In defence of neo-liberalism

Writing in todays The Australian, Giles Auty makes the case for neo-liberalism;

When Thatcher was elected, inflation in Britain was running at an unsustainable 23per cent and industrial and economic life were effectively held to ransom by a number of militant unions, including Arthur Scargill’s National Union of Mineworkers and the two notorious printing unions: the national Graphical Association and the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades.

Before Thatcher’s election Britain was regarded as an international joke: dispirited, unproductive and overtaxed. A friend of mine, children’s author Roger Hargreaves, was required to pay tax on his earnings at a rate of 97 per cent. Would or would not “economic conservative” Rudd have approved of such swingeing imposts?,25197,25389256-7583,00.html

4 thoughts on “In defence of neo-liberalism

  1. 97%- and they only had two tiers of government! Why weren’t Britons revolting in the streets? I guess because the taxes were increased slowly enough that each seemed small in its’ own right- but the accumulative effects were horrendous!

  2. Would Rudd have approved? No, pf course not.

    However what he doesn’t want to know or admit is that is how it always ends with labor: a mountain of debt, unemployment and usually higher relative inflation. It always ends that way. Maggie was right to point this out recently.

  3. I’m a fairly mediocre predictor of the political future. I thought Rudd would get elected but would be fairly harmless; I though Obama would be toxic if elected, but thought he’d lose. Statistically speaking, that’s equivalent to guessing.

    Nonetheless, I’m going to make a political prophesy. I expect the economies in countries like the UK, US and Australia will be so screwed by “stimulus” and money printing that they won’t be able to properly recover and will look bad compared to places like New Zealand, which haven’t done that. A contemporary version of Margaret Thatcher will emerge to review the budget “line by line”, outsourcing things like health, education and infrastructure to cut costs and bring the budget under control.

    It won’t be called neo-liberalism or anything like, it will simply be presented as economic necessity.

    On past history, I’m sure I’ll be half right.

Comments are closed.