Blair's Book

[Chinahand]

Spook - LDV is talking about the second Thatcher recession - the economist* had an article relevent to this recently.

 

The first recession was caused by earlier governments stopping free markets operating properly - Governments were subsidizing industry etc. Howe stopped that and wrenchingly capital was reallocated efficiently - the end result was an improved economy, but boy did it hurt, and because of the inefficiencies in the past there was no money to stop that pain. If Maggie had tried to go slow or whatever the economy would have gone bankrupt and the IMF would have had to administer the medicine - it hurts, but the pain was necessary and not Maggie's fault.

 

The second recession, though, was down to her government encouraging an asset bubble - mainly by Lawson loosening credit too much.

 

Finacial Asset markets are very different from commodity markets - if the price of a commodity increases in a period, all things being equal, demand for that asset will decrease. But with a financial asset - shares, bonds, currencies etc - then a rising price can increase the demand for it.

 

That difference is very important and explains why free markets in goods and commoditites are for the good - they are self regulating, while for financial assets they can be for the bad - they encourage bubbles, the current difficulties being a prime example!

 

I am a passionate free marketeer when it comes to goods and commodities, but do think too many on the right are blinkered when it comes to free markets in financial assets. Such markets are not self regulating and booms and busts in them are very damaging. Appropriate regulation and control of such markets is needed - doing that is f'ing difficult and I am sure many of the ideas of the left are wrong, but I'm also certain that ideological free-marketeers are also not right in calling for unfettered markets of all types.

 

Thatcher was right in 1980, but wrong in the late 80s when she allowed a financial asset bubble to ruin her repuatation.

 

*Is this behind a subscription wall or can people read it?

[spook]

That makes sense to me. I thought that he was popping at MT for how she saved the UK.

[Terse]

how she saved the UK.

We have a separate section for jokes.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

That makes sense to me. I thought that he was popping at MT for how she saved the UK.

She didn't save the UK. She shifted power and control back to the business 'community' and to elites by stripping the workers of it. This allows the quasi-capitalist practices to continue with little interference but just means they go back to being shafted even more than usual. I am no state socialist and I am not implying that unions are the answer to the workers problems.

 

The economic system (as it was structured) was being hampered by strikes and wage increases obviously lowered profits. But it was a natural response to an economic system that was functioning poorly. It would even be natural where workers have the power to threaten wage increases in any capitalist system. But what Thatcher did wasn't returning the economy to a form of functioning of how it ought to operate, it was just removing the power of the consequences that came with inherent injustices and inefficiences in the system.

[ballaughbiker]

Although I detest MT and what she stood for, she did come out with this gem "The trouble with Labour is that they eventually they run out of someone else's money".

[spook]

And the people in the upper echelons were paid too much then as they are now. But where else would you expect the money to go than to workers and managers? They aren't profit making organisations.

The money should have gone into improving efficiency and modernisation. It didn’t.

Quote

The economy was an ungodly mess because the capitalist economy wasnt able to operate because of socialist interferance.

 

Able to operate? I don't know what you mean. It did operate. Do you mean the manner in which it did operate?

No, it didn’t operate, it slid into the mud.

Quote

Anyway a workers wage should be related to the value of the job they do to the business, not a share of the business profits

 

Absolutely disagree. But of course this could not happen in a capitalist ran business and economy.

Why? A worker is just a tool like any other tool. A thing to be used to do a job and be paid for what he does, not the value of what he produces

Quote

You can be sure the buggers wouldn’t take on any employers losses, why should they take a share of his profits?

 

Because they make the business function. Without them the company doesn't exist. They produce the goods and services that ultimately lead to profits.

No they don’t. They do a job of work in a business that has been created and paid for by someone willing to risk a hell of a lot. The workers get paid to do a job. They are just a tool to be used like any other tool. Would you go back to a shop youd bought a hammer from just because it now made a more profitable thing and pay the shopkeeper more? Of course not.

Quote

A worker is a worker, not someone who risks his future to build something and takes all the risks.

 

They risk their future every day by being wage workers who can be fired or made redundant at any time. Their job is their present and future. Though I don't really know what you are getting at here.

Nonsense. A wage worker is assured of a wage while he’s in a job. His employer isn’t. If a worker wants to get more security he can move. His employer can’t. It’s like the bacon and the egg in a breakfast. The boss is the bacon, he’s committed, the chicken that laid the egg is only involved.

Quote

The most efficient, the most open for anyone to build a business in, and the kind that encourages people not to just sponge of the government one way or another.

 

Markets are not efficient. And what has sponging got to do with anything?

 

Reading what your writing I can see that sponging would not be a cause of concern for you

Anyway, markets are very efficient!

Quote

An economy run by private interests is the very best sort of economy to have.

 

Says who?

Economists.

Quote

The recession was the result of putting straight the distortion that the labour lot had caused by stupidly trying to keep what were called lame duck industries running and insolvant communities intact.

 

Please, please explain this one more. You do know which recession I am talking about?

Looks like I didn’t I was talking about the first.

Quote

We needed that recession just as we need a further period of recession and unemployment now to bring some sense back to the economy today.

 

Are you a troll or an arsehole?

It might be that you just have appallingly bad conservative-capitalist outlook on past events.

 

Well I’m not a troll so I must be, at least in YOUR opinion and based on what YOU think is right and wrong an arsehole! On the other hand considering your apparent loony left thinking I’m glad that you think I am!

 

The way that I see it is that if were living to a standard that we have to keep borrowing money to keep up then weve got two choices. Either we stop living the way that we have been and live the way we can afford or we earn more money.

 

Because the second would take time to get to we must cut back on what were spending which means recession is actually needed.

 

What I cant see at present is how were going to do the second though because theres fewer and fewer opportunities to earn more money especialy with the finance and banking sector going poon tang as it certainly is and will carry on doing as new laws in other countries tighten up what their citizens can do with their cash.

[Terse]

 

An economy run by private interests is the very best sort of economy to have.

 

Says who?

Economists.

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists. J K Galbraith

[Terse]

Back on thread. A peaceful protest.

 

CLICK

[Evil Goblin]

The usual childish nonsense, so much of which seems to appear on Facebook.

[oldmanxfella]

I'll be buying the book so that the army charities get the benefit of another royalty check; then I'm going to sit down and make sure I use every one of the 300 odd pages as toilet paper which is all that the smug prick's book is worth.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Spook - I really can't be arsed. I really do think you're trolling with nonsense about markets being efficient, analogies with a bacon and egg breakfast, and describing workers as tools.

[spook]

Spook - I really can't be arsed. I really do think you're trolling with nonsense about markets being efficient, analogies with a bacon and egg breakfast, and describing workers as tools.

 

 

Not at all.

 

I despise socialism in any form and people should remember that no matter what if they work for someone at the end of the day they are a just as much a tool to be used and discarded when its no longer worth keeping.

 

Also in the same way that you look after tools while theyre useful and needed so a boss will look after a worker but once that use is gone or when the cost is more than its worth out it must go and will go.

 

I see nothing wrong with that, remembering it has been very usefull for me especially when i had some boss whineing about how valued I was. Bollocks. What was valued was what i did. A good message for everyone. It's not YOU thats wanted, its what you do.

[P.K.]

Blah-di-blah-di-blah bollocks-bollocks-bollocks... remembering it has been very usefull for me especially when i had some boss whineing about how valued I was. Bollocks. What was valued was what i did. A good message for everyone. It's not YOU thats wanted, its what you do.

 

Oh dear, a classic trench-fighter. Might I also suggest that you certainly weren't wanted for your spelling, that's for sure.

 

You're wanted because you can produce the goods, whereas someone else might not be as good at it. Unfortunately "not being very good at it" is simply not enough to get rid of them as it's so subjective.

 

You can tell if you're valued by your rewards. Because at the end of the day the kind of appreciation needed is the kind that pays the bills. Your manager told you that you were valued for a reason. Can you figure out what that reason is?

 

Not very good at this management / leadership stuff are you? Lack of experience would be my guess...

[Terse]

Blah-di-blah-di-blah bollocks-bollocks-bollocks... remembering it has been very usefull for me especially when i had some boss whineing about how valued I was. Bollocks. What was valued was what i did. A good message for everyone. It's not YOU thats wanted, its what you do.

 

Oh dear, a classic trench-fighter. Might I also suggest that you certainly weren't wanted for your spelling, that's for sure.

 

You're wanted because you can produce the goods, whereas someone else might not be as good at it. Unfortunately "not being very good at it" is simply not enough to get rid of them as it's so subjective.

 

You can tell if you're valued by your rewards. Because at the end of the day the kind of appreciation needed is the kind that pays the bills. Your manager told you that you were valued for a reason. Can you figure out what that reason is?

 

Not very good at this management / leadership stuff are you? Lack of experience would be my guess...

That's a very long-winded way of saying "Yes.. you're a tool."

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I despise socialism in any form and people should remember that no matter what if they work for someone at the end of the day they are a just as much a tool to be used and discarded when its no longer worth keeping.

 

Also in the same way that you look after tools while theyre useful and needed so a boss will look after a worker but once that use is gone or when the cost is more than its worth out it must go and will go.

 

I see nothing wrong with that, remembering it has been very usefull for me especially when i had some boss whineing about how valued I was. Bollocks. What was valued was what i did. A good message for everyone. It's not YOU thats wanted, its what you do.

I think you are correct in one sense. There is a difference between what people are in society today and what they ought to be. Today it is when they do exist as little more than tools who just shop around, watch TV, go the gym etc. in their free time. Where their productive life is to function as just some tool. But then there is the matter of recognising how things could be.