User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 58

  1. #11
    Member Valis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    98

    Default

    I thought you might come back on the ENTJ statement, my point was that her decisions were based on objectively following certain economic theories not based on personalities. I don't know about the others you mentioned, but Hitlar wasn't an ENTJ.

    Thanks for letting me know what I do or don't know about economics. I would rather you countered the statement rather than make those kinds of judgements. Thatcher's main opposition within her own party was from the wets that were part of the old boy networks. State controlled economies have failed time and again and the British economy in the 1970s was in the same situation. There are bound to be winners and losers when industries decline or rise. It's unfortunate for those people but those resources were better allocated elsewhere. Privately run organisations are just as well equipped to run any industry - what makes government so special? They were run privately before being nationalised after the second world war. There are privately owned coal mines, choices of substitute sources of power and if the business fails their assets can be bought by better run companies, if they are of any value and if there is a business there in the first place. If money isn't spent prices inevitably fall, which will generate demand. The government artifically generates supply and demand by subsidising industries, manipulating interest rates and pumping money into the economy. We have seen and are victim of the bubbles they generate. Often there are unforseen consequences to this type of tinkering.

    ps. Thatcher was an Oxford University graduate.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valis View Post
    Taking the lives of people that were on hungar strikes? Is that possible? People tend to also die when nations declare war.

    The industries still exist. It is still possible to buy coal, steel etc. just from more efficient producers.
    So the story goes. I'm not sure I believe it and while there is perhaps an argument from the stand point of national strategy to conserve your national resources while consuming other nations national resources so long as your economy can produce the wealth for the expenditure that is not the same thing as what you are describing.

    The UK does not engage in ship building, iron works, car manufacturing or anything else resembling mass production as it once did, the social consequences are pretty clear to everyone, politicians dont need to be called upon to explain that, hence Thatcher and Thatcherites insisting that there's "no such thing as society", no society, no social costs and consequences or casualities of economic policy.

    There was no declaration of war between the ROI and the UK, the ROI wasnt ever a sponsor or supporter of the IRA in any case.

    What's your view of Thatcher and Thatcherism's support for Apartheid Africa and White Supremacists in Africa?

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    xxTP
    Posts
    1,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valis View Post
    Taking the lives of people that were on hungar strikes? Is that possible? People tend to also die when nations declare war.

    The industries still exist. It is still possible to buy coal, steel etc. just from more efficient producers.
    Actually war was never declared in the Malvinas "conflict" (And the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime, which is not accepted even in a war).

    But OK if that is your attitude. I guess the people who pay the price of all those decisions I mentioned and which you are fine with, will have as much regard for her life, as her (and you) seem to have for theirs.

    At the end of the day it's as simple as the old cliché "you reap what you sow".

  4. #14
    Member Valis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    So the story goes. I'm not sure I believe it and while there is perhaps an argument from the stand point of national strategy to conserve your national resources while consuming other nations national resources so long as your economy can produce the wealth for the expenditure that is not the same thing as what you are describing.

    The UK does not engage in ship building, iron works, car manufacturing or anything else resembling mass production as it once did, the social consequences are pretty clear to everyone, politicians dont need to be called upon to explain that, hence Thatcher and Thatcherites insisting that there's "no such thing as society", no society, no social costs and consequences or casualities of economic policy.

    There was no declaration of war between the ROI and the UK, the ROI wasnt ever a sponsor or supporter of the IRA in any case.

    What's your view of Thatcher and Thatcherism's support for Apartheid Africa and White Supremacists in Africa?
    I'm not trying to argue for protection of one's national resources as I'm not really a nationalist. I'm interested in what is best for most people on average. There are some industries as you described which are not what they once were. Then again there are others doing a lot better and some that didn't even exist in the past. As new ways of doing things are introduced, efficiencies are made, value is created and resources can be re-allocated. There's no point in hanging on to jobs or methods that are inefficient.

    I was referring to the war with the Argentines over the Falkland Islands.

    The Apartheid situation was one of the mistakes I referred to. I don't know whether sanctions would have affected the black majority more than the white government but if it had hastened the government's decline, all the better.

  5. #15
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valis View Post
    I thought you might come back on the ENTJ statement, my point was that her decisions were based on objectively following certain economic theories not based on personalities. I don't know about the others you mentioned, but Hitlar wasn't an ENTJ.
    Yes, it wasnt personalities, it was economic ideology and orthodoxy, specifically the Austrians and specifically Hayek, her father's books which he had in the grocery shop. Hayek himself has written about how he produced the books which inspired Thatcher, including The Road To Serfdom, as propaganda pieces at a time when he thought that classical economics were on the ropes, Mise described Hayek as a socialist on more than one occasion for disclosures like that.

    Thanks for letting me know what I do or don't know about economics. I would rather you countered the statement rather than make those kinds of judgements.
    I dont know how you can be butt hurt about this since its only what's apparent from your posts, the counters are there, with sources cited for your and everyone elses consideration.

    Thatcher's main opposition within her own party was from the wets that were part of the old boy networks. State controlled economies have failed time and again and the British economy in the 1970s was in the same situation. There are bound to be winners and losers when industries decline or rise. It's unfortunate for those people but those resources were better allocated elsewhere. Privately run organisations are just as well equipped to run any industry - what makes government so special?
    I'm not sure I should carry on since you're not reading my posts, I already outlined for you what makes government so "special", it is different from private firms in the economy and that is patently obvious, it is why the bankers when they caused the collapse of their industry did not turn to a further private firm for a bail out but to the state.

    While there were no doubt some resistance to privatisation from established interests I very, very much doubt that it was from the management of those firms, most of them and a lot of cabinet members did very well from privatisation and were able to move between cabinet and "the city" or private management without difficulty, in part this was a deliberate political strategy to prevent resistance arising from those same elements within the wealthy establishment who once benefited from nationalisation.

    None of these industries were failing industries, they operated at a loss, often because of employment practices but those practices were cheaper on balance than employment benefits and had social benefits, ie maintain work ethics and occupation to masses of people who with thier idle time have proven to life lives of real negative consequence, for themselves, their neighbours, everyone else.

    They were run privately before being nationalised after the second world war. There are privately owned coal mines, choices of substitute sources of power and if the business fails their assets can be bought by better run companies, if they are of any value and if there is a business there in the first place. If money isn't spent prices inevitably fall, which will generate demand. The government artifically generates supply and demand by subsidising industries, manipulating interest rates and pumping money into the economy. We have seen and are victim of the bubbles they generate. Often there are unforseen consequences to this type of tinkering.

    ps. Thatcher was an Oxford University graduate.
    Graduate in what? My point, although you're taking a round about way of saying so, is that she's actually no more qualified than most people, including myself, these days.

    The whole "dont meddle" of voodoo economists doesnt impress me in the least, it is absolutely dark age thinking to suppose that, especially now with much, much improved information than there has ever, ever been before that hackneyed and dated Hayekian calculation debate thinking has any relevence at all and I doubt it did then.

    It is all political colouring of economics, including business cycles, and its going on today too, failing car plants? Closure, failing banks? Rescue.

    Its all class struggles and Thatcher was able to back the winning horse in the contest of her day.

  6. #16
    Member Valis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Che Parla View Post
    Actually war was never declared in the Malvinas "conflict" (And the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime, which is not accepted even in a war).

    But OK if that is your attitude. I guess the people who pay the price of all those decisions I mentioned and which you are fine with, will have as much regard for her life, as her (and you) seem to have for theirs.

    At the end of the day it's as simple as the old cliché "you reap what you sow".
    Invading the islands (whatever you would like to call them) is an act of war. If the soldiers in the Argentinian army were conscripted you should question the policies of those doing the conscripting rather than Mrs. Thatcher.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valis View Post
    Invading the islands (whatever you would like to call them) is an act of war. If the soldiers in the Argentinian army were conscripted you should question the policies of those doing the conscripting rather than Mrs. Thatcher.
    What about selling the Argentians the weapons, including missile systems, to use against British forces?

  8. #18
    Member Valis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Yes, it wasnt personalities, it was economic ideology and orthodoxy, specifically the Austrians and specifically Hayek, her father's books which he had in the grocery shop. Hayek himself has written about how he produced the books which inspired Thatcher, including The Road To Serfdom, as propaganda pieces at a time when he thought that classical economics were on the ropes, Mise described Hayek as a socialist on more than one occasion for disclosures like that.



    I dont know how you can be butt hurt about this since its only what's apparent from your posts, the counters are there, with sources cited for your and everyone elses consideration.



    I'm not sure I should carry on since you're not reading my posts, I already outlined for you what makes government so "special", it is different from private firms in the economy and that is patently obvious, it is why the bankers when they caused the collapse of their industry did not turn to a further private firm for a bail out but to the state.

    While there were no doubt some resistance to privatisation from established interests I very, very much doubt that it was from the management of those firms, most of them and a lot of cabinet members did very well from privatisation and were able to move between cabinet and "the city" or private management without difficulty, in part this was a deliberate political strategy to prevent resistance arising from those same elements within the wealthy establishment who once benefited from nationalisation.

    None of these industries were failing industries, they operated at a loss, often because of employment practices but those practices were cheaper on balance than employment benefits and had social benefits, ie maintain work ethics and occupation to masses of people who with thier idle time have proven to life lives of real negative consequence, for themselves, their neighbours, everyone else.



    Graduate in what? My point, although you're taking a round about way of saying so, is that she's actually no more qualified than most people, including myself, these days.

    The whole "dont meddle" of voodoo economists doesnt impress me in the least, it is absolutely dark age thinking to suppose that, especially now with much, much improved information than there has ever, ever been before that hackneyed and dated Hayekian calculation debate thinking has any relevence at all and I doubt it did then.

    It is all political colouring of economics, including business cycles, and its going on today too, failing car plants? Closure, failing banks? Rescue.

    Its all class struggles and Thatcher was able to back the winning horse in the contest of her day.
    Your citations (i.e. a couple of hyperlinks to articles from the Guardian newspaper) don't amount to much rigour. Your opinions are simply that.

    I put a great deal of faith in Austrian economics, it's deductions and rationale. It makes sense to me. The beauty of the free market, like evolution, is that the fit survive. The businesses that are offering the best products at the right prices. The ones that operate efficiently with the best margins, having the greatest advantage will win out. You are right, there is more information today than ever before. But it is still not enough information. It is not accurate and does not ecompass and probably never can the entire workings of the world economy. The workings of businesses and the actions of individuals are infinitely complex. The fact that GDP calculations include government spending ought to raise alarm bells. Despite the UK being rated as number 1 for corporate governance in the world, no one at the FSA, or in the government predicted the scale of the housing bust and the implications for the banking sector. Time and again governments and regulatory authorities fail to see what's coming, so what is their purpose? Let businesses fail. The world will not end, contrary to what politicians would like you to believe. You are naive if you trust the fed or the bank of England as though they are omnipient, all seeing all knowing entities that can flick a few switches to deliver continual and unrelenting growth.

    If those nationalised businesses of which you speak were viable, they would have been snapped up by private firms. Some of the pits were, some, the uneconomic ones weren't. Likewise the steel industry and so forth. There was no insider trading government conspiracy. Britain was in a long decline, through both conservative and labour governments post world war 2. The UK economy was being overtaken by other countries and it's size and influence was gradually falling. Something had to be done and thankfully Lady Thatcher had the courage to do it. She was not a qualified economist, but my point was she was a very intelligent lady who understood the problem and dealt with it head on. How much easier it would have been to have let things continue as they were. I'm sure Arthur Scargill and the other union leaders would have been content for that to happen. Incidentally, he failed twice to win a ballot for the miners strike and in the end called it anyway, in the middle of the summer. They also resisted the rule that strike action had to be put to members. At least airline unions have the wit to strike during holiday periods for the greatest effect. No one mentions the union's complicity in the destruction of their own industries. The people dancing in the street at Lady Thatcher's passing ought to consider that. The absurd idea that it's better to fund an uneconomic industry as we'd be better off than if those jobs didn't exist: that labour, the capital can be moved to industries that are successful. Many of the workers did move to other sectors, retrained or set up their own businesses. Thankfully the excesses of the welfare state are now also being addressed. Yes, it is good to have a safety net, but receiving benefits can never be the final solution.

    We are never going to agree and I would assume this is true of many of the threads in the politics forum. I appreciate your views and have many friends that have been very pleased at Thatcher's passing. I don't bother to argue with them as I know it's pointless. They are so entrenched in their view of the world that they cannot see reason. I remember growing up with Thatcher and wishing each time that someone else (preferably the lib dems at the time) would be elected. It was a depressing time for many. As I said previously, I am interested to see how Thatcher will be viewed in a few more years time once things have settled down. She was of her time, but in hindsight I am pleased that she won those elections and not the labour party. I wonder how things would be now if Foot or Kinnock had won? My best guess is that the decline would have continued and the upheaval whenever it came would be all the greater.

  9. #19
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valis View Post
    Your citations (i.e. a couple of hyperlinks to articles from the Guardian newspaper) don't amount to much rigour. Your opinions are simply that.



  10. #20
    Member Valis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    What about selling the Argentians the weapons, including missile systems, to use against British forces?
    Once again government is complicit in the murky dealings of the military industrial complex. It is the greatest murderer that has ever existed and the biggest threat to it's own population. Of course it's wrong. At the time it turned a few shillings for the UK economy, but in this case it backfired, which is always the risk.

Similar Threads

  1. Video: Margaret Heffernan: Dare to disagree
    By Eilonwy in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-07-2014, 12:12 AM
  2. Margaret Yang from the movie Rushmore
    By Guava in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 09:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO