On May 08 2012 09:03 JoelB wrote: I'd like to throw something into this discussion. 1998 Gerhard Schörder a member of the social democratic party (SPD) our last Chancellor before Merkel won the election. During that time Germany was suffering economically with high(er) unemployment and was called the "sick man of europe". He started to pump money into the economy but soon had to realize that it wasnt working. He then started his infamous "Agenda 2010". The retirement age had been risen to 67 and basically the entire way our social system works was reformed. With heavy consequences because some of the changes were very drastic and too harsh - they should have been corrected in some way but he never got the chance to because before anyone could really judge the outcome of the Agenda 2010 he was replaced by Merkel. The entire socialist party was shattered in the following elections going down to like 20% or less in some minor votes. The fact that a social democrat forged such a "anti-social" act scared away most of their voters. The conservatives agreed on the agenda but i highly doubt they would have done that themselves because the riots would have been INSANE. The fact that he was a social democrat made it easier for many to swallow the bitter pill.
Now almost 12 years later we can see the entire effects of the agenda. The main reason for Germanys (atleast compared to others) good economic state is mostly because of the Agenda 2010 and a rather good administration of Merkel during the crisis itself. I'm not a big fan of the agenda, because some parts of it were far too harsh and still there need to be more corrections. Thought the whole idea was going into the right direction it was poorly executed and the conservatives never had an interest to change it. There really should have been higher taxes for high wages to make the agenda not too one sided. This should show some of the "lefty haters" that their stupid talk about socialists hurting the economy is not always true.
To the french people here: Mr. Hollande is exactly at the same point now like Schörder was 98. He has to face that france needs to be reformed or will suffer heavily. Pure socialist utopia can't exist in a world together with china being there too. But i will bet money that he will be unable to do anything on debt. The markets will crush any of those attempt. He just wont get any money. As i said in a previous post - the times of endless debt ARE OVER and they will not return no matter what some people think. There are only two options: reduce the debt or go bankrupt. Hollande knows this. Though i really really dislike that the markets have such a big influence on politics this time it is for good because it will finally free us from the prison that is debt. It shakles politicians, the people and takes away our freedom. Even far-left dreamers have to finally realize that debt is bad.
Hollande on the other hand is probably the right guy to make his own agenda. I think he will learn from the mistakes Schröder made and reform France in a fairer way. I think as a socialist he has more chances to do so because he on the one hand can more easily raise taxes for higher wages and on the other hand can maybe promote some social reforms better then a conservative could. And you know what? I really believe that this will happen. Why? Because it's the only way left. The markets won't give money for any debt attempts so its the only future France has. And with them the entire European Union.
and to close this some words concerning the state of the EU. The EU is rich, we have alot of money in fonds for infrastructure and everything. It is already being discussed to let those flow into the directions of those states that try to get back on their foots like spain f.e. (who before the american induced crisis had a very low debt) and will probably be the new program of growth that had been discussed even before the election of Hollande. We can do that without any debt but structural reforms in all countries are necessery. Still the state of the ECB is much, much better then the FED or bank of england. I'm living right next to where the new ECB building is being constructed (New ECB) and i'm saying don't you worry, they are still building - i'm only afraid when they stop . Europe and the euro will go on no matter how hard righties, UK and Americas try to sabotage it. Because it is the only future we have.
German economic success was achieved on the basis of an export boom to the rest of the EU. Where do you suggest France export to if the Germans are already there, exporting the more high end products while the Chinese are whipping out the low margin products? German reforms in the late 90s, combined with German banks irresponsible loans are one of the main reasons why so much of the Olive zone is screwed.
The export boom wouldn't be possible without the low wages thats for sure, thats what i tried to say - that was also somehow caused by the aftermath of the agenda 2010. But you make it to easy for yourself to blame everything on germany. Ofcourse the low wages are a problem and need to be corrected. Portugal and Greece never were ready for the Euro, sorry to say that. Greece faked their data to get in with the kind help of Goldman Sachs. Their economy just isn't in a state where they can compete. But their economies are rather small and the EU can handle that. Other countrys like spain for example like i said had a much lower debt then germany before the financial crisis. But they had to rescue their banks also and thats the biggest reason for the current situation. The economy of northern Italy is comperable to germanys and the french. Italy i just suffering from years and years of berlusconi influence - they can get out of their problems on their own. Irelands debt was also because of the irresponsible behavior of their banks and they decided to save them and not let them collapse. Else Paris, London and Frankfurt would have been ablaze, believe me. I know that germany has his own jobs to do, but blaming everything on our exports is a little to easy, sorry.
On May 08 2012 09:15 aksfjh wrote: Mmmm, more German propaganda about how debt is the cause of all our current woes and strife. Look at Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and a few small others and you'll see a scene where they're desperately trying to reduce their debt through austerity, and the markets are punishing them even harder for it. Every time they cut 1 Euro from their budget, their economy shrinks by half of that, and it just makes the debt even more daunting. You can predict whatever you want out of the markets, but until I see them shy away from a country that pumps back into the economy by borrowing, I'm going to go with the idea that the German plan is absolutely nuts for right now.
And no this is not another german propaganda against debt. Some socialists tend to behave like people addicted to cigarettes. Consume and when you get sick blame it on companies who sell them. Do you know how you cure this kind of addiction? certainly not by consuming more cigarettes - believe me, i tested it. That austerity on its own won't cure anything thats true, you need help with nicotine replacement products f.e. to stay with that analogy but you cannot just blindly burn more and more money that you do not have. But growth agreements are and will be constructed now. It was never the plan of Merkel (as much as i dislike her) to just keep it with austerity but that was her way to calm the markets at first and then afterwards get back into reforms that will take longer to actually have notable effects. It may be that in the US (where atleast TL says you come from) you should have payed attention to what happens if families live only on debt and what happens if masses of them cannot afford those credits anymore. You are expecting too much in a far too short time frame (like the markets). It took like 6-8 years for the agenda to have any notable effect. Reforms take time. Give Europe a few years and we will have a different discussion.
On May 08 2012 09:31 Mvrio wrote: excuse the ignorance of an American but how do you pronounce Hollande's name? Google translate won't help for this one
also thanks for keeping up to date on this election. politics other than my own country fascinates me
Alright I'll try.
1. Say "bow" or "ho" or "Moe". Realize how the vowel is made out of two parts? If not, speak it slowly and see how your lips move.
Take only the first part of the sound. Speak it rather quickly.
2. Double L, self explanatory.
3. Say "aw" like in "aaw, that's a cute cat picture".
You pronounce like this except with a D instead of a T.
I'm still angry at all the surveys we're having all the time on tv. Like the surveys we had on the evening of the 1st round that said he'd win with 56% while he won with 51.6%. I won't mention the claim of a 3 point precision... Surveys aren't there to tell you the situation it's there to tell you what to think and what to do. Like today we had polls about how french people supposedly think Manuel Valls would make a good prime minister (I haven't met a single person who likes him and doesn't think he's right wing/capitalist), or polls telling french people would like Jean-François Copé as the leader of UMP after Sarkozy (again I haven't met anyone who likes him).
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
So in my eyes the 20% or so that voted for Le Pen are either mad or misguided.
As for Hollande, since the right wing has failed to solve anything despite being in power for so long, maybe it's time to try and see what the left side has to offer.
Might I remind you that Germany was a National Socialist country. [Emphasis added]
Of course 'left-right' is a relative term and open to all sorts of different interpretations so there is no standard definition, but I think its sort of silly to say Nazism is 'right'. Quite a bit of sophism though to you know, be for socialism, but then be against socialists. Besides, the racist thing, you guys have a lot in common -- ban non-state individual ownership of weapons, nationalizing vast sectors of the economy, very centralized State-monopolized educational system, a very bureaucratic politburo, none or little understanding of individual liberty, very strong State both domestically and internationally, etc.
Nazism is a leftist ideology, just like every other State-centric ideology (e.g. Communism, Corporatism/Fascism, etc.), whereas Liberalism/Libertarianism/Minarchism is on the right. You honestly can't tell me that Patrick Henry and Adolf Hitler or Sarkozy have anything even remotely in common. Or say, Garet Garett / John T. Flynn / Robert Nozick with Le Pen / Bush / etc. Such a joke.
On May 08 2012 09:15 aksfjh wrote: Mmmm, more German propaganda about how debt is the cause of all our current woes and strife. Look at Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and a few small others and you'll see a scene where they're desperately trying to reduce their debt through austerity, and the markets are punishing them even harder for it. Every time they cut 1 Euro from their budget, their economy shrinks by half of that, and it just makes the debt even more daunting. You can predict whatever you want out of the markets, but until I see them shy away from a country that pumps back into the economy by borrowing, I'm going to go with the idea that the German plan is absolutely nuts for right now.
And no this is not another german propaganda against dept. Some socialists tend to behave like people addicted to cigarettes. Consume and when you get sick blame it on companies who sell them. Do you know how you cure this kind of addiction? certainly not by consuming more cigarettes - believe me, i tested it. That austerity on its own won't cure anything thats true, you need help with nicotine replacement products f.e. to stay with that analogy but you cannot just blindly burn more and more money that you do not have. But growth agreements are and will be constructed now. It was never the plan of Merkel (as much as i dislike her) to just keep it with austerity but that was her way to calm the markets at first and then afterwards get back into reforms that will take longer to actually have notable effects. It may be that in the US (where atleast TL says you come from) you should have payed attention to what happens if families live only on dept and what happens if masses of them cannot afford those credits anymore. You are expecting too much in a far too short time frame (like the markets). It took like 6-8 years for the agenda to have any notable effect. Reforms take time. Give Europe a few years and we will have a different discussion.
First, it's "debt," not "dept." Not trying to insult you or anything, but the misspelling is driving me crazy. =P
This has nothing to do with being addicted to debt. There are ways in which, yes, EU countries did spend in excess and now they have to bring some of those policies back. However, debt isn't something to be afraid of or treat as a poison as a government, especially when your people are facing economic hardships that none of them have ever faced.
To bring it back to your analogy of a "family in debt," think about this. You're figuring your finances, and you conclude that saving 20% of your paycheck will result in the ability to pay off your debt in a reasonable amount of time. However, turns out most other families have accrued debt as well, and are taking the same measures. Suddenly, consumer spending in the economy has shrunk up to 20% as families everywhere are cutting back, forcing businesses to cut back similarly. For you, this means reduced wages, reduced hours, or even a lay off. If we assume you don't get laid off, 20% of your paycheck is no longer a feasible target to get your debt in control. You're now only able to save 5% of your wages to pay off your debt, making it take so much longer to pay everything off and even putting you in danger of never being able to pay it off.
In reality, governments in the EU are in bigger danger of their economy shrinking to the point where they can't pay off their debt more than they are in danger of running up debt too high to ever pay off. At this point, every Euro these countries spend brings back so much economic relief to their people that they see economic gains which are much higher than the Euro they spent. You do the math. If each Euro spent increases GDP by 2 Euros, how long does it take to shrink a debt of 150% of GDP to 100% of GDP?
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
So in my eyes the 20% or so that voted for Le Pen are either mad or misguided.
As for Hollande, since the right wing has failed to solve anything despite being in power for so long, maybe it's time to try and see what the left side has to offer.
Might I remind you that Germany was a National Socialist country. [Emphasis added]
Of course 'left-right' is a relative term and open to all sorts of different interpretations so there is no standard definition, but I think its sort of silly to say Nazism is 'right'. Quite a bit of sophism though to you know, be for socialism, but then be against socialists. Besides, the racist thing, you guys have a lot in common -- ban non-state individual ownership of weapons, nationalizing vast sectors of the economy, very centralized State-monopolized educational system, a very bureaucratic politburo, none or little understanding of individual liberty, very strong State both domestically and internationally, etc.
Nazism is a leftist ideology, just like every other State-centric ideology (e.g. Communism, Corporatism/Fascism, etc.), whereas Liberalism/Libertarianism/Minarchism is on the right. You honestly can't tell me that Patrick Henry and Adolf Hitler or Sarkozy have anything even remotely in common. Or say, Garet Garett / John T. Flynn / Robert Nozick with Le Pen / Bush / etc. Such a joke.
^True, the notion of left/right is nothing more than a traditional one, based on the seating of parlamentarians after the French revolution in 1789 in the Assemblée Nationale. It's inaccurate, especially given that all dictatorships and state-centric systems - traditionally either far-right or far-left - approach each other the more extreme they get and aren't even able to be told apart from a certain point.
(But I find it weird that your post is based on the name that the NSDAP gave itself. The mere fact that they called themselves socialist doesn't make them socialist or left. In the traditional sense, they're definitely far-right.)
There's one point I agree about with the post you quoted tho. Voting for Le Pen was either really really stupid and worrisome or the materialization of the people's madness with anything that politics have to offer, be it Hollande or Sarkozy.
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
So in my eyes the 20% or so that voted for Le Pen are either mad or misguided.
As for Hollande, since the right wing has failed to solve anything despite being in power for so long, maybe it's time to try and see what the left side has to offer.
Might I remind you that Germany was a National Socialist country. [Emphasis added]
Of course 'left-right' is a relative term and open to all sorts of different interpretations so there is no standard definition, but I think its sort of silly to say Nazism is 'right'. Quite a bit of sophism though to you know, be for socialism, but then be against socialists. Besides, the racist thing, you guys have a lot in common -- ban non-state individual ownership of weapons, nationalizing vast sectors of the economy, very centralized State-monopolized educational system, a very bureaucratic politburo, none or little understanding of individual liberty, very strong State both domestically and internationally, etc.
Nazism is a leftist ideology, just like every other State-centric ideology (e.g. Communism, Corporatism/Fascism, etc.), whereas Liberalism/Libertarianism/Minarchism is on the right. You honestly can't tell me that Patrick Henry and Adolf Hitler or Sarkozy have anything even remotely in common. Or say, Garet Garett / John T. Flynn / Robert Nozick with Le Pen / Bush / etc. Such a joke.
bahaha ... first off: the Nazi's prime enemy besides the jews were the communists. The Nazi's above all were nationalists and that by our definition is right. Ofcourse the Nazi's had their wicked way of socialist ideas for only germans so it is kind of a mixture. But still, in germany or france right means nationalism, radical nationalism with racism and everything attached to it is extreme right while on the other hand we haft the left wing with socialists and extrem left with communists (there aren't any right or left extremes in our parlement though but they sadly exist). Liberalism atleast in our country is neither left or right, its just liberalism but it is about more then just "everyone should do what he wants and everyone has to suffer for it". It's liberalism with responsibility so to speak. We have one (and probably soon two) established liberal party and in the past we had a very nice coalition of socialists and liberals (social liberalism) with famous Chancellor Willy Brandt which yielded very good results.
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
So in my eyes the 20% or so that voted for Le Pen are either mad or misguided.
As for Hollande, since the right wing has failed to solve anything despite being in power for so long, maybe it's time to try and see what the left side has to offer.
Might I remind you that Germany was a National Socialist country. [Emphasis added]
Of course 'left-right' is a relative term and open to all sorts of different interpretations so there is no standard definition, but I think its sort of silly to say Nazism is 'right'. Quite a bit of sophism though to you know, be for socialism, but then be against socialists. Besides, the racist thing, you guys have a lot in common -- ban non-state individual ownership of weapons, nationalizing vast sectors of the economy, very centralized State-monopolized educational system, a very bureaucratic politburo, none or little understanding of individual liberty, very strong State both domestically and internationally, etc.
Nazism is a leftist ideology, just like every other State-centric ideology (e.g. Communism, Corporatism/Fascism, etc.), whereas Liberalism/Libertarianism/Minarchism is on the right. You honestly can't tell me that Patrick Henry and Adolf Hitler or Sarkozy have anything even remotely in common. Or say, Garet Garett / John T. Flynn / Robert Nozick with Le Pen / Bush / etc. Such a joke.
Ah, Wegandi strikes again. The good old right-wing argument that Nazism very much resembles socialism. Sorry to burst your bubble, but as it is clearly explained here, that's a myth:
Here are two other quotes that help explain the use of the term "socialism" by Hitler & co.
« In reality, Hitler's "social idea" was simplistic, diffuse and manipulative. It amounted to little more than what he had told his bourgeois audience in Hamburg : winning the workers to nationalism, destroying marxism and overcoming the division between nationalism and socialism through the creation of a nebulous "national community" (Volksgemeinschaft) based on racial purity and the concept of struggle. The fusion of nationalism and socialism would do away with the class antagonism between an nationalist bourgeoisie and Marxist proleratiat (both of which had failed in their political goals). This would be replaced by a "community of struggle", where nationalism and socialism would be united, where "brain" and "fist were reconciled and where - denuded of Marxist influence - the building of a new spirit for the great future struggle of the people would be undertaken. Such ideas were neither new, nor original. And ultimately, they rested not on any modern form of socialism, but on the crudest and most brutal version of nineteenth-century imperialist and social-Darwinistic notions. Social welfare in the trumpeted "national community" did not exist for its own sake, but to prepare for external struggle, for conquest "by the sword" », Ian Kershaw, "Hitler", Penguin Books, 2009, pages 181-182.
« [Hitler] was never a socialist. In a speech of 1927 that the Ruhr tycoon Emil Kirdorf (1847-1938) distributed among his fellow industrialists, Hitler said "Highest nationalism is essentially identical with the highest concern about the people, and highest socialism is identical with the highest form of love of people and fatherland". Socialism and nationalism were for him interchangeable terms, the usage of which depended on the social group he addressed. » Hajo Holborn, "A history of modern Germany", 1840-1945, Princeton University Press, 1982, page 719.
On May 08 2012 09:15 aksfjh wrote: Mmmm, more German propaganda about how debt is the cause of all our current woes and strife. Look at Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and a few small others and you'll see a scene where they're desperately trying to reduce their debt through austerity, and the markets are punishing them even harder for it. Every time they cut 1 Euro from their budget, their economy shrinks by half of that, and it just makes the debt even more daunting. You can predict whatever you want out of the markets, but until I see them shy away from a country that pumps back into the economy by borrowing, I'm going to go with the idea that the German plan is absolutely nuts for right now.
And no this is not another german propaganda against dept. Some socialists tend to behave like people addicted to cigarettes. Consume and when you get sick blame it on companies who sell them. Do you know how you cure this kind of addiction? certainly not by consuming more cigarettes - believe me, i tested it. That austerity on its own won't cure anything thats true, you need help with nicotine replacement products f.e. to stay with that analogy but you cannot just blindly burn more and more money that you do not have. But growth agreements are and will be constructed now. It was never the plan of Merkel (as much as i dislike her) to just keep it with austerity but that was her way to calm the markets at first and then afterwards get back into reforms that will take longer to actually have notable effects. It may be that in the US (where atleast TL says you come from) you should have payed attention to what happens if families live only on dept and what happens if masses of them cannot afford those credits anymore. You are expecting too much in a far too short time frame (like the markets). It took like 6-8 years for the agenda to have any notable effect. Reforms take time. Give Europe a few years and we will have a different discussion.
First, it's "debt," not "dept." Not trying to insult you or anything, but the misspelling is driving me crazy. =P
This has nothing to do with being addicted to debt. There are ways in which, yes, EU countries did spend in excess and now they have to bring some of those policies back. However, debt isn't something to be afraid of or treat as a poison as a government, especially when your people are facing economic hardships that none of them have ever faced.
To bring it back to your analogy of a "family in debt," think about this. You're figuring your finances, and you conclude that saving 20% of your paycheck will result in the ability to pay off your debt in a reasonable amount of time. However, turns out most other families have accrued debt as well, and are taking the same measures. Suddenly, consumer spending in the economy has shrunk up to 20% as families everywhere are cutting back, forcing businesses to cut back similarly. For you, this means reduced wages, reduced hours, or even a lay off. If we assume you don't get laid off, 20% of your paycheck is no longer a feasible target to get your debt in control. You're now only able to save 5% of your wages to pay off your debt, making it take so much longer to pay everything off and even putting you in danger of never being able to pay it off.
In reality, governments in the EU are in bigger danger of their economy shrinking to the point where they can't pay off their debt more than they are in danger of running up debt too high to ever pay off. At this point, every Euro these countries spend brings back so much economic relief to their people that they see economic gains which are much higher than the Euro they spent. You do the math. If each Euro spent increases GDP by 2 Euros, how long does it take to shrink a debt of 150% of GDP to 100% of GDP?
i'm terribly sorry for that spelling lol and i don't really get why i did that :D probably because it is late - anyway: i agree with you on that point as i already said: austerity alone isn't a cure to anything. And i highly doubt there is any politician in germany that wouldn't agree on that too. The problem however that Mrs. Merkel has is that in germany many people are afraid that their hard earned money will be spend to build bridges and streets in isolated places in Greece that no-one needs and as a conservative she is sadly overreacting to those people oppinions. But believe me, she is very smart and smarter then that. She just tries to look like Mrs. Austerity to calm down conservative voters but in reality she sees things a little different. The media picture of Merkel is mostly wrong and she definitly isn't another "iron lady". This whole austerity thing was just a quick messure to calm down the markets and also lay a foundation for future agreements. Without a strict regulation f.e. you would never get germans to vote for Eurobonds. If there are strict rules on national debt and consequences if they fail f.e. (better then those of the Maastricht treaty) this might look different. She will promote the growth agreements that will follow soon as a compromise she had to made because of Hollande and everyone will sort of accept that (atleast i hope so). From the beginning of the Euro crisis she said that her policy is also about creating growth in europe. The difference in her way is that she doesn't want to just burn stupid money that ends up doing nothing. You can change alot just by breaking up old structures and if you invest money then do it in way it will certainly help. It seems like atm the whole discussion is about "either pure austerity or fucking burn the place down with debt" - but can't there be a reasonable way in the middle?
The next few years are going to be an absolute hoot. It's like watching the captain of the Titanic desperately attempting to hit more icebergs in hopes that his doomed ship will ground atop one of them.
Not that Sarkozy was a particularly adept sailor; he just wasn't quite as bold in securing his own life raft.
Never let that bubble burst Europe, just keep on pumping!
On May 08 2012 10:42 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: The next few years are going to be an absolute hoot. It's like watching the captain of the Titanic desperately attempting to hit more icebergs in hopes that his doomed ship will ground atop one of them.
Not that Sarkozy was a particularly adept sailor; he just wasn't quite as bold in securing his own life raft.
Never let that bubble burst Europe, just keep on pumping!
You will (luckly) be disappointed. As the german saying goes: "the wish is the father of that thought".
excerpt of a new wall street journal news article: + Show Spoiler +
One reason for the subdued market reaction [because of the election in greece] is that many analysts now say that the prospect of Greece leaving the euro area no longer poses the same risk that it did when the crisis began almost three years ago because most outside investors have either left altogether or been forced to bear losses on their Greek holdings.
"The nuclear bomb threat that they might have had last year is no longer there," said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, economist at the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics. "If they choose to go down this route (of exiting the euro), it will be first and foremost a catastrophe for Greece."
Unlike six months ago, when threats of a Greek referendum on its future in the currency bloc put the idea of a euro exit on the front burner, the euro zone and its banks are in much better shape to weather such a scenario now, analysts said.
For one, the private-sector write-down of roughly 50% of the face value of its Greek bondholdings earlier this year made banks much less exposed to Greece.
The ECB and euro-area governments are still heavily exposed to Athens, but they have the resources to weather any default on official-sector debt, analysts said.
"It's a nuisance politically…but the idea that (a Greek exit) could bring down the ECB or any other euro-area member I don't think is credible," Mr. Kirkegaard said.
I may not be up to par on economics and stuff, but I don't see France "dying" as some have claimed here. Be it because of Hollande/left wing policies or anything else. You'd have to define what a country dying is for starters. But anyway, whatever the policy, people won't just forget all their knowledge, infrastructures won't just collaspe, etc. A country's lifetime isn't a bee's one. Sarkozy didn't quite get it. A country, especially one with socialist roots and a people involved in politics, is a big-ass machinery that should be driven with long-term vision. Sarkozy said France got through the crisis thanks to his courage ("bravery" as Geiko said), when it's only because of its social model, the very model the right is trying to pick appart.
On the same topic, people shocked by pictures with foreign flags and non-white guys should blame Hollande. HE made those people appear out of his hat, gave them french nationality the next second and built crappy neighbourhood the same night. You have the right to view this state of affairs as a danger or a problem for France, but even then you'll have to remember who ruled the country since 1995.
On May 08 2012 09:03 JoelB wrote: I'd like to throw something into this discussion. 1998 Gerhard Schörder a member of the social democratic party (SPD) our last Chancellor before Merkel won the election. During that time Germany was suffering economically with high(er) unemployment and was called the "sick man of europe". He started to pump money into the economy but soon had to realize that it wasnt working. He then started his infamous "Agenda 2010". The retirement age had been risen to 67 and basically the entire way our social system works was reformed. With heavy consequences because some of the changes were very drastic and too harsh - they should have been corrected in some way but he never got the chance to because before anyone could really judge the outcome of the Agenda 2010 he was replaced by Merkel. The entire socialist party was shattered in the following elections going down to like 20% or less in some minor votes. The fact that a social democrat forged such a "anti-social" act scared away most of their voters. The conservatives agreed on the agenda but i highly doubt they would have done that themselves because the riots would have been INSANE. The fact that he was a social democrat made it easier for many to swallow the bitter pill.
Now almost 12 years later we can see the entire effects of the agenda. The main reason for Germanys (atleast compared to others) good economic state is mostly because of the Agenda 2010 and a rather good administration of Merkel during the crisis itself. I'm not a big fan of the agenda, because some parts of it were far too harsh and still there need to be more corrections. Thought the whole idea was going into the right direction it was poorly executed and the conservatives never had an interest to change it. There really should have been higher taxes for high wages to make the agenda not too one sided. This should show some of the "lefty haters" that their stupid talk about socialists hurting the economy is not always true.
To the french people here: Mr. Hollande is exactly at the same point now like Schörder was 98. He has to face that france needs to be reformed or will suffer heavily. Pure socialist utopia can't exist in a world together with china being there too. But i will bet money that he will be unable to do anything on debt. The markets will crush any of those attempt. He just wont get any money. As i said in a previous post - the times of endless debt ARE OVER and they will not return no matter what some people think. There are only two options: reduce the debt or go bankrupt. Hollande knows this. Though i really really dislike that the markets have such a big influence on politics this time it is for good because it will finally free us from the prison that is debt. It shakles politicians, the people and takes away our freedom. Even far-left dreamers have to finally realize that debt is bad.
Hollande on the other hand is probably the right guy to make his own agenda. I think he will learn from the mistakes Schröder made and reform France in a fairer way. I think as a socialist he has more chances to do so because he on the one hand can more easily raise taxes for higher wages and on the other hand can maybe promote some social reforms better then a conservative could. And you know what? I really believe that this will happen. Why? Because it's the only way left. The markets won't give money for any debt attempts so its the only future France has. And with them the entire European Union.
and to close this some words concerning the state of the EU. The EU is rich, we have alot of money in fonds for infrastructure and everything. It is already being discussed to let those flow into the directions of those states that try to get back on their foots like spain f.e. (who before the american induced crisis had a very low debt) and will probably be the new program of growth that had been discussed even before the election of Hollande. We can do that without any debt but structural reforms in all countries are necessery. Still the state of the ECB is much, much better then the FED or bank of england. I'm living right next to where the new ECB building is being constructed (New ECB) and i'm saying don't you worry, they are still building - i'm only afraid when they stop . Europe and the euro will go on no matter how hard righties, UK and Americas try to sabotage it. Because it is the only future we have.
German economic success was achieved on the basis of an export boom to the rest of the EU. Where do you suggest France export to if the Germans are already there, exporting the more high end products while the Chinese are whipping out the low margin products? German reforms in the late 90s, combined with German banks irresponsible loans are one of the main reasons why so much of the Olive zone is screwed.
The export boom wouldn't be possible without the low wages thats for sure, thats what i tried to say - that was also somehow caused by the aftermath of the agenda 2010. But you make it to easy for yourself to blame everything on germany. Ofcourse the low wages are a problem and need to be corrected. Portugal and Greece never were ready for the Euro, sorry to say that. Greece faked their data to get in with the kind help of Goldman Sachs. Their economy just isn't in a state where they can compete. But their economies are rather small and the EU can handle that. Other countrys like spain for example like i said had a much lower debt then germany before the financial crisis. But they had to rescue their banks also and thats the biggest reason for the current situation. The economy of northern Italy is comperable to germanys and the french. Italy i just suffering from years and years of berlusconi influence - they can get out of their problems on their own. Irelands debt was also because of the irresponsible behavior of their banks and they decided to save them and not let them collapse. Else Paris, London and Frankfurt would have been ablaze, believe me. I know that germany has his own jobs to do, but blaming everything on our exports is a little to easy, sorry.
Truth be told the problem is the structure of eurozone, not Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy etc etc
actually these socialists types don't tend to govern any different from the conservative types anyway. politicans are very pragmatic and seldom do anything based on what they campaigned on.
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
How many people did the far left Stalin kill? Anyway just making this point on Le Pen being 'racist' , she's still pretty lightweight compared to the leaders Japan elects.I recall an article showing Japan accepting under 100 refugees for the entire 1990s.Noone really seems to call Japan racist.
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
So in my eyes the 20% or so that voted for Le Pen are either mad or misguided.
As for Hollande, since the right wing has failed to solve anything despite being in power for so long, maybe it's time to try and see what the left side has to offer.
Might I remind you that Germany was a National Socialist country. [Emphasis added]
Of course 'left-right' is a relative term and open to all sorts of different interpretations so there is no standard definition, but I think its sort of silly to say Nazism is 'right'. Quite a bit of sophism though to you know, be for socialism, but then be against socialists. Besides, the racist thing, you guys have a lot in common -- ban non-state individual ownership of weapons, nationalizing vast sectors of the economy, very centralized State-monopolized educational system, a very bureaucratic politburo, none or little understanding of individual liberty, very strong State both domestically and internationally, etc.
Do you really define right and left through the presence of the state? Following your criteria, the US is pretty much a leftist state (and Liberia is from the far right, amrite?) It seems... erratic to admit that left and right are relative terms only to say that Hitler was a left-wing dictator, one the sole base that the German state was big.
Prohibition of individual weapon ownership -> The case in most European countries (right and left confounded) Nationalization of vast sectors of the economy -> Untrue, try again (leftists today will at best nationalize water companies) State educational system -> The case in most of Europe and in the countries with the higher levels of education A politburo -> WTF
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
How many people did the far left Stalin kill? Anyway just making this point on Le Pen being 'racist' , she's still pretty lightweight compared to the leaders Japan elects.I recall an article showing Japan accepting under 100 refugees for the entire 1990s.Noone really seems to call Japan racist.
Japan is pretty well known as a highly xenophobic country, which doesn't bother westerners because very few actually intend to live there
As for WWII, it showed that both extremes are profoundly idiotic. I find it astonishing that not even a century later people are already going at it again. That and the Cold War, so technically a mere 20 years have passed since we've seen the end of this madness.
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
How many people did the far left Stalin kill? Anyway just making this point on Le Pen being 'racist' , she's still pretty lightweight compared to the leaders Japan elects.I recall an article showing Japan accepting under 100 refugees for the entire 1990s.Noone really seems to call Japan racist.
Sorry to demolish all your misconceptions, but Stalin was not "far left". Bolshevik were considered as solid right wingers amongst communists. Noam Chomsky called Leninism a right wing deviation of Marxism and Lenin himself wrote "Leftist Communism: an infantile disorder". Left wingers were actually the first targets of the bolsheviks after the white Russians just after the Revolution.
Definition of socialism is that the workers owe the means of production. Period. Leninism and "dictature of the proletariat" are just an autoritative theory to justify an all powerful bureaucratic class and dictatorship. Rosa Luxembourg criticized Leninism to be a State Capitalism as early as 1919.
An explanation here by one of the most influential and respected intellectual in the world:
Believing that someone who claims all day long that all our problems come from Africans and Muslims, that they are invading us, that they are threatening our identity, etc etc etc etc... is xenophobic
xeno: strangers, foreigners phobic: scared of
She is a xenophobe, her discourse is xenophobic, her party is xenophobic, and let's not play with words, they are outright racists. Everything she says, represents and claim sweats racism and hatred. People who claim the contrary don't remember what the FN has always been, and don't listen to what she says.
On May 08 2012 07:11 Elitios wrote: I will never understand how in a country so heavily involved with the DEADLIEST WAR EVER (WWII) could have so many advocates of nationalism or any kind of far-right organization. I mean, opinions like that started that war....
So in my eyes the 20% or so that voted for Le Pen are either mad or misguided.
As for Hollande, since the right wing has failed to solve anything despite being in power for so long, maybe it's time to try and see what the left side has to offer.
Might I remind you that Germany was a National Socialist country. [Emphasis added]
Of course 'left-right' is a relative term and open to all sorts of different interpretations so there is no standard definition, but I think its sort of silly to say Nazism is 'right'. Quite a bit of sophism though to you know, be for socialism, but then be against socialists. Besides, the racist thing, you guys have a lot in common -- ban non-state individual ownership of weapons, nationalizing vast sectors of the economy, very centralized State-monopolized educational system, a very bureaucratic politburo, none or little understanding of individual liberty, very strong State both domestically and internationally, etc.
Nazism is a leftist ideology, just like every other State-centric ideology (e.g. Communism, Corporatism/Fascism, etc.), whereas Liberalism/Libertarianism/Minarchism is on the right. You honestly can't tell me that Patrick Henry and Adolf Hitler or Sarkozy have anything even remotely in common. Or say, Garet Garett / John T. Flynn / Robert Nozick with Le Pen / Bush / etc. Such a joke.
^True, the notion of left/right is nothing more than a traditional one, based on the seating of parlamentarians after the French revolution in 1789 in the Assemblée Nationale. It's inaccurate, especially given that all dictatorships and state-centric systems - traditionally either far-right or far-left - approach each other the more extreme they get and aren't even able to be told apart from a certain point.
(But I find it weird that your post is based on the name that the NSDAP gave itself. The mere fact that they called themselves socialist doesn't make them socialist or left. In the traditional sense, they're definitely far-right.)
There's one point I agree about with the post you quoted tho. Voting for Le Pen was either really really stupid and worrisome or the materialization of the people's madness with anything that politics have to offer, be it Hollande or Sarkozy.
Voting for Le Pen is not really stupid. I always vote left, but I understand FN voters. The main problem in France is that there is a fracture between the normal people - who feel injustice, because the salary didn't move since 20-30 years, because the unemployment rate is around 7-10% since 20-30 years, and because there are a lot of people who makes just too much money. Most of the institutions of the republic feel corrupted : this is the "true" battle plan of the FN, it's not only a racist party who think the immigrants are responsible for the low salaries and the unemployment, it is an anti-elite party, who criticise the elite and their institutions that most people here in France think are corrupted - from left to right. The simple fact that Hollande had to put a complete rework of the Europe in his program shows us how almost everyone, not only the FN members, thinks there is a problem in how Europe is managed.
Also I think that your own definition of nationalism is too pessimist. The whole idea that a nationalist country is a xenophobic country is wrong, nations can actually be quite a good thing if you look closely at history (see the book Imagined communities from Benedict Anderson for exemple). The French definition of nation is deeply different from the German one - it doesn't only comes by blood.
On May 08 2012 10:42 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: The next few years are going to be an absolute hoot. It's like watching the captain of the Titanic desperately attempting to hit more icebergs in hopes that his doomed ship will ground atop one of them.
Not that Sarkozy was a particularly adept sailor; he just wasn't quite as bold in securing his own life raft.
Never let that bubble burst Europe, just keep on pumping!
Almost as entertaining as watching the Land of The Free become a fascist (controlled by the mega corporations) police state.
How does it feel to be in a country where if you have enough money you can get the government to do what you wish even if it's against the constitution ?
Once against i'm glad Sarko got voted out, i hope he leaves politics altogether like he said he would if he lost. Now it remains to be seen how fail Hollande will be, but it will be hard to top Sarko.
EPT
. Europe and the euro will go on no matter how hard righties, UK and Americas try to sabotage it. Because it is the only future we have.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sUkpr.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AcX7m.jpg)
