EPT
this whole shit just makes me a little bit to mad sometimes ...
The European Debt Crisis and the Euro - Page 88
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Gaga
Germany433 Posts
this whole shit just makes me a little bit to mad sometimes ... | ||
|
fleeze
Germany895 Posts
On July 05 2012 00:10 Gaga wrote: the best part is that we(germans) are directly on the path of paying for the depts of whole europe and that includes the dept by lowering the pension age to 60 in france while we work till 67. and you tell us to shut up while begging for our money ? yeah ... why don't we just quit this Euro shit... then your arguments gets valid again. and dont start with germany profiting from the euro shit again ... delivering stuff on credit that won't be paid back is not profiting. we did very well with the DM if you remember history. please do not post again in a topic you don't understand at all. thanks. | ||
|
tekos44
France280 Posts
It has already been reinstated. And fyi french bonds interest rates are the lowest ever. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/government-bond-yield | ||
|
Gaga
Germany433 Posts
but as i said i overreacted on that matter... but i has a true core. fleeze if you have another understanding of the matter feel free to share. or at least tell me what you think is wrong. as you are german you could also watch this vid to get an understanding where i come from : | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On July 05 2012 00:54 tekos44 wrote: The retirement at 60 promise was about people who began to work at or under 18 yo (roughly 200 000 people in France) It has already been reinstated. Huh, so it was a myth after all. I thought they really promised it for the whole population. | ||
|
ChApFoU
France2986 Posts
On July 05 2012 01:17 Kukaracha wrote: Huh, so it was a myth after all. I thought they really promised it for the whole population. Total myth, just like the raise of the number of state agents. Ppl like to cry wolf, and politicians from both sides like it too, esp when it's the other guys who are in charge. | ||
HaN-
France1921 Posts
To me this is inevitably the very begining of a new Great Depression of some kind, and its easy to have an idea of what this might lead to... Thx god we have videogames! | ||
|
sinii
England989 Posts
On July 05 2012 00:54 tekos44 wrote: The retirement at 60 promise was about people who began to work at or under 18 yo (roughly 200 000 people in France) It has already been reinstated. And fyi french bonds interest rates are the lowest ever. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/france/government-bond-yield Interesting, does this apply to any form of work, or just full time work? Because in the UK I would say a large part of the population started part time taxable work at 16, I know I did. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On July 05 2012 01:35 HaN- wrote: This crisis is, I feel, much more serious than people thinks. To me this is inevitably the very begining of a new Great Depression of some kind, and its easy to have an idea of what this might lead to... Thx god we have videogames! Some think that we already are in recession, and that the INSEE is being too optimistic in growth estimations. Makes sense, in a scary way. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Poor workers will now experience a lavish lifestyle with their extra 27 € raise. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 05 2012 00:10 Gaga wrote: the best part is that we(germans) are directly on the path of paying for the depts of whole europe and that includes the dept by lowering the pension age to 60 in france while we work till 67. and you tell us to shut up while begging for our money ? yeah ... why don't we just quit this Euro shit... then your arguments gets valid again. and dont start with germany profiting from the euro shit again ... delivering stuff on credit that won't be paid back is not profiting. we did very well with the DM if you remember history. You don't understand anything from the get go, how about you educate yourself before posting. For exemple, France will not lower pension to 60, only for some people, in certain type of hard physical work and who started early. And the idea about lowering pension is that we have such a high unemployment, that it is better to put people in retirement than having unemployed people. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
The thing is, no other new taxes have been announced or applied (except a sort of Tobin tax, which is a neglectable european measure). It is therefore nonsensical to say that capital is already fleeing the country - if it was (and it isn't), it would be for other reasons. I agree completely, it isn't happening at the moment, people never actually change until things start having an effect on them. California and New York didn't start having serious capital flight until after several years of too onerous policies and it wasn't until several years after that the lack of serious response to this caused the budgetary and economic problems they are facing now to start severely impacting the general population. New York has done much better than California has because their policies first off weren't so stifling and they haven't totally just bulled ahead without thought to the consequences already suffered the way California has. I just don't think France can escape bad consequences from tax rates and regulatory policies that seem more punitive in intent than anything else - rich people and capitalists/corporations are bad, so we have to punish their finances and ability to create more wealth, we have to impose penance on them. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 05 2012 03:38 DeepElemBlues wrote: I agree completely, it isn't happening at the moment, people never actually change until things start having an effect on them. California and New York didn't start having serious capital flight until after several years of too onerous policies and it wasn't until several years after that the lack of serious response to this caused the budgetary and economic problems they are facing now to start severely impacting the general population. New York has done much better than California has because their policies first off weren't so stifling and they haven't totally just bulled ahead without thought to the consequences already suffered the way California has. I just don't think France can escape bad consequences from tax rates and regulatory policies that seem more punitive in intent than anything else - rich people and capitalists/corporations are bad, so we have to punish their finances and ability to create more wealth, we have to impose penance on them. What you think is not really relevant to the case at hand. What you fail to understand is that socialist in France are quite censensual. They're not what you usually name as "socialist", they are more like Obama type of politician and will not higher the tax rate - or if they did, they will did it in a way that will not touch a lot of people. By the way, rich people never helped economy. Kuznet curve was proved wrong decades ago when developped country started to rise. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
By the way, rich people never helped economy. Kuznet curve was proved wrong decades ago when developped country started to rise. The Kuznet curve is not the be-all, end-all of economics theories regarding what the wealthy contribute to an economy. And the statement that rich people never helped an economy is typical of the nonsense assertions you regularly put out. Just as an example of how ridiculous that statement is, in 1990 a luxury tax of 10% was imposed on new yachts valued over $100,000 in the United States. The number of rich people buying yachts plummeted. The number of workers in the industry dropped by 30,000. 30,000 people lost their jobs. The fact that the tax was responsible for less economic activity is beside the point I'm making here: rich people certainly do help an economy by spending large amounts of money, and when they don't, an economy is harmed by the loss of funds available to pay workers. Just as the middle class and poor spending large amounts of money not individually but as a whole creates economic activity, the expression of which is jobs, and their not spending money causes less economic activity that translates into job losses or at the least lower job creation or stagnation of job creation. For someone that makes very strong statements about economics all the time it's just amazing how so many of them make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I spend $100,000, a not-insignificant chunk of that $100,000 goes to salaries that are spent and help pay other people's salaries. I don't spend $100,000, that money isn't paying anyone's salaries or going to anyone's profits. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/jan-june96/budget_01-01.html These are the carpenters, fiberglass, and metal workers, electricians who actually did the work. Most are first and second generation Portuguese, skilled craftsmen with a specialty in boat-building. They are not rich, but their glad Joe Dockery is. His one order alone kept 20 workers employed full-time at Alden for two and a half years. And that's not counting the subcontractors who built the 100-foot carbon-fiber mast, molded the lightweight high-tech hull, and sewed the sails. Tony Abreau made all the customized stainless steel pieces. But remember, rich people never helped an economy. Ever! Those people being able to provide livelihoods for themselves and their families because of rich people buying yachts, that is not rich people helping the economy! Because WhiteDog says so. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On July 05 2012 05:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: What you think is not really relevant either then. You disagree me, you're irrelevant! The Kuznet curve is not the be-all, end-all of economics theories regarding what the wealthy contribute to an economy. And the statement that rich people never helped an economy is typical of the nonsense assertions you regularly put out. Just as an example of how ridiculous that statement is, in 1990 a luxury tax of 10% was imposed on new yachts valued over $100,000 in the United States. The number of rich people buying yachts plummeted. The number of workers in the industry dropped by 30,000. 30,000 people lost their jobs. The fact that the tax was responsible for less economic activity is beside the point I'm making here: rich people certainly do help an economy by spending large amounts of money, and when they don't, an economy is harmed by the loss of funds available to pay workers. Just as the middle class and poor spending large amounts of money not individually but as a whole creates economic activity, the expression of which is jobs, and their not spending money causes less economic activity that translates into job losses or at the least lower job creation or stagnation of job creation. For someone that makes very strong statements about economics all the time it's just amazing how so many of them make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I spend $100,000, a not-insignificant chunk of that $100,000 goes to salaries that are spent and help pay other people's salaries. I don't spend $100,000, that money isn't paying anyone's salaries or going to anyone's profits. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/jan-june96/budget_01-01.html But remember, rich people never helped an economy. Ever! Those people being able to provide livelihoods for themselves and their families because of rich people buying yachts, that is not rich people helping the economy! Because WhiteDog says so. Your exemple exactly showed why rich people don't help the economy. If instead of 1 000 rich yacht buyers you would have had a billion people with 100 $ more, it would have create way more for the economy than those poor 30 000 jobs. I don't say so out of the blue, Keynes basically said that 80 years ago in the general theory, where he explain that equity is a necessity for economic efficience. Even people such as Milton Friedman never argued rich people are valuable to the economy only because they have a huge pack of money, but because they give incentive to people : the perspective of being rich needs them, and that perspective boost the economy. I was talking about the kuznets curve, because we see now that developping country that are the most sucessful are not the one with the most rich people, but the one with the least inequality. Don't be that frustrated by the way, being wrong happen to anybody. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On July 05 2012 05:12 DeepElemBlues wrote: What you think is not really relevant either then. You disagree me, you're irrelevant! The Kuznet curve is not the be-all, end-all of economics theories regarding what the wealthy contribute to an economy. And the statement that rich people never helped an economy is typical of the nonsense assertions you regularly put out. Just as an example of how ridiculous that statement is, in 1990 a luxury tax of 10% was imposed on new yachts valued over $100,000 in the United States. The number of rich people buying yachts plummeted. The number of workers in the industry dropped by 30,000. 30,000 people lost their jobs. The fact that the tax was responsible for less economic activity is beside the point I'm making here: rich people certainly do help an economy by spending large amounts of money, and when they don't, an economy is harmed by the loss of funds available to pay workers. Just as the middle class and poor spending large amounts of money not individually but as a whole creates economic activity, the expression of which is jobs, and their not spending money causes less economic activity that translates into job losses or at the least lower job creation or stagnation of job creation. For someone that makes very strong statements about economics all the time it's just amazing how so many of them make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I spend $100,000, a not-insignificant chunk of that $100,000 goes to salaries that are spent and help pay other people's salaries. I don't spend $100,000, that money isn't paying anyone's salaries or going to anyone's profits. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/jan-june96/budget_01-01.html But remember, rich people never helped an economy. Ever! Those people being able to provide livelihoods for themselves and their families because of rich people buying yachts, that is not rich people helping the economy! Because WhiteDog says so. We are talking cherry-picket anecdotal evidence here. That is not even close to a good rebuttal to a statistical argument! Yes, if it is true that rich people as a group is using a larger amount of the money they recieve on services with a larger local share than poor or middle class people, you are right. I have however, never seen any evidence to this effect. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
A large part of what has made life so comfortable for many of us up through the end of the 20th century is the fact that a large part of the wealth and means of production was concentrated in the middle class. This gave the workers the ability to purchase what they could make, since what they made became relatively cheap compared to their wages. A middle class worker in any field could purchase large ticket items on an elongated time scale through credit or savings, and it would pay for the worker in the sector to make more as well as purchase other large ticket items. When you shift away from that, where the market is instead dominated by luxury goods, the means of production shifts so the middle class worker can no longer afford large ticket items. Any influx of wages created by the production of luxury goods is actually diminished because the cost of producing large ticket items increases. If you spend $100,000 to pay for people's salaries, what good is it if they can't turn around and pay for as many people's salaries? You spent $100,000, but the people it went to can only buy 80% of what they used to, so now real economic output of that $100,000 is slowed by at least 20% per layer. It's what you see when people talk about momentum of stimulus, where $1 can actually create 3x that much in economic output, or as little as 1/4 if spent differently. As of now, those wealthy people spending money create only a fraction of economic output that the same money would split in the hands of 5x as many people instead. | ||
|
accela
Greece314 Posts
“You cannot squeeze and tackle a person that is in international shipping trade and finance and say, ‘I will tax you,’” said Restis, who controls a fleet of more than 200 vessels. “The answer is ‘sure, tax me. Find me.’” patriots | ||
|
WallieP
Netherlands425 Posts
On July 05 2012 03:32 WhiteDog wrote: You don't understand anything from the get go, how about you educate yourself before posting. For exemple, France will not lower pension to 60, only for some people, in certain type of hard physical work and who started early. And the idea about lowering pension is that we have such a high unemployment, that it is better to put people in retirement than having unemployed people. Sorry i have to pick on this, but had to react since you are viewing it only from your own side... Every country would love to have a rule for people that do certain hard physical work and started early to stop earlier, but since it costs to much that is just not happening.. The Netherlands got his economics on track a lot better then france for example, but we do not have a rule that let people stop early.. The thing is that some countrys, like Holland and Germany have putted up a lot of steps to get the economics back on track. Today i readed a news post that the German GDP shortage has gone from 4.3% to 0.5% (they expected 1%) so they just swapped stuff over to get everything right.. same thing in the Netherlands, 2011 we got a shortage of 5.4%, in 2012 4.1% if im right and we are aiming for 2.9% in 2013 and 1% (?) in 2014... Finland the same thing, we really tried to fix stuff before they got to bad. But then you got countrys like greece/spain/italy/portugal and in lower mention france which just didnt react as powerfull/fast or allready had a lot worse shortage on the GDP. They are getting hit hard now with this crisis but yeah, thats what you get if you dont follow the rules right? Asking the "better" countrys to help/give money cause of that is just strange and maybe even asocial behaviour if you ask me | ||
| ||
