Maggie Thatcher “The Milk Snatcher” as she was dubbed for abolishing the half pint of milk given to every primary school child in England since the war. She was a junior Minister in Ted Heath’s government at the time. But this showed real promise, of the hard headed, cost cutting, welfare snatching that the economy, she was so convinced, really needed.
Now where did she get her economic dogma? Keith Joseph? Freidrich Hayek? Well no, not really. For a fake construct like Maggie Thatcher that would be too much to absorb intellectually. No. She got all her “economic” thinking and practice from, who else? Her Dad. The grocer.
She had such an impact on changing the whole of global economics to the heartless (milk snatching from the weak) to rewarding “hard work” (tax breaks for the rich at the expense of those struggling to make ends meet) that she has left us with that ingrained legacy. Corner grocery book keeping. Probably on the back of a grubby scrap of paper. History is beginning to reassess her (not kindly), nevertheless she has indelibly marked current “economic” practice in this way.
You only have to look at how the EZ brilliant minds and the IMF are dealing…. well not dealing but exacerbating, the current European crisis. Static numbers and “targets”: You have to reduce your deficit, so how do you do this? Simple really! Any corner grocer can tell you that much! You slash your costs and raise taxes. There now.
It remains amazing, and I am sure it will be the subject of many a Ph.D. thesis in the future, how the combined strength and glory of European if not global leaders clean forgot, or had no idea in the first place, how an economy really works. Do I really need to point out that the more you cut costs while at the same time hiking all taxes (direct and indirect) all you do is trigger a recession and thereby fall short of expected tax revenue? Oh no. That did not arise in daddy’s corner grocery shop. So Brussels, the euphemism for Berlin and all the others never let this simple fact of economic life bother their dear little heads.
Now, going from bad to worse we have Frau Merkel and her upbringing not only in East Germany but with a Pastor Dad. It does not appear that she had any trouble with the established order of her youth and appears to have been a party member. But be that as it may. I have no doubt this was innocent enough in that she did not bother, or was intellectually unable, to think about these things.
But getting back to Daddy dearest. A Protestant Pastor, preaching fire and brimstone for sinners! That is her way of dealing with economic problems, along with corner grocery shop accounting. We have a problem. Whose fault is it? (Not how did it happen?) The Greeks! because they were profligate and lazy and borrowed too much! Answer. They must be punished for their sins! They must be made to suffer and feel the pain they justly deserve from deviating from the word of God!
What about economic recovery though? No. They do not deserve it! The programme imposed on them is not even meant to lead to any kind of economic recovery. It has been devised to punish them and and teach them some discipline and make them follow my rules. Which are the only rules. Carved in stone. Like the ten commandments.
Well, we have seen and are seeing the destruction wreaked by these two Daddies’ daughters so influenced by their admired fathers. A destruction that is far from having been completed and promises to perhaps bring the whole temple crashing down. Like Sampson. (Sorry about that but Merkel’s Bible study is contagious.)
However, the irony is that, firstly in Thatcher’s case, for all her talk of hard work, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, doing away with the molly coddling of the welfare state and standing on your own two feet, she herself chose the easy way out. She married a rich husband, as a substitute for the welfare state, and her own son Mark*, appears to have made his way in life through dodgy deals, rather than hard, honest work.
As for The Frau, for all her ideas of punishing the sinful! The only “sinners” she can see and goes about punishing without any mercy whatsoever, are what, in the gospels are called, the meek of the earth. The poor, the destitute, the down trodden. Those who cannot fight back.
With such a moral, Protestant stand, one can’t help wondering why she is doing all this merely to prop up and “save” the practitioners of usury. Why outrageous profiteering at the expense of the meek never comes in for her opprobrium. Why the lying and outright deceit of her favourites, such as Antonis Samaras, never comes in for even a slap on the wrist. Oh no. Moral judgement is reserved only for those who get in her way. And those who are too weak to fight back.
In short. The classic case of the bully. In both cases. We may snigger and laugh at Thatcher’s false, contrived upper class accent, at Merkel’s appalling sartorial sense and plodding inelegance. However, the fact remains, that these two women, so devoted to their fathers’ practices, have managed between them to abolish all sense of human values, compassion and social justice.
* From Wikipedia on Mark Thatcher
Business career
In 1998 South African authorities investigated his firm for allegedly running loan shark operations. A company owned by Thatcher offered unofficial small loans to hundreds of police officers, military personnel and civil servants. Those who defaulted were pursued by debt collectors and charged 20% interest rates, according to the Star of Johannesburg.[8]According to The Daily Telegraph of 26 August 2004: “In 1998, he was at the centre of a scandal after he lent huge sums of money at exorbitant interest rates to more than 900 local police officers and civil servants in Cape Town. He admitted lending the cash but insisted that he had done nothing wrong. He is also thought to have profited from contracts to supply aviation fuel in various African countries.”[11]
Other embarrassments include allegations of U.S. tax evasion (a criminal case was eventually dropped) and a racketeering case in Texas which was settled out of court. TheSunday Times, quoting “city sources”, said he had amassed a personal fortune of £60 million, most of which is in offshore accounts, attributed to shrewd investments and a series of “astute deals in Africa”.[8]