Zombies Margaret Thatcher

[Richard]

You say that, like it's a bad thing.

I'm reminded of the George Best quote right there

[peterms]

You keep saying I keep suggesting something, which I haven't once suggested. Please stop. For clarity, when I said "if you take it to it's extreme" I am not suggesting that is a course of action that should be followed, or that the consequences of such an extreme course of action are something that I think you or I want to see.

If I'm misrepresenting your argument, apologies.

I took your references to Zimbabwe, Argentina etc in previous discussions to be the the old slippery slope argument. But why talk about if you take something to extremes, unless someone is actually arguing for that? Just about any course of action would be quite mad, if taken to extremes. So I agree that

...arguments like for example "create more money" have to be accompanied with limits...

though I don't think it's feasible to try to quantify those limits in a general discussion, as opposed to specific action by eg BoE or government.

There are also complications with, say, cutting taxes, which is what I was getting at with my question "so would you cut taxes for the rich?" - which you kind of sidestepped, because of these "other issues" - Yes it would help with the economy, as you agreed, but the problem as you identified is the impact on "fairness" in society. Things that might work economically might also disrupt other aspects of our life, and equally things which might not work economically (and might be bad, economically), might actually address problems with the rest of life.

Not quite seeing where I sidestepped your point?

[Demitri_C]

""They could already do that if they so wished but, at an increasing level, it would seem that they aren't domestically.""

How do you know they that are not Snowy?

[peterms]

He said the poor would boost the econmy by spending, but the rich wouldnt as they will just invest it into banks, which isnt true, Some would but not all. just like the poor some would waste it on drugs and smoking. The rich,they could boost the economy by opening new businesses, creating jobs etc. to help the economy

There's a recurrent theme about rich people being wealth creators, entrepreneurs, job creators and so on. It's often stated, or hinted at, or just assumed, in discussions like the one about how wealth should be taxed.

In fact most wealth doesn't come from starting enterprises, working hard and so on. Some does, but most doesn't. It mainly comes from investing in things, receiving rentier profits, unearned income, capital gains and the rest. Getting rich by being rich.

As Snowy says, the rich could already if they wished do these things about starting enterprises, but by and large they prefer easier ways of getting richer, involving a lot less work.

There's one estimate here based on the tax returns of 400 very wealthy people in one year. Given what we know about the way such people conceal their real wealth through all sorts of tax dodges, the figures may not be accurate, but the missing information if any is likely to relate to easily concealed investments, not slogging away starting a jam factory or some such.

The estimate of where these people got their income in one year was:

• Wages and salaries – 8.6 per cent
  
• Interest – 6.6 per cent
  
• Dividends – 13 per cent
  
• Partnerships and corporations – 19.9 per cent
  
• Capital gains – 45.8 per cent
  

[Dr_Pangloss]

The idea that the rich are invariably job creators is absolutely stupid and out of touch with the real world.

A hell of a lot of the rich make their money through rent seeking behaviour, they are not adding to the pie but merely extracting from it. Honestly, just go and work in the financial services for a few months if you really want to see it in 'action'.

[bickster]

When I saw the days advance in pages, I thought maybe...

[blandy]

If I'm misrepresenting your argument, apologies.

I think I haven't explained as well as I might. Because I'm not an expert, and therefore not certain of a great deal on economics, I'm sort of putting points to learn from the responses, basically, as well as saying what I understand. It probably doesn't come across that way, so I should apologise.

I took your references to Zimbabwe, Argentina etc in previous discussions to be the the old slippery slope argument. But why talk about if you take something to extremes, unless someone is actually arguing for that? Just about any course of action would be quite mad, if taken to extremes.

With my earlier mentions (a while back) of Zim or Argentina, again, these are extremes/excpetions, obviously - ditto the cases of Norway and Aus I think I also mentioned. I raised them to ask really if there isn't some element of "if we do what they do, won't the same thing happen", or to refute the case that [bad thing] can never happen. I'm not saying "it will happen to us, because it happened to them". I'm not saying we're as extreme as them, just asking if there isn't a part of what they did, which we need to avoid - without looking back, a part such as currency devaluation, or whatever was the object of the chat at the time.

though I don't think it's feasible to try to quantify those limits in a general discussion, as opposed to specific action by eg BoE or government.

Fair comment, though I was really looking to see if you feel that (by writing it) there are limits - I hadn't detected that these were in your thoughts from reading your posts. They obviously are, as you've now mentioned them, but I missed you making mention of any constraints previously.

It's important to me, because Politicians use all kinds of tactics with them in their political games - for example Osborne going on about Greece - scaremongering that "if we do that [what most people said was necessary - spending on the infrastructure and transport and environment etc.] "we'll end up like greece". The counter to that, for me would be to say "yes, if we do it to extremes it will bring trouble, but there's a way to create jobs, create lasting improvements for the population, reap the tax rewards, without breaking the bank and having to cap in hand to Germany.

Not quite seeing where I sidestepped your point?

Re reading, you didn't. I misrepresented your comment, apologies. I was trying to see if you'd say "tax cuts should be given to the rich, to help improve the economy" You saw that, and answered cleverly, and wisely.

[snowychap]

""They could already do that if they so wished but, at an increasing level, it would seem that they aren't domestically.""

How do you know they that are not Snowy?

Partly for the reasons that Peter and Dr P give and partly because (as per graph on this page) investment would appear to have been on the wane for a goodly while.

[markavfc40]

When I saw the days advance in pages, I thought maybe...

Its called wishful thinking

[peterms]

With my earlier mentions (a while back) of Zim or Argentina, again, these are extremes/exceptions, obviously - ditto the cases of Norway and Aus I think I also mentioned. I raised them to ask really if there isn't some element of "if we do what they do, won't the same thing happen", or to refute the case that [bad thing] can never happen.

Zimbabwe is probably a case all to itself, with that strange and unfortunate history of colonialism and theft, and the steps towards redistribution often leading to destruction of capacity instead of building. Argentina might be a lesson - military dictatorship enforcing privatisation, tying the currency to the dollar, allowing capital flight, basically doing what the US wanted. Recovery (ironically helped by the collapse of the junta following the Falklands/Malvinas charade, though recovery happened a few years later - an unintended good outcome of the dreadful Thatcher's government) involved defaulting on debt, renationalisation of privatised industries, and following policies designed to encourage expansion. Perhaps there are some lessons there for us.

I was really looking to see if you feel that (by writing it) there are limits - I hadn't detected that these were in your thoughts from reading your posts. They obviously are, as you've now mentioned them, but I missed you making mention of any constraints previously.

It's important to me, because Politicians use all kinds of tactics with them in their political games - for example Osborne going on about Greece - scaremongering that "if we do that [what most people said was necessary - spending on the infrastructure and transport and environment etc.] "we'll end up like greece". The counter to that, for me would be to say "yes, if we do it to extremes it will bring trouble, but there's a way to create jobs, create lasting improvements for the population, reap the tax rewards, without breaking the bank and having to cap in hand to Germany.

Yes, there are limits to the approach I suggest (and you mentioned one of them, choosing to bind ourselves to the daft rules of the Maastricht treaty, which is a constraint we could do with removing). The main limit is the capacity of the economy. When policies diverge from that, they enter the realm of fantasy, and I think this gets back to the concern you express. But in the current situation, with millions unemployed, lots of spare cash, and a lot of work needing doing, we are very clearly not pushing up against the bounds of what can be done.

[Richard]

I really am failing to see what the basis of this whole interrogation is hoping to prove. As said I vote based on criteria that is important for me and my family, followed by the country in general.

to be honest that sounds very much like the principles maggie was talking about in her "there's no such thing as society" interview.

[Awol]

To hold that view, it is necessary that you think that whatever people have as income or wealth is theirs as of right, with no obligation to contribute towards the massive social and economic infrastructure which has enabled them to get it (assuming we're not talking about bands of brigands in a place with no laws). People in fact earn money because there is an education system, transport, healthcare, a legal system, police and regulatory authorities, and all the other things without which it would be pretty hard to make or grow anything and exchange it for money on anything other than a very primitive level.

Some people choose to pretend that their money has appeared due only to their own efforts, as though all this social infrastructure just appeared at no cost like overnight dew, or that it has absolutely no connection with them being in a position where they have acquired assets or income, and that governments come along later, after they have made their money by the sweat of their brow, and steal some of it in return for nothing.

It's a very curious view, and I don't profess to understand it. It seems to depend heavily on wilful blindness towards a great many very obvious things.

It would be very interesting to see someone who doesn't think they should pay tax - Starbucks, for example - make any money at all in the absence of a system of enforcing property rights and contract, providing transport infrastructure and refuse disposal, maintaining a currency, educating potential staff and consumers, and all the rest.

I wasn't suggesting that no one should pay any tax, but yes I do believe the principle should be that earned income or personal wealth should belong to the individual as of right. Taking that as a starting point the State should then aim to sequester as little of that money as possible in order to deliver the necessary public services for society. The approach of someone saying "well, we'll give the rich more money" when they are actually describing taking less of their money from them, reveals a state of mind that views the state as having priority and absolute supremacy over the individual, who is reduced to worker bee. That isn't an ideological approach that ends well for the individual, imo.

[drat01]

I wasn't suggesting that no one should pay any tax, but yes I do believe the principle should be that earned income or personal wealth should belong to the individual as of right. Taking that as a starting point the State should then aim to sequester as little of that money as possible in order to deliver the necessary public services for society. The approach of someone saying "well, we'll give the rich more money" when they are actually describing taking less of their money from them, reveals a state of mind that views the state as having priority and absolute supremacy over the individual, who is reduced to worker bee. That isn't an ideological approach that ends well for the individual, imo.

That is frankly the thoughts of someone who is nothing more than selfish. Surely fair wealth is gained from a society that is fair and equal. Paying a fair amount back into the society is the cornerstone of a democracy. (the multiple use of the word fair is there on purpose) Your views and it seems many that follow the Tory party is that they take as much as they can and pay back as little as they can get away with and bugger the consequences.

and Tony my views on why I chose political parties is nothing like Thatchers tirade as well you know. Maybe your definition of society (and Thatchers also) is not what most understand it

the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community:

I fail to see how that differs from what I wrote

As said I vote based on criteria that is important for me and my family, followed by the country in general.

but I suspect the usual "games" are at play again

[drat01]

Interesting how the Tory supporters have "manipulated" this and the other threads by challenging anyone who's views are seemingly anti_tory / Thatcher etc with little from them showing what policies Tories have implemented that I / We should be grateful for. why Thatcher should be respected etc etc. I am genuinely interested to see why they feel so strongly in supporting IMO awful policies that the Tory party in particular have held for many years

Considering the threads have been about the ConDems / Economomy / Thatcher etc there has seemingly been very little in the way of "support" for the actions and mindsets of the Tory party other than to attack those whoi have differing views. Maybe again they can show why they feel they vote Tory, why they thought Thatcher was good etc rather than playing the usual silly games

Edited January 5, 2013 by drat01

[Richard]

Where has anyone been attacked fr not being Tory? For me the opposite is true

[tonyh29]

I've not see any attacks , other than yours Drat

Oh and the post you are crediting me for wasn't mine

[drat01]

Funny again no answers to the same points that were for example asked of me. Interesting!

[Awol]

That is frankly the thoughts of someone who is nothing more than selfish.

Nice to see your usual civility in evidence when debating those with different views.

[peterms]

I wasn't suggesting that no one should pay any tax, but yes I do believe the principle should be that earned income or personal wealth should belong to the individual as of right. Taking that as a starting point the State should then aim to sequester as little of that money as possible in order to deliver the necessary public services for society. The approach of someone saying "well, we'll give the rich more money" when they are actually describing taking less of their money from them, reveals a state of mind that views the state as having priority and absolute supremacy over the individual, who is reduced to worker bee. That isn't an ideological approach that ends well for the individual, imo.

Again, this mindset starts from the assumption that what income or wealth someone has is theirs, as you say, as of right. What lies behind that is a notion which is usually unspoken, but which some political thinkers spell out, that as long as that wealth was acquired legally, then it is legitimate property, and property rights should not be infringed. And that becomes the starting point.

There are many problems with that. Much of the wealth may not have been originally acquired legally in the first place, if it comes from family wealth based on theft, clearances, colonialism and so on. Since wealth mainly comes from reinvesting existing wealth, there are a great many wealthy people whose wealth is derived from this. And where it is based on apparently free and equal exchange, as in factory owners making vast wealth from exploiting people who had little or no choice but to accept the terms they were offered, that again is overlooked by the "property rights" school of thought, on the basis that it's a contract freely entered into. If they accept that the contract may have been nominally free but in practice wasn't, the next defence is that it is all in the past, and you can't now unwind the history that has followed the original acquisition. Even today, in situations without the historical fog, we see for example bankers with large bonuses which it turns out were paid on the back of behaviour which was so corrupt and fraudulent that their employers are paying massive (to us; small to them) fines for this immoral or unlawful behaviour. And yet your argument seems to roll up all these people together, and say it's their money, they have earned or acquired it, and no-one else has any right to do anything about it - apart from the level of taxation needed to fund the minimalist state you want.

I reject all that. Society does, and should, take a view on all sorts of things done by its members, including how they get their wealth. Obviously; because wealth is created by collaborative effort, and that collaboration can involve a wide range of actions ranging from the wholly exploitative to more equal co-operation.

If you think the state (ie the formalised expression of the views of society, in this context) should have no say in or control over people's wealth, then what about other things? Should we get rid of health and safety legislation so that factory owners are free to arrange production in whatever way they want, and workers will be free to accept those conditions or not? When we did that, we found very high levels of death and disability in the workplace, because the owners would do as little as possible to protect their employees, over and above the bare minimum needed to keep enough of them alive and well enough to carry on making the profits.

We, or society, or the state, intervened because leaving things to themselves or to the market produced outcomes which we weren't prepared to accept. The same is true of wealth distribution. Having some collective say over how it is produced, distributed and used is not some outrageous intrusion by an authoritarian and alien body. It is the expression of a collective view, in the context of a setting where wealth is the product of social arrangements and collective endeavour.

[markavfc40]

Have to say Peter that is an excellent post.