All teachers are biased and try to convert to left wing socialists

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Lowering taxes cannot be called a good thing, neither can an increase in GDP per capita when she created unemployment at levels near the Great Depression, causing a vast development gap between rich and poor.

    In 1979, there were also strict rules covering banks and building societies that stood in the way of first-time buyers.
    Banks did not offer mortgages, and building societies were not allowed to hold savings accounts or borrow on the money markets.
    The Thatcher government lifted these restrictions, allowing building societies to convert into banks, and banks to become mortgage lenders.
    This set off a boom in house-buying which suddenly crashed in 1989. Thatcher also tripled interest rates in a single day, plunging huge numbers of families into negative equity.

    Her screwup of the economy and the Great Depression proved that right-wing neoclassical economics does not work.
    The right-wing utopia of an unregulated free market is impossible as proved by the crashes of 1929 and 2008.

    Again, you've ignored by points, and your points have you no closer to proving that the Tories would have improved the economy instead of Brown, especially when presented with the facts that Osborne has made a mess of the economy with his right-wing neoclassical economic policy.

    In the last 200 years of economic history there have only been three prolonged periods of debt accumulation worse than George Osborne's tenure as Chancellor of the Exchequer: The First World War (+110% of GDP), the Second World War (+100% of GDP) and the tenure of Tory Chancellor Nicholas Vansittart 1812-1823 (+64% of GDP).
    Having increased public sector debt by 26.9% in five years, George Osborne has undeniably created more new debt than any single Labour government in history ever has. In fact it's a bigger proportional increase in the national debt than all of the Labour governments in history combined.

    Moreover, according to the OECD, IFS, and IMS, the 'deficit' was not the worst while Labour was in power. It is however the worst now since Osborne's austerity measure.
    I dont like George Osborne , I dont support him. I think he was worse than Gordon brown at economic management. He can't implement austerity properly. Cameron and osborne are liars. Thatcher still improved the economy , it just didn't benefit the poor , Crashes are inevitable , it also creates bubbles which everyone enjoys. As I can see you would rather the poor were poor if the rich were less richer. You will never create wealth like that.
    You still refuse to admit 1951-1964 mixed economic policy that was centrist/right as Harold Macmillan did lower taxes and cut public spending worked.Thatcher did work , she was not a disaster as GDP AND GDP per capita increased , this is how economic growth is measured , unemployment was high but yet economic growth was still high. It was not a screw up as both of these increased whilst debt and the deficit fell. Respond on my point from 1951 to 1964 and Harold Macmillan who were more effecient than clement atlee at reducing the debt. As they took his plan to the RIGHT.
    The right-wing utopia of an unregulated free market is possible as it causes a growth in GDP and creates a bubble. Of course it pops but even recessions occur under left wing government and they are just bad. The British voters will have you for mince meat in 2020 and you can watch everything you stand for crumble.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'll admit that Thatcher increased the prosperity of the country overall.

    However she also threw entire communities under the bus that still haven't recovered today. She pleased enough people to win elections while pursuing policies that caused suffering and social deprivation for others.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    The Tories are not "cleaning up Labour's mess".
    The myth that the Labour party are profligate with public money, and that the Tories go around cleaning up their messes is one of the most pervasive political narratives in the UK. It is thanks to this myth that even after four years of breathtaking economic incompetence from George Osborne, the Tories are still considered more trustworthy on economic issues than Labour by the majority of the public.

    I'm no fan of New Labour but I'm completely sick of listening to delusional Tory tribalists mindlessly churning out their counter-factual "always cleaning up Labour's messes" narratives in order to defend George Osborne's record of economic incompetence, exactly as they have been programmed to do by the mainstream media.

    A quick look at the actual evidence reveals that only two Labour governments have ever left office leaving the national debt higher than it was when they came to power, all of the others have lowered the national debt as a percentage of GDP.

    Nearly all the Labour governments have ended up reducing the national debt, and the two that didn't coincided with the biggest global financial crisis of the 20th Century and the biggest global financial crisis so far in the 21st Century.

    On the two occasions that Labour oversaw increases in the national debt there were the mitigating circumstances of huge global financial crises. The Ramsay MacDonald government of 1929-31 coincided with the Wall Street Crash (they left a 12% increase in the debt to GDP ratio), and the Blair-Brown government of 1997-2010 coincided with the 2008 financial sector insolvency crisis (an 11% increase). The other Labour governments all reduced the scale of the national debt, Clement Attlee's 1945-51 government reduced the national debt by 40% of GDP despite having to rebuild the UK economy from the ruins of the Second World War. Harold Wilson's 1964-70 government reduced the national debt by 27% of GDP and even the Wilson-Callaghan government of 1974-79 managed to reduce the debt by 4% of GDP.
    Well, it is you the hard core left-wingers that settled in Europe over half of Asia and Africa from muslims countries. Only because of your selfish goal to have future voters. And now theese muslims are raping and murdering Europeans on the continent.

    That is your mess and damage that cannot be ever changed. When will you apologise to the indigenous population?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I'll admit that Thatcher increased the prosperity of the country overall.

    However she also threw entire communities under the bus that still haven't recovered today. She pleased enough people to win elections while pursuing policies that caused suffering and social deprivation for others.
    There you DM govern , an average opinion not your socialist delusional vision
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slaven)
    Well, it is you the hard coreleft-wing that settled in Europe over half of Asia and Africa from muslims countries. Only because of your selfish goal to have future voters. And now theese muslims are raping and murdering Europeans on the continent.

    That is your mess and damage that cannot be ever changed. When will you apologise to the indigenous population?
    I shall repeat, my bigoted xenophobic friend, that:
    "I'm no fan of New Labour but I'm completely sick of listening to delusional Tory tribalists mindlessly churning out their counter-factual "always cleaning up Labour's messes" narratives in order to defend George Osborne's record of economic incompetence, exactly as they have been programmed to do by the mainstream media."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I completely agree. I took social sciences at GCSE and take political a levels and I've found every teacher I have has taught us from a socialist (in some cases I daresay marxist) view. But any opposition to their view is far too politically incorrect- so for being a conservative I'm automatically called bigoted or racist etc..
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    I dont like George Osborne , I dont support him. I think he was worse than Gordon brown at economic management. He can't implement austerity properly. Cameron and osborne are liars. Thatcher still improved the economy , it just didn't benefit the poor , Crashes are inevitable , it also creates bubbles which everyone enjoys. As I can see you would rather the poor were poor if the rich were less richer. You will never create wealth like that.
    Austerity does not work. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, where many European countries implemented such policies: unemployment rose to higher levels and debt-to-GDP ratios increased, despite reductions in budget deficits (relative to GDP).

    Similarly, economist Paul Krugman analyzed the relationship between GDP and reduction in budget deficits for several European countries in April 2012 and concluded that austerity was slowing growth. He wrote: "this also implies that 1 euro of austerity yields only about 0.4 euros of reduced deficit, even in the short run. No wonder, then, that the whole austerity enterprise is spiraling into disaster."


    If you lived with a roommate as unstable as this economic system, you would’ve moved out or demanded that your roommate get professional help. But you live in an economic system where most people make neither of those kinds of demands on it and imagine it's their job to adapt.

    As I can see you would rather the poor were poor if the rich were less richer. You will never create wealth like that.
    I have not said that anywhere in any of my statements neither have I inferred it. It is unacceptable to embrace outdated ineffective neoclassical economics when Keynesian economics is clearly proven to ensure economic growth while not causing huge gaps in wealth.

    If Britain had gone on increasing the gap between rich and poor, creating an elitist society with no social mobility and serious class divisions you would have had a revolution on your hands - violent or democratic. That is the thing which Keynes worked to prevent.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Price controls and three exchange rates made it worst,You saw the electorate in venezeula want maduro out. The nationalization also made everything worse. As schools and education are getting less subsidies than electricity or gasoline
    Still, nationalising does not equal Socialism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    There you DM govern , an average opinion not your socialist delusional vision
    Clearly you didn't read his post.

    (Original post by JamesN88)
    I'll admit that Thatcher increased the prosperity of the country overall.

    However she also threw entire communities under the bus that still haven't recovered today. She pleased enough people to win elections while pursuing policies that caused suffering and social deprivation for others.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Austerity does not work. In the aftermath of the Great Recession, where many European countries implemented such policies: unemployment rose to higher levels and debt-to-GDP ratios increased, despite reductions in budget deficits (relative to GDP).

    Similarly, economist Paul Krugman analyzed the relationship between GDP and reduction in budget deficits for several European countries in April 2012 and concluded that austerity was slowing growth. He wrote: "this also implies that 1 euro of austerity yields only about 0.4 euros of reduced deficit, even in the short run. No wonder, then, that the whole austerity enterprise is spiraling into disaster."


    If you lived with a roommate as unstable as this economic system, you would’ve moved out or demanded that your roommate get professional help. But you live in an economic system where most people make neither of those kinds of demands on it and imagine it's their job to adapt.



    I have not said that anywhere in any of my statements neither have I inferred it. It is unacceptable to embrace outdated ineffective neoclassical economics when Keynesian economics is clearly proven to ensure economic growth while not causing huge gaps in wealth.

    If Britain had gone on increasing the gap between rich and poor, creating an elitist society with no social mobility and serious class divisions you would have had a revolution on your hands - violent or democratic. That is the thing which Keynes worked to prevent.
    Ok ,
    Keynesian economics was not SOCIALIST, the 1951-1964 used MIXED ECONOMIC policy and leant right as they cut public spending and lowered taxes. There does not need to be huge gaps in wealth , the current level is perfect in my opinion as there is no revolution.
    Keynesian economics is not SOCIALIST and the tories adapted to be centre right and it was more efficient when they implemented it.

    Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.[13] An example of a counter-cyclical policy is raising taxes to cool the economy and to prevent inflation when there is abundant demand-side growth, and engaging in deficit spending on labour-intensive infrastructure projects to stimulate employment and stabilize wages during economic downturns. Classical economics, on the other hand, argues that one should cut taxes when there are budget surpluses, and cut spending – or, less likely, increase taxes – during economic downturns.
    . Hence whether you believe in Keynesian theory depends on whether you think markets work, so it obviously maps to a left/right political perspective.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Still, nationalising does not equal Socialism.
    You lost this one , its left wing policy tha tworsened the hyperinflation on top of low oil prices
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Ok ,
    Keynesian economics was not SOCIALIST, the 1951-1964 used MIXED ECONOMIC policy and leant right as they cut public spending and lowered taxes. There does not need to be huge gaps in wealth , the current level is perfect in my opinion as there is no revolution.
    Keynesian economics is not SOCIALIST and the tories adapted to be centre right and it was more efficient when they implemented it.

    Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.[13] An example of a counter-cyclical policy is raising taxes to cool the economy and to prevent inflation when there is abundant demand-side growth, and engaging in deficit spending on labour-intensive infrastructure projects to stimulate employment and stabilize wages during economic downturns. Classical economics, on the other hand, argues that one should cut taxes when there are budget surpluses, and cut spending – or, less likely, increase taxes – during economic downturns.
    So its not socialist , its centrist as it says raise taxes when necessary and reduce them in other cases.
    Again, not answering any of my points. Keynesianism is the main economic ideology of social democratic to democratic socialist economics.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Again, not answering any of my points. Keynesianism is the main economic ideology of social democratic to democratic socialist economics.
    It clearly isnt as they never cut taxes. Keynesian economics isn't socialism .
    The textbooks it is suggested that Keynesian economics is what happens when ‘prices are sticky’. Sticky prices sound like prices failing to equate supply and demand, which in turn sounds like markets not working. Hence whether you believe in Keynesian theory depends on whether you think markets work, so it obviously maps to a left/right political perspective.

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-wo...esians-2015-11
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No wonder the average Brit and US is so uneducated as feminisits, lewt-wingers and other strange being are teaching their kids.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    It clearly isnt as they never cut taxes. Keynesian economics isn't socialism .
    The textbooks it is suggested that Keynesian economics is what happens when ‘prices are sticky’. Sticky prices sound like prices failing to equate supply and demand, which in turn sounds like markets not working. Hence whether you believe in Keynesian theory depends on whether you think markets work, so it obviously maps to a left/right political perspective.

    http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-wo...esians-2015-11
    Still not answering my points, ignoring my response and continuing with your irrelevant rhetoric.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    You lost this one , its left wing policy tha tworsened the hyperinflation on top of low oil prices
    Venezuela isn’t left-wing. It’s government controlled capitalism.

    Left and Right wing policy has nothing to do with inflation, that’s how much money you print.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankielogue)
    Venezuela isn’t left-wing. It’s government controlled capitalism.

    Left and Right wing policy has nothing to do with inflation, that’s how much money you print.
    MADURO IS FROM A LEFT WING PARTY . Nationalisation is a left wing policy
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Again, not answering any of my points. Keynesianism is the main economic ideology of social democratic to democratic socialist economics.
    Milton Friedman-style monetarism or Friedrich Hayek-style Austrian economics both work quite well
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Again, not answering any of my points. Keynesianism is the main economic ideology of social democratic to democratic socialist economics.
    You dont answer my points as you can't seem to accept the fact the tories between 1951 and 1964 did a better job clement and they had a centre right adegenda. THEY CUT TAXES AND PUBLIC SPENDING. They adapted
    Keynesianism to make it work in a capitalist society.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nathan1276)
    Milton Friedman-style monetarism or Friedrich Hayek-style Austrian economics both work quite well
    Again refusing to answer my points. Fiscal austerity is a failed policy and cannot work.

    Friedman's political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention, which was the cause of the Great Depression and Great Recession. This is neoclassical economics.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: January 2, 2017
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
What is your favourite day of the week
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.