The Iron lady

[Stewball]

All that said, I'd really like to get down to what I see as the main issue here, not the historical Maggie Thatcher, but the movie here portraying her. Something is going on in smoke filled rooms behind closed doors. Why would leftist Hollywood, with a (presumably leftist) A+ list actress take on this mostly pro-conservative project. Of course seeing the movie would probably help in such an evaluation, but it may not be that necessary if people take my word for at least what happened on the screen. Is this a political shift, a flash-in-the-pan, beyond comprehension, what?

[Okkervil]

All that said, I'd really like to get down to what I see as the main issue here, not the historical Maggie Thatcher, but the movie here portraying her. Something is going on in smoke filled rooms behind closed doors. Why would leftist Hollywood, with a (presumably leftist) A+ list actress take on this mostly pro-conservative project. Of course seeing the movie would probably help in such an evaluation, but it may not be that necessary if people take my word for at least what happened on the screen. Is this a political shift, a flash-in-the-pan, beyond comprehension, what?

It's a very valid question. No matter what your view on Thatcher as a person or personal poltical bias, Maggie was undoubtedly extreamly charismatic. and individually she was a fascinating person. If nothing else her story could be interesting if it just focused on her femininity and relentless drive to achieve in a male dominated world. She undoubtedly did that.
It will be interesting to see how much the movie focuses on politics and ideology, but (and Im guessing here) I would have thought a character study would be more likely. As you rightly point out Hollywood is undeniably left leaning, but if pitched right this movie could please both the liberal and the more conservative press. A movie about Thatcher must have some pro-conservative elements, it would be tricky to make one about her that didn't. But at the same time a movie about such a powerful female and her significant (if divisive ) achivements is something that could appeal to the liberal media too.
As for political shift? Well, no, i don't think so. Its one movie and one actress, and there will many more movies this year focusing on much more liberal characters that Maggie I would bet? But I can see why any actress, leftist or not, would want to take on Thatcher as a role. She's one of the most defining people of the 80's and a sort of odd feminist role model.

[CMonster]

This one time on the Wire the dock worker's union was smuggling heroin and other stuff into Baltimore. McNulty had been transferred from his usual position as a murder detective to be one of the boat police on the river. When a body that had initially been deemed a suicide got linked to a shipping container full of dead Easter European prostitutes, he got roped into joining the investigation and his old habits of drinking and cheating on his wife. They almost caught the top smuggler who was paying the dock workers union to get the stuff into Baltimore, but because of the higher ups in the police department they moved in to soon to get the top guy even though they got a bunch of dope which looked good to the media. It was awesome. Also Ziggy's duck died.

[Stewball]

It will be interesting to see how much the movie focuses on politics and ideology, but (and Im guessing here) I would have thought a character study would be more likely.

I'd say it was 60-40, character/ideology, although that's a WAG since it's both a lot of the time. Even the time spent on her younger years covers the influence of her father on both.

As you rightly point out Hollywood is undeniably left leaning, but if pitched right this movie could please both the liberal and the more conservative press. A movie about Thatcher must have some pro-conservative elements, it would be tricky to make one about her that didn't. But at the same time a movie about such a powerful female and her significant (if divisive ) achivements is something that could appeal to the liberal media too.

Yes, it portrayed Thatcher as enjoying her superiority over men. I assume that is true, and Streep appeared to enjoy executing that role immensely. No doubt the one reflected the other. I'm sure it's feminist stance helped sell it in spite of the political history.

As for political shift? Well, no, i don't think so. Its one movie and one actress, and there will many more movies this year focusing on much more liberal characters that Maggie I would bet? But I can see why any actress, leftist or not, would want to take on Thatcher as a role. She's one of the most defining people of the 80's and a sort of odd feminist role model.

There have been conservative rumblings coming from Hollywood for a while. I first noticed it with Scott's Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, and there have been several movies with often subdued, anti-big government messages in the last 10 years: The Lost City, Harry Brown, Pirate Radio, Mao's Last Dancer, Robin Hood, V for Vendetta, Atlas Shrugged and The Help. These are those besides the generic patriotic, pro-positive values, go America stuff. I sense a split and turmoil that surfaced a bit on the last one, The Help. I think Hollywood (GENERALLY) is coming down in favor of it while liberal academia doesn't like it--too much credit given to the white woman's assistance, er "help". In line with that, Emma Stone is being ignored completely, and the movie may not even be nominated for an Oscar. We'll see how things fall out on that movie, and on big government in the future as well.

If Streep wins best actress (IF she's nominated) and she should, I expect her speech to be much more telling than her Golden Globe one, which was very conciliatory to the UK (being American and all I guess). But then Jodie Foster had a problem reconciling her pro-gun control opinion with her role in The Brave One when she said, "I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being." Was she acting when she said that? Are her body guards thinking, feeling, breathing human beings with hands.

Playwright, director and screenwriter David Mamet, a recovering liberal who wrote "The Secret Knowledge" explaining his conversion to conservatism, said that actors tend to be liberal (?emoticons? ), while directors and producers tend to be economic conservatives (in private) because they work with the numbers and the economics of the industry. There's no greater example of someone biting the hand that feeds him than Michael Moore who has milked the capitalist system for millions upon millions.

[Stewball]

I only ask that my parents (who I can also assure you are very hard workers) make a wage that allows them to live comfortably, something that seems to get harder and harder every year. And I think that is all others ask also: keep wages competitive with costs.

I think the biggest problem here would be do define what exactly is meant by "live comfortably".

No, the biggest problem is getting the government out of the way of economic freedom and success. I'm not arguing against government regulation, only against massive government legislation that all too often benefits those legislators.

[CMonster]

This one time an cranky old senator was scheming to make a bunch of money by closing a boy scout camp. His legislation also was written to benefit him. Then the junior senator from that state went on a huge filibuster to stop the legislation. Then some boy scouts showed up and convinced Congress to not close the camp. True story.

[tef]

Nowadays unions provide mostly fringe benefits, rather than wage superiority. The longstanding existence of unions in certain sectors requires non-unionized employers to mostly match the conditions of the unionized workforce, primarily in terms of pay/leave. So to state that as demand for labor drops unions exacerbate unemployment isn't really useful.

[ShogunRua]

Nowadays unions provide mostly fringe benefits, rather than wage superiority. The longstanding existence of unions in certain sectors requires non-unionized employers to mostly match the conditions of the unionized workforce, primarily in terms of pay/leave. So to state that as demand for labor drops unions exacerbate unemployment isn't really useful.

Except for your last sentence, what you wrote is completely true. However, the conclusion you draw is inaccurate.

Yes, if unions get involved in a certain industry, they drive up salaries/benefits for non-union members in the industry, too. However, without any (or very few) unions in that particular industry, the salaries/benefits would drop, and employment would go up as well.

[tef]

You're making an assumption that isn't backed by evidence. The unionization rate in the private sector (US) has gone down by quite a lot to a current rate of only 7-8%. If your contention was true the prevailing wages would have gone down as well across that 50 year time span in which the unionization rate has declined. But they haven't. Of course there are always temporary recessions but that doesn't make your case.

The idea that certain variables change (union density, wages) and other variables won't (payroll allotment) is a fiction. The real world is more complex than that, any variable can change. Walter Reuther fought GM on these grounds and won, and left GM a highly profitable company. You will argue that he did so in profitable times (as Europe was devastated so America's manufacturing had a global market) but this neglects the basic fact that many economists ignore: unions accept lower wages too, they aren't always mindlessly gobbling up money.

Leaving all that aside, the only reason I made a reply (I have no intention of seeing this film, biopics tend to bore the shit out of me) is because the idea that most economists have re: unions make me laugh. In the US public union density is high, but in the private sector is so sparse as to be a much smaller factor in our economic health than say, technological innovation, exports, etc. If I were concerned with the health of the economy I'd be more concerned about the fact that most of our kids don't become scientists or engineers that produce the innovations that allow for production increases. That and income disparity.

[Stewball]

(I have no intention of seeing this film, biopics tend to bore the shit out of me)

Most likely because they aren't relevant to current events (e.g. The King's Speech), but looking at the discussion here, this one obviously is, dealing as it does with economics in general and unions in particular. Also it employs meaningful character development and excellent dialogue, not to mention Streep taking this movie and the thespian art to a pinnacle--and whoever was paying homage the patron god of make up. I have to mention as well she'll probably win the Oscar and should, but that begs the question of why this movie wasn't nominated while Hugo, Moneyball and War Horse were. I know the AAs are so fucking inbred, but god help me, I love movies so I care.

I was agreeing with your other comments down to here:

If I were concerned with the health of the economy I'd be more concerned about the fact that most of our kids don't become scientists or engineers that produce the innovations that allow for production increases.

True, but, if we want the electorate to know about how our elected politicians demagogue us, we first and foremost need a basic eduction in economics, while most get none--by design. About the engineers thing, besides the fact that we just don't turn them out, the question remains, so what if we did, would they be committing suicide like they did in China? (See below** for Limbaugh's positive summation of a NY Times article on it).

That and income disparity.

It's one thing to decry an income disparity, but the issue is the proposed solution: Solve it by reducing government getting it out of the way and letting the market build a strong economy with minimal regulation;..... or by confiscation/gratuitous wealth redistribution which undermines the economy like the collapse of a network of poorly constructed mines, to use a topical metaphor?

**http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/23/why_apple_can_t_make_iphones_in_america