On 20 Jun 2015 at 4:27pm An economist wrote:
You are quite right Auntie. According to IMF data, Mrs T inherited a structural deficit equivalent to almost 10% of GDP. That is unsustainably large, IMHO. She quickly reduced this to around 2%, where it stayed for most of her tenure. The coalition government also inherited a structural deficit close to 10% of GDP, which they reduced to around 4%. It could perhaps do with being a little smaller than that, again IMHO.
On 20 Jun 2015 at 6:16pm Annie Conny Mist wrote:
A woman after my own heart. Now where did I put my stilettos ?
On 21 Jun 2015 at 5:45pm bastian wrote:
% of GDP means nothing-to real people it still means that someone, somewhere lined their pockets, but it wasn't us, even less so this time around-it also goes to prove that politics means nothing, as it is banks thta run the economics of a country, and can do no wrong. The GDP is just a figurte plucked from the countries combined income/value on ? index which to you and me is irrelelent.
On 21 Jun 2015 at 11:46pm Paul Newman wrote:
If you are talking about equality Bastian equality increased during the coalition period . The 1970s was a time of unusual equality but I think almost no-one would suggest it was a successful decade for the country.It laid the ground for a violent adjustment form which the post industrial areas of the country have not recovered
I am surprised Mrs T did as well as that economist, I suppose Oil revenues must have contributed considerably .
On 22 Jun 2015 at 10:23am Mark wrote:
So am I! If he's an actual economist then I'm a fishmonger. (I'm not a fishmonger).
On 22 Jun 2015 at 12:45pm Costermonger wrote:
Whatever, it'll costyer
On 22 Jun 2015 at 3:27pm An economist wrote:
That's odd. You MUST be a fishmonger, Mark, because I am an economist. Promise. They are IMF data - but the structural deficit is not an objective measure of anything. It requires more than a little judgement.
On 22 Jun 2015 at 3:48pm Mark wrote:
Well... if you insist. All I can think now is that you must be an economist with a very poor knowledge of modern British history. Mrs T's entire firm term was an unmitigated disaster economically by every measure. Unemployment skyrocketed. The deficit skyrocketed. Her own party begged her to do a u-turn.
On 22 Jun 2015 at 3:57pm An economist wrote:
Errr .. thank you, Mark. The deficit did not 'skyrocket' under Thatcher. That is just nonsense. The UK ran a small headline surplus in the late 1980s, though was still in deficit after taking cyclical factors into account, as I pointed out above. Yes unemployment did skyrocket, and yes some of her party begged her to change her mind. I am not debating any of that. Merely trying to put a comment made by Auntie Aviator into perspective.
On 22 Jun 2015 at 4:26pm Mark wrote:
Alright, Mr Economist. Good luck with your career.
On 22 Jun 2015 at 5:41pm An economist writes wrote:
Your switching of the discussion to structural deficit - while possibly well-intentioned - is also deeply disingenuous, as (if you are indeed an economist) you will be well aware that the figures that are used to calculate structural deficit are often hotly contested, meaning that discussion of its trajectory is more art than science.
What is probably less open to debate is that Thatcher's term in office was, to put it kindly, a rather up and down affair, economically speaking. Personally, I would point to it as a prime example of the perils of prioritising ideology over pragmatism, and of making decisions that are not based on the reality of the world at the time. It's a failing that politicians of all persuasions are prone to, and it looks like the current government are rushing to make the same mistake again.
On 22 Jun 2015 at 6:28pm Mark wrote:
Now you sound more like an economist! I'm a nurse. I was only arguing with your first post which seemed to be suggesting that Mrs T effortlessly (and quickly) turned around the deficit that she was left with. I think we perhaps both know that that wasn't the case and are seeing eye-to-eye now.
On 22 Jun 2015 at 7:21pm An economist writes wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not "An economist" (though I am an economist), so I think wires may be getting crossed here - I was (to some degree) disagreeing with m'learned friend. I'll leave it at that before we all become irretrievably confused.
On 22 Jun 2015 at 9:47pm Mark wrote:
And I'm a Nurse, frustrated by the fact that no-one ever wants to discuss pathophysiology on here.
On 23 Jun 2015 at 6:58am Paul Newman wrote:
I wouldn't be worried about "Economists" Mark , substitute the word "Sociologist" , its just an 'ist'. Economists were busily cheering on Blair with his borrowing, did not see the crash coming and always seem to available for re allocating any state money wasting as" Keynesian". Or the reverse depending on who pays them.
On Thatch I think you have to remember the context, she was not facing some Scandy loving “predistributist” like Milliband she had Scargill to contend with and whilst he may be a joke now the miners strike is still wept about by the British Arts establishment . They brought Heath down and the Unions also dished Callaghan with the Winter of Discontent so we were looking at a fight about who ran the country. I presume “ An Economist” thinks her record was patchy because unemployment rose . It did but so did Manufacturing output which gives you some idea of what you were dealing with .,
It would have been nice if the de industrialisation of the Britain could have been handled better but that option was not available because for the preceding decade the Unions would not budge .
In this context to complain about “her “ ideological baggage looks bizarre to me , this was still in the era when the left openly sympathised with the aggressive military Soviet Union whose weakness was very much less apparent than in retrospect. The Webbes, important founders of the Labour movement and many more , had never stopped apologizing for Stalin and that went on well into the 70s .
People have forgotten why it was that New Labour had to be invented , and just how unelectable and “ideological” old Labour were .
On 23 Jun 2015 at 11:48am Mark wrote:
France has a similar economic history to ours. They experienced the effects of the OPEC crisis and they haven't felt a need spend the ensuing 40 years demonising their most vulnerable or creating a neo-liberal, tax-haven economy. They see their unions for what they are: a vox pop voice.
On 27 Jun 2015 at 10:20am Cam wrote:
Anyone arguing with an economist might like to read Steve Keen's 'Debunking Economics - The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences. Excellent book, shows up the 'discipline' for what it is.