h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

OK, cold sweats over

Actually, the info about German practices is fascinating. I can see how that would help bring stability to a company and help alleviate the necessity for short-term forecasting.

When I was young, Thatcher was the anti-Christ where I lived (a mining community). I find myself broadly in agreement with you that she was right and wrong. The monolith wasn't the working class though, it was the state industries who were effectively in thrall to the whims of a relatively few highly influential union leaders. The two (industries & unions) were intertwined in a dance of death. Suppose Thatcher had massively invested in the heavy industries? The rush we have seen to re-locate abroad in the last ten years would still have happened and we would be left with slightly better quality rubble. By forcing her hand, the Unions backed Thatcher into a corner from which she absolutely had to come out the winner. Perhaps instead of being confrontational, the Unions would have been better advised trying to work with Govt into transforming the heavy industries into sustainable alternatives. I think they had got used to winning battles and underestimated Thatcher's resolve. Equally, I don't think Thatcher wanted to lose so many tax-payers and gain so many benefits claimants. But the Unions left no middle ground.

Surely the cold sweats are just beginning?

Blaming the unions seems not quite the right idea, I think. They were certainly a factor, but not as powerful in Germany, whose manufacturing is in a much better state than ours, so to blame them as the main factor is missing the target slightly, I feel.

The main factor is that the nationalised industries were becoming (increasingly) unprofitable. That's the starting point for me. Nothing but nothing would have us with half a million miners, or 300,000 steel workers today, because of that fact. I didn't mean (or say) that Thatcher should've invested in heavy industry like steel or whatever. But steel and coal went to 3rd world countries, not Norway.

As for how the battle was fought, well, we'll disagree on that, surprisingly. Thatch was determined to fxxk the unions once and forever, and she did. Forced into a corner my arse. She believed in the market, and monetarism (which failed miserably, btw), and went for it. It was probably a large side issue that the 'monolithic' people voted Labour, while private-sector workers were more likely to vote Tory.

Yes Thatcher was determined to destroy the excessive power of the unions, but I doubt that the financial cost was one she anticipated having to pay.

Yes, the industries were becoming a millstone. The response of Labour in the 70s was to pump more and more money in. Apart from being economically unviable, the EU would not allow such protectionism to continue. But I don't believe the Unions saw beyond the immediate loss of jobs.

Give the Tories credit - they did try to encourage small business start-ups and they initiated numerous re-training schemes to help people back into work. Nu-Labour seem to have abandoned helping people back into work. If anything, the threats to cut benefits and the hoops the unemployed have to jump through* to get practical help indicate a singular lack of concern for the unemployed.

* New Deal - you have to be unemployed continuously for 18 months before you are eligible for help.

If the cost was excessive, then it was her mistake for not seeing it in the first place. As for the unions, it's precisely their job not to see 'beyond the immediate loss of jobs', just as a PLC can't really look any further than its profits.

Back to markets for a second. We've been talking about regulation as if it's pen-pushers trying to piss bold entrepreneurs off as the end result of a proactive thought-shower or summit. That's no doubt got a hint of truth to it sometimes, but not quite what I was getting at last night.

In 'Collapse', Diamond mentions two oil fields he's visited in Indonesia. One is owned by the state oil firm, and the other by Chevron (I think, but a US multinational anyway). The state-owned one was a mess, an environmental disaster without no wildlife anywhere nearby (in a goddamn rainforest!).

The US-owned was totally different. He said that, effectively, it's the best national park in Indonesia, bursting with wildlife. The reason is basically because the oil field will last for 50 years or so, and it's in the company's interest *not* to peeve the locals, which means minimal damage to the rainforest, otherwise the locals
a) get compensated for damage to the jungle, and
b) kick up a stink and generally make life difficult. (Elsewhere around there, locals forced the closure of a huge copper mine about 10-15 years ago).

So setting up markets where it's in the industry's interest to behave responsibly isn't totally out there, it just needs a proper structure. If logging companies (which really do rip the heart out of rainforests) were only allowed a 50 year lease, they wouldn't just clear every tree then bugger off. In effect, they'd start to run tree farms rather than do what they do now.

As for the high seas being fished out in 50 years time,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6108414.stm
again a creating a market could help avoid totally depleting every fishery on the planet. The idea would be to give property rights over the oceans (to countries, please, rather than PLCs). Then, again, it makes more sense to 'farm' the oceans than to just grab what's there before someone else does. The smash and grab approach is the rational one at the moment because, if you don't, someone else will.
With the market system, it can be regulated so that the amount of fish is monitored and a permits to fish for a sustainable annual yield can be sold off.

Weird, eh?

Sounds like common sense to me and an example of balancing the debate as you mentioned earlier.

Interesting prog on Beeb 2 right now with Peter Snow about the economy. I didn't know that although manufacturing only accounts for a third of the workforce compared to the 50s, it has actually increased output over the same period. But, as the economy has tripled in size, manufacturing is smaller by proportion.

John Caudwell was on, sounding like Mr Nice Guy - it was his company I turned down despite a high salary

<>

The guy who came up with that got a Nobel Prize for it. Give the man some credit!

Ooh, I would just kill for a Nobel prize

Well, at least I recognise common sense when I see it