'Iron Lady' and Thatcherism: funerals! And after...?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

'Iron Lady' and Thatcherism: funerals! And after...?




by Obamot » 08/04/13, 18:29

.

Hated more often than worshiped: Margaret Thatcher is no more.

Will the ultra-liberal doctrine called "Thatcherism" survive him?

In any case, it is clear that it will have marked its era in pain!

Le Monde wrote:In Belfast, in block H of Maze prison, Irish republican prisoners go on a hunger strike to obtain London political prisoner status. Margaret Thatcher does not give in. Bobby Sands was the first to die on May 5, 1981; nine of his comrades will follow. The surviving strikers will keep in mind, all their lives, the sounds of torture: the families who sob, the creaking of the cart which carries away a corpse, the grating which slams.

The strike ends after 172 days. "It was possible to admire the courage of Sands and the hunger strikers who died, but not to sympathize with their murderous cause", she will concede in her Memoirs.


Here is the type of revolting talk that she has made throughout her career!

True ambassador of the military-chemical-industrial complex (herself a chemist) she will have supported the interests of ultra-liberalism to the end (when she was of modest origin, however, as the daughter of a small grocer ).

She will owe her nickname "Iron Lady" because of her great intransigence!

However, even if we hardly talked about her in recent years, the fact that she was losing her mind, it is clear that following the financial crisis, a certain form of thatcherism is needed again, and this time to whole Europe

Totally forgotten the responsibility of banks via financial speculation!

The paradox of the story is that if Thatcher became Prime Minister of Great Britain in 1979, it was due to the failure of Labor who brought England to the brink, requiring 3 IMF loans as any underdeveloped country!

And after...?
Rigor is required throughout Europe! "It is when blood flows in the streets that we make a profit", they say in the stock markets! While paradoxically the rulers had nevertheless declared to whoever wanted to hear it, that the rigor would be "against-productive"for growth.

No longer knowing which saint to turn to, both the right and the left have only one theory in their mouths: competitiveness!

I believe that even Thatcher would not have dared this concept there!

Why hasn't ultra-liberalism (which will lead to the concept of "globalization") better solve long-term crises than socialism? Why is the world getting worse and worse, when we have never produced so much "wealth", thanks to robots and collective efforts? Why no one can manage to make ends meet properly (neither doctors, nor mechanics, nor lawyers, nor .... commercial employees in banks, nor anyone!) Why still and always so many social tragedies after the closing of 'companies? Where does the money go and who really owns it?

Has Thatcherism definitively buried socialism with it?

In short, why is the world running on its head, and what else after ...?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 08/04/13, 21:50

Here's an interesting question, Obamot:
Why has ultra-liberalism (which will lead to the concept of "globalization") not better resolved long-term crises than socialism?

Note first that "socialism" never having existed on a large scale, it is difficult to prejudge its possible results ...
Ultra-liberalism and historic socialism are two faces of capitalism *.
The disappearance of one of the two tendencies has been interpreted as the success of the other, while this might as well be interpreted as the prelude to the overall failure of the system.
Another of your remarks also underlines the abandonment of the promises which justified the sacrifices made in his name:
Why is the world getting worse and worse, when we have never produced so much "wealth", thanks to robots and collective efforts?

I believe I have already explained this apparent contradiction, I would not insist (unless you insist very strongly!: P)

* They are so little at odds that the current French president can claim to be socialist without laughing!
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 08/04/13, 22:01

the opposition between communism and capitalism has really rotted an entire century ... and we still don't know how to avoid rotting the next century
0 x
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839




by Flytox » 08/04/13, 22:23

Why no one can make ends meet (neither doctors, nor mechanics, neither lawyers, nor .... employees of trade in the banks, no one!)


Image
Image


These ones, I will pity them when I have time Image
Image
Last edited by Flytox the 09 / 04 / 13, 22: 01, 1 edited once.
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 09/04/13, 01:15

That's good for that : Mrgreen: I did it on purpose, you didn't miss it : Cheesy:
(for the rest I will resume later ...)
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 09/04/13, 22:25

Chatelot16, you write very rightly:
The opposition between communism and capitalism has really rotted an entire century.

It would be more precise to speak of capitalist states (first world) and communist states (second world).
However, the long-awaited end of these tensions did not bring the expected appeasement, on the contrary, an outburst of new rivalries appeared: after the balance of terror, the imbalance of the general greed of the big blocs, now without limits, since without fear.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
oliburn
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 181
Registration: 30/01/07, 07:59
Location: 33 Mérignac




by oliburn » 10/04/13, 07:27

the advantage today is that humans die
they at least please those who do not like them.
in 500 years those who lead us will no longer die ...
only minions or slaves will die as in the film
"the crystal age" ...
there is no solution :
neither communist, nor socialist, neither capitalist nor that slab
no place in the world has proven or shown us how to
to lead and make happy the inhabitants of a country
some countries that are fortunate enough to sell gas, oil,
etc try to save their poor but it doesn't last long
we will never change, it will remain a constant struggle
evolution has to change but not the way of being
take advantage of the passing time, try to please those
that we like, it remains for me the only way to browse
my passage on this fucking planet ...
hi thatcher, have fun!
0 x
Be your own torch, your own refuge, your own master ... "
User avatar
gegyx
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6930
Registration: 21/01/05, 11:59
x 2870




by gegyx » 13/04/13, 19:22

Epitaph:


" Iron Lady? Rost in peace "
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 13/04/13, 20:09

Wouldn't it be rather: "Iron Lady? Rust in peace"?
or even "roast in hell"! :P
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 13/04/13, 22:21

By definition, you cannot be responsible for someone else! (always this sacred "personal will"). So although Tacher was what it was, it was the result of a system. That does not excuse it, it is an observation! What she did could therefore only exist because the system itself followed (and vice versa, it also followed the trend of the time).

So the unnatural goal was to impose rigor on everyone (in the absence of a voluntary tightening of the belt!)

There is therefore a problem of mentality, above all a problem of feasibility (since it failed)! Thus, under "development of individual responsibility in a voluntary manner " it would be necessary to review the scale of exchange values ​​drastically, so as to make it correspond with the deep aspirations of people: as for example: replace the need for money with something immaterial like art. Since money has failed to make people happy overall, there must be another way!

And that will necessarily go through measures such as the advent of universal income, and also by renouncing material values ​​for the benefit of those who can be opposed to them!

We are therefore inevitably moving towards profound structural changes in society. It seems to me more and more inevitable. And just as we have not seen the digital society arrive, no one will see it happen, but it is the next logical step, so it will come ...!

Because if we cannot individually change the mentality of each person (it would not be desirable ...). It is quite different from what is happening collectively:
- in a way we all follow "group movement";
- man is a "social animal", therefore a follower;
- see the advent of the internet, then the mobile phone and social networks!

It is undoubtedly from certain points of view of the wounds, but it is proof of it, it will be done, the world will YET drastically change: we must prepare for it!
0 x

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 132 guests