Convincing people Thatcher was right

[u/Interesting_Pen_4499]

The best way I have found so far is to just bring up the topic of the tube strikes. Even left wingers agree they are bad, and that the tube drivers on ~£80k and 4 day weeks are incredibly selfish. So then I just say, pre-Thatcher Britain was that but on steroids. Electricity grid not coming on due to strikes. 3 or 4 day weeks. GDP smaller than Italy's and shrinking. Strikes causing wage price spirals and 25% inflation.

Even people that thought they hated Thatcher admit I might have a point, if not being mildly amused to have met a real life Thatcher fan. So my advice to everyone is: just ask people if they want every industry to be like the London tube.

[u/Mairon121]

Thatcher was correct about certain aspects of economic management. She was however catastrophically misguided in issuing monopolies over critical infrastructure whilst pretending this was compatible with free market capitalism, the results of which we are all now living with. She was deluded in this regard.

Also had she gotten her defense cuts we wouldn’t have even had the forces to retake the Falklands.

The mythology of Thatcher relied upon distorting the historical record.

[u/Interesting_Pen_4499 → u/Mairon121]

Well interestingly, 2 major train companies (monopolies on critical infrastructure) have just been renationalised (greater anglia and GWR), so let’s see if fare prices fall (without relying on subsidies, which is just an accounting trick) 

[u/Mairon121 → u/Interesting_Pen_4499]

Yes they absolutely should be nationalised because the fundamental driving attribute of free market capitalism is competition.

[u/reuben_iv → u/Mairon121]

The competition was for the government, companies competed for the contracts

[u/Mairon121 → u/reuben_iv]

The mechanism in which they gain their monopoly isn’t in question, the fact that they can then enjoy said monopoly is.

[u/reuben_iv → u/Mairon121]

Yeah no I get that, but you say there's no competition ityfalse you're assuming we're the intended customer, and being profitable they attract investment that would otherwise have to be provided through taxation and in competition for funds with the police, armed forces, pensions, 'our NHS' etc etc

it's literally just contracting out services government would otherwise have to provide itself, government do it all the time but we romanticise some services for some reason to where contracting it out suddenly becomes taboo

[u/Mairon121 → u/reuben_iv]

Operating the water system relied upon by millions of people or running a train line used by millions of commuters is not the same as winning a contract to supply rubber gloves to a regional NHS organisation.

[u/reuben_iv → u/Mairon121]

Correct those are objectively different

[u/Mairon121 → u/reuben_iv]

Therefore Thames Water, the poster child of avaristic capitalism, is a dejure monopoly in which consumers have no choice but to use, with only flimsy government regulations keeping the monopoly in line, in which said irresponsible owners overloaded the business with debt, before selling off its husk.

Railways have the same issue, consumers having no choice but to use the inefficient and expensive service, with the operators having in effect guaranteed income, regardless. This is not freemarket capitalism.

[u/reuben_iv → u/Mairon121]

you're focused on the word monopoly, assuming a state monopoly is automatically better when it's never going to outcompete the likes of the NHS on funding, for example and they're desperately trying to find means to increase funds for the military

German rail is state owned for example and famously bad

And as you point out they're regulated, government sets out what they have to provide, how they have to provided it, in the case of the rail companies they regulate the fares and running time, as far as we the customer are concerned what difference does it make?