You mean you don’t want to respond to the actual point that was being put to you, that a bigger social safety net means higher taxes (or debt).
Well, sometimes they are and sometimes they’re not; depends on the circumstances of the time. The U.S. did very well by protectionism in the 19th Century.
So, what exactly is wrong with you, then?
(And, yes, I know my own Americans are even worse in that regard.)
Psst. Look across the pond. We are in the financial madhouse.
And now? Now Britain is a bit more of a world-power than it was in the 1970s, and going by Brit comments on this forum, it just doesn’t seem to be worth it.
Which county in Europe isn’t a basket case?..the Germans who make high quality “stuff” and detest “hedge funds”..flogging each other insurance is all very well,but someone has to make something to afford it.
If a “Wold power” means Americas embaresing best mate …
Perhaps the British should have made high quality stuff then, rather than junk people didn’t want.
For Industial success you need to be either the largest, the cheapest or the best. Britain was not going to be the first two. It could have been the third, but that would have required a sea change in attitudes and practices that even Mrs Thatcher would not force through. British Industry died because it was out of date, uncompetative and expensive. It employed labour practices which were good for an era of imperial preferences and the sterling zone, but not for the era of an advancing Far East and Germany. Mrs Thatcher was not responsible for that.
Niether can she be blamed (except in the most indirect way) for the financial crises of 2008, which was caused by policies which were implemented in the 1990’s and she was only in power for 11 months of the 1990’s.
Regardless whether I agree with your wider point, I think we can all agree that protectionism wasn’t the road to prosperity in Europe circa 1979. When you look at the economies that grew after that, it was the ones that opened up.
I’m not sure if this question was meant seriously.
Many people do not like high-tax, high social security models for ideological or moral reasons. And economically it is risky. If the extra money is not spent well then it is just a significant choke on the economy.
Ultimately though, I think the answer is largely cultural.
<anecdote>
I was recently in Stockholm for an interview for a job transfer, and I mentioned that I had just been promoted in my current job.
I got the transfer, but the boss mentioned to me later that talking about promotions and such isn’t the swedish way and that they are more team-oriented (And there was me thinking a job interview was one time you are allowed to boast)!
I don’t think you understand the role of service industries, if you can dismiss them as “flogging each other insurance” or “cutting each other’s lawns”.
Think about what you mean by “somebody making something”. All these levels of industry are a combination of knowledge and raw effort. And the fact is that knowledgeable workers are in shorter supply than those who can merely operate machines, dig holes, etc.
We do have support for people who can only do the latter but can’t find work. It is called Unemployment Benefit. They also get lots of assistance in educating themselves into being more employable in an advanced economy. The idea that we should instead reopen pits and steelworks to accommodate these people is not politically viable. The rest of the workforce would have to pay for it, and they don’t seem too willing.
It was.
Indeed. The point is she started the country on a road that led to where the country now is. That place is very similar to the US, which, in terms of free markets, was also her aim.
It wasn’t the only road to take in the late 70s and it was the wrong road, and it’s why she is hated by so many.
How precisely did Margaret Thatcher contibute to the 2008 fiscal crisis in a way that would have been avoided had she not been Prime Minister?
If you accept that everyone who holds the office is a contributor to the totality of history, then logically we can blame the 2008 fiscal crisis not only on Margaret Thatcher, but also on Tony Blair, Harold Wilson, Anthony Eden, Winston Churchill, and George Grenville. The time has to come, at some point, when you stop blaming Margaret Thatcher for everything bad that happens in the world.
Actually, it’s called ‘Jobseeker’s Allowance’, and the ‘lots of assistance in educating themselves’ is clearly said by someone who has never actually investigated the ‘opportunities’ available.
I live in a large, southern English city, and am currently trying to get back into work after illness. I still have heath problems meaning I can’t return to my previous job, and I would love to retrain, but the opportunities that are available are frankly laughable. Once you have a basic level of English, Maths and computer skills, the jobcentres have basically nothing else to offer, and alternative full time courses are not an option unless you have the money to support yourself on in the meantime. You cannot stay on benefits and study, you must always be available for and applying for work.
I have A levels, but nothing higher, and have been repeatedly told there is nothing they can offer me. Well I’ve been on a few short courses on CV writing, (having been told it was that or work at Tesco for free), which have varied from faintly useful to abysmal (one included, for example, an entire day on ‘why not to dress inappropriately at work’, which was frankly covered by the word ‘inappropriate’), and have contradicted each other cheerfully. One of them did include a ‘First Aid at Work’ qualification, but that’s been the only thing I would even want to admit to on my CV.
Incidently, the situation here does beat that in a small, Northern city I lived in a few years ago, where the sole training option available from the central jobcentre was ‘NVQ level 1 Retail’. Roughly equivalent to a GSCE grade D-G.
Rather than give us a wall of text of someone else’s opinions, why don’t you explain in your own words how Thatcher is responsible for the 2008 financial crisis particularly since the crisis seems to be worldwide.
It’s not even controversial. Do some reading if it’s new to you.
In a nutshell, because the crisis (worldwide, yes, but mainly due to factors in the British and American economies) was caused mainly by deregulation (of the financial sector), one of the things Thatcher made newly respectable (in the process adding support to Reagan’s dereg-frenzy on this side of the pond).
TL,DR. Explain your position if you have one. It’s not my job to do your homework for you.