tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post9123041468583761009..comments2024-03-21T20:29:29.030+13:00Comments on Life Behind the <u>IR</u>on <u>D</u>rape: Premise Checking Chris Trotter: Mining, Protest, Indigenous Rights, Externalities, Free Markets.Mark Hubbardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comBlogger150125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-48364245820350334082013-04-16T10:15:30.799+12:002013-04-16T10:15:30.799+12:00To Nic:
I’ve barely read the last three of your p...To Nic:<br /><br />I’ve barely read the last three of your posts above, only enough to see Nasty Nic twisting everything again. If I read them, I have to answer, that’s how I’m built. But I’ve set goals for work I want to get done on my holiday, and we have friends and their children coming for five days from Saturday, so, I no doubt will read your comments end of next week, but in the meantime, I’m working (possibly blogging) on my own ‘stuff’ … although …<br /><br />My ‘final’ word is you don’t seem to understand it’s always about philosophy, and always, again, about freedom versus statism. You morally lose this thread, and you will morally lose every thread you conduct for the following simple reason:<br /><br />I advocate a world where whatever you or others group-think, whatever claim you would put on my property, my labour, my mind for the common good, none of that affects me as I am free to do just whatever the hell I wish, so long as I harm no other individual or group. Conversely, you are free to do as you wish, as nothing I think or do is a claim on you. I advocate the peaceful, voluntary society.<br /><br />You, however, are arguing always for the forced institution of the claim at the gun of government. You advocate the world of the slave, the world turning on force and coercion, and nothing else. Your’s is a vicious society built on a violent theft, enacted every second of the day and night, on every individual. You always advocate the sacrifice of the individual to the mob.<br /><br />You lose morally, every damned time. And there is not a single valid argument you can raise against that.<br />Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-24790041597148999442013-04-16T10:14:11.092+12:002013-04-16T10:14:11.092+12:00Nasty, nasty, nasty, Nic. Nic the Nasty. The conte...Nasty, nasty, nasty, Nic. Nic the Nasty. The contextless twisting and turning of every word. I've written my further reply at the end of this thread below.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-71938758762179865712013-04-16T01:13:02.576+12:002013-04-16T01:13:02.576+12:00"In your final comment I see nasty Nic, yet a..."In your final comment I see nasty Nic, yet again.", Yes I can see why you would be appalled at the concept of you being responsible for what you decide to write.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-8608751918027566422013-04-16T01:06:07.646+12:002013-04-16T01:06:07.646+12:00"You believe in zero-sum: you're wrong.&q..."You believe in zero-sum: you're wrong.".<br /><br />In this discussion by David Brooks he points out that tax cuts, as much as tax increases are a zero sum game.<br /><br />"Unlike the supply-side argument, this is a straight zero-sum proposition. There's a pot of money and we should have it, not the folks in Washington. No wonder the polls show only moderate support for a tax cut. ''I want that money'' is not exactly an inspiring rallying cry or a coherent organizing principle for tax reform."<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/01/opinion/the-zero-sum-tax-cut.html<br /><br />So this takes us back to the apparently non zero sum economic game, a theory tested by the Reagan term. Looking at the data we see a telling fact however (which you are well aware of Mark). There was a massive rise in inequality under Reagan, the rising tide didn't lift all boats, more and more of the boats were left underwater (meaning in poverty in this case). Unfortunately the non-zero-sum game proves to be a loser for the vast majority of the electorate.<br /><br />Your statement, "The fact is, even after the Keynesian bust, those on low incomes are still better off than their parents, and their parents before them.", makes for a piss poor excuse for anything. At the point of abolition slaves in the US were far, far better off than the slaves at the time of Columbus. Of course this provides absolutely no justification for slavery as an institution. Stalin's modernisation within a generation had the same kind of economic results, would you use that justification for his totalitarian regime?<br /><br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-10497407929250556622013-04-16T00:40:25.115+12:002013-04-16T00:40:25.115+12:00This last post says rather a lot about your positi...This last post says rather a lot about your position in fact.<br /><br />"And I don't care whether you're right or wrong.", Clearly this blog doesn't have an obligation to the facts then. If however your intention is simply to spread propaganda for your agenda, then facts don't matter right or wrong facts.<br /><br />"If you're right then I'll simply say the inequality is caused by crony capitalism; or dependency grown by statism; .... etc, all points that are right. ", But clearly your opinion, what you say is beside the point, it can't change the actual nature of what we are discussing, and the rationale you give can't be modified to suite your conclusions without admitting your original reasoning was invalid.<br /><br />"Maggie was a rare thing, a radical Tory set on change, not a conservative, and perhaps one of her most surprising achievements was the change she made in New Labour which under Blair and after largely didn't change her reforms: didn't renationalise industries, didn't repower unions, because they knew to do so would be to enter third world status again.", drawing this point together with the previous paragraph we observe you say there has not been a significant change since Thatcher. In fact, if you were paying attention, I questioned if there had been an essential change since Thatcher. Because we both agree that there has been an economic collapse, it is worth trying to decipher why this occurred. You call it repeatedly Keynesian Socialism, while I simply say there has been no significant change in between her economics and the neo-liberal policies of the New Labour government which followed. Of course I find it hard to see beyond your label, Keynesian Socialism, to what this actually means. As I just said, the primary difference seems to be the side of the house from which the government comes. Its hard to see anything but economic partisanship in this position, surely what matters is what the government changes, not who is in office or who changes things.<br /><br />Going back to the Guardians charts in fact, what we observe is a housing bubble which began under Thatcher, though the second leg continued the trend. We also don't observe much change in inequality since she left office, GINI coefficients and poverty levels stayed fairly level since then. That absolutely undermines your statements that the inequality is primarily caused by the subsequent 'crony capitalism' and 'dependency grown by statism', though this might well apply with the removal of the word subsequent, and the addition of the point that Thatcherism exaggerated these more than subsequent policies.<br /><br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-74213522281727095602013-04-15T08:28:22.918+12:002013-04-15T08:28:22.918+12:00"This income inequality stuff is just pure sp..."This income inequality stuff is just pure spin. People recognise the problem, so the argument falls back to denying that the problem is a problem, but it is."<br /><br />Says you, Nic, who's been spinning throughout this thread.. And I don't care whether you're right or wrong. If you're right then I'll simply say the inequality is caused by crony capitalism; or dependency grown by statism; .... etc, all points that are right. The fact is, even after the Keynesian bust, those on low incomes are still better off than their parents, and their parents before them.<br /><br />You believe in zero-sum: you're wrong. I want a free society and it's about freedom versus statism. <br /><br />In your final comment I see nasty Nic, yet again.<br /><br />And talking income inequality, you're investing a lot of time on this thread, so are obviously not too hard up? The Thatcher protestors, many so young they weren't even alive when she was PM, don't seem too hard up either: they certainly had enough money for booze. Ironically, that could largely be due to Maggie rescuing an economy Chancellor Helmut Schmidt called third world pre-1979, providing the tax take now for their benefits.<br /><br />Maggie was a rare thing, a radical Tory set on change, not a conservative, and perhaps one of her most surprising achievements was the change she made in New Labour which under Blair and after largely didn't change her reforms: didn't renationalise industries, didn't repower unions, because they knew to do so would be to enter third world status again.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-82916995274273663202013-04-14T22:59:52.165+12:002013-04-14T22:59:52.165+12:00You wrote the blog post, apparently inspired by my...You wrote the blog post, apparently inspired by my comment, but you wrote it. If you want to engage in political point scoring over her dead body, that is your choice.<br /><br />Chris Trotter managed to a more fitting eulogy to her legacy in fact.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-57332104132602508512013-04-14T22:57:08.907+12:002013-04-14T22:57:08.907+12:00This income inequality stuff is just pure spin. Pe...This income inequality stuff is just pure spin. People recognise the problem, so the argument falls back to denying that the problem is a problem, but it is.<br /><br />"While a society with high levels of inequality could in theory also be a highly fluid one, the reality is that the more egalitarian countries (for example, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland) also tend to be the societies with the highest rates of social mobility."<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerome-karabel/grand-illusion-mobility-inequality-and-the-american-dream_b_1933238.html<br /><br />While the stories of Schmidtz and Bordeaux are opinion this story was actually based on research.<br /><br />The demographics story very miss-leading. Handily for Mark Perry's narrative there was a major shift in income inequality in the US, about 30 years ago. The people who were worst hit by this are not yet over 65. When they are retired, then their poverty will become serious. That's the kind of spin you expect from a right wing think tank of course.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-90657772039848648562013-04-14T09:13:02.599+12:002013-04-14T09:13:02.599+12:00What I mean in the above is how redistributive law...What I mean in the above is how redistributive law making is about the state invading and taking an individual's property, whereas in a free society, law is about protecting that property, and most particularly from the state.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-56894362276180849502013-04-14T09:08:56.285+12:002013-04-14T09:08:56.285+12:00But, it's about staism versus freedom.
It'...But, it's about staism versus freedom.<br /><br />It's about a free, voluntary society, or a slave society.<br /><br />Quoting my last post, and you'll find this throughout my blog:<br /><br />http://lifebehindtheirondrape.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/paean-to-individualism-maggie-thatchers.html<br /><br />"... when a society loses sight of the fact it is made up of individuals relating and transacting peacefully and voluntarily under the tenets of a classical liberal laissez faire, then it quickly slides into the barbarity of the collectivist Gulags that sickened the Free World throughout the twentieth century. Societies, which Maggie rightly saw as the enemy of freedom, that have not set their sights on the rule of law protecting their smallest minority, the individual, have allowed tyrants to bully them into wiping out the individual, en masse."<br /><br />And:<br /><br />"LudditeJourno’s remarks miss an important truth that I have yet to find someone from the Left who can comprehend: libertarians, those of us who want the small state and free lives, understand we live, as the cliché goes, ‘in the village’, we relish it, as we relish arts, culture, et al. The point of difference is we understand, as Orwell did above, all of this is only possible when the village doesn’t own us, as individuals: once that happens we are slaves, subject to the seemingly depthless viciousness of the mob mind.<br /><br />And if you want to know how vicious that barbarity of the collectivist based society LudditeJourno wants is, look at the vicious reaction of the Left on the death of this grand individual. Maggie understood this viciousness was precisely what individuals must be protected from, that’s why she espoused classical liberalism in much of her policy (not all of it)."Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-13291153276563425502013-04-14T09:02:19.562+12:002013-04-14T09:02:19.562+12:00You want numbers, then in US context read Mark Per...You want numbers, then in US context read Mark Perry:<br /><br />http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/01/income-inequality-can-be-explained-by-demographics-and-because-the-demographics-change-theres-income-mobility/#mbl<br /><br />"The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes, which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever. Fortunately, evidence shows that individuals and households move up and down the income quintiles over their lifetimes as the key demographic variables highlighted above change.<br /><br />It’s highly likely that most of today’s high-income, college-educated, married individuals who are now in their peak earning years were in a lower-income quintile in their prior, single younger years, before they acquired education and job experience. It’s also likely that individuals in today’s top income quintiles will move back down to a lower income quintile in the future in their retirement years, which is just part of the natural lifetime cycle of moving up and down the income quintiles for most Americans. So when we hear reports about an “income inequality crisis” in America, we should keep in mind that basic household demographics go a long way towards explaining the differences in household income in the United States. And because the key income-determining demographic variables change over a person’s life, so does income mobility."Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-54713803175703340422013-04-14T08:59:37.050+12:002013-04-14T08:59:37.050+12:00David Schmidtz, from Social and Individual Respons...David Schmidtz, from Social and Individual Responsibility:<br /><br />"The gap between the incomes of the rich and the poor seems to have widened over the past thirty years. What does it mean? Does it mean some people’s incomes have always been high, other people’s will always be low, and the gap has widened in real terms? Or does it mean people who are young and poor now have better opportunities than young people had thirty years ago – people are earning more as they age than their counterparts earned thirty years ago, thus producing a gap between poor twenty-year-olds and rich fifty-year-olds that is larger now than it was thirty years ago?"<br /><br />Then Economist Donald Boudreaux on this quotation:<br /><br />"This question is vital, yet it is seldom asked. If the correct answer is the first that Schmidtz mentions, then people concerned about income inequality have a salient fact upon which to hang their concern (as well as to hang their proposals for income redistribution). But if the correct answer is the second that Schmidtz mentions — and this is the one that Schmidtz himself believes to be correct — the matter is entirely different. Same fact, entirely different conclusion — for if the second answer is correct, the bulk of people in the lowest income quintile at any time are made better off by the growing gap. In this case, proposals to close this gap through tax, welfare, and regulatory policies will reduce the welfare of most people whose incomes are currently low."Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-25330261770996236862013-04-14T08:54:06.589+12:002013-04-14T08:54:06.589+12:00David Rose:
"In his Dec. 20 op-ed “America’s...David Rose:<br /><br />"In his Dec. 20 op-ed “America’s Dangerous Powerball Economy,” Arthur Brooks quite correctly points out that earned income, indeed earned success generally, affects our happiness very differently than unearned income or success.<br /><br />I would like to extend his point further with something I’ve told my college students for years.<br /><br />In general, the creation of wealth is edifying. When only voluntary transactions are permitted, the creation of wealth requires cooperation, and this brings out the best in us.<br /><br />Piles of wealth, however, tend to be corrupting. The fixed nature of a pile is all about apportionment, not cooperation, and this zero-sum game tends to bring out the worst in us.<br /><br />It follows directly that no matter how noble the ends, government redistribution (which is hardly voluntary) tends to bring out the worst in us. Rising government redistribution over the past 75 years has produced ample evidence of this point.<br /><br />We are in this mess because we have allowed our culture to be dominated by those who are bent on spreading the false and self-serving narrative that our economy is a giant zero-sum game.<br /><br />As such, we might as well have the government do the dividing.<br /><br />Small wonder why our politics have become increasingly about who you are for rather than what you are for."Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-38777989063283303192013-04-14T08:52:28.557+12:002013-04-14T08:52:28.557+12:00If you look up thread, I believe you brought up Ma...If you look up thread, I believe you brought up Maggie first.<br /><br />It's about statism or freedom. But you'll never get that.<br /><br />Income inequality: again, my byline. Thanks to the limited capatalism with it's innovation we've had, I've had more opportinity than my parents, etc. <br /><br />Regarding inequality, as Alan Reynold's said:<br /><br />"Measuring the growth of incomes or the inequality of incomes is a little like Olympic figure skating – full of dangerous leaps and twirls and not nearly as easy as it looks. Yet the growth and inequality of incomes are topics that seem to inspire many people to form very strong opinions about very weak statistics."<br /><br />I'm running out of time to edit my novel before I go back to the mill, so you're getting other people's wise words today.<br /><br />Continued ...<br /><br />Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-54797909824202823382013-04-14T01:30:23.348+12:002013-04-14T01:30:23.348+12:00As I pointed out the atomisation of the 'indiv...As I pointed out the atomisation of the 'individual' (and she didn't promote uniform individualism, only individualism to the part of the electorate which she didn't represent) has had a tremendous negative economic impact. Its also something which has not been reversed by the following governments. An impact which you promote as a positive thing (on philosophic grounds), apparently it 'saved the British economy'.<br /><br />We ask the question, why philosophically should the individual be committed to 'the saving of the British economy', when it will certainly have a negative impact on them economically. I should point out that this future was anticipated and known by those affected, they were no miss apprehension, and they were correct in their anticipation of future lower economic rewards for them. Surely you are not claiming there is some inherent positive value to the economy other than the economic well being it provides?<br /><br />Further more on your claiming she promoted the rule of law, is devoid of content. Every government is for the rule of law, the law is the governments best source of power. I doubt you were implying that she was pushing for more consolidation of government power, though that's obviously true. To say that she actually applied the law more fairly, the rule of law then meaning fair law, well this implies that she will be judged as encouraging justice. Basically the opposite is true, she was very divisive. That apart from the obvious direct cases such as shielding Pinochet from the judiciary.<br /><br />You continue to hide behind blank platitudes the ethical meaning of the narrative you want to present. If you want to say that there is positive moral value to an economy of greater income inequality, then you should state that point plainly. Failure to do so means you are attempting to divert from the true nature of the ethical judgement.<br /><br />"Are you with the street party rabble, Nic?" No. You decided to engage in political point scoring over Thatchers death, not me.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-12695283436916753762013-04-14T00:03:30.947+12:002013-04-14T00:03:30.947+12:00No, you're reading with your blindfold on agai...No, you're reading with your blindfold on again. I said Maggie promoted individualism and the rule of law, over slavery and the viciousness of the mob.<br /><br />Are you with the street party rabble, Nic?<br /><br />Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-78414999024978163672013-04-13T23:38:03.125+12:002013-04-13T23:38:03.125+12:00If the context is relevant, you should have discus...If the context is relevant, you should have discussed it as you said you would. What philosophic contribution did she present?<br /><br />You decided instead, to discuss the events surrounding her death, which is plainly irrelevant as she has been out of public for quite a time due to her illness.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-91463063116217888062013-04-13T23:14:59.158+12:002013-04-13T23:14:59.158+12:00"Again, to say Thatcherism didn't save th..."Again, to say Thatcherism didn't save the economy of the UK, is to defy reality, Nic, because it is against the weight of evidence. The 2008 bust was from the bubbles caused by Keynesian socialism, the same bubbles Keynesian socialism is building all over again."<br /><br />Going back to the Guardians charts, one might ask when this horrendous Keynesian socialism was introduced. Because plainly since Thatcher left office there has been little change in the course of the economy. The main exceptions being, unemployment (which fell back until 2008), interest rates (have been lower and more stable), and house prices have gone through a second bubble (1992-2008).<br /><br />Otherwise, union membership has been low (and flat), inequality (flat and high), the poverty rate (flat and high).<br /><br />Now, if the government could control interest rates then I would agree with you that the 'Keynesian socialism' was implemented. But, what was done under Thatcher was the attempted (and failed) implementation of Monetarism. The consequences being obvious in the interest rate charts. After its failure the government simply left interest rates up to the market (and the official interest rate closely tracks the LIBOR rate). Here is a similar chart for the RBNZ showing the obvious link, http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig7.html<br /><br />There is an obvious connection here to house prices, and I have explained the reasons for this to you previously. So ignoring the housing market (which was a market led phenomenon, the government ignored it) what horrendous change did the further governments make to the economy?<br /><br />Further more, its pretty plain that the Thatcher government introduced measures which were had a negative economic effect for the vast majority of citizens. Why should anybody in this situation decide that this free-market thing (which you called it) is good for them? Of course a majority don't, though plainly it was quite good if you are a London based money lender.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-5560756367174859532013-04-13T22:55:12.152+12:002013-04-13T22:55:12.152+12:00Oh; Kiri has re-entered the stage wearing a lovely...Oh; Kiri has re-entered the stage wearing a lovely frock.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-21642938803696582512013-04-13T22:41:07.918+12:002013-04-13T22:41:07.918+12:00Oh dear, you've literally dropped the context ...Oh dear, you've literally dropped the context again: and in an old lady's coffin. <br /><br />You seem half smart: what's the purpose of an orchestra conductor then?Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-8602511630448719202013-04-13T22:33:36.956+12:002013-04-13T22:33:36.956+12:00"But more than anything, the importance of Th..."But more than anything, the importance of Thatcher was philosophic, as you will be able to read on my next blog post."<br />I have read this now, but was surprised to find out that it was not about Thatcher at all, it was about her corpse. Apparently the largest philosophic point made by Thatcher was made by her dying.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-46836024990243167572013-04-13T22:28:41.685+12:002013-04-13T22:28:41.685+12:00Yadda yadda. I'w watching Kiri Te Kanewa and s...Yadda yadda. I'w watching Kiri Te Kanewa and some bald baritone, with a Wither Hills Chardonnay.<br /><br />Go read my Maggie post.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-82826422624821648072013-04-13T22:23:36.285+12:002013-04-13T22:23:36.285+12:00"In the face of your household example, then ..."In the face of your household example, then if the Left are right why don't we set the tax rate at 100% and see how the economy works out."<br /><br />What would that mean? Which needs of your children do you presently deny because they can't force the income out of your hands? Household analogies for the economy are nonsense.<br /><br />I read all your links, but I found them quite limited.<br /><br />Cato, notably an American source so not obligated to be constrained by facts, claims<br /><br />"Mrs. Thatcher was quickly vindicated. No sooner had the 364 affixed their signatures to that letter than the economy boomed. Confidence in the British economy was restored, and Mrs. Thatcher was able to introduce a long series of deep, free-market reforms"<br /><br />City AM, notably British contradicts very point,<br /><br />"But while Thatcher saved Britain, she also made mistakes." [Snip]<br />"She was wrong to allow herself to be convinced to join the European exchange rate mechanism; together with a poor monetary policy by chancellor Lord Lawson, who allowed the broad money supply to rocket, this led to a boom in the late 1980's and another recession."<br /><br />Plainly charging the economy up on unsustainable inflationary booms is not considered a good thing across all conservatism.<br /><br />In fact the chart which I think that Cato wants to highlight are the 'Union membership', 'Inequality/GINI' and 'Cost of Living' charts. The only problem is that its not polity to mention in America that there is a class war going on. If the average American observes the course of the British economy, has an unusual parallel in the American economy, in terms of union membership rates, rise in inequality then they might realise this is not a historical accident but an intentional government policy. Sources who want to lionise Thatcher while not discussing her legacy and replacing it with propaganda are obviously not to be trusted and provide no useful information about Thatchers policies.<br />Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-38772742939009714332013-04-13T11:02:39.828+12:002013-04-13T11:02:39.828+12:00Contextless again. In the face of your household e...Contextless again. In the face of your household example, then if the Left are right why don't we set the tax rate at 100% and see how the economy works out.<br /><br />Stupid, isn't it.<br /><br />Again, to say Thatcherism didn't save the economy of the UK, is to defy reality, Nic, because it is against the weight of evidence. The 2008 bust was from the bubbles caused by Keynesian socialism, the same bubbles Keynesian socialism is building all over again. <br /><br />You didn't read any more my links, did you?<br /><br />But more than anything, the importance of Thatcher was philosophic, as you will be able to read on my next blog post.Mark Hubbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02541153163041831880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7560636882691523439.post-90147045393561420382013-04-13T09:43:02.616+12:002013-04-13T09:43:02.616+12:00Thatcher saved the economy from slow decline, her ...Thatcher saved the economy from slow decline, her economic policies accelerated the decline.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts<br /><br />Hayek in his polemic indicated that the economy would function better on a free-market. What we observe from the data however is, massive interest rate instability, declining wages for the majority, growing inequality and a housing boom which started as she entered office and eventually popped in 2008. This accompanied by frequent crashes in the economy and growing instability. Its hardly surprising that the cost of living came down, the servant class were being remunerated poorly.<br /><br />Since you like house hold analogies for the economy, if you pay your children a smaller allowance and make them complete more house hold chores, then we could claim that this household is experiencing an economic miracle?<br /><br />Sensible people are hardly going to accept this policy on the grounds given, its incredibly bad for the vast majority. Nic the NZerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03375388456334279479noreply@blogger.com