who are you?

[alunevans]

My goodness....

Where should I start? Since you brought up the "Tories" (I'm guessing you mean Thatcher's administration?), I will talk briefly about Thatcher's economic policies and then go back to your friend's fundamental question about whether the policies allowed the elite to exploit the under-privileged.

Without going into too much detail, I will outline the major economic policies that were behind the so called "Thatcherism":

- Commitment to freeing up the market
- More focus on monetary policy to control inflation
- Allow for more public ownership (in shares and assets)
- De-regulation of certain industries to bring more competition and increase efficiency
- Reduce the size of government
- Reduce the power of trade unions

All the above were ideas strongly advocated by Milton Friedman well before the early 80's when there was a wide polarization of opinion. Now, the above ideas are accepted in almost every economics department in the world. If you disagree with the any of the policies above, then you are disagreeing with virtually the entire economics profession. The ideas should be clear to anyone (Econ major or not) who has taken Econ 101.

Let me know if you disagree with any of the above polices, I'll be more than happy to explain it for you.

Yeah I disagree and I don't need it explaining thank you. I understand it very well. When does the Patronise 101 class start. I would like to reach your level one day.

[paulcooper4]

Wow...I admit that I have been taken aback by all these attacks...

I disagree with more 'decent' posts made by Disco, Cacaodemon and Red-Polo and I am inclined to have a healthy debate with them but its clear to me that most of the people here have been negatively affected by the policies, and whatever I say will be immediately dismissed and ridiculed.

But let me say just one thing about my arguments above. In essence, I was defending Milton Friedman NOT Margaret Thatcher. It's a big difference. Why? Because while both Friedman and Thatcher proposes de-regulation and privatization, Friedman actually DOES something to prevent a "two-tier society" from forming (unlike Thatcher). If you actually bothered to properly read my response instead of just casually skimming it through, you will notice that I talk about the NEGATIVE INCOME TAX system. That is such a vital component of Friedman's de-regulation/privatization argument that if you take it out then it erases the whole objective of equality that Friedman advocates. It is a tax system that helps the poor and people in the lower end of the income distribution. There is no other tax system in the world today that helps the poor in the way negative income tax does. How can possibly someone who has been fighting and debating for this system for well over 40 years be accused of not giving a damn about the displaced working class?

Anyways, I find the reactions here VERY interesting. It seems to me that Margaret Thatcher was and still is a very polarizing figure in the UK. I've met a lot of British people over the years. And on rare chances that we
talked about Thatcher, the general opinion was very positive. My colleague at the investment bank I used to work in New York was from the UK and although we did not talk much about Thatcher, I do still remember how he kept on citing the example of Thatcher's privatization program as it was some model every other country had to follow (we were doing a CCA of some US/latin america steel companies). So I'm a bit shocked that not only was there an objection to Thatcher's ideas but an overwhelming and hostile one at that. In hindsight I guess it is understandable since this is a Liverpool forum, and the city of Liverpool happen to be one of the worst hit cities. Seems to me that the Brits has to either hate or love Thatcher...

nothing against ya mate, in fact from most posts ive read by you I quite like you for what its worth. But youre flogging a dead horse here mate with your thatcher talk. How can I put this.......
**** OFF OUT OF MY THREAD AND START A THATCHERTALK THREAD OF YOUR OWN
I hope that was clear enough

[univofchicago]

**** OFF OUT OF MY THREAD AND START A THATCHERTALK THREAD OF YOUR OWN
I hope that was clear enough

Sorry Paul,

For the third time I apologise

[paulcooper4]

Sorry Paul,

For the third time I apologise

[The Glove]

I've met a lot of British people over the years. And on rare chances that we talked about Thatcher, the general opinion was very positive. My colleague at the investment bank I used to work in New York was from the UK and although we did not talk much about Thatcher, I do still remember how he kept on citing the example of Thatcher's privatization program as it was some model every other country had to follow

Your mate truly is an investment banker.

[rodo]

yeah WHO ARE YE WHO ARE YE

[paulcooper4]

Your mate truly is an investment banker.

[disco]

univofchicago = I'm a bit too young (just!) and not from Liverpool/North England to fully understand the effect Thatcher had on the region - although I'm aware of the high unemployment levels in the 80s/early 90s

I was talking in general :

Monetary Economics might work in theory, but it doesn't (seem to) work in practise. Service AREN'T more efficient, prices ARE higher, rich get richer, poor get poorer. If I've understood you correctly then you're almost saying the same thing - it should work in theory.

I've heard about 'Negative Income Tax' : interesting theory which has worked in some countries. Heard it being suggested by Conservatives (I think?) recently.

In reality, I believe you need a mixture of nationalism and privatisation. You only need to go to a few European countries where public transport is still nationalised to realise how poor public transport is in the UK by comparison

[paulcooper4]

My own thread is boring the living ****e out of me

[Rich]

So, about Maggie then........

[paulcooper4]

In the famous words of John Smith,
Disco, univ, YER BARRED!

[disco]

univofchicago = I'm a bit too young (just!) and not from Liverpool/North England to fully understand the effect Thatcher had on the region - although I'm aware of the high unemployment levels in the 80s/early 90s

I was talking in general :

Monetary Economics might work in theory, but it doesn't (seem to) work in practise. Service AREN'T more efficient, prices ARE higher, rich get richer, poor get poorer. If I've understood you correctly then you're almost saying the same thing - it should work in theory.

I've heard about 'Negative Income Tax' : interesting theory which has worked in some countries. Heard it being suggested by Conservatives (I think?) recently.

In reality, I believe you need a mixture of nationalism and privatisation. You only need to go to a few European countries where public transport is still nationalised to realise how poor public transport is in the UK by comparison

If you think about it it's obvious : as soon as you introduce shareholders the priority becomes maximising profits, not efficiency.

Counter-argument is having tough regulations : don't make me laugh

[alunevans]

theres only one freakonomic around here mate, and thats you if youre attempting to say anything positive about evil maggie on a liverpool site my friend. Trust me, come and have a little weekend break in liverpool and go around a few working mans clubs. Enlighten them on why maggie is good and I think your eyes will be opened to what a twisted horrible **** she is/was.

his eyes wouldn't be opened. they'd be blackened.

[paulcooper4]

If you think about it it's obvious : as soon as you introduce shareholders the priority becomes maximising profits, not efficiency.

Counter-argument is having tough regulations : don't make me laugh

WILL YA **** OFF!!!

[disco]

In the famous words of John Smith,
Disco, univ, YER BARRED!

Sorry mate, but we're all in agreement with your thread : 'Who are ya' sucks balls

Move along