Current Events > Margaret Thatcher on Income Inequality and Socialism

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw
---

No wonder he left despises her.
---

Margaret Thatcher was a vile sociopath.
---

Awesome woman.
---

She is correct.

Fun fact: She also invented soft scoop ice-cream.
---

Fuck Thatcher and all she did. Countless people suffered because of her
---

Frankie Boyler on Margaret Thatcher: "For 3 million you could give everyone in Scotland a shovel, and we could dig a hole so deep we could hand her over to Satan in person."
---

Spooking posted...

We need a Margaret Thatcher here in America. God bless her.

We'll have universal healthcare despite her being here?
---

Look at those members of parliament laughing at her stupid insinuations about how socialism works. XD
---

PonyLivesMatter posted...

She is correct.

Sigless user logic.

For starters she dodged their points.

Then for second she literally just made up "You want everyone to be poorer so the gap is closer!" which literally no one said. It's a total strawman.

Her point isn't wrong that absurdly poor and absurdly rich is better than everyone being absurdly poor, but no one ever contested that outside of Russia in the early 20th century.

"Well it's better than everyone being absurdly poor" isn't a defense of the widening gap between rich and poor and the destruction of the middle-class, which only got worse during and after her term.

Anyone who sees that the top 300 richest men in America have more wealth than the next 300 million combined can't honestly see that and think that's a strong and healthy way for society to be and true capitalism.

Feels like someone going "You raped that girl!" and the retort is "Well it's better that I raped her than raped and killed her like you wanted me too!" it's kinda stupid and embarrasing for what's supposed to be maturity and debate.
---

Spooking posted...

We need a Margaret Thatcher here in America. God bless her.

---

Why do people still think trickle-down economics work again?
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

Why do people still think trickle-down economics work again?

Because they'll afford that small business on their minimum wage salary eventually.
---

pegusus123456 posted...

Frankie Boyler on Margaret Thatcher: "For 3 million you could give everyone in Scotland a shovel, and we could dig a hole so deep we could hand her over to Satan in person."

As a Scot, I can confirm this sentiment.

This was one reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(Great_Britain)

So many butthurt socialists ITT already.
---

---

"woah she said socialism is BAD how freaking epic is that!! Best politician ever!!" - dumb American basement dwelling right wingers
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

For starters she dodged their points.

Then for second she literally just made up "You want everyone to be poorer so the gap is closer!" which literally no one said. It's a total strawman.

The guy complained that the poor were worse off relative to the rich, even though independent of the rich they were actually better off by every single metric.

The only conclusion is that he thinks the poor were better off at a time when their lives were worse just because it was more fair that the rich weren't as well off relative to them. This is the logic of a sociopath/socialist. Actual standards of living do not matter; if someone else is doing better than you are, then that's unfair.

You know what country has really low wealth inequality right now? Venezuela. A socialist paradise, according to British politician Jeremy Corbyn!
---

Socialists are as evil as Nazis and should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The guy complained that the poor were worse off relative to the rich, even though independent of the rich they were actually better off by every single metric.

No he never said that, and no they weren't.

I mean some guy just before your post pointed out the rise in poverty, not mentioning all the people who lost their jobs, the weaker England got on the global stage, the problems the NHS was having.

The idea of "they were all better off but the top rich were also earning more." is a flat out fabrication and also nothing that was said.

All that aside, even if that were true it would STILL be worrying if the government didn't see the endlessly widening gap as a big concern for the future.

So you're kinda wrong on like 4/5 fronts at once here.
---

Antifar posted...

"How do percentages work, guyse?"

Let's say income distribution looks like this:

3 people have $1
3 people have $2
3 people have $3
3 people have $4
3 people have $5

The median income is $3, and 6 people fall below the median.

but after a number of years, income for everyone goes up in varying amounts:

4 people have $2
4 people have $3
4 people have $4
2 people have $5
1 person has $6

The median income is now $4

But look at that! Now there's 8 people below the median instead of 6! That's bad somehow, even though everyone is actually better off! </leftistlogic>
---

Socialism sucks ass

Do these alt righters coordinate with each other to post in topics? One right after the other within minutes.

I don't know how people get so brainwashed into thinking wealth gaps and the rich getting even more richer and more powerful are a good thing. I also don't see the point in trying to prove these brick walls wrong. They won't change.
---

Southernfatman posted...

Do these alt righters coordinate with each other to post in topics? One right after the other within minutes.

I don't know how people get so brainwashed into thinking wealth gaps and the rich getting even more richer and more powerful are a good thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGooHl2R_Y8
---

But that's not what happened.

The poor didn't start earning more because the Rich earned more.

The rich earned a lot more and the poor lost their jobs, homes, sometimes their lives, pensioners lost their pensions, industries collasped and healthcare services were stripped.

I'll use Ian Gilmour's famous quote: "The sacrifice imposed on the poor produced nothing miraculous except for the rich."

Again you're using this "It improved for everyone so therefore it was good! How dare you want everyone to be poor!" logic that is a flat out fabrication.

The issue was that the poor were getting worse and suffering, the middle class was being phased out and the rich were growing in power. Thats a worrying trend. And like Thatcher you keep dodging that to bring up strawmen.
---

Southernfatman posted...

Do these alt righters coordinate with each other to post in topics? One right after the other within minutes.

I always notice this too. P sure they coordinate when they make topics lol
---

UncleBourbon33 posted...

Awesome woman.

a known racist is an awesome woman? damn

Southernfatman posted...

I also don't see the point in trying to prove these brick walls wrong. They won't change.

That's a horrible idea. It just means that your views will not grow.

You should challenge and discuss things. That's how you and others grow.

It's also arrogant, assuming that there is nothing anyone can say that might change YOUR mind.

Nostradumbass posted...

UncleBourbon33 posted...

Awesome woman.

a known racist is an awesome woman? damn

A lot of the greatest people in history were racist.

If a man cured cancer and hated Indians did he still not cure cancer?
---

---

Nostradumbass posted...

UncleBourbon33 posted...

Awesome woman.

a known racist is an awesome woman? damn

lol. Don't you ever get tired of calling everyone you don't like racist?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

But that's not what happened.

The poor didn't start earning more because the Rich earned more.

The rich earned a lot more and the poor lost their jobs, homes, sometimes their lives, pensioners lost their pensions, industries collasped and healthcare services were stripped.

Can you show that the poor in the UK were empirically worse off in 1990 than in 1979 without invoking their relative economic position to the rich?
---

"The problem with imperialism is you eventually run out of other people's countries."
-Margaret Thatcher
---

averagejoel posted...

"The problem with imperialism is you eventually run out of other people's countries."
-Margaret Thatcher

Yeah ok Lenin. Keep telling yourself that the Chinese people would be better off without jobs from western companies.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

But that's not what happened.

The poor didn't start earning more because the Rich earned more.

The rich earned a lot more and the poor lost their jobs, homes, sometimes their lives, pensioners lost their pensions, industries collasped and healthcare services were stripped.

Can you show that the poor in the UK were empirically worse off in 1990 than in 1979 without invoking their relative economic position to the rich?

What do you mean "empirically" that doesn't include poverty, home-ownership, employment, pensions, benefits or healthcare which has been shown?

Approval ratings of government?

Well let's go ask the Scottish that....
---

Antifar posted...

Now blaming Thatcher for the 1981 recession

lmfao
---

Wariodorf posted...

Only on CE there would be a thread of people stroking themselves to Margaret Thatcher

Not really.

Despite her negative reputation a lot of conservatives love Thatcher, see her as an almost Randian figure. Standing as an immovable dike against an endless see of dangerous liberalism.

You know how people respect those that don't back down and act/look like they are steadfast in their beliefs? Thatcher was full of that. Like an intelligent Trump.
---

If only Brighton had been a success :(
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

What do you mean "empirically" that doesn't include poverty,

Antifar's "poverty" graph only defined it relative to your proximity to the median. Did their income go up or down?

And as for the others, were things like home ownership a result of Thatcher's policy, or from the recession that began soon after she took office?

If that latter, do you blame Obama for the 2008 recession too?
---

Wariodorf posted...

Only on CE there would be a thread of people stroking themselves to Margaret Thatcher

true

Antifar posted...

What happened to median income though? This looks at the gap without the absolute values, basically the point Thatcher makes in the vid when she moves her fingers down from "that... to that"
---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2263690.stm
---

Antifar posted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2263690.stm

Suicides go up during a recession. Gee what a shocker. I guess Obama is responsible for all the terrible shit that happened during the great recession too.

Do you have any original opinions of your own, @Antifar ? or can you only parrot the articles that you hastily google in response to direct questions?
---

Imagine taking for granted the insane assumption that there is something wrong with some people having more wealth than other people.

There is zero reason to believe wealth is supposed to be divided equally across a population.
---

Sativa_Rose posted...

What happened to median income though? This looks at the gap without the absolute values, basically the point Thatcher makes in the vid when she moves her fingers down from "that... to that"

It is shockingly difficult to find British statistics like this, but I found this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/16/bury-not-just-thatcher-but-thatcherism

And despite claims of a Thatcher "productivity miracle", productivity growth was also higher in the 60s (and it's gone into reverse under Cameron). What her government did do was redistribute growth from the poor to the rich, driving up profits and slashing employees' share of national income through her assault on trade unions. That's why it felt like a boom in better-off Britain, as the top rate of tax was more than halved, while real incomes fell for the poorest 40% in her first decade in power.

The poor got poorer.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Antifar's "poverty" graph only defined it relative to your proximity to the median. Did their income go up or down?

Depends on what you mean. Income went "up"

Wages went up but not that much and considering the rise in unemployment, the drop in industry, the rise in immigration, the loss of pensions and the healthcare woes not to mention basic inflation.. The majority of poor earned less and suffered more than they did before and after her.

Even other conservatives don't deny that.

Here's some good graphs if you're intereted:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/datablog/2013/apr/08/britain-changed-margaret-thatcher-charts

Only people who really benefited were women, as the pay gap between men and women got

And as for the others, were things like home ownership a result of Thatcher's policy, or from the recession that began soon after she took office?

Both. Recession hit the nation hard, then Thatcher hit them even harder, so they suffered immensely.

If that latter, do you blame Obama for the 2008 recession too?

Not only is this not relevant, Obama never even attempted to defend the notion that the widening gap between rich and poor was a good thing and the elimination of the middle class was a good thing, quite the opposite.
---

Antifar posted...

Sativa_Rose posted...

What happened to median income though? This looks at the gap without the absolute values, basically the point Thatcher makes in the vid when she moves her fingers down from "that... to that"

It is shockingly difficult to find British statistics like this, but I found this:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/16/bury-not-just-thatcher-but-thatcherism

And despite claims of a Thatcher "productivity miracle", productivity growth was also higher in the 60s (and it's gone into reverse under Cameron). What her government did do was redistribute growth from the poor to the rich, driving up profits and slashing employees' share of national income through her assault on trade unions. That's why it felt like a boom in better-off Britain, as the top rate of tax was more than halved, while real incomes fell for the poorest 40% in her first decade in power.

The poor got poorer.

An opinion article, from the Guardian, whining about how big Margaret Thatcher's funeral was, and who's only citation to the real incomes of the poorest 40% dropping is to an Amazon shopping page to a book that isn't even available for Amazon Prime.

Yeah, you're gonna have to do better than that.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Antifar posted...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2263690.stm

Suicides go up during a recession. Gee what a shocker. I guess Obama is responsible for all the terrible shit that happened during the great recession too.

Do you have any original opinions of your own, @Antifar ? or can you only parrot the articles that you hastily google in response to direct questions?

Mal you're being ridiclous again.

You've gone from saying Thatcher's fabrications are true.

To then saying okay they're not true but she's actually right and everything bad + all problems and bad data was the reccesion and everyone's elses fault.

That's crazy. You can't demand "Empirical Data" and then just dismiss it because you don't like it...

I don't get why you don't get that there is nothing wrong with saying "I'm a conservative but this one conservative person/idea/situation had flaws or was wrong." not everything is black and white dude. You can love and should love conservation without strawmen and dimissials.
---