+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

  1. #1
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    On the 23rd September 1987 Margaret Thatcher famously said "There's no such thing as society".

    Her actual quote is
    They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.
    From Wiki.

    My question is, did the policy of the Tory government and subsequent New Labour governments make the statement a reality?

    To a certain extent the logic of looking after yourself and your family first makes sense, but the problem occurs when people only look after themselves. Which in our current situation seems to be more and more the case.

    In the pre-'79 world was there really a society? People of my parents generation claimed there was and that people looked after each other more and that it was safer to walk the streets.

    Has the prevalence of the "greed culture" eroded our basic human goodness to the point that Thatcher's statement has now become true and that society, in fact, no longer exists? Or alterantively are we just treating her unfairly, after all the last line of her sentence says we also have a duty to look after our neighbours. Did she really mean this as it was never really appparent in her policies or those of subsequent governments?
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  2. #2
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    She probably meant "We all have a duty to look after our neighbours, but if you live in a neighbourhood where you actually have to do it, you no doubt deserve your status in life.".
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  3. #3
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chicago, North Side
    Posts
    1,182

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    First, let me say that I know nothing, really nothing, of Margaret Thatcher except that a great many people dislike her. So what I'm saying is not in any way a comment on her or her policies, just an intuitive "uh-huh" of the quote itself.

    It sounds to me like she's saying "there is no society" in the same way that in a democracy, there's no "the government." Society is you and me and our families, it's not some external force that's going to fix or cause all our problems. Society is us, and us is you and me. So I don't think (again, taken entirely out of context) it was so much a prophecy as an observation, or perhaps a semantic debate.

    As for whether it was safer to walk the streets in the 70's, again, I can't speak to Britain's crime statistics in particular, but whenever this canard is brought out in American discussions, the answer is no. Our statistics show that crime in general, and violent crime in particular, is no higher than it was in previous generations, and that in many areas, it's actually lower. What's higher is our awareness of it. Where 30 years ago a kidnapping in another town wouldn't have made my local news, nowadays it's Tweeted and blogged and Yahooed and 34-Hour News Networked and message boarded so that I can't help but become aware of it. I may know of more kidnappings, rapes, muggings, murders and spousal abuses than my grandmother did at my age, but that's not because more of them are happening. It's because I'm better informed, thanks to modern technology and changing news values.
    Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one. A moment. In childhood. When it first occurred to you that you don't go on forever. Must have been shattering. Stamped into one's memory. And yet, I can't remember it.

  4. #4
    Elephant CRSP's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Perfidious Albion
    Posts
    936

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    More context for the quote:

    "I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."
    This has always seemed a reasonable position to take, to me. Help yourself to get out of your mess without expecting the government to do it for you.
    Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur
    D'une langueur Monotone

  5. #5
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    So what are governments meant to do? Just oil the wheels of labour and commerce and reap the rewards?
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  6. #6
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    So what are governments meant to do? Just oil the wheels of labour and commerce and reap the rewards?
    Apparently so.

    This seems to be the approach that Blair and Brown inherited from Thatcher and to a lesser degree John Major.

    We are now, unfortunately, reaping the whirlwind of their greed rather than the benefits.

    The "every man for themselves" approach, which started with the Tories has, IMHO, lead directly to the current financial situation.

    While it seems that statistically it is as safe or safer to walk the streets nowadays there does seem to be a general breakdown in the fabric of society. People seem to be dividing up into smaller "self interest" groups, for example along ethnic or religious grounds or various others such as music, politics etc. I have no research to back up this assertion, it is merely the evidence of my own eyes in the city that I work and from watching the news.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  7. #7
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    The original context was a remark on "people constantly requesting government intervention".

    This is not about everyman for himself, but for everyman to stand up and make a better life for themselves without having to constantly rely on the state.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  8. #8
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    "There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

    What obligation? I, nor anyone else asked to be born in this society. I may have led an entirely satisfactory life raising goats on some mountain-side, having never had any interaction with any governing body.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  9. #9
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Within shouting distance of Hershey
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Ronald Reagan took a similar view at about the same time. He felt that government shouldn't be a solution to man's ills. Of course, this attitude precipitated a far-worse AIDS epidemic than might have happened otherwise, and it also didn't help the mentally ill, some of whom were forced onto the streets when funding for hospitals and other mental-health care dried up.

    I'd like to believe it is a time-and-place view, but I'm not sure I can because I don't know what the 80s were like in England. I know that, in the US, we had relative prosperity, so it's easier to take an anti-government position. Reagan also didn't have to care about the consequences of his actions, many of which we're dealing with right now.
    There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches. -- Ray Bradbury's "Coda"

  10. #10
    Elephant CRSP's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Perfidious Albion
    Posts
    936

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity
    This seems to be the approach that Blair and Brown inherited from Thatcher and to a lesser degree John Major.

    We are now, unfortunately, reaping the whirlwind of their greed rather than the benefits.
    Are we? The worst I've seen it predicted is that we enter a recession, where the economy possibly regresses to how we were five years ago. Five years ago, we'd still had the best part of 20 years of near-consistent economic growth, thanks to Thatcherite economics. Yeah, there's some lean times ahead, but we're not facing a return to the stone age.

    While it seems that statistically it is as safe or safer to walk the streets nowadays there does seem to be a general breakdown in the fabric of society. People seem to be dividing up into smaller "self interest" groups, for example along ethnic or religious grounds or various others such as music, politics etc. I have no research to back up this assertion, it is merely the evidence of my own eyes in the city that I work and from watching the news.
    There never was a fabric of society in the first place. Class has always kept people separated, much more effectively than how people can be separated by having different tastes in music. Also, prior to Thatcher, the unions were king. The whole point of a union is to employ collective bargaining power in negotiations for the benefit of their members, irrespective of how healthy the demands are for the economy and the rest of the country.
    Les sanglots longs des violons de l'automne blessent mon coeur
    D'une langueur Monotone

  11. #11
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    CRSP, I've not seen the report that says we will be in the same position we were five years ago, but accept that you are probably correct in the assertion.

    You are correct that the unions were too powerful, but as someone who has working in industry in this country it seems that the pendulum has swung too far the other way and the company/market is now king. I think we need to find a healthy middle ground.

    I am not in favour of state intervention and believe that the welfare state in ths country is too big. But I am against the corporate greed that seems to dominate this country.

    I often wonder how bankers etc were caught out by this recession and have been watching Dispatches on Channel 4 to enlighten me. I find the ignorance and willful self deception to be almost criminal.

    I also fail to see how corporations can expect to grow year on year without it ever coming to an end. It seems to me to be physically impossible to have continuous growth in a finite system.

    Not wishing to get into a debate about the class war, but wasn't that the old fabric of society? I'm not saying it was good, but what it has been replaced by seems in many respects to be worse. The greed and the cult of celebrity that dominate the media are an example of this, as are such programmes as Eastenders and the like where (in my limited knowledge) there does not seem to be a single likeable or decent person. Combine this with the celebration of criminality and petty thuggery that we get on many tv programmes (on Virgin 1 for example) and I begin to realise why the youth of today are the way they are.

    There does seem to be hope though, I have two daughters aged 16 and 8 and the kids in my younger daughters class seem to have a similar approach to manners and politeness to the way I was brought up, while the older daughters friends do not. I don't necessariy think that this is age related. more it seems to be a new difference in the generations. Possibly as a result of Thatcherism/Blairism we lost a generation, but we may hope that the one that comes afterwards will be better.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  12. #12
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    So what are governments meant to do? Just oil the wheels of labour and commerce and reap the rewards?
    That's exactly what governments are supposed to do! The purpose of a liberal government is to protect people from force used against them by others, so that they may live in an atmosphere of free exchange.

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity
    You are correct that the unions were too powerful, but as someone who has working in industry in this country it seems that the pendulum has swung too far the other way and the company/market is now king. I think we need to find a healthy middle ground.
    The only reasonable option is for the company to be "king". If the owner does not have an absolute right to employ whomever he wishes, then he is being forced against his will to provide jobs. That's not to say that there is no legitimate place for unions: their power comes from collective bargaining. The owner may have the right to fire them all, but if they all band together, he cannot practically do so (and if he could, then they deserve to be fired, for they are making unreasonable demands). But when the government steps in on the side of unions and forces to owner to keep them employed, it is using aggressive, illegitimate force against him.

    I am not in favour of state intervention and believe that the welfare state in ths country is too big. But I am against the corporate greed that seems to dominate this country.
    Greed is not evil. This is one of the most logically inconsistent beliefs held by the electorate today. Capitalism only makes sense with greed, or rational self-interest, as the motivation, and the only market system that can come from rational self-interest is capitalism. If you reject rational-interest as the essential motive and substitute, say, altruism, instead, then you must necessarily switch to some form of socialism instead: a system that sends wealth to all people equally, based on need, rather than based free-market interaction. However, the modern consensus after the fall of Communism is that it is a flawed, evil system, inconsistent with human nature; rejecting greed does not logically hold with this view.

    I often wonder how bankers etc were caught out by this recession and have been watching Dispatches on Channel 4 to enlighten me. I find the ignorance and willful self deception to be almost criminal.
    Making private decisions with your own money, or money given to you by others to invest (as long as you do not embezzle the money, of course), cannot be criminal, if you have any conception of personal rights, at all. If you lose your investment and cannot pay back what is owed to you, you declare bankruptcy, the accepted way of dealing with that situation. You do not have money expropriated from others by force delivered to you, instead; this is not only immoral, but it also cannot last because eventually, the other people will be unwilling or unable to obtain more for you (doubling that national deficit has a way or doing this, by the way).

    I also fail to see how corporations can expect to grow year on year without it ever coming to an end. It seems to me to be physically impossible to have continuous growth in a finite system.
    That is because you seem not to understand economics. Wealth is not finite; it is constantly being created and destroyed. Mercantilism, the idea that a nation should hoard all of its wealth inside its borders, was based on this same idea that there is a finite supply of wealth to be distributed around the world. However, this view is not true; if I take money and invest it successfully into a new company, I have not gained wealth at the expense of others. I have contributed to the creation of new wealth, i.e. whatever good or service that company makes, and get to be paid back my share of it.

    The reason we enjoy booms and suffer recessions is precisely because of the capitalist investment system. When investments are very profitable, in a boom time, more and more money is put into less and less wealth. The resulting recession is when balances are corrected; companies that provide no real service (.com bubble), or not enough service, or inefficient service, or service in an industry people don't want (American car companies are an excellent example of this—not enough people want American cars anymore, therefore American car companies under bad policies fail), fail, as it should be. But there is not actually the same amount of money after the recession as there was before the boom because the boom actually did create real wealth; only the pseudo-wealth was destroyed.

    And companies that fail do not vanish off the face of the earth: their workers are still alive, their factories have not melted, their office buildings have not fallen down, and most of the capital is still around. Things just have to be reorganized, via bankruptcy, so that their creditors get what is owed them. They do this by stopping their least efficient practices, firing their most unnecessary workers, giving their most useless executives golden parachutes, selling their least useful buildings so that they can put to use by the market to do more useful things, and inventing new goods or new ways to market them. If the companies are propped up by "emergency funds" taken from other people in exchange for no good or service, this does not happen. Or rather, it happens when the new money runs out.

    ETA: My only objection to Thatcher is that she was too authoritarian at times, precisely because she wanted to preserve the "fabric of society", in the conservative way she saw it.

    Reagan also didn't have to care about the consequences of his actions, many of which we're dealing with right now.
    I think so, too, but not for the reasons you're probably thinking of. His main problem was that he spent far too much on the military, and didn't do enough to reduce other government costs, something we're (and the future citizens of America) now paying for with our massive deficit. Reagan created the culture of the fiscally irresponsible Republican, instead of having only one party be fiscally irresponsible (although that, I have to admit, was Clinton's major good side). Deregulation was not the problem; this crisis was not caused by deregulation (I can post on that later)

    Combine this with the celebration of criminality and petty thuggery that we get on many tv programmes (on Virgin 1 for example) and I begin to realise why the youth of today are the way they are.
    I agree that many children these days are completely immoral, but they have always been "the way they are". It certainly doesn't have anything to do with greed and capitalism, unless you've seen a lot of libertarian thugs lately.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  13. #13
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

    The only reasonable option is for the company to be "king". If the owner does not have an absolute right to employ whomever he wishes, then he is being forced against his will to provide jobs. That's not to say that there is no legitimate place for unions: their power comes from collective bargaining.
    I see your point and agree up to a point, but the problem is that without some form of union or collective bargaining that the workers will be exploited. One of the things that seemed odd about Thatcher was that she professed to want a classless society, while eroding workers rights and jobs.

    Greed is not evil.
    It may not be evil, but I wouldn't consider it a virtue either. I'm not religious, but don't the christians count it as one of the 7 deadly sins?

    This is one of the most logically inconsistent beliefs held by the electorate today. Capitalism only makes sense with greed, or rational self-interest, as the motivation, and the only market system that can come from rational self-interest is capitalism. If you reject rational-interest as the essential motive and substitute, say, altruism, instead, then you must necessarily switch to some form of socialism instead: a system that sends wealth to all people equally, based on need, rather than based free-market interaction. However, the modern consensus after the fall of Communism is that it is a flawed, evil system, inconsistent with human nature; rejecting greed does not logically hold with this view.
    I feel that a balance is needed, of course people are motivated by self interest, but that is not necessarily in accordance with the best interests of society as a whole. The free market is not IMHO the great benefit that it is sold as and what benefits the market does not always benefit the majority. In a similar way what is bad for the market is not necesarily bad for everyone. I am no better or worse off now that I was before the "crash".

    Making private decisions with your own money, or money given to you by others to invest (as long as you do not embezzle the money, of course), cannot be criminal, if you have any conception of personal rights, at all. If you lose your investment and cannot pay back what is owed to you, you declare bankruptcy, the accepted way of dealing with that situation. You do not have money expropriated from others by force delivered to you, instead; this is not only immoral, but it also cannot last because eventually, the other people will be unwilling or unable to obtain more for you (doubling that national deficit has a way or doing this, by the way).
    That is true, until the investment decisions you take are a. dubious to say the least and b. have an effect on the welbeing of others. And there were a number of dubious actions to say the least. Apparently financial packages are required to be rated according to risk and the types of deal that lead to this were so complicated that only a few people understood them, this combined with an "emperors new clothes" type mentallity where no one wanted to admit to not understanding them meant that they were sold as being AAA rated products (e.g. risk free). They were not, they may have been sold as AAA rated products unknowingly, in which case it is incompetence, but if sold knowingly must qualify as some type of fraud.

    That is because you seem not to understand economics.
    True, I'm not an economist, but a lot of the people involved don't seem to have much idea about economics either.

    For example, according to Dispatches, for every pound of "real" investment there was £40 of debt. This seems to me to be completely irrational, there was no way the debt could be serviced by the level of investment in the system. Which is why there was a run on the banks, when people demanded their money back there just wasn't enough to pay them. In many respects, the proponents of the free market cannot complain as the "crash" we have just seen is simply the market adjusting back to a more realistic level.

    Wealth is not finite; it is constantly being created and destroyed. Mercantilism, the idea that a nation should hoard all of its wealth inside its borders, was based on this same idea that there is a finite supply of wealth to be distributed around the world. However, this view is not true; if I take money and invest it successfully into a new company, I have not gained wealth at the expense of others. I have contributed to the creation of new wealth, i.e. whatever good or service that company makes, and get to be paid back my share of it.
    This statement seems self contradictory, you start off by saying wealth is not finite and end by saying it is merely redistributed. Surely it can't be both? Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but changes its form , but the overall amount of energy remains the same. Surely something similar applies here? Even if there is more money, the actual amount you can buy with each unit of money must be less due to the amount in the system?

    Wealth needs to be based upon something, I'm sure that one of the reasons this all happened was because a lot of the wealth created by these hedge funds etc did not really exist.

    The reason we enjoy booms and suffer recessions is precisely because of the capitalist investment system. When investments are very profitable, in a boom time, more and more money is put into less and less wealth. The resulting recession is when balances are corrected; companies that provide no real service (.com bubble), or not enough service, or inefficient service, or service in an industry people don't want (American car companies are an excellent example of this—not enough people want American cars anymore, therefore American car companies under bad policies fail), fail, as it should be. But there is not actually the same amount of money after the recession as there was before the boom because the boom actually did create real wealth; only the pseudo-wealth was destroyed.
    Exactly what I was trying to say. Part of the reason this happened is that bankers etc kidded themselves that the system was perfect and there wouldn't be a recession. Your point about imaginary wealth echoes my own.

    I agree that many children these days are completely immoral, but they have always been "the way they are". It certainly doesn't have anything to do with greed and capitalism, unless you've seen a lot of libertarian thugs lately.
    [/quote]

    Maybe it's due to the different interpretation of liberalism across the Atlantic, but I don't think of bankers and the like as being libertarian, except in so far as they just do what they want with no consideration for others. As with all things a balance needs to be achieved, with rights come responsibilities. Surely even the "free market" has a responsibility to do no harm at least?
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  14. #14
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    "There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

    What obligation? I, nor anyone else asked to be born in this society. I may have led an entirely satisfactory life raising goats on some mountain-side, having never had any interaction with any governing body.
    As you said none of us asked to be born in this society but in western liberal democracies we're all at liberty to leave it.

    I have worked for most of my life,paid tax and National Insurance obeyed the laws of the land and so feel I have met at least some of the obligations that make me entitled to the benefits of my society.

    The hypothetical goat keeper has only been allowed his lifestyle because there are laws that are enforced to prevent people moving onto his hillside,killing hom and stealing his goats.

    The laws had to be passed through the legislative process and enforced by LEOs and all the paperwork backup all payed for by taxpayers.

    Also the armed forces prevent another nation from doing the same thing to him and other gaotherders but on a grander scale ,just by existing.
    Thirty minutes of Googling not only doesn't make you an expert in a subject,it doesn't even make you right.Real life experience and education will win out every single time

  15. #15
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    This Blog is spot on as far as I am concerned.

    Quote Originally posted by Robert Preston
    Regulators in the UK and the US chronically understated the damage that would be done from the market correction that was inevitable. And in that sense, I suppose, the visceral hostility of the French and German political classes to hedge funds and private equity firms, which they perceived as the savage beasts of Anglo-American capitalism, was perhaps a saner evaluation than was acknowledged in London and New York.
    He also says (in edited form)

    In much of continental Europe, there's a widespread belief that hedge funds and private equity firms caused the global economic crisis.

    ...
    To be clear, neither hedge funds nor the big private equity firms can be seen as innocent victims of the credit crunch.

    They did make a contribution to the pumping up of the financial bubble that turned to bust.

    As industries, they borrowed more than was healthy or sustainable (although within both industries, some firms resisted the urge to over-leverage).

    Hedge funds helped to create a market for the toxic financial products - especially the collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) and credit default swaps - which destroyed the balance sheets of the world's biggest banks.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  16. #16
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by lust4life
    I have worked for most of my life,paid tax and National Insurance obeyed the laws of the land and so feel I have met at least some of the obligations that make me entitled to the benefits of my society.
    Can I say that I agree with you? The same applies pretty much to me, except for the last year when I have not been a taxpayer as I am a full time postgraduate student being paid by research grant.

    However, I think one of the lasting legacies of the last 3 governments is the creation of a new group of people, which are the non-working class (my name). There is a large sub-group that have never worked and will never work and yet continue to receive benefits paid for by the taxpayer. I may not currently be paying income tax, but hopefully my future earnings will enable me to gain a higher paying job and therefore pay back some of the income tax I will not be paying for the next couple of years.

    There seems to be an expectation in certain groups of people that society owes them a living, it does not. If my eldest daugher and her friends are a reliable indicator of the youth of today they expect everything to fall into their hands without having to work for it. Needless to say we are doing our best to educate her that this is incorrect.

    Whether the blame can be laid entirely at the door of the Thatcher and Blair governments is highly debateable, but IMHO the legacy of greed and selfishness certainly hasn't helped things.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  17. #17
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  18. #18
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    AS LONG AS MONEY EXISTS, THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE.

    These reflections have naturally made us realize that we need to create another form of society, one in which people will decide on their own activity and production rather than being slaves to the present production system. This is obviously a huge project. But since many of us are “unemployed,” we do have one invaluable treasure: TIME! And from now on we intend to use it, because the project of a really lived time is far more exciting than the empty time passed working or watching TV or waiting in line at the welfare office.
    It is interesting, because without a large number of people working and paying taxes how will these people eat?

    If someone wants to drop out of society and go live in a kibutz or something that's fine, but I am against groups that want the advantages of society (e.g. welfare payments, free housing) without having to actually contribute anything such as "travellers" as one example.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  19. #19
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    But by treating 'these people' - ie. those that want to live within 'the grid' but apart from it - as 'undesirables', you are effectively criminalising their behaviour. Why not just lock them all up? Well, that would cost a minimum £500 per week per person, so it's cheaper to give them benefits and hope they don't commit more anti-social crimes, surely? Or we could just exile all the unemployed*. Anyone got anywhere in mind for them?


    * For 'unemployed', read 'spongers'.
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  20. #20
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    But by treating 'these people' - ie. those that want to live within 'the grid' but apart from it - as 'undesirables', you are effectively criminalising their behaviour. Why not just lock them all up? Well, that would cost a minimum £500 per week per person, so it's cheaper to give them benefits and hope they don't commit more anti-social crimes, surely? Or we could just exile all the unemployed*. Anyone got anywhere in mind for them?


    * For 'unemployed', read 'spongers'.
    Give them food,shelter and help to find gainful employment but also make them work as hard as the people they so seem to despise, doing environmental projects,helping old people etc

    I have no grudge against people who through no fault of their own have lost their jobs and are having a hard time finding a new one, but I do have a grudge against those who feel entitled to sponge off of society with me ultimately having to work harder to pay the tax and N.I. to keep these people fed,housed,entertained and have offspring that follow in their footsteps.

    And spare me the "But they only get so much a week etc..........."
    However little or how much they get its at the expense of people like me working to pay for it.
    Thirty minutes of Googling not only doesn't make you an expert in a subject,it doesn't even make you right.Real life experience and education will win out every single time

  21. #21
    aka ivan the not-quite-as-terrible ivan astikov's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    moston, UK.
    Posts
    4,779

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by lust4life
    And spare me the "But they only get so much a week etc..........."
    However little or how much they get its at the expense of people like me working to pay for it.
    Do you know how much per month supporting these people deprives you of? Neither do I, but I'd be surprised if it added up to much more than the price of a pint of beer, or 10 cigarettes. Is that really worth getting yourself worked up about?
    To sleep, perchance to experience amygdalocortical activation and prefrontal deactivation.

  22. #22
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    Anyone got anywhere in mind for them?

    For 'unemployed', read 'spongers'.
    Well, we could send all of our scroungers to Poland...
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  23. #23
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by ivan astikov
    Quote Originally posted by lust4life
    And spare me the "But they only get so much a week etc..........."
    However little or how much they get its at the expense of people like me working to pay for it.
    Do you know how much per month supporting these people deprives you of? Neither do I, but I'd be surprised if it added up to much more than the price of a pint of beer, or 10 cigarettes. Is that really worth getting yourself worked up about?

    It is when they seem to use their spare time breaking into cars,committing burgulary,mugging people and shoplifting as a more then random sample of them do round my way.
    I'm not talking about something I've read about in the papers here I'm talking about people who live around me and who I see every day.
    Thirty minutes of Googling not only doesn't make you an expert in a subject,it doesn't even make you right.Real life experience and education will win out every single time

  24. #24
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity

    I see your point and agree up to a point, but the problem is that without some form of union or collective bargaining that the workers will be exploited. One of the things that seemed odd about Thatcher was that she professed to want a classless society, while eroding workers rights and jobs.
    Um, yes. That's why bosses aren't allowed to pick up the shotgun and kill anyone who comes around with socialist, unionizing ideas anymore. As for Thatcher wanting a classless society, I don't know the details about that, so I can't talk about it.

    But workers do not have the "right" to form unions and keep their jobs doing it. They certainly have the right to form unions, but the owner also has the right to fire every single one of them. Unfortunately, he usually can't do this because it would mean he would have no workforce, bad PR, and nobody looking for a job at his plant.

    [quote:yr5eq61g]Greed is not evil.
    It may not be evil, but I wouldn't consider it a virtue either. I'm not religious, but don't the christians count it as one of the 7 deadly sins?[/quote:yr5eq61g]

    One major reason why I'm not a Christian.

    I feel that a balance is needed, of course people are motivated by self interest, but that is not necessarily in accordance with the best interests of society as a whole. The free market is not IMHO the great benefit that it is sold as and what benefits the market does not always benefit the majority. In a similar way what is bad for the market is not necesarily bad for everyone. I am no better or worse off now that I was before the "crash".
    Yes, what benefits the free market always benefits the majority in a free society. You may not realize it, because it is only a small difference, but society is better off than it was before the boom leading to the crash (not before the crash, obviously, because that is the correction stage). In all industries, technological advancements paid for by investment capital steadily improve the quality of life and reduce the need for work. Just think of how much better off you are with high-speed internet than with dial-up (or before the Web existed at all).

    That is true, until the investment decisions you take are a. dubious to say the least and b. have an effect on the welbeing of others. And there were a number of dubious actions to say the least. Apparently financial packages are required to be rated according to risk and the types of deal that lead to this were so complicated that only a few people understood them, this combined with an "emperors new clothes" type mentallity where no one wanted to admit to not understanding them meant that they were sold as being AAA rated products (e.g. risk free). They were not, they may have been sold as AAA rated products unknowingly, in which case it is incompetence, but if sold knowingly must qualify as some type of fraud.
    Making dubious investments or selling bad stock is (or should not be) a crime, unless you are actually threatening the other person with force if he does not buy it. He is free to accept or not, or to choose which banks in which to invest his money; if he makes bad decisions, the ultimate responsibility, regardless of who was "in the wrong," fall on him.

    Now, you might say, "How can I be blamed for losing money because the actions of some bankers and the governments of several countries caused the depreciation of my currency?" This is a very valid point, and it demonstrates exactly why a fiat currency system, based on nothing besides what people think it's worth at the moment, is fundamentally unsound. The best alternative is a currency based on a commodity that keeps a roughly steady value over the years, one that a government can't just print more of when it feels like it (not without changing the set value of gold to its currency). This does not have to be gold, and, in fact, concentrating on gold alone as some sort of magic metal is stupid. Other metals, like silver (£ Sterling?), or a combination of commodities, work just as well or better. The main advantage of this is that it prevents the runaway inflation that will occur if the government is ever seen as unable to pay the debts that back its currency, as will happen in a decade or two in the U.S. if Congress keeps quadrupling the deficit, as it has done in Obama's first 100 days. And, of course, a commodity standard alone is not the answer; responsible spending is needed, too.

    Even disregarding this fact, a large part of the crisis was caused by this kind of government regulation and intervention that you advocate. Government-subsidized lending corporations were pressured to give low-interest loans (part of the world's obsession with fighting "usury") to the poor to let them buy homes. This was a terrible idea, because poor people are given high-interest loans, or denied them altogether, precisely because they often don't pay them back. So, the economy was artificially stimulated into a bubble where loans were cheap, and when this bubble burst, people who had gotten cheap loans could no longer pay them when they got expensive. And the whole thing was manipulated by the Federal Reserve's monetary policy, which arbitrarily decides when loans should be high-interest and when they should be low-interest.

    The only way deregulation had anything to do with it was in the fact that businesses were "deregulated" in such a way that gains were privatized and losses socialized, a sure recipe for encouraging reckless behavior. The recent bailouts have only exaggerated this, because banks, far from being punished by the free market for making bad decisions, are being propped up by money expropriated from the taxpayers.

    True, I'm not an economist, but a lot of the people involved don't seem to have much idea about economics either.

    For example, according to Dispatches, for every pound of "real" investment there was £40 of debt. This seems to me to be completely irrational, there was no way the debt could be serviced by the level of investment in the system. Which is why there was a run on the banks, when people demanded their money back there just wasn't enough to pay them. In many respects, the proponents of the free market cannot complain as the "crash" we have just seen is simply the market adjusting back to a more realistic level.
    Of course. Crashes have to happen. Socialists talk about "redistribution" wealth. How is wealth to be redistributed if businesses, once successful, are never allowed to fail? If people are not allowed to lose their investments? If new owners are not allowed to buy up the bankrupted companies' assets and make them useful?

    [quote:yr5eq61g] Wealth is not finite; it is constantly being created and destroyed. Mercantilism, the idea that a nation should hoard all of its wealth inside its borders, was based on this same idea that there is a finite supply of wealth to be distributed around the world. However, this view is not true; if I take money and invest it successfully into a new company, I have not gained wealth at the expense of others. I have contributed to the creation of new wealth, i.e. whatever good or service that company makes, and get to be paid back my share of it.
    This statement seems self contradictory, you start off by saying wealth is not finite and end by saying it is merely redistributed. Surely it can't be both? Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but changes its form , but the overall amount of energy remains the same. Surely something similar applies here? Even if there is more money, the actual amount you can buy with each unit of money must be less due to the amount in the system?

    Wealth needs to be based upon something, I'm sure that one of the reasons this all happened was because a lot of the wealth created by these hedge funds etc did not really exist.[/quote:yr5eq61g]

    I did say wealth is not finite, but I never said that it is merely redistributed. I said that's what Mercantilist economics taught. This is wrong because wealth and money are not the same thing: wealth is everything we use and enjoy; money is funny pieces of paper with politicians or aristocrats on them. Think of the iPhone as an example. I, owning an iPhone, am that much more wealthy than a Victorian because he would not have anything that even compares to the value the iPhone represents to me. Apple, in making iPhones, introduced more wealth into the world than there was before. It's true that the components of the iPhone were on the earth all along, but, in being combined to make an iPhone, they increased in value.

    Wealth is not "based upon something"; wealth is what people value. Money is what must be based upon something, and it is true that much of the money in these investments and hedge funds didn't represent as much wealth as we should have expected it to. But money must always grow faster than the amount of wealth in a capitalist system. Think about how banks, the foundation of capitalism, work: to start a bank, people get together and give me some of their money; I keep a portion of this in a vault, and it may be considered as "hard" wealth, since I can be pretty certain that it will buy me stuff, and I can't just make up more of it because it is actual, physical dollars in my vault. The rest of the money is lent out; however, I do not, if I have $1000, lend out $900 and keep $100. I lend out $9000 and keep $100; I multiply the amount of money in the world. This money is then used to fund companies that perform labor. Labor creates wealth, and so the total amount of wealth in the world is increased. But if I were not allowed to first lend out more money than was really justified by the amount of wealth in the world, the growth would not have been possible.

    Now, not all of the money I lend out is spent to create wealth. Some is spent to make products no one really wants, like Ford Pintos. These assets are valueless, or at least less valuable than they bargained for, and since it can't repay the loans it took out to make them, the company declares bankruptcy, and money is taken out of the system when people forgive them of the debts that they should rightfully have been payed. This is why recessions have to happen; otherwise, the banks would multiply money endlessly.

    Exactly what I was trying to say. Part of the reason this happened is that bankers etc kidded themselves that the system was perfect and there wouldn't be a recession. Your point about imaginary wealth echoes my own.
    The only point where I disagree with you is that recessions are necessary. I doubt the bankers really thought that a recession would never come, but no one ever thinks that it's going to happen now, or going to happen to him. Except, of course, for the people who do see it coming and take their investments out before the bubble bursts. Naturally, these people make lots of money because they know the difference between places where wealth is being created and places where money is being spent but not making wealth.

    [quote:yr5eq61g] I agree that many children these days are completely immoral, but they have always been "the way they are". It certainly doesn't have anything to do with greed and capitalism, unless you've seen a lot of libertarian thugs lately.
    Maybe it's due to the different interpretation of liberalism across the Atlantic, but I don't think of bankers and the like as being libertarian, except in so far as they just do what they want with no consideration for others. As with all things a balance needs to be achieved, with rights come responsibilities. Surely even the "free market" has a responsibility to do no harm at least?[/quote:yr5eq61g]

    What do bankers have to do with children being immoral?

    And, as for the question of whether the free market has the responsibility to do no harm, it depends on what you mean by "harm". Of course, bankers are not saints, and many of them were the loudest voices calling for the bailouts. They're happy to have other peoples' money taken to be given to them, and who wouldn't be? And, obviously, "free marketeers" are not allowed to use force against people, e.g. to shoot unionizers, to blackmail the competition, or to bribe the police to crack down on the competition.

    But they also have no duty to make sound decisions, either. Now, this would be a bad thing if most people, individually were completely stupid and irrational. The good news for the world is that they're not: most people manage their private affairs fairly well, at least minimally growing their own funds. It's only when they get in groups and start making laws that they often start acting stupid. So, while government regulation of commerce would be necessary if people were incapable of making sound decisions on their own and growing the economy, but they are, and, even in the recession, the economy is growing, just by less (the only Western country with negative GDP is Iceland, which, as Worm the Red can tell you, is a small country that really, really screwed up). Therefore, the government does not need to regulate the economy. This is, in fact, a a great thing, since we have no idea how to regulate an economy as effectively as what the market already does.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  25. #25
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    But workers do not have the "right" to form unions and keep their jobs doing it. They certainly have the right to form unions, but the owner also has the right to fire every single one of them. Unfortunately, he usually can't do this because it would mean he would have no workforce, bad PR, and nobody looking for a job at his plant.
    Not sure that's true in the UK, but IANAL so I can't be sure.

    One major reason why I'm not a Christian.
    Me neither, but I'm not, not one so I can be greedy.

    Yes, what benefits the free market always benefits the majority in a free society. You may not realize it, because it is only a small difference, but society is better off than it was before the boom leading to the crash (not before the crash, obviously, because that is the correction stage). In all industries, technological advancements paid for by investment capital steadily improve the quality of life and reduce the need for work. Just think of how much better off you are with high-speed internet than with dial-up (or before the Web existed at all).
    I se what you mean, but I am not sure I agree that what benefits the market always benefits society. What about all the sweat shops and sub-standard goods produced when there are no controls?

    Making dubious investments or selling bad stock is (or should not be) a crime, unless you are actually threatening the other person with force if he does not buy it. He is free to accept or not, or to choose which banks in which to invest his money; if he makes bad decisions, the ultimate responsibility, regardless of who was "in the wrong," fall on him.
    Depends if it's sold honestly or not. Withholding critical information about the value of the stock is fraud (IMHO) and therefore illegal and dishonest.

    The best alternative is a currency based on a commodity that keeps a roughly steady value over the years, one that a government can't just print more of when it feels like it (not without changing the set value of gold to its currency). This does not have to be gold, and, in fact, concentrating on gold alone as some sort of magic metal is stupid. Other metals, like silver (£ Sterling?), or a combination of commodities, work just as well or better.
    I agree, sadly I believe we sold most, if not all, of ours.

    I pretty much agree with most of the rest of your points.

    What do bankers have to do with children being immoral?

    And, as for the question of whether the free market has the responsibility to do no harm, it depends on what you mean by "harm". Of course, bankers are not saints, and many of them were the loudest voices calling for the bailouts. They're happy to have other peoples' money taken to be given to them, and who wouldn't be? And, obviously, "free marketeers" are not allowed to use force against people, e.g. to shoot unionizers, to blackmail the competition, or to bribe the police to crack down on the competition.
    Firstly I think that as role models for the young, greedy, panicy and unprinciples people make poor role models.

    As for your last point that's only really true in western democracies, in much of the world these things can take place and do.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  26. #26
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Um, yes. That's why bosses aren't allowed to pick up the shotgun and kill anyone who comes around with socialist, unionizing ideas anymore. As for Thatcher wanting a classless society, I don't know the details about that, so I can't talk about it.

    But workers do not have the "right" to form unions and keep their jobs doing it. They certainly have the right to form unions, but the owner also has the right to fire every single one of them. Unfortunately, he usually can't do this because it would mean he would have no workforce, bad PR, and nobody looking for a job at his plant.
    Not true in the UK. The owner has no right to fire any employee without good reason. Usually for gross misconduct and sometimes even that can be insufficient grounds for dismissal. Otherwise they could be taken to a tribunal.

    Workers do have the right to form unions if a percentage of the workforce want one and there is nothing the owner can do about it.
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  27. #27
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Um, yes. That's why bosses aren't allowed to pick up the shotgun and kill anyone who comes around with socialist, unionizing ideas anymore. As for Thatcher wanting a classless society, I don't know the details about that, so I can't talk about it.

    But workers do not have the "right" to form unions and keep their jobs doing it. They certainly have the right to form unions, but the owner also has the right to fire every single one of them. Unfortunately, he usually can't do this because it would mean he would have no workforce, bad PR, and nobody looking for a job at his plant.
    Not true in the UK. The owner has no right to fire any employee without good reason. Usually for gross misconduct and sometimes even that can be insufficient grounds for dismissal. Otherwise they could be taken to a tribunal.

    Workers do have the right to form unions if a percentage of the workforce want one and there is nothing the owner can do about it.
    Yes, because the UK and US governments are unjustly forcing the employers to recognize unions and to give money to people they no longer wish to, which is exactly what I was arguing against. I meant that they have the natural right, not the legal right.

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity
    I se what you mean, but I am not sure I agree that what benefits the market always benefits society. What about all the sweat shops and sub-standard goods produced when there are no controls?
    Think about this: why do people work in sweatshops, or at less than minimum wage at all? It's because, if you're a poor Mexican, it's the only job you can get, and it's better than any alternative. If you weren't working in the sweatshop, you wouldn't have a job at all. You can't force companies to pay them more, because you cannot legislate basic economics. If a worker's labor is worth $2 an hour, it is worth $2 an hour, and as long as someone is unemployed and willing to do the job, $2 an hour is a lot better than $0 an hour. Companies are not "oppressing" the illegal immigrant (borders should be completely open, in my opinion) working in the kitchen by paying him less than minimum wage. That is the wage he has agreed to, and the wage which market forces dictate. By making it illegal to do so, you just make the owner take it off the books. That's why I believe the minimum wage should be abolished. It serves no purpose: if a job is worth more than the minimum wage, it is irrelevant, and if it is worth less, then it is either given out illegally, anyway, or, ironically, not at all, if the government inspectors have their way. In no case can companies realistically actually pay any more.

    A lot of this comes from lawmakers' unrealistic views of how the world is: if I legislate that a job, or an apartment, or whatever is worth a certain amount, guess what, it's really still worth as much as it was before. Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics is a book everyone should read: it explains just why all these attempts by the government, like rent controls, union regulations, tariffs, and minimum wages, can never work and are, in fact, counter-productive. It was written in 1946 (and benefits from not having to treat FDR like the Great American Saint), but it's still just as relevant.

    As for your last point that's only really true in western democracies, in much of the world these things can take place and do.
    Yes, of course. Those aren't free societies. It doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, but with unjust use of force against people, the opposite of free exchange.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  28. #28
    Administrator CatInASuit's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Coulsdon Cat Basket
    Posts
    10,342

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit
    Not true in the UK. The owner has no right to fire any employee without good reason. Usually for gross misconduct and sometimes even that can be insufficient grounds for dismissal. Otherwise they could be taken to a tribunal.

    Workers do have the right to form unions if a percentage of the workforce want one and there is nothing the owner can do about it.
    Yes, because the UK and US governments are unjustly forcing the employers to recognize unions and to give money to people they no longer wish to, which is exactly what I was arguing against. I meant that they have the natural right, not the legal right.
    What are you defining as natural right and legal right?
    In the land of the blind, the one-arm man is king.

  29. #29
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit
    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
    Quote Originally posted by CatInASuit
    Not true in the UK. The owner has no right to fire any employee without good reason. Usually for gross misconduct and sometimes even that can be insufficient grounds for dismissal. Otherwise they could be taken to a tribunal.

    Workers do have the right to form unions if a percentage of the workforce want one and there is nothing the owner can do about it.
    Yes, because the UK and US governments are unjustly forcing the employers to recognize unions and to give money to people they no longer wish to, which is exactly what I was arguing against. I meant that they have the natural right, not the legal right.
    What are you defining as natural right and legal right?
    I think the Wikipedia article defines natural rights pretty well:
    Quote Originally posted by Wikipedia
    Natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity.
    Legal rights are simply what the government allows you to do.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  30. #30
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

    Think about this: why do people work in sweatshops, or at less than minimum wage at all? It's because, if you're a poor Mexican, it's the only job you can get, and it's better than any alternative. If you weren't working in the sweatshop, you wouldn't have a job at all. You can't force companies to pay them more, because you cannot legislate basic economics. If a worker's labor is worth $2 an hour, it is worth $2 an hour, and as long as someone is unemployed and willing to do the job, $2 an hour is a lot better than $0 an hour. Companies are not "oppressing" the illegal immigrant (borders should be completely open, in my opinion) working in the kitchen by paying him less than minimum wage. That is the wage he has agreed to, and the wage which market forces dictate. By making it illegal to do so, you just make the owner take it off the books. That's why I believe the minimum wage should be abolished. It serves no purpose: if a job is worth more than the minimum wage, it is irrelevant, and if it is worth less, then it is either given out illegally, anyway, or, ironically, not at all, if the government inspectors have their way. In no case can companies realistically actually pay any more.

    A lot of this comes from lawmakers' unrealistic views of how the world is: if I legislate that a job, or an apartment, or whatever is worth a certain amount, guess what, it's really still worth as much as it was before. Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics is a book everyone should read: it explains just why all these attempts by the government, like rent controls, union regulations, tariffs, and minimum wages, can never work and are, in fact, counter-productive. It was written in 1946 (and benefits from not having to treat FDR like the Great American Saint), but it's still just as relevant.
    While you may be correct from an economic point of view, I still think that morally a minimum wage is a good idea. Of course the minimum wage will vary from country to country depending upon the cost of living, so it will still be possible to manufacture goods for the actual value, while allowing workers a fair wage for the job.

    Also how do you take into account illegal labour working almost as slaves? For example here in the UK a couple of years ago there was a case of chinese illegal immigrants working off their passage by picking shellfish of some kind. The tide changed and many were killed. If I understand you correctly you would say they were better off working like this than being back in China?

    I still think that a completely unregulated market is dangerous, some controls will always be necessary as there are always immoral individuals willing to do illegal things in order to make money. The benefits of the economy need to be balanced with the welfare of the individual.
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

  31. #31
    Libertarian Autocrat Vox Imperatoris's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, Alabama (♂)
    Posts
    880

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Walker in Eternity
    While you may be correct from an economic point of view, I still think that morally a minimum wage is a good idea. Of course the minimum wage will vary from country to country depending upon the cost of living, so it will still be possible to manufacture goods for the actual value, while allowing workers a fair wage for the job.
    So it is acceptable to pay workers in Mexico pitifully lower wages than an American would get for the same work, as long as they are in Mexico? What if it is an American company?

    Also how do you take into account illegal labour working almost as slaves? For example here in the UK a couple of years ago there was a case of chinese illegal immigrants working off their passage by picking shellfish of some kind. The tide changed and many were killed. If I understand you correctly you would say they were better off working like this than being back in China?
    Well, it depends. Were they actually slaves, bound to work for their owner or else face punishment? Or were they just working in that menial job because they saw the disadvantages of coming to the UK as outweighing the disadvantages of remaining in China? Of course, no one has the right to compel forced labor from a worker (except as punishment for a crime). Whether the job is dangerous or not is irrelevant.

    The issue is complicated by the fact that both unauthorized immigration and paying under the minimum wage are illegal, so the companies and the workers have to resort to shady practices to hide it. They still do it, mind you, but it makes it inconvenient and opens it up to much more abuse. For example, an owner can compel forced labor by threatening to report an illegal immigrant to the authorities, who will use force to punish him; obviously, this is not free exchange. This is why I believe that the government's policies are misguided.
    Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
    Return of Blümchen! (To my Avatar spot.)
    Last.fm Pandora Political Compass
    Mentes Liberae et Mercatūs Liberi

  32. #32
    Stegodon Walker in Eternity's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    The Spiral Politic
    Posts
    390

    Default Re: Margaret Thatcher's self fullfilling prophecy?

    Quote Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris

    So it is acceptable to pay workers in Mexico pitifully lower wages than an American would get for the same work, as long as they are in Mexico? What if it is an American company?
    I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is what the system you endorse encourages.

    Besides earnings are relative. You might not be able to live in the UK or US on $2/hr but that might be a good salary in another country.

    Well, it depends. Were they actually slaves, bound to work for their owner or else face punishment? Or were they just working in that menial job because they saw the disadvantages of coming to the UK as outweighing the disadvantages of remaining in China? Of course, no one has the right to compel forced labor from a worker (except as punishment for a crime). Whether the job is dangerous or not is irrelevant.
    No they were, as far as I am aware, forced in to it because they were illegal immigrants and could not get legal work. Why is the danger of a job irrelevant?

    How did this become a thread on the rights if immigrant workers, it was meant to be about whether society exists or not, not an economic debate?
    Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth - Marcus Aurelius

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts