Zombies Margaret Thatcher

[Awol]

Similar discussions are taking place at present about things like exactly which drugs can be sold as a source of income, which methods of selling sex are allowed, and so on. Why are those discussions, those changes in view about which occupations and sources of income are and aren't acceptable, an affront to a free society rather than the exp<b></b>ression of a free society?

Changing the legal definition of what and is and what is not permissible in terms of gainful employment is not the same as legislating over what people can or cannot earn in particular roles.

I would express it another way, using almost exactly your own words:

" those minimum standards are currently unobtainable for literally billions of people alive today. The engine behind that has indisputably been capitalism"

I don't see how in the absence of a capitalist west people in the developing world who have always been dirt poor would miraculously be better off without it. If so, why are these countries trying so hard to industrialise now and and actually shrinking western economies into the bargain? I'd suggest it is to generate wealth and raise the general living standards of their people who've realised that "actually we'd quite like some of that, too." People the world over are inclined to mimic success rather than failure.

[blandy]

As a generalisation, yes, poor people will spend more of any additional income than rich people.

Some discussion of it here. MPC is marginal propensity to consume.

...In the case of rich country, most of the basic needs of the people have already been satisfied, and all the additional increments of income are saved...

It follows that Osborne's measures to cut benefits by some £4bn will cut spending, ie economic activity, by a greater amount than, say, raising taxes on the rich. And since on an economy-wide level, spending equals income, the national income will decline by that much more. Honey, I shrunk the economy.

The UK is a "rich country". One of the very richest. That WIki article says "most of the basic needs of the people have already been satisfied". Therefore it could be argued giving people £1000 each wouldn't cause any more increase in consumption than has QE, which as far as I can tell has made little difference. Is it less than 1% of GDP difference? I think I read that somewhere. Partly because the QE has been used by banks etc. to address their balance sheets, rather than lend to consumers. So it may be a flaw with QE, rather than anything else.

So QE hasn't had the beneficial effect it was intended to, we can't create money to directly reduce the debt, giving people a magic Grand each wouldn't necessarily have any different effect than has QE - people would use it to pay off personal debt to a high degree. The debt would increase.

That's the conundrum for them.

Better therefore to create jobs, reduce fear and uncertainty, increase confidence, and so get people spending, employed and happy, whilst at the same time rebuilding much of our creaking and crumbling infrastructure, securing future energy needs, food needs and so on.

I'm far from convinced that (sorry to use the phrase again) magicing money to give to people or banks or funds, is part of the solution.

[blandy]

With due respect to you, what business is it of yours or indeed anyone else's what others make as long as the people concerned are acting within the law? Anything else is basically an affront to a free society.

This "free society" thing is often used by right wingers in the US and elsewhere, but it's wrong. Many "freedoms" for one person or sector are the opposite for another - Peter's slavery example is one such (extreme) example - freedom to trade in human beings v Freedom from being traded. The principle applies to so much. Freedom to carry arms v Freedom from being shot. Freedom to drive as fast as you like v Freedom from being run over and killed. These are all simplistic, perhaps, but still totally valid.

It's not so much "free society" that should be the aim, but a safe and civilised one. And that requires laws, and laws that evolve as people and circumstances change. There is much that goes on that is legal, but damaging to us all. From tax avoidance, to the use of certain pesticides and chemicals. War is another extreme.

[peterms]

(from earlier post) No I don't favour that personally precisely because it involves the magic "we" making a value judgement/moral judgement on what the remuneration of others should be based on their occupation. With due respect to you, what business is it of yours or indeed anyone else's what others make as long as the people concerned are acting within the law? Anything else is basically an affront to a free society....

Changing the legal definition of what and is and what is not permissible in terms of gainful employment is not the same as legislating over what people can or cannot earn in particular roles.

We constantly set rules for what people can earn in particular roles (ie how much tax they will pay), as well as deciding which activities are allowable sources of income. It happens through taxing activities differently, having allowances for some things and not others, creating tax incentives or rebates for certain things. I'm not sure if you're not recognising that this is what happens now, or arguing that it does happen but shouldn't, ie there should be only one tax rate for everything, across the board (and if so, why, and why that would represent an increase in freedom).

We have also in the past taxed unearned income at a higher rate than earned. That would actually fit quite well with the current rhetoric about "strivers", "hard-working families" and the rest. It does of course depend on taking a view that working for a living is morally better than being sat on your arse all day watching the value of your inherited property increase, so it should fit with the present government's philosophy, if only it didn't affect them and their friends and funders so much.

I don't see how in the absence of a capitalist west people in the developing world who have always been dirt poor would miraculously be better off without it. If so, why are these countries trying so hard to industrialise now and and actually shrinking western economies into the bargain? I'd suggest it is to generate wealth and raise the general living standards of their people who've realised that "actually we'd quite like some of that, too." People the world over are inclined to mimic success rather than failure.

There are big issues about wealth distribution in developing countries, always have been. The consequence of colonialism followed by global capitalism was to strip a lot of resources from those countries, and allow their elites to join the ransacking instead of sticking with the more limited ransacking they were managing before, not to destroy some primitive garden of eden that existed beforehand. But if you look at Africa, it's pretty clear that so much of the wealth of that continent has been sucked out over the last few hundred years, and the rest is so unequally distributed, that people could be far better off than they are now.

Yes, of course other countries are trying to make themselves wealthier, and in particular, controlling elites are trying to do so whether by improving the economy generally (hard work) or by appropriating a bigger share of what wealth there is, joining in with multinationals to do so (easier, and often more common).

[peterms]

The UK is a "rich country". One of the very richest. That WIki article says "most of the basic needs of the people have already been satisfied". Therefore it could be argued giving people £1000 each wouldn't cause any more increase in consumption than has QE, which as far as I can tell has made little difference. Is it less than 1% of GDP difference? I think I read that somewhere. Partly because the QE has been used by banks etc. to address their balance sheets, rather than lend to consumers. So it may be a flaw with QE, rather than anything else.

So QE hasn't had the beneficial effect it was intended to, we can't create money to directly reduce the debt, giving people a magic Grand each wouldn't necessarily have any different effect than has QE - people would use it to pay off personal debt to a high degree. The debt would increase.

That's the conundrum for them.

Better therefore to create jobs, reduce fear and uncertainty, increase confidence, and so get people spending, employed and happy, whilst at the same time rebuilding much of our creaking and crumbling infrastructure, securing future energy needs, food needs and so on.

I'm far from convinced that (sorry to use the phrase again) magicing money to give to people or banks or funds, is part of the solution.

Yes, QE has mostly sat with the banks, and the on-lending that was supposed to happen mostly hasn't. Steve Keen's argument was about giving people money on condition that it first be used to repay personal debt, and for those who had debts of less than the amount given they could save it or spend it. His aim was to reduce the level of personal debt overhang which so distorts the economy. Others argue for simply writing off the debt, or debt jubilees. Occupy has been exploring buying distressed debts cheaply and writing them off. All variations on a theme.

That doesn't have to be instead of creating jobs in the way you suggest, and I agree that should be done. Whether that is completely funded from increasing tax income by dealing with taxdodging, or increasing deficit spending, or magicking money, personally I'm indifferent. Probably some combination of all those.

[snowychap]

...giving people a magic Grand each wouldn't necessarily have any different effect than has QE - people would use it to pay off personal debt to a high degree.

Why would they do that 'to a high degree'? And which people?

It is quite likely that a temporary increase in income would have a lesser effect than a permanent increase in income and therefore the MPC for a temporary boost would be lower but I'm not sure that's a reason to pooh pooh it or to talk in terms of 'magic money'.

All money, when it comes down to it, is 'magic'.

[Xann]

All money, when it comes down to it, is 'magic'.

Money is an unhelpful abstract, for which we perform terrible atrocities against our environment and each other.

Mankind needs to move on.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

"This planet has – or rather had – a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn’t the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."

[bickster]

The Aussies gave every single person in the country a couple of thousand dollars to spend when all this started. The only stipulation was that they had to spend it on items that aren't perishable e.g. no food or drink etc and they were not allowed to invest it, had to be spent. Not sure how that went in the end, I know the missus Uncle spent it on solar panels for his roof, which also meant he bought something tangible and it in turn allowed him to save money and even sell some electricity back to the grid.

Not sure if the scheme was a success or not though

[tonyh29]

I suppose it depends on what you view as living standards. It has produced a vast and endless stream of consumer goods. And yet Cuba has a higher literacy rate and better healthcare than the US, despite the latter spending decades trying to blockade, blacklist, undermine and overthrow that country. I'm not aware either of Cuba causing as much disaster and death as the US, or the UK, or many other places which have a fondness for taking wealth from other countries. You might also look at China, and ask whether that country has achieved an uplift in living standards without as much collateral damage as those countries which see well-being as we in this country have been taught we should.

I often see that Cuba stat but I'm pretty sure it isn't actually true ... Cuba's healthcare stats come directly from the government so i would take them with a huge pinch of salt ....

the reality when I was there was that locals would openly ask / beg you for aspirin and any simple medicines ... They simply don't have access to the most basic health needs

[Xela]

The Iron Lady is on C4 tonight at 9pm

[tonyh29]

Never seen it so will check it out .. Cheers for the heads up

[peterms]

I often see that Cuba stat but I'm pretty sure it isn't actually true ... Cuba's healthcare stats come directly from the government so i would take them with a huge pinch of salt ....

the reality when I was there was that locals would openly ask / beg you for aspirin and any simple medicines ... They simply don't have access to the most basic health needs

Whereas in other countries, the healthcare stats come from...?

There are problems with medical supplies. Hardly surprising, when the world's most powerful nation has spent decades running embargoes, instructing companies not to supply medical goods and drugs, levying sanctions against ships which dock in Cuban ports.

You could look at what bodies like the UN, WHO, Oxfam, or our own Parliamentary Select Committee on Health have had to say about healthcare in Cuba. The general tone is that there are real problems caused by lack of hard currency and hostile US action, but performance is impressive considering the weak economic position of the country, largely because healthcare has been prioritised.

[peterms]

The Aussies gave every single person in the country a couple of thousand dollars to spend when all this started. The only stipulation was that they had to spend it on items that aren't perishable e.g. no food or drink etc and they were not allowed to invest it, had to be spent. Not sure how that went in the end, I know the missus Uncle spent it on solar panels for his roof, which also meant he bought something tangible and it in turn allowed him to save money and even sell some electricity back to the grid.

Not sure if the scheme was a success or not though

I think it was mixed, from what info I can see. There was some benefit to the retail sector, and a stimulus to the overall level of activity. Some of the money was spent wisely on things like the example you give, but no doubt some was spent on things which seem less worthwhile.

Other parts of the package were for constructing bike trails, environmental management (I think), and house insulation. Again success was mixed, with some schemes doing better than others, and some signs of overheating in the insulation programme (sorry) by trying to spend more quickly than the capacity of the industry would allow, so that some cowboy firms came in, and some work wasn't of the right standard. That's always a feature of trying to ramp up spending too quickly, and an argument for better planning over longer periods with more clarity for everyone about future spending levels. But on balance, the programme seems to be given credit for offsetting some degree of the slump that was happening.

[markavfc40]

The Iron Lady is on C4 tonight at 9pm

Should have been made after the old witch had died. At least then it would have had a happy ending

Edited January 6, 2013 by markavfc40

[tonyh29]

Whereas in other countries, the healthcare stats come from...?

There are problems with medical supplies. Hardly surprising, when the world's most powerful nation has spent decades running embargoes, instructing companies not to supply medical goods and drugs, levying sanctions against ships which dock in Cuban ports.

You could look at what bodies like the UN, WHO, Oxfam, or our own Parliamentary Select Committee on Health have had to say about healthcare in Cuba. The general tone is that there are real problems caused by lack of hard currency and hostile US action, but performance is impressive considering the weak economic position of the country, largely because healthcare has been prioritised.

I'm surprised at you for being taken in so easily ..

The myth probably stems from the days where a local pharmacy had everything a doctor needed in terms of vaccinations, but that all ended once they stopped getting Soviet subsidies back in the 90's... Many Cuban hospitals don't even have running water and infections run high

There are plenty of doctors in Cuba but the local I spoke to said that they get sent off to Venezuela to work there in exchange for petrol from the Venezualan government.... No idea how true that is but I've also no reason to doubt the guy that told me either

You may have no problem getting a nip and tuck or even a boob job in Cuba , but you really wouldn't want to be ill there

Edited January 6, 2013 by tonyh29

[TrentVilla]

Should have been made after the old witch had died. At least then it would have had an happy ending

You want Thatcher to give you a happy ending?

[peterms]

I'm surprised at you for being taken in so easily ..

The myth probably stems from the days where a local pharmacy had everything a doctor needed in terms of vaccinations, but that all ended once they stopped getting Soviet subsidies back in the 90's... Many Cuban hospitals don't even have running water and infections run high

What myth do you mean? I said there are problems with medical supplies caused by US action and lack of hard currency, and you've said much the same without mention of the US hostilities, and linking the lack of hard currency to the ending of the Russian support which helped to get round that. But you write as though you think you've disproved something I said. I don't follow.

There are plenty of doctors in Cuba but the local I spoke to said that they get sent off to Venezuela to work there in exchange for petrol from the Venezualan government.... No idea how true that is but I've also no reason to doubt the guy that told me either

You may have no problem getting a nip and tuck or even a boob job in Cuba , but you really wouldn't want to be ill there

Both exporting doctors and importing medical tourists are attempts to tackle the problem of lack of hard currency. They have lots of doctors (about ten times as many as us per head of population) but not much cash. It's a very poor country, made more so by the decades of US action. What is astonishing is that despite the dire lack of resources and constant attempts to impoverish the country and overthrow the government, the quality of healthcare has reached the level it has. Don't you find that remarkable? Or do you think it's all a made up story?

[markavfc40]

You want Thatcher to give you a happy ending?

Not for me Trent although I'd imagine the Tory boys on here are now going at it

[tonyh29]

What myth do you mean? I said there are problems with medical supplies caused by US action and lack of hard currency, and you've said much the same without mention of the US hostilities, and linking the lack of hard currency to the ending of the Russian support which helped to get round that. But you write as though you think you've disproved something I said. I don't follow.

Both exporting doctors and importing medical tourists are attempts to tackle the problem of lack of hard currency. They have lots of doctors (about ten times as many as us per head of population) but not much cash. It's a very poor country, made more so by the decades of US action. What is astonishing is that despite the dire lack of resources and constant attempts to impoverish the country and overthrow the government, the quality of healthcare has reached the level it has. Don't you find that remarkable? Or do you think it's all a made up story?

You did state cuba has better health care than the USA... It's a myth , I wasn't trying to suggest I'd disproved anything to you as such , just pointing out my surprise that you appear to have bought into the myth when usually you are more thorough than just believing a headline ...

its like the headline that Cuba has a low infant mortality rate , but that is becuase they monitor and terminate any risky ones , something like a 60% abortion rate in the country.... But the headline figure is often held up as proof that Cuba has better healthcare than the USA and other countries