But you are very naughty mefty, New Labour would rather people weren’t reminded how they were forced to, in effect, renationalise the railways infrastructure……it doesn’t comfortably fit in with their commitment to free-market neo-liberalism.

Why thank you.

It’s all done with smoke n mirrors, mate – the market is more like the distorting mirror of real life – as in, the ‘free’ market leads to wage slavery

Does your tin-hat come ready made mate, or are you paid to knock them out?

Got any real-life empirical (that means numbers, mate) examples of demand/supply/price relationships in free markets not following the widely (even from the left) accepted rules of bargaining? OR just a hat full of angry rhetoric?

Thatcher pulled off the economic miracle, she reduced public debt whilst at the same time increasing public spending – yet according to you, she wrecked Britain… So which is it, did she increase NHS spending by 50%, or did she pare the NHS to the bone? as you cannot have it both ways!

Teh economic miracle was to spend the oil money and receipts from privatisation. Selling the family silver to pay the bills. No miracle at all when at the end of it we are impoverished with no assets.

NHS – inflation was so high that spending increases mean less activity as the increases were less than inflation

I worked in the NHS in these years – we had 3% year on year CUTS in activity.

So yes – you can have it both ways – spending did rise but less quickly than costs therefore the NHS was cut to the very bone.

ernie – turn it round the other way

Sorry mate, I’m not turning anything round………….the geezer’s not for turning.

The OP said : “I know Brown had his faults, but come on he’s not even close to Thatcher’s levels“

And I still want to know what the fundamental differences are between Thatcherism and Brownism. I can’t see any. Sure, they are two different people, and no two people are the same, but they follow the identical economic model. And I would describe them as “close”.

.

Having said that, there are huge differences between social-democracy and Keynesian economics, and free-market neo-liberalism. And therefore also between Wilson or Callaghan and Thatcher. And also between Macmillan or Heath and Thatcher. That’s what the Thatcher “revolution” was about……you must have heard of it ?

NHS – inflation was so high that spending increases mean less activity as the increases were less than inflation

TJ – you must try and remember to read when people bother to make the distinction between real and nominal prices. It would save you from these embarrassing mistakes.

I love the way whenever anyone disagrees with Stoner he comes out with some meaningless economics jargon that isn’t really relevant, then claims that no-one understands the world except him 😆

Thatcher “revolution”

I can see it now:

meaningless economics jargon

unproven rhetoric is meaningless.

Do you really believe that the entire field of economics is just one big ball of meaningless jargon then? really?

EDIT: And Id love to hear quite how you think that demand/supply/price are “irrelevant” to the subject of markets.

*Hands up how many people felt fisted under New Labour*

Hands!

*Hands up how many people voted Labour because they were disgusted by the Tories*

Hands!

You mean Zulus stupid distortion?

If costs rise and funding rises by less than the costs rise then more is spent as he claimed but activity is reduced.

as for Stoner’s ‘honesty of the market’ bollocks, I have rarely heard such gibberish……… Are you paid to come up with this tosh, or is it your natural inclination?

In Stoner’s defence, I suspect that his comment was designed far more to wind me up, than because he actually truly believes it. Hence my response with a …… 😀

someone’s going to say ” in real terms ” in a minute.

go on, just for old times’ sake.

Stoner, you deliberately resort to using jargon to obfuscate and try and make yourself sound superior. Seen it many times. I’ve studied economics and I find it hard to understand a lot of the random crap you come out with.

TJ, for trailmonkeys benefit….

Zulu posted:
“The total cost of the UK NHS has increased from approximately £9.2 billion in 1978/79 to £37.4 billion in 1991/92. Adjusting this figure to account for general inflation shows a real terms increase of 50.4% over this period…”

how on earth do you get your

“If costs rise and funding rises by less than the costs rise then more is spent as he claimed but activity is reduced.”

from that?

grumm – if you ask nicely, tell me which posts you’re having trouble with and Ill put things in two-syllable words for you.

Although if Im honest Im going to have trouble simplyfing words like “demand”, “supply” and “price”.

sorry stoner, missed that one, i usually skim read z11.

i just judge how right wing he’s been by the level of hysteria in the toynbeetrackworld responses

See there you go, being smug and patronising again. It’s not those terms I have a problem with, just your use of them. Maybe you just have poor communication skills.

toynbeetrackworld

may I borrow? 🙂

I don’t know why Stoner should suddenly be the focus of so much criticism now, I consider him to be far more open minded than many on here. Zulu is the one who imo, has real idealogical commitment to the neo-liberal cause and is a free-market fundamentalist.

may I borrow

i’d rather sell but i’d not know if i should ask for a real or nominal price ❓

Stoner – what you fail to understand is that costs rose in the NHS faster than inflation! basic costs rise a few % points ahead of inflation and tat teh beginning of that period were large wage increases agreed by the outgoing government.

So selective use of data by Zulu distorts the position

What I said was true as NHS costs rose faster than inflation!

Maybe you just have poor communication skill

Maybe I dont see the need to hand-hold those who think the entire field of economics is fair game for abuse because they dont understand a lot of it?

I get bored of people using the idea of economics and finance as some whipping boy for all the ills of the world without recognising that the basics of economic behaviour are universal, do more good than harm, and are near as dammit absolute. If people want to get bitchy about some ill-understood subject, the least they could do was go and read up a bit first. You dont see me weighing into discussion on anti-viral manufacturing or international jurisprudence with a lot of rose-tinted wooliness?

And no, that’s not aimed at you in this instance.

This place seems much more like dailymailtrackworld to me.

Edit: and your views on economics make it sound like some kind of religion, and you like a fundamentalist.

TJ – I dont deny that every organisation, even family has their own inflation rate, but Ive never seen any data to illustrate a wide enough gulf between rates for the NHS in the 80s to bridge a 50% real term growth in funding. Have you?

I appreciate that certainly in recent times the increase in NI required from all employers, including NHS, pretty much wiped out a good chunk of the increase in funding they got in the mid 2000s

Right. Im off to the pub to whine about the cows standing in the road licking the road salt.

I did not study economics and I find Stonor’s posts easy to understand. The issue with NHS funding is that inflation for that sector has been greater than general inflation, why that is I do not know. This is a fundamentally difficult issue which unfortunately is not best addressed by sound bites.

Oh dear, grumm, it is a pretty steep descent from the moral high ground to the gutter, was it gnarly?

TJ – adjusting the increases to account for changes in NHS pay and prices shows a smaller increase, of about 22% over the period, an average annual increase of around 1.5%!

So, even accounting for the increased pay rates in the NHS (sorry, are you now saying this is a bad thing?) and increased prices the NHS Budget increased by a real terms 22%

Lets look at the effect of this on the delivery of NHS services… Between 1980 and 1991, the number of GPs increased by around 19%, with average list sizes decreasing from 2,247 to 1,918.

Come on – you’ve accused me of selective quoting – prove me wrong!

The NHS grew under Thatcher! Your ideological and political bias against the Right makes you incapable of accepting the truth!

I’d like to know where he got his figures from.

If yo look at the figures he give 400% increase in cash was only 50% increase over inflation by his figures. So if NHS costs rose a couple of % above inflation during this time then that 50% in 14 years is easily accounted for.

It is a fact that NHS was cut significantly during the Thatcher years – of this there is no doubt in the mind of anyone who worked in it, used or it lived in the real world in these years.

Compare Zulus numbers to the doubling of NHS spending in 2001 – 2007 – a time of low inflation. That gives actual increases to what yo can buy.

mefty – Member

I did not study economics ……

😕 Now he tells me.

At least Stoner keeps me on my toes for a reason.

Cmon TJ – don insinuate – prove me wrong, I’ve given exact figures, NHS Spending was £9.2 billion in 1978/79 and £37.4 billion in 1991/92.

GP’s increased, list sizes decreased

This is all verifiable in fact and figures – Not some wooly claim of “no doubt in the mind if someone who worked there”

If I am wrong, then prove it!

EL – Sorry to disappoint, but Stonor’s secret is that he did what in my day was known as the sportsman’s degree, alumni include Gavin Hastings, who whilst being a top bloke, a very fine rugby player and probably my wife’s favourite man, was not renowned as an intellectual levithan.

I did not study economics and I find Stonor’s posts easy to understand.

Not so easy to spell his name though eh. :p

When have I ever claimed a moral high ground? Tbh I wasn’t so much talking about this thread, I just think stoner comes off as rather haughty sometimes, as if his interpretation is some kind of universal truth.

You are so right – I am belittled so much that anthood is a distant aspiration. In my defence, Stonor was a location on my early jaunts on a mountain bike so I claim it is a freudian slip.

Well you can look at this from another point of view, in that was anything done by Thatcher desperate to be reversed, or was it that in essence, she wasnt too far off the mark and the new labour government just carried on where she left off,
i know not everyone is getting what they want from the government, but the country is not too bad, and we are somewhere in the right direction to recover from the econimic recession, so a more positive view might work wonders for people,
also as for the NHS, if they got some balls in the procurment side and realised they have the biggest spending budget they could halve their drugs bill, and stop employing translators, and specialist nurses who are paid more than doctors to just fanny about, then the nhs might have a chance.

Got any real-life empirical (that means numbers, mate) examples of demand/supply/price relationships in free markets not following the widely (even from the left) accepted rules of bargaining?

another example of

I love the way whenever anyone disagrees with Stoner he comes out with some meaningless economics jargon that isn’t really relevant, then claims that no-one understands the world except him

I get bored of people using the idea of economics and finance as some whipping boy for all the ills of the world without recognising that the basics of economic behaviour are universal, do more good than harm, and are near as dammit absolute

but if i disagree with this[which I do] you just say I dont understand dont you. It is circular and pointless [and arrogant]

The problem with the extremes of the right [economically] is the idea may look good on paper [ well to some]. However the reality is that markets create equilibriums that humans wont stomach – Greece going to the dogs, Ireland down the toilet, northern britain unemployed Southern Britain overcrowded etc. Yes it creates the perfect market -free of morality as it cares not one jot for individuals suffering in the pursuit of equilibrium. All but onanists with no compassion for their fellow man cannot stomach this perfect equilibrium. No one, in the real world, is stupid enough to try true market economics whatever the zealots may think of the eutopia it would bring.

stoner comes off as rather haughty sometimes

Well that’s inbred into the the upper-classes grumm, I wouldn’t take it too personally….I certainly don’t.

Mind you, it helps that I know my place.

Plus that I’m grateful he even bothers talking to me ………..he’s a right proper gentleman our Stoner is.
……gawd bless’im

ernie_lynch

Mind you, it helps that I know my place.

Plus that I’m grateful he even bothers talking to me ………..he’s a right proper gentleman our Stoner is.
……gawd bless’im

?????

Popped back up I see TJ?

So, did the NHS grow or shrink under the Evil Lady T?

I take it you’ve not managed to prove any of my figures wrong despite calling them into question!

Did someone say something?

Stoner, got it right this time, gets haughty when people write balderdash – especially TJ – or more pertinently when TJ or others choose to ignore perfectly reasonable points made, often by Z-11, who after all is not worth bothering about.