Margaret Thatcher has died

M

MrseJosephJonas

New member
Maybe I'm missing something, but the chart shows that real earnings were higher in the Eighties than they were in the Seventies. So yes, looking at the real earnings column I see the average bloke did better in the Eighties than they did in the Seventies; that's "doing well" isn't it?

Again, I may be reading the information you presented wrongly, am I missing something?
 
S

Sims

New member
I can understand where you are coming from, but if it's regulated properly I think it can work. And competition and profit must always be structured in a way that ties together the performance with the ability to profit; in other words profit is the incentive to do as good an all round job as possible.

I think this can apply to any product or service theoretically, although I accept that there are special cases in reality where things might not work in a clear cut way.

It's always a case by case basis how these things would get structured.

Regards private pensions, I agree. I see them as a bit of a scam anyway, as they tend to get gobbled up when you're gone and your next of kin lose out.. I think you're better of investing it yourself.
 
F

fiza_618

New member
sorry, i'll be more precise then.

in my view, when you take into account rising poverty (table i posted earlier) and inequality, rising prices, savings rates, overly high inflation, stagnant average income (sorry, but a 1 or 2 percentage point rise is stagnant), then my view is that no, the average person did not do well do well during thatcher's time. as a percentage of gdp, the average person actually lost ground compared to the higher income quintiles.

look i don't want to belabor the discussion. i grew up during the 80's too. and no, the 80's were not good for average people in the states. and i think, the data shows that they were not good for the average british person during the 80's.

clearly, you have a different view. show me some data then.
 
A

alk99

New member
ok, I'll answer my own question here then. The reason Heath introduced the 3day week was due to the necessity to conserve energy.

This was due to the coal miners strike action. A situation where a union can bring a country to that point is a joke. Would we really put up with it now, you think it's a right or good situation? I know I don't, not now, not then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
 
X

xman

Member
Hard to believe anyone, talking broadly there are exceptions, trully feel's privitized industry and services run with the aim of turning a profit are more efficent than when there nationalised. Usually people who take this stance have somthing to gain from governments who favour privitization.
 
A

AlexisInfectious®

Active member
Average real earnings according to the chart you posted went up from around £15,000 at the beginning of the Eighties to around £18,750 around the end of the decade. That is almost 20% increase.

Inflation in the UK fell through the Eighties. From around 20% to below 5%. There was a spike where it went to 10% somewhere towards the late eighties/ nineties. But that's more or less how inflation went in the Eighties in the UK. I looked at a chart earlier myself regards inflation data. I'm sure you will see similar figures, and it's easy to find.

If I recall savings rates were a lot better in that decade than they are now. Interest rates and inflation are usually tied to each other. Higher interest rates are used to keep a lid on inflation, so if inflation is falling, interest rates tend to do so too. Also you can't have high interest on savings and low interest on debt and mortgages. So you have to go with one or other. Seeing as we were borrowing more during this period it's probably better that interest rates declined.
 
J

julietravelcaster

New member
You might find the service more to your liking, but that would usually be because the cost is so massive and the government is throwing money at it. In the real world it would fail. But of course governments don't run a business in the real world, whenever they need to inject cash into something they have mismanaged (oh yeah that never happens!) they'll just take it from your pocket. Easy!
 
E

EvanD

Member
what good does it do an average bloke if their pay went up by 20% (again, adjusted for inflation) but the prices of things they need to buy went up by 100%?



how many years in the 80's was inflation below 5%?
 
J

Jonnyboy

Member
Well regardless of what most members of MAP think about her, over the last decade she has been voted either 1st or 2nd (after Churchill) as the most popular Prime Minister ever.
 
M

MarianneF

New member
Because she has acolytes.

There are a lot of Americans who would vote Dubya as the greatest President ever too.

I bet Thatcher would be voted the most unpopular prime minister ever, as well.

Politicians are not supposed to be that divisive.
 
R

rockguy1403

New member
Most polls I've seen rate FDR, Reagan and Clinton, I'm yet to see one where Bush is the most popular, so your point isn't valid.

You could bet all you like, but without any evidence you have no proof.
 
C

Chimchar

New member
I would like to see a list were Bush is even in the top 5.

http://www.ranker.com/crowdranked-list/the-u-s-presidents-from-best-to-worst
 
G

ghwentyphrsashbweje

Member
i think it's pretty funny that she's even remotely near the top.

i don't have data or hard survey facts. but my guess as to why reagan is so popular here, is that he made people feel good about themselves, which is a good thing because he was robbing the people that put him into power. my feeling is generally the same for thatcher, who ushered in the same neo-liberal policies with basically the same results. but honestly, i don't know enough about her popular appeal to make any judgment.
 
B

Biscuithead

Member
Which is why the police are now scouring twitter in case anyone is so over-whelmed with gratitude that they plan to flood her funeral with kittens and rainbows.
 
M

mis_silverheart

New member
Ah right I see your logic there. The country can't house the homeless so we might as well sell off all the social housing we do have? You're desperately clutching at straws with your analogy. Fishing never bought anybody a home unless they were a trawler captain.
 
Top