I assume from the bitterness of your many posts that you are still blaming your unemployment/miserable life on Thatcher?Life clearly didn't turn out as planned for you did it? In fairness you probably need to take a bit more responsibility for that...
The great irony of that comment is that Thatcher was [i]specifically[/i] elected as Prime Minister in 1979 on the central issue they created, which was that the Labour government was directly responsible for causing 1.5 million unemployed. This was the poster that won the Tories the '79 General Election :
[img] 
[/img]
So what is it tpbiker .......are governments responsible for unemployment, or not ?
I'm guessing it depends on whether the government is Tory or Labour, am I right ?
whos paying for your celebration drink Rudebwoy, given I assume from the bitterness of your many posts that you are still blaming your unemployment/miserable life on Thatcher?Life clearly didn't turn out as planned for you did it? In fairness you probably need to take a bit more responsibility for that...
Rudebwoy seems much more chilled and happier than you.
You need to take a bit of responsibility for that. It's not the government's job to make you happy.
unemployment is the crudest tool in the box to keep wages down --but the side effects far out weigh any concievable gains --unless you are a capitalist and therefore insulated from main society-- most on here are not i guess....
unemployment is the crudest tool in the box to keep wages down --but the side effects far out weigh any concievable gains --unless you are a capitalist ...........
Not at all, on the contrary - unemployment and low wages (which you quite rightly point out it causes) eventually has a devastating effect on the capitalists.
Capitalists need consumers with money to buy their goods and services. Driving down wages might increase profits in the short term but it will always lead to over production/under consumption.
It's almost like it leads to some kind of cycle...
You mean like boom and bust ?
You mean like boom and bust ?
Even from my pro-labour stance, it's a little difficult not to draw connections to the growth and recession that the last labour governments presided over with the phrase "boom and bust"...
so only one thread allowed about this subject and its myriad of off shoots--- unlike talking about sheds, patios, and cars.....
The other topics tend not to take up any of our time modding, there's not much abuse about what shed. The insults on both sides of this topic that fly around are numerous so it's easier for us if it's kept in this thread instead of lots of others on the same topic.
ernie-- the british capitalidst is a very short sighted beast-- and yes in the long run its counter productive--hence the germanic and nordic approach--with high wages, high skill, welfare state , seems to be much less divisive-- but even they are dependant on a skewed 'world'--
The other topics tend not to take up any of our time modding, there's not much abuse about what shed. The insults on both sides of this topic that fly around are numerous so it's easier for us if it's kept in this thread instead of lots of others on the same topic.
i would say you are being paranoid a bit-- all things considered on such an emotive subject--the threads have been remarkably restrained , not much personal insults really, considering its cyber world and all that-- don't get me going on sheds though.....
It's almost like it leads to some kind of cycle...
should be on the bike forum...... 😉
labour have only proclaimed to be more effective at running capitalism than the tories --thats the basic premise of nu labour-- as for millipede.... he won't say until the pollsters tell him..
i would say you are being paranoid a bit-- all things considered on such an emotive subject--the threads have been remarkably restrained , not much personal insults really, considering its cyber world and all that-- don't get me going on sheds though..
The reports and posts we've deleted say otherwise but thanks for your concern.
thanks for your concern
🙄
The other topics tend not to take up any of our time modding, there's not much abuse about what shed. The insults on both sides of this topic that fly around are numerous so it's easier for us if it's kept in this thread instead of lots of others on the same topic.
One thread to rule them all
One thread to bind them..
The reports and posts we've deleted say otherwise but thanks for your concern.
you could put them on a special X rated thread-- that you can only read if you sign a disclaimer-- bet there are some embarrasing quips to be had-- but seriously --you have not had to remove anything i have said- so i take it that i must be showing restraint and awareness of the boundaries ?
-you have not had to remove anything i have said- so i take it that i must be showing restraint and awareness of the boundaries ?
Well, apart from the golden rule about not criticising [s]Jesus[/s] modding decisions 😉
😆
I thought it was quite touching for the Millwall fans to mark her passing with a return to 80's retro style, mindless football hooliganism and thuggery. Very fitting!
So what is it tpbiker .......are governments responsible for unemployment, or not ?I'm guessing it depends on whether the government is Tory or Labour, am I right
Unsurprisingly nope you're wrong. They are both as bad as each other. But just so we are clear about my political allegiances, I've never voted for the Tories and never will.
Rudebwoy seems much more chilled and happier than you.You need to take a bit of responsibility for that. It's not the government's job to make you happy.
I'm perfectly happy thanks, what makes you think otherwise? Have you deduced that from the 2 posts I've made on this entire thread? Its not me whos been rambling on about thatcher on an internet thread for the last week. I've had far better things to do with my time, unlike some clearly.
I'd like to pick up rudebwoy's lifeboat analogy from his ill-fated thatcher party thread.
He said he wouldn't want to be in a lifeboat with people who opposed his views on the grounds that they would be inherently selfish.
I wouldn't like to be in rudebwoy's lifeboat when the only trained navigator pipes up that he should be allowed a couple of minutes off of rowing in order to find out where they are and where they are going. He is then denounced as an agitator, his compass and sextant are smashed and thrown overboard. He is then instructed to row aimlessly in the interests of boat solidarity.
Anyone for Orwell?
Why would the navigator be denounced for navigating?
So what is it tpbiker .......are governments are responsible for unemployment, or not ?I'm guessing it depends on whether the government is Tory or Labour, am I right
"Unsurprisingly nope you're wrong. They are both as bad as each other. But just so we are clear about my political allegiances, I've never voted for the Tories and never will".
But you haven't answered the question. I very clearly asked you if governments are responsible for unemployment or not ?
And of course it's [i]unsurprising[/i] that you are not a Thatcher supporting Tory, it has always been extremely difficult to find anyone who was, even when Thatcher was PM.
Just take hora for example, he very clearly deeply admires and respects Thatcher, but he is not a Tory. So no, I wouldn't expect you to have ever voted Tory. Very few people ever do. Apparently.
Why would the navigator be denounced for navigating?
Hypothetical right wing logic in an attempt to defend a losing argument.
Why would the navigator be denounced for navigating?
Because it makes the story more interesting.
Ha ha ha.
Yeah right, intellectuals flourished under communism didn't they?
Solzhenitsyn was really given a helping hand wasn't he?
Jesus wept.
Yeah right, intellectuals flourished under communism didn't they?
So when Thatcher came to power we had communism ?
And [i][b]you[/i][/b] use the expression "Jesus wept" ! 😀
EDIT : btw I've never heard of a navigator being described as an "intellectual". Are you not aware of their practical skills ?
Why would rudebwoys lifeboat be communist?
Why would rudebwoys lifeboat be communist?
As above - poor debating tactics by right wingers. Not exactly a remarkable phenomenon.
Whoah!
Why do you think that I believe we had communism as our government before, during or after Thatcher? Ernie, I'm not being argumentative now, I just think you've got the wrong end of the stick here.
I am challenging rudebwoy and his beliefs. He has admitted openly in the past to being a communist. I am only talking about that. Not really in the context of Thatcher at all.
Hope that's cleared it up. I don't mind being challenged or even (lightly and verbally) abused. But I don't want it to be on the grounds of a misunderstanding.
Why would rudebwoys lifeboat be communist?
Because there was no one selfish in it.
I've had far better things to do with my time, unlike some clearly.
Sounds like you'vebeen getting "on yer bike".
Apologies though, your post to rudebwoy sounded a bit rude to me...and I deduced that maybe you were a bit angry or something. Maybe you're just rude all the time.
I am challenging rudebwoy and his beliefs. He has admitted openly in the past to being a communist. I am only talking about that. Not really in the context of Thatcher at all.
Fair enough. I thought it was in relation to the topic of this thread, ie Thatcher.
More importantly, what should all the people in the rudbwoy's lifeboat do if they have been stranded for several days without food or freshwater. Imagine that the navigator, for the sake of argument, was suffering the most and was the closest to death. Should the others kill him and eat his flesh in order that they could stay alive? Assuming that they would all die otherwise. Better to sacrifice one for the sake of the others? Or would they be guilty of murder and condemned to death?
Ernie's question is a good one and to extend it further - are governments responsible for successes and/or failures of economic policy? Do they really have that much control over events or are events predominantly determined by external forces? In th current context across Europe, I think this is an important question.
FWIW, given that governments essentially have four macro objectives/issues - growth, unemployment, inflation and balance of payments - I personally find it quite some stretch to suggest that any government deliberately goes out to increase the level of unemployment.
Ernie's question is a good one and to extend it further - are governments responsible for successes and/or failures of economic policy? Do yet really have that much control over events or are events predominantly determined by external forces?
In the case of the current, never-ending crisis, its root cause is of course un-regulated free market capitalism, which although originating in the US was also present throughout most of the West.
Strikes me that if gambling with more money than your country's GDP was more regulated, we might not be in this mess.
Who does the regulating? Well, I guess that would be governments...
I am challenging rudebwoy and his beliefs. He has admitted openly in the past to being a communist. I am only talking about that. Not really in the context of Thatcher at all.
That's fair enough, not something I'd seen him post.
I personally find it quite some stretch to suggest that any government deliberately goes out to increase the level of unemployment.
Oh come on, unemployment is a price well worth paying if you're a Tory.
[b][i] "Rising unemployment and the recession have been the price that we have had to pay to get inflation down. That price is well worth paying."[/i][/b] - Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont
No worries Ernie. Admittedly it is a bit off-topic, although not entirely!
It was meant for the other thread yesterday, but that got closed before I could say it.
I actually follow what you and a few others say on here, despite not agreeing with it a lot of the time. This is because I have gained some respect from the way things are argued, often with a bit of humour.
It's a bit lazy of me to pick arguments with the more 'obvious' people on here. People who dogmatically hold onto discredited ideologies.
I will try harder in future. I believe in what I say. No trolling for kicks, just stating beliefs.
zokes - Member
In the case of the current, never-ending crisis, its root cause is of course un-regulated free market capitalism, which although originating in the US was also present throughout most of the West.
Well if it really was that simple, the solutions would be equally obvious. I am intrigued to find these examples of un-regulated, free markets outside a text book. Even financial markets (which amplified and extended the crisis) are a long way from being either unregulated or free. And there are plenty of countries that have broadly the same (mixed) economic model that are not suffering the same crisis that we are enduring.
Ernie - that's a good example and a standard A level economics question. Examine the conflicts that occur between macro economic objectives and how they differ at different stages of the economic cycle. Nothing in economics is a straight line and trade offs always exist between policies - hence the lifeboat analogy!
I actually follow what you and a few others say on here, despite not agreeing with it a lot of the time. This is because I have gained some respect from the way things are argued, often with a bit of humour.
Thanks. Although you do realise that I'm also a commie don't you ?
.....and a standard A level economics question
Norman Lamont didn't pose it as a question, he offered as a fact.
Unregulated free-market capitalism did not directly cause the current problem. The actions of a few people who believed they were cleverer than they really were and saw a way to make themselves a fortune on the side caused it.
It really doesn't matter how many segments you divide you credit risk database up into to convince yourself something is less risky than it really is. The only real question is 'what is the likelihood of me actually getting this loan amount back and what happens if I don't?'
It was called SUB-prime for a reason. The clue was in the title.
More squeamish people also choose to forget that for every sub-prime loan or mortgage, there is a piece of paper with the lendee's signature on it. No gun to anyone's head.
If loans were actively mis-sold, then that is a different matter. The majority of this was irresponsibility on the part of the lender and the lendee.
Well, dare I say it, that would not score a A*!
The "fact" would need to be interpreted in the context. Simple question - what was the primary objective? Start there (the control of inflation). Then identify the trade-offs and adverse affects that policies designed to tackle this (in this case high interest rates) had on other objectives.
Ernie. If you are a 'commie' as you put it, it then we are likely to disagree quite a lot!
However, if you can convince me I am wrong then I'll become a red too. I hope if the reverse were true, you wouldn't let blind ideology stop you either.
😀
No gun to anyone's head.
Greedy people who wanted to own their own home.
I wonder [i]who[/i] championed that idea ?
Have you decided to come back on topic dannyh ?
Unregulated free-market capitalism did not directly cause the current problem. The actions of a few people who believed they were cleverer than they really were and saw a way to make themselves a fortune on the side caused it.
Could it not be that in actual fact, regulation preventing such clever people from doing stupid things might have helped?
The majority of this was irresponsibility on the part of the lender and the lendee.
Again - regulation would have at least partially negated this.
People (well, apart from molgrips) think they can drive with safety much faster than they actually can. Consequently speed on the roads is regulated. This does stop some people from getting to places faster than they actually might. But on the plus side, it reduces the number of crashes (pun intended).
