Posts Tagged ‘neoliberalism’

42 reasons to loathe Margaret Thatcher, by a british citizen

Aprilie 9, 2013

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment.
2. She destroyed the country’s manufacturing industry, creating the untenable situation Britain endures today whereby we import everything from either Germany, the USA, or China. Britain went from a world leader in manufacturing to an international joke.
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws.
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren („Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher” being a popular slogan at the time).
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that has turned out).
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration.
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership).
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed – the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million, and this still does not take into account those forced on to incapacity benefits.
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands.
10. The poll tax (an unfair tax levied equally on every member of society regardless of income)
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad.
12. She compared her „fight” against the miners to the Falklands War.
13. She privatised state monopolies such as energy and created the corporate greed culture that we’ve been railing against for the last 5 years.
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS.
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits which led directly to the 2008 crash.
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA, prior to this support had been more bilateral and measured.
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control.
18. Section 28, a homophobic clause reading that a local council „shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or „promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”.
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as „that grubby little terrorist”.
20. She supported the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers.
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population.
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany.
23. She invented Quangos (shady government/private bodies with powers to influence policy but very little supervision)
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%, an evil flat tax on all.
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah contract
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile’s General Pinochet.
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike.
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%.
31. BSE (deregulation of what could be fed to farm animals).
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession.
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process, exacerbating the feeling of unrest amongst the Catholic population.
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa during apartied.
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin, corruption after corruption.
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher.
37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain – £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros – £1 billion.
38. Poverty doubled whilst she opposed a minimum wage.
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders. British energy bills fund cheap energy for the rest of the continent.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education.
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions.
42. 21.9% inflation.

She inspired many other governments to instigate similar reforms as part of the massive lurch to the right in the last 30 years.
The list of reasons why this woman deserves to rot in hell for all eternity is endless.

Post made by Lord Weasel on the Ars-Regendi forums:


Thatcher a murit, si mama ce-o mai plang romanii religiosi

Aprilie 8, 2013

„Until industrial feudalism is replaced by industrial democracy, politics will be the shadow cast on society by big business.”

~John Dewey

Hai sa luam o pauza cu „so” ierte Dumnezeu si marfa ar fi daca voi crestinilor ati invata sa scrieti corect romaneste (s-o), si sa ne uitam la FAPTE.
-Thatcher a mostenit o tara cu un somaj de 1 milion
-Sub politicile ei somajul a crescut pana la aproape 4 milioane
-Inflatie a crescut si ea, dobanda ajungand pana la 15%
-A reusit sa dubleze numarul copiilor traind in saracie la 28%
-Sub politicile ei salariile au fost inghetate si reduse
-Thatcher a reusit sa dezindustrializeze tara, sa mareasca discrepanta dintre saraci si bogati, a reusit sa creeze o clasa de mijloc nesindicalizata, fortata sa accepte ore mai lungi de munca, salarii mai mici; iar lumea era prea speriata sa protesteze de frica lipsei locurilor de munca
-Pe langa asta, Thatcher alaturi de SUA a contribut la moartea a 2 milioane de oameni in Cambodia, datorat asa zisului Year Zero. Recomand sa cititi investigatia lui John Pilger, Cum Thatcher i-a dat o mana de ajutor lui Pol Pot:

-Thatcher alaturi de Mitterand si Reagan au creat un trio al neoliberalismului. Ceea ce vedeti in sistemul trans-atlantic, in special in Europa, este mostenirea politicilor acestor 3 adepti ai neoliberalismului. Mostenirea lor se bazeaza pe religiozitate economica (pe mituri), pe alienarea clasei de mijloc, crearea de saraci si de somaj, salarii mici, austeritate, ore lungi de munca, si profituri uriase pentru corporatisti. Statu cvoul nu doreste full employment, deoarece somajul pune presiune pe salarii sa ramana mici, si sa nu tina pas cu productivitatea muncii. „Daca nu-ti convine, pleaca! Pe postul asta mai sunt 1000 ca tine.” Lor nu le place sa fie in situatia inversa. „Ma angajezi azi? Ca mai sunt o gramada de patroni la care ma pot duce.”

Corporatiile nu vor sa auda de costuri, de acoperire de sanatate samd. Toti vor profituri uriase cu efort minim.

Faza ca ea a salvat tara de la faliment este o minciuna abjecta. Un guvern cu suveranitate monetara, indatoriat in propria moneda NU poate sa dea faliment. Marea Britanie este un astfel de stat, precum SUA, Japonia, Turcia, Pakistan, India, Cuba, Israel, Iran, Elvetia etc.
Deficitul guvernmanetal este egal cu economisirea neta a sistemului privat. Singurul mod prin care sistemul privat poate economisi, este ca guvernul sa ruleze un deficit fiscal. Guvernul creeaza fiat prin circularea monedei in cheltuielile sale guvernamentale, si o distruge via taxare. Taxele NU finanteaza cheltuielile publice. Taxarea permite activitatea economica sa se petreaca intr-un mediu non-inflationar.
MIT: Deficitele guvernamentalea fura credit ce-ar putea fi folosit de mediul privat.
MIT: Deficitele guvernamentale maresc dobanzile in piata.
MIT: Guvernul trebuie sa-si taxeze propria moneda inainte s-o cheltuiasca.
MIT: Dobanzile mici produc inflatie.

Adevar: Cererea agregata creeaza productie. Producatorii nu pot produce, daca nu pot vinde. Si ei nu pot vinde, daca noi nu putem cumpara. Cererea agregata se creeaza prin marirea deficitului fiscal indeajuns de mult pentru a satisface nevoia sectorului privat de a economisi. Orice tara net exportatoare este o net importatoare de cerere agregata.
Atat timp cat exista forta de munca disponibila/somaj (oameni care vor sa munceasca) si resurse neutilizate, guvernul fie taxeza prea mult, fie cheltuie prea putin, sau ambele. Dobanzile de 0% NU produc inflatie. Nu exista dovezi empirice in acest sense. Japonia practic a rulat dobanzi de 0% timp de mai bine de un deceniu, si tot a avut deflatie. De ce? Fiindca Quantitative Easing fara stimulus fiscal NU conduce la crearea de noi imprumuturi/la activarea consumului.

Why Margaret Thatcher was bad for Britain

by Ian Jones

When Margaret Thatcher left Downing Street for the last time as prime minister in November 1990, she told the press: „We’re very happy that we leave the United Kingdom in a very, very much better state than when we came here 11-and-a-half years ago.”

Judged against certain criteria, she had a point. Few enjoy paying tax: her time in No 10 saw the basic rate fall from 33p to 25p and the top rate plunge from 83p to 40p. Everybody enjoys more disposable income: during her premiership, the average salary rose from £5,427 to £15,252. She also oversaw a decline in the annual number of working days lost in strikes from 29.5m to 1.9m.

Dig beneath the surface of these statistics, however, and a different picture emerges. In order to achieve constructive changes, Mrs Thatcher subjected Britain to a sequence of destructive upheavals. Her cure for the UK’s ills was attractive enough for a portion of its population to vote her into office three times, but the medicine was so objectionable she never received majority support.

In short, the apparatus she used to achieve her goals harmed just as many – if not more – than they helped. This was because her policies tended to involve short-term pain for many, but long-term gain for only a few.

Inflation doubled

Rather than stimulating the economy through investment and tax cuts, she tried to control the amount of money in circulation. Mrs Thatcher thought this would reduce inflation from its 1979 level of 10.3%. It didn’t. Inflation doubled within a year and only fell to present day levels of 2-3% in 1986.

By this point, the damage had been done. To get to such a low level, indirect taxes had been hiked (VAT rose from 8% to 15%), as had interest rates (topping 17%). Subsidies for industry were reduced. The result was a massive rise in unemployment from 1.4m in 1979 to 3.5m by 1982, or one in eight people out of work. „I knew that when you change from one set of policies to another, the transition is very difficult,” Mrs Thatcher later reflected, „but benefits would come in the longer run.”

A disunited kingdom

Benefits did come, but not for everyone. Long-term unemployment blighted an entire generation in Northern Ireland (where 20% of people were left out of work), Scotland and the NE and NW of England (16%). Supporters insisted work was there to be found; critics argued it was unreasonable to expect people to leave homes and families to take a job 100 miles away.

A disunited kingdom emerged, as some parts of the country flourished while others faltered. Industry declined in the north; new sectors such as financial services boomed in the south. Mrs Thatcher went further, advocating both economic and moral belligerence. There was „no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families.” People should look to their own and not rely on the government for help.

This crystallised into her observation that the only reason the Good Samaritan did any good was „because he had money”. Fine: everyone wants money and some made a lot during the Thatcher years, but what if you happened to live in a place where you couldn’t earn any?

Selective prosperity

The prosperity Mrs Thatcher brought to Britain was selective, antagonistic and temporary. She did indeed leave Britain „very, very much better”, but only for some. She also left it in recession, with unemployment, inflation and interest rates rising.

Above all, not only was she bad for the country during her premiership, she continues to be bad for the country today. The causes of the present slump – unrestricted credit, deregulation and too much financial speculation – all date back to the 1980s. No successive government dared reverse these decisions: a blessing to her legacy, but a curse we must now all share.


Noul premier chinez vrea sa „taie venele natiunii”

Martie 22, 2013

Conform informatiilor din The Telegraph, noul premier al Chinei, Li Keqiang vrea sa elimine controlul statului asupra economiei.  Acesta sustine ca efortul va fi dureros, dar necesar pentru cresterea economica a Chinei. “It’s about cutting power, it’s a self-imposed revolution,” he said. “It will be very painful and even feel like cutting one’s wrist.

Li Keqiang are CV-ul patat, deoarece acesta a incercat sa bage sub pres un scandal in care oameni au fost infectati cu HIV-SIDA, ca urmare a unei sesiuni prost organizate de donare de sange. Acest Keqiang pregateste terenul pentru furtul tranzitiei, furt prin care au trecut tari precum Rusia, Ucraina, Romania, Bulgaria, si altele. Tranzitia la asa zisa economie de piata este una in care se privatizeaza profituri si in care se socializeaza pierderi. China n-are nevoie de liberalizare economica. De ce au fost chinezii sclavii care au produs atat de mult pentru ca restu’ lumii, in special SUA, sa consume? Deoarece au vrut sa se protejeze. China avea nevoie de resurse strategice si tehnologie, si nu le putea achizitiona cu yuani. Avea nevoie de valuta universal acceptata, ergo dolari americani. Acuma ca si-a securizat pozitia geostrategica, pentru ce cacat e nevoie ca Li Keqiang sa „reformeze” economia Chinei? Daca vrea sa reformeze ceva, mai bine ar reforma pozitia guvernului vis-a-vis de dreptul la libera exprimare, la libera informare, sa revizioneze pozitia fata de drepturile homosexualilor samd.

China nu are nevoie de o economie condusa pe „principii” neoliberale. Astfel de vrajeli au condus la criza financiara ce afecteaza in continuare sistemul tranzatlantic. Europa e in mai mult cacat, deoarece n-are un mecanism de reciclare a surplusurilor comerciale, iar Troika (Comisia Europeana, Banca Centrala Europeana, FMI) impreuna cu Germania continua sa aplice asupra europenilor o austeritate reminiscenta cu cea din tratatul de la Versailles. Aliatii au impus-o Germaniei dupa primul razboi mondial (si astfel s-a pavat drumul spre aparitia si dominatia ideologiei fasciste si naziste), iar acuma a venit randul Germaniei sa-si ia revansa in secolul XXI.

China trebuie sa-si concentreze productia spre pietele sale autohtone, spre reducerea discrepantei dintre bogati si saraci, sa-si imbunatateasca infrastructura, si sa puna capat saraciei abjecte. Nu sa creeze mediul perfect pentru ca toti parazitii financiari sa le invadeze economia sub pretextul „investitiilor”. Guvernul chinez ar trebui sa-si reduca prezenta opresiva din viata cetateanului chinez, nu sa lase economia nationala prada oligarhilor.



Tariq Ali: The Rotten Heart of Europe

Noiembrie 5, 2012