1980s: Best Decade?

>>2696130
Having grown up in them... fuck no.

Economics:
The consolidation of the rich over the poor. Where I live, 80s Britain was grim, poor, and despressing. Suicide rate increased massively with the high resulting unemployment.

Social/fashion/music:
Rose-tinted glasses here. There was far, far more shit music and fashion than the good parts you've decided to cherry-pick.

Politics:
Yeah, the ever-present threats of nuclear war and Irish terrorism were great.

Grow up, kid.

File: 1446384991129.jpg (67KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1024x768px

>>2696166
When has Britain not been a depressing shithole?

Anyways, this thread was made to talk about the 80s in the only country that actually matters.

>>2696192
That picture is a joke, literally so. It's satire.

> When has Britain not been a depressing shithole?
Any time not in the 80s.

> Anyways, this thread was made to talk about the 80s in the only country that actually matters.
Yeah, Britain.

>>2696130
>Neoliberalism
>Good

fuck off

File: 1464808349385.jpg (31KB, 229x377px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 229x377px

>>2696215
>Yeah, Britain.

File: inflation.jpg (23KB, 624x363px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 624x363px

>>2696166
>high resulting unemployment

So what did you think 25% inflation like the 70s was somehow sustainable?

Also you're focusing solely on the UK and not the globe as a whole. The 80s saw the introduction of pro-market policies that have objectively taken more than one billion out of poverty. China and India may have huge inequality problems, but Chang and Pajeet are only working at Foxconn and Wipro because of the 1980s.

>>2696217
If you're a leftie, fuck off.

If you're a right wing with a decent argument against free trade, note that most of the free trade shit like NAFTA and Chinese accession to the WTO happened in the 90s, not the 80s. Most American manufacturing got gutted in the 1990s, not in the 1980s. Reagan implemented various tariffs to protect select sectors while also expanding free trade.

File: 9714df019f62e28bcd2eaceeb9245b3701f304291993caef17f2f601ba832c50.gif (613KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 498x498px

>>2696227
>no arguments for a leftie
lel

File: 1467748151886.jpg (46KB, 480x469px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x469px

>>2696227
80s is when supply side economics replaced Keynesianism as the de facto economic doctrine of the United States.

So far, this has caused at least one global recession, a wave of state failure, and a dramatic shift in political power from individuals to corporations in the developed world.

That's bad.

File: unemployment-1980s.png (53KB, 640x464px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 640x464px

>>2696221
Indeed. The resulting globalisation was good for the globe, but it absolutely decimated northern England. Still hasn't recovered now.

The my childhood in that 80s northern England obviously coloured my entire view of the 80s, and always will.

Utterly loathsome decade. Not a single good came out of it.

>>2696130
>Thinking Thatcher was good

Back the fuck off, nigger.

>>2696266
Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher.

>>2696240
>Supply side economics as the de facto economic doctrine

Perhaps as the doctrine of the Republican Party, but the growth of Rubinomics in the Democratic Party clearly suggests the opposite. Even George H.W. Bush wasn't a supply sider and he was a Republican, he called them "voodoo economists" and hiked taxes. Clinton did engage in deregulation, but that's not supply side economics. If you're going to say a school of economics won the 1980s, it'd be monetarism, which involves the central bank using monetary policy to avoid recessions, which objectively speaking did work during that time frame.

>caused at least one global recession

S&L, Dot Com, or 2008, which one was caused by supply side and please explain exactly how you reached that conclusion. You're most likely talking about 2008, which to blame on tax cuts is pretty much autistic. Supply side economics deals specifically with tax cuts, deregulation has occurred under Republican administrations (Reagan, I guess Bush Jr. too) and Democrats (Jimmy Carter started with deregulating the airlines, Bill Clinton deregulated telecoms and repealed Glass-Steagall).

Now, if you're arguing deregulation caused the financial crisis, that's a bit more cogent argument, but looking specifically at Glass-Steagall, the banks that were most in trouble during the financial crisis: Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs, were all pure investment banks and didn't have retail arms. Commercial banks like Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citi weathered the crisis much better. And there's significant evidence to suggest Glass-Steagall would've prolonged the recession since you wouldn't have had mergers like Bank of America and Merrill Lynch happening that reduced the bailout burden on the government.

Glass-Steagall being put in today would most likely favor banks like Goldman Sachs, whose commercial arms are significantly less profitable compared to their investment branches.

>>2696247
>the effect of these policies on one small region of my country should dictate whether these were the best times or not

Roaring Twenties were still the roaring twenties even though German hyperinflation happened at the same time

>>2696239
Every economist worth their salt from Milton Friedman to Paul Krugman would agree globalization has had a net economic benefit for all involved parties.

>>2696289
I'm going to be frank, I have a habit of bundling multiple ideologies under one phrase, and then using that phrase as if people understand what I'm talking about.

Like, I'll use "Confucianism" to refer to not only Confucianism, but also legalism, Taoism, and every other Chinese political philosophy, and then not explain what I'm doing.

In this case, I was using supply side economics as a buzzword for neoliberalism, neoclassical economics, laissez-faire economics and the Reagan Revolution in general.

I do these things because it is very rare that anyone else in the thread reads books, and because I am lazy.

The pop culture aspect fascinates me. This is back when punk was a real thing, and not a (wildly neutered) fashion statement and when metal had riffs and solos and not a bunch of whiney faggots like today. Then the 90s came along and music went to shit with its whiney grunge bullshit.

>>2696313
You got this backwards.

>80s: hair metal, lycra, synthpop, and other faggotry
>90s: distortion, drop d tuning, and the record companies throwing money at every weird garage band they can find because Nevermind sold 20 million copies

>>2696321
I'd much rather listen to dudes dressed like women playing actually good music than listen to Eddie Vedder gargle mouthwash to an un-headbangable song.

>>2696359
>implying you have to listen to either one of those things

Go listen to Faith No More

>>2696299

Yet who has disproportionately faced the drawbacks of globalization? Certainly not the economic and political elites who drove it. The working-class in the West has been in slow decline since the Trilateral Commission decided that democracy and labor had to be stamped down on.

In terms of living standards, the West peaked in the 1960s and early 1970s. Neoliberal robbers tore apart everything that made those decades good. And here's a good 1980s song about why that decade was shit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPuTlCYiSo

>>2696458
That's not when we peaked.

That's when we fell.

>>2696481

A fall starts right after a peak, dumbass.