Thatcher's died according to BBC

working soft is the way to go—thats what the idle rich do– they seem to make it pay………

I’ve gone for working oasis plant foam.

Looks solid, really not.

OUCH!Working hard means 16 hours a day 7 days a week,2 weeks holiday a year and ride my horse once a week and then labour taxing you so much that you just walk away.I did not start with loads of capital and not a fancy job either as I cleaned and repaired horse rugs for a living.Ended up retiring at the age of 42 and buggering off to Spain.

so basically you don’t want to pay your share (a share that you can well afford) AND you want to be able to work the hours of two jobs when there isn’t enough work for everyone.

if you’d have just told us that you loved thatcher because she enabled you to be selfish and greedy then we’d have all just understood in the first place.

though i still don’t understand why bliar stopped you working the hours of two jobs.

hang on, so working hard to improve the lot of you and yours is selfish and greedy – how do you work that one out?

if the man is working 112 hours a week– that is almost three peoples work in hours–so surely he could have shared the workload–and given another person the chance to provide for his/her family– its about sharing –not gaining at other peoples expense–the working week needs to be shorter with higher hourly pay-not the race to the bottom that all the ‘grafters’ seem to hark on about–history shows that gains were only made by collective action , reducing hours , and getting better conditions and pay—–all the things that Thatcher set out to destroy……

Hi rudebwoy.

I’d just like to pick one more thing you said on one of the other threads back up, if I may?

You said that it was a ‘fail’ on my part when you came up with one (shining admittedly) exception to my general comment that people tend to move to ‘better’ areas if they get a bit of cash. I think you’ll find that one swallow does not make a summer.

However, my issues with your example are as follows.

You said the bloke in your example was a millionaire who had stayed local and employed people. As a Trotskyist,do you view him as a benevolent Victorian uncle capitalist, or do you view him as a bourgeois exploiter? He remains a millionaire, so how do you reconcile his continued individual wealth?

I think your standpoint and example may be contradictory. The usual sequence runs like this. Left wing idealist says he hates the rich. An example of someone from their own background who has worked their way ‘up’ to wealth is then given to them. The left wing idealist then says ‘ ah, they’re the worst kind’.

bhmartin – Member

Seems Maggie was not everyones cup of tea but some of us did rather well from working hard unlike under labour.

bhmartin – Member

….then labour taxing you so much that you just walk away.I did not start with loads of capital and not a fancy job either as I cleaned and repaired horse rugs for a living.

Well make your mind up mate !

You say that you didn’t have much money when Labour came along and taxed you, but yet you said you “did rather well” under Maggie.

So what happened between when you had plenty of money under Maggie, and then none by the time Blair came along ? Did John Major take it all from you ?

BTW Labour under Blair didn’t put up taxes. In fact the basic rate was reduced under Blair.

Plus, under Maggie taxation went UP not down, as you can see :

I think you’re a tad confused/suffering from false memory bhmartin.

I personally don’t hate the rich, but I’d like to see this addressed http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20104177

I personally don’t hate the rich

You’re probably not a left wing idealist then, apparently it’s left wing idealist that hate the rich.

I used to be a Left Wing Idealist now I’m an Idealist Left Winger.

dannyh– the guy runs a boat –he pays his lads a weekly wage, which is very rare, basically he chooses to pay his workers a decent wage– rather than buy himself a mock tudor pad–and live isolated among the curtain twitchers–he is an avowed socialist –so i guess he may be swimming against the stream–but he seems a very contented happy bloke , who just happens to be in a position to look after more than himself….

Oh, it was a troll then given the reply.

Nipper99 – Member
Oh, it was a troll then given the reply.

Hardly, what do you disagree with?

Rudebwoy. You haven’t stated what you actually think of him, though. In your opinion, should he ever have been allowed to accumulate his wealth? Should his wealth have been requisitioned and redistributed?

From the limited amount you have said about him, I think he may be one of life’s good examples, it is your position relative to his individual wealth that intrigues me.

BTW Labour under Blair didn’t put up taxes. In fact the basic rate was reduced under Blair.

A little bit disingenuous. Stealth taxes? Massive debt (i.e. taxing people in the future)?

BTW Labour under Blair didn’t put up taxes. In fact the basic rate was reduced under Blair

I thought National Insurance contribution rates increased under Blair and Brown.

dannyh –not sure if you are just trying to be pedantic–we all live in a capitalist society at the moment–so we have to make the best of what we can–ergo–nothing wrong with an enlightened ‘exploiter’ if thats what you would like– he even makes a jokes about it himself–but really what is it that you find strange– there are other people who live here, who also could easily afford to move to more ‘upmarket’ areas–but they choose to live here,where they have friends , family and community–that thing that really got Thatchers goat….

community–that thing that really got Thatchers goat….

Really? Do you have a quote to that effect? Thanks.

A little bit disingenuous. Stealth taxes? Massive debt (i.e. taxing people in the future)?

He was talking about taxing his hard earned money, there’s nothing disingenuous about pointing out that the basic rate went down, not up, under Blair.

He also suggested that under Blair taxes went up compared to under Maggie. There is nothing disingenuous in pointing out that the UK tax burden was higher under Maggie than under Blair, since it’s actually true.

If we lived in a capitalist society there would be a number of banks that went bust in recent history and absolutely no regulations on any type of trade. We live in a very regulated pretend capitalist dictatorship, in the same way that certain countries were run as pretend communist/socialist societies. Often the give away for these countries was the word democracy in the country title, often the only place it was used I their country. It’s a bit like saying we live in a free market economy. We don’t and have not for a very long time. 🙂

A little bit disingenuous. Stealth taxes? Massive debt (i.e. taxing people in the future)?

If low paid workers actually got paid enough to live on, there might be less debt

It’s a bit like saying we live in a free market economy.

Well done. You’ve discovered that the free-market economy is a myth. And the reason it’s a myth is because it doesn’t work, other than in theory of course.

You say I am pedantic. I’d say your lack of a definitive answer makes you evasive when pressed.

It’s nothing to do with ‘what I’d like’. I feel I can see a glaring contradiction in the example you use to highlight ‘working class solidarity’ when it is put alongside your Trotskyist principles. That’s all.

But basically you have said that if you accept the status quo, then individual wealth is ok if you employ others. This is the position that the USSR eventually adopted towards CPs in capitalist countries. A sort of watering down of the original rhetoric when faced with the fact that the revolution would never spread into democratic capitalist countries.

If a revolution were to take place, though, would you support forcible requisition of this guy’s wealth or would he be spared as he is ‘one of us’.

I’m interested in how you can reconcile an absolutist doctrine like trotskyism with the contradictions you must face every day.

My position is basically anti-ideology. I don’t think anything should be done for ideological reasons alone. This is why I would say privatisation of BT was a good idea (comparatively low value, long-lasting infrastructure upon which companies can compete for custom, hopefully driving down prices for the consumer). And why privatisation of British Rail was a disaster (far higher value of infrastructure and higher maintenance costs meaning no truly private company would touch it with a barge pole, leaving the ‘bad bit’ essentially paid for by the taxpayer whilst private companies trouser the profits).

I view blind ideology as a poor substitute for actually thinking about things.

Ernie, thanks for telling me that I have discovered we don’t live in a free market economy. I discovered this quite recently about 1976 could have been 75. How do you know it does not work? Who has tried it?

Edit, spelt your name wrong, comp school education.

How do you know it does not work? Who has tried it?

I know it doesn’t work because pretty much everyone has tried it.

you want to be able to work the hours of two jobs when there isn’t enough work for everyone…if you’d have just told us that you loved thatcher because she enabled you to be selfish and greedy

Ahahahahaahahahahahahaha I thought I what seen a lot of trolling in my time but that’s a great line.

ernie_lynch – Member
How do you know it does not work? Who has tried it?
I know it doesn’t work because pretty much everyone has tried it.

like who? Can you name me some countries that are fully unregulated free markets with no central or local government regulation?

Thatcher..? Dead..?

Margaret Thatcher..?

How did that happen..?

Can you name me some countries that are fully unregulated free markets with no central or local government regulation?

That’s the point, it can’t be done. A completely free-market economy wouldn’t last a week before total chaos set in. So you are not going to find any countries which operate it.

I love the fact that they are going to open a library in memory of the old bat , funniest thing I have heard for yonks !!!!!

dannyh — you seem to have some contradictory views there, you are agin any ideology–yet espouse ‘free market’ tosh when it suits– all utilities should be there for the greater good– not sure if you know about postal services throughout the world–but the uk had the best for many years, so the privateers cherry picked the ‘profitable’ side and left the letters section to become ‘unprofitable’– that has been the same with the railway-the same they are applying to the health service–its ideological– because they hate the idea that there are alternatives to their free market(irony)– social housing is another example of sharing the cost over generations–a capitalist wants a return in a few years not decades–selfish see– and as for Trotsky– you need to do a bit more reading if you wish to grasp what he was about– my man with his boat would happily give that up if it meant the world was a truly fair place–history shows that ‘fairness’ is not given by those who benefit from exploitation…

free market- only means rigged market for those in control– with capital — its a myth perpetrated to justify capitalist ideology– as ernie says its not possible at any level– it all needs regulating and controls — so a state is a prerequisite for any meaningful society– the question is do you want a state that is for the greater good for the most people–or a system that enriches a few at the expense of the mass ?

So as we have never had a free market economy how do you know it does not work? What is it that makes us need a state to regulate the economy, the country or more scarily individuals?

“the question is do you want a state that is for the greater good for the most people–or a system that enriches a few at the expense of the mass ?”
I don’t want a state at all (in perfect world). I like the idea that there are individuals who look after themselves, there families and those around them without the interference of a state. If we could all do this things would be peachy. I’m sticking with the concept of a stateless utopia where rights and responsibilities are understood by all. The only state I’ll go for is a happy state of mind.
After all who sets the rules for the state, who makes sure the rule setters are fair? You guys would constantly argue. Enough of your left right rubbish. Be centered and be free.

Oh are you a Freeman on the land?

So as we have never had a free market economy how do you know it does not work? What is it that makes us need a state to regulate the economy, the country or more scarily individuals?

Eh?

Suddenly a magic wand is waved (ooer) and we turn into a complete free market economy.

The biggest company starts buying up all the other companies below them. No regulation to stop them. Eventually you’d end up with a few very very big monopolies. Which can then charge what they want. No regulation to stop them. Further along you may end up with a single monopoly.

We’d end up with a single company to produce something that you have no control over purchase. You need food? You buy it from this company at this price. You don’t *have* to buy it, but it is the only place to get it from. You start your own company? They’d find ways of locking you out or simply buying you out, or making their products incompatible. Or buying up your suppliers.

An example from recent history would be Microsoft. If some (weak IMO) regulation hadn’t been in place it would have bought Apple then a PC manufacturer then you would have only been able to buy a MS-branded PC to run Windows, which runs all software. Then they’d buy the software houses, etc. etc. (for MS put Apple in now if you like).

I’m a freeman, it’s a state of mind. Some like to let the rage against the system/state or whatever take them. Me “I’m a freeman(on Sunday)”, like the Manchester Rambler.

AdamW – Member

Was trying to learn some fundamentals. So what is it that makes us as humans (companies are made up of groups of humans, like News International or BP) need to be regulated, what is it that requires us to have rules of trade or to be regulated? I was trying to see if anyone can suggest a reason as a collective species we cannot be trusted to be fair to each other without being told what we should do and how to behave. Is it that enough of us cannot be trusted to treat each other with respect and honesty. If so then it must apply to more than just trade but all areas of human activity. That being the case (if it is) all the political spectrum cannot be any different, it being run by humans.

Just a few thoughts.

That’s why socialism is just as flawed as Thatcher’s policies.
(Too many) People are selfish and greedy.

Sbob. That’s no way to talk about people you cynic. 🙂

I’m avoiding going into the London office tomorrow.

Anyone else? 😐

There are plenty of good reasons for avoiding London…

Tomorrow I’ll be thinking about all the people whose lives were prematurely ended or blighted by Thatcher’s policies, and whose suffering isn’t recognised or remembered.