Margaret Thatcher

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Left-wing economics died in the 1980s. Catch up.

Is that the best argument a so-called graduate in economics can construct?

[MOBIUS]

"Economics from Aberystwyth.

PA has one sheep and buys another = he is now able to **** twice as many sheep."

[MOBIUS]

...

[Krill]

Ah, the old two cows jokes...

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Two_cows

[Drogue]

Thatcher. I'm almost as glad she did what she did as I am that I wasn't alive at the time. If we still had such strong union powers, we wouldn't be in anything close to the economically strong position we're in now. I'm just thankful I wasn't there to witness it. Hell to live through, but necessary for our current economy to work.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

it shows that in the UK at least the freedom of speech on this issue is not seen as a right.

That's ok. It shows me that in the UK freedom of speech at all isn't seen as a right .

It's not, it's a liberty. We don't have a right to free speech, we just choose to only curtail it when necessary, by democratic government

[Drogue]

With regards to privatisation, you may have a point. Most of those you mentioned are natural monopolies, and IMHO work better therefore as state owned monopolies, rather than regulated private monopolies. However many other privatised (British Steel for example) are not monopolies, and as such should have been privatised. Moreover, by standing firm on the unions, something no labour government of the time would have done, she did a great service to restoring the balance of power in favour of the government. We did need to close mines and we did need to lose jobs. We had oversupply.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
A standard flat tax is the most efficient tax there is, given that it doesn't distort the market mechanism.

No a lump sum tax doesn't distort the market mechanism. A fixed rate does, but at a lesser extent than a stepped rate. However as any good economist knows, since poor people have a higher mpc, even without the equity argument, lump sum taxes are an incredibly inefficient way to collect enough tax to run a nation. Add the equity argument, again economists tend to be in agreement about the need for economics to serve the people, and thus if equity is desirable in the population (which it is, whether macro in the Gini Coefficient, or micro in utility preferences, as democratic voting shows), then it needs to be taken into account. Equity and efficiency exhibit a tradeoff, and hence neither a lump sum, not a fixed income level, are in societies best interests. We need something in between. Both fixed rate and stepped rate taxes are, and could work, however public opinion seems to favour the latter, and the effects of both are reasonably well known.

[Provost Harrison]

The only equitable thing to do is a progressive model of taxation. These are real people and real lives involved...try living on minimum wage in London for example and then pay even more tax than you are paying now...realism is what is required...

[chequita guevara]

Socialism

[Colonâ„¢]

All taxes distort market mechanisms. It's just that some don't create as many perverse incentives as others.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
The only equitable thing to do is a progressive model of taxation. These are real people and real lives involved...try living on minimum wage in London for example and then pay even more tax than you are paying now...realism is what is required...

No, the only equitable thing would be for everyone to have the same income. However that would be grossly inefficient. A progressive tax system is a tradeoff in being more efficient than the above idea, but less equitable. A flat tax rate goes even further, being more efficient still, but less equitable again. And then a lump sum tax goes the furthest in that direction.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
All taxes distort market mechanisms. It's just that some don't create as many perverse incentives as others.

Nope, lump sum taxes don't distort the market mechanism, as the same steps happen, the same equilibrium, but at the end money is taken from everyone. It only distorts the market mechanism if a different amount is paid by different people.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Left-wing economics died in the 1980s. Catch up.

Neo-Liberalism is a load of BS used by right-wingers to ligitimize thier lies.

Keynes > Freidman

[Drogue]

No, neo-liberalism is the belief that a theory being coherant is more important than it standing up to empirical evidence. Neo-liberalism is the most coherant economic view, yet it relies on very strong assumptions that aren't true in the real world. As a tool to legitimise policies, it's BS, however as a tool to model certain effects and further economic theory so it becomes closer to reality, it's quite useful.