Reply to: Andrew Neil's Hayek lecture

[DodgyAgent]

Well, it is getting a bit untidy, there are so many threads in this discussion (and even in Neil's address).

What I meant in 1 was that, although any kind of liberalism is better than totalitarianisn, the kind of Liberalism that tries to change things for the better, but in an undogmatic way, is better than laissez-faire economic liberalism.

Otherwise, I wasn't attacking the view that property ownership is a good thing bacuse people look after what they own better than what they don't own (and in any case it's their own business if they own it), but rather I criticised what Thatcher did to bring about such increased property ownership as we have.

People with the good luck to be in the right council houses just got handed huge slices of wealth that they hadn't earned. Other people had earned it, and whether or not governments/nations should own property, they did, the generations whose work had paid successive governments to invest in the country's stock of property, and it was just given away. To some. If you had a council house in the South, you could be well off now, from wealth that you didn't earn. If you had one in the North, don't expect to retire in Brighton on the proceeds. If you had none, maybe you shouldn't expect to retire at all (you have been set on the road to serfdom). And if you're coming of age now and looking for somewhere to live, you're faced with a problem, and don't look for a council house to live in meantime, because it'll cost you 12 years' pay.

As for Neil's frequent reference to the collapsing European economies (punctuated by Irwin Stelzer's favourite epithet, "sclerotic") contrasted with the vigorous British economic growth, I'll believe that when I can afford to come back to the UK to work. But I expect to come back to it to retire on the proceeds from my European income before that happens.

I think expat that you will find that Neil says that the UK economy is heading in the same direction as the rest of Europes. OK the distribution/sale of council houses may have been unfair, but being fair is not what this debate is about. If you want an equal and fair society then the most effective way to acieve it is by making sure no one has anything... in other words socialism

[OwlHoot]

I wrote a long reply to Dodgy, Neil, and Hayek; clicked Post Reply; and found myself somewhere else. Fork it! Fack boards that lose your stuff and DON'T LET YOU NAVIGATE BACK TO WHAT YOU HAD ON THE SCREEN SECONDS AGO.

If you're using IE then no wonder. I think Firefox does keep text in input boxes though.

[expat]

expat I am not quite sure about what you are trying to say in "1", but I will take issue with you about Thatcher.

Well, it is getting a bit untidy, there are so many threads in this discussion (and even in Neil's address).

What I meant in 1 was that, although any kind of liberalism is better than totalitarianisn, the kind of Liberalism that tries to change things for the better, but in an undogmatic way, is better than laissez-faire economic liberalism.

Otherwise, I wasn't attacking the view that property ownership is a good thing bacuse people look after what they own better than what they don't own (and in any case it's their own business if they own it), but rather I criticised what Thatcher did to bring about such increased property ownership as we have.

People with the good luck to be in the right council houses just got handed huge slices of wealth that they hadn't earned. Other people had earned it, and whether or not governments/nations should own property, they did, the generations whose work had paid successive governments to invest in the country's stock of property, and it was just given away. To some. If you had a council house in the South, you could be well off now, from wealth that you didn't earn. If you had one in the North, don't expect to retire in Brighton on the proceeds. If you had none, maybe you shouldn't expect to retire at all (you have been set on the road to serfdom). And if you're coming of age now and looking for somewhere to live, you're faced with a problem, and don't look for a council house to live in meantime, because it'll cost you 12 years' pay.

As for Neil's frequent reference to the collapsing European economies (punctuated by Irwin Stelzer's favourite epithet, "sclerotic") contrasted with the vigorous British economic growth, I'll believe that when I can afford to come back to the UK to work. But I expect to come back to it to retire on the proceeds from my European income before that happens.

[DodgyAgent]

I wrote a long reply to Dodgy, Neil, and Hayek; clicked Post Reply; and found myself somewhere else. Fork it! Fack boards that lose your stuff and DON'T LET YOU NAVIGATE BACK TO WHAT YOU HAD ON THE SCREEN SECONDS AGO.

Can't do it again, but in short:

1. Hayek missed half the point. Rigid constructivism is a failure, but the best application of the idea of flexible reaction to reality came in Hayek's friend Popper's thesis of "piecemeal social change" accompanied by feedback and correction. Greatest practitioner of this was German chancellor Helmut Schmidt; a Social Democrat, not a laissez-faire capitalist (which thatcher was unless she was thwarted, when she turned Stalinist).

2. Thatcher didn't introduce the population to the freedoms of property ownership, she:
a) initiated an extended period of transfer of wealth from people who work to people who own property. Some are the same people, but that's not the point.
b) sold off national assets (I mean council houses in this case) at knockdown prices, to presumably gratefully loyal council house lottery winners. Those who had council houses and a bit of money got a large free gift, or in some parts of the country a gigantic free gift. Those who didn't, especially those who have grown up since then, see a poorer country, that just happes to have some richer people in it. They have been set on the road to serfdom by Maggie, who made others richer on a whim.

expat I am not quite sure about what you are trying to say in "1", but I will take issue with you about Thatcher.

Firstly I would like to ask why is it desirable for the state to own anything at all? Property of any sort (I should say assets) is better maintained by people who have a vested interest in maintaining them. Even the left wing are agreeing that the way to relieve poverty (part of the way) is for everyone to have ownership of property. If people have nothing to gain or nothing to lose they tend not to bother to care about anyone else. This is precisely where the welfare dependent poor sit courtesey of "We know what is best for you" socialists.

Whiilst I would maintain that many many people have moved up into the richer middle class earnings spectrum (as opposed to you who imply that it is very few-which is misleading at best- ) I would add that had Thatcher not come to power that the poor would have been poorer and there would have been far fewer rich.

Collectivism really doesnt work because standards always fall to the level of the lowest common. Individualism (which collectivisits tarnish with the word greed) combined with personal responsibility as principles of ideology work far better.

I will try and read what Popper has to say. People like Schmidt are the ones the brought a halt to the German niracle economy by cutting down the trees of wealth and trying to re distribute them. Unfortunatly this doctrine has seized the German economy to the point that it continues to decline.

Few systems or societies prosper when the state tries to take control.

Labour is undoing all the great things that Thatcher did to make the UK the worlds 4th largest economy

[expat]

I wrote a long reply to Dodgy, Neil, and Hayek; clicked Post Reply; and found myself somewhere else. Fork it! Fack boards that lose your stuff and DON'T LET YOU NAVIGATE BACK TO WHAT YOU HAD ON THE SCREEN SECONDS AGO.

Can't do it again, but in short:

1. Hayek missed half the point. Rigid constructivism is a failure, but the best application of the idea of flexible reaction to reality came in Hayek's friend Popper's thesis of "piecemeal social change" accompanied by feedback and correction. Greatest practitioner of this was German chancellor Helmut Schmidt; a Social Democrat, not a laissez-faire capitalist (which thatcher was unless she was thwarted, when she turned Stalinist).

2. Thatcher didn't introduce the population to the freedoms of property ownership, she:
a) initiated an extended period of transfer of wealth from people who work to people who own property. Some are the same people, but that's not the point.
b) sold off national assets (I mean council houses in this case) at knockdown prices, to presumably gratefully loyal council house lottery winners. Those who had council houses and a bit of money got a large free gift, or in some parts of the country a gigantic free gift. Those who didn't, especially those who have grown up since then, see a poorer country, that just happes to have some richer people in it. They have been set on the road to serfdom by Maggie, who made others richer on a whim.

[hyperD]

But try telling that to individuals weaned on a diet of "anti-Thatcherism" by their families and friends. The good news is that the older they get, the less attached to the socialist manacles they become, until it becomes a distant embarrassment.

[DodgyAgent]

Same as most people on this board's problems with Blair. Evil self centred witch, purely driven by self interest. Same as all politicians. She took it further than most though.

The double standards on here are amazing at times. On the one hand I'm told that Thatcher is responsible for me having a job today, and on the other Blair is responsible for the society we now live in. Seem to be pretty choosy over which parts of modern day society Maggie is responsible for (ie the good ones), compared to the current government. Thatcher must take much of the blame for the self centred 'stuff you I'm alright Jack' mentality prevalent these days whether you like it or not.

Margaret Thatcher created the economic strength of UK plc by freeing the privatised industries from the clutches of the trade unions. The middle classes enjoyed the freedoms and priviliges afforded to property ownership, she passed those same freedoms on to the working classes.

Thanks to her we do not have to pay fortunes for cars, coal and other goods and services that we do not want. We enjoy the benefits of choice in what telephone providers we use.

Thatcher believed in personal freedom along with the responsibilities that go with such freedom. People like you call this greed, though refuse to acknowledge that the economic success of this country (enabled by her) has given you the wealth and privilege that you have enjoyed over the last 20 years.

Blairs government is taking us back to the dark ages of collectivism in the form of large state interference, the erosion of freedom, the stripping away of personal responsibility, that brought about the rise of Margaret Thatcher in the first place.

If you read the Hayek lecture you may understand where Thatcher was coming from.

[expat]

I am the only reason I have a job today. I have nothing to thank that cow for.

Good point! Logically, she would have to agree with that.

[Churchill]

She instilled a sense of reality in the miners, that's a plus in my book!

[benn0]

So what is your problem with her?

Same as most people on this board's problems with Blair. Evil self centred witch, purely driven by self interest. Same as all politicians. She took it further than most though.

The double standards on here are amazing at times. On the one hand I'm told that Thatcher is responsible for me having a job today, and on the other Blair is responsible for the society we now live in. Seem to be pretty choosy over which parts of modern day society Maggie is responsible for (ie the good ones), compared to the current government. Thatcher must take much of the blame for the self centred 'stuff you I'm alright Jack' mentality prevalent these days whether you like it or not.

[DodgyAgent]

I am the only reason I have a job today. I have nothing to thank that cow for.

So what is your problem with her?

[benn0]

She is the only reason why we are not a third world country and she is the only reason why people like you have jobs today

I am the only reason I have a job today. I have nothing to thank that cow for.

[expat]

She is the only reason why we are not a third world country and she is the only reason why people like you have jobs today

Dodgy, you're smoking too much of that stuff.

[DodgyAgent]

IS she not dead yet - Am looking forward to toasting her passing.

She is the only reason why we are not a third world country and she is the only reason why people like you have jobs today

[Mailman]

hang on... the French get subsidies for their farmers and we protest... but the Brits get a rebate to fill GB's public pension black hole and we think it's OK?

How many standards to you have?

Thats the whole point Becs, originally Fat Tony wanted to link a reduction in Englands payment to a reduction in subsidies paid to the frogs.

I mean, why should england reduce their subsidy if no one else is prepared to reduce their payments?

Mailman