Can't tell if sarcasm, considering that Thatcher's move was to privatise, until she ran out of public assets.
This pithy quote is also wrong because it assumes the economy is a zero sum game and misses the point that this article is trying to make -- that giving away money would be cheaper and have better results than the current system of welfare.
Blair and Brown in the UK demonstrated the truth of this quote and we and our descendants here will continue to pay the price for generations to come.
Clearly I'm a very bad person because if I were to suddenly receive a significant cash injection I'd lay down tools and disport myself with books, music and a spot of travel. Everyone to his or her own. However it's good to know that the rest of humanity are mostly above this kind of thing.
The problem with left wingers is that they assume money can be printed at will without realising inflation will turn their wealth into dust before you can say "poverty".
The problem with people who use words like "left wingers" is that they don't realize that money is a fiction and macroeconomics works quite different from running a household or small business.
There appears to be an experiment with moderately succesful results. Let's expand the experiment and see where the results take us. We could always stop if we don't like future results.
I thought basic income sounded like naive left thinking the first time I heard about it, but you should know it actually has a rich tradition in conservative/libertarian thinking as well, including well-respected (and definitely anti-socialist) economists like Friedman and Hayek. Here is one discussion from a definitely non-left-winger site: http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/26/scrap-the-welfare-stat...
Allowing wages to be at the market value of the work done while providing basic needs via a tax-supported program is better, all-around, than stopping low-value work from being economically viable by way of a mandatory minimum wage, and then supporting the people put out of work by the minimum wage by way of a tax-supported means-tested programs.
It is a more efficient way of serving the same anti-poverty goals that minimum wage + meas-tested welfare programs aim to serve, which also provides a better set of opportunities for people living on solely the minimum safety net program at one point in time to progress to participate in the economy to the extent of their desire and ability.
The problem with central bankers is they print money at will to bail out corrupt financial institutions creating inflation that destroys the wealth of everyone except those who own hard assets
After all, Thatcher did so much good for the UK didn't she? I mean, destroying more or less all heavy industry, and building up an untenable financial sector backing for the economy was a great idea wasn't it? Oh, and of course, it definitely wasn't her actions which caused much of the north east to be thrust into poverty was it?
Margaret Thatcher is possibly the worst person you could ever quote on any issue like this.
I'm glad she's dead - hopefully her hateful policies will die with her soon.
Hate on a dead person, for real? You must be great fun at parties. I wish the dead would be remembered for the good they brought, but almost a year later she's still much misunderstood.
What good did Thatcher bring? Honestly? I can't really think of anything. The closest you could come to "good" would be to transitioning from an industry based economy to a service based economy.
As narrow as you might think my viewpoint is, yours is worse. It's important to consider people in their full, not just considering the individual good or bad that they did in their lives. I consider Thatchers overall effect to have been a blight on the United Kingdom, and thus I'm consider her awful.
