Margaret Thatcher Dead by Kwicko

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

They forgot to mention her son is a convicted terrorist.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 5:53 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Like mommy like son. She bombed her own nation repeatedly as head of the IRA and other 'terrorist' organizations in false-flag attacks for NATO's Operation Gladio. At least I got paid $35,000 profit on my house in only 3 years, sold before the market collapsed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 7:31 AM

DREAMTROVE

I was sorry to hear. She will be missed. We haven't seen another real free market conservative in power since.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 7:53 AM

People keep saying "she made the world a better place," and I don't disagree with them; we're just not in agreement on the timing.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 11:12 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Brenda:
She was a great lady and I hope Britian will elect more female Prime Ministers over the years.

RIP Mrs Thatcher

Here here!

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 12:15 PM

Here she is celebrating with serial pedophile Jimmy Savile:

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 12:16 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

I agree with you, Kwicko.

Brenda, out of curiosity, who do you think was the greatest PM Canada ever had?

ETA: I'm extremely familiar with Canadian history, so you don't need to worry about posting something you might think is an obscure reference (right now I'm giggling a little over the race between The Man from Glad and The Jaw that Walks). I'm just curious what you think makes a good/ great PM, and who in Canada fulfills your criteria.

EETA: I really am curious. I have my own pick, but it's from my own timeframe. I'm guessing your age to have been somewhat young when Canada "brought the Constitution home" as they called it. I was quite a bit older, and remember it as a historic significant achievement. I remember when Canada eased into federal involvement in provincial public health system in the 60s and consolidated and codified the various systems in the 1980s. Any of these to me would qualify the PM at the time as 'great'. So I'm truly curious about your views.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 12:16 PM

I won't be celebrating her death; some are, both here and in the UK.

I'm saving the celebration for when Cheney and Dubya die.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 12:22 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I'm saving the celebration for when Cheney and Dubya die.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I'm saving the celebration for when Cheney and Dubya die.

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

Indeed. Thanks for the free bump for my thread.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 3:14 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh - just THANKS! for your reply. The year you guys repatriated your constitution I followed the whole process every day. That year Canada had yet ANOTHER constitutional convention - there'd been many over the years - and everyone expected it to fail, again, as usual. Then Trudeau made his 'deep divisions' speech - which I heard live over CBC radio out of Toronto - and it was a bombshell. Talk about history turning on a dime. I'd been an on-off follower of Canadian politics before that, but that one thing cemented my attention.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 8, 2013 7:13 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh, another thing that somehow always struck me - CBC radio broadcast much of the Constitutional Convention, and I listened very day. That convention was chaired by a woman - her exact name and title outside of the convention I don't remember - but she was always addressed as Madam Chairman. I remember her as presiding over what seemed like a standard meeting - with rules of order and forms of address - in a practical, respectful and humane way. I have no idea who she was, but she really impressed me. And the title Madam Chairman seemed to honor her function and fit the times.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:11 AM

This just in:

Maggie Thatcher is still dead.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:45 AM

I lived in the UK during some of the Thatcher years. Couldn't stand her as a PM, couldn't stand her policies. Was incredibly relieved when she 'resigned' and even more relieved to get away from Tory politics.

But I'll give her one thing, she had balls ;) Seeing the stick that our PM gets as a female, it cannot have been easy in those days. There was a reason she had to be an iron lady.

RIP

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 11:45 AM

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 1:05 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I lived in the UK during some of the Thatcher years. Couldn't stand her as a PM, couldn't stand her policies. Was incredibly relieved when she 'resigned' and even more relieved to get away from Tory politics.

But I'll give her one thing, she had balls ;) Seeing the stick that our PM gets as a female, it cannot have been easy in those days. There was a reason she had to be an iron lady.

RIP

Saving GB's economy and helping usher in Eastern Europe from out under the shadow of the Soviet Union... yeah, she did some good works.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 1:25 PM

Parts of Britain were like being in a third world country under Thatcher. Large numbers of unemployed and homeless. End of major industries. Reduction in manufacturing base. Recession. Tax increases. Slashing services. Privatisation of public assets. Reduction in spending on education. Fall in the pound. Ongoing national industrial action across a range of industies. High level of social unrest. Involvement in war in the Faulklands. Growing hostility with Northern Ireland increasing chances of terrorism on British soil.

Shall I go on?

London was filthy, expensive and underserviced, with endless transport strikes. The north was in ruins, rampant unemployment, no industry, social unrest. I think they were dark days unless you were a stockbroker.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 1:30 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Parts of Britain were like being in a third world country under Thatcher. Large numbers of unemployed and homeless. End of major industries. Reduction in manufacturing base. Recession. Tax increases. Slashing services. Privatisation of public assets. Reduction in spending on education. Fall in the pound. Ongoing national industrial action across a range of industies. High level of social unrest. Involvement in war in the Faulklands. Growing hostility with Northern Ireland increasing chances of terrorism on British soil.

Shall I go on?

London was filthy, expensive and underserviced, with endless transport strikes. The north was in ruins, rampant unemployment, no industry, social unrest. I think they were dark days unless you were a stockbroker.

Bah, your actual experience is irrelevant! The ultra-right has decided she was a saint, and if they beleieve it, that's all that matters!

Excuse me while I soak in all these sweet, sweet conservative tears.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 2:26 PM

She sure enjoyed the hell out of socialism when it came to her healthcare, didn't she?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 9, 2013 4:26 PM

DREAMTROVE

May I say first, politics aside, this is no place to condemn the dead.

That said, I can think of no conservative statesman who I held in higher regard than Margaret Thatcher. The topic came up a number of times here on the board, and I think everyone's position was made known.

Quote:
Parts of Britain were like being in a third world country under Thatcher.

I just wanted to add that I lived in England under Thatcher, and yes, I saw the poor areas. Oh what a paradise those areas were then compared to now. If we had only known what damage Blair could do...

Quote:
Reduction in spending on education.

yet higher education was free, and now it's 10,000 quid. Doesn't seem like an improvement to me.

Quote:
Fall in the pound.

compared with now? please.

Quote:
High level of social unrest.

compared with now? double please.

Quote:
Involvement in war in the Faulklands.

I recall giving Citizen a smackdown on this one. Argentina invaded an island of the British state, inhabited by loyal Britons, and Thatcher defended it. And you're angry with her for this?

Oh that was rhetorical. Let's not have a flame war in an obit. just saying I had a different opinion of those particular aspects of her reign, err... tenure, that you mentioned.

Quote:
Mike

People keep saying "she made the world a better place," and I don't disagree with them; we're just not in agreement on the timing.

You mean it was her work on soft ice cream that you appreciated?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:04 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Priviliedged gits at Crotch College.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 2:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DREAMTROVE:
May I say first, politics aside, this is no place to condemn the dead.

Why not? Why should the passing of an influential world leader not be exactly the time to discuss the pros and cons of her leadership and impact in the world.

Nevertheless, my experience of the Thatcher period in the UK was grim, unnecessarily grim due to many tory policies and I particularly loathed the woman for her support of Pinochet.

Nevertheless, the right winged propaganda machinery has been very successful in repainting history in favour of MT, particularly in the US where she is kind of revered by righty pundits.

I think the reaction in the UK is far more divided. Be interested to hear from our British posters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 3:00 AM

From the Guardian

Margaret Thatcher was good at destruction. Some say she revolutionised British politics – certainly never again could people say nobody would vote for a woman – but it served a reactionary end. The seismic shift from industry to financial-based capitalism that Thatcherism ushered in rattled the establishment. But, as the prince in Lampedusa's The Leopard says: "For things to remain the same, everything must change."

Thatcher's unwavering belief in the invisible hand of the market meant that she did not believe it was part of her job description to put anything in its place. A big decline in traditional industries took place across Europe and the US in the 80s and 90s. What was different in Britain was that she assumed no responsibility to minimise social disruption or to create new jobs and industries.

Instead state assets and a huge income stream from North sea oil were used to fund a populist programme of tax cuts, privatisation and council house sales. The family silver was squandered on bribing voters rather than modernising the economy.

There is a paradox. Thatcher's social instincts were always nostalgic conservative. The great contradiction in her politics was that someone who yearned for the certainties of small-town shopkeeper economics helped create the amoral yuppiedom of 80s excess and an explosion of cultural resistance that is still an ironic positive legacy of her time in power. Adam Smith's invisible hand ended up raising two fingers to her moral project.

And for all the tributes being paid by ministers this week, the issues at the top of the government's agenda are all to do with clearing up the mess she created. Above all has been the hollowing out of the labour market.

The 70s was Britain's most equal decade. The jobs that went during the 80s tended to be good, skilled jobs, delivering decent incomes and some security. She failed to replace those jobs with well-paid equivalents. Demonising unions and stripping the great mass of private-sector workers of a voice and power in the workplace is still the root of the great living standards crisis that saw the share of wealth going to wages slide long before Lehman Brothers failed.

Even the nasty politics of "welfare reform" is driven by the high cost of subsidising low pay through in-work benefits, and indifference to the plight of jobless communities who have never recovered from de-industrialisation.

The financial crash of 2008 was a direct result of the policies Thatcher championed. The dominance of finance in the economy and the failure of bank regulation flowed from her belief that markets should always be left to themselves. The credit boom – both here and in the USA – may have gone against her Grantham roots but was an equally inevitable result of deregulation and the temptation of easy loans for people hungry to improve living standards.

There is now, however, an opportunity to commit to a new politics that learns lessons from her ambition yet undoes the damage and focuses on reconstruction. A massive programme of social housing would be a good place to start, stimulating the economy. Arguably, it was not the sale of council houses that was the problem, but the failure to replace the stock and maintain a sufficient supply of affordable homes. A great windfall in the short-term for asset-owners – one form of inflation she encouraged – but disastrous for future generations.

Thatcher's opposition to a positive role for the state in industrial policy caused her grief even during her time in office, but a cross-party consensus newly shaped by Michael Heseltine's report has given him the last word. At its heart must be an active programme to create good jobs and raise living standards. We must reduce the inequality that has seen a super-rich elite, openly contemptuous of the flag and family values Thatcher proclaimed, float free from the rest of us.

Thatcher was suspicious of democracy. She preferred markets, and a strong but minimal central state that backed their rule. She abolished city-wide local government, capped spending and expected the poll tax to further undermine alternative voices.

This is the area where we need to make progress – not just in restoring strong local government, but in understanding that democracy means more than a Westminster vote. I will know that we have finally broken from the kind of capitalism that she championed and which died in 2008 when we see workers elected on to company boards.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 10, 2013 6:09 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

The right paints Thatcher as a saviour who turned around Britain's long period of decline, taking on unions that were out of control, re-energising the economy, restoring national pride etc.

The left sees Thatcher as someone who caused massive national unemployment both through her shock-therapy fiscal policies and callous dismantling of whole industries - tossing whole towns and communities onto the scrapheap in parts of the country, resulting in deep socio-economic problems that endure to this day...

Both are right.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 11, 2013 5:28 PM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Commies rejoice the wicked witch is dead

'Burn in hell!': Shocking anti-Thatcher graffiti spotted in central London 'Banksy Tunnel'. Meanwhile another teacher was yesterday unmasked as a key architect of the ‘death parties’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307367/Margaret-Thatcher-deat
h-Shocking-anti-Thatcher-graffiti-spotted-central-London-Bansky-tunnel.html

One less dictator in the world: Maggie Thatcher the cunt is dead (a song by The Explotied).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 11, 2013 6:12 PM

Your new avatar is cute

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 12, 2013 9:35 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Your new avatar is cute

Thanks. The cease and desist letter from Fox arrived in the mail today. lol

In Firefly the Alliance merged the US flag with the flag of Communist China
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_(Firefly)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 12, 2013 10:02 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

KPO

"The right paints Thatcher as a saviour who turned around Britain's long period of decline ..."

Now I have a lot of facts to show that she did a serious injustice to working people and the poor. Do you have any facts to back up your first statement? B/c frankly, I haven't seen any over the years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 12, 2013 10:34 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

This is a good way to look at it, UK vs. France GDP. Thatcher came in in 1979:

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 12, 2013 11:01 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

GDP can also be a reflection of inflation -

for example this chart shows INFLATION ADJUSTED GDP was no better under Thatcher

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/25/gdp-uk-1948-growth
-economy
Data from Niesr. Calculated from centred three-month moving averages of monthly GDP, the effect of the miners’ strike in 1921 is excluded from the 1920-1924 profile (the strike started on 31st March 1921 and ended on 28th June 1921).

1955 Q1
1955 Q2 0.2
1955 Q3 2.1
1955 Q4 -0.6
1956 Q1 0.7
1956 Q2 -0.2
1956 Q3 -0.1
1956 Q4 0.5
1957 Q1 2.0
1957 Q2 0.0
1957 Q3 -0.6
1957 Q4 0.1
1958 Q1 1.7
1958 Q2 -2.5
1958 Q3 2.2
1958 Q4 0.1
1959 Q1 1.3
1959 Q2 1.5
1959 Q3 2.0
1959 Q4 2.4
1960 Q1 2.4
1960 Q2 -1.0
1960 Q3 1.5
1960 Q4 0.6
1961 Q1 1.7
1961 Q2 0.5
1961 Q3 -0.5
1961 Q4 -0.1
1962 Q1 0.6
1962 Q2 1.0
1962 Q3 0.7
1962 Q4 -0.4
1963 Q1 0.2
1963 Q2 4.3
1963 Q3 0.5
1963 Q4 2.3
1964 Q1 1.0
1964 Q2 1.6
1964 Q3 0.3
1964 Q4 1.6
1965 Q1 -0.1
1965 Q2 0.3
1965 Q3 1.0
1965 Q4 0.8
1966 Q1 0.3
1966 Q2 0.7
1966 Q3 0.5
1966 Q4 -0.3
1967 Q1 1.4
1967 Q2 1.3
1967 Q3 0.3
1967 Q4 0.3
1968 Q1 3.3
1968 Q2 -0.6
1968 Q3 2.0
1968 Q4 0.4
1969 Q1 0.1
1969 Q2 0.9
1969 Q3 0.7
1969 Q4 0.6
1970 Q1 -0.8
1970 Q2 2.3
1970 Q3 0.9
1970 Q4 0.7
1971 Q1 -0.9
1971 Q2 1.2
1971 Q3 1.5
1971 Q4 0.1
1972 Q1 0.2
1972 Q2 2.6
1972 Q3 0.3
1972 Q4 1.8
1973 Q1 5.3
1973 Q2 0.5
1973 Q3 -0.7
1973 Q4 -0.1
1974 Q1 -2.4
1974 Q2 1.9
1974 Q3 1.0
1974 Q4 -1.2
1975 Q1 0.3
1975 Q2 -1.6
1975 Q3 -0.2
1975 Q4 1.4
1976 Q1 1.7
1976 Q2 -0.9
1976 Q3 0.9
1976 Q4 2.1
1977 Q1 0.2
1977 Q2 -0.5
1977 Q3 0.8
1977 Q4 1.4
1978 Q1 0.5
1978 Q2 1.0
1978 Q3 1.1
1978 Q4 0.8
1979 Q1 -0.8
1979 Q2 4.3
1979 Q3 -2.3
1979 Q4 1.1
1980 Q1 -0.9
1980 Q2 -1.8
1980 Q3 -0.2
1980 Q4 -1.1
1981 Q1 -0.7
1981 Q2 0.2
1981 Q3 1.3
1981 Q4 0.0
1982 Q1 0.4
1982 Q2 1.3
1982 Q3 0.0
1982 Q4 0.5
1983 Q1 1.5
1983 Q2 0.8
1983 Q3 1.2
1983 Q4 1.2
1984 Q1 1.0
1984 Q2 -0.6
1984 Q3 0.5
1984 Q4 1.5
1985 Q1 1.2
1985 Q2 1.6
1985 Q3 0.0
1985 Q4 0.7
1986 Q1 1.7
1986 Q2 1.2
1986 Q3 0.6
1986 Q4 1.8
1987 Q1 0.7
1987 Q2 1.3
1987 Q3 2.4
1987 Q4 1.1
1988 Q1 1.8
1988 Q2 0.6
1988 Q3 1.4
1988 Q4 0.8
1989 Q1 0.3
1989 Q2 0.7
1989 Q3 0.3
1989 Q4 0.4
1990 Q1 1.2
1990 Q2 0.8
1990 Q3 -1.0
1990 Q4 -0.5
1991 Q1 -0.7
1991 Q2 -0.4
1991 Q3 -0.4
1991 Q4 0.2
1992 Q1 0.3
1992 Q2 0.1
1992 Q3 0.8
1992 Q4 0.9
1993 Q1 0.8
1993 Q2 0.6
1993 Q3 0.9
1993 Q4 0.8
1994 Q1 1.4
1994 Q2 1.3
1994 Q3 1.3
1994 Q4 0.7
1995 Q1 0.5
1995 Q2 0.5
1995 Q3 1.2
1995 Q4 0.5
1996 Q1 1.1
1996 Q2 0.4
1996 Q3 0.7
1996 Q4 0.9
1997 Q1 1.1
1997 Q2 1.0
1997 Q3 1.0
1997 Q4 1.1
1998 Q1 0.8
1998 Q2 0.7
1998 Q3 0.6
1998 Q4 0.9
1999 Q1 0.5
1999 Q2 0.3
1999 Q3 1.7
1999 Q4 1.3
2000 Q1 1.0
2000 Q2 1.4
2000 Q3 0.3
2000 Q4 0.2
2001 Q1 1.3
2001 Q2 0.7
2001 Q3 0.5
2001 Q4 0.4
2002 Q1 0.4
2002 Q2 0.8
2002 Q3 0.8
2002 Q4 0.9
2003 Q1 0.6
2003 Q2 1.2
2003 Q3 1.2
2003 Q4 1.2
2004 Q1 0.7
2004 Q2 0.2
2004 Q3 0.0
2004 Q4 0.6
2005 Q2 1.2
2005 Q3 0.8
2005 Q4 1.1
2006 Q1 0.5
2006 Q2 0.3
2006 Q3 0.2
2006 Q4 0.9
2007 Q1 1.1
2007 Q2 1.2
2007 Q3 1.2
2007 Q4 0.2
2008 Q1 0.1
2008 Q3 -1.8
2008 Q4 -2.1
2009 Q1 -1.5
2009 Q2 -0.2
2009 Q3 0.4
2009 Q4 0.4
2010 Q1 0.6
2010 Q2 0.7
2010 Q3 0.6
2010 Q4 -0.4
2011 Q1 0.5
2011 Q2 0.1
2011 Q3 0.6
2011 Q4 -0.1
2012 Q1 -0.1
2012 Q2 -0.4
2012 Q3 0.9
2012 Q4 -0.3

Can you find Maggie's wondrous economy in these figures? I can't. Perhaps you can find something more convincing?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 12, 2013 2:12 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
GDP can also be a reflection of inflation -

for example this chart shows INFLATION ADJUSTED GDP was no better under Thatcher

It sounds like you think the GDP data I presented wasn't inflation adjusted... (??)

Here's another graph showing the same thing (the one on the right), Britain falling behind the rest of the developed world before Thatcher, and then outpacing it after:

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 13, 2013 6:08 PM

Oh, look - Teddy saved Maggie a seat!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 13, 2013 7:24 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"It sounds like you think the GDP data I presented wasn't inflation adjusted... "

It was UK GDP COMPARED to FRANCE, it said nothing about inflation-adjusted. But even if it was, it was still COMPARED to FRANCE, and not compared to the years before and after Maggie. If you want to make a case that her policies created such a stellar economy IN BRITAIN, you have to show inflation-adjusted figures before, during, and after IN BRITAIN, without other confounding things as part of the equation, like the GDP of France.

You have the same problem with your newer charts. The one on the right shows a very obviously NON-inflation adjusted GDP. How can I tell? Because the average annual per capita growth of ~ 3.75% on the chart doesn't add up to the >> inflation-adjusted << average annual per capita growth which you get by averaging these numbers: (-0.8, 4.3, -2.3, 1.1, -0.9 ... ) which averages to ~ 0.6%. You claim that Britain outpaces the 'rest of the world' in growth, but it may have outpaced the rest of the world in inflation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 13, 2013 11:49 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Boy, did RL catch up with me! So I hope you'll forgive a few random potshots w/o having read the thread.

I recall when Maggie took milk out of the school lunch program. She was called "Maggie Thatcher, the milk snatcher". Indeed!

Ding dong, the witch is dead!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 2:27 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
You have the same problem with your newer charts. The one on the right shows a very obviously NON-inflation adjusted GDP. How can I tell? Because the average annual per capita growth of ~ 3.75% on the chart doesn't add up to the >> inflation-adjusted << average annual per capita growth

You're misreading both my graph and your own figures. 3.75% applies to Japan in the 1980s, not Britain's ~2.25%. But your bigger problem is that you're comparing QUARTERLY growth figures - not annualised - to annual ones. Obviously quarterly growth figures are less... and by an approximate factor of 4, as you would expect. Also keep in mind that your figures are not per-capita (ideally they would be) so will not exactly match mine.

Quote:
If you want to make a case that her policies created such a stellar economy IN BRITAIN, you have to show inflation-adjusted figures before, during, and after IN BRITAIN, without other confounding things as part of the equation, like the GDP of France.

Actually comparing performance with other countries is the best way to measure it. Otherwise you're comparing growth rates in 1955 - the middle of the postwar economic boom - with later decades when it was much harder to grow an economy rapidly. Britain didn't have to do a lot right to grow its economy in the 50s and 60s, when all other Western economies were booming. But it DID have to do something right to keep a similar growth rate in later decades when the rest of the West slowed down.

Quote:
You claim that Britain outpaces the 'rest of the world' in growth, but it may have outpaced the rest of the world in inflation.

That seems unlikely since Maggie brought UK inflation down:

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 2:54 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Boy, did RL catch up with me! So I hope you'll forgive a few random potshots w/o having read the thread.

I recall when Maggie took milk out of the school lunch program. She was called "Maggie Thatcher, the milk snatcher". Indeed!

Ding dong, the witch is dead!

Whether milk from a 1200 lb ( or more ) animal is suitable for the growth of a human, is debatable.

That the govt should FURNISH milk, free in school lunches, seems nonsensical. People should be free to drink it, but how does offering " free " anything become the proper function of the govt ?

The govt HAS NO MONEY! It only has what it TAKES from the people.

You want to volunteer program which allows people to contribute such things ? Fine.

Good for Maggie. Brilliant lady, she was.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 6:08 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The govt HAS NO MONEY! It only has what it TAKES from the people.

You want to volunteer program which allows people to contribute such things ? Fine.

I've been saying that about the Pentagon for years. Glad we agree.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
The govt HAS NO MONEY! It only has what it TAKES from the people.

You want to volunteer program which allows people to contribute such things ? Fine.
I've been saying that about the Pentagon for years. Glad we agree.

So when do we stop feeding U.S. soldiers? After all, it's ludicrous that we should have to give them "free" food, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 9:13 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"3.75% applies to Japan in the 1980s, not Britain's ~2.25%"

Yes, you're right. And my ~0.6% quarterly average x 4 tracks with the ~ 2.25% annual (per capita) average.

"Actually comparing performance with other countries is the best way to measure it."

Not really. Other countries have economic, tax, spending and trade policies, and trade balances of their own. By your standard the only meaningful way to track The Maldive's economy over time, and by extension the result of any internal policies, is to compare it with Germany's or China's, or both. It's the logical conclusion to your assertion and it makes no sense.

"Otherwise you're comparing growth rates in 1955 - the middle of the postwar economic boom - with later decades when it was much harder to grow an economy rapidly."

But you CAN compare the Maggie's tenure with the period immediately before and immediately after. Nothing had changed so drastically over that time that the comparisons become meaningless. And the fact remains that her economy was NOT stellar compared with the immediate historical trend. At best it was the same.

"But it DID have to do something right to keep a similar growth rate in later decades when the rest of the West slowed down."

Again, not necessarily true. For example, one of the things that slowed the German economy down was incorporating the former East Germany. Despite that, Germany has remained a powerhouse net exporter economy. And the UK moved from third to first place NOT during Maggie's tenure, but afterward. That in part was due to rampant housing speculation, the results of which you're seeing today (as are other places around the globe).

You haven't convinced me Maggie's economy was spectacular compared to what you had before, or after. Her policies brought government spending down, they also sent unemployment and poverty to record highs. Unless you have a philosophy that discounts these results, I don't see how you can claim she did well.

Overall she brought government spending down, created record unemployment, and created record poverty, while maintaining average GDP gains.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 11:56 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
The Maldive's economy over time, and by extension the result of any internal policies, is to compare it with Germany's or China's, or both. It's the logical conclusion to your assertion and it makes no sense.

Look, I compared Britain's economic performance to that of other developed economies to show that it outperformed others post-Thatcher, having lagged behind them for decades. You need a lot of extenuating circumstances to deny Maggie any credit for that whatsoever. The boon of North Sea oil is one that you haven't mentioned... but I still don't think you have (or can) come close.

Quote:
But you CAN compare the Maggie's tenure with the period immediately before and immediately after. Nothing had changed so drastically over that time that the comparisons become meaningless

I disagree, I think we can (and should) read a lot about the changing worldwide economic growth conditions from the fact that all the other Western economies visibly slow down from decade to decade. And if Maggie's policies are still in place today then she should still be judged by them today, good or bad.

Quote:
Her policies brought government spending down, they also sent unemployment and poverty to record highs. Unless you have a philosophy that discounts these results, I don't see how you can claim she did well.

Agreed, her legacy is mixed. I've said that from the start.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 2:02 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Look, I compared Britain's economic performance to that of other developed economies to show that it outperformed others post-Thatcher, having lagged behind them for decades.

First of all, you haven't explained why a comparison is necessary.

But secondly, having made the comparison, you haven't explained the contradictions. You seem to be saying that Maggie's policies were responsible for a great economy. Internally, it doesn't seem to matter who was in charge when it comes to how the economy ran:

James Callaghan 1976–1979 Labour
Margaret Thatcher 1979–1990 Conservative
John Major 1990–1997 Conservative
Tony Blair 1997–2007 Labour
Gordon Brown 2007–2010 Labour

Presumably John Major followed the same policies. But did the UK's rankings drop after Blair became PM and 'pct gdp govt spending' went up? No - as a matter of fact, the UK stayed on top and widened the gap. So the policies of each party seemed to have little to do with the UK's standing compared to other developed countries.

Meanwhile Germany, after unification in 1989 (which caused their ranking for that decade to drop substantially), moved ahead steadily to number 2, following dissimilar policies to the UK.

If you hope to laud the brilliance of the policies and not some other factor, you have to explain how DIFFERENT policies led to the SAME result w/in the UK; and how OTHER COUNTRIES with DIFFERENT policies led to the SAME result across developed countries.

And in the meantime those very same policies that you think so highly of caused record unemployment and poverty. And here I can draw a very tangible link between the policies and the results: by shuttering or selling off previously government-run industries, people were put out of work. People out of work is unemployment, by definition. And unemployment leads to more unemployment as demand for goods and services drops. Unemployment leads to poverty.

Also, I'm curious what you think the economy is supposed to do. Is it there to meet the needs of the people who live within it, or to make a few people very rich? B/c it seems to me that an economy which has a job with a living wage for those who can work is doing what an economy should be doing. But an economy with unemployment and poverty is serving interests other than those of the people who are subject to it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 14, 2013 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Whether milk from a 1200 lb ( or more ) animal is suitable for the growth of a human, is debatable.

That the govt should FURNISH milk, free in school lunches, seems nonsensical. People should be free to drink it, but how does offering " free " anything become the proper function of the govt ?

It may surprise you that free or subsidised school lunches provided are provided by many governments throughout Europe and elsewhere. One of the reasons for establishing such a scheme is to combat child malnutrition, whether that is achieved or not is another matter.

'Government' does what people want it to do. There is no should about it. If people want their taxes to be used to provide certain services, then that's entirely reasonable.

Milk though. Yerk. We used to be forced to drink milk in primary school. It was for the calcium and I guess it was what the nutritionists deemed the easiest way to provide a certain standard of nutritian. Personally glad those days are gone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 15, 2013 5:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That the govt should FURNISH milk, free in school lunches, seems nonsensical. People should be free to drink it, but how does offering " free " anything become the proper function of the govt ?

Like I said: how about the military that we have tromping all over the globe? Now THAT'S a "service" I could do without!

RAPPY- this is where an intelligent person might say Oh but common defense is in our Constitution as a government duty. And then we could look at other constitutions and decide whether there is something truly special about military expenditures, or is it just one of the many government functions that people have asked for? And then maybe we could decide whether there was an irreducible, objective measure for government involvement, or is it really just what public opinion wants in a democracy?

But then, as interesting as it might be, I don't think you're up to the challenge of an actual discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:46 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
"Look, I compared Britain's economic performance to that of other developed economies to show that it outperformed others post-Thatcher, having lagged behind them for decades."

First of all, you haven't explained why a comparison is necessary.

I explained the significance of the comparison, though to be honest I shouldn't have needed to. It's perfectly obvious to most people that a country outperforming its competitors is significant.

Quote:
You have to explain how DIFFERENT policies led to the SAME result w/in the UK; and how OTHER COUNTRIES with DIFFERENT policies led to the SAME result across developed countries.

You preclude the possibility of different countries pursuing different economic strategies, and both being reasonably successful. I think it's because you're trying to push me into a corner, but you're being quite blinkered with your logic.

Quote:
Also, I'm curious what you think the economy is supposed to do.

I think an economy is an organic thing, and regardless of what you want it to be you have to give it freedom and room to grow. Otherwise you choke the life out of it. A pre-Thatcher UK economy is not one I would like to live in. The modern German economy, however, I'm a fan of (apart from the doomed, foolish currency union).

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, April 16, 2013 5:39 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I think an economy is an organic thing ..."

This is your biggest howler. You think economies are things of nature rather than human inventions.

Aside from that, I'm not going to bother with you any more. You obviously know nothing about economics, history, or pretty much anything else. You can't avoid contradicting yourself from sentence to sentence in a complete lack of logic (we SHOULD compare different economies b/c they're the same! but different economies get the same results from different directions b/c they're different!), you can show no consistent cause and effect, and you hide behind a plethora of opinions which you seem to mistake for facts.

So, whatever.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:10 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
This is your biggest howler. You think economies are things of nature rather than human inventions.

Humans are things of nature. Many human behaviours, even 'inventions' can be described as organic - e.g. language.

In any case you asked my opinion, and I gave it. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't like it.

Quote:
Aside from that, I'm not going to bother with you any more. You obviously know nothing about economics, history...

Your cattiness aside you're probably right to give up; you wouldn't have had much joy out of me. I would be stubbornly questioning and challenging your socialistic philosophy at every turn.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:32 PM