Printable View
It is because Thatcher ignored these facts that we are left with many of the social problems we have today. We can't solve them by just telling everyone to be an individual and go make their fortune, part of the issue is that the environment they are brought up in breeds negative attitudes.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I can see the problem. What is the solution?
~:smoking:
You are missing something really simple, average real growth in GDP under thatcher was lower than before she took office , even if you view the years following her policies to allow for the impact over a longer term the average real growth is still lower . It is only in this century that average real growth has got back up to where it was during the "terrible" 1970s .Quote:
i see nothing to support your assertion that thatcher presided over lower GDP growth,
what exactly am i missing?
Fair enough some times she got a peak , some of those peaks were nearly as high as the peaks in the 70s (well 2% shy of the "bad times" peaks) but lower peaks plus several disasterous years and a whole pile of mediocre years push her average way down .
Work it out for yourself , it is why Real GDP growth under Thatcher was lower then before her ideological "brainstorm".
BTW you links don't seem to come up .
Well it would have been helpful if she didn't magnify the problems in the first place. But now, the best thing to do is to invest in these poorer communities. And not half-heartedly, like when they build a community centre and then after a few years let it get delapidated. It has to be done properly if it is to have a meaningful effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
My apologies -Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
this graph requires that you click the next button underneath the image:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/i...unch-recession
and the google data set the graph is drawn from:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...ZEO_Y5Udz-7uSw
looks like no change to me on average, just less boom-n-bust in the eighties.
Typical. Those that work have to pay for those that don't to have nice places. No onus on the people that live in the area to do anything, or behave in a certain way. no intention to try to make them feel part of the community, to value what is being done or feel that they have invested in the project.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The incentive for working hard? Bugger all - as more money will come in either way.
If the council offered to lead the residents in a project that would be OK: the residents have to organise themselves and do the majority of the work for the centre. Maybe some will need to attend the FREE courses that are laid on to increase their skills and maybe have to work for an astonishing 8 hours a day to get somewhere!
Oh, investing means that there is a return. Generally the plans you have a more accurately describes as charity or burning money.
~:smoking:
I see the problem here , I have asked before a couple of times but you obviously missed it or can't understand . Can you see a word I have used in every post here about GDP? Do you understand what that word means when it is put in front of GDP ?can you understand why you are not even talking about the same measure?Quote:
looks like no change to me on average, just less boom-n-bust in the eighties.
But the problem is that incentives are meaningless so long as the poor people do not think that they can achieve them, that's why changing their attitudes is so important.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
You don't do that by just telling them to get on with it, because that approach clearly does not work. You have to actually give them something to build on, and having a decent community is something of a start. It gives people something to maintain and lets them take a bit of pride in themselves, so they can actually take advantage of any employment opportunities available.
Right now, the poverty issues run so deep its not surprising so many can't see a way out.
What do you think of the Brownian idea of investing in creches, schemes for very young children, etc.? The reasoning being that this frees mothers to work, and substantially severs the link between pverty and access to education. Good idea that needs time for results to show, good idea but badly executed, fundamentally bad idea, or other?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Two points:
1. As I understand it, the gap between manager and worker pay in Sweden isn't much (my poli. sci. textbook); so would any upward tick in social mobility be directly related to increasing wealth and study or simply a reflection of the system as a whole?
2. I'm surprised that everyone is so vehement yet no one has brought up Hitler at all. Spectacular.
ah, maybe i have misread you, by average real growth in GDP you refer to net growth after inflation, something i haven't checked to see if my linked dataset accounts for.............?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
She's in the thread title.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
using the time series figures here:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/php_site/pwt61_retrieve.php
i get an average Growth Rate of Real GDP per capita (Constant Prices: Chain series) for the period 1970-1981 inclusive of 1.48%, however the figure for the following twelve years averages out at 2.26%.
its not looking good for your assertion Tribesman, and you'll have to be the one to dig out some data this time...........
[edit]
the UN data shows a similar trend:
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/re...election=quick
[/edit]
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
For starters I never said per capita , though for some reason I recall somone having objecions to Britains per capita figures as a measure earlier in the topic .
But I do like the way you included two full years of Maggies economic disaster in the 80s with negative growth to lower the averge for the 70s . :oops:
So would you like to try again ? Then again perhaps now you realise that you was talking crap all along but just thought you would try it on in the hope that no one would notice you fiddling the figures .
I think that the state should provide assistance and leadership, but the impetus still needs to be the individuals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Providing a decent community is expensive, especially if the locals don't take care of it. What then? rebuild another one Money isn't infinite.
I am guardedly in favour of some subsidy. Not free for all. Children should be a decision not taken lightly by parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
I don't imagine that a few hours at a creche is going to magically improve their education (the other children will be from the same area, the people in charge aren't going to be great). Education already is free and compulsory! Results will not magically improve. Without engagement from the parents most initiatives aren't going to work for most.
Who taught me to read / write / maths? My father. After work in his evening.
~:smoking:
per capita figures are perfectly relevant, unless there was some major shift in population demographics during the period, and I had no objections to per-capita as i can recall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
it is totally relevant to include the first two years of the tory government under the pre-maggie comparisons, because macro-economic policy takes several years to kick in.
and if you are going to whinge about unfair comparisons you'll note that my time span for the maggie years includes the dot-com crash. it is a straight twelve years vs twelve years comparison.
finally, none of us are unfamiliar with the dates of the thatcher years, and i quite clearly stated the time period i was making the comparison over, so the idea that i am trying to wangle fiddled figures into the argument is stupid.
coming back to your insinuations, assertions, and allusions, you have made reference to a data-set which is so 'important' for judging the thatcher years and yet you neither provide figures nor is it possible to find figures for your claim. i have provided one graph, and two different data-sets that are all at odds with your claims, and you have nothing.
Tribesman, you need to put up or shut up.
Yeah right , you posted figures to counter a point that are from different years to the point you were trying to counter .If that isn't trying to wrangle the figures then I don't know what is.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
i quite clearly stated the time period i was making the comparison over, so the idea that i am trying to wangle fiddled figures into the argument is stupid.
Not at all , since the data has already been linked on several occasions and it is your maths and methodolgy that is dodgy (when you finally grasped what real GDP growth means of course).:yes:Quote:
Tribesman, you need to put up or shut up.
So its time for you to actully put up Furunculus , go to the OECD link from earlier , look up Britains Real GDP growth figures and come up with the actual average for the time periods I mentioned and compare them , for fun you can also on that site look at the French figures and see why another of your earlier claims was also bollox , if fact you can look up lots of european countries and see that if Britain was the sick man of europe in the 1970s then lots of other european countries must have been really so seriously sick that the coffin maker must have been measuring them up.
Though I must say I am slightly confused , after all you did link to one of the Guardians pieces on Thatchers legacy , did you not read any of the others ?
show figures tribesman.
when i did those averages that came out 1.5-1.6 percent for the seventies as compared to 2.0-2.5 percent for the eighties.
put up or shut up.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
wow I didn't think your maths was that bad , must be that declining education you have had since the 50s when errrr .....when they raised the school leaving age:dizzy2:
So please tell , when the for the average is 2.4 before Thatcher how on earth did you manage to get 1.5 ? At least you are in the field with your second figure as that is 2.1 though you range is too large . And to finish, for the third period I mentioned the figure is once again 2.4 .
So in summary Britain this century got back up to the real GDP growth figures it had in the "sick" 1970s after the decline in growth it had under Thatcher .
Hey that sounds like....or evenQuote:
From someone who ignores that real GDP growth was less under Thatcher than it was before her and that she had a habit of producing negative growth , and that under Thatcher Britain performed worse than France and when Blair got his inheritance of a "tip top economy" it was still worse than that of France .
Then again even if someones maths was really terrible they should have been able to grasp that lower peaks combined with more and deeper troughs would not be very favourable for producing a higher average.:idea2:Quote:
You are missing something really simple, average real growth in GDP under thatcher was lower than before she took office , even if you view the years following her policies to allow for the impact over a longer term the average real growth is still lower . It is only in this century that average real growth has got back up to where it was during the "terrible" 1970s .
That sounds like ...Quote:
Fair enough some times she got a peak , some of those peaks were nearly as high as the peaks in the 70s (well 2% shy of the "bad times" peaks) but lower peaks plus several disasterous years and a whole pile of mediocre years push her average way down