Reaganism and Thatcherism were about two things: divesting gov't of businesses they needed to start up, and lowering top tax rates. Because of risk, certain industries need to be started by gov. For example, railways, airlines, and some natural resources. Then, when a competitive market has developed, they are to be privatized. This practice occurred all over the world. (Note 1: smaller countries often keep their airlines public because a market isn't possible. Note 2: usually this happens under a conservative government but not always. Liberals in Ontario just privatized their power company.) Long story short, Reaganism and Thatcherism was mostly about this privatization of public owned assets (companies) and they were right. It was time since most of them (e.g., phone companies) had been around 40 years and were matured. As for tax rates, economic thinking changed during the same period. New thinking said people stop working when more than half their money goes to tax. Again, both were right because it's happened all over the world and liberal governments haven't reversed it.
I found both articles to be light. (Bye the way, I've written a book on this topic.). Canada did the same two things that Reagan and Thatcher did, and both were correct. The US argument against the welfare state is uniquely American. The UK very much has a robust one and so does Canada. For example, in Canada, new parents get paid leave through our unemployment insurance program. And this feature has been around for 30 years. (Started with 6 months, went to 12, changed to either parent, and can now be shared between parents for up to 18 months, at a reduced rate.) The US has nothing like this through government (i.e., the welfare state). Maybe some get something through private insurance, but this doesn't include everyone. I don't blame Americans, perhaps like yourself, who complain there is no party for everyday people. But that's an American problem. It's not general political ideology. Every other modern nation has a robust welfare state. And here's what's funny. The term progressive conservative was devised by Teddy Roosevelt. Wish I could send you a chapter but don't think that would be appropriate on someone else's site. So much confusion always comes down to definitions. :)
It's free on Substack. Just search my name. Then hit Book of Knowledge and use scroll arrows. Idea is a basic education on history, politics, economics, and more. It all ties together. And though I'm Canadian, it talks US and UK as well.
It dates back to Mespotamia.
It all dates to the serpent ;)
Reaganism and Thatcherism were about two things: divesting gov't of businesses they needed to start up, and lowering top tax rates. Because of risk, certain industries need to be started by gov. For example, railways, airlines, and some natural resources. Then, when a competitive market has developed, they are to be privatized. This practice occurred all over the world. (Note 1: smaller countries often keep their airlines public because a market isn't possible. Note 2: usually this happens under a conservative government but not always. Liberals in Ontario just privatized their power company.) Long story short, Reaganism and Thatcherism was mostly about this privatization of public owned assets (companies) and they were right. It was time since most of them (e.g., phone companies) had been around 40 years and were matured. As for tax rates, economic thinking changed during the same period. New thinking said people stop working when more than half their money goes to tax. Again, both were right because it's happened all over the world and liberal governments haven't reversed it.
Cut the taxes, baby! If lower taxes are better then zero tax would be better than 28%, right? Why don't they eliminate the taxes?
Showtime has a great series called The Reagans. Donny is not so different from Ronny, it seems.
It's always a balancing act but taxes can't go to zero. The new concept only says there is a limit as to "how high."
I found both articles to be light. (Bye the way, I've written a book on this topic.). Canada did the same two things that Reagan and Thatcher did, and both were correct. The US argument against the welfare state is uniquely American. The UK very much has a robust one and so does Canada. For example, in Canada, new parents get paid leave through our unemployment insurance program. And this feature has been around for 30 years. (Started with 6 months, went to 12, changed to either parent, and can now be shared between parents for up to 18 months, at a reduced rate.) The US has nothing like this through government (i.e., the welfare state). Maybe some get something through private insurance, but this doesn't include everyone. I don't blame Americans, perhaps like yourself, who complain there is no party for everyday people. But that's an American problem. It's not general political ideology. Every other modern nation has a robust welfare state. And here's what's funny. The term progressive conservative was devised by Teddy Roosevelt. Wish I could send you a chapter but don't think that would be appropriate on someone else's site. So much confusion always comes down to definitions. :)
It's free on Substack. Just search my name. Then hit Book of Knowledge and use scroll arrows. Idea is a basic education on history, politics, economics, and more. It all ties together. And though I'm Canadian, it talks US and UK as well.