Slashdot Mirror
Margaret Thatcher Dies At 87
syngularyx writes "Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister who became one of the most influential global leaders of the postwar period, died on Monday, three decades after her championing of free-market economics and individual choice transformed Britain's economy and her vigorous foreign policy played a key role in the end of the Cold War."
Good riddance. She was a terrible Prime Minister and caused untold suffering and misery.
PS. How is this News for Nerds? Why isn't the story tagged "troll"?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Let the bipolar love / vitriol begin!
She reigned long ago but I think Britain is still not over her.
-- Cheers!
The Conservative Party could fund itself forever by installing a pay toilet on her grave.
http://rocknerd.co.uk
at least the BBC have :
In quotes: Margaret Thatcher
Obituary: Margaret Thatcher
Video obituary
whatever the politics at least link to the BBC...
John Jones
As a German who grew up in Britain in the 80s, I'd like to say she was an awesome prime minister, although many of my countrymen and indeed many Brits will disagree. Sod them.
Germany would benefit *hugely* from someone like her. Sadly, there's absolutely no-one on the horizon.
It doesn't matter whether she goes to heaven or hell. She'll clear either place up.
The unions did that to themselves in the 70's. Look at BMC: they spent nearly as much time out on (largely wildcat) strikes than they did working.
Argentina started it. She, correctly, responded.
The first female Prime Minister of the UK did nothing to promote women?
In other words she ushered in the era of zero accountability for the rich and corporations.
Sounds like she is partial author of the current turmoil.
... the witch is dead!
- Hillaire Belloc (1870-1953)
And of course, despite the damage she caused both the UK and the world at large, she will be given a state funeral. A funeral where protest and dissent will be not permitted. Where the militarised police (and possibly even the military, c.f. the recent Oxbridge Boat Race) will be used to keep all those who despise the policies she stood for elsewhere.
And of course, despite the damage she caused both the UK and the world at large, the Labour Party hacks will be out in force with nary a bad word to be said. (That's 'cause "New" Labour is just another party of capitalism, no longer socialism, if it ever was.)
be sad for the family.
Don't be sad for Thatcher.
I was young when you arrived a PM. This country was on its knees. It was backrupt, dead people were in the streets unburied and weeks of garbage strewn the streets from leftism gone mad. Labour and the Unions were in full wrecking ball mode.
Yes, you were a bitch, but the medicine we had, and it was not nice, was in the most part - needed.
You played a part in ending the cold war, in hauling down the wall, and in supporting Solidarity in Poland when you'd normally prefer to drive a stake through any other union's heart.
And you helped pull a wall down and break up the cold war.
Rest in Peace.
We`re all equal
She rescued Britain. UK was nearly bankrupt before her, a block of the unions were in charge. Three unions would all strike together and UK had electricity blackouts as a result, the Labour party then gave them pay rises (20%) and as each union got a huge raise, so another union would go on strike and demand more than the others. The debt became impossible and the IMF was called in. It was a disaster.
She came along and made a law that said you couldn't strike without a vote from union members, and no more than 6 people could picket a factory and no secondary picketing.
Arthur Scargill (mine workers) then held a strike without a vote, the mine workers had their funds seized, and strikers were sacked. It broke union control of the UK. UK still had unions, but the need to have a vote before a strike made them less militant. People wanting to work don't keep going on strike, but the union bosses get paid whether on strike or not, so they're far more militant than the union members.
Likewise the rent-a-mob shut down of factories ended.
After that closed shops were abolished (the rule that said to work at the company you had to be a member of union Z), and Britain really turned around. You no longer had to be a union member to work, you could vote for whether to strike, and blackouts and power cuts ended.
She was so successful, that she because a sort of hate figure for the left. Ineffective leaders (like John Major) are easily dismissed, not so the good ones. She was hard, and luckily came along at a time when that was needed.
Goodbye Mrs Thatcher.
If you are too stupid to realise what Thatcher did for the UK then I can only assume that you work for PC World.
Absolutely but it's not all her fault Blair did enough deregulation as well.
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because her government started a relentless drive for less regulation the Brits decided to limit the rules on the reduction of offal to cattle feed.
Although Scrapie and it's transmission is still not fully understood, in the day there was sufficient evidence it was related to a human syndrome called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.
The rules for offal use were mainly about the time and minimum temperature it had to be processed to become acceptable as cattle feed, Maggie's government lowered both the time exposure and the minimum temperature resulting in Scrapie jumping the barrier to first cows and next humans.
When Mrs. Thatcher came to office the country was in a deplorable state and changes were long over due.
But the way she's gone on about them is not fit for a repeat, the all but destruction of the unions has left the country as an outsider in Europe re. workers rights. Even now it's become quite obvious the well regulated German system is superior her party is still strictly adhering to the path she set.
The issues with her government are not with the subjects she tackled but with the rigorous and often cold-blooded way she did.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
So others get the blame for the public being shortsighted and greedy and selling their shares?
The country's overrun by chavs, all goods we want we have to import because we no longer make anything, crime's so rampant and the police do so much NOTHING that nobody bothers even reporting it any more, so the politicians trumpet "crime's going down!"... these are "the gains"?
No, these are called "the reasons why I emigrated".
Britain voted her into power again and again. She was chosen by Brits to lead because she was a good leader.
Also, the coal strike fractured the coal miners union into two. A lot of miners resented the strike and wanted to work. They believed they'd win the a strike vote and prevent a strike. Scargill tried to shut them down using mob picketing of the Nottingham mines.
The '6 person picketing rule' meant the police came in. The mob would be kept on the other side of the street, only 6 were allowed at the gate.
Then we had the motorway killings, workers buses would be hit by bricks and railway sleepers, people died, that led to a further loss of support for Scargill.
She did other things too, she increase corporation tax to held reduce the debt, and reduced the top rate personal tax from 83% to 60%
(yes it really was that high! If your income came from sales, you'd pay 98% sales+income tax!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom
She raised taxes and cut spending.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/the-legend-of-margaret-thatcher/
It's difficult for the left to accept her success. Largely because they'd have to accept the 1970's labour governments were a disaster. But thats why Britain voted for her.
Mod points won't hide things. She was a good competent leader. Far better than the people dissing her now.
Reagan caught a lot of flack after he left office, but history has been kind to him. Perhaps in a few years Maggie will be seen in a kinder light. Or maybe not. The brits aren't too fond of the eastern european influx that have shown up for free medical.
A) 900 years
B) 3,000 years
C) 11 years
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This is geek news because she created the conditions where IT professionals could sell their skills at a decent price. If you were in commercial IT between 1985 and 2005 and you didn't even try to become self employed, then you should ask yourself whether you missed something.
I am aware that the deregulation of the financial market went too far. However, I maintain that if Mrs. Thatcher wouldn't have exercised her influence, the UK would not have thrived as it did.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Sounds like she is partial author of the current turmoil.
In no particular order:
Yes!
She was a terrible Prime Minister and caused untold suffering and misery.
The British people who elected her obviously disagree with you.
She was elected after the policies of the Labour party dumped the country in the worst economic crisis in UK history
Labour had policies based upon raising the income tax without any regard for cutting government expenses. They claimed government spending and inflation are good for the economy. Sound familiar?
There once was a Maggie from Lincolnshire
whose conservatism would never tire
Milton Friedman was her hero
when things got warm she fiddled like Nero.
Margaret Thatcher, open source advocate?
Margaret Thatcher, sci-fi actress?
Margaret Thatcher, bitcoin pioneer?
No, of course not, it's Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister who's been out of public view for years. As far as I'm concerned this barely qualifies as news anywhere, let alone Slashdot.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"Ever since she shut down the unions,"
All Scargill had to do was have a strike vote. She didn't shut down the union, she made the union bosses answerable to their members, and gave people a choice if they wanted to be a union member.
"CEO's wages have increased dramatically more than the median wage"
No doubt, but then she hasn't been in power since 1990 and most of that is post 1995. The unions, as I said, weren't shut down. They're still around and chose Ed Miliband as the leader of the Labour party. Despite the party members voting for his brother. If you think the unions are the fix for things, why not vote for Ed. His party didn't.
"No longer were employees empowered to demand a reasonable share of the profits of their endeavours"
Britain was bankrupt, what are these 'profits' you refer to? At one point they couldn't even pay the nurses their wages.
Nurses union wasn't as powerful as the miners+electricity workers unions.
She started us on the "no such thing as society" route
The full quote is:
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand "I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!" or "I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!" "I am homeless, the Government must house me!" and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation and it is, I think, one of the tragedies in which many of the benefits we give, which were meant to reassure people that if they were sick or ill there was a safety net and there was help, that many of the benefits which were meant to help people who were unfortunate -- "It is all right. We joined together and we have these insurance schemes to look after it". That was the objective, but somehow there are some people who have been manipulating the system and so some of those help and benefits that were meant to say to people: "All right, if you cannot get a job, you shall have a basic standard of living!" but when people come and say: "But what is the point of working? I can get as much on the dole!" You say: "Look" It is not from the dole. It is your neighbour who is supplying it and if you can earn your own living then really you have a duty to do it and you will feel very much better!"
Sounds a lot better when you understand the context. The things we demand or take from "society" are actually demanded or taken from our fellow man. As to the "some people will never get a job" quote, you have three of the five googled instances of the quote, all from the same copy/pasted comment that you gave above.
Then you move on to:
The thing I hate her most for is usurping the prayer of St Francis of Assisi. I cannot her it now without thinking about how she did the exact opposite of every single statement - it brings thoughts of selfish greed, self importance and hypocrisy instead of peace and humility now.
That indicates your problem. You could have chosen to view the prayer and her works in the better light they deserve. You have poisoned your worldview for at least three decades.
Another was changing the law and backdating it when she tried to take money earmarked for London transport, despite the judge saying it was not only legally but morally wrong,
End the Cold War? Reverse the economic decline of the UK? Not worth mentioning. But mess with your pet public transportation scheme, and you'll be bitter till the end of time.
You're one of those "don't call me a chick" chicks, right?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
When I first glanced at this morning's Slashdot headlines, my brain parsed this as "Margaret Weiss Dies at 87" and thought, "oh what a terrible start to the day; I used to quite love her books. I didn't know she was so old!"
But on re-reading, well... I was too young to be (directly) effected by Thatcher's politics but I can understand some of the anger. Still, at least she had a sense of humor
This was of course extremely important: The Brits needed those islands for, as Eddie Izzard put it, strategic sheep purposes.
But at least Prince Andrew got some good press out of the whole thing.
I am officially gone from
In other words she ushered in the era of zero accountability for the rich and corporations.
Sounds like she is partial author of the current turmoil.
Just for the sake of argument, and because I am decidedly grumpy these days, I'll let you search for the privatization prospectus for the water companies. Go check the limits . It was a painstakingly difficult formula built to ensure that companies would not increase prices if they could not account for them in investment in the water network and quality, and all capped at consumer price inflation minus 2%. The prospectus was big as a moderate size telephone book. the water authority had limited power, in that a company better managed would earn more, but that power was enough. To top it off, in the initial public offering the general public, and especially customers, got a fantastically good deal. Not only they had priority up to 2.000 shares each, but they were partly paid, i.e. in the first year they had a full dividend on half the capital.
So, sorry to shake your comfortable beliefs, but no, it was not dear old Maggie who "ushered in the era of zero accountability for the rich and corporations". for these you had to wait for the same Brussels Burocracy she railed against to no avail.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
You will be missed.
Scotland totally not giving a fuck!
Scotland's Very own Frankie Boyle p t it best on Mock The Week a few years ago
she was preventing kids from having milk before then! Thatcher was on the team that invented "Mr Whippy" ice cream.. looks like you get more however with the air pumped and mixed into it you actually get less!
Rust in Peace, Iron Lady.
Everything you've listed is open to political debate, except the last. That's a deliberately negative out-of-context selective quote.
The reader should be invited to examine a longer quote ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher#Third_term_as_Prime_Minister ) and decide what the sentiment contained was.
That decision would have been ministry for agriculture, she wouldn't have even been in the meeting. But yes, her government was not perfect, every choice she made was not perfect. You're kinda clutching at straws I think though.
Also I see people complaining about Mr Whippy. Mr Whippy's 99 was the most popular icecream before Cornetto came along, it far outsold the icecream slice and more people wanted the soft 99's with the choc flake even than scooped chocolate icecreams. DON'T DISS THE 99!
Overall though, damn good on you Mrs Thatcher, I remember the bin-men strikes, I remember the miners and their 20% pay rises. I remember my dad complaining that he had to go on strike because he's been told to and would lose his job is he didn't (closed shop agreements suck). I remember factories closing everywhere.
I also remember how we'd get our food order in on Fridays, and eat banana sandwiches, and eat all the crisps. I remember how by the next week there would be no food. I even ate lard at one point. Britain was poor before her, a banana sandwich on a Friday was luxury.
I sound like an old man, but I remember what the 70s were like, we were poor! We had power cuts, we would sit in the dark with an oil lamp because the power workers wanted a 20% rise this year since the miners got so much, and the bin men went on strike wanting the same. F*** you. I'm really angry when I remember how bad things were and hear you diss Mrs T.. You don't have a clue, you really don't know how much better she made things.
That modern economic climate being democracy + capitalism as competitors to socialism and authoritarian government.
Something that seems sadly to have gone out of fashion in the world today.
I don't know about what she did on women's rights, but just occupying the position of PM with a vagina doesn't count for anything.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The leftists will spew hate and dance on her grave. The right will honor her free market initiatives. The ones in the middle are caught in the crossfire. One of her quotes "“Standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.” seems appropriate and sheds light on her political philosophy.
As an American, I can only say that she was well liked by us (at least our media). Not because of any economic policies but because it was the 80s and the brinkmanship with the Soviet Union was the #1 issue on both sides of the "pond". Reagan and Thatcher could pretty much do anything they wanted because we were more concerned about the cold war than anything else. The threat of nuclear war dominated our popular culture and the fall of the Soviet Union cemented Reagan's and Thatcher's place as the ones who made it possible to no longer have to worry about the threat of nuclear war.
As an outsider, it isn't fair for me to comment on her domestic policy. For the US, the 80's seemed decadent for the upwardly mobile segment of the population while the middle class waited for the benefits to trickle down as their economic security was threatened or eliminated. I'm assume the UK experience was similar with the upwardly mobile taking advantage of the deregulated markets and the middle class feeling the pressure from the lack of job security or outright job loss. The 80's was a conflicted time for the working class.
Anyway however how right or wrong her policies were, the number one reason why she was ultimately good for Great Britain was her stubbornness. The status quo wasn't a real option for Great Britain and it took her to put their government in a gear other than neutral. I think in the end history will note that it was her disruption of the status quo that was beneficial for her country and not necessarily her policies. Same can probably be said of Reagan in the US. Our economic system needed to be a little less regulated or government owned. Of course there is a huge difference from lessening government control/ownership and outright privatize everything and allow the market self regulate. Anyway back on topic...
My mild fondness for both Reagan and Thatcher is dampened by the reality that despite ultimately improving the GDP and political stature of both nations as well as eliminated the soviet threat, both countries now suffer from a society divided by the so called free market. I don't think it's really fair to place the blame entirely on the free market. Regardless, the short-term gains are now giving way to the long-term consequences.
I guess a self-conflicted comment is appropriate for the current subject...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
"When those bills come rolling in; we're gonna throw them in the bin.
Maggie! Out!
Maggie! Out!
Maggie, Maggie, Maggie!
Out! Out! Out!"
I was at an anti-Poll Tax march with my mum, at the tender age of 9. Seems like an age away now.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
True, Ronald Reagan deserves credit for winning an economic drinking game with the USSR, they couldn't hold their debt as well as the USA!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What does Yvonne Lee, Community Manager at Dice.com think about all this?
Haven't heard from her in a while.
Python coder | PyQt Applications | Writer
"She turned me into a newt!"
"....I got better"
She created the poll tax to force the idiot common yokel voter to see how damned much money they were actually paying to government in taxes.
It backfired and was tremendously unpopular because it successfully forced the common yokel voter to see how much money they were actually paying to government in taxes.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I agree, must of been 900 years.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Sirimavo Bandaranaike? Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir were also PMs before Thatcher (and Eva Perón was President).
Well, yes, she did transform the UK economy. From an industrial nation to a bankers nation who then went bankrupt. The UK is Greece times a hundred with the Scots owing all the money (oil) and the UK being a shadow of a shadow of its former self. They even had to sell their aircraft carrier.
The UK is a great example of what happens when you are in love with the stock market and think bankers ARE the economy instead of being a support service for the economy.
Never mind that her party became under her leadership a byword for sleaze and corruption. Those in England have grown to despise her to such an extent even her own party banned her. She is basically a combo of Reagan and Nixon and NO Americans that is NOT a good thing.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Privatising the water boards might have been a "fantastically good deal" if you had lots of money to invest in the shares, before immediately selling them. Lots of people did this of course, as they did with gas, rail and all of the other things built with the people's money and then sold for knock-down prices to foreign coroporations.
However, even the most ardent capitalist could never argue that privatising water was rational. What meaning is there to a market with no competition? If I want to have water piped to my house (and sewerage taken away) I *have* to pay Wessex Water, a Malaysian company, to do it. There's no choice. Yes, what they can charge is limited by some formula, but who cares? Nothing they do has any bearing on who I buy water from.
Before privatisation water supply in the UK was provided on a non-profit basis by democratically-elected representatives. Now it's done by companies granted a monopoly, millions flow out of the UK as a result. Wessex Water made over 72 million pounds profit after tax in 2012, and probably close to that since. And has this resulted in lower prices for consumers due to the oh-so-efficient private sector? No. In fact, prices have been rising faster than inflation since privatisation.
Hurrah for the free market and neoliberal ideology!
I agree - she did what she believed in, I didn't agree with her politics from all perspective, but she was able to get things done. Even when she was wrong she was right.
It may not have been the right things in all cases, but she didn't hesitate to do the necessary hard things as well as the less necessary easy.
And from time to time a strong charismatic person that gets things done is necessary - Britain was really in a bad situation with a stagnant system and severe inflation when she took over. Her actions did hurt a lot of people, but at the same time it also opened up new opportunities.
Considering the situation of both the EU and the US today it would certainly not be a bad time for someone like her to show up and straighten out some of the idlers in Brussels.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I actually agree with that quote. But her actions don't follow it.
Part of the problem has been caused by her sale of what were previously national assets (the North Sea oil fields, etc) at bargain basement rates, when they should have remained national assets - the very definition of the "joining together" she talks about. By all means, free enterprise when hiring companies to exploit your national assets, but the assets, and their product, should remain in public ownership.
Part of the problem has been the swing of power and accumulation of wealth towards the oligarchs - and that may well have happened mostly after her time.
Another problem has been that the wages of basic labour have been eroded to the point where you really are better off on the dole - the majority of recipients of tax credits for the impoverished in the UK are employed. The current Conservative party have decided to rectify this "loophole" by demanding that people enter work placements in exchange for their benefits - an epically stupid move. What employer of basic-rate labour is going to actually pay their workers a living wage, when they can just fire them, and then pick them up again on "Workfare" - they don't just get free labour paid for by the taxpayer, they get to use them as a cudgel to depress the wages of all their other workers.
I remember the milk. It wasn't just for poor children - it was for all children. They used to make special half-pint milk bottles to hand it out in. The economic stimulus must have been enormous - not only were you nurturing the workers of tomorrow, you were encouraging dairies and glass blowers. And probably forestalling many cases of rickets, a disease that has been on the upswing in the UK recently, so saving the NHS much trouble and money in the way of orthotic braces and surgery.
And it was proper full-cream milk, not the semi-skimmed piss-water that passes for milk today. One of the more pleasant events of the school day.
I think the only thing that we all agree on is that you either loved or hated her.
To some she wrecked the country, threw millions out of work, destroyed their communities.
To others she freed us from the shackles of socialism, faced down the union barons, and made Britain stand tall in the world again.
We will not see her like again.
And all you people can talk about is some old warhorse?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
But just the same you mention the closed shop agreements, that's where action was required, not with unionisation as such.
The fact she got an opt-out for the EU social charter has not helped the British, only a minority of irresponsible employers reap the benefit.
Take the example of working hours regulation, the EU rule allowed exceptions for groups like the police and military, her government extended it to the oil industry, surely the last that needed or needs such 'support' over the backs of the workers.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Ah yes, I'm sure Thatcher selling off the UK's water utilities really shook Moscow to its foundations.
Or was it that letting people buy their own Council Houses at a bit of a discount really motivated those lazy East Germans to tear down that wall? I bet they couldn't wait to get a chance to buy a piece of their crumbling tenement (and didn't worry for a moment that perhaps West Germany wouldn't adopt exactly the same policy straight away).
I think he had an appointment pending, assuming he has a good pair of hiking boots handy.
My Father, who was a school teacher. He knew poverty as his father was a working class coal miner and was one of the people to benefit from the 'socalist' Britain after the second world war. Secondary school, University not an apprenticeship down a coal mine at 13 or 14.
A life time dedicated to teaching children and trying to open their eyes to what they could be and I dont just mean the hours he was paid for. I also mean the hours he gave freely to run chess clubs and soccer teams etc. No glory or public aplomb , just the usual your over paid, 4 months holidays a year etc.
Did he care? I dont believe did , You could see he got his reward by the smile on his face when one of his pupils was mention in the newspapers or on tv or even just thanked him years later at r parents evening when he was teaching their kids
A career / vocation that meant after 25 years he was finally earning what it took me 3 years to achieve after graduating.
A life times work destroyed by Thatcher when she destroyed huge sections of the North and Scotland and subsequent politicians of both Nu-labour and The present Conservative l Lib coalition still pursue .
Economics 101: if the economy does badly, it's the fault of unions
It is arguable whether the unions were to blame for the state of the UK economy in the 1980s but they certainly were not helping it recover. The reforms she introduced included things like requiring a vote of members before a strike could be called, limiting the terms of union leaders (before her some unions elected leaders like popes - they were elected for life), requiring one vote per member - no massive block votes. Effectively she required the unions to actually pay attention to their members - I don't see anyway that these reforms can be seen as anything but a good thing. It stopped union bosses making decisions in their own best interests rather than the interests of the workers they were supposed to be representing.
Had she stopped there she would have been remembered as a truly great prime minister. Unfortunately having fixed the economy by making the unions function properly again she then went a lot, lot further and did a lot of damage. Her legacy would have been far greater had she been a one term prime minister.
If you put a small toddler in a playpen with a kilo sack of sugar...
Nice analogy but where it falls down is that toddlers don't get to vote for their parents. If toddlers did they might well vote for a parent who would give them a sack of sugar and let them get dangerously ill. In which case who's to blame: the parent the toddlers selected who did what they were voted in to do or the toddlers who wanted something which they should have known was bad for them?
This is why democracy does not work. The only reason we use it is, to paraphrase Churchill, because every other type of government that has been tried so far turns out to be even worse.
Sorry that this old bitch died in her bed. Sorry for you Satan, you now have a serious rival in your kingdom.
I met Dame Thatcher once, several years ago, just before the First Gulf War. She was amazing, bright, witty, complimentary, gracious--simply an impressive woman across the board. She helped to defeat the Russians and end the Cold War.
She'll be missed.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
The first female Prime Minister of the UK did nothing to promote women?
Yes, definitely. A well known fact and matereial for an interesting psychological study.
Women like her are aggressive in outlook. They look down on other women who do not achieve what they have, and regard other women who have as rivals to be held back. Sorry to say it, but women are much more bitchy between each other than men are, and Mrs T was a very bitchy type.
Mrs T' s attitude could be summed up as : "I got where I did by the sweat of my brow, so could you!", very much the attitude of small business people (like the family from which she came)
... I'm more interested in the fact that Annette Funicello died today as well. She was better looking and probably did more good in the world than a dozen Margret Thatchers could have done.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
I remember the milk. It wasn't just for poor children - it was for all children. They used to make special half-pint milk bottles to hand it out in.
Don't know where you went to school, but where I was it was 1/3 pints. I cannot imaging today's kids not smashing all that glass up for the hell of it - an attitude I believe Mrs T should also carry some responsibility with her "everyone-for-themselves, anti-community" outlook.
Brezhnev took Afghanistan.
Begin took Beirut.
Galtieri took the Union Jack.
And Maggie, over lunch one day,
Took a cruiser with all hands.
Apparently, to make him give it back.
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
The reason you don't see democracy and capitalism today is because they haven't been around since... well, the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment really.
They've been around to some degree a lot longer than the Age of Enlightenment has. For examples of some degree of democracy prior to the "Age of Enlightenment, we have ancient Athens, the Roman Republic, Iceland, Hanseatic League, Switzerland, and the Iroquois Confederacy. Wikpedia has many more examples than this.
As to capitalism, Wikipedia indicates the modern form started in the Netherlands at the start of the 17th century, which would have been around the start of the Age of Enlightenment. The Tulipmania bubble popped in 1637. But many aspects of it such as markets, private ownership of capital, and accounting systems have been around since ancient times.
which includes questioning the capitalist system that has been working for humanity since the dawn of time.
That's not capitalism. IMHO the earliest economic systems would have been things like tribal communism, gift economy, and the palace economy (the first centralized economy). Trade would have been present from the very beginning. It would take a significantly organized society to even have capital worthy of the name (at least beyond personal belongings such as hand tools). From there, it's a big step to having that capital owned in a legal sense by non-leaders of the society.
It is worth noting that the most ancient codes of law, for example, the Code of Hammurabi, does have a section which deals with contracts and trade. That would be necessary for any sort of legally recognized trade of privately owned capital to occur.
As to capitalism's roots in the Age of Enlightenment, one can look to both John Locke and his theory of value, and later, Adam Smith and his book, "The Wealth of Nations".
Having said all that, liberalism and so-called "progressive movements" also have their origins in ancient times. For example, the ideological divide between Sparta and Athens resembled the modern division between authoritarian and libertarian ideas. And the many conflicts over who gets represented (such as veteran soldiers in Athens or the proletariat in the Republic of Rome) echo the principles of liberalism.
Ancient religions often contained elements which are now considered progressive such as compassion and aid for the poor or the contributing or sacrifice of resources towards a common good.
I think rather the Age of Enlighten was unique in that it entailed the comprehensive analysis of the ideas and processes that humanity had grown up with and developed in the process the tools that would make future progress possible both in human knowledge and understanding, and our physical presence in the world.
Privatising the water boards might have been a "fantastically good deal" if you had lots of money to invest in the shares, before immediately selling them. Lots of people did this of course, as they did with gas, rail and all of the other things built with the people's money and then sold for knock-down prices to foreign coroporations.
However, even the most ardent capitalist could never argue that privatising water was rational. What meaning is there to a market with no competition? If I want to have water piped to my house (and sewerage taken away) I *have* to pay Wessex Water, a Malaysian company, to do it. There's no choice. Yes, what they can charge is limited by some formula, but who cares? Nothing they do has any bearing on who I buy water from.
Before privatisation water supply in the UK was provided on a non-profit basis by democratically-elected representatives. Now it's done by companies granted a monopoly, millions flow out of the UK as a result. Wessex Water made over 72 million pounds profit after tax in 2012, and probably close to that since. And has this resulted in lower prices for consumers due to the oh-so-efficient private sector? No. In fact, prices have been rising faster than inflation since privatisation.
Hurrah for the free market and neoliberal ideology!
Do excuse me for asking, but how old are you? I was fund manager responsible for UK equity investment at the time and I can swear on my kids that:
1. the amount you was entitled to buy was affordable, imagine 2.000 shares at less than one pound original outlay [the fully paid price was in the region of three pounds];
2. if you mean "knock down prices" that the shares went down after the initial public offering, take care to correct the error. since many people in the general public and customer offer who were entitled to priority distribution bought the shares, the financial investors (me) got much less than they asked for. and the yield on the partly paid was in the region of 9%;
3.for some baffling reason which I cannot for the life of me understand, some people are convinced that water can be privatised and/or that competition can be introduced.
"non profit" does not mean free, if I pad the water company with eight layers of management made out of political cronies, the end price of water will skyrocket. Granted, I'll subsidize the water company via general taxation to hush it up, and scream from the rooftops "water is a public good which must stay in public hands", but I am only a peculiar genre of common Ponzi schemer.
AFAIK, water companies before Maggie worked on a "Cost plus" basis: whatever it costs to distribute water plus some aside for renewing the network. In what way does it guarantee that the end price will be lower? politicians generally are quite generous with other people's money. Most of the price increase in water or other utilities bills, and the biggest happen when you have to say to customers that the real job was not providing water, or electricity, but trasferring money: in Italy, electricity bills are a big medium for getting money out of small to midsize companies to solar producers, the general public, and energy intensive industries. In any "real privatization", these will win and the money getters will lose, but that has absolutely no bearing on the cost of production.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
1. the amount you was entitled to buy was affordable, imagine 2.000 shares at less than one pound original outlay [the fully paid price was in the region of three pounds];
Spare money to buy shares (at *any* price) might be affordable for *you* - this does not mean it's affordable for most of the population, especially if you're talking about a meaningful investment. In any case, what does it actually mean to 'buy' shares in something you already owned?
2. if you mean "knock down prices" that the shares went down after the initial public offering, take care to correct the error. since many people in the general public and customer offer who were entitled to priority distribution bought the shares, the financial investors (me) got much less than they asked for. and the yield on the partly paid was in the region of 9%;
No, I mean the utilities being sold-off were massively undervalued. What would it cost to build a nationwide telephone network? A lot less than was charged for BT. This was true of all of the privatisations. The taxpayers have paid a lot more to build-up those industries than the state received when they were privatised.
"non profit" does not mean free, if I pad the water company with eight layers of management made out of political cronies, the end price of water will skyrocket.
This is the mantra of the free-marketers, that the private sector is somehow more efficient. And yet in reality we've seen costs go up in almost every privatised utility or service (water, trains, energy, health), and we find ourselves in bizarre situations like where taxpayers put more into the trains now, under a privatised system, than they did under nationalised BR, even though we've got the highest-ever ticket prices.
The free market is not some magic bullet. It works where there is actual competition and fails in other areas. Look at what's happening to the NHS - we're going from what is recognised as the most efficient healthcare system in the world to one 'opened-up to competition', a process that requires three more layers of beureacratic organisations and thousands more managers throughout the NHS dealing with contracts, bids, tenders and rubbish like that. None of it serves to help people actually using the NHS, but it does help Tory funders in private healthcare companies.
For a great example of what the 'privatise everything' train of thought leads to, look at energy. We sold-off everything, including all of the institutional technical knowledge. Now we want to build nuclear we basically have to pay whatever price a French government-run company demands, which would certainly be more than if we just admitted our free-market ideology was flawed and got the state to build it for the benefit of the people, rather than some corporation. How is this sensible?
The reason you don't see democracy and capitalism today is because they haven't been around since... well, the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment really.
Looking at your original statement, I still don't get why you wrote that. Capitalism and democracy are still with us. Their modern forms even started with the Age of Enlightenment (AoE). Further, you have way too broad a meaning for capitalism. Capitalism is fundamentally private ownership of the means of production.
That means first, that there has to be a distinction between public and private. If owning a lot of stuff means I run society, then that's not capitalism. Corporatism is on the verge of that, but it's worth noting here that buying law is not the same as running society. There remains strong distinctions between the private and public worlds in most human societies.
Second, there has to be means of production. Hand tools have been around at least as long as there have been primates who were considered humans. But capital generally refers more to bigger assets than what you can carry. Things like granaries, furnaces, ovens, shipyards, etc. Large things which enable you to make things faster or more efficiently.
Third, there has to be ownership. Most societies, even the avidly communist ones of the 20th century allow for a degree of ownership of some personal property including various things that could be considered capital. But capitalism doesn't bound that ownership. It is possible to own factories and vast businesses. Ownership is also much more secure in capitalism. One may pay a tax on the capital, but there is no arbitrary seizure of capital. This is the huge difference between capitalist societies and ancient societies.
For example, in Athens it was possible and often done to build up considerable wealth. However, that could be taken away from you in an instant, if a majority of the democracy voted against you. Similarly, you could be proscribed in the Roman Republic and deprived of both your property and your life (usually done to fund a depleted treasury and remove a troublesome political opponent). Admittedly, that was usually done during the times of tyranny, the most undemocratic parts of the Republic.
So we really haven't seen capitalism till the Netherlands during the AoE. A lot has to be in place, laws, actual capital, distinction between public and private, and of course, private ownership of said capital.
Means of production: again, you're judging the past based on modern values.
I think that is as it should be. I use modern values because those are the means by which capitalism is determined. That the ancients didn't know of or couldn't implement some of those values is merely more evidence that full blown capitalism is a modern construct even if parts of capitalism may predate humanity itself.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
I just wish she had more moments of lucidity during which she'd woken up to realise she'd just shat herself in public, again. But we'll have to make do with having a fucking good party to celebrate the bitch's death.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Goodbye to the most powerful woman in all history
She changed the world, and history