Gyroscopic Investing

The Iron Lady will be missed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMJbcOBFo3Y

"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

About 11-12 years ago, Mrs. Thatcher spoke to all the Officers and Sr NCOs at Fort Bliss.  I arrived about two minutes before she was to start speaking.  I only saw one available seat - in the front row directly in front of the podium.  I assumed it was reserved for a General Officer but slowly made my way to the front.  It was not reserved so I saw directly in front, less than 10 feet from Mrs Thatcher as she gave her remarks.  She spoke about the dangers of the coming century, the EMP threat posed by rogue states and the of course, the upcoming dangers of Islamic terrorism (this was prior to 9 /11).  She was was in her mid-70s at that time but still 'sharp as a tack.'  I feel fortunate that I had to opportunity to hear her speak in person.  May God rest her soul.

Truly one of Britain's greatest political leaders. Memory eternal!

More on socialism:

""He Would Rather The Poor Were Poorer, Provided The Rich Were Less Rich"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _rich.html

I'm a fan.

My favorite:

[align=center][/align]

Didnt Thatcher come into office at the opportune time at oil was being discovered in the North Sea. If that hadnt been the case, would her legacy have been any different? I dont want to come off as sexist either, but women with brass balls like her and Hillary make me uneasy sometimes...I dont know why.

An amusing story, possibly apocryphal but it's making the rounds...

Prime Minister Thatcher back in the 80's was invited by the leaders of the opposition (the Labor Party) to dine with with them. She showed up at the restaurant and took her seat with the members of the so called shadow cabinet. Drinks were served and as she sipped, she also listened quietly as the lefties berated her for her cruel and backward economic policies.

In due course the waiter appeared and asked Thatcher what she wanted for dinner...

"I shall have the roast beef" she replied.
"Very good maam. And for the vegetables?"
"They shall have the roast beef as well."

Bob wrote: About 11-12 years ago, Mrs. Thatcher spoke to all the Officers and Sr NCOs at Fort Bliss.  I arrived about two minutes before she was to start speaking.  I only saw one available seat - in the front row directly in front of the podium.  I assumed it was reserved for a General Officer but slowly made my way to the front.  It was not reserved so I saw directly in front, less than 10 feet from Mrs Thatcher as she gave her remarks.  She spoke about the dangers of the coming century, the EMP threat posed by rogue states and the of course, the upcoming dangers of Islamic terrorism (this was prior to 9 /11).  She was was in her mid-70s at that time but still 'sharp as a tack.'  I feel fortunate that I had to opportunity to hear her speak in person.  May God rest her soul.

Not trying to sully the woman, but sounds like talking points from any Fox News evening broadcast. I would also prefer leaders to stop using the term "islam" next to terrorism. It fans flames that could lead to cultural warfare. These terrorists by killing women and children are acting outside of the tenets of Islam and therefore should not be associated with the overwhelmingly peaceful majority that comprises this faith. If I call myself a Christian yet I violate the teachings of the Bible in every way, would you still title me a Christian?

Libertarian Chomsky doesnt remember Thatcher in quite such fond ways http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px_k5E0klws&sns=em

doodle wrote: Libertarian Chomsky doesnt remember Thatcher in quite such fond ways http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px_k5E0klws&sns=em

Although Chomsky has occasionally used the term "libertarian" as a self descriptive for some of his political views he has in fact little in common with traditional libertarianism beyond his broad support for civil liberties. He is more accurately described as an anarcho-leftist with strong socialist sympathies. As such he would of course despise everything Thatcher stood for.

Ad Orientem wrote:

doodle wrote: Libertarian Chomsky doesnt remember Thatcher in quite such fond ways http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px_k5E0klws&sns=em

Although Chomsky has occasionally used the term "libertarian" as a self descriptive for some of his political views he has in fact little in common with traditional libertarianism beyond his broad support for civil liberties. He is more accurately described as an anarcho-leftist with strong socialist sympathies. As such he would of course despise everything Thatcher stood for.

I think Chomsky would say that his opinions are in accordance with traditional libertarianism and that it is the American version of the term that is in fact an aberration. You might not like what they stand for, but the term originated as such http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

In America, libertarianism means something different from European left-anarchism. Using a foreign definition is just confusing. It would be like American libertarians referring to themselves as liberals because old-school liberals used to believe similar things to modern American libertarians. But that would be similarly confusing. If Chomsky is a leftist anarchist, he's a leftist anarchist. But as Ad Orientem said, that's an ideology that has very little in common with modern American libertarianism.

I am familiar with the basic tenets of so called libertarian socialism. The article you linked reinforces my point. It has little relation to classical libertarianism. See...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

I would argue that the use of the term by these leftists comes awfully close to hijacking.

Ad Orientem wrote: I am familiar with the basic tenets of so called libertarian socialism. The article you linked reinforces my point. It has little relation to classical libertarianism. See...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
and...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

I would argue that the use of the term by these leftists comes awfully close to hijacking.

Huh? the etymology of the word suggests that its ancestry is clearly leftist. Based on this, wouldnt you say the political right hijacked the term in response to Roosevelt?

The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[22] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views.[23][24]
The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[25] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left anarchism since the 1890s.[26] The term libertarianism is commonly considered to be a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[13] Albert Jay Nock and H. L. Mencken were the first prominent figures in the US to call themselves "libertarians," which they used to signify their allegiance to individualism and limited government, feeling that Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word "liberal" for his New Deal policies, which they opposed.[27]

Regardless of who hijacked whose label, can we at least agree that:

1. Libertarianism in the context of American politics is NOT a European-style left-anarchist ideology
2. Chomsky, as a European-style left-anarchist, is NOT a modern American libertarian

Pointedstick wrote: Regardless of who hijacked whose label, can we at least agree that:

1. Libertarianism in the context of American politics is NOT a European-style left-anarchist ideology
2. Chomsky, as a European-style left-anarchist, is NOT a modern American libertarian

Agreed! And not to get too far off topic, but there are many in the original european libertarian camp who view the American strain as one that is fraught with internal contradictions and inconsistencies....many of which Moda has drawn attention to.

Back to Thatcher, as Chomsky pointed out in the video Thatcher was a statist just like Reagan with a penchant for lavishing the military and wealthy elite instead of the lower classes. I would arguecthat much of her success was a consequence of the opportune time in which she came to office that was coincidentally coinciding with a huge new energy discovery.

By the way, Chomsky claims that gov expenditure to GNP rose under Thatcher. Anyone care to verify that? If that is the case which Thatcher are we talking about? The real one, or the myth?

Just for the record, while there is much that I admire about her and her record, there is also much that I disagree with. My own politics are virtually a definition for cognitive dissonance... being a divine right monarchist with classical liberal sympathies.

doodle wrote:

Bob wrote: About 11-12 years ago, Mrs. Thatcher spoke to all the Officers and Sr NCOs at Fort Bliss.  I arrived about two minutes before she was to start speaking.  I only saw one available seat - in the front row directly in front of the podium.  I assumed it was reserved for a General Officer but slowly made my way to the front.  It was not reserved so I saw directly in front, less than 10 feet from Mrs Thatcher as she gave her remarks.  She spoke about the dangers of the coming century, the EMP threat posed by rogue states and the of course, the upcoming dangers of Islamic terrorism (this was prior to 9 /11).  She was was in her mid-70s at that time but still 'sharp as a tack.'  I feel fortunate that I had to opportunity to hear her speak in person.  May God rest her soul.

Not trying to sully the woman, but sounds like talking points from any Fox News evening broadcast. I would also prefer leaders to stop using the term "islam" next to terrorism. It fans flames that could lead to cultural warfare. These terrorists by killing women and children are acting outside of the tenets of Islam and therefore should not be associated with the overwhelmingly peaceful majority that comprises this faith. If I call myself a Christian yet I violate the teachings of the Bible in every way, would you still title me a Christian?

Mr. Doodle,
I do not post often so I am going to begin by saying that I write this with humility and respect. My acute and direct answer is yes, I would title you a Christian if that is what was driving you and what you called yourself. 
Consider the vast amount of funding that has to have been steadily made available for terrorist organizations to remain operational.  They may be great at cutting costs, and being frugal, but it still takes an incredible amount of money to maintain for this long under the amount of heat they have been facing.  That money has come from a support structure.  The religious preference of that support structure is most certainly majority Islam.  The trouble with this reality is that it points more toward an acceptance of the organizations actions rather than a repudiation.  Saying it's wrong is one thing especially on the world stage and the game of politics.  The real test is whether the funding dries up, telling the organization that what they are doing is not supported. 
In addition the goals of the organizations are uniquely derived from their interpretation of Islam.  To institute an Islamic state, and destroy the West and all it's materialism.
So I believe the use of Islam is a fair and accurate description.  When the rich and powerful in the world of Islam do not support these organizations they will cease to exist.  IMHO. 

I'm sorry for the detour Lady Thatcher.  RIP.

doodle wrote: By the way, Chomsky claims that gov expenditure to GNP rose under Thatcher. Anyone care to verify that? If that is the case which Thatcher are we talking about? The real one, or the myth?

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... r-thatcher

According to this article, although public spending did rise under Thatcher, it fell as a share of GDP, from 44.6% when she took office, to 39.2% when she left office.

Ad Orientem wrote: Just for the record, while there is much that I admire about her and her record, there is also much that I disagree with. My own politics are virtually a definition for cognitive dissonance... being a divine right monarchist with classical liberal sympathies.

Not to get even further off topic, but care to expound a bit on the monarchist part?  Is that some version of Plato's philosopher king?

doodle wrote: Back to Thatcher, as Chomsky pointed out in the video Thatcher was a statist just like Reagan with a penchant for lavishing the military and wealthy elite instead of the lower classes. I would argue that much of her success was a consequence of the opportune time in which she came to office that was coincidentally coinciding with a huge new energy discovery.

That's sort of what I was thinking as well.

On a somewhat related topic, I often notice how British actors just seem better than American actors as a group.  They seem more nuanced in everything they do.  They understand how to use language in far more subtle ways, they fill their roles more completely and the audience seems to suspect it is being lied to much less often when British actors are on screen.  This legitimizing effect of British actors is so strong that I see many American films that have British actors scattered through them seemingly just to help the audience not notice how dumb the movie is at its core.  The original Star Wars movie is one example of this practice.

Reagan and Thatcher basically took the dynamic I am describing above and applied it to politics with great success.