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

I know Brown had his faults, but come on he's not even close to Thatcher's levels.

Name me one [i]fundamental[/i] thing which Thatcher did, that Brown reversed ?

Tory/New Labour..........I can't tell the difference. Although apparently you can.

[img] [/img]

That's a really simple one that ernie - the decline of the tories.

There's a difference?

We haven't had a left wing government in power since 1979 IMHO.

That's a really simple one that ernie - the decline of the tories.

So basically, Brown 'didn't even come close to Thatcher's levels' because he wasn't a Tory........other than that, there is no difference ?

Thanks....... that makes perfect sense.

brown was a child of thatcher

he copied lawson/ lamonts ideas on pension holidays
privatised, via pps
kept us out of the euro
10p tax rate, ok not as unfair as poll tax but he tried
deregulation of the city
giving bankers handjobs

where he did differ was financially resuscitating the nhs the torries had tried to kill
helping to open up further education to the less well off etc etc

BTW, little bit of info about pension holidays.
In order for a pension fund and its trustees to be able to apply the bulk a lot of revenue breaks they wre OBLIGED by HMRC to take fund payment holidays to keep surpluses below 5%. It wasnt a corporate governenance decision it was a legal requirement.

After various stock market booms, companie's usually finf their pension funds in surplus and so have stop paying into them or lose tax deduction benefits.

A tad harsh Ernie - tax credit were redistributive and made a real difference to some - not that that invalidates your basic point.

TandemJeremy - Member
A tad harsh Ernie - tax credit were redistributive and made a real difference to some - not that that invalidates your basic point.

Ditto. But what's wrong with you all? This resembles a reasonable discussion!

Worst thing about that clip is that you can see that "miserable pipsqueak" Gove.

Urgh

A tad harsh Ernie

Really ? I thought I was being quite kind. This is my [i]harsh[/i] mode.....

The alleged lefties are always so quick to condemn Thatcher as evil personified. OK fair enough, if that's what you believe. So it therefore follows that New Labour must have reversed many of the terrible things which she did.

And yet despite asking 24 hours ago, no one has yet provided a single example of one [i]fundamental[/i] thing which Thatcher did, that Brown reversed. Which would suggest that Brown was on the same level of "evilness" as Thatcher I reckon.

Indeed one of the first things Brown did when he became PM was to invite Thatcher to number 10 for tea, and to pose smiling with her in front of the cameras .......just to emphasise to the whole world how much he admired her.

How many lefties on here would like to invite Thatcher round to their gaff for tea ? It is clearly not what you would expect someone who fundamentally disagrees with her to do. BTW, Thatcher never invited Wilson or Callahan to number 10 after she became PM. Not even Heath for that matter.

As I've said before, the only reason Brown invited Thatcher to number 10 was to send out a crystal clear unambiguous signal to the whole world that, under his premiership, the government would carry on pursuing Thatcherite policies......despite Blair leaving office. Can't see how that puts him on a different level to Thatcher.

Furthermore, many people argue today that the present government's economic policies are even more right-wing than Thatcher's. Due to the fact that they are prepared to go much further than Thatcher ever went. Well if this is true, and I think that it is, then exactly the same can be said of New Labour, ie, they were more right-wing than Thatcher.

Because once in power New Labour took Thatcher's economic policies much further than Thatcher and the Tories ever did. As an example, despite whilst in opposition Labour opposing [b][u]every single[/u][/b] privatisation carried out by the Tories [b][u]without one single exception[/b][/u] having won the election, New Labour immediately decided that one of the problems facing Britain was that the Tories hadn't privatised enough. And they started their own programme of privatisation and introducing "market forces" into sectors which Thatcher could only have imagined of in her wildest dreams. I could go on to mention tuition fees, prescription charges, etc, but the list is simply too long.

In essence, New Labour's argument/justification for being in government was that they were far better Thatcherites than the Tories. And there is indeed an element of truth in that. Certainly when it came to privatisation and introducing market forces New Labour was able to do it very effectively with no opposition and very little bad publicity. Unlike the Tories who were dogged throughout their 18 years in power by Labour's total opposition to privatisation - in and out of parliament, and the resulting bad publicity. In certain areas the Tories simply didn't bother because they knew that they would have too bigger battle in their hands. New Labour had no such worries.

Finally, some people need to remember that Thatcher was actually a member of the Conservative Party, so it should come as no surprise to them that she behaved like a Conservative. She was always going to serve the best interests of the super-rich class which she had married into. At least there was an element of honesty about Thatcher - she never pretended to be anything other than a Tory.

And I for one, am grateful that she had the decency not to join the Labour Party. The Blair-Brown-Mandelson axis however, chose to masquerade as socialists, although each for their separate reasons I suspect.......but that's another story.

There's no such thing as an un-hypocritical socialist though Ernie.

At least there was an element of honesty about Thatcher - she never pretended to be anything other than a Tory.

Only those who genuinely recognise and support the market economy approach to social economics are being truly honest about their intentions 🙂

And before that Hoon elfin comes wading in with his size 70IQ, I havent said that there's no such thing as a dishonest capitalist. Capitalism on the other hand is transparently, honest. Just not necessarily always moral.

Ernie - maybe one thing.

Brown (as Chancellor) reversed/ended the Tory habit of manipulating interest rates to create a nice little inflationary boom about 12 months before each election, by handing control of those rates to an independent body (although Merv seems to be at present just an extension of the Tory party publicity dept). Not exactly a reverse, but an end to a rather sleazy little habit.

Tory/[s]New[/s]Blue Labour..........I can't tell the difference

Good point.
The Tories preach being selfish and helping yourself and that is exactly what they do whatever the cost to ither people.

The Tories preach being selfish

I swear that's not in the manifesto....

I think what you mean is the Tories preach self reliance and not to always expect the state to be there.

I think Labour also restored the link to proper inflation proofing on state pensions (linked to earnings, 2.5% or the RPI which ever is the highest) after Thatcher devalued it by linking it to CPI.

I'm a bit hazy on the detail but it is far better now than it was when Thatcher was booted out.

oooh oooh - thought of another. Blair reversed the policy (in connection with the troubles in Northern Ireland) of "Let's just send even more troops in and refuse to listen to what the Republicans say - that'll solve it!".

Increawsing funding on the NHS was fairly fundamentlal change. Increasing budget significantly after decades of decreasing

Fair point turns lefty rhetoric down to 4 😳
Granted they have better PR than to say that ; they are not stupid.
Is it easier to preach self reliance when you have inherited millions?

Goodness me, I sat back thinking to myself : [i]"right, having upped the stakes, now be prepared to get floored with an example of a [b]fundamental[/b] thing which Thatcher did, that Brown [b]reversed[/i][/b]".

Nope...........so far so good.

Some people must be thinking, "maybe the old witch wasn't that bad after all".

.

Capitalism on the other hand is transparently, honest.

😀 .......yeah, right...........the market always knows best, the invisible hand of the market, when supply goes up and costs come down, prices ALWAYS go DOWN, the market will solve all housing issues, work hard and you will be rewarded, "value" is what people are prepared to pay, and so it goes on ......ad infinitum

I gave you one right at the start. Thatcher took the tories and buried them for a good long time, Gordon Brown reversed that.

now, now. Dont be sarcastic just because you dont like being reminded of a universal truth 🙂

Well I've had 2, TJ's had one and slowjo's had 1.

Maybe a lot of the damage Thatcher did is actually irreversible.

Brown would have found it hard to reopen the pits or buy back Sealink...

The Blair-Brown-Mandelson axis however, chose to masquerade as socialists

Did they ? Can't ever remember thinking that about them.

Well I've had 2, TJ's had one and slowjo's had 1.

😕 I didn't say scrape the bottom of the barrel looking for things which Brown did different to Thatcher.
I said, name me one [b][i]fundamental[/i][/b] thing which Thatcher did, that Brown [b][i]reversed[/i][/b].

You know, something which epitomises "Thatcherism". And just to remind you, Thatcherism is the promotion of low inflation, tax cuts, the small state, and deregulated free markets, through tight control of the money supply, privatisation, and constraints on the labour movement.

So hit me with the killer.......the renationalisation of the utilities maybe, or the scrapping of anti-trade union laws, or the strict regulation of the banks and finance ? There must a list as long as your arm, considering just how unacceptable Thatcherism was.

And yes, just about everything Thatcher did could have been reversed. Except maybe the reopening of the flooded coal mines......and we couldn't get back North Sea oil of course.

Name me one fundamental thing which Thatcher did, that Brown reversed ?

Sorry for the delay Ernie - should have dropped in a little earlier to help you out:

Now, I'm going to be technical here and talk about something [b]Thatcher[/b] did...

By the time of the 1979 election, public debt was approx 44% of GDP. L

In 1979, the Thatcher revolution started. By 1983 public debt had dropped slightly to 41.3% of GDP.

By the 1987 election, Thatcher's second term had made further moves to cut debt down to 38.6%. Finally approaching levels seen before World War 1.

The 1992 election, which saw John Major having replaced Thatcher, saw public debt down to 24.6% of GDP. Lower than the level seen entering World War 1 and indeed lower than at any other time in the 20th century.

Sadly, John Major frittered it away. By 1997 when he was defeated by Labour led by Tony Blair, public debt had ballooned out to 43.8% of GDP. That single term led by John Major had wasted all that had been achieved before it under the Thatcher years. Public debt was back to nearly 1979 levels.

Obviously, as we know, Blair and Labour entered power during boom years, the economy had been coming out of recession, with positive growth, for all of the 3 years before the 1997 general election.

By 2001, public debt had shrunk back to 32.1% of GDP, as Labour sought to demonstrate it was fiscally prudent during the first term, and as economic growth boosted tax revenue.

However, by 2005 Gordon Brown had let things slip. Public debt as a proportion of GDP had creeped back up to 37.4%, which during a time of economic growth and prosperity (and few tax increases) meant a significant spending increase.

By 2009 it had shot up further to 55.2%, by the time of the 2010 Election, UK public debt had increased again, to the point where The measure of public sector net debt, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), was 64.5 per cent at the end of October 2010 compared with 58.8 per cent at end of October 2009.

Net debt was £955.0 billion at the end of October compared with £828.8 billion a year earlier.

So, in Conclusion, the answer to your question: [b]The fundamental thing achieved by Brown that reversed the accomplishments of Thatcher was managing to increase public debt, whereas Thatcher reduced it!
[/b]

Aye thank ewe 😆

the small state

Now, I'm going to be technical here and talk about something Thatcher did...

What you really mean is, I am going to use this opportunity to express my undying admiration for Maggie.

How "technical" of you 😀

btw, government spending actually increased slightly throughout Thatcher's premiership.

well that's easy Gordon went in for the small state in a big way. I think not

Nor did Thatcher. See above, "government spending actually increased slightly throughout Thatcher's premiership".

The "reduction in government spending" claim, turned out to be a load of bollox.

One fundamental thing?

I have no figures without doing research so there is an element of conjecture to this, but I would say the National Health Service and education funding.

(Please note - [i]funding[/i] and not [i]introducing unnecessary amounts of mind-numbing cr@p[/i])

(and yes - that's two things)

btw, government spending actually increased slightly throughout Thatcher's premiership

Between 1979 and 1984, public spending grew due to a combination of the implementation of the Clegg pay awards, [b]keeping to the commitment made to NATO by the previous Labour administration to increase defence spending by at least 3% a year until 1985[/b] and also weak economic performance which increased spending on social security benefits. The following four years to 1989 saw negative or low growth in total spending, in part due to strong economic performance reducing spending on social security...During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.1% a year -

So, under the Evil Thatch monster, public spending grew, NHS spending grew, and public sector debt [b]Fell[/b]!

😉

Edit - For the pimpmeister:

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...

So, NHS Spending grew 50% in real term under Thatcher...

Eye thank ewe again... 😆

Zulu-Eleven, O child of Thatcher........why do you respond to my claim, [i]"government spending actually increased slightly throughout Thatcher's premiership"[/i] with, [i]"during Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an average of 1.1% a year"[/i] ? 😕

Yes I know that public spending rose under Thatcher........that's why I said it.

Perhaps you'd like to remind us how the tax burden [i]also[/i] rose under Thatcher ? 💡

Thatcher might well have "promoted" low tax and public spending, but she in fact did the reverse.
A bit like Gordon Brown, you could say.

They renationalised Railtrack, but they did it off balance sheet so it did not ruin their numbers.

John Major did start the Northern Ireland peace process, Thatcher did not but then again the IRA did bomb the Tory conference while she was PM and the man responsible for getting her elected Tory leader was murdered by the IRA. In this context, her intransigence whilst not perhaps laudable was understandable.

And I gave you reasons too, didn't I Ernie - that much of that increase was down to commitments made under a Labour government and to increases in NHS spending...

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!

The greatest criticism that you appear to be able to come up with is that the tax burden increased, but given the fact that that only supports the claim she moved balance of public spending shifted from borrowed money to tax receipts, I'd put it to you that its a fantastic example of fiscal housekeeping and cutting your cloth to match your income.

Would you prefer she had stolen your children's trust fund to pay for short term political gain, like Gordon did?

Name me one fundamental thing which Thatcher did, that Brown reversed ?

Tory/New Labour..........I can't tell the difference. Although apparently you can.

'strewth I'm in the strange position of agreeing with Ernie.

When asked once what her finest achievement had been Thatcher replied "New Labour"

She succeeded in moving the centre ground of British politics to the right and Labour had to move to occupy that ground if they were ever to become electable.

They renationalised Railtrack

😀 next you'll be telling me that they nationalised the banks. Yes, after much protesting, screaming, and shouting, Blair did eventually agree to, in effect, nationalise Railtrack.

But firstly Thatcher never privatised the railways, so I'm not sure that it counts as a fundamental thing which Thatcher did, that Brown reversed.

It's quite a hard thing, this trying to think of a [i]fundamental[/i] thing which Thatcher did, that Brown [i]reversed[/i].........is it not ?

And secondly, despite a pre-election commitment to renationalise the railways, Blair only very reluctantly agreed to the nationalisation of Railtrack as a means of keeping Britain's railways privatised........
no Network Rail, no private rail companies operating. It's called State Monopoly Capitalism.

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.

As far as Northern Ireland is concerned, I am at a complete loss why it should represent a fundamental thing which Thatcher did, that Brown reversed. British troops were originally sent to Northern Ireland by a Labour government. Thatcher merely inherited the situation from Labour.

ernie - turn it round the other way, what did thatcher do [i]fundamentally[/i] different to Wilson or Callaghan?
National expenditure rates followed the cycles as much as they have done for the last 30yrs.

The UK politic doesnt do "fundamental" shifts much. We live in the centre ground, a little bit to the right one day, a little bit to the left the other day.

How big a fundament are you thinking? 😉

Yes Ernie, and I find myself agreeing with you too........surely being a consensus-merchant was not what you had in mind?

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

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 [i]mate[/i], or are you paid to knock them out?

Got any real-life empirical (that means numbers, [i]mate[/i]) examples of demand/supply/price relationships in free markets [u]not[/u] 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]I know Brown had his faults, but come on he's not even close to Thatcher's levels[/i]"

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 [i]huge[/i] 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 [i]must[/i] 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:
[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.