We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Retired people could work for pensions..
Comments
-
ruggedtoast wrote: »I am pretty sure youngsters havent been selling crass corporatism to themselves.
The modern consumer driven society evolved and matured during the boomer years.
Its is itself a product of boomerism and boomers have been the overall big winners.
They have choice, I don't see them rebelling and endeavouring to take the corporate establishments down. Once they tasted that Apple they were hooked. Encourage them to be subversive and go nologo.
Many big brands were around pre boomer.
Why don't you turn some of your anger on SKY, Premier footballers (who are no doubt worthe every penny) and commodity brokers (who are the real manipulators) for a change boomer slanging is getting tiresome."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
How much longer is this thread going to continue?
Some people must have a lot of spare time on their hands (and I am not talking about 'boomers' here). :j0 -
That is what happened but I'm not sure it was decided that manufacturing should be written off. I agree that a lot more could have been done to prevent the decline and to many eggs were put into the financial basket.
I'm pretty sure it is what happened under Thatcher. She decided that since we weren't very good at it any more and the troublesome unions were predominantly in that sector, the best thing was to withdraw affection from it and let it wither on the vine.
Blair, who seldom made an election promise without reneging on it, was elected on a support for manufacturing ticket. Not having a clue how to honour that, or indeed how to do anything strategic, he sucked up to the financiers, and did nothing to check the manufacturing decline.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I'm pretty sure it is what happened under Thatcher. She decided that since we weren't very good at it any more and the troublesome unions were predominantly in that sector, the best thing was to withdraw affection from it and let it wither on the vine.
Blair, who seldom made an election promise without reneging on it, was elected on a support for manufacturing ticket. Not having a clue how to honour that, or indeed how to do anything strategic, he sucked up to the financiers, and did nothing to check the manufacturing decline.
I'm no fan of Maggie but I'm not sure there was a conscious decision to run down manufacturing. I think that was achieved by certain elements within the trade union movement, bad management and lack of investment. I'm sure a lot more could have been done to arrest the decline but that's not the same as engineering it.
0 -
I'm no fan of Maggie but I'm not sure there was a conscious decision to run down manufacturing. I think that was achieved by certain elements within the trade union movement, bad management and lack of investment. I'm sure a lot more could have been done to arrest the decline but that's not the same as engineering it.
I agree that all those factors played their part, and it was another example of politically motivated trade union leaders cutting the throats of their members. But I don't think Thatcher saw it as a problem and probably thought it was 'for the best'. The other associated major strategic error that she made was in allowing mass, largely localised unemployment to become endemic. This set the seeds for where we are now, with not working for a whole lifetime and living on benefits becoming an accepted lifestyle choice.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I'
X, who seldom made an election promise without reneging on it, was elected on a support for Y ticket. Not having a clue how to honour that, or indeed how to do anything strategic, X sucked up to the financiers, and did nothing to check the manufacturing decline.
Summarises many a PMs CV succintly."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
I think one thing that was better in the 60s and 70s was that good jobs with training and prospects were available to people who did not have a degree. I'm not sure current apprenticeships are as good as those on offer in the 60s and 70s.
I agree. Many of my friends in the 1970s who did not make it to university but got average A-levels went off to work for banks, insurance companies, laboratories, manufacturers, the NHS and the like. Most went straight on to good company training schemes that blended formal training and on the job experience. As time went on these training schemes were progressively phased out as employers transferred the training costs to the state or individual. Similarly those who left with O levels got jobs that provided training or became apprentices.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »I am pretty sure youngsters havent been selling crass corporatism to themselves.
The modern consumer driven society evolved and matured during the boomer years.
Its is itself a product of boomerism and boomers have been the overall big winners.
Blaming boomers again I see!
Will you take the blame for soap operas, reality TV, twitter and other mind numbing forms of entertainment on your watch!Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
How much longer is this thread going to continue?
Some people must have a lot of spare time on their hands (and I am not talking about 'boomers' here). :j
Is it bothering you?:DFew people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
I'm no fan of Maggie but I'm not sure there was a conscious decision to run down manufacturing. I think that was achieved by certain elements within the trade union movement, bad management and lack of investment. I'm sure a lot more could have been done to arrest the decline but that's not the same as engineering it.
Bad managememt, a few union hot heads could have been dealt with more constructively. Thatcher on the other hand did not devastate manufacturing by accident, she had a calcuated strategy to treat the nation like her Dad's Grocery shop and we all know what happened to them.
I agree her focus was not on industry, she was obsessed with social engineering and supply side economics (like Cameron). She just watched the free market do what it does best and focus on what makes money now rather than what the nation needed as a longer term strategy. I agree that heavy industry was in decline but what she failed to do was to grow alternative industries based on emerging technologies to replace them. Quite amazing when you think she is the only scientist we have had as PM.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards