[Closed] Child of Thatcher or Son of Brown...

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:
[img] [/img]

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 " [i]in real terms[/i] " 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 [b]real terms[/b] 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?

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

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

?????

[img] [/img]

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.

^ and Im not even paying him!

*air kisses mefty*

and that's it for me.
few too many pints down to join back in the fray.
But as parting shot, specifically for junkyard and grumm: I defend the [i]mechanics[/i] of economically free markets I dont defend the [i]use[/i] of free markets in every case and never have. Ernie knows this. So too should TJ but he often chooses to forget. And if you look back through the thread you'll see it too.

Just watched Ian Hislop's programme about 'Do-Gooders' on the Iplayer. Found it quite inspiring - our society might not be doomed to drown in individualistic selfishness after all... (But then again...)

you will need to explain that too me in greater detail Stoner
What exactly do you mean ?
You support the mechanics
I know this reads like I am just carrying on an argument , and I am giving you a great line to patronise me, but really i dont know what you mean here.
ta

Well it makes sense to me JY, and since the master is probably collapsed in a drunken stupor now (God you've got to love the upper classes - they certainly know how to have fun dont-day ?) let me explain......Stoner believes in the mechanics behind the free-market, ie, it is the best economic model for society to follow. However, he is prepared to accept that it does not provide all the answers in [i]every case[/i]. HTH.

BTW, that is what I meant concerning Stoner being open-minded, because in contrast, Zulu-ratty is a free-market anarchist who believes the market is never wrong under any circumstances.

Whilst I on the other hand, totally rejects the free-market. And no, I'm not in the least bit open minded on that issue 😀

I shlove you shErnie.... hic....

Politics in modern Britain - legitimised bribery we can't afford. End of!

A bit late to add I know but, iirc Brown also broke the link between interest rates and politics by making the B of E independent. This was a fairly fundamental shift which has helped us achieve the low interest rate scenario we all want so much. Can't remember if it was under the Thatcher or Major premiership but don't forget the 15% interest rates.

Largely absent during the Blair and Brown years, Cameroon et al have revived the Thatcher legacy of public unrest!

Runs for cover......... ;0)

iirc Brown also broke the link between interest rates and politics by making the B of E independent. This was a fairly fundamental shift.......

Yeah, I think that has already been mentioned. And no, it does not represent a fundamental thing which Thatcher did, that Brown reversed.

Interest rates had always been set by the Treasury/Chancellor long before Thatcher, her government did absolutely nothing different in that respect.

So it seems that despite racking their brains for a day or two, New Labour sympathisers cannot think of a single [b]fundamental[/b] thing which Thatcher did, that Brown [b]reversed[/b].

Now that actually surprises me slightly, I had thought there might have been something which I might have overlooked.......after all, you could have been forgiven for expecting a list as long as your arm. But I guess not.

So maybe now New Labour sympathisers should stop slagging Thatcher off and start singing her praises....just like Gordon Brown does. Certainly not make the claim that Brown had his faults, but they were not even close to Thatcher's levels. Since we now know that given the opportunity, Brown simply did it all Thatcher's way.

Of course the moral of this story isn't that Thatcher with her free-market neo-liberal policies was right.
It is that New Labour was, fundamentally, no better.

ernie... I'm no New Labourite btw simply trying to give credit where it was due.

Of course the moral of this story isn't that Thatcher with her free-market neo-liberal policies was right.
It is that New Labour was, fundamentally, no better.

I think you are quite correct here. My idea of Labour died with Tony Benn et al and IMO the only Labour politician with a right to cal himself a Labour man is the Honourable Member for Bolsover! Dennis for King... erm..... el presidente or whatever, non leader of the british collective of democratic workers party....thing.

Stoner believes in the mechanics behind the free-market, ie, it is the best economic model for society to follow. However, he is prepared to accept that it does not provide all the answers in every case. HTH.