EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1210
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6257 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On December 02 2018 02:28 TheDwf wrote: Those who pollute the most should contribute the most; fair and simple. Those who pollute the most are the biggest companies (and it's very concentrated) and the wealthiest households. Macron gave them massive tax cuts, then increases the taxes on a forced consumption of the modest households. It cannot be socially accepted. I don't understand the claim in that article Just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988, according to a new report. Is this supposed to mean if you trace the consumption back to the producers? Sure but that's meaningless, it's not like Exxon consumes its own oil. IIRC the largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions are the meat industry and the transport industry, and in the latter personal car use. If you want to reduce the usage of carbon technologies you need to increase the incentive for people to stop using carbon-based products. That means making car usage and eating meat more expensive and internalizing the cost. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 02 2018 03:13 RvB wrote: Yes and who buys products from those companies? That's all of us. Taxing producers more will make them increase their price. It's effectively the same thing. In addition a fuel tax hits producers as well since they won't sell as much. Of course it matters. If a product doesnt sell then no pollution-tax is acquired, but the pollution still exists. This means you have to overtax those products that are being sold to reach your goal in pollution-reduction. Also all products only consumed on an industrial level are not being taxed at all. Their pollution cost simply fly under the radar. E.g. a consumer of a car producer using a certain machine will face the same consumption tax on his car as one of a producer that doesn't use that machine, despite the machine producing more pollution. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On December 02 2018 03:24 Nyxisto wrote: If you want to reduce the usage of carbon technologies you need to increase the incentive for people to stop using carbon-based products. That means making car usage and eating meat more expensive and internalizing the cost. For meat you can, yes, because no one is forced to eat meat, you can choose other foods. For cars it's much more complicated, the elasticity to price is weak to non-existent in many cases (outside big cities) as millions of people have no alternative. To decrease car use, you first need to provide other means of transports. Instead Macron is destroying the train network. You also need to lower the distance between home, jobs, shops, services, etc. Didn't see any urbanization policy so far. You also need to redesign cars since they're horribly inefficient as of now (a 1 ton vehicle to move 75 kgs of flesh...). | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On December 02 2018 04:16 TheDwf wrote: For meat you can, yes, because no one is forced to eat meat, you can choose other foods. For cars it's much more complicated, the elasticity to price is weak to non-existent in many cases (outside big cities) as millions of people have no alternative. To decrease car use, you first need to provide other means of transports. Instead Macron is destroying the train network. You also need to lower the distance between home, jobs, shops, services, etc. Didn't see any urbanization policy so far. You also need to redesign cars since they're horribly inefficient as of now (a 1 ton vehicle to move 75 kgs of flesh...). They're not exactly inefficient outside of urban centers, if anything modern cars are impressively efficient given all the things they have to take into account (security, comfort, pollution, electronics, etc). We know very well how to make a sub-500kg car : that's the Fiat 500 or Mini of the 60s (the Lotus Seven even weights only 330kg). It's just that no one seriously wants to drive around anymore in what is essentially a rolling grave of steel with a primitive engine that can burst into flames at any moment and comfort that would make a horse carriage seem luxurious. Redesigning cars means either sacrificing security or comfort, and consumers don't want to sacrifice any. Essentially, the "efficient redesign" of the car is the motorbike. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Of course, there should be assistance apart from just increasing the taxes on fuel. The governments should start offering cash assistance to people who are willing to move and increase mobility. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On December 03 2018 03:03 Nyxisto wrote: It's not just the environmental issue. Commuting and being stuck in traffic is also a surprisingly big health risk (and not talked about enough) and with productive jobs increasingly moving to urban centers and aging populations it just gets harder and harder to support people who live in rural areas. So making a more urban, less car-centric society is a pretty good goal. Of course, there should be assistance apart from just increasing the taxes on fuel. The governments should start offering cash assistance to people who are willing to move and increase mobility. Thing is, in France we just had the opposite movement in the last 10-15 years with what we call the périurbains. Essentially, people from the lower-middle class and having jobs in urban areas moved from blocks of flats to new residential areas with relatively cheap and standardized individual houses (basically kinda like the American suburbs, except it's not the American suburbs), in the countryside, at car's reach (but not biking reach...) of their working place. There was financial incentive from the governement for this, most notably because it often allowed families to become owners of their home instead of just renting it - land in the countryside is cheap. So now, you can't exactly ask people who just ended up paying the loan to buy their own house to move again into the city because of the environment - especially since moving back wouldn't offer the comfort of a small individual house with a small garden and stuff. Overall, making a more urban society is also questionable, precisely because it is getting more difficult to support rural areas. Should we just abandon these deprived areas and their often aging and/or jobless inhabitants altogether, basically sacrificing a good part of the population to allow the urbanites to get a better and more efficient transition towards the future, even though they are already often wealthier than the rural people ? That doesn't seem like a very republican thing to do. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Especially in France which has a very unitary and egalitarian attitude towards citizens which is a great thing it strikes me as odd to argue in favor of this division. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5599 Posts
On December 02 2018 02:28 TheDwf wrote: Those who pollute the most should contribute the most; fair and simple. Those who pollute the most are the biggest companies (and it's very concentrated) and the wealthiest households. Macron gave them massive tax cuts, then increases the taxes on a forced consumption of the modest households. It cannot be socially accepted. I can see that you have a point, but if you use more fuel you pay more taxes too, right? So this does hit the worst polluters harder. How much is the tax increase by the way? And you can't really say that the biggest companies pollute the most; the people who consume the products should be blamed for some of that pollution? I am in the middle of this since I am in Paris now for my work and I can't say I understand anything of what is going on. It seems like people just want to fight the power to be honest. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21964 Posts
On December 03 2018 08:15 Elroi wrote:I am in the middle of this since I am in Paris now for my work and I can't say I understand anything of what is going on. It seems like people just want to fight the power to be honest. In many countries a big protest will draw out people who just enjoy a good riot and who use the protest as a cover for getting a fight on with the police. I would wager the riots in Paris have very little to actually do with the tax protests. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
As I suspected the Minister of Interior has been tampering with the numbers. Yesterday they announced 75 000 people in the demonstrations, down from 106 301 (!) last week. Today we learn that the figures have been revised to 136 000, down from 166 000 last week. How convenient to first announce figures 40% weaker to what they actually are so that mainstream medias can play the “movement is getting weaker but more violent” card… In Paris they had announced 5 000 demonstrators yesteday—an absolutely grotesque figure; today they say it was actually 10 000. Still waiting for mainstream medias to question those manipulations. 682 people were arrested, including 412 in Paris. 263 wounded (in reality you can probably multiply this figure several times), including a few severely—the French police is the only one in West Europe still using small explosive grenades. Unaware of the danger, newbie protestors sometimes pick them to launch them back; the grenade explodes in their hand, and boom, the hand is gone. None of this is reported or questioned by mainstream TV medias. Then journalists on TV studios wonder why some of the protestors hate and insult them. The clashes began in the morning near the Arc de Triomphe. Same scenario as last week, protestors said that they gathered peacefully but were attacked by cops with tear gas. The Interior claimed that violent protestors (casseurs in French, literally “breakers”) started the hostilities. Theoretically the access to the Champs Élysées was open with filters and a body search, but clearly the government did not want protestors to gather there. At any rate, before the official demonstration started in 14:00, before even midday, there were juicy images of clashes between cops and “breakers”. The government's thesis is that people who wreaked havoc in Paris were “professionals of disorder” coming from extremists groups. But it does not hold. The Minister of Interior gave the nonsensical figure of 3 000 “seditious people” … out of the 5 000 figure initially given (4 600 cops were in the streets in Paris). So he's effectively saying that the insurrection came from the majority of the protestors. Which was probably indeed the case, regardless of the role that small groups of extremists might have played. Anyway a popular insurrection happened during hours. In this long cat-and-mouse game, cops were unable to prevent vandalism. Dozens of cars were burned + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtWNKGuWkAAWQZ2.jpg) + Show Spoiler + The protestors had the excellent idea to go to the bourgeois neighbourhoods, so the masters could witness live what happens when serfs get mad. Banks and the old building of the Stock exchange were targeted, but it might have been anarchists behind those moves. Some people entered the Arc de Triomphe (whose walls were tagged) and broke stuff there. Because it's a national symbol, the government used this for his communication: they don't respect anything, not even our sacred symbols, etc. After the demonstration was over, in the evening, the two first police unions wrote a press release in which they considered that an insurrection had happened. They want the state of emergency to be declared. The Minister of Interior, very criticized for the way he handled the protests in Paris, said on TV that he had “no taboo” and the option was on the table. The idea was since then discarded… for now. The left will initiate a motion of no-confidence next week (if “social-democrats” sign it). The main left-wing opponent, various pundits (even conservative ones) and Le Pen have called for a dissolution of the Assemblée nationale and early legislative elections. Some right-wing politicians also suggest some kind of referendum. An “act four” is already scheduled for the next Saturday: “we go fetch him, as he asked” says the description. (During the Benalla affair, Macron had bragged “I'm the only one responsible. Let them come for me!”). Macron condemned violences from Argentina. Back in France this morning, he came to inspect damages (as we say in France, l'assassin revient toujours sur les lieux du crime : the murderer always returns to the crime scene). He was met with boos and “Macron resign !” from some yellow vests. Then he had a “crisis meeting” with some of his ministers (Prime, Interior, Ecology). No announcement yet. Macron will not talk today. The government's spokesperson, who has definitely seceded from reality, repeated today that “we hold the course, because our course is the right one”. The political situation is now more tense than ever. Macron is under heavy pressure from everyone: naturally from events themselves, the oppositions of course (who are urging him to act), but also merchants (who don't like seeing their sales revenues fall because of the protests), cops (who are the only physical rampart between the power and angry people… but are getting tired and won't eternally shield the executive) and his own social base (who wants order to be restored). Normally Macron would have essentially 2 options: wait/stall and hold, or yield. Here waiting seems out of question, a third insurrectional Saturday like this in Paris would not be tolerated; and yielding would pretty much mean signing the end of his own term. Macron asked the Prime minister to meet the main leaders from opposition, and some “representatives” of the yellow vests (arbitrarily picked of course). So far Macron has yet to address directly this social and political crisis (and the regime crisis is dawning). Since he concentrates the hate from protestors (it's incredible how many people recall his little arrogant and inflammatory sentences… and there are many of them), only he can do something. Much of his authority and legitimacy are already gone. He should apologize in some way but it's just not his temper. I don't know what he can do to appease people and save face at the same place. + Show Spoiler + Bonus: a good article from the New York Times. | ||
|
pmh
1366 Posts
Growing inequality will inevitably lead to more social unrest and more people more willing to go to the streets to protest. This will keep gettingworse for at least another 10 year,probably much longer. There is no sign at all that inequality will lower in the near future. On the contrary,all signs point to it getting worse. Everyone with power and wealth,both private and institutionalized is clinging on to it and want other people to make the sacrifices that are needed. Protests like this we will see often in coming years. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On December 03 2018 08:15 Elroi wrote: I can see that you have a point, but if you use more fuel you pay more taxes too, right? So this does hit the worst polluters harder. How much is the tax increase by the way? And you can't really say that the biggest companies pollute the most; the people who consume the products should be blamed for some of that pollution? Globally, prices for diesel are up 25% (0.29€/l) and for petrol 15% (0.17€/l) in 2018 which is huge, but mainly driven by oil prices going back up (~2/3 of the increase). There are two main changes ongoing as far as taxes are concerned: - A correction on diesel taxes, that were a lot lower than petrol (mainly to allow French car manufacturers to sell their diesel engines). There was a 0.18€/l difference in 2013 and target is to have the same taxes in 2021 (0.09 remaining difference today) - An increase on taxes linked to CO2 emissions (~0.05€/l for 2018 on both petrol and diesel) On December 03 2018 08:15 Elroi wrote:I am in the middle of this since I am in Paris now for my work and I can't say I understand anything of what is going on. It seems like people just want to fight the power to be honest. Same feeling here (but also as a foreigner in France). Looks like a protest without an objective and without organization, just wanting a fight. This is what makes it interesting to me: No head to talk to, no clear action that could satisfy them and no respect of laws on public protests that allow police forces to prepare (time and place of protests are usually sent days in advance to get a protest authorized). Managing it will be an interesting challenge. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On December 02 2018 05:54 OtherWorld wrote: They're not exactly inefficient outside of urban centers, if anything modern cars are impressively efficient given all the things they have to take into account (security, comfort, pollution, electronics, etc). We know very well how to make a sub-500kg car : that's the Fiat 500 or Mini of the 60s (the Lotus Seven even weights only 330kg). It's just that no one seriously wants to drive around anymore in what is essentially a rolling grave of steel with a primitive engine that can burst into flames at any moment and comfort that would make a horse carriage seem luxurious. Redesigning cars means either sacrificing security or comfort, and consumers don't want to sacrifice any. Essentially, the "efficient redesign" of the car is the motorbike. I think there is largely room for more sobriety in the current cars. Individually, consumers are never going to make structural changes happen so there should be a public regulation to encourage lighter vehicles. On December 03 2018 08:15 Elroi wrote: I can see that you have a point, but if you use more fuel you pay more taxes too, right? So this does hit the worst polluters harder. How much is the tax increase by the way? And you can't really say that the biggest companies pollute the most; the people who consume the products should be blamed for some of that pollution? Nah, companies are exonerated—one of the reasons people saw this as unfair. What Oshuy said for the increase. Structures matter more than individuals and consumers, especially as car use is forced in some areas. If you have no alternative the tax rise will not change your individual behavior and consumption. There is no fiscal solution when your job is 40 km away and no public transport exists. Better land use or giving access to the train are needed on the long-term (but the result of Macron's policy is that small train lines keep closing...). Fiscality alone is not enough for the environmental cause, some kind of central planning is needed since the whole society was built around carbon energies and other unsustainable stuff. Market mechanisms cannot reshape society entirely based on individual incentives. You also can't overlook the social aspect, because some people simply don't have the capital needed to invest in cleaner stuff, and rising the price on forced consumption will have a heavy impact on poor/modest households trapped in suddenly undesirable/"obsolete" technologies (diesel cars here). That's where the government failed. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On December 03 2018 19:58 TheDwf wrote: Nah, companies are exonerated—one of the reasons people saw this as unfair. Electricity production is exonerated (a weird one, you don't get taxed for burning fuel to heat your home), there are also partial refunds for agriculture/fishing and transport. For transport: - Airplanes and merchant vessels are exonerated (international standard + failed attempts in 2012/2015) - Road transport: heavy trucks for the transport of goods, buses and taxis get a partial refund on the tax paid (varies locally, but up to 60% of the tax in some cases) (european standard + failed attempts in 2013). There were additional exonerations that the current gov. removed in october, mainly for construction. Part of the taxes are set/used locally and further exonerations can be added by at regional level on that part (for example, all industry is exonerated on the Reunion island). | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
Macronists are absolulely extraordinary. Those neoliberal zealots are viscerally unable to understand basic social-democrat demands of wealth redistribution. Out of the many demands of the yellow vests, they only picked what fit their agenda: less taxes, and therefore less public expenditure! They chose to ignore the strong demand for public services. For them, less taxes for ordinary people + more public services is “contradictory”. Because in their fanatical minds, you cannot ever ever make big companies and oligarchs pay; the master race should not contribute, that is out of question. The movement will go on, this freeze solves nothing since it's only a “we won't get less” and not a “we get more”. Too little, too late; the Macronie will pay dearly for their earlier intransigeance, now the cost of capitulation rose to unsustainable levels for them. High school and universities are starting to enter the fray too, the first trade union finally pulled a finger out of its *** and scheduled a day of protests the 14/12, neither the oppositions nor the yellow vests were appeased with those mere freezes. I don't see the storm subside. Cop brutality against protestors is reaching unbearable levels. A 80 years old woman died Saturday; she was hit in the head with a tear gas grenade and died later in surgery. Before going to the hospital, she said to her neighbours (she was at home, not even in the street) that cops had deliberately targeted her. The following video was seen millions of times on the Internet: + Show Spoiler + No comment needed. One protestor is in coma after a flash ball hit in the head. Some people lost the use of an eye (flash ball) or their hand (explosive grenades). It's only a matter of time before we see someone die live in front of cameras, in which case Macron and the government can instantly pack. Macron's public actions since he returned to Argentina were exclusively targeted at cops. He promised a prime for cops who were there Saturday. You can see on the following video why: + Show Spoiler + He knows that police is the only thing making the regime hold. If the consent to order is broken among cops too, the insurrection will sweep him. According to a press article, prefects are worried and think the executive is under-reacting, “in a technocratic bubble”. They talk about an “explosive, quasi-insurrectional” situation, almost “pre-revolutionary”. They warn about how much hate Macron concentrates. According to one poll company, after Saturday's insurrection in Paris, 72% of the polled people support the movement (unchanged since the 14/11, before the first day of mobilization). 90% think the government mishandled events. 15% approve the violences (19% in the yellow vests). 79% think the movement can become insurrectional. In another poll, Macron's approval rating is unsurprisingly still collapsing: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtkShi2XgAEA-05.jpg) Out of the 76% who have a negative view on Macron, 50% (+12) do not approve at all, so not only are negative judgments increasing, they're also hardening. Per political proximity: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtkU13gX4AAHdwA.jpg ) Macronists are a sect… 87% approval rating after all those mistakes, it's unreal And to end on a lighter touch, I did not know that Pamela Anderson had turned anarcho-communist lol + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
But protesters getting beat up is always going to happen when violence escalates this badly. They can hardly let the city burn? Throwing heavy beams and rocks at police is not a good thing imo... In other news, Trump retweeted this. It seems you were wrong TheDwf, the problem is not neoliberalism, it is the radical left and Marxism! People want Trump! /s + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On December 05 2018 02:31 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: The woman getting hit by a canister while at home is awful and unforgivable. And hitting someone already on the floor is stupid. But protesters getting beat up is always going to happen when violence escalates this badly. They can hardly let the city burn? Throwing heavy beams and rocks at police is not a good thing imo... In other news, Trump retweeted this. It seems you were wrong TheDwf, the problem is not neoliberalism, it is the radical left and Marxism! People want Trump! /s Hahaha, Jesus the US far-right is really something... 3 high schools pupils were severely wounded today after flash ball hits. Can't count the number of videos of cop brutality that I have seen those past few days... + Show Spoiler + According to some cops, they were directly asked to perform "flat shots" (i.e. with a chance to hit the face of protestors) with flash balls, which is normally forbidden (they are required to target with an angle so that the projectile doesn't hit the head or the chest). So the executive did choose harsh repression. According to one press article today, the president said that "they won't come back on anything they've done those past 18 months". The yellow vests are asking for the return of the 3.5 billions/year wealth tax that the majority removed, and some ministers had said that they might be open to that. The president closed the door. Macron chose the clash. Saturday will be a slaughter. In this context I can't see dramas not happening. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtVV7SBWoAAts-8.jpg)
