Tačerizam - ideja, pozadina i posledice

[Budja]

Da se ti pitas, Slavoj Zizek ne bi mogao nista da napise, a kamoli onolike knjige.

Zizek je ok u malim dozama, a ovde smo imali: Morisi, Bili Breg, Manic Street Preachers, Elvis Kostelo...Mogao bih dodati i rani Depeche Mode i Pet Shop Boys.Kul.Ali, jebi ga, opet je glasovima i to dobrim delom radnicke klase Tacerova razbila i 1983. i 1987.

[Budja]

Pominjano je vec na temi (ne u vezi Clasha), monetarizam je otpoceo pre dolaska Regan/Tacer na scenu, kao reakcija na stagflaciju ponudjena iz cikaske skole. Istini za volju, to nije pominjano, to se nalazi na odlicnom linku o neoliberalizmu koji sam ranije okacio, za koji imam izvesne sumnje da ga je slabo ko overio. (Izvinjavam se ako nije tako).Recju kriza je (kao sto definitivno jeste bilo pominjano, ako niodkog drugog, ono od Rodjera) bila tu pre Tacherke. (E sad, da li to bas ima direktne veze sa Clashom, ne mogu da tvrdim sa vel. sigurnoscu... ali ulicni neredi su vec bili tu). I obavezni EDIT - a kao neki savremenik jedne stvari se secam, Tacerkina ratobornost oko Falkland-a definitivno jeste inspirirala neke subkulturne umetnike.

O tome i jeste rec. Tacerka se ne bi desila da nije bilo duboke krize welfare drzave.I da ne zaboravimo, Magi jeste privatizovala zeleznicu, ali nije privatizovala sacred NHS (drzavni zdravstveni sistem).I da, preporucujem svima odlicnu doku-seriju History of Modern Britain, Andrew Marr, iz 2007 ako se ne varam.

[Indy]

Tacerka se ne bi desila da nije bilo duboke krize welfare drzave.

To je tehnicki tacno. Medjutim, njen (i Reganov) efekt je mnogo dalekosezniji od resavanja nekih problema koji su vec u "davnoj" proslosti. To se cak i na nekim grafikonima vidi (posebno u porastu nejednakosti, stagod neko mislio o tome - posle njih to ostaje dosta konstantno davno posle njihovog odlaska sa scene). Njihov efekt je dalekosezan, a to se moze videti i po tome ko se veoma cesto i dan-danas poziva na njih kao uzore. To vecinom nisu ljudi koje bi centristi bilo koje sorte (bilo levi, bilo desni - da, u tebe gledam, Rodjere) trebalo da podrzavaju. To je ekipa sa npr. Trzisnog resenja (na srpskom podrucju) kojih se ovde gnusaju i zakleti ekonomski liberali. (OK, OK, znam da Tacerka ne moze biti kriva na osnovu asocijacije, i to verovatno nije skroz fer argument protiv tacerizma, al dzeblo majku sto je ona za svog vakta pazila na to da bude "fer" - u tome nije bila ni malo Britanka). Edited April 10, 2013 by Indy

[Indy]

A evo Tacerke gde je bila zabrinuta da ce Australija propasti ako je preplave imigranti iz Azije. (Deo osvrta trenutnog ministra vanjskog, inace uglavnom u hvalospevu).

[MancMellow]

I da, preporucujem svima odlicnu doku-seriju History of Modern Britain, Andrew Marr, iz 2007 ako se ne varam.

Imam i knjigu ako nekog interesuje da pozajmi :)

[Anduril]

To je tehnicki tacno. Medjutim, njen (i Reganov) efekt je mnogo dalekosezniji od resavanja nekih problema koji su vec u "davnoj" proslosti. To se cak i na nekim grafikonima vidi (posebno u porastu nejednakosti, stagod neko mislio o tome - posle njih to ostaje dosta konstantno davno posle njihovog odlaska sa scene). Njihov efekt je dalekosezan, a to se moze videti i po tome ko se veoma cesto i dan-danas poziva na njih kao uzore. To vecinom nisu ljudi koje bi centristi bilo koje sorte (bilo levi, bilo desni - da, u tebe gledam, Rodjere) trebalo da podrzavaju. To je ekipa sa npr. Trzisnog resenja (na srpskom podrucju) kojih se ovde gnusaju i zakleti ekonomski liberali. (OK, OK, znam da Tacerka ne moze biti kriva na osnovu asocijacije, i to verovatno nije skroz fer argument protiv tacerizma, al dzeblo majku sto je ona za svog vakta pazila na to da bude "fer" - u tome nije bila ni malo Britanka).

Ja se u potpunosti slazem ovde plus ovo - podrzavanje Tacerizma kao nekakvog primera liberalizacije je kukavicje jaje i to ne samo zbog podrske Pinoceu.Margaret Tacer je uvela donekle liberalizam - ali uglavnom za bogate i privilegovane a ono sto je jos vise uvela je privatizacija i oligopolizacija umesto prave liberalizacije ekonomije. To jeste povecalo efikasnosnost i autput ali stoga dolazi i do velikog porasta u nejednakosti.Primeri:- privatizacija zeleznica - i do danas je Britanija prakticno podeljena izmedju nekoliko skupih provajdera koji pruzaju jedan od najgorih servisa u Evropi a gde na mnogim linijama zapravo ne postoji konkurencija- privatni bankarski sektor - o tome smo vec dosta govorili na drugim temama gde za njih vazi mnogo povoljnija regulacija od malih ili srednjih preduzeca a da ne govorimo o pojedincima- neko je spomenuo NHS - sam NHS je drzavni zdravstveni servis ali su zato lekari zapravo zaposleni privatno sto im omogucava zarade o kojima u ostatku Evrope mogu samo da sanjaju dok slobodno trziste ne postoji - u ovom slucaju se radi o monopolizaciji pozicije kroz udruzenje lekara- sektor pravnih usluga u UK - opet monopolizacija pozicije kroz udruzenja gde obican covek zbog komplikovane regulacije sam gotovo nista ne moze da obavi- "trziste nekretnina" - dok je Tacerka bila toliko za "liberalizaciju" sto zapravo znaci sistem pravila slicnih za sve, u UK nikad nije sprovedena reforma oporezivanja zemlje - na taj nacin recimo pojedinci i veliki fondovi neizmerno profitiraju od razvoja lokacije (centar Londona recimo) ali ne moraju da plate ni centa poreza dok zemlju "prodaju" na 99 godina. Na taj nacin se zapravo moze i odrzati elita stotinama godina gde zemlja ustvari predstavlja ultimativni kapital bolji i od zlata.- istovremeno regulacija i dozvola gradnje je jedna od najstrozijih na planeti sto naravno opet vodi ka vestackom poskupljivanju i profitu odredjenih grupaMogao bih ovako verovatno do sutra ali nemam vremena - ukratko, naravno da su socijalizam i drzavni monopoli iz sedamdesetih bili pogresni ali oni su u tzv. tacerizmu/reganizmu prosto zamenjeni faktickim privatnim olipolima gde liberalizam vazi uglavnom za velike ali ne i za male. Problem levicara i socijal-demokratije u tome je sto misle uglavnom da je kapitalizam eto takav i da treba bogate samo malo vise oporezivati ne shvatajuci da je pravi problem zapravo drzavna regulacija koja sprecava siromasniju masu da takodje napreduje i profitira.

[pacey defender]

A evo Tacerke gde je bila zabrinuta da ce Australija propasti ako je preplave imigranti iz Azije. (Deo osvrta trenutnog ministra vanjskog, inace uglavnom u hvalospevu).

"She said, 'I like Sydney but you can't allow the migrants'

[Agni]

Naravno, SSSR je oborio samog sebe.

Da li bi mogao da objasnis na koji je nacin Tacer doprinela padu SSSR-a?

[Ravanelli]

Ako se nateram, mozda na ovom podforumu, zapocen temu o nafti.

hajde. rad sam učestvovati i doprinositi

[mandingo]

Da li bi mogao da objasnis na koji je nacin Tacer doprinela padu SSSR-a?

Na nikakav. Nisam bio ironican.

[Agni]

Na nikakav. Nisam bio ironican.

A, ok. Pogresno sam shvatio tvoj post.

[morgana]

I da, preporucujem svima odlicnu doku-seriju History of Modern Britain, Andrew Marr, iz 2007 ako se ne varam.

+1

[reg]

Fora u tome je (ono sa cim sam se ja nekad glupavo odusevljavao) da se svako u zemlji napravi stakeholder -om. Znaci i ono sto je tradicionalno radnicka klasa sada u ekonomskom smislu postaje neka vrsta investitora (i u vecoj meri potrosac nego bilo kada ranije).

Izasla su danas dva clanka o Right to Buy. Margaret Thatcher: History of one of the first Right To Buy council houses

Having lived in the property for 18-years, the Pattersons qualified for a 40 per cent discount and, after putting down a deposit of just £5, they purchased the house in August 1980 for the sum of £8,315.The Patterson’s marriage broke down amid the financial pressure of meeting the mortgage payments, which were rocketing due to high interest rates.Mrs Patterson, who was working at an old person’s home, struggled with the bills for sometime on her own, before eventually being forced to sell up and move into a mobile home.Speaking in 2002, she said: “If I’d foreseen the end of my marriage I’d never have bought. I got trapped there without enough cash to cover bills.“The mortgage was about £250 a month and after my husband left I survived only because my sons gave me board-and-lodging. I was desperate in a house I couldn’t manage and wished I’d never bought.“It broke my heart when I had to sell. It went for £57,000 and when I’d paid off the mortgage I had only enough left to buy a mobile home so I’m back down the property ladder.“But I don’t blame anyone. It was my decision to make that investment. I still remember the day Mrs Thatcher came to tea. I am still committed to right-to-buy.“She was an icon to me. She was a lovely guest. I gave her a guided tour and she said, 'This is not just a house – it’s a home’. I was so proud. She had Downing Street and Chequers but No39 was just as special to me.”Mrs Patterson, who now lives in sheltered housing in Chelmsford and did not want to comment today, sold the house in 1996 to transport manager Matt Brady and his wife Mandy, who worked as a teaching assistant.

Right-to-buy: Margaret Thatcher's controversial gift

"Right-to-buy had a huge impact on Britain's housing market. The high discounts made the offer a fantastic bargain for those lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. It meant that there was some real growth in levels of owner occupation and helped to create more mixed communities. So it was great for individuals - but there has been an equally great sting in the tail."Put simply, the sales proceeds were not used to build the new affordable homes we needed then and even more desperately need now. Some homes have been sold on into the private rented sector, with much higher rents adding to the growing housing benefit bill. The short-term gain for individuals was huge. The long-term impact is a major contribution to our present housing crisis."

[Budja]

Ja se u potpunosti slazem ovde plus ovo - podrzavanje Tacerizma kao nekakvog primera liberalizacije je kukavicje jaje i to ne samo zbog podrske Pinoceu.Margaret Tacer je uvela donekle liberalizam - ali uglavnom za bogate i privilegovane a ono sto je jos vise uvela je privatizacija i oligopolizacija umesto prave liberalizacije ekonomije. To jeste povecalo efikasnosnost i autput ali stoga dolazi i do velikog porasta u nejednakosti.Primeri:- privatizacija zeleznica - i do danas je Britanija prakticno podeljena izmedju nekoliko skupih provajdera koji pruzaju jedan od najgorih servisa u Evropi a gde na mnogim linijama zapravo ne postoji konkurencija- privatni bankarski sektor - o tome smo vec dosta govorili na drugim temama gde za njih vazi mnogo povoljnija regulacija od malih ili srednjih preduzeca a da ne govorimo o pojedincima- neko je spomenuo NHS - sam NHS je drzavni zdravstveni servis ali su zato lekari zapravo zaposleni privatno sto im omogucava zarade o kojima u ostatku Evrope mogu samo da sanjaju dok slobodno trziste ne postoji - u ovom slucaju se radi o monopolizaciji pozicije kroz udruzenje lekara- sektor pravnih usluga u UK - opet monopolizacija pozicije kroz udruzenja gde obican covek zbog komplikovane regulacije sam gotovo nista ne moze da obavi- "trziste nekretnina" - dok je Tacerka bila toliko za "liberalizaciju" sto zapravo znaci sistem pravila slicnih za sve, u UK nikad nije sprovedena reforma oporezivanja zemlje - na taj nacin recimo pojedinci i veliki fondovi neizmerno profitiraju od razvoja lokacije (centar Londona recimo) ali ne moraju da plate ni centa poreza dok zemlju "prodaju" na 99 godina. Na taj nacin se zapravo moze i odrzati elita stotinama godina gde zemlja ustvari predstavlja ultimativni kapital bolji i od zlata.- istovremeno regulacija i dozvola gradnje je jedna od najstrozijih na planeti sto naravno opet vodi ka vestackom poskupljivanju i profitu odredjenih grupaMogao bih ovako verovatno do sutra ali nemam vremena - ukratko, naravno da su socijalizam i drzavni monopoli iz sedamdesetih bili pogresni ali oni su u tzv. tacerizmu/reganizmu prosto zamenjeni faktickim privatnim olipolima gde liberalizam vazi uglavnom za velike ali ne i za male. Problem levicara i socijal-demokratije u tome je sto misle uglavnom da je kapitalizam eto takav i da treba bogate samo malo vise oporezivati ne shvatajuci da je pravi problem zapravo drzavna regulacija koja sprecava siromasniju masu da takodje napreduje i profitira.

Dobar osvrt.Dodao bih dve stvari:- Sludge je postavio clanak iz Guardian-a oko dzavnih monopola u oblasti usluga pre Tacerove. Ako se ne varam, Tacer je liberalizovala telekomunikacije, distribuciju gasa i struje. Tu ima neke konkurencije, iako je strutkura, naravno, oligopolisticka i cene nisu male, i poskupljenja su cesta (zbog rasta cene gasa) ali pojeftinjenja nema.- Lekari opste prakse (a verovatni i specijalisti, ne znam) placaju i employer contribution part (ne samo employee), dakle duplo, pa to treba uzeti u obzir kada se njihove plate porede sa drugim sektorima, Doduse, jesu velike i lekari dolaze. Recimo, meni nalblizi zdravstveni centar je imao tri ili cetiri nemacka lekara.

[Prospero]

Margaret Thatcher’s Lessons for EuropePRINCETON – Margaret Thatcher was much more respected outside Britain than she was in her own country. In the United States, but also in Central Europe, she is recognized as a hero, especially in the fight for economic and political freedom.That vision of freedom and dynamism was never really all that popular – or understood – by the British people. In the end, Thatcher’s achievement was also distorted by her own mistakes in dealing with the complex politics of a Europe that was rapidly changing in the aftermath of the collapse of communism.As Prime Minister, she was widely disliked in Britain, mostly for bad reasons. Throughout her political life, she fought a two-front battle: against socialism, but also against the Establishment. Sometimes the two theaters seemed to merge.The British Establishment had adhered to a pact rooted in the experience of the Great Depression and World War II. It would accept high tax rates and enormous redistribution of resources in exchange for being permitted to retain its quirky rituals, antique hierarchies, lofty titles, and fine distinctions. The result was widespread inefficiency, an appalling record of labor unrest, low productivity, and economic stagnation.Thatcher wanted to remake Britain according to the best aspects of the American way of life: a belief in the potential of individual initiative and entrepreneurship, and a can-do approach to life.There was an element of fortuitousness about Thatcher’s political experiment. She had been elected as Conservative Party leader because the more plausible and better-known right-wing candidate had ruled himself out with an ill-judged and controversial speech.She played ruthlessly on her femininity. As leader of the opposition, she visited the oldest and most conservative college at the University of Cambridge in order to address the rather small minority of conservative-inclined academics. The wood-paneled room was lit in the evening only by candles, masked behind reddish-yellow shades. She began by remarking that the room looked more like a night club than a university, and then she took her jacket off and whirled it around her head as if she were about to begin a striptease.She was quite intolerant of other women in politics, and liked to be surrounded by men. Part of her standard mode of political operation depended on flirting. Personal emotions were also part of her foreign policy. She got on very well with German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, a Social Democrat, but notoriously poorly with the Christian Democrat Helmut Kohl. (Indeed, the obvious personal chemistry between her and Schmidt led one staffer to observe that, had this not been the British prime minister and the German chancellor, they would have gone off hand in hand to the bedroom.)As for the other side of the Rhine, she intensely disliked the snooty and aristocratic President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, and developed quite good contacts with the initially very radical socialist François Mitterrand. Above all, she had a great rapport with the charming and courteous ex-film actor Ronald Reagan, and a poor one with the patrician conservative George H.W. Bush.The strength and unconcealed character of her personal feelings should not lead to the assumption that her politics were entirely instinctual. She also understood political psychology and political practice. In driving Britain to fiscal good sense, she never allowed a pure market ideology to undermine the interests of her key political constituencies.There was also a good deal of old-fashioned morality. At a time when Western European politicians, and the British foreign-policy establishment, were worried that Solidarity in Poland would endanger stable relations with the Soviet Union, she boldly and correctly recognized that engaging the Polish opposition was an opportunity to promote freedom there.The critical part of her fiscal and economic legacy came at the beginning, in her first term in office. Faced by a worldwide recession in the early 1980’s, she nonetheless insisted on a rigorous budgetary retrenchment. Academic economists were outraged, and a letter signed by 364 prominent scholars, protesting against the folly of Thatcher’s apparently pro-cyclical policy, appeared in The Times of London, then the Establishment’s journal of record.Moreover, her successful liberalization of British industry became an inspiration for Central Europeans wrestling in the early 1990’s with the economic legacy of communist central planning. But not only there. Thatcherism also looked like a plausible model for policy stabilization in France in 1983, following two crisis-ridden years of experimentation. Jacques Delors’ success as French Finance Minister then set in motion a process of rapprochement between France and Germany.On a European level, the British vision of liberalization also formed a crucial ingredient of the 1986 Single European Act, which was decisively influenced by Thatcher’s appointment of Lord Cockfield as Britain’s European Commissioner. Delors’ European Commission took competition very seriously as a way to boost economic growth and prosperity.Logically, though, the Single European Act also required a new approach to monetary policy on the European level. Belief in the power of the market and competition thus underpinned a powerful new push in the direction of European integration, something that Thatcher deeply and instinctively distrusted.When Thatcher fell from power in 1990, it was a consequence of a revolt by her own party, caused by the deep policy divisions produced by European integration. In a way, she was the victim of her own policies’ success as a model for other countries – and as a challenge to the European order.Today, it is tempting to see parallels between the first female British prime minister and Angela Merkel, the first female German chancellor. Both have been widely ridiculed, especially by economists, for their attachment to what have been called simple-minded ideas of fiscal rectitude in adverse circumstances.Making the case for fiscal discipline and market economics is not a guarantee of political success. In the European context, it is not only difficult domestically, but also inevitably leads to hard choices about the future of the integration process.