Lets hijack the fuel protest for a general drivers strike

[caledoniandream]

Carryfast (and many more on Trucknet UK) take a reality pill, sit back and try not to look through these pink specs what made it all a big blur.
There are a couple of facts, not to be ignored:

• We are in a economic crisis and it’s far from over.
• Many companies are operating at the moment on their gums ( hence everyday the messages that another one got under and bites the dust)
• Any strike in such a situation would do more harm than good, forcing companies out of business, what will result in the absorbing of their work by bigger more powerful companies who can push the labour price further down.
• There is a time for everything, but I dont have the feeling that this is the right time to put the tools down and strike.
• Carryfast and this has nothing to do with Thatcher, the EEC, The German Governement, Hitler, The Lisbon Treathy, The Maastricht Treathy, or even the Singen agreement.
• And yes I do think that the British economy would be in a better shape if the Union movement had given up. Companies where to busy with controlling the workforce and losing time and money during any of unnecessary strikes, which could have been used to develop products what people wanted.
  When Unions starting to control businesses and politics, you better hide.
  In which country has an labour Governement managed a sustainable economics.
  It’s great to have all the benefits, but in the end somebody needs to pay for it.
  You can spend a pound or for a matter of fact a floryn only once.

[armagedon]

We are in an economic crisis and it is far from over but the major problem we face is,in my opinion,those who have high political office
seem totally unqualified,incapable to drag as out of the mire and back on the road to recovery.they are regularly exposed as being completely interested in self and unfortunately we are picking up the tab.Our industries seem for sale to anyone,whichever nationality the problem is when
all that is saleable is sold what will these political midgets do next,no doubt grab the first directorship available and the rest of us can go to hell.
I do believe the working man will have to respond in some form or other or we may end up as the cheap labour the rest of Europe uses,Poles complaining in Poland the English have arrived and stolen all their jobs 'cause they’re cheaper.Is that the future anyone wants for their children/grand children?

[carryfast]

caledoniandream:
Carryfast (and many more on Trucknet UK) take a reality pill, sit back and try not to look through these pink specs what made it all a big blur.
There are a couple of facts, not to be ignored:

• We are in a economic crisis and it’s far from over.
• Many companies are operating at the moment on their gums ( hence everyday the messages that another one got under and bites the dust)
• Any strike in such a situation would do more harm than good, forcing companies out of business, what will result in the absorbing of their work by bigger more powerful companies who can push the labour price further down.
• There is a time for everything, but I dont have the feeling that this is the right time to put the tools down and strike.
• Carryfast and this has nothing to do with Thatcher, the EEC, The German Governement, Hitler, The Lisbon Treathy, The Maastricht Treathy, or even the Singen agreement.
• And yes I do think that the British economy would be in a better shape if the Union movement had given up. Companies where to busy with controlling the workforce and losing time and money during any of unnecessary strikes, which could have been used to develop products what people wanted.
  When Unions starting to control businesses and politics, you better hide.
  In which country has an labour Governement managed a sustainable economics.
  It’s great to have all the benefits, but in the end somebody needs to pay for it.
  You can spend a pound or for a matter of fact a floryn only once.

So the basis of your argument is that the British economy would have been better off had the unions given up after 1926 and relied on the govnors to increase general wage rates (and therefore spending power in the economy) in real terms over the period in question.

I think it’s you who’s looking through the Thatcherite glasses which turn the basics of economics on their head.You seem to be forgetting that without growth in wage levels there can be no growth in spending therefore no growth in demand.I’m not making the case for a Labour government I’m making the case for the proven high wage Fordist economic system which creates growth compared to the low wage moneterist global free market Thatcherite one.It’s the latter type of economy which the US and Britain has been lumbered with since 1980 and look where it’s got us.

America has never had a ‘Labour’ government but they have had their share of union action over the years to keep wage levels high and it was those wage levels that created their economic boom of the 1960’s.Unlike what happened afterwards when Reagan followed Maggies advice.

[happydaze]

caledoniandream:
Carryfast (and many more on Trucknet UK) take a reality pill, sit back and try not to look through these pink specs what made it all a big blur.
There are a couple of facts, not to be ignored:

• We are in a economic crisis and it’s far from over.
• Many companies are operating at the moment on their gums ( hence everyday the messages that another one got under and bites the dust)
• Any strike in such a situation would do more harm than good, forcing companies out of business, what will result in the absorbing of their work by bigger more powerful companies who can push the labour price further down.
• There is a time for everything, but I dont have the feeling that this is the right time to put the tools down and strike.
• Carryfast and this has nothing to do with Thatcher, the EEC, The German Governement, Hitler, The Lisbon Treathy, The Maastricht Treathy, or even the Singen agreement.
• And yes I do think that the British economy would be in a better shape if the Union movement had given up. Companies where to busy with controlling the workforce and losing time and money during any of unnecessary strikes, which could have been used to develop products what people wanted.
  When Unions starting to control businesses and politics, you better hide.
  In which country has an labour Governement managed a sustainable economics.
  It’s great to have all the benefits, but in the end somebody needs to pay for it.
  You can spend a pound or for a matter of fact a floryn only once.

Once again. Absolutely spot-on.

[carryfast]

Happydaze:

caledoniandream:
Carryfast (and many more on Trucknet UK) take a reality pill, sit back and try not to look through these pink specs what made it all a big blur.
There are a couple of facts, not to be ignored:

• We are in a economic crisis and it’s far from over.
• Many companies are operating at the moment on their gums ( hence everyday the messages that another one got under and bites the dust)
• Any strike in such a situation would do more harm than good, forcing companies out of business, what will result in the absorbing of their work by bigger more powerful companies who can push the labour price further down.
• There is a time for everything, but I dont have the feeling that this is the right time to put the tools down and strike.
• Carryfast and this has nothing to do with Thatcher, the EEC, The German Governement, Hitler, The Lisbon Treathy, The Maastricht Treathy, or even the Singen agreement.
• And yes I do think that the British economy would be in a better shape if the Union movement had given up. Companies where to busy with controlling the workforce and losing time and money during any of unnecessary strikes, which could have been used to develop products what people wanted.
  When Unions starting to control businesses and politics, you better hide.
  In which country has an labour Governement managed a sustainable economics.
  It’s great to have all the benefits, but in the end somebody needs to pay for it.
  You can spend a pound or for a matter of fact a floryn only once.

Once again. Absolutely spot-on.

If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

[eastangliantrucker]

Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.

I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.

There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.

[happydaze]

Carryfast:

Happydaze:

caledoniandream:
Carryfast (and many more on Trucknet UK) take a reality pill, sit back and try not to look through these pink specs what made it all a big blur.
There are a couple of facts, not to be ignored:

• We are in a economic crisis and it’s far from over.
• Many companies are operating at the moment on their gums ( hence everyday the messages that another one got under and bites the dust)
• Any strike in such a situation would do more harm than good, forcing companies out of business, what will result in the absorbing of their work by bigger more powerful companies who can push the labour price further down.
• There is a time for everything, but I dont have the feeling that this is the right time to put the tools down and strike.
• Carryfast and this has nothing to do with Thatcher, the EEC, The German Governement, Hitler, The Lisbon Treathy, The Maastricht Treathy, or even the Singen agreement.
• And yes I do think that the British economy would be in a better shape if the Union movement had given up. Companies where to busy with controlling the workforce and losing time and money during any of unnecessary strikes, which could have been used to develop products what people wanted.
  When Unions starting to control businesses and politics, you better hide.
  In which country has an labour Governement managed a sustainable economics.
  It’s great to have all the benefits, but in the end somebody needs to pay for it.
  You can spend a pound or for a matter of fact a floryn only once.

Once again. Absolutely spot-on.

If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

Yeah, it’s now 2012 (in London anyway). What’s the date where you are?

[carryfast]

EastAnglianTrucker:

Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.

I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.

There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.

I don’t think that’s how most redundant or low paid (relatively to what they would have been paid during the 1960’s in real terms) American workers would see it.On this issue their fight is our fight too and I’ve told it how it really is.The fact is the issue of the collapse in the US economy was a direct and foreseeable result of the change from a high wage high employment Fordist economy to a low wage,low employment,so called ‘Post Fordist’,global free market one and the same thing applies here.

[carryfast]

Happydaze:

Carryfast:

Happydaze:

caledoniandream:
Carryfast (and many more on Trucknet UK) take a reality pill, sit back and try not to look through these pink specs what made it all a big blur.
There are a couple of facts, not to be ignored:

• We are in a economic crisis and it’s far from over.
• Many companies are operating at the moment on their gums ( hence everyday the messages that another one got under and bites the dust)
• Any strike in such a situation would do more harm than good, forcing companies out of business, what will result in the absorbing of their work by bigger more powerful companies who can push the labour price further down.
• There is a time for everything, but I dont have the feeling that this is the right time to put the tools down and strike.
• Carryfast and this has nothing to do with Thatcher, the EEC, The German Governement, Hitler, The Lisbon Treathy, The Maastricht Treathy, or even the Singen agreement.
• And yes I do think that the British economy would be in a better shape if the Union movement had given up. Companies where to busy with controlling the workforce and losing time and money during any of unnecessary strikes, which could have been used to develop products what people wanted.
  When Unions starting to control businesses and politics, you better hide.
  In which country has an labour Governement managed a sustainable economics.
  It’s great to have all the benefits, but in the end somebody needs to pay for it.
  You can spend a pound or for a matter of fact a floryn only once.

Once again. Absolutely spot-on.

If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

Yeah, it’s now 2012 (in London anyway). What’s the date where you are?

The dates don’t matter a zb it’s the comparison between the two types of economies and the figures related to both that matters.It’s now 2012 and,after around 32 years of the Thatcherite global free market system,according to the government,the economy is zb’d . Unlike where it stood in 1970.

[happydaze]

EastAnglianTrucker:

Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.

I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.

There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.

Exactly. Plus those imponderables and influencing factors have changed and evolved beyond recognition since then.

Another request for a thumbs up button!

[carryfast]

Happydaze:

EastAnglianTrucker:

Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.

I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.

There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.

Exactly. Plus those imponderables and influencing factors have changed and evolved beyond recognition since then.

Such as assuming that it’s not all about the developed western economies having thrown their economic futures away for a bit of short term gain for those making profits out of cheap labour.

[happydaze]

Carryfast:

Happydaze:

EastAnglianTrucker:

Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.

I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.

There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.

Exactly. Plus those imponderables and influencing factors have changed and evolved beyond recognition since then.

Such as assuming that it’s not all about the developed western economies having thrown their economic futures away for a bit of short term gain for those making profits out of cheap labour.

7 Billion people on the planet maybe? Communications, the “green” lobby, media in all its forms, social engineering, globalisation, PR, Advertising, technology, microchips, miniaturisation, snooping, information harvesting, medicine, Fleetwood-bloody-Mac…

[carryfast]

Happydaze:

Carryfast:

Happydaze:

EastAnglianTrucker:

Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.

I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.

There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.

Exactly. Plus those imponderables and influencing factors have changed and evolved beyond recognition since then.

Such as assuming that it’s not all about the developed western economies having thrown their economic futures away for a bit of short term gain for those making profits out of cheap labour.

7 Billion people on the planet maybe? Communications, the “green” lobby, media in all its forms, social engineering, globalisation, PR, Advertising, technology, microchips, miniaturisation, snooping, information harvesting, medicine, Fleetwood-bloody-Mac…

North America and the UK haven’t got 7 billion people living in them,the Green ‘lobby’ hasn’t actually got an electoral mandate to govern in either country,and what difference does communications or globalisation make to an economic system based on protectionism in which if it can be made here then why import it and why do we need to add to our populations that need to be sustained by importing people from other parts of the world .

It’s all about cheap labour none of those bs issues.

[eastangliantrucker]

Happydaze:

Carryfast:

Happydaze:

EastAnglianTrucker:

Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.

I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.

There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.

Exactly. Plus those imponderables and influencing factors have changed and evolved beyond recognition since then.

Such as assuming that it’s not all about the developed western economies having thrown their economic futures away for a bit of short term gain for those making profits out of cheap labour.

7 Billion people on the planet maybe? Communications, the “green” lobby, media in all its forms, social engineering, globalisation, PR, Advertising, technology, microchips, miniaturisation, snooping, information harvesting, medicine, Fleetwood-bloody-Mac…

Sorry Carryfast, but he’s right, and he’s only mentioned a few… although Fleetwood-bloody-Mac may have had a limited effect!

You make it sound as if periods of economic activity are separate blocks that in no way overlap. They’re not and never can be, any economic activity is by definition influenced and to a great extent affected by the evolving societies and political forces at play at more than one single period in time. For example, and I apologise in advance for using this specific one, but would the German economy be as strong today, without the investment of the Marshall plan allied to the national desire of the Germans to regain respectability in the eyes of the world? And that only takes into account two factors in the way Germany’s industrial power has been rebuilt.

Equally, or better to say another example would be the effect of the intransigence of British unions during the 70’s, allied to weak and ineffective management in British industry, being influencing factors in the current dearth of any seriously sustainable, and British owned manufacturing in this country today.

You can heap the blame on Thatcher all you like, but her actions were as a direct result of the situation she and her government found themselves in during her crusades. And on to Blair and his love of her doctrine… they all have a ■■■■■■■■■■ effect.

And rightly or wrongly, we simply cannot go back no matter how attractive your views of those times were. We can only go forward, and try to avoid the obvious pitfalls where possible, learn from more dynamic societies - not just the BRIC economies, and be far more imaginative in our thinking.

A good start would be to jolt the political staus quo into some sort of awareness that the public, and in reality it has to be the low paid and breadline working classes that demand change. It is simply ludicrous for the government to be paying tax credits to low paid workers because their wages are simply too low. It is the government’s job, in fact their obligation to raise the standards of pay among the lowest paid in our society. But we all see the rich getting richer and the poor paying the price.

I fear it would end in disaster as I don’t believe the people holding the levers of power are ever likely to relinquish control. Which doesn’t leave many, or any, very palatable alternatives…

[eastangliantrucker]

Carryfast:
North America and the UK haven’t got 7 billion people living in them,the Green ‘lobby’ hasn’t actually got an electoral mandate to govern in either country,and what difference does communications or globalisation make to an economic system based on protectionism in which if it can be made here then why import it and why do we need to add to our populations that need to be sustained by importing people from other parts of the world .

It’s all about cheap labour none of those bs issues.

Carryfast, to advocate protectionism in this economy is to attempt to do what the Khmer Rouge attempted in Cambodia, but in a somewhat more palatable, although no less damaging way. In fact it’s verging on the delusional, and I’d like to think you’re not that. Yet.

The economy, as it’s currently structured, simply could not sustain the UK’s current population. There would be political insurrection, not to mention a break down in social cohesion and law and order. The sick and old would be trampled over in the rush by the strongest in society, to gain a share of what little resources were available.

Who do you think would sell oil to this country? And at what price? How would we pay for it?

There are millions of people unemployed now. What would you expect the figures to be when a large percentage of factories simply stopped production because they couldn’t afford the costs of fuel and/or electricity.

How would you feed those unemployed and hungry millions? Where would the food come from? Who could afford it?

Inflation would simply go off the scale and there would be individual wage bargaining. And believe me, everyone who could reach the pedals would be able to drive a truck, except that only a small percentage of trucks would be able to operate. (See fuel costs.) So truck drivers, and many other relatively low skilled workers, would effectively be out of a job, replaced by itinerant and casual labour, at ever diminishing rates of pay.

Protectionism is a non stop scenario for the worst sort of disaster movie of the kind you simply couldn’t imagine, so sorry, dream on, as they say!

[carryfast]

EastAnglianTrucker:

Happydaze:

Carryfast:

Happydaze:

EastAnglianTrucker:

Carryfast:
If it was ‘spot on’ both ours and the US economy would be in better shape than they both stood between 1960-1970.

I’m not sure that’s a given Carryfast. There are simply too many imponderables at play since the 60’s to be able to make such a sweeping claim.

I tend to think some of the prime reasons both we and the Americans are in the [zb] we’re in is due to the sub prime situation in the States, along with vastly increased personal and government borrowing throughout Europe, but especially by Blair & Brown’s governments. And the highly predictable rise of competitiveness in the BRIC countries.

There are many, many other influencing factors, both domestic and international, but not having a protected economy isn’t one of them.

Exactly. Plus those imponderables and influencing factors have changed and evolved beyond recognition since then.

Such as assuming that it’s not all about the developed western economies having thrown their economic futures away for a bit of short term gain for those making profits out of cheap labour.

7 Billion people on the planet maybe? Communications, the “green” lobby, media in all its forms, social engineering, globalisation, PR, Advertising, technology, microchips, miniaturisation, snooping, information harvesting, medicine, Fleetwood-bloody-Mac…

Sorry Carryfast, but he’s right, and he’s only mentioned a few… although Fleetwood-bloody-Mac may have had a limited effect!

You make it sound as if periods of economic activity are separate blocks that in no way overlap. They’re not and never can be, any economic activity is by definition influenced and to a great extent affected by the evolving societies and political forces at play at more than one single period in time. For example, and I apologise in advance for using this specific one, but would the German economy be as strong today, without the investment of the Marshall plan allied to the national desire of the Germans to regain respectability in the eyes of the world? And that only takes into account two factors in the way Germany’s industrial power has been rebuilt.

Equally, or better to say another example would be the effect of the intransigence of British unions during the 70’s, allied to weak and ineffective management in British industry, being influencing factors in the current dearth of any seriously sustainable, and British owned manufacturing in this country today.

You can heap the blame on Thatcher all you like, but her actions were as a direct result of the situation she and her government found themselves in during her crusades. And on to Blair and his love of her doctrine… they all have a ■■■■■■■■■■ effect.

And rightly or wrongly, we simply cannot go back no matter how attractive your views of those times were. We can only go forward, and try to avoid the obvious pitfalls where possible, learn from more dynamic societies - not just the BRIC economies, and be far more imaginative in our thinking.

Firstly the reason why the German economic miracle worked was because it followed very closely the ideas that I’m putting forward in the Fordist type economy in just the same way that the US one did using the same idea.In both cases it was high levels of domestic production used to satisfy an ever growing domestic market in which wages were kept high enough to fuel growth in that demand and because that demand was channeled into mostly domestically manufactured products it therefore created growth in employment and therefore yet more growth in demand.

The Fordist economy is a closed loop system of wage fuelled demand that feed off each other and in which the only way is up just so long as no one decides to break the loop by trying to control/reduce the wage side of the equation or importing stuff instead of keeping the domestic highly paid workforce employed and spending on the products it’s manufacturing.

Contrary to your idea history shows and has proven it to work unlike the moneterist,global free market bs system that you’re trying to advocate that history has proved doesn’t work over at least the last 30-35 years.You’re not proposing going forward at all you’re actually just proposing more of the same Thatcherite bs.

The fact is if Germany had followed the Reaganomics and moneterist ideas of wage restraint followed by Callaghan and then the Thatcherite idea of just shutting the place down,it’s economy would have gone exactly the same way as ours in the mid 1970’s and the 1980’s probably with even more strikes than we had considering how the Germans had got used to and come to expect German wages and living standards by that time.While British workers had to fight for every zb penny on the wage and hour off the working day that they could manage to get off the tight fisted British guvnors and government.

[carryfast]

EastAnglianTrucker:

Carryfast:
North America and the UK haven’t got 7 billion people living in them,the Green ‘lobby’ hasn’t actually got an electoral mandate to govern in either country,and what difference does communications or globalisation make to an economic system based on protectionism in which if it can be made here then why import it and why do we need to add to our populations that need to be sustained by importing people from other parts of the world .

It’s all about cheap labour none of those bs issues.

Carryfast, to advocate protectionism in this economy is to attempt to do what the Khmer Rouge attempted in Cambodia, but in a somewhat more palatable, although no less damaging way. In fact it’s verging on the delusional, and I’d like to think you’re not that. Yet.

The economy, as it’s currently structured, simply could not sustain the UK’s current population. There would be political insurrection, not to mention a break down in social cohesion and law and order. The sick and old would be trampled over in the rush by the strongest in society, to gain a share of what little resources were available.

Who do you think would sell oil to this country? And at what price? How would we pay for it?

There are millions of people unemployed now. What would you expect the figures to be when a large percentage of factories simply stopped production because they couldn’t afford the costs of fuel and/or electricity.

How would you feed those unemployed and hungry millions? Where would the food come from? Who could afford it?

Inflation would simply go off the scale and there would be individual wage bargaining. And believe me, everyone who could reach the pedals would be able to drive a truck, except that only a small percentage of trucks would be able to operate. (See fuel costs.) So truck drivers, and many other relatively low skilled workers, would effectively be out of a job, replaced by itinerant and casual labour, at ever diminishing rates of pay.

Protectionism is a non stop scenario for the worst sort of disaster movie of the kind you simply couldn’t imagine, so sorry, dream on, as they say!

Why when we’ve already been there in the 1960’s and none of your hysterical issues actually happened.We had economic growth provided by high employment levels based on the manufacture of domestically produced goods sold in the domestic market and unlike 10 years later the oil issue existed just as much then.You seem to be confusing the idea of not importing what we can produce for ourselves with not importing anything at all.But sooner or later someone will need to tell the greens to zb off and do what the Chinese are doing in making king coal our main source of fuel again which includes synthetic coal conversion to gas and oil/petroleum fuel products.

[kr79]

Wasn’t the British economy pretty screwed through the 70s well before thatcher got in in 79.

[armagedon]

This ‘topic’ seems to be lost in ‘how and why’ the puncture happened and not on ‘how’ it can be repaired while ensuring it doesn’t happen again.

[carryfast]

kr79:
Wasn’t the British economy pretty screwed through the 70s well before thatcher got in in 79.

The 1970’s were a gradual economic decline which took place for a number of clear reasons.

Firstly joining the EEC which turned a trade surprplus with the EEC into a trade deficit and in which,unlike before,we had to contribute a fortune for the privilege in VAT and other ‘contributions’.Compare the rate of 8% purchase tax on goods before we joined to the rates of VAT after for example.

Then came the OPEC oil embargo in which,in addition to the pumps runing dry here to start with,the government then subjected the economy to the world OPEC set market price when we were actually self sufficient with our own oil and then typical road fuel taxation on top to the point where many EEC countries were paying less at the pump than we were even though we were swimming in a sea of the stuff and they had zb all.

Not surprisingly all that started a ‘price led’ inflationary spiral in which,not surprisingly,wage demands reflected that fact.However the employers and the government weren’t so keen when it came to controlling price increases as they were in trying to control wage increases.

All that,not surprisingly,ended up with a recession and then the battle between the unions and Callaghan ‘to try to’ get wage levels back in line with prices.It was the fact that wages had fallen behind prices that caused the late 1970’s recession because not enough people had enough disposable income to keep the economy moving.

Then Thatcher got in and the rest is history.