Margaret Thatcher dead...

Her policy was for the country to do what we could make a profit doing, and stop doing what we were making a loss doing, which is an entirely reasonable policy.

There had never been a period prior to that, except during war, that the government had ever poured so much money into loss making industries. So it's logical to expect that a drastic cut in these subsidies, which were bringing the country to it's knees, would result in a drastic increase in unemployment, as those industries laid off workers that they couldn't afford to employ in the first place, and closed loss-making operations down.

Theoretically, governments could keep all loss-making industries going, to ensure that nobody loses their ''job.'' If the industries can't afford to build new more efficient factories, the government could always use taxpayers' money instead. They could manufacture all sorts of stuff, for as long as the government was able to buy raw materials and keep the lights on...

So, where do you draw the line? At what point should any factory have to close down? How much of other peoples' money would you like governments to give to loss making industries?

See how many successful government owned manufacturing industries you can count anywhere in the developed world.

LOL No, that is not ''a demonstration of what's possible is not necessarily what happened.''

Apparently you didn't understand the point I was making, so I'll try to simplify it further. You had previously claimed:

So, do you or do you not now understand, that ''a significant increase in the number of people falling below 60% of the median income,'' does not mean that anyone's wages dropped at all, never mind significantly? And, that it could happen while the average income for every group increased?

Before assuming someone doesn't understand something, it's always an idea to ask. Just I have done above, with you. If you continue to refuse to answer the question, I cannot know whether or not you now understand that you were wrong.

Of course there were. Just as there were many such people who were far better off under Thatcher.

You are not demonstrating you understand the fact that poverty is relative. Many people are ''cast into poverty'' while their incomes continue to increase. Society is always better off when as large a proportion of people as possible continue to earn more money.

You are wrong to imply that a small group of people ended up better off, and a large group of people ended up worse off. As the statistics show, all the income groups ended up better off under Thatcher, using income as a measure, and 90% of the income groups ended up better off under Thatcher using income after ''housing costs'' as a measure. So no matter which way you look at it, the vast majority of people ended up better off under Thatcher.

LOL, well of course it would. That was what was intended. Those who could only afford to buy the cheapest homes, could buy more expensive homes, and those who could not quite afford to buy any home, could now afford the cheapest homes. All of which would inevitably lead to an increase in prices, due to more demand, for houses that people could and could not afford.

Now, which part of that would you claim Thatcher didn't think would happen?

That's a wise decision.

And I'll say again, of course it did. That's what it was supposed to do.

It would be an idea to post links to these ''sources'' you're getting these talking points from, as it might make it easier for me to explain them to you.

Do you think that China would be better off with no outsourced jobs, and everyone was poorer, just as long as there was less inequality, so that these ''negative effects'' could be avoided?

 

No, the point is that you are not showing that you understand what I'm telling you. I'll try CAPS

In a modern banking system, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a government or central bank to ''restrict'' any measure of a money supply. How much banks ''lend'' (i.e. how much money they create), is ultimately up to them.

No, it is NOT POSSIBLE to ''limit the expansion of M3 to a particular level.''

Raising interest rates encourages people to borrow less, because loans are more expensive. This means banks ''lend'' less (i.e create less money) because fewer people want to borrow, which results in having less money in the money supply than there would otherwise have been. THAT IS HOW INFLATION COMES DOWN.

That is what the policy was intended to do, and that is what it did.

Of course it expanded. Until the recent financial crash, the broad money supply has ALWAYS expanded.

RAISING INTEREST RATES is what slows inflation. THAT is what they did, and THAT is what slowed inflation.

PLEASE tell us which part of that you do not agree with, or do not understand.