacturing industry and embarked on massive privatisation. All the problems we are suffering today in the UK are as a direct result of those economic policies.

The "Iron Lady" has melted. Adieu

Katsumoto:

How can I be an apologist of slave trading? I am merely stating what gave Britain revenue.

In the course of building its empire, it traded in slaves. Why would you then think that empire building would not comprise slave trading?

Stop being so emotional.

dont be myopic! What is the relationship between slave trading and empire building. Was the british empire not itself part of the roman empire? Is slave trading a prerequisite for empire building? Athough the british empier was vast, the roman empire was far stronger and lasted longer, yet it needn't thrive on slave trade.

Katsumoto:

Stop being so thick in the head. Do you have comprehension or reading problems?

Shymexx stated that Britain was in economic crisis in the 19th century and I countered by stating that how could the richest nation in the world be in economic crisis. How is that singing praises? Just trying to attack my person and not my position just makes you seem immature. Since you can't counter my position, you are now resorting to emotional blackmail.

Katsumoto:

You are funny.

Why would empire building not comprise slave trading?

Katsumoto I forgot to respond to the above - look at your above statement - does that sound like someone who had a problem with the british involvement in the transatlantic slave trade? - you are more or less saying that it is a foregone conclusion that an empire should be built on the enslavement of human beings.

Just be honest and admit that you are an apologist and open admirer of the now defunct british empire.

If you think that 'Margaret, the iron lady' was a HERO, click like

Katsumoto:

Governments will look at the the impact of failure of an industry on the economy in deciding whether to save it or not. There is no nation that has a completely free market; government will always interfere as it sees fit depending on the ideology of the government in power. Providing a lifeline to a temporarily bankrupt industry is not the same as a permanently bankrupt industry.

Both the finance/banking and auto industries have returned to profitability in the US and are providing returns to the tax payer. Allowing the financial industry to collapse would have been catastrophic for the US.

If you are insinuating that there are other reasons for saving certain industries, then you are probably right. But if you don't accept terms when they are put to you, then you may be allowed to fail. Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail as a lesson. After that, others fell into line.

^^^^
If indeed governments reserve the right to intervene in the economy when they deem it fit to do so then why do the Hugo Chavezes and Evo Moraleses of this world attract such strong condemnation from right of centre interests in the 1st world? After all, going by that logic there is no objective standard of the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of government intervention. The question then becomes a subjective one of the degree of intervention and how it is interpreted by any observer. And that sir, is relative. There are no absolutes.

I raised the questions I did earlier because high finance has traditionally received preferential treatment despite overwhelming evidence of very poor risk management - behaviour that ordinarily should be punished by the market. In strongly free market 1st world economies, poor decision making by market players attracts retribution. The judgement of the market is swift and brutal. The question is: why is high finance an exception? Is it because the political cost (of letting big banks fail) will be too high? Could it be because financialization has created market players that are so powerful that they are in essence parallel or alternate governments? Could it be because regulators have been compromised and are no longer impartial arbiters?

It seems that when the chips are down, hard-nosed pragmatism takes over. The US and its allies have long advocated a strict application (through both soft and hard means) of neoclassical economics across the globe. But the rules change when american jobs are at stake. Suddenly it becomes ok to erect protectionist barriers and to pay subsidies to ensure the survival of american farmers. Suddenly it becomes ok to keep large british & american investment banks afloat with taxpayers funds, despite the indefensible moral hazard involved. Why?

Neoclassicists have to make up their minds. There should be a strict application of the rules across the board or their orthodoxy will lose all credibility.

If you are upset and think that 'Margaret iron lady' was too HARSH and DESTRUCTIVE, click like

VolvoS60:

^^^^
I raised the questions I did because high finance has traditionally received preferential treatment despite overwhelming evidence of very poor risk management - behaviour that ordinarily should be punished by the market. In 1st world economies, poor decision making by market players in industries other than finance attracts retribution. The judgement of the market is swift and brutal. The question is: why is high finance an exception? Is it because the political cost (of letting big banks fail) will be too high? Could it be because financialization has created market players that are so powerful that they are in essence parallel or alternate governments?

When the chips are down, pragmatism takes over. The US and its allies have long advocated a strict application (through both soft and hard means) of neoclassical economics across the globe. But the rules change when american jobs are at stake. Suddenly it becomes ok to erect protectionist barriers and to pay subsidies to ensure the survival of american farmers. Suddenly it becomes ok to keep large british & american investment banks afloat with taxpayers funds, despite the indefensible moral hazard involved.

Neoclassicists have to make up their minds. There should be a strict application of the rules across the board or their orthodoxy will lose all credibility.

But most governments provide some form of subsidy or the other. India provides various cash subsidies to its citizens, The EU provides subsidy to European farmers through the Common Agricultural Policy; Nigeria provides a direct cash subsidy through the pump price. China provides export subsidies to its manufacturing industry through currency manipulation. The industries that receive subsidy are dependent on individual government preferences.

doingreat: dont be myopic! What is the relationship between slave trading and empire building. Was the british empire not itself part of the roman empire? Is slave trading a prerequisite for empire building? Athough the british empier was vast, the roman empire was far stronger and lasted longer, yet it needn't thrive on slave trade.

In the old days, yes empires were built on the backs of slaves. Rome used slaves or foreign soldiers for its military conquests. And Britain was part of the Roman empire but the British empire was not part of the Roman empire.