|
On April 09 2013 19:06 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 18:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Edit: Posting this from an unrelated article. It seems that the relative decline of industry (or manufacturing at least) in the UK was nothing remarkable: Your graph doesn't count agriculture and the energy sector. Accounting for these things, France's and the USA's decline has been much less steep than that of the UK. And it's not just about the relative decline of industry. It declined just as surely under New Labour. The difference is that they had an alternative (education) which was at least superficially plausible at the time. Thatcher did not give an alternative and instead presided over a decade with average unemployment of 9.1% (up from 2% in the 70s).
US oil production was in decline starting around 1970 so if you want to add in energy the relative decline of UK industry may in fact look more favorable. Here's what google found for me anyhow - British oil production was taking off just when US production went into decline:
+ Show Spoiler +
Source
You have a fair point about unemployment but don't over emphasize it. It's just one metric and I'm not even sure the numbers you are using are correct.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 10 2013 01:22 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 00:40 marvellosity wrote:
Most of the coal mines that were closed were loss-making entities, being subsidised by the state.
While much of what you say I find a bit skewed, this quote makes me laugh, for it seems you actually think 'mines made a loss so one HAD to close them down'. I have some news for you: Nearly every big business in this world relies on subsidies! The whole agriculture sector in the US and Europe for example would collapse without subsidies. Nuclear power plants would literally close tomorrow if the state would not aid them. Not a single widebody aircraft in this world is build without massive state sponsorship! In our world every political decisions is ultimately made through subsidies, whether it is for example to invest in green energy or coal, whether is supporting mine workers or aiding home owners. Whether to rescue a bank or file insolvency for a factory, is never decided by an accountant objectively comparing profitability, it is decided by a politician. Germany for example kept a lot of it's mines open for decades longer, ever though they were just as loss-making as British one's. It was and is always a political choice! Ignoring that truth and quoting superficial reasons for what 'had to be done', is willfully denying reality.
I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement 
It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case.
The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits.
I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with?
|
On April 10 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:22 lord_nibbler wrote:On April 10 2013 00:40 marvellosity wrote:
Most of the coal mines that were closed were loss-making entities, being subsidised by the state.
While much of what you say I find a bit skewed, this quote makes me laugh, for it seems you actually think 'mines made a loss so one HAD to close them down'. I have some news for you: Nearly every big business in this world relies on subsidies! The whole agriculture sector in the US and Europe for example would collapse without subsidies. Nuclear power plants would literally close tomorrow if the state would not aid them. Not a single widebody aircraft in this world is build without massive state sponsorship! In our world every political decisions is ultimately made through subsidies, whether it is for example to invest in green energy or coal, whether is supporting mine workers or aiding home owners. Whether to rescue a bank or file insolvency for a factory, is never decided by an accountant objectively comparing profitability, it is decided by a politician. Germany for example kept a lot of it's mines open for decades longer, ever though they were just as loss-making as British one's. It was and is always a political choice! Ignoring that truth and quoting superficial reasons for what 'had to be done', is willfully denying reality. I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case. The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits. I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with?
The latter, they should have subsidized them longer, but at the same time slowly build alternative employment opportunities. And only slowly phase the old industry out.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland25985 Posts
On April 10 2013 01:36 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:On April 10 2013 01:22 lord_nibbler wrote:On April 10 2013 00:40 marvellosity wrote:
Most of the coal mines that were closed were loss-making entities, being subsidised by the state.
While much of what you say I find a bit skewed, this quote makes me laugh, for it seems you actually think 'mines made a loss so one HAD to close them down'. I have some news for you: Nearly every big business in this world relies on subsidies! The whole agriculture sector in the US and Europe for example would collapse without subsidies. Nuclear power plants would literally close tomorrow if the state would not aid them. Not a single widebody aircraft in this world is build without massive state sponsorship! In our world every political decisions is ultimately made through subsidies, whether it is for example to invest in green energy or coal, whether is supporting mine workers or aiding home owners. Whether to rescue a bank or file insolvency for a factory, is never decided by an accountant objectively comparing profitability, it is decided by a politician. Germany for example kept a lot of it's mines open for decades longer, ever though they were just as loss-making as British one's. It was and is always a political choice! Ignoring that truth and quoting superficial reasons for what 'had to be done', is willfully denying reality. I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case. The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits. I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with? The latter, they should have subsidized them longer, but at the same time slowly build alternative employment opportunities. And only slowly phase the old industry out.
That sounds like vaguely sensible, measured policy there. I am neither for/against the whole union/industry crushing that she did, economics is not something I feel comfortable with, though I do try. Not having some kind of transitional policy for those who will be fucked over is the crux of my contention with Thatcher's activities in that area.
|
On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote:But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery. If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people.
The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
|
On April 10 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You have a fair point about unemployment but don't over emphasize it. It's just one metric and I'm not even sure the numbers you are using are correct. The numbers are correct and it's well-known that the Thatcher years were plagued by exceptional and unprecedented unemployment figures.
"One metric"? We're talking millions of people's lives. What other metric would you suggest? GDP per capita? Look at the graph posted by Lord Nibbler. Only the rich benefited from that.
|
On April 10 2013 01:48 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:36 mcc wrote:On April 10 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:On April 10 2013 01:22 lord_nibbler wrote:On April 10 2013 00:40 marvellosity wrote:
Most of the coal mines that were closed were loss-making entities, being subsidised by the state.
While much of what you say I find a bit skewed, this quote makes me laugh, for it seems you actually think 'mines made a loss so one HAD to close them down'. I have some news for you: Nearly every big business in this world relies on subsidies! The whole agriculture sector in the US and Europe for example would collapse without subsidies. Nuclear power plants would literally close tomorrow if the state would not aid them. Not a single widebody aircraft in this world is build without massive state sponsorship! In our world every political decisions is ultimately made through subsidies, whether it is for example to invest in green energy or coal, whether is supporting mine workers or aiding home owners. Whether to rescue a bank or file insolvency for a factory, is never decided by an accountant objectively comparing profitability, it is decided by a politician. Germany for example kept a lot of it's mines open for decades longer, ever though they were just as loss-making as British one's. It was and is always a political choice! Ignoring that truth and quoting superficial reasons for what 'had to be done', is willfully denying reality. I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case. The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits. I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with? The latter, they should have subsidized them longer, but at the same time slowly build alternative employment opportunities. And only slowly phase the old industry out. That sounds like vaguely sensible, measured policy there. I am neither for/against the whole union/industry crushing that she did, economics is not something I feel comfortable with, though I do try. Not having some kind of transitional policy for those who will be fucked over is the crux of my contention with Thatcher's activities in that area.
Well that is the issue with most right-wing ideologues when they come to power. Even if they do something that was in some way necessary they do it without any regard for human suffering. Not that leftist ideologues are that much different, they just do different kind of nonsense. That is because they are ideologues, ideology comes first. They lack ethical calculation in their policies. That is what Thatcher was and good riddance when she left politics. Her death is actually irrelevant for anyone but her close ones.
|
On April 10 2013 01:58 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote:But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery. If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people. The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left.
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
|
On April 10 2013 01:36 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:31 marvellosity wrote:On April 10 2013 01:22 lord_nibbler wrote:On April 10 2013 00:40 marvellosity wrote:
Most of the coal mines that were closed were loss-making entities, being subsidised by the state.
While much of what you say I find a bit skewed, this quote makes me laugh, for it seems you actually think 'mines made a loss so one HAD to close them down'. I have some news for you: Nearly every big business in this world relies on subsidies! The whole agriculture sector in the US and Europe for example would collapse without subsidies. Nuclear power plants would literally close tomorrow if the state would not aid them. Not a single widebody aircraft in this world is build without massive state sponsorship! In our world every political decisions is ultimately made through subsidies, whether it is for example to invest in green energy or coal, whether is supporting mine workers or aiding home owners. Whether to rescue a bank or file insolvency for a factory, is never decided by an accountant objectively comparing profitability, it is decided by a politician. Germany for example kept a lot of it's mines open for decades longer, ever though they were just as loss-making as British one's. It was and is always a political choice! Ignoring that truth and quoting superficial reasons for what 'had to be done', is willfully denying reality. I agree with most of this, and actually you're just inferring what I said from what I actually said, which was just a factual statement It is indeed a political decision, but the way the arguments have been framed by various people in the thread is that Thatcher decided to viciously close down a perfectly good industry, when this was clearly not the case. The legacy still lasts to this day in the UK, where many northern towns and cities are virtually 'clients' of the government, where the government employs a huge proportion of the population and hands out state benefits. I guess the question is, where would these northern, former coal-mining areas be today if the government had continued subsidising them? Was the problem in closing the mines down, or is the problem in how these areas are/were subsequently dealt with? The latter, they should have subsidized them longer, but at the same time slowly build alternative employment opportunities. And only slowly phase the old industry out.
This guy gets it. Economics are important, but so is not completely destroying the lives of entire communities.
The state shouldn't completely subsidise everything command economy style but neither should it take a gigantic dump on them either in the name of economic progress. For the people who love a Thatcher/Tyrant comparison that is the exact mentality Stalin used to justify the Holodomor and Mao used for the Great Leap Forward.
|
On April 10 2013 02:02 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You have a fair point about unemployment but don't over emphasize it. It's just one metric and I'm not even sure the numbers you are using are correct. The numbers are correct and it's well-known that the Thatcher years were plagued by exceptional and unprecedented unemployment figures. "One metric"? We're talking millions of people's lives. What other metric would you suggest? GDP per capita? Look at the graph posted by Lord Nibbler. Only the rich benefited from that.
Well the graph also paints a rather bad picture before and after her "reign". As people pointed out some change was necessary, the problem was in the details of what she did, it could have been done much better and with much less suffering.
|
On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:58 Rossie wrote:On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote:But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery. If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people. The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left. That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
I'm not in favour of it myself but I think it's wholly realistic for the government to provide housing free of charge built by the government. How is it any difference in terms of realism than universal healthcare? You can't really call it utopian.
|
On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:58 Rossie wrote:On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote:But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery. If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people. The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left. That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution.
Thatcher took the public housing option that existed and introduced 'right to buy'. What this meant was that anyone could tory donors ended up owning a whole load of the existing public housing option and the government refused to replace the lost stock.
|
On April 10 2013 02:10 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote:On April 10 2013 01:58 Rossie wrote:On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote:But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery. If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people. The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left. That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution. I'm not in favour of it myself but I think it's wholly realistic for the government to provide housing free of charge built by the government. How is it any difference in terms of realism than universal healthcare? You can't really call it utopian.
Ok, utopia was maybe too strong a word. It is not practical would be better description. Market works pretty well in housing and better than what governments could do (if you assume social safety net). Market does not work that well in medicine, mostly due to information and ethical issues, thus the difference.
|
On April 10 2013 02:16 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote:On April 10 2013 01:58 Rossie wrote:On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote:But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery. If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people. The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left. That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution. Thatcher took the public housing option that existed and introduced 'right to buy'. What this meant was that anyone could tory donors ended up owning a whole load of the existing public housing option and the government refused to replace the lost stock.
That is not an argument for public housing. This just shows that Thatcher was very similar to her Czech version, Vaclav Klaus. She was big idol of his. As prime minister, just after fall of communism, he instituted terribly done privatization of state assets. Same case as what Thatcher did. It was necessary, but Klaus was ideologue and thus practical implementation was terrible and it became one big scam and corruption plot.
|
On April 10 2013 02:27 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:16 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote:On April 10 2013 01:58 Rossie wrote:On April 10 2013 00:12 lord_nibbler wrote:But if you talk about inflation, you could argue that for people with savings and home owners there was indeed a great recovery. If it weren't for Thatcher, housing would probably be free of charge to most people. The land is a public resource. Housing shouldn't cost a penny unless you want something posh. Such arguments were commonplace in the world before Thatcher (where the public had a monopoly on almost all basic infrastructure), yet nowadays are confined to the undercellers of a few marginalized elements of the far Left. That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution. Thatcher took the public housing option that existed and introduced 'right to buy'. What this meant was that anyone could tory donors ended up owning a whole load of the existing public housing option and the government refused to replace the lost stock. That is not an argument for public housing. This just shows that Thatcher was very similar to her Czech version, Vaclav Klaus. She was big idol of his. As prime minister, just after fall of communism, he instituted terribly done privatization of state assets. Same case as what Thatcher did. It was necessary, but Klaus was ideologue and thus practical implementation was terrible and it became one big scam and corruption plot.
My point was that there was no need to try to pull off social housing theoretically, it already existed. The legacy of her policy is people making profit from council housing, a hugely depleted stock (as a result of restrictions on reinvestment) with massive waiting lists and and a homeless problem.
The market solution to housing is massively inferior to what we would now have were it not for Thatcher.
|
On April 10 2013 02:02 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 01:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
You have a fair point about unemployment but don't over emphasize it. It's just one metric and I'm not even sure the numbers you are using are correct. The numbers are correct and it's well-known that the Thatcher years were plagued by exceptional and unprecedented unemployment figures. "One metric"? We're talking millions of people's lives. What other metric would you suggest? GDP per capita? Look at the graph posted by Lord Nibbler. Only the rich benefited from that.
Are you sure? If I eyeball numbers off of trading economics it looks like unemployment wasn't 2%, on average, in the 70's. Maybe it's a definitional thing?
![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/72070179/UKUnemp.JPG)
And yes looking at income would be a good thing as well. Lord Nibbler's graph shows that the rich disproportionally benefited from the income rise, not that they were the only group that benefited.
Inflation matters. Productivity matters. Lots of data points matter.
|
On April 10 2013 02:06 mcc wrote:
That is complete utopia. You could pull it off theoretically, but it is unnecessary distortion to the market. With good safety net, you can keep housing market "free" and still make sure that everybody has roof over their heads. For now it is much more effective solution. Hardly "utopia". We already do it with social housing, provided to a good chunk of the population.
And it's not like there's "innovation" in the housing sector. Who cares if that "market" is distorted?
|
On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Are you sure? If I eyeball numbers off of trading economics it looks like unemployment wasn't 2%, on average, in the 70's. Maybe it's a definitional thing? I must have been thinking unemployment rate at the start of the 70s. But still...unemployment rate of 4% isn't bad compared with 9%. Especially when you consider that most of that 4% was frictional unemployment (people taking breaks, inadequate maternity leave, etc.) Explained here. And let's not forget that participation in strikes (imagine how much security workers must have felt to go through with that) must have contributed. "Full employment" is generally the term used to characterize the 70s.
On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Inflation matters. Productivity matters. Lots of data points matter. No, it really doesn't. We have unemployment through the roof, whole communities laid to waste, almost no growth in real income for anyone not part of the elite, crime rate unseen for about 100 years, and a broken economy left to subsequent generations. You're simply looking for nits to pick. We have enough information to reach a conclusion that's as sure as we can ever hope for in social and economic matters.
|
On April 10 2013 03:26 Rossie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Are you sure? If I eyeball numbers off of trading economics it looks like unemployment wasn't 2%, on average, in the 70's. Maybe it's a definitional thing? I must have been thinking unemployment rate at the start of the 70s. But still...unemployment rate of 4% isn't bad compared with 9%. Especially when you consider that most of that 4% was frictional unemployment (people taking breaks, inadequate maternity leave, etc.) Explained here. And let's not forget that participation in strikes (imagine how much security workers must have felt to go through with that) must have contributed. "Full employment" is generally the term used to characterize the 70s.
Yes, the economy was more or less at 'full employment' during the 70's. The economy probably went beyond full employment at times as well. Your definition is off though - frictional unemployment is not about people taking breaks or going on maternity leave.
Show nested quote +On April 10 2013 02:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Inflation matters. Productivity matters. Lots of data points matter. No, it really doesn't. We have unemployment through the roof, whole communities laid to waste, almost no growth in real income for anyone not part of the elite, crime rate unseen for about 100 years, and a broken economy left to subsequent generations. You're simply looking for nits to pick. We have enough information to reach a conclusion that's as sure as we can ever hope for in social and economic matters.
No, the economy was stronger. Income was stronger (particularly in relation to the UK's peers) - and grew for non-elites as well. Inflation was also contained.
The economic record is mixed - some good some bad. You need to acknowledge the good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://aspoireland.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/us-and-uk-oil-production1.png?w=500&h=333)
![[image loading]](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41029000/gif/_41029086_disposable_income416.gif)
