@XMadeInAmericaX I don't see it either. Maggie rarely made any sense during all her anti Socialism ramblings (for any Iron Lady groupies, I'm in no way promoting socialism but merely wondering where Thatcher's strong argument lies against the practice)
The British parliament is a joke. All debates are completely meaningless! You Brits should be ashamed that we (rest of the world) can view this kindergarden on TV.
@eibon14 It depends on where you live if $44k is a decent salary or not. If you live in a small town or metro area in the middle of the country then it isn't bad. If you live on the east coast or parts of the rest coast it's not going to go as far. If you live in NYC or Los Angeles it's not going to go very far at all considering the cost of living there.
Thatcher doesn't really prove anything in this video. She offers an argument and says socialism is bad because people in general have less money. Regardless of whether or not this argument is true she offers no logical reason or empirical reason as to why it is true. Thus no proof. I would argue that the reason the British GDP went up was a natural increase in technology making work more efficient ant thus raising productivity and income levels, not capitalism directly.
@warriorprince1010 I agree giving a business...any business a tax cut will allow that business to have more capital in which to spend. Low taxes, and less regulation will always stimulate business and growth. There most certainly is a mountain of evidence that clearly shows young and minority unemployment increases that coincide with minimum wage increases. Minimum wage increases can create a generation of young people with little or no job experience. Propel yourself past minimum wage.
@warriorprince1010 If you hire foreign workers, and increase the minimum wage, then less foreign workers will have jobs. You have to ask, where does the money come from to pay workers additional money for every hour worked for every worker throughout the year? The US is on of the only industrialized nations that is continually increasing it's population.
@brushfour44 Clinton increased the minimum wage during some of America's most prosperous years. Unemployment normally results from high interest rates, restricted credit, and inflation
@caj Our most prosperous years were not during the Clinton admin.There was reasonable growth, but nothing like the Reagan boom of during the 1980's. Many financial experts attibute the 2.6 growth rate in GDP due to the technology boom, and to the number of matured business (33 million in total)created during the Reagan era. The recession of 1990-91 had been corrected and the economy was growing rapidly 7 months before Clinton took office.Some say he hampered growth.Should have been closer to 4%.
@brushfour44 Reagan boom? LOL! He sent unemployment to its highest level in 1982 post Great Depression (plus 1987 Black Monday) and concentrated money near the top in naive trickle down crud not verified as impacting bottom lines. So typical a Reaganite/Thatcher apologist denies history's already posted stamp on the 90s being more prosperous. He merely spent his way out of it, nothing special.
Some say he hampered growth.>>> I never said his first two years were spectacular
Reagan was a firm believer in the private sector.He understood growth and jobs are best created there and that government usually serves to get in the way.The economic melt down of 2008, and even the Great Depression, are first and foremost...a failure of government; namely, in both cases, the Federal Reserve.Reagan pushed for private sector job growth and lower taxes to stimulate the economy.Tip O'neil and the congress would not stop spending. Reagan proved to be correct.Bill Clinton benefited.
The recession of 1990-91 had been corrected and the economy was growing rapidly 7 months>>> The same can be said for Carter in 1980. Read "Secrets of the Hidden Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" by William Greider
Yes, the same could be said for Carter. It takes quite a while for the American people to feel the change that's already in place. No mystery there. The 90's were not more prosperous then the 80's; you're alone with that assumption.The largest rise to the middle class by black minorty occured in the 80's. Reagan is regarded in the top 5 Presidents in American history; he needs no apology. He remains extemely popular. He was a good man, and very presidential. I've seen no one since that compares.
capitalism is organized crime. the world's resources are inherent to all walks of life and who ever thinks they should own land and resources government or private is a usurper of humanity and nature and a tyrant. fuck off. i am so sick of this fallacy known as a better system. they are all wrong and based on falsehoods concocted by power hungry greedy people. i will fight this with every fiber of my being until death and will regret nothing! fuck that shit! i'm invoking the spirit.
what a bunch of shit. it's stupid thing to think that capitalism is good thing. tell that to american brothers and sister my countryman starving or living in poverty tell that to the thrid world nations gutted of their resources and are powerless to corporate power. fuck capitalism and socialist countries. 50% of americans are living in poverty. this is no exaggeration. i am a broke student and have to rely on grants to even go there i moved back in with my parents after being laid off thrice
The only thing that matters is that the population must rise. It's madness and EVERYONE are to blame. The right justifies it with economy and the left with humanity by calling everyone a racist.
The biggest flaw in capitalism isn't the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor. It's the fact that our economic growth is based on the need for an ever increasing number of consumers. Throughout the world (excluding Japan) countries are increasing their population with immigration and social policies. ALL parties from left and right support this policy that will destroy us all in the end. It doesn't matter if the world population is 7, 15, 40 or 90 billion. The only thing that matte
@warrior Most minimum wage earners are young people, many still living with their parents.The minimum wage itself will cause a certain amount of unemployment. People rise and fall though income categories thoughout their lifetimes. Some of the best education is job experience itself. If the minimum wage is too high, many people, particularly young minorities, will not get the job experience that allows them to move into the middle and upper classes.I agree high taxes will discourage investment.
@warriorprince1010 It's not that gap has widened, it's where and by how much; and it's not related to political parties. The suggestion that the poor have gotten poorer is not correct either here in the U.S. or in Great Britain. The poor have more now than ever. But the rich have increased their wealth and the number of people who are considered rich has risen, so the gap itself has widened.
@ jenn1fer i do hope you know in that session she was speaking to an SDP-Liberal MP not a Labour MP, she clearly said LIBERAL policy not socialist......fyi
@Computerdisplay She understands income gap in a way you never will. Say NO to socialism. It creates mediocrity, less productivity, and less wealth. It's keeps the poor very poor actually. It shouldn't according to the manifesto....but yet it does.
@brushfour44 There will always be mediocre people and there will always be poor people. Unregulated markets will cheat people out of their money, capitalism and competence is about cheating. Government regulation makes this process easier for everyone and reduces social unrest and other problems that naturally arise from completely free markets. People need the government. And no, 2:02 shows Margaret Thatcher completely misinterpreting the meaning of "gap".
@Computerdisplay People are not inherently mediocre, they're taught how to be that. It's the way they see themselves and how they perceive their talents and position in society.Socialism and class warfare reinforce those stereotypes and actually play off of them.Thatcher herself was from a very working class background. Markets will always have regulation; no one is arguing that point. The point they argue is over-regulation.Capitalism is about competition. Thatcher understands gap,..you do not.
@brushfour44 No, people aren't inherently "anything" but the social and biological backgrounds that will lead to mediocrity are there beyond the control of mankind. No one want's over regulation, that's why it's called OVER regulation, but capitalism has flaws and regulation aids these flaws. I was talking about Thatcher thinking that gap is "the position in which two points lie" and not the "space between to points". Watch again.
@Computer The idea that mediocrity in performance and achievment in a free society is predetermined is an idea within a world you have created for yourself. The overwhelming majority of the wealthiest and most successful Americans come from the Blue Collar working class.Everyone knows this. I've known quite a few very succesful people. In my case, ALL of the people I met were born and raised in Blue Collar working class backgrounds.They're reasonably intelligent, but many never attended college.
@brushfour44 No, mediocrity is part of humanity you idiot. I believe in free societies and in such communities, some individuals will always chose to be mediocre, you can't control humans, it's both impossible and unethical. The "I've known" and "everyone knows this" is still bias/bullshit...5 year olds use this type of response to ask for toys at the mall.
@Computerdisplay It's not bias, it's factually correct. The overwhelming majority of the wealthiest Americans come from the working class. Bias is being fully aware of other sides of the same argument, but nevertheless insisting on a singular narrative to serve your own agenda; that is bias. How do you define "mediocre?" I'm glad you chose the word "choose." Personal choice or lack of initiative is at the heart of mediocre performance in life.
@brushfour44 Exactly! It is! Don't blame mediocrity on socialism. Poor people, no matter how "mediocre" they are, will spend welfare money and keep companies going. This is not about what's "fair" or "charity", it's about basic economic principles. Lack of regulation will create abuse, inevitably strengthen a few companies, create monopolies and stop the economy, as well as amass the wealth on a limited number of people.
@Computer A wise nation is focused on production, not consumption.Welfare spending is overwhelmingly related to consumption only.What keeps companies going is competition, capital, good business models, fiscal responsibility, consistency, optimism, and a sound work ethic. We don't need welfare (taking money from those who've earned it ---- and giving it to those who did not) to make good companies succeed.Good companies need good workers. Welfare States produce dependency, not strong work ethic.
@brushfour44 What? Since when are companies filled with good business models, fiscal responsibility, consistency, optimism or a sound work ethic? Those companies do not exist, a corporation's purpose is to make money, not to be good "people" (see Citizens United). Without regulation they become abusive power machines. I'm all for capitalism, but not without regulation.
@Computerdisplay You need the experience of running your own company for awhile to have a better understanding. You do not fully understand how capitalism works. What you wrote tells me that you know far less about this subject than I first thought. I appreciate the discussion, but I'm going to sign off here. Good luck.
@brushfour44 You said you were poor but you suddenly know how to run a company? You having stated your poorly backed opinion about my understanding of capitalism, I'll say that I've known that you don't understand economics since we started the conversation. Finally, a company's purpose is to make money, to say that it's not is ridiculous. I do understand capitalism mam and I reject your notion that corporations' goal is to behave according to morals for the sake of it. Good luck
@Computer There is NO ecomonic system ever devised that exists without flaws. The record is very clear, societies that move toward a more socialistic economic model suffer more economic calamity than those that move toward a more free market system.Capitalism is simply the stronger model. Class warfare is an idea created by the political left to divide and conquer. The fact is people are moving up and down and throughout various income levels throughout their lifetimes. Very few remain stagnant.
@brushfour44 I agree with that. Completely. But the idea that socialism is anti-capitalism is ridiculous. It's like saying that a free society is not free unless you allow individuals to kill each other.
But her logic is flawed in stating that a large gap between richer and poorer is absolutely necessary for GOP increase, which is dead wrong. The United States attempted such a plan in the early 30s, it was proven to fail (increased recession). Brazil followed that approach in the early 70s, it failed miserably (inflation). Socialism is not the way, but what conservatives should be all about is less government control - and that goes on the opposite of her statements, of widening the gap.
Hope this bitch dies a painful death for what she's inflicted upon this country. Blue-blooded tory scum bags, couldnt run a fking tap nevermind a country! Since the fall of the unions the standard of living has decreased for working class families, the rich have got richer, no social housing - cant afford to move out, cant better myself through education because its to expensive. The working classes are like lions sleeping, the unions are going to be back and there's going to be hell to pay.
Theres no such thing as society!!! According to your beloved Hag anyway. And i do know how to work, i work very hard for very little, i make a bigger contribution to this country than any bankster, politician or member of the scrounging royal family. Whats funny is you ask me do i know how to work and earn my own money, yet this woman made 3 million unemployed knowing there was no alternative for them - Thats probably why she's hated so much, SHE TOOK OUR JOBS!.
Yeahhhhhh. Capitalism works quite well...when there losers just fucking lose and go try to be better. Not come sniveling to the government about how unfair the market is basing it on racism and pretty much pure laziness. When Japanese cars became cheaper and more fuel economic, Ford and Chevy (I'm a Ford truck guy and I'll say this shit) demanded help to compete. THAT'S NOT HOW IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. When you do better, you succeed in capitalism. These big business have taken enough of my taxes.
Ok idk what lb said but Canada has the best GDP to debt ratio in the G7 G8 and inflated salary? where do you get that? And "Western capitalism"? if im not mistaken the UK is part of the West. Freddo27 you have no idea what your talking about. Canada's economy is a lot more commodity based. That means someone has to extract the oil, mine for the iron, and we make the most cars in N.America so people have to make the cars, make the parts etc. Doesnt sound too girly to me.
@Hereticalable The Nazi's were not right wing. The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (Nazi's), were actually more of a leftists party. If you look at a list of everything Nazi's believed, you'll see why they have very little or nothing to do with anything on the political right: Socialized medicine, Government control of banks, Euthanasia, Abortion on Demand, State run Organic Farming, Closing and controlling of the Free Markets, etc. They were NOT right wingers...
Only and American, which your stupidity implies, would think communism ( Wants an egalitarian socialist utopia with no alienation,inequality and generally no bourgeois oppression of the WEAK AND VULNERABLE ) compares in any way to Nazism which KILLS ALL WEAK AND VULNERABLE etc.
And if they were so similar, why did the Nazis invade the soviet union and GAS COMMUNISTS AT AUSCHWITZ!?
@KidMalone Only a 4th grader, which your ignorance implies, would suggest that Communism created or can create an Egalitarian Socialist Utopia. What it creates is what you see. The idea of an Egalitarian Socialist Utopia is something out of Alice in Wonderland. It breeds mediocrity and robs people of their individualism. Socialism has failed the world over and it's no suprise to those who know better. Nazism and Communism are not the same,...but they are cousins.
@KidMalone you use big words like "proletarian", yet know nothing about the Nazi party. It was very socialist, and had socialist policies all over the place (try reading their 21 point list).
@KidMalone As you think Communists want to help people and the Nazi's want to kill people, I'll tell you a little story. My Grandfather was a tank commander during the war, he faught in north africa, burma etc. At the end of the war in europe, he was staioned in a village in croatia. He was orderd by his superiors to leave, to make way for the russians.
@KidMalone The villagers begged them to stay as they knew what would happen, the women tried to give the birtish their children. The same day they left, the russians moved in and killed very man woman and child in the village.
@Hereticalable In what world is that the case - He's a member of a centrist political party! Liberal Democrat with a capital 'L', which is a British political party, not a liberal Democrat from Washington.
The gab between rich and poor has widened, but not because the poor got poorer. The poor got richer, the middle class got richer and the rich got richer,...but not at the same rate.
@brushfour44 And the poor are richer than they were in 1980. She's right about the gap being the focus rather than relative wealth and seeing the poor get richer even if the rich get richer too. It's classic Marxism to want everyone to have the same rather than creating money from the right to support the poor. I still don't like a lot of her policies and think she should have tried to modernise industry but she's right here basically.
@Hereticalable Agreed! I'm actually not a very wealthy person myself and stuggling finanically, but still am amazed at the amout of goods and services I have access to that I would not have had access to 30- 40 years ago. (I live in the U.S.)The "poor" over here have cell phones, computers, 1 car in the driveway, affordable clothing and food..and lots of it, access to good education and transportation to get around.Many don't work, and if they do, it's not hard-dangerous labor as in years past.
@Computerdisplay So " the poor " of today have cell phones, a computer in the home, at least 1 car (although now new), access to education, college, clothing and food stamps,...and many can even afford to party their asses off. Compare that with the real poor of India, China, Aftrica.
@brushfour44 1.-Did you go to every "poor"persons house to get these facts? 2.-India is a capitalist country...further proving my point. 3.-That's not how you spell Africa, and it's not a country 4.-How are the poor from "today" (wherever the fuck that is), different from the poor from those places?
@ComputerYES, I am a poor person and I can tell you my fellow poverty-liners do reasonably well actually. Thanks for the spell check, now go back to 1996 when that was all the rage. I never said anything about Africa being a country. India was a Socialist leaning third world country until 1991 with a long history of extreme poverty. India has now embraced the free market system to a larger degree and is on the rise. The question is will it compete and out produce the U.S. in the 21rst Century.
@Computerdisplay It means something to me everyday, so I'll wave it if I choose. It gives me a clearer perspective than most. I don't plan to stay here, I'll rise as those with focus and determination in any free society are able to do, and have always done.
@brushfour44 No, what you call "clearer perspective" is called bias. It's perfectly possible you will get higher in the financial classes if you have an education, but not everyone will have this privilege. Plus Keynesian economics is not about "helping the poor" it's about helping everyone by canalizing the money in the economic cycle. It's not a simple act of charity.
@Computerdisplay Bias, and being an advocate for your position based on experience are two different things. Capitalism creates a stronger economies; more production,..goods and services. One of those services is education. In the U.S., education is affordable to everyone,..and anyone who wants higher education in the U.S....gets it.
@brushfour44 no!! what the fuck? that is practically the definition of bias!! lol and no one's against capitalism here...I'm against irresponsible governments that think that the market "regulates itself". Thatcher was a strong leader, but the economy simply won't favor a nation that let's it's corporations do whatever they want.
@naym2011 : Inequality is a natural part of the real world. The idea is to allow everyone the opportunity to better his or her lot in life--regardless of the gap.
The ones that hate Thatcher are the ones who dislike being made to grow up, stand on their own two feet and wipe their own ass. But socialism must work right? Look at all the millions of people trying to emigrate to North Korea!
"In keeping with the great lady's legacy, Margaret Thatcher's state funeral should be funded and managed by the private sector to offer the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders. The undersigned believe that the legacy of the former PM deserves nothing less and that offering this unique opportunity is an ideal way to cut government expense and further prove the merits of liberalised economics Baroness Thatcher spearheaded."
I hate Facha because I am a Communist and by letting people buy their council houses she turned thousands of working class families into middle class families and without the working class then I am irrelevant. I claim to fight for the poor but really I want them to remain poor otherwise I have no raison detre. Also I hate Reagan because thanks to him I don't get my cheques from Comintern any more.
The only people who despise the former Prime Minister are the sad little class warriors who are stuck in a loop spouting their infantile socialist slogans. They still go on about the General Strike of 1926 as though it were yesterday FFS.
So hated by the majority that under her leadership the Conservatives won THREE elections, and laid the groundwork for the treacherous John Major to win another one.
As for Thatcher being hated, I guess you mean unreconstructed union dinosaurs who hanker back to their seventies heyday. They got their parasitic arses kicked into oblivion, and rightly so.
Poor little PercyThrowUp, another person who cannot accept that the world has moved on from their socialist paradise in the UK, circa 1978.
@happyuk06 ..won three elections with about 30 percent of the vote. Almsot 70 percent disliked her, and in 83, before the Falklands landed into her lap, her "popularity" was at an all time low. The press barons were being fed enormous tax incentives and rewarded her with lavish press, leaving the stupid hoodwinked and the less stupid confused or disinterested. Hardly a huge mandate.
She is hated passionately by more people than those who liked her, and the graph is income-based.
actually the poor are getting poorer under capitalism. nothing can justify corporate ceo's hoarding billions of dollars. the hoarding of wealth does not create a better world for the masses, only a better world for the few who control the wealth. they never gave a shit about the rest of us before, why should they start now?
@PoisonedCandyRecords : If the poor are getting poorer today, it is NOT due to some unnamed CEOs hoarding supposed billions of dollars. Wealth is not static. It can be created by anyone. And why should anyone giving a shit about you or anyone else have ANYTHING to do with your own ability to better your own lot in life?
I absolutely love seeing that there are brits that still love Thatcher. A lady whose made more people in your country well off than probably just about any other... Simply amazing.
all socialist care about is maintaining the hatred of anyone who is able to create wealth and fetishization of weakness. why can't we all be mediocre? why can't we punish the rich (who don't really deserve their wealth because that is unfair because we say so) and reward the poor (who could not possibly bear any responsibility for their lack of success) and have a not very rich, but 'just' society? There you have it. The deviant socialist mind and their psychotic conception of justice.
@brethynda123 You do know that Blair was in the Labour Party, right? He isn't a Thatcherite, or else the country would've been alot better during his term.
Geez, Socialist numbskulls just never learn. How did England fare after 10 years of Blair? A once great nation barely recognizable due to mindless treachery and an adherence to a failed ideology.
holy shit - as a libertarian, how did I not come across her speeches yet! Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher UNITE!!!
@47LN81 No, whether you liked her or loathed and detested her (doesn't seem to be any halfway house here) she was wrong, and everything she did was bad.
LOL yea working people. You build ships we don't want, and mine for coal that no one wants. Yea you are a hard working social loafer. Go occupy a desk Comrade. You think you are entitled to my wealth simply on the basis that you exist? But you aren't. Yea what a crazy woman for saying Northern Britain shouldn't be subsidized by everyone else. If you contributed to society, then Thatcher would have never come to power. Pick up a history book and get your facts straight
@lb1234ization Oh, my history's fine, fatcat. And you do what exactly, tory boy? Snatch money out of thin air? That worked, NOT. Western capitalism is trilliuons in debt, thanks to the mentality you espouse. The bankers fuck up, the government has to bail out the bankers by borrowing money from the bankers. The bankers carry on with the cocaine and whores and we pay.
LOL if your history was right you would know Britain was on the verge of a bailout from the IMF. I live in Canada, and I can tell you that our social safety net is not free. We pay for it through our productive capitalist economy. You don't, you are a social loafer. Good luck with your economy bud. I will tell you, I am laughing at you (p.s. I make $147,000 a year, and I work roughly 75 hours a week. What the hell have you done? go occupy a desk)
@lb1234ization Nice to know you're in Canada and we're not paying your inflated salary. A real day's work would kill you. Go get a proper man's job, not that girly desk job of yours.
@freddo27 I too work in Canada ,and do 60 hour work weeks,before you start tounging we are taxed on 40% on what we make,then taxed 15%sales tax on almost everything(and service;ie hydro) we buy.Most people here do pay 50 to 60% taxes,the welfare people rely on the backs on the ones that do work...I work construction,build and repair barns ,come up on a zoom boom basket during winter if you think we all work in heated offices....bring the warmest fucking hat you got.
@lb1234ization The working class have been subsidising the parasitic scum at the top of the food chain since history began. People who don't produce anything, yet snatch heaps of cash through wheeler dealing and sleight of hand take us through repeated boom and bust cycles. The Germans looked after their industries and it's paid off, better pay, pensions, working conditions, housing, health. This vile old high finance whore fucked Britain on behalf of the idle rich. No question.
Okay, in the 1970s West Germany built robots, luxury automobiles, and industrial equipment. Britain built ships nobody wanted, and coal that was too expensive to export. In 1973, the Conservatives tried to make German-style reforms, which were shot down by the NUM (FACT, not my opinion, just simple FACT). 330% debt-to-GDP was a Labour failure. This is something you people never address. Its great to talk about the virtues of socialism when you are racking up a credit card bill
Okay, in the 1970s West Germany built robots, luxury automobiles, and industrial equipment. Britain built ships nobody wanted, and coal that was too expensive to export. In 1973, the Conservatives tried to make German-style reforms, which were shot down by the NUM (FACT, not my opinion, just simple FACT). 330% debt-to-GDP was a Labour failure. This is something you people never address. Its great to talk about the virtues of socialism when you are racking up a credit card bill
@lb1234ization So why didn't this hag invest in new industries to keep pace with the modern age, like Germany? Instead of axing and selling off everything we had and channelling the wealth overseas for short-term gain? Her idea was to create a nation of bankers, simply administering the goods we imported and ticking over on banking profit. Madness. She was hateful and misguided in everything she did, an egocentric sow, she's left this country bereft and ruined.
@Rorschach65 Not quite. The poor may have become richer (it wasn't clear if this was because of Thatcher's policies or other factors), but a greater number of people become poor who were otherwise middle class. This is a known fact- thatcher destroyed millions of jobs and raised the unemployment rate to 10 percent. The definition of unemployment and likely poverty was changed over thirty times. We now have an economy where the rich are getting richer, the poor poorer.
@patrickwright1 I disagree, it was certainly her policies that wrecked whole working class communities and impoverished the working class. The sell-offs of services meant the rating system would not support those services with profits broiught into the picture, the selloffs of assets to overseas fatcats took money our of Britain, and the wholesale destruction of British industry and the resultant mass unemployment are what caused the poverty directly. Only the rich benefitted.
@MrPercyThrowup No, I agree. I suspect their definition of 'the poor' was only considering those who worked, it didn't include the millions of unemployed. Her legacy is that she built our grotesque economy today where growth comes before equitable distribution of wealth and the poor are poorer and the rich are richer. Rather than improve the post war consensus, she chose to return us to something like the old boom and bust liberal economy.
@MrPercyThrowup I don't like many of her policies but I will say one thing - I'll take Thatcher over gulags and secret police and all the other socialist/marxist crap some people think will benefit us more than the current system. I stress again, I don't agree with many of her policies - she should have tried to modernise industry not get rid of it.
@MrPercyThrowup That must be why the poor today in Britain are not as poor as the poor in 1980. I don't agree with most of her policies but the reality is British "poor" people have a lot more than they used to.
@Hereticalable Totally correct. Same for the "poor" in the U.S. Cell phones, laptops, desk top computers, digital tv, cable television, sport clothes, ipods, foods stamps that buy shrimp and steak and any food items you can imagine, a used car in the driveway, free housing, free utilities, child care, health care, education, college grants, sports programs, and a hundred other things. The " poor " of today have WAY more than the poor of 30 years ago. Absolutely.
@bolloxinator Briefly, she is explaining the relationship of the poor and the rich and their roles in a Socialist state. The Rich are taxed in order to effect a timely fund and dependable source of welfare and Socialistic Healthcare monies. Her argument is not fallacious, and the validity of it assesses the ineptitude of a Socialist state - Socialism does not create harmony, it creates a parasitic relationship between Rich and Poor.
Prime Minister Thatcher is an idiot...Socialism doesn't want the poor to be poorer, as she mistakenly interpretted it as. Socialism wants everyone more wealthy. And Socialists especially want the poor to be more wealthy.
Yea one problem with that. The intentions of socialism are far different than the results. My dad grew up in a council house, and enjoyed every other "luxury" of the welfare state. LOL I'm having a hard time not laughing right now. We can argue the merits of socialism and capitalism, but there are some things that aren't up for debate. Every colliery in Britain lost $20 a year. Those hard working coal miners (2 of my uncles and 3 of my cousins) lived off of everyone else.
@TheSuperLib You do understand your own dogma, I am praying? Socialism requires a parasitic relationship if it develops in a free trade state. If you are a Socialistic, you're one in denial, because of the fact that Socialism requires the redistribution of wealth. Evidently, this is clear in most Socialistic Health Care forms, as well as most--if not all-- Socialistic Welfare forms. The Socialist gov't would use it's tax-supported funds[mostly from the Rich] to fund WF/HC.
All of this wont matter in a few decades. Once we create artificial intelligence they will show all of the logical fallacies that our political institutions are made of. The day we can set aside our thinking in terms of groups, nationalities, and ideologies, is the day we will succeed in transcending our present state.
@theMadman183 So socialists don't want economic equality? socialists don't believe in nationalisation?
I just think you, being the typical immature left-winger you are, like those fools that try arguing there's god are just removing attributes of socialism to defend it. What is the point in doing that?!
What's Meryl Streep doing in the parliament?
Zh0rik 1 day ago
@eibon14 lol $15000 with $14000 tuition. $1000 for rent, food and everything else. Accounting you say?
XMadeInAmericaX 1 week ago
I'm confused how did she own socialism? She just dodged the question completely.
XMadeInAmericaX 1 week ago
@XMadeInAmericaX I don't see it either. Maggie rarely made any sense during all her anti Socialism ramblings (for any Iron Lady groupies, I'm in no way promoting socialism but merely wondering where Thatcher's strong argument lies against the practice)
cajayson8301 4 days ago
She's the embodiment of capitalism. Bless her cotton socks. XD
abmong 1 week ago
The British parliament is a joke. All debates are completely meaningless! You Brits should be ashamed that we (rest of the world) can view this kindergarden on TV.
Kritiker9 1 week ago
I don´t see any proof
Niclas141 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eibon14 It depends on where you live if $44k is a decent salary or not. If you live in a small town or metro area in the middle of the country then it isn't bad. If you live on the east coast or parts of the rest coast it's not going to go as far. If you live in NYC or Los Angeles it's not going to go very far at all considering the cost of living there.
njanovic1980 3 weeks ago
America needs a Margaret Thatcher!
PhilGeissler 3 weeks ago 15
@PhilGeissler haha :p
IneffableLifestyle 3 weeks ago
@PhilGeissler Yes we need a Margaret Thatcher very badly ! Amen...
Chris6134 2 weeks ago
@PhilGeissler The American media can't stand a female conservative. Just like they can't stand a black conservative!
sciguy0504 1 week ago 9
@sciguy0504 what an utter crock. Palin's been featured on Oprah, Faux, had her OWN freaking show, TheView, etc.
What they can't stand is ignorance (save for Faux), something Palin views as virtuous
cajayson8301 4 days ago
@PhilGeissler You have Ron Paul. So don't screw this up and go vote for him.
BQSurfer 1 week ago
you can have her
micbak2000 5 days ago 2
@PhilGeissler we already had her in male form: George W. Bush. No thanks!
cajayson8301 4 days ago
@eibon14 i had assumed you were european that's what the free edu was about.. my mistake but still fuck you and stuff
gonzopoet00 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
gonzopoet00 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
gonzopoet00 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
gonzopoet00 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
gonzopoet00 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
gonzopoet00 3 weeks ago
im an american i love thatcher more than obama
jred414 3 weeks ago
Thatcher doesn't really prove anything in this video. She offers an argument and says socialism is bad because people in general have less money. Regardless of whether or not this argument is true she offers no logical reason or empirical reason as to why it is true. Thus no proof. I would argue that the reason the British GDP went up was a natural increase in technology making work more efficient ant thus raising productivity and income levels, not capitalism directly.
A6284968128 3 weeks ago
She is referring to me at 2:05.
BCync 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 I agree giving a business...any business a tax cut will allow that business to have more capital in which to spend. Low taxes, and less regulation will always stimulate business and growth. There most certainly is a mountain of evidence that clearly shows young and minority unemployment increases that coincide with minimum wage increases. Minimum wage increases can create a generation of young people with little or no job experience. Propel yourself past minimum wage.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 If you hire foreign workers, and increase the minimum wage, then less foreign workers will have jobs. You have to ask, where does the money come from to pay workers additional money for every hour worked for every worker throughout the year? The US is on of the only industrialized nations that is continually increasing it's population.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 Clinton increased the minimum wage during some of America's most prosperous years. Unemployment normally results from high interest rates, restricted credit, and inflation
cajayson8301 4 days ago
@caj Our most prosperous years were not during the Clinton admin.There was reasonable growth, but nothing like the Reagan boom of during the 1980's. Many financial experts attibute the 2.6 growth rate in GDP due to the technology boom, and to the number of matured business (33 million in total)created during the Reagan era. The recession of 1990-91 had been corrected and the economy was growing rapidly 7 months before Clinton took office.Some say he hampered growth.Should have been closer to 4%.
brushfour44 4 days ago
@brushfour44 Reagan boom? LOL! He sent unemployment to its highest level in 1982 post Great Depression (plus 1987 Black Monday) and concentrated money near the top in naive trickle down crud not verified as impacting bottom lines. So typical a Reaganite/Thatcher apologist denies history's already posted stamp on the 90s being more prosperous. He merely spent his way out of it, nothing special.
Some say he hampered growth.>>> I never said his first two years were spectacular
cajayson8301 4 days ago
Reagan was a firm believer in the private sector.He understood growth and jobs are best created there and that government usually serves to get in the way.The economic melt down of 2008, and even the Great Depression, are first and foremost...a failure of government; namely, in both cases, the Federal Reserve.Reagan pushed for private sector job growth and lower taxes to stimulate the economy.Tip O'neil and the congress would not stop spending. Reagan proved to be correct.Bill Clinton benefited.
brushfour44 4 days ago
@brushfour44 One more comment
The recession of 1990-91 had been corrected and the economy was growing rapidly 7 months>>> The same can be said for Carter in 1980. Read "Secrets of the Hidden Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" by William Greider
cajayson8301 4 days ago
Yes, the same could be said for Carter. It takes quite a while for the American people to feel the change that's already in place. No mystery there. The 90's were not more prosperous then the 80's; you're alone with that assumption.The largest rise to the middle class by black minorty occured in the 80's. Reagan is regarded in the top 5 Presidents in American history; he needs no apology. He remains extemely popular. He was a good man, and very presidential. I've seen no one since that compares.
brushfour44 4 days ago
capitalism is organized crime. the world's resources are inherent to all walks of life and who ever thinks they should own land and resources government or private is a usurper of humanity and nature and a tyrant. fuck off. i am so sick of this fallacy known as a better system. they are all wrong and based on falsehoods concocted by power hungry greedy people. i will fight this with every fiber of my being until death and will regret nothing! fuck that shit! i'm invoking the spirit.
gonzopoet00 1 month ago
what a bunch of shit. it's stupid thing to think that capitalism is good thing. tell that to american brothers and sister my countryman starving or living in poverty tell that to the thrid world nations gutted of their resources and are powerless to corporate power. fuck capitalism and socialist countries. 50% of americans are living in poverty. this is no exaggeration. i am a broke student and have to rely on grants to even go there i moved back in with my parents after being laid off thrice
gonzopoet00 1 month ago
The only thing that matters is that the population must rise. It's madness and EVERYONE are to blame. The right justifies it with economy and the left with humanity by calling everyone a racist.
XenaHeartsGabrielle 1 month ago
The biggest flaw in capitalism isn't the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor. It's the fact that our economic growth is based on the need for an ever increasing number of consumers. Throughout the world (excluding Japan) countries are increasing their population with immigration and social policies. ALL parties from left and right support this policy that will destroy us all in the end. It doesn't matter if the world population is 7, 15, 40 or 90 billion. The only thing that matte
XenaHeartsGabrielle 1 month ago
@warrior Most minimum wage earners are young people, many still living with their parents.The minimum wage itself will cause a certain amount of unemployment. People rise and fall though income categories thoughout their lifetimes. Some of the best education is job experience itself. If the minimum wage is too high, many people, particularly young minorities, will not get the job experience that allows them to move into the middle and upper classes.I agree high taxes will discourage investment.
brushfour44 1 month ago
I don't really see how she "owns" him, she just seems to talk some bullshit
meelzonweelz69 1 month ago
@warriorprince1010 It's not that gap has widened, it's where and by how much; and it's not related to political parties. The suggestion that the poor have gotten poorer is not correct either here in the U.S. or in Great Britain. The poor have more now than ever. But the rich have increased their wealth and the number of people who are considered rich has risen, so the gap itself has widened.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@ jenn1fer i do hope you know in that session she was speaking to an SDP-Liberal MP not a Labour MP, she clearly said LIBERAL policy not socialist......fyi
Gardenstatehomecomin 1 month ago
who gives a fuck about the gap between rich and poor as long as everyone can get access to the basics in life and not live like a vagrant?
starman900 1 month ago
@starman900 Well said!
brushfour44 1 month ago
screw thatcher the saggy bitch
Theorockz2 1 month ago
for god's sake...the "honorable Prime Minister" failed to understand the meaning of "gap" in the most pathetic of ways.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
Comment removed
brushfour44 1 month ago
@Computerdisplay She understands income gap in a way you never will. Say NO to socialism. It creates mediocrity, less productivity, and less wealth. It's keeps the poor very poor actually. It shouldn't according to the manifesto....but yet it does.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 There will always be mediocre people and there will always be poor people. Unregulated markets will cheat people out of their money, capitalism and competence is about cheating. Government regulation makes this process easier for everyone and reduces social unrest and other problems that naturally arise from completely free markets. People need the government. And no, 2:02 shows Margaret Thatcher completely misinterpreting the meaning of "gap".
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computerdisplay People are not inherently mediocre, they're taught how to be that. It's the way they see themselves and how they perceive their talents and position in society.Socialism and class warfare reinforce those stereotypes and actually play off of them.Thatcher herself was from a very working class background. Markets will always have regulation; no one is arguing that point. The point they argue is over-regulation.Capitalism is about competition. Thatcher understands gap,..you do not.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 No, people aren't inherently "anything" but the social and biological backgrounds that will lead to mediocrity are there beyond the control of mankind. No one want's over regulation, that's why it's called OVER regulation, but capitalism has flaws and regulation aids these flaws. I was talking about Thatcher thinking that gap is "the position in which two points lie" and not the "space between to points". Watch again.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computer The idea that mediocrity in performance and achievment in a free society is predetermined is an idea within a world you have created for yourself. The overwhelming majority of the wealthiest and most successful Americans come from the Blue Collar working class.Everyone knows this. I've known quite a few very succesful people. In my case, ALL of the people I met were born and raised in Blue Collar working class backgrounds.They're reasonably intelligent, but many never attended college.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 No, mediocrity is part of humanity you idiot. I believe in free societies and in such communities, some individuals will always chose to be mediocre, you can't control humans, it's both impossible and unethical. The "I've known" and "everyone knows this" is still bias/bullshit...5 year olds use this type of response to ask for toys at the mall.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computerdisplay It's not bias, it's factually correct. The overwhelming majority of the wealthiest Americans come from the working class. Bias is being fully aware of other sides of the same argument, but nevertheless insisting on a singular narrative to serve your own agenda; that is bias. How do you define "mediocre?" I'm glad you chose the word "choose." Personal choice or lack of initiative is at the heart of mediocre performance in life.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 Exactly! It is! Don't blame mediocrity on socialism. Poor people, no matter how "mediocre" they are, will spend welfare money and keep companies going. This is not about what's "fair" or "charity", it's about basic economic principles. Lack of regulation will create abuse, inevitably strengthen a few companies, create monopolies and stop the economy, as well as amass the wealth on a limited number of people.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computer A wise nation is focused on production, not consumption.Welfare spending is overwhelmingly related to consumption only.What keeps companies going is competition, capital, good business models, fiscal responsibility, consistency, optimism, and a sound work ethic. We don't need welfare (taking money from those who've earned it ---- and giving it to those who did not) to make good companies succeed.Good companies need good workers. Welfare States produce dependency, not strong work ethic.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 What? Since when are companies filled with good business models, fiscal responsibility, consistency, optimism or a sound work ethic? Those companies do not exist, a corporation's purpose is to make money, not to be good "people" (see Citizens United). Without regulation they become abusive power machines. I'm all for capitalism, but not without regulation.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computerdisplay You need the experience of running your own company for awhile to have a better understanding. You do not fully understand how capitalism works. What you wrote tells me that you know far less about this subject than I first thought. I appreciate the discussion, but I'm going to sign off here. Good luck.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 You said you were poor but you suddenly know how to run a company? You having stated your poorly backed opinion about my understanding of capitalism, I'll say that I've known that you don't understand economics since we started the conversation. Finally, a company's purpose is to make money, to say that it's not is ridiculous. I do understand capitalism mam and I reject your notion that corporations' goal is to behave according to morals for the sake of it. Good luck
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@brushfour44 and this limited amount of people will start to make enormous amounts of money not by hard work, but by abuse.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computer There is NO ecomonic system ever devised that exists without flaws. The record is very clear, societies that move toward a more socialistic economic model suffer more economic calamity than those that move toward a more free market system.Capitalism is simply the stronger model. Class warfare is an idea created by the political left to divide and conquer. The fact is people are moving up and down and throughout various income levels throughout their lifetimes. Very few remain stagnant.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 I agree with that. Completely. But the idea that socialism is anti-capitalism is ridiculous. It's like saying that a free society is not free unless you allow individuals to kill each other.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
But her logic is flawed in stating that a large gap between richer and poorer is absolutely necessary for GOP increase, which is dead wrong. The United States attempted such a plan in the early 30s, it was proven to fail (increased recession). Brazil followed that approach in the early 70s, it failed miserably (inflation). Socialism is not the way, but what conservatives should be all about is less government control - and that goes on the opposite of her statements, of widening the gap.
ricarleite 1 month ago
Hope this bitch dies a painful death for what she's inflicted upon this country. Blue-blooded tory scum bags, couldnt run a fking tap nevermind a country! Since the fall of the unions the standard of living has decreased for working class families, the rich have got richer, no social housing - cant afford to move out, cant better myself through education because its to expensive. The working classes are like lions sleeping, the unions are going to be back and there's going to be hell to pay.
SearchlightsInc 1 month ago
@SearchlightsInc Why, cause you dont know how to work and earn your own money without taking it from society?
LordWellington15 1 month ago
@LordWellington15
Theres no such thing as society!!! According to your beloved Hag anyway. And i do know how to work, i work very hard for very little, i make a bigger contribution to this country than any bankster, politician or member of the scrounging royal family. Whats funny is you ask me do i know how to work and earn my own money, yet this woman made 3 million unemployed knowing there was no alternative for them - Thats probably why she's hated so much, SHE TOOK OUR JOBS!.
SearchlightsInc 1 month ago
shes a fuckin bitch she ruined scotland why the hell did they make a film about her :|
MrMccomish 1 month ago
Comment removed
whatevr192 1 month ago
Yeahhhhhh. Capitalism works quite well...when there losers just fucking lose and go try to be better. Not come sniveling to the government about how unfair the market is basing it on racism and pretty much pure laziness. When Japanese cars became cheaper and more fuel economic, Ford and Chevy (I'm a Ford truck guy and I'll say this shit) demanded help to compete. THAT'S NOT HOW IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. When you do better, you succeed in capitalism. These big business have taken enough of my taxes.
Sephenon 1 month ago
Hahaha! She's so fucking entertaining.
SebastienCade 1 month ago
Ok idk what lb said but Canada has the best GDP to debt ratio in the G7 G8 and inflated salary? where do you get that? And "Western capitalism"? if im not mistaken the UK is part of the West. Freddo27 you have no idea what your talking about. Canada's economy is a lot more commodity based. That means someone has to extract the oil, mine for the iron, and we make the most cars in N.America so people have to make the cars, make the parts etc. Doesnt sound too girly to me.
ImFromCanadaa 1 month ago
@ImFromCanadaa You'll probably have to hit reply if you want their attention.
steffen54321 1 month ago
Nothing much has changed in 20 years I see. Simon Hughes was a sniveling little tosspot back then, and he still is now.
Screebler 1 month ago
thatcher got it right. you might call it unfair, but if you don't pull your load you are fucking this country
LordKaisen 1 month ago 27
Comment removed
KidMalone 1 month ago
'saduk06' more like ...zzzz
beanstaIkjack 2 months ago
The guy in this video is not a socialist, he's a Liberal Democrat.
ow4744 2 months ago
@ow4744 That's like saying he's not a Nazi, just really right wing.
Hereticalable 2 months ago
@Hereticalable The Nazi's were not right wing. The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (Nazi's), were actually more of a leftists party. If you look at a list of everything Nazi's believed, you'll see why they have very little or nothing to do with anything on the political right: Socialized medicine, Government control of banks, Euthanasia, Abortion on Demand, State run Organic Farming, Closing and controlling of the Free Markets, etc. They were NOT right wingers...
brushfour44 2 months ago
@brushfour44
Only and American, which your stupidity implies, would think communism ( Wants an egalitarian socialist utopia with no alienation,inequality and generally no bourgeois oppression of the WEAK AND VULNERABLE ) compares in any way to Nazism which KILLS ALL WEAK AND VULNERABLE etc.
And if they were so similar, why did the Nazis invade the soviet union and GAS COMMUNISTS AT AUSCHWITZ!?
KidMalone 1 month ago
@KidMalone Only a 4th grader, which your ignorance implies, would suggest that Communism created or can create an Egalitarian Socialist Utopia. What it creates is what you see. The idea of an Egalitarian Socialist Utopia is something out of Alice in Wonderland. It breeds mediocrity and robs people of their individualism. Socialism has failed the world over and it's no suprise to those who know better. Nazism and Communism are not the same,...but they are cousins.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@KidMalone do you understnad the term national-socialism, because thats what the Nazi party were.
benbow1338 1 month ago
@benbow1338
They used that term to gain proletarian support.
Communist want to help people, Nazis want to kill people. Slight difference there, I mean can you name one socialist policy of the fuckin' Nazis!?
KidMalone 1 month ago
@KidMalone you use big words like "proletarian", yet know nothing about the Nazi party. It was very socialist, and had socialist policies all over the place (try reading their 21 point list).
benbow1338 1 month ago
@KidMalone As you think Communists want to help people and the Nazi's want to kill people, I'll tell you a little story. My Grandfather was a tank commander during the war, he faught in north africa, burma etc. At the end of the war in europe, he was staioned in a village in croatia. He was orderd by his superiors to leave, to make way for the russians.
benbow1338 1 month ago
@KidMalone The villagers begged them to stay as they knew what would happen, the women tried to give the birtish their children. The same day they left, the russians moved in and killed very man woman and child in the village.
benbow1338 1 month ago
@KidMalone I think you may be confusing communism with marxism, and you cerntainly know nothing about nazi germany.
benbow1338 1 month ago
@Hereticalable In what world is that the case - He's a member of a centrist political party! Liberal Democrat with a capital 'L', which is a British political party, not a liberal Democrat from Washington.
ow4744 1 month ago
@ow4744 He is social liberal - fusion between socialism (on economic way) and liberalism (on social way). So yes, he is economic socialist.
oldrichflorian 1 week ago
The gab between rich and poor has widened, but not because the poor got poorer. The poor got richer, the middle class got richer and the rich got richer,...but not at the same rate.
brushfour44 2 months ago 13
@brushfour44 And the poor are richer than they were in 1980. She's right about the gap being the focus rather than relative wealth and seeing the poor get richer even if the rich get richer too. It's classic Marxism to want everyone to have the same rather than creating money from the right to support the poor. I still don't like a lot of her policies and think she should have tried to modernise industry but she's right here basically.
Hereticalable 2 months ago
@Hereticalable Agreed! I'm actually not a very wealthy person myself and stuggling finanically, but still am amazed at the amout of goods and services I have access to that I would not have had access to 30- 40 years ago. (I live in the U.S.)The "poor" over here have cell phones, computers, 1 car in the driveway, affordable clothing and food..and lots of it, access to good education and transportation to get around.Many don't work, and if they do, it's not hard-dangerous labor as in years past.
brushfour44 2 months ago 2
@brushfour44 the obese aren't getting fatter, their pants are actually getting smaller, and their waists too...but not at the same rate.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computerdisplay So " the poor " of today have cell phones, a computer in the home, at least 1 car (although now new), access to education, college, clothing and food stamps,...and many can even afford to party their asses off. Compare that with the real poor of India, China, Aftrica.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 1.-Did you go to every "poor"persons house to get these facts? 2.-India is a capitalist country...further proving my point. 3.-That's not how you spell Africa, and it's not a country 4.-How are the poor from "today" (wherever the fuck that is), different from the poor from those places?
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@ComputerYES, I am a poor person and I can tell you my fellow poverty-liners do reasonably well actually. Thanks for the spell check, now go back to 1996 when that was all the rage. I never said anything about Africa being a country. India was a Socialist leaning third world country until 1991 with a long history of extreme poverty. India has now embraced the free market system to a larger degree and is on the rise. The question is will it compete and out produce the U.S. in the 21rst Century.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 "i know people" is never a valid source...don't wave your "I'm poor" shit like it means anything.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computerdisplay It means something to me everyday, so I'll wave it if I choose. It gives me a clearer perspective than most. I don't plan to stay here, I'll rise as those with focus and determination in any free society are able to do, and have always done.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 No, what you call "clearer perspective" is called bias. It's perfectly possible you will get higher in the financial classes if you have an education, but not everyone will have this privilege. Plus Keynesian economics is not about "helping the poor" it's about helping everyone by canalizing the money in the economic cycle. It's not a simple act of charity.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
@Computerdisplay Bias, and being an advocate for your position based on experience are two different things. Capitalism creates a stronger economies; more production,..goods and services. One of those services is education. In the U.S., education is affordable to everyone,..and anyone who wants higher education in the U.S....gets it.
brushfour44 1 month ago
@brushfour44 no!! what the fuck? that is practically the definition of bias!! lol and no one's against capitalism here...I'm against irresponsible governments that think that the market "regulates itself". Thatcher was a strong leader, but the economy simply won't favor a nation that let's it's corporations do whatever they want.
Computerdisplay 1 month ago
bullshit, the economy can grow with out increasing inequality
naym2011 2 months ago
@naym2011 : Inequality is a natural part of the real world. The idea is to allow everyone the opportunity to better his or her lot in life--regardless of the gap.
rippinsteo 2 months ago 2
The ones that hate Thatcher are the ones who dislike being made to grow up, stand on their own two feet and wipe their own ass. But socialism must work right? Look at all the millions of people trying to emigrate to North Korea!
happyuk06 2 months ago
See epetition #18914
"In keeping with the great lady's legacy, Margaret Thatcher's state funeral should be funded and managed by the private sector to offer the best value and choice for end users and other stakeholders. The undersigned believe that the legacy of the former PM deserves nothing less and that offering this unique opportunity is an ideal way to cut government expense and further prove the merits of liberalised economics Baroness Thatcher spearheaded."
ToffClobberer 2 months ago
I hate Facha because I am a Communist and by letting people buy their council houses she turned thousands of working class families into middle class families and without the working class then I am irrelevant. I claim to fight for the poor but really I want them to remain poor otherwise I have no raison detre. Also I hate Reagan because thanks to him I don't get my cheques from Comintern any more.
Lazyguy22 2 months ago
The only people who despise the former Prime Minister are the sad little class warriors who are stuck in a loop spouting their infantile socialist slogans. They still go on about the General Strike of 1926 as though it were yesterday FFS.
happyuk06 2 months ago 2
@happyuk06 Hahahahahaaaaa. You wish.
ToffClobberer 2 months ago
no that's not true most of Scotland hate her and a lot of people in England do aswell. She just wasn't a good prime minster.
AndyMcRfc 2 months ago
So hated by the majority that under her leadership the Conservatives won THREE elections, and laid the groundwork for the treacherous John Major to win another one.
As for Thatcher being hated, I guess you mean unreconstructed union dinosaurs who hanker back to their seventies heyday. They got their parasitic arses kicked into oblivion, and rightly so.
Poor little PercyThrowUp, another person who cannot accept that the world has moved on from their socialist paradise in the UK, circa 1978.
happyuk06 2 months ago
@happyuk06 ..won three elections with about 30 percent of the vote. Almsot 70 percent disliked her, and in 83, before the Falklands landed into her lap, her "popularity" was at an all time low. The press barons were being fed enormous tax incentives and rewarded her with lavish press, leaving the stupid hoodwinked and the less stupid confused or disinterested. Hardly a huge mandate.
She is hated passionately by more people than those who liked her, and the graph is income-based.
ToffClobberer 2 months ago
actually the poor are getting poorer under capitalism. nothing can justify corporate ceo's hoarding billions of dollars. the hoarding of wealth does not create a better world for the masses, only a better world for the few who control the wealth. they never gave a shit about the rest of us before, why should they start now?
PoisonedCandyRecords 2 months ago
@PoisonedCandyRecords : If the poor are getting poorer today, it is NOT due to some unnamed CEOs hoarding supposed billions of dollars. Wealth is not static. It can be created by anyone. And why should anyone giving a shit about you or anyone else have ANYTHING to do with your own ability to better your own lot in life?
rippinsteo 2 months ago
@rippinsteo Good points! You are correct.
brushfour44 2 months ago
fuck socialism
argenta86 2 months ago
I absolutely love seeing that there are brits that still love Thatcher. A lady whose made more people in your country well off than probably just about any other... Simply amazing.
daPlumber702 2 months ago
@daPlumber702 I'm American and I love Thatcher.
scott71785 2 months ago
@scott71785
She's yours anyway.
brethynda123 2 months ago
SOCIALISM=A CREED OF ENVY
topperheartramada 2 months ago
all socialist care about is maintaining the hatred of anyone who is able to create wealth and fetishization of weakness. why can't we all be mediocre? why can't we punish the rich (who don't really deserve their wealth because that is unfair because we say so) and reward the poor (who could not possibly bear any responsibility for their lack of success) and have a not very rich, but 'just' society? There you have it. The deviant socialist mind and their psychotic conception of justice.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
@muzzster1970
You do know that Blair was a Thatcherite, right?
brethynda123 2 months ago
@brethynda123 You do know that Blair was in the Labour Party, right? He isn't a Thatcherite, or else the country would've been alot better during his term.
pwuint12 2 months ago
@pwuint12
You do know that I don't give a flying fuck what you think, right?
brethynda123 2 months ago
@brethynda123 Do not flatter me, I am merely here to correct your fallaciousness.
pwuint12 2 months ago
@pwuint12
.
brethynda123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pwuint12
.......
brethynda123 2 months ago
What? She speaks like SHE never made the poorer more poor.
SausageBaguette 2 months ago
Geez, Socialist numbskulls just never learn. How did England fare after 10 years of Blair? A once great nation barely recognizable due to mindless treachery and an adherence to a failed ideology.
muzzster1970 2 months ago
holy shit - as a libertarian, how did I not come across her speeches yet! Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, Margaret Thatcher UNITE!!!
RedSkiesMusic 2 months ago
weather you liked her or not...she is right
47LN81 2 months ago
@47LN81 No, whether you liked her or loathed and detested her (doesn't seem to be any halfway house here) she was wrong, and everything she did was bad.
pezz12345 2 months ago 2
Top draw facist right here.
reeceyj95 2 months ago 5
@reeceyj95 Top draw fascist who was in power by way of three democratic landslide elections?
Reunakk 1 month ago
Horrible old cunt. May she rot for all the wrongs she did to the working peope.
pezz12345 2 months ago 11
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@pezz12345
LOL yea working people. You build ships we don't want, and mine for coal that no one wants. Yea you are a hard working social loafer. Go occupy a desk Comrade. You think you are entitled to my wealth simply on the basis that you exist? But you aren't. Yea what a crazy woman for saying Northern Britain shouldn't be subsidized by everyone else. If you contributed to society, then Thatcher would have never come to power. Pick up a history book and get your facts straight
lb1234ization 2 months ago
@lb1234ization Oh, my history's fine, fatcat. And you do what exactly, tory boy? Snatch money out of thin air? That worked, NOT. Western capitalism is trilliuons in debt, thanks to the mentality you espouse. The bankers fuck up, the government has to bail out the bankers by borrowing money from the bankers. The bankers carry on with the cocaine and whores and we pay.
Fuck off. twat.
bolloxinator 2 months ago 7
@bolloxinator
LOL if your history was right you would know Britain was on the verge of a bailout from the IMF. I live in Canada, and I can tell you that our social safety net is not free. We pay for it through our productive capitalist economy. You don't, you are a social loafer. Good luck with your economy bud. I will tell you, I am laughing at you (p.s. I make $147,000 a year, and I work roughly 75 hours a week. What the hell have you done? go occupy a desk)
lb1234ization 2 months ago
@lb1234ization Nice to know you're in Canada and we're not paying your inflated salary. A real day's work would kill you. Go get a proper man's job, not that girly desk job of yours.
freddo27 2 months ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@freddo27
I'm actually an electrician
lb1234ization 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@freddo27
And I was able to start my business with a loan I obtained from a bank
lb1234ization 2 months ago
@freddo27 I too work in Canada ,and do 60 hour work weeks,before you start tounging we are taxed on 40% on what we make,then taxed 15%sales tax on almost everything(and service;ie hydro) we buy.Most people here do pay 50 to 60% taxes,the welfare people rely on the backs on the ones that do work...I work construction,build and repair barns ,come up on a zoom boom basket during winter if you think we all work in heated offices....bring the warmest fucking hat you got.
47LN81 2 months ago
@47LN81 Awwww, I'm in tears now. Stop it.
pezz12345 2 months ago
@lb1234ization The working class have been subsidising the parasitic scum at the top of the food chain since history began. People who don't produce anything, yet snatch heaps of cash through wheeler dealing and sleight of hand take us through repeated boom and bust cycles. The Germans looked after their industries and it's paid off, better pay, pensions, working conditions, housing, health. This vile old high finance whore fucked Britain on behalf of the idle rich. No question.
VladTheImpala27 2 months ago 5
@VladTheImpala27
Okay, in the 1970s West Germany built robots, luxury automobiles, and industrial equipment. Britain built ships nobody wanted, and coal that was too expensive to export. In 1973, the Conservatives tried to make German-style reforms, which were shot down by the NUM (FACT, not my opinion, just simple FACT). 330% debt-to-GDP was a Labour failure. This is something you people never address. Its great to talk about the virtues of socialism when you are racking up a credit card bill
lb1234ization 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@VladTheImpala27
Okay, in the 1970s West Germany built robots, luxury automobiles, and industrial equipment. Britain built ships nobody wanted, and coal that was too expensive to export. In 1973, the Conservatives tried to make German-style reforms, which were shot down by the NUM (FACT, not my opinion, just simple FACT). 330% debt-to-GDP was a Labour failure. This is something you people never address. Its great to talk about the virtues of socialism when you are racking up a credit card bill
lb1234ization 2 months ago
@lb1234ization So why didn't this hag invest in new industries to keep pace with the modern age, like Germany? Instead of axing and selling off everything we had and channelling the wealth overseas for short-term gain? Her idea was to create a nation of bankers, simply administering the goods we imported and ticking over on banking profit. Madness. She was hateful and misguided in everything she did, an egocentric sow, she's left this country bereft and ruined.
pezz12345 2 months ago 2
Can you smell the destruction here? That's the socialist argument being laid to rest.
By the way, if you run statistical correlations worldwide there is NO CORRELATION between income inequality and per capita GDP.
Rorschach65 2 months ago
@Rorschach65 Not quite. The poor may have become richer (it wasn't clear if this was because of Thatcher's policies or other factors), but a greater number of people become poor who were otherwise middle class. This is a known fact- thatcher destroyed millions of jobs and raised the unemployment rate to 10 percent. The definition of unemployment and likely poverty was changed over thirty times. We now have an economy where the rich are getting richer, the poor poorer.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@patrickwright1 I disagree, it was certainly her policies that wrecked whole working class communities and impoverished the working class. The sell-offs of services meant the rating system would not support those services with profits broiught into the picture, the selloffs of assets to overseas fatcats took money our of Britain, and the wholesale destruction of British industry and the resultant mass unemployment are what caused the poverty directly. Only the rich benefitted.
MrPercyThrowup 2 months ago 9
@MrPercyThrowup No, I agree. I suspect their definition of 'the poor' was only considering those who worked, it didn't include the millions of unemployed. Her legacy is that she built our grotesque economy today where growth comes before equitable distribution of wealth and the poor are poorer and the rich are richer. Rather than improve the post war consensus, she chose to return us to something like the old boom and bust liberal economy.
patrickwright1 2 months ago
@MrPercyThrowup I don't like many of her policies but I will say one thing - I'll take Thatcher over gulags and secret police and all the other socialist/marxist crap some people think will benefit us more than the current system. I stress again, I don't agree with many of her policies - she should have tried to modernise industry not get rid of it.
Hereticalable 2 months ago
@MrPercyThrowup That must be why the poor today in Britain are not as poor as the poor in 1980. I don't agree with most of her policies but the reality is British "poor" people have a lot more than they used to.
Hereticalable 2 months ago 4
@Hereticalable Totally correct. Same for the "poor" in the U.S. Cell phones, laptops, desk top computers, digital tv, cable television, sport clothes, ipods, foods stamps that buy shrimp and steak and any food items you can imagine, a used car in the driveway, free housing, free utilities, child care, health care, education, college grants, sports programs, and a hundred other things. The " poor " of today have WAY more than the poor of 30 years ago. Absolutely.
brushfour44 4 weeks ago
@Rorschach65 Nope, didn't get that at all. It's all subjective, income related actually. I never heard one good argument from her, ever. All spew.
bolloxinator 2 months ago 11
@bolloxinator Briefly, she is explaining the relationship of the poor and the rich and their roles in a Socialist state. The Rich are taxed in order to effect a timely fund and dependable source of welfare and Socialistic Healthcare monies. Her argument is not fallacious, and the validity of it assesses the ineptitude of a Socialist state - Socialism does not create harmony, it creates a parasitic relationship between Rich and Poor.
pwuint12 2 months ago
Prime Minister Thatcher is an idiot...Socialism doesn't want the poor to be poorer, as she mistakenly interpretted it as. Socialism wants everyone more wealthy. And Socialists especially want the poor to be more wealthy.
TheSuperLib 2 months ago 2
@TheSuperLib
Yea one problem with that. The intentions of socialism are far different than the results. My dad grew up in a council house, and enjoyed every other "luxury" of the welfare state. LOL I'm having a hard time not laughing right now. We can argue the merits of socialism and capitalism, but there are some things that aren't up for debate. Every colliery in Britain lost $20 a year. Those hard working coal miners (2 of my uncles and 3 of my cousins) lived off of everyone else.
lb1234ization 2 months ago
@TheSuperLib You do understand your own dogma, I am praying? Socialism requires a parasitic relationship if it develops in a free trade state. If you are a Socialistic, you're one in denial, because of the fact that Socialism requires the redistribution of wealth. Evidently, this is clear in most Socialistic Health Care forms, as well as most--if not all-- Socialistic Welfare forms. The Socialist gov't would use it's tax-supported funds[mostly from the Rich] to fund WF/HC.
pwuint12 2 months ago
perfect speech of a great woman, probably the best PM ever
Socialist simply don't want the rich getting richer, also if that means poor are poorer than in capitalism way
gekkos 2 months ago
I love this woman
Bystander81 2 months ago
All of this wont matter in a few decades. Once we create artificial intelligence they will show all of the logical fallacies that our political institutions are made of. The day we can set aside our thinking in terms of groups, nationalities, and ideologies, is the day we will succeed in transcending our present state.
astroboomboy 3 months ago
This man is not a socialist. If you do wish to criticise someone, I suggest you do so with integrity rather than pelting them with loaded insults.
theMadman183 3 months ago
@theMadman183 So socialists don't want economic equality? socialists don't believe in nationalisation?
I just think you, being the typical immature left-winger you are, like those fools that try arguing there's god are just removing attributes of socialism to defend it. What is the point in doing that?!
ForeverComplaining 3 months ago
Comment removed
theMadman183 3 months ago
She has it right. Socialism has never worked well. It brings only equality in misery.
rollsi1 3 months ago