Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

[don]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

you know there is no such thing as society. - Margaret Thatcher

[gwynedd1]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

I hope Michael Hudson is a lot younger than I, for if not he's displaying his revisionist, anticapitalist bias.

Whatever Thatcher's faults and policy failures might have been, she was a far sight better than the corrupt, Neocommunist fools who had practically destroyed Great Britain.
I don't remember Attlee, but I do remember Harold Wilson and I well remember James Callaghan and that rabid little neocommunist, Michael Foot. (That characterization of Mr. Foot is not flippant: after 1991 there arose credible evidence that he was paid by the KGB.)

When Thatcher took over Britain's unemployment rate was north of 13.0%, garbage was rotting in the streets, and the Trade Unions had finally won a 3-day work week - by bringing the British economy to its knees. British industry was uncompetitive even with the Pound collapsing but the selfish fools who ran the Labour Party were arrogant and oblivious.

Now to be honest the discovery and exploitation of North Sea oil played a big part in Thatcher's success, but to lay most of the blame for Britain's current problems on "Thatcherism" is shortsighted and grossly unfair.

That is not an anti-capitalist bias. Might be a bit of a monopoly bias on the side of trade unions vs rentier crony capitalism. However the real point is all Thatcher did was move the sand bags in the same boat. Monopoly was not cast overboard like it should have. It just changed hands. That is our problem in the US too. The politics is over a share of the pie with welfare solutions to counter FIRE sector giveaways.

[lektrode]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

You've been so quiet recently we figured you'd gone surfing at Laniakea lektrode

The two most financialized economies in the world before the financial crisis hit were the USA and the UK. So how much did the liberal/leftdems/new labour slow that conversion down when they held power for so many years right in the middle of the creation of the disaster? Ya gotta love Gordon Brown. First he sells the gold. Then he plays an instrumental role in creating the conditions for why he shouldn't have sold the gold...

oh how i wish that were true, grg, but havent had time for fun/recreation all year (so far anyway) = the scramble for survival - and actually would rather be slicing up the spring powder, or whats left of it anyway - altho its been kind of a dry spring so far, but april tends to be quite generous in that dept, so keeping my fingahz crossed for a 'late development'

and seems to me that most of the damage happened - in The US anyway - while they (the lib/left/dems) were in charge - and at the moment of truth - when they held near absolute power in all 3 branches of the .gov - with 'veto proof' majorities and could've rammed thru essentially anything they wanted to, what did they do?

instead of letting the banks take their losses, or maybe nationalizing them (like what was essentially done with what was left of the US-big-3 auto industry) - they allowed them to pay themselves billions in bonuses and bailed them out to the tune of trillions.

instead of doing something to create REAL JOBS, like infrastructure rebuilding, we got billions of failed crony capitalist schemes and the bailout of the state/municipal unions.

instead of doing something to IMPROVE the medical services delivery system - at least for those of us are are already paying thru the nose for it? - what did we get: a full-on disaster that not only has jacked up the rates, but further cuts services and or jacks up co-pays to the extent that we cant even afford to use the services that we're already paying for - and ultimately will end up bankrupting individuals/small biz - and ends up being another corporate welfare scheme worth hundreds of billions to the med-ins-drug-legal industrial complex, aka The Middleman, while further shafting the actual service providers.

all in all? - i say the lib/left/dem industrial complex - and the political class in general (both sides of the aisle) - has done more to.. f.... ahem... screw The US over the past 20 years or so in particular (beginning with repeal of glass-steagall, continuing on thru the release of osama from the sudan in the 90's where they had him jailed, one politically-motivated screw-up after another - culminating with the elections of 2008, where they, the lib-media industrial complex caused the most inexperienced, least qualified POTUS in history to be elected - mostly by the first generation in history to get most of their 'news' from MTV and the comedy channel - and then with near absolute control of the entire government, allowed/directed/caused the largest illicit transfer of OUR MONEY in history - TRILLIONS OF IT AT A TIME - directly into the hands of the wall st/FIre industrial complex - which are, by every metric/definition, are lower manhattan's 'finest' limosine liberals.

esp since most of the agenda over the past several years - since prince harry and queen nancy took over in particular, was voted against by nearly all the 'loyal opposition' - just too bad (for The Rest of US) that they cant seem to agree on, never mind come up with a better plan = why i say the only way to fix the mess that THEY IN THE POLITICAL CLASS HAVE CREATED IS BY TERM LIMITS

other than that, i really dont have much of an opinion on all this and have to get back to survival, but thanks for asking, grg.

[c1ue]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

That's much the same as an obese adult saying their mother "laid the foundation" for their condition because she introduced them to ice cream when they were a child.

More like the crack dealer offering the first hit for free...

England was in the crapper and sinking fast.

As was noted by others, it is far from clear Thatcher was what 'saved' England - as opposed to the discovery of the North Sea oil.

Hudson himself notes clearly that the unionist/statists in England had gone too far, so to say that he's blindly ideological is an incorrect statement.

Equally so is the notion that the only alternative (credit to Mrs. TINA herself) was Hayekian downsizing.

[Raz]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

That is not an anti-capitalist bias. Might be a bit of a monopoly bias on the side of trade unions vs rentier crony capitalism. However the real point is all Thatcher did was move the sand bags in the same boat. Monopoly was not cast overboard like it should have. It just changed hands. That is our problem in the US too. The politics is over a share of the pie with welfare solutions to counter FIRE sector giveaways.

I completely agree.

Welfare solutions are NOT a real solution. But there must be some level of help for the truly indigent and needy. Workfare?

FIRE, however, has become a criminal enterprise. Unless it goes there won't be a pie to fight over.

[Woodsman]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

She told a much funnier joke than that, dude! Here's the setup:

"Let me just have a word about monetarism and monetary control first. And you all know full well that if you produce too much of something its value will fall. That's elementary. It isn't a newfangled theory. It is as essential as the law of gravity and you can't avoid it."

Here's the punchline:

"It's not a doctrine to which I've ever subscribed. It's one I think actually came with Milton Friedman. I used to read about it. I used to look about it. It's not a doctrine; it's a theory to which I've ever subscribed."

A profile in courage, that Maggie. She was made of metal, all right. Highly malleable stuff.

[LorenS]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

The problem is not financialization or privatization nearly so much as a total failure to enforce any kind of fraud laws. Private industry is very good at providing a wide array of goods and services so long as the players are honest. Government can be good at providing goods and services provided the players are honest.

Folks seem to focus on right/left, capitalism/socialism. I don't think this will get us anywhere. We need to focus on right and wrong first. There is no form of industry or government that can withstand high levels of corruption.

[Woodsman]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

GRG55, is that your argument? Ice cream?

It's a simple question and by your response, I presume you have a viewpoint you believe will advance the conversation. Was Thatcher instrumental in laying the foundations for the financialization of the UK economy? Yes or no will do, but please feel free to elaborate.

[GRG55]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

GRG55, is that your argument? Ice cream?

It's a simple question and by your response, I presume you have a viewpoint you believe will advance the conversation. Was Thatcher instrumental in laying the foundations for the financialization of the UK economy? Yes or no will do, but please feel free to elaborate.

I already elaborated:

...Almost everything that is beneficial in moderation is harmful in excess. Just ask Gordon Brown...

The financial industry, or an increasing financialization of the economy as it matures from agricultural to industrial to service based, is not in and of itself necessarily a negative. However, like eating ice cream, it's when it is taken to excess that it becomes harmful. I thought "my argument" was pretty clear my earlier post...

[Woodsman]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

Ah yes, the deserving poor. Pity it's often so hard to make the distinction between the deserving and undeserving.

The Christian theology and Catholic teaching you so often share with us here seems to recognize the challenge of separating the clean from the unclean and finally just throws up its hands and says the heck with it; help anyone who is poor, no matter how they became so:

Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

Lev. 19:19ff. Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, neither shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger.

Is. 58:66ff. Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.


This exhortation to help the poor is just all over the testaments, old and new, and it's curious how so many people who identify as Christians (Jews and Muslims, too, as their books demand much the same), can't seem to find these passages.

That's a shame because the approach makes good policy, as we now recognize poverty to have multi-generational component. People who are poor - deserving or otherwise - have a decided tendency to choose poor parents as their host during gestation and childhood. If we were to do as the monotheist religions demand of their disciples, we could probably deal with the worst aspects of poverty in a couple of generations.

Of course, "ye have the poor with you always" and that's also simple common sense. But if we were to abandon moralistic notions of good poor and the evil poor and just do as commanded, we could have far fewer poor of all types and make the condition far less oppressive.

[Woodsman]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

Thanks, I saw that. But that wasn't the question. Was Thatcher instrumental in laying the foundations for the financialization of the UK economy?

[GRG55]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

Thanks, I saw that. But that wasn't the question. Was Thatcher instrumental in laying the foundations for the financialization of the UK economy?

I don't think so. I think the foundations were laid during the height of the British Empire, when the Pound Sterling was the world reserve currency, and Great Britain enjoyed (and abused) much the same exorbitant privilege the USA does today...

[Woodsman]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

Hindsighter? Good one. Reminds me of a phrase we kept hearing after 2007. I think it went something like "who could have predicted this" or some such trope?

When iTulip is good it's really good. When it's bad, it's usually when the ideological defenses start coming up. I suggest we relax and just call things by their actual names. This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue; it's a fact versus fiction issue.

[Woodsman]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

repeat the lie long/often enough and eventually it becomes 'the truth'

As is demonstrated by all the "Lady Maggie" groupies here.

Hudson's piece is rock solid and no one here has yet made any meaningful attempt to refute it. I'm pretty sure I understand why. "Very un-dude," to quote a favorite film.

[GRG55]

Re: Hudson: Thatcher's Road to FIRE

As is demonstrated by all the "Lady Maggie" groupies here.

Hudson's piece is rock solid and no one here has yet made any meaningful attempt to refute it. I'm pretty sure I understand why. "Very un-dude," to quote a favorite film.

Sounds like FRED should move this thread to Rant and Rave the way all of us are carrying on