• orrk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    but in the end it was thatcher gutting the system and an unwillingness of the British capitalist to actually be competitive with the rest of the world, take for example the martial fund, most European nations used the money with use stipulation that often included modernization and a repayment plan, Germany for example stall has many programs funded by the marshal fund because it acts as a loan, the UK instead, in all their wisdom just have it to rich people, in the belief that they would have of their own volition invested it.

    Guess what didn’t happen? The problem with the UK was that capitalists don’t care about actually making anything better, they just care that the ratio of stuff they have is greater than the other person.

    • trias10@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure I understand, British capitalists were the same before, during, and after Thatcher. They weren’t allowed to be competitive prior to Thatcher because so many industries were nationalised, for example auto manufacturing and aerospace.

      It was Thatcher who divested and deregulated all those industries, removing central government from being involved in any businesses such as trains, home building, aerospace, etc. Rather than be forced into deals with labour unions, British capitalists were now free to deal in the global market, and immediately began closing British factories because they were uncompetitive and the government was no longer forcing them to remain open or paying subsidies.