Summary, where economics are concerned
~..................... she didn't rebuild where she took things down.
She should have rebuilt council stock she allowed to be sold vs allowing poor and council home owners to own their own homes.
to address
She didn't push hard enough for regeneration of areas where steel and coal mining were to die off - however these areas were also heavily subsidised and performed badly
her failure to push regeneration resulted in those areas then not performing at all, any more.
On the other hand, she liberalised the stock markets and allowed weak industries to die.
but, in the final outcome, not just the weak ones.
The fact that UK is devoid of any notable manufacturing industry today is rooted in her reign, the fact that financial markets have long since turned into casinos, as well.
Her sole responsibility? Doubtful!
I won't address her international political impact, yet the idea that she contributed towards the Soviet downfall I find amusing and almost "French". French in that France's nuclear ambitions were once described to me by a Russian counterpart as the likeness "of an enamoured ant crawling up an elephant's leg while promising to be gentle".:mrgreen:
On her infatuation with the Chilean dictator and her stance towards Mandela I'll be dismissive (others have been as bad, if not worse).
The one thing that has generated either the most love or the most hate for her, is her economic savvy or lack of it.
The only economists I'll take seriously are those who admit (either readily or grudgingly) that economics do not constitute a science. Certainly not a "hard" one but in all likelihood no science at all. There's nothing impartial about anyone holding the views of a particular school, come hell or high water, and there's no greater ideological partisanship to be seen than in "economics". Not even, I'd wager, in politics.
In this failing she was no exception.
Where her (often cited) statement of "all you need learn about economics is what you can acquire by living above a corner shop" was an intentional over-simplification, made (in equally intentional exaggeration) to drive home the KISS point, it nevertheless revealed a lot. Because all subsequent schooling never overrode this initial "wisdom".
You're losing out, get suppliers to lower their prices so you can still sell at the necessary profit. Rent is going up, you need to hike your sales prices. Failing to be able to do that, get your suppliers to lower theirs.
What you don't learn in a corner shop is production. It's costs, the management of same, how to sensibly arrange manufacturing to competitive levels, et.c etc. etc. Most of all you don't learn how to address bad management by replacing it with better management.
This item isn't worth the hassle? Throw it out. These unions are a royal pain (and boyohboy, weren't they just?), destroy them. This branch suffers from intolerably incompetent management, flog it!
In unperturbedly sticking to that dogma she was no worse than others of opposing stance sticking as unperturbedly to theirs. But, the worst part, also as incapable of recognizing developments that did not fit her world view and thus incapable of addressing those with any inspiration.
She saw what was and addressed it. Of what could come, possible would come and, where her position was concerned, should come she saw nothing.
The worst in a 100 years?
Bah! The only thing that raised her above the mediocrity of those that would follow was that she left no middle ground for verdict upon her. Hate her or love her, you can't sit on any fence here. THAT I'll give her and that's something I've missed ever since.
They don't make 'em like that any more.
