Margaret Thatcher has died

C

CarolynS

Member
Even though im content in tax money paying for the funeral. I hate being told "the government is paying"

Was unaware the government had its own money source...
 
J

james_james03

New member
Re order that table so it is just in terms of up votes and he's among the most popular post war presidents. But give it a decade or two for the rose tinted spectacles (and historical revisionism) to set in and he'll have the same kind of popularity that Thatcher and Reagan do now.
 
A

arm36108

Member
All in all, I would say the UK privatisation program was successful. It's not perfect, and I think it's the governments fault in not structuring and regulating sectors/ utilities as best it could. The private sector will do what it will, within the law.

Take the Banking and financial sector, what a massive mess we made out of regulating it. If you want an example of how a privatised sector has worked really well you only need look at Telecoms as a successful example.

Also privatisation became a global trend in recent times, following our lead. Article is here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/thatchers-economic-reforms-influenced-the-world-but-the-next-big-changes-wont-come-from-britain-8566165.html

What I don't really understand is the scepticism, we see it work well with other products and services, (room for improvements in some cases, sure) so why not across the board. What are people so distrustful about? I'd be much more inclined to distrust politicians and government departments and bureaucracy to manage industry and services efficiently.

When it comes to wasteful spending, no one really has a patch on them.
 
W

WayneKerr

Member
Let me get this straight. Your saying the government did a lousy job when running these on there own.

Then when they were privatized and things went poorly it was the governments fault for not regulating these sectors/ utilities correctly because


So, it's the governments fault if they run it. It's the governments fault if they over regulate, it's the governments fault if they under regulate.

Because the private sector will do what they will and that's not their fault.

What a load of tripe.
 
L

LaraSantos

New member
The bulk of social housing sold was bought by the occupiers. Why is it a problem for them to own that property where they live rather than keep it as government stock? That person now has a home, so you don't need social housing for them anymore. I think it's better for those people to have gotten a home rather than stay as they were.

How many homeless people do we actually have in this country. I mean people who genuinely have no roof over their head ?

In 1971 owner occupancy was 50% by 1981 it had risen to 56% and by the end of that decade was 67%. Social housing was as follows, 1971:31%, 1981:33%, 1991:25%. Private renting fell off during this period. From 19% in 1971, 11% in 1981, and 9% in 1991.

The figures up to 2008 show private renting had got up to 14% from 10% in 2001. So private renting is still lower than it was back in 1971.

These figures show the shift from social housing to private ownership, again I fail to see this as a bad thing in of itself. Not doing it would not have given homes to the homeless. So why would you deny all these people the opportunity of owning their own home and the benefits of seeing their investment grow, for what ??

The rough sleeping count in 2010 was 1768 in England.
 
C

cmcateer219

New member
Maybe you hadn't noticed but it's the government that passes all laws and regulates everything. It has total control of it's boundary and what happens inside it. therefore who else is responsible. If people haven't broken any law what are they to blame for exactly?

It's just human nature to maximise your gains where possible; if you are in a position to do so within the law.

Seriously do you blame a dog for barking as well?
 
A

Aramsko

Member
Your are right, people have no responsibility to behave in a reasonable manner on their own. If the government doesn't specifically tell you not to poison the drinking water then it is ok to poison the drinking water, of course as long as it isn't the water you drink yourself.

The same thing with making as much money as possible by creating novel and new banking instruments that can be used to hide risk and avoid existing regulation. Doesn't matter how many peoples lives you ruin as long as you don't break the law and make a nice profit on the side.

Again, what a load of tripe.
 
A

animemadness

New member
Sorry I didn't realize poisoning people was legal ?

As for the banking; that's exactly what I'm talking about, why were the right government controls not in place to stop banking screwing everyone over?

It's the politicians fault. You can't expect self regulation to work in a competitive free market. That shouldn't be very difficult for politicians and governments to figure out. Ultimately that is their failing, rather than the sector itself.
 
W

WillieD

New member
Sure, that's fair enough. At the time some deregulation was in order, but that's a far cry to where we ended up. banking got a lot bigger and more diverse in latter decades. You can't see the future, so if it had been reviewed properly and regularly I'd like to think the dangers would have been picked up on and measures put in place. Alas that's not what happened.
 
B

Bootsyglov

New member
Sure it was, look at the amount of poison that was dumped into the water supplies until the government finally stepped in. Even then the business leaders howled that it gave overseas companies an unfair advantage and they shouldn't be held to any higher standard than that of their competitors.



How was government to know that the banks were going to create a whole new class of very complex financial instruments whose sole purpose was to hide risk and maximize profit for those who traded in these documents. And then they sold the documents to themselves using their investors money. Win-win on their side since all the risk is being taken by the investors who don't even know what's going on.

BTW, after these companies almost collapsed the global economy how many of their top executives went to jail?

Thank god that in the US the Supreme Court determined that money is a form of free speech and regulating contributions to politicians is pretty much a no-no.

Do really believe all the stuff you post here?
 
G

GenL

Member
nice game to play. deregulate to "allow capitalism to flourish", yet, when you do that and the entire world's banking system is on the brink of collapse, "why didn't you regulate?".

per mike, what a load of tripe.
 
O

Outsider

Member
What I also like is that the party of big business here in the US, the Republicans, is doing all it can to shrink the size of government so that even when the laws are in place there will be little or no way to enforce them.
 
A

AckiLeeZ

New member
ok, so how much did the cost of living increase in the previous decade with which we are comparing?

It's something like 250%!! between 1970 prices and 1980 prices. Cost of living is always on the rise it seems. But it's clear from these figures that the rise in cost of living was dramatically lower in the Eighties than the previous decade.

So compared to the previous decade it's a much better economic performance. And people having lived through both decades would certainly have noticed the difference. Something else you haven't taken into account is the windfall the rise in the average house price gave people.

It averages to about £5,000 per annum through the decade of the eighties. Given that you can imagine how the average homeowner felt pretty flush through that decade right ?

All in all to say on average people did better financially in the eighties than the previous decade I think is quite easy and fair to say given these numbers. Rather than say their finances were crushed.

Having said that, I'm not ignorant to a lot of pain some people felt. People that lost their jobs in particular.




There was a sharp fall between 80-83. between 83-88 it bounced around between 3 - 7 %, then the spike I spoke of towards the end of the decade.
 
T

taylorsaysrelax

New member
So you think one event of deregulation is sufficient for how long ?

Regulation should be an on going process, that's just common sense. Not let's deregulate something then ignore it for the next 30 years. That's pathetic thinking. No one really knows what the market will look like a year or two from now. Let alone 20-30 years in the future.
 
J

JennyGordron

New member
How are you to develop regulations for financial instruments that don't exist yet?

How are you to write regulations for the creative and underhanded ways these corporations develop new ways to avoid the regulations that exist?

How do you manage enforcing these regulations when the businesses finance the reelection of politicians whose job it is to neuter the enforcement agencies?

I have some idea's but they involve blindfolds, rifles, and brick walls.
 
Top