The Economist on Maggie

[AdamSmith]

I didn't like the late Thatcher much at all but this extended obit from The Economist seems to do her about right: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21576094-now-especially-world-needs-hold-fast-margaret-thatchers-principles-freedom-fighter

I can't quite believe myself saying that from a liberal knee jerk lefty stance, but I am.

There must be several layers of psychopathology that I have yet to get to grips with.

[RA1]

Where is the Maggie the US needs so desperately now? In the meantime and while we are looking, I would settle for just having a journalist like the one who wrote the last paragraph about her.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

Where is the Maggie the US needs so desperately now? In the meantime and while we are looking, I would settle for just having a journalist like the one who wrote the last paragraph about her.

For a world in desperate need of growth, this is the wrong direction. Europe will never thrive until it frees up its markets. America will throttle its recovery unless it avoids overregulation. China will not sustain its success unless it starts to liberalise. This is a crucial time to hang on to Margaret Thatcher’s central perception: that for countries to flourish, people need to push back against the advance of the state. What the world needs now is more Thatcherism, not less.

If by 'flourish', the author means a superheated financial caste with billion-dollar bonuses, water and air chock full of industrial waste, and a low-paid uninsured workforce fighting for a possible glimpse of the economic pie, she might be just what the doctor ordered.

The difficulty with such a worldview is that it makes no mention of the human values that, in my opinion, make life worth living: compassion, altruism, kindness, love, enlightenment, and much of what you'll find in the Golden Rule.

How we have allowed "Free Markets", "Growth", and "The Economy" to so fully dominate the national discourse is, I must admit, beyond me.

[RA1]

lookin-

You are my favorite altruistic. I have but one question for you. Who will pay for all the largesse you propose?

Of course, there are many problems with the current management of both corporations and the government. Spending other people's money will not necessarily solve any problems except the problem of "liberals" not spending their own money. We all need to contribute to solve the problem and relying upon the government to spend money is NOT the answer. Think about this. How many folks will continue to do their part to help others IF they can just shunt all efforts aside by expecting the government to take over?

I know your heart is in the right place but I am not so sure about your brain. :)

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

RA1, I think much depends on your definition of "largesse".

Is it "largesse" for one of our fellows to have his own bed? Or a nourishing meal? Or a visit to the doctor?

Is Sheldon Adelson spending his own money to elect a low-tax politician, or did he get it from somebody else?

Did Lloyd Blankfein create his own wealth, or did he get it from somebody else?

Throughout history, and certainly in the plutocracy we risk becoming, rich folks usually get to write the rules. What they do with that power defines them as human beings. Some are predatory and consider a dollar that leaves their hands to be a dollar lost. Others are generous and consider it an honor to help the less fortunate.

Similarly, there are some poor folks who look for opportunities to game the system, while others work hard and even then don't mind giving away a bit of what they've earned.

Personally, I don't think it's useful to divide ourselves between rich and poor. Rich can become poor overnight and, occasionally, the reverse is true. The difference that's worth exploring, in my opinion, is what makes some people selfish and other people altruistic.

I think much of the difference comes from the life experiences one has had. There's a classic dichotomy that says liberals believe that folks are basically good and conservatives believe that folks are basically evil. I've been blessed to have life experiences that convince me that folks are basically good. I fit comfortably into the liberal mold and have no shame about it whatsoever.

I'm not naive, however, and I know that there are bad people out there. But to live my life that way, afraid to give anything up because a loafer might get it, would mean that I'd be afraid to help someone who desperately needs it. And that's not the kind of life I choose to live. If a cheater gets ten cents of every dollar I give, so what? Even twenty cents is OK, or thirty, or forty. If I act like there are only cheaters out there, and never give anything away, then I'd be living a life that is much less pleasant than the one I live now.

I'm sorry for those whose life experiences have taught them that the world is full of takers, and can only hope that they will go outside of their current circle of friends and go meet the many others in the world who are givers. As some have already found, and many others will someday find, money can disappear in the twinkling of an eye. What stays with us, on the other hand, are those folks who have our back, just as we have theirs. We're social animals, after all, and I believe we're at our best when we take care of one another.

It would be a real bonus, for me anyway, if our elected officials would reflect that view as well.

So there's my brain talking, as well as my heart, and much more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.

[RA1]

The main difference I perceive in your opinion and mine is who should pay for taking care of others. I suspect that you do not believe that real conservatives are willing to do so and I believe that the government should not take money away from folks so it can do its' version thereof. If you look at the history of what the government has provided the cost is ridiculous and the performance is miserable. You may think that is OK because they are trying but we cannot afford their methodology and cost. Where I live there are a lot of folks not associated with the government who are providing a lot of care for those in need. My increasing lament is too many are willing to give a dollar rather than their time to do so and turn over "help" for others to others. I was not brought up that way and do not like it that others think "someone" else can do whatever is necessary. Not so.

Like you, I have done such as given $20 to a guy in a hospital parking lot because his story was his parent just died and he needed gas to get home. I have no idea if he went to the liquor store or the gas station but I did not stop to ask or think about it. He said he needed help and I tried to help him.

Best regards,

RA1

[lookin]

Like you, I have done such as given $20 to a guy in a hospital parking lot because his story was his parent just died and he needed gas to get home. I have no idea if he went to the liquor store or the gas station but I did not stop to ask or think about it. He said he needed help and I tried to help him.

Good for you! I hope that you got more than $20 of good feeling from it. You deserve it.

If you look at the history of what the government has provided the cost is ridiculous and the performance is miserable.

Mebbe yes, mebbe no. Take healthcare: *

The government currently pays a little over $12,000 a year for the average person on Medicare. These are usually older and sicker folks and the insurance companies aren't too eager to take them on as customers. If they did, and wanted their stock prices and executive compensation to remain high, they would need to add 30% to the number so that they could cover overhead and lobbying and make their usual profit. So it's not clear, to me anyway, that the government cost is 'ridiculous'.

It's true that they could do a better job though, as you say. But unfortunately, unlike for-profit insurance companies, the government is precluded from negotiating better drug prices. It's definitely one of those pesky 'regulations' that contributes to government inefficiency. But it's a regulation that the drug companies lobbied aggressively for and were successful in convincing Republicans to block the vote to allow negotiation.

And, to bring us full circle, even Margaret Thatcher supported government-run healthcare.

These days, the negative words about 'government inefficiency' roll pretty easily off the tongue, but they sometimes do not hold up under even the most cursory review. If you get a minute, I'd be interested in your take on this article. It purports to separate fiction from the facts of Medicare. If they've got anything wrong, and you can provide some objective rebuttal, I'd be interested in hearing it.

*

... Please!

[Guest hitoallusa]

Oh my Lookin... I love your values.. You are the perfect husband I have been lookin for to have a harmonious family with lots of children. When can I come over? I don't need a ring..

The difficulty with such a worldview is that it makes no mention of the human values that, in my opinion, make life worth living: compassion, altruism, kindness, love, enlightenment, and much of what you'll find in the Golden Rule.

It is nice to praise and pay tribute to a great leader of the past. But we need new Thatcher with new sets of ideas and solutions that will work and help solve problems we are facing- how to support sustainable growth for 7 billion people and counting. The world has changed a lot since 30 decades ago and we need new directions. A new form of governing and a more efficient economic system will have to emerge to solve many global issues. We will be able to see that in the future. I'm optimistic.

[AdamSmith]

30 decades ago

Not entirely inconceivable how you might momentarily confuse Dame Thatcher with William Pitt the Elder.

The Queen, after all, was believed to have had a good bit of distaste for her.

[Guest hitoallusa]

I want to blame it on my bad eye sight... LOL...

Not entirely inconceivable how you might momentarily confuse Dame Thatcher with William Pitt the Elder.

The Queen, after all, was believed to have had a good bit of distaste for her.

[AdamSmith]

If you can spy either Pitt, you have pretty good eyesight indeed. Or hindsight. Or something.

[RA1]

lookin-

I have been gone all day and have not done more than skim the article to which you provided a link. I probably have less negative to say about Medicare than most other government programs. However, that is not to say it does not contain room for improvement. As you mention, bidding on the price of Rx would be a good start. Also, more could be done to eliminate fraud and abuse. Lastly, like many government programs, their solution to a reduction in funds is to reduce payments or fire people. The ideal way would be to increase efficiency and, of course, the aforementioned Rx and fraud elimination.

However, as you know, healthcare is far from all the care that most folks need or will need. Medicare doesn't do much for mental health care or LTC or, for sure, could do a much better job. That also leaves in the lurch some of your favorites, shelter, food, clothing, etc. One problem with socialism is it disincentivizes the work ethnic. That is not the same as saying poor folks don't wish to work. They do, by and large. But, if you can get food stamps, a cell phone, a subsidized apartment and other benefits from the government, without a specific pathway out of such, why would some not work?

Lastly, there may indeed be many folks who are hungry, etc. but kids should not be among them. With at least 2 meals a day provided at no cost at school and food stamps and ADC, etc. how is it that kids are hungry? Is one of the reasons that adults don't use those resources properly? There is a huge black market in food stamps and much beer and other prohibited goods being bartered therewith.

However, my main points aren't to mention abuses but to suggest that there could and should be a better way to run this railroad. Jobs and self realization of being responsible for oneself as well as providing for one's family are very satisfying ways to live a life or so I think.

Best regards,

RA1

[TampaYankee]

So there's my brain talking, as well as my heart, and much more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.

lookin,

Remarkably well said. I salute you.