So I was doing a bit of a deeper dive last night after reading this to learn a bit more, and I will continue.
However, there is a stark contrast between the objectives of the Thatcher and Milei governments eventhough they may have shared some of the same results and objectives.
The Thatcher government goal was to destroy the miners union which cost their party previous elections.
Due to the impact of previous strikes, the Thatcher government was better prepared to mitigate its impact come the major strike in 1984.
UK Coal was just to expensive at this point, the mines were not economic and couldn't compete with importing coal also.
The government shut the mines, which not only ended approximately 200k jobs directly, but it impacted many of the small towns and cities that were built and supported by the mining operations and employees. When they lost jobs, they didn't have money to spend in town. Towns essentially became ghost towns, many divorces, mental health issues etc.
Milei is not actively trying to destroy a particular industry. He is simply opening up the country to competition and investment.
The business that adapt will survive, those that do not will likely die. Others will continue to exist because they are not impacted.
Worth noting, the role extractive industries can have on an economy both directly and indirectly (clearly it provided well while it existed).
Under thatcher the deficit as a percent of GDP also shrunk drastically putting the country back into better fiscal shape.
The Thatcher government reduced government spending from 45% of GDP to 30% (both a result of reduced spending and growing GDP). Debt to GDP fell from 46% to 32% from 1980 to 1990.
Manufacturing went from 17.6% to 15.2% of GDP.
Edit: Addition, for reference the US National Debt went from $900M to $3T from 1980 to 1990, or 31% to 54% Debt to GDP.
I do not feel I can see inside the heads of either thatcher or milei. I think you have a very optimistic take on both.
Thatcher did FAR more than just break the mine union and destroy the english mining industry. (which, incidentally, caused poverty, destruction of communities, and economic doom to many areas that continue to this day)
I highly recommend reading the recent autobiography of the incredible Fiona Hill, who knows a LOT more than I about both the destruction of the British Economy, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the inside Skinny on the Trump administration moves that Milei copies. She lived thru it all, and nails it.
Trump’s former Russia adviser charts her journey from County Durham to DC, showing how populism thrives when communities are abandoned
www.theguardian.com
Listen to the excellent Jazz Butcher song, and Pat Fish delineates a dozen or more other industries and services Thatcher destroyed.
not even counting the interest rate increases, the cuts to pensions and social services and health care system.
Much like Milei, she also cut the education system in multiple ways, a move Milei is parroting. She slashed funding, and that led in turn to gigantic increases in tuition, less tenure, and a government control of a hitherto relatively independent system of universities.
Like many so called libertarians, they both actually want to exercise much more political and ideological control, not less.
But Britain is only one example- Austerity always makes things worse. Nebraska, the most Libertarian state in the USA has, since following the dogma, increased it deficit enormously, and yet, cut all kinds of services, thus increasing unemployment, bankruptcies both personal and business, and lost gdp and sales volumes compared with surrounding states that are still normal.
You are evidently a deficit hawk- which, like libertarianism, has basically never been proven to actually benefit countries.
Its an ideological opinion based "economic" theory, which has not been proven to be beneficial in real life.
Government, when it works, does not abandon everybody to the whims of capital, and shrug its shoulders when businesses dont survive.
Instead, its purpose is to help the people live better, not the corporations to profit more.
Again, look to Japan, or Sweden, Austria or France, Korea or Singapore, where healthy economies go hand in hand with a high standard of living, and GDP's are not the sole definer of success.
