EPTYour problem Incognito is that you refuse to acknowledge just basic economic arguments.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 603
| 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. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Your problem Incognito is that you refuse to acknowledge just basic economic arguments. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4548 Posts
How has that changed now that it's looking like Fillon vs Le Pen? Also what do both candidates think of the EU? Le Pen wants to hold a referendum about leaving right? Is Fillon in favour of EU? | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6237 Posts
On November 28 2016 08:59 Incognoto wrote: Canada, Ireland, Scandinavian countries, maybe Spain? It's hard to find neutral material since whoever writes about this topic are guilty confirmation bias to an almost disgusting degree. Japan, France, etc. would be examples of countries where anti-austerity didn't work (though again, some argue that France is in austerity?) I'm not sure, it's hard to talk about this topic because people get pissy straight off (myself included, sorry about that) THe UK and some of the Baltic countries as well. The UK while reducing spending still had a big deficit though. Most countries actually practised Keynesian when the crisis started. It is one of the reasons some of them had to switch into austerity (Greece, Spain). Keynesian failed (as always but w/e). | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On November 28 2016 09:04 WhiteDog wrote: Canada is the only positive exemple, and it worked because they had growth coming from the US ... Where is the growth that could help us sustain our economic activity during the austerity in France ? Your problem Incognito is that you refuse to acknowledge just basic economic arguments. I said Canada, but also Spain and Ireland. If you want to debunk that, I'm fine with it, because every single analysis I've found on those countries is either "paul krugman explains why austerity didn't work" or "paul krugman is an idiot and here's why". There's no neutral material to be found which is why I'm so interested in discussing it with actual people rather than running towards wikipedia. Your condescending attitude adds nothing to the discussion, it's simply making it harder for me to understand your point of view. Why is this so difficult? Are you really a teacher? Your "basic economic arguments" are nonsensical at worst and way too simple at best. If you're going to argue that public spending is good for the economy because it produces activity / wealth, because the government is a huge fiscal entity which can get a LOT of money borrowed at low interest rates, etc. then that is fine. It makes sense even. The problem with you is that you sit behind your own views with 10 layers of sandbags in the form of wikipedia articles and the classic "you're too stupid to understand what I say so I'm not going to bother explaining it to you". You refuse to see any other point of view rather than your own as correct. It's incredibly endearing trying to get a leftist to explain where they're coming from. You also say that we've had austerity in France. To which I say: horseshit. Public expenditure has gone, public debt has gone up, taxes have gone up. All three have risen since the 2009 financial crisis. You know what else is true? The French economy is shit right now. Our companies aren't hiring, our factories are closing, anything with value is being bought by foreigners. This is reality, yet you and all the other French leftists are somehow able to deny this reality and continue to say that liberalizing the economy is basically genocide. Which is all the more stupid as a liberalized economy is one of the lynch pins of individual freedom and responsibility, a notion which is adverse to leftists and communists (we must centralize all production!! the individual must die in the name of the greater good and our regime!). I'm sorry but you and every other French person in this thread really need to bring something better to the table than your snide and petty remarks. I'm TRYING. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
| ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 28 2016 08:59 Incognoto wrote: Canada, Ireland, Scandinavian countries, maybe Spain? It's hard to find neutral material since whoever writes about this topic are guilty confirmation bias to an almost disgusting degree. Japan, France, etc. would be examples of countries where anti-austerity didn't work (though again, some argue that France is in austerity?) I'm not sure, it's hard to talk about this topic because people get pissy straight off (myself included, sorry about that) So how is this going for the people in those countries? How is it affecting other countries in Europe? The Elephant in the room is that the countries that use such politics in the weaker-parts of Europe are all failing, because they can't keep their profitable firms and their highly qualified workers. The countries that use those politics in the better developed parts of Europe are leeching those firms and workers (like Ireland) or are just not paying their own workers properly (like Germany; whose productivity is stagnating, hence they don't really produce more, they just produce for less because they pay less which is hurting everyone around them, who can't sell their own stuff since Germany is flooding the market). Not to mention that I would be very careful calling anything that the big debtors of the crisis did and do "Austerity". Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland endebted themselves massively. That they are holding back right now could also be interpreted as Keynesian politics, just that instead of a normal recession we had a historic neoliberal economic drop and instead of a strong growth period we have a small growth/stagnation. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6237 Posts
On November 28 2016 19:01 Big J wrote: So how is this going for the people in those countries? How is it affecting other countries in Europe? The Elephant in the room is that the countries that use such politics in the weaker-parts of Europe are all failing, because they can't keep their profitable firms and their highly qualified workers. The countries that use those politics in the better developed parts of Europe are leeching those firms and workers (like Ireland) or are just not paying their own workers properly (like Germany; whose productivity is stagnating, hence they don't really produce more, they just produce for less because they pay less which is hurting everyone around them, who can't sell their own stuff since Germany is flooding the market). Germany's relatively low productivity growth can be explained by the fact that the Hartz reforms were aimed at letting the structurally unemployed back into the workforce. This has been a success with the unemployment rate falling by more than half since 2005. Lower productivity makes sense if you take that into consideration since it means you're taking in the (at least intially) less productive members of society into the workforce. German wages have been rising by 2+% in real terms for a while now. Not to mention that I would be very careful calling anything that the big debtors of the crisis did and do "Austerity". Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland endebted themselves massively. That they are holding back right now could also be interpreted as Keynesian politics, just that instead of a normal recession we had a historic neoliberal economic drop and instead of a strong growth period we have a small growth/stagnation. They endebted themselves because they used Keynesian stimulus in 2009 and then when their deficits became too high they had to go into austerity. They've been steadily reducing deficits since then.That they're not reducing spending as much doesn't make this Keynesian. The same argument was made about the UK in 2012 and it was as wrong then as it is now. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 28 2016 08:30 Incognoto wrote: Socializing banking losses is something the entire world had to do due to the 2009 sub prime crisis. It's an ugly thing but you can put that on the banker's of wall street really. They're too big to die, otherwise they take the world with them. Yeah, so at the very least you don't let their behaviour unpunished, you don't do this without counterparty, and you don't let the population suffer a triple penalty (massive rise of the debt because of the bail out and recession afterwards because of the credit crunch and austerity to try to reduce deficits). Saying austerity policies lead to unemployment is a bit of a stretch Just watch the unemployment rate after 2010: continuous rise. Again, you're saying we have austerity policies but the debt has not gone down There is no contradiction! Because austerity, when done in the worst possible time (e. g. 2011) and in a bad environment (like the eurozone), does not work. That's why it's criticized! See Greece for the typical example. Economic activity simply contracts, which means less tax revenues, which nullifies the effects of spending less. Is that really austerity or is my definition somehow off? I thought austerity was less public spending, less debt and more taxes to pay for it all. we have more taxes but also more public spending and more debt under both fillon/sarko and hollande. Well, if even Fillon says it was austerity, it's hard to say it wasn't… http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2011/11/07/les-mesures-du-nouveau-plan-d-austerite_1599890_823448.html There was a 50 billions austerity plan under Valls. Now, we're in a pre-electoral year and there were lots of social protests, so naturally… Of course there are debates around austerity and what it means—as with everything, depending on your perspective: http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2014/04/22/austerite-rigueur-relance-croissance-de-quoi-parle-t-on_4405207_4355770.html | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 28 2016 17:29 Laurens wrote: So 2 weeks ago most French posters were 100% sure Le Pen would lose. How has that changed now that it's looking like Fillon vs Le Pen? Also what do both candidates think of the EU? Le Pen wants to hold a referendum about leaving right? Is Fillon in favour of EU? Nothing changed in that regard. Yes, Le Pen wants to hold a referendum. Fillon is very pro-EU (though he criticizes the ECHR), his whole program revolves around adaptating France to the constraints of the eurozone. He wants more integration, and a government of the eurozone. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On November 28 2016 20:34 TheDwf wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On November 28 2016 08:30 Incognoto wrote: Socializing banking losses is something the entire world had to do due to the 2009 sub prime crisis. It's an ugly thing but you can put that on the banker's of wall street really. They're too big to die, otherwise they take the world with them. Yeah, so at the very least you don't let their behaviour unpunished, you don't do this without counterparty, and you don't let the population suffer a triple penalty (massive rise of the debt because of the bail out and recession afterwards because of the credit crunch and austerity to try to reduce deficits). Saying austerity policies lead to unemployment is a bit of a stretch Just watch the unemployment rate after 2010: continuous rise. Again, you're saying we have austerity policies but the debt has not gone down There is no contradiction! Because austerity, when done in the worst possible time (e. g. 2011) and in a bad environment (like the eurozone), does not work. That's why it's criticized! See Greece for the typical example. Economic activity simply contracts, which means less tax revenues, which nullifies the effects of spending less. Is that really austerity or is my definition somehow off? I thought austerity was less public spending, less debt and more taxes to pay for it all. we have more taxes but also more public spending and more debt under both fillon/sarko and hollande. Well, if even Fillon says it was austerity, it's hard to say it wasn't… http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2011/11/07/les-mesures-du-nouveau-plan-d-austerite_1599890_823448.html There was a 50 billions austerity plan under Valls. Now, we're in a pre-electoral year and there were lots of social protests, so naturally… Of course there are debates around austerity and what it means—as with everything, depending on your perspective: http://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2014/04/22/austerite-rigueur-relance-croissance-de-quoi-parle-t-on_4405207_4355770.html From the articles you linked: Car le choix de l'endettement n'est plus possible : Bruxelles contrôle de près le niveau du déficit, que la France s'est engagée à ramener sous les 3 % du produit intérieur brut (PIB). Il ne reste donc le choix qu'entre austérité et rigueur. Le choix des mots permet en effet de donner une coloration plus sociale ou moins libérale à des plans d'économies imposés en réalité par les circonstances et les choix précédents de l'exécutif. My translation: Because the choice of debt is no longer possible: Brussels controls closely the amount of deficit, which France has pledged to bring under the 3% of France's GDP. Thus the only choice left is that between austerity and rigor. The choice of words here gives a better vibe, more social and less liberal, to economic plans which are forced upon us by real circumstances and the choices of preceding executives. In other words, austerity isn't a choice, it's a necessity. There are two questions which are consistently avoided. The first is whether or not it's responsible (an acceptable risk, if you will), to take on mountains of debt which will need to be paid off later. Isn't that just a bet? You're betting billions of € that the economy will take off again by spending billions of €. Are you saying that this bet is a safe one or an easy one to make? Secondly, people consistently fail to say what those investments should be. If you hire a bunch of bureaucrats to sit around moping in their offices, is that really going to jump start the economy? I think not. It's not productive. If tear up public infrastructure, only to rebuild it (changing intersections to roundabouts, then back to intersections), do you think that will actually help start the economy again? No. You're destroying wealth, only to recreate what you've just destroyed. Believe me, I've seen SO many roads and building being torn up and rebuilt over the past few years. That's just me personally. Do you think that actually helps the economy? Or isn't just wasting public money? The money question is, what do you, as the government, invest in? So far as I've seen, the government is almost criminally incompetent when it comes to spending public money. The alternative is that you lower taxation on companies and the private sector. You take people who actually have a living, who have ideas on new products, new services, new ways to reach out to clients. Why not trust those people, instead of the incompetent government? The private sector will always be more intelligent, more efficient and create more value than the public sector. There is competition, there is the drive to make things work. There's none of that in the public office full of fat cats who literally have all their salaries and pensions already lined up. Public expenditure could be a good tool to help stimulate the economy, but the French public sector are full of idiotic technocrats who are detached from reality. They are in no position whatsoever to be handling large sums of cash because they're too stupid to do so. You need only look at the reality of our current economic situation to see that. It's fine to have Keynesian values and so on; yes, those values make sense. However the reality is that they don't really work. They only work when the government is competent, which they aren't. Hence, Fillon saying he'll reduce the role of the public sector is a good thing. Fillon saying he'll get rid of the ISF, in order to attract investors (you know, people who are willing to ACTUALLY INVEST OH MY GOD) is a good thing. Fillon saying that he'll loosen up worker rights so that companies are more willing to risk hiring people is a good thing. It's less public sector, more private sector. That makes sense to me. Fuck the public sector and their shitty "régimes spéciaux". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_special_retirement_plan This is fucking absurd: EDF and GDF average retirement age: 55.4; RATP: average retirement age: 54.8; SNCF average retirement age: 52.5; Sailors: average retirement age: 57.6; | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 28 2016 19:40 RvB wrote: Germany's relatively low productivity growth can be explained by the fact that the Hartz reforms were aimed at letting the structurally unemployed back into the workforce. This has been a success with the unemployment rate falling by more than half since 2005. Lower productivity makes sense if you take that into consideration since it means you're taking in the (at least intially) less productive members of society into the workforce. German wages have been rising by 2+% in real terms for a while now. German wages have been rising for around 2 years now. Before that Germany was stagnating or lowering their wages, which is why other countries economies are in trouble keeping up with the products made in Germany. Exactly, Germany has been forcing huge amounts of unemployed onto their labor market. That makes it easy to keep the wages low, because in lower educated jobs the bosses have an easy time to always find someone who works for even less and outside of collective agreements. Germany has more working poor than ever before now, before that, they at least did not have to work for the same money and those who did work got properly paid. They endebted themselves because they used Keynesian stimulus in 2009 and then when their deficits became too high they had to go into austerity. They've been steadily reducing deficits since then.That they're not reducing spending as much doesn't make this Keynesian. The same argument was made about the UK in 2012 and it was as wrong then as it is now. The Southern countries are hardly losing debt in GDP, because they are killing their GDP through austerity (much moreso than the IMF predicted). Relatively there is nothing happening, besides people losing their jobs due to the economy crumbling and the banks getting their money back to survive, which is then lent by IMF and ECB instead. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
Germany has more working poor than ever before now, before that, they at least did not have to work for the same money and those who did work got properly paid. As unfortunate as that is, you forget that someone who works and makes money is a boon to the society. Someone who doesn't work and receives money from others is a liability. Everyone should be creating value. Why should one person ever be entitled to receive without giving something back? To set the record straight and before you jump down my throat, I absolutely believe that those with the lowest income deserve better treatment. What I don't condone is the idea that it is fine that someone sits idle and be entitled to receive anything while bringing nothing to the table. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
• Fillon won 67:33 vs Juppé yesterday. 4.3 millions of people voted (i.e. ~10% of the whole electoral body). • This might trigger a candidature from Bayrou (center-right), who was previously endorsing Juppé. Bayrou considers that Fillon's program is too radical. He was the third man in the 2007 election (6.8 million votes, 18.5%), and was fifth in 2012 (3.2 million votes, 9.13%). • Unlike their delegates, the PCF base decided to endorse Mélenchon (53.6% of the militants voted to support his campaign), so the PCF should campaign for him. Contrary to the previous 2012 campaign, there were no negotiations about the program. The PCF is quite divided but too weak to run alone anyway. • The PRG (center-left), a fairly insignificant satellite of the PS, decided to have an automonous candidate, refusing to participate in the January primary organized by the PS (in 2012, they were part of the PS primary… scoring 0.64% of the votes). The PS is more and more isolated. Their amibition to unite the whole left under the banner of their primary is completely falling apart. • The press is heavily insisting upon the disagreements between Hollande and Valls. Valls basically wants to take Hollande's place in the primary. Hollande is expected to run again, but never clearly said he would participate in the PS primary (the deadline is the 15 December to be candidate). Hollande is extremely weakened and many people from his close circle are fleeing from him. There are rumors about Valls resigning soon to announce his candidature. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:59 Incognoto wrote: As unfortunate as that is, you forget that someone who works and makes money is a boon to the society. Someone who doesn't work and receives money from others is a liability. Everyone should be creating value. Why should one person ever be entitled to receive without giving something back? To set the record straight and before you jump down my throat, I absolutely believe that those with the lowest income deserve better treatment. What I don't condone is the idea that it is fine that someone sits idle and be entitled to receive anything while bringing nothing to the table. Because work is a good, sold by people to firms. If you do not organize that workforce properly - which in the end comes down to the state; unions may do the job, but they need the backing of the state and not all jobs are unionized - and guarantee them a living while they are unemployed, then they will have to sell their work very cheaply. That's just how the market works. Obviously there are going to be people who are leeching in this system. It is an extremely minor factor and like the vast, vast majority of people I do not envy them for their lives with a few hundret euros every month. If that is what makes them happy, I am happy to provide the 20 monthly euro of an average wage that the Austrian "Mindestsicherungs"-system costs me. Which is probably a lot less than what I would have to pay for extra policemen and jails, when those people would still be unemployed but criminal, as we can see in the US. By the way, the German Hartz system forces many people to take on any job they can get, even if they are seriously underpaid. The state then provides extra payments in underpaid jobs. Which in short means, the state provides for an unprofitable business model of a firm, or an asshole who just can't get enough and underpays his workers. It's a money allocation from the bottom to the top. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
1. Why was Juppe more popular than Fillon in the polls for the general, and why did Fillon win the nomination? 2. Do you think that the likelihood of a Le Pen victory is increasing? What are the major issues at stake here, and what chance would you ascribe to the results going in her favor as a probability? I don't think Le Pen is leading, but I can absolutely see that she is gaining ground rapidly, and polling is sparse enough to miss that, potentially. She shouldn't win, but if the opposition is arrogant enough to do anything they want under the threat of "fall in line or else Le Pen" they just might find that people give them a giant "fuck you" for it. That's absolutely what happened with Clinton who should have easily been able to dispatch Trump but made it close because of arrogance and willingness to assume that her opponent was Hitler enough to do whatever she wanted with impunity. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:44 Incognoto wrote: In other words, austerity isn't a choice, it's a necessity. If you're liberal and/or accept the coercitive framework of the European treaties, yes. That's why Hollande's original sin/betrayal is his signature of the TSCG without renegotiating it, as he had promised. Just like Mitterrand, he chose the European Union over social transformation. The result is a TINA policy. The first is whether or not it's responsible (an acceptable risk, if you will), to take on mountains of debt which will need to be paid off later. Isn't that just a bet? You're betting billions of € that the economy will take off again by spending billions of €. Are you saying that this bet is a safe one or an easy one to make? It's not necessarily about spending more, even if it's needed in some domains, but about spending better (e. g. the 41 billions of euros of the CICE = wasted money) and above all getting more tax revenues! Between fiscal evasion, tax niches and big companies paying almost nothing (much less, relatively, than small ones!), the State is lacking dozens of billions of revenues each year. Not to mention the fiscal shield for the ultra-wealthy; there's definitely a problem when people who have 30 billions of patrimony pay zero fortune tax… Secondly, people consistently fail to say what those investments should be. Ecological/energy transition would be a good start, France is too slow on renewnable energies. The alternative is that you lower taxation on companies and the private sector. You take people who actually have a living, who have ideas on new products, new services, new ways to reach out to clients. Why not trust those people, instead of the incompetent government? The private sector will always be more intelligent, more efficient and create more value than the public sector. There is competition, there is the drive to make things work. Aka trickle down economy… The thing which never worked and is responsible for most of the debt so far. In the fairy land of trickle down economy, lowering taxes → more profits → higher investment → more jobs → more salaries → more activity. In practice, the richest simply pocket the money and gamble it in the financial casino (or lend it back to the State, but with interests!!), while lower and middle classes are forced to pay more taxes to compensate (and/or debt keeps slowly rising, as it did the past decades). The private sector is also responsible for huge disasters like the subprime crisis. How is that a sign of competence? Unregulated capitalism always leads to catastrophes, the system is structurally imbalanced and concentrates wealth/power in fewer and fewer hands while the common good is lost (the private sector cares mostly about profit, the rest be damned). See the environmental crisis and rising inequalities following globalization. The 2 richest French possess as much as the 20 millions poorest ones. The 62 richest people in the world possess as much as the 3.5 billions poorest ones. That's absolutely insane and totally useless. Remember that corporate tax used to be 50% + Show Spoiler + and no one was saying we were living in a marxist-leninist hell; and that was the right governing! funny how times change Hence, Fillon saying he'll reduce the role of the public sector is a good thing. Fillon saying he'll get rid of the ISF, in order to attract investors (you know, people who are willing to ACTUALLY INVEST OH MY GOD) is a good thing. Fillon saying that he'll loosen up worker rights so that companies are more willing to risk hiring people is a good thing. Companies hire when they anticipate activity and profit, that's all. If you massacre solvent demand through wage austerity, they won't hire because there will be no (higher) demand to begin with… There's no link between unemployment and worker rights. Even the OECD, which doesn't exactly fight for international communist revolution, found a negative correlation between the two for France (i. e. the more you deregulate… the more unemployment you produce). The labour market has been deregulated for decades in France; CDDs, stages and intérim dramatically increased and unemployement has never been higher. Direct proof of the ineffectiveness of the liberal approach. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6237 Posts
On November 28 2016 21:51 Big J wrote: German wages have been rising for around 2 years now. Before that Germany was stagnating or lowering their wages, which is why other countries economies are in trouble keeping up with the products made in Germany. Exactly, Germany has been forcing huge amounts of unemployed onto their labor market. That makes it easy to keep the wages low, because in lower educated jobs the bosses have an easy time to always find someone who works for even less and outside of collective agreements. Germany has more working poor than ever before now, before that, they at least did not have to work for the same money and those who did work got properly paid. The Southern countries are hardly losing debt in GDP, because they are killing their GDP through austerity (much moreso than the IMF predicted). Relatively there is nothing happening, besides people losing their jobs due to the economy crumbling and the banks getting their money back to survive, which is then lent by IMF and ECB instead. Wages were indeed stagnant due to to a large part of the populace being unemployed. It's no surprise that wages wouldn't grow as much in the short/medium term. Yet due to the reforms more people are employed and the labour market is tightening which has caused good wage rises the last couple of years. Yes working poor is terrible but now they at least have the chance to work and in the long term increase their prospects. You're viewing poor/middle class/ rich in static terms while that is not the case. When you're employed you can escape the poverty trap by climbing the ladder and increasing your skills at the workplace. Training skills that employers need is a lot harder when you're unemployed. You can help the working poor by other ways with them keeping their jobs like (small) minimum wage increases or a negative income tax (which I prefer). The question is whether Keynesian stimulus would've led to a lower debt to gdp ratio which I don't think is the case. What you're doing is putting all job losses on austerity neglecting that the financial crisis was not due to this at all and that the euro crisis was at least in part a consequence of earlier reckless spending. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On November 28 2016 23:37 TheDwf wrote:Ecological/energy transition would be a good start, France is too slow on renewnable energies. It's called nuclear power. France is already very efficient with its energy, it's quite cheap and CO2 emissions are low. Renewable energy is hardly of primordial importance in France, it's basically the same idiot shit as re-building roads which are already fine. So there goes that. On November 28 2016 23:37 TheDwf wrote:It's not necessarily about spending more, even if it's needed in some domains, but about spending better (e. g. the 41 billions of euros of the CICE = wasted money) and above all getting more tax revenues! Between fiscal evasion, tax niches and big companies paying almost nothing (much less, relatively, than small ones!), the State is lacking dozens of billions of revenues each year. Not to mention the fiscal shield for the ultra-wealthy; there's definitely a problem when people who have 30 billions of patrimony pay zero fortune tax… Lol. This is entirely different from Keynesian policies. That's just holding the super rich (people and companies) accountable. Which is, I entirely agree, absolutely necessary. Naturally what doesn't help is when ministers are responsible for tax evasions themselves. Unfortunately all French politicians are rotten to the core. Would be nice to drain that swamp. At very least, we're agreeing here. However this isn't state intervention in the economy, this is supposed to be normal. On November 28 2016 23:37 TheDwf wrote:If you're liberal and/or accept the coercitive framework of the European treaties, yes. That's why Hollande's original sin/betrayal is his signature of the TSCG without renegotiating it, as he had promised. Just like Mitterrand, he chose the European Union over social transformation. The result is a TINA policy. So we should tell Europe to fuck off? Leave Europe? Furthermore, do you think that it is responsible, or a good idea, to gamble on short term economic stimulation, with the losing bet being bankruptcy (like Greece... which didn't go bankrupt while applying austerity measures). Also that debt will have to be repaid in the future. For all your hate on the banksters, you sure are keen to have them tighten their grip on our country. Aka trickle down economy… The thing which never worked and is responsible for most of the debt so far. In the fairy land of trickle down economy, lowering taxes → more profits → higher investment → more jobs → more salaries → more activity. In practice, the richest simply pocket the money and gamble it in the financial casino (or lend it back to the State, but with interests!!), while lower and middle classes are forced to pay more taxes to compensate (and/or debt keeps slowly rising, as it did the past decades). I'm not really talking about trickle down economy, I'm talking about economic liberties. Economic liberty is normal, sane and healthy. The "rich" pay more taxes than the lower classes, except for of course they don't, they're hiding their money. I'm not talking about the super rich, I'm talking about normal people starting small companies and growing them. The sub-prime crisis an example of the super rich fucking things up but their economic liberty isn't what I'm talking about, they are above the law either way. Banksters (I like the term) are being held more accountable today than before, which is fine. The private sector is also responsible for huge disasters like the subprime crisis. How is that a sign of competence? Unregulated capitalism always leads to catastrophes, the system is structurally imbalanced and concentrates wealth/power in fewer and fewer hands while the common good is lost (the private sector cares mostly about profit, the rest be damned). See the environmental crisis and rising inequalities following globalization. The 2 richest French possess as much as the 20 millions poorest ones. The 62 richest people in the world possess as much as the 3.5 billions poorest ones. That's absolutely insane and totally useless. That's, again, an issue with the richest being above the rules. They aren't playing the same game as you and I. Apple and co are above the law and write off legal fees as normal operation expenses. THAT is an issue, I completely agree. The issue here is not capitalism, the issue is that the richest people and corporations are above the law. If they respected the law then you can have capitalism and it will be the best thing in the world. But they don't and that is your problem. Some guy who invests in his start-up because he has a good idea is not a filthy piece of shit who is looking to exploit slave labor. Doctors and dentists are not hell-spawn. Working and making money is not a sin. Companies hire when they anticipate activity and profit, that's all. If you massacre solvent demand through wage austerity, they won't hire because there will be no (higher) demand to begin with… There's no link between unemployment and worker rights. Even the OECD, which doesn't exactly fight for international communist revolution, found a negative correlation between the two for France (i. e. the more you deregulate… the more unemployment you produce). The labour market has been deregulated for decades in France; CDDs, stages and intérim dramatically increased and unemployement has never been higher. Direct proof of the ineffectiveness of the liberal approach. Again, it's not the liberal approach which is the problem here. Liberalism doesn't mean that some people shouldn't follow the law. Companies do hire when they anticipate activity and profit and that is perfectly normal. However what you don't seem to understand is that salaries isn't the problem with companies. Companies have no problems paying big money to people if they're worth the money. However companies do not have the flexibility anymore to lay off people during economic trouble. So they don't hire. That is why CDDs, internships and interim work is so high. Companies don't want to take the risk of hiring people who will end up being liabilities. Nor should they. The first function of a company is to make money, not to employ people. I do agree that companies should be held accountable to their employees, to an extent. However in France I think it goes too far. You should be able to lay someone off easily without having to pay them a year's worth of salary or going through lengthy administrative procedures. Nor do I think that you should be able to fire someone on a whim and leave them without a job in a day. I think there's a middle ground somewhere to be found. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On November 28 2016 23:26 LegalLord wrote: So I looked at the Wiki page for the French election, and it looks like Fillon is significantly less popular in the general than Juppe, despite winning the nomination. And as of two months ago a poll said he had a 14% margin over Le Pen but it was dropping quickly. So, a few questions. 1. Why was Juppe more popular than Fillon in the polls for the general, and why did Fillon win the nomination? 2. Do you think that the likelihood of a Le Pen victory is increasing? What are the major issues at stake here, and what chance would you ascribe to the results going in her favor as a probability? I don't think Le Pen is leading, but I can absolutely see that she is gaining ground rapidly, and polling is sparse enough to miss that, potentially. She shouldn't win, but if the opposition is arrogant enough to do anything they want under the threat of "fall in line or else Le Pen" they just might find that people give them a giant "fuck you" for it. That's absolutely what happened with Clinton who should have easily been able to dispatch Trump but made it close because of arrogance and willingness to assume that her opponent was Hitler enough to do whatever she wanted with impunity. 1. Juppé was the mainstream media candidate + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CyTMMgBXUAAIDgd.jpg:large) Fillon won because he's the synthesis between the classic conservative catholic right (which rallied to protest against gay marriage) and the economically liberal right. Primaries in France attract older and richer people than the whole electoral body, so basically hardcore right people came to vote for their best reflection. Juppé was seen as too centrist/moderate. The islamophobic far right also campaigned against him, calling him “Ali Juppé” [his first name is Alain]… The right electorate in France also wants a severe candidate on the “4I” (immigration, islam, identity, insecurity), and Fillon was harsher on those themes. Fillon's style also perfectly matches the wishes of this right; they want someone sober and square, without any judicial case, and that's again him. He really physically embodies austerity lol. Once Sarkozy was out (the first round was mostly a referendum against him, which he lost 80:20), the right-wing people simply chose the one who was the closest to them… even if, on many themes, he's completely against the general trend of the French society. 2. Nope. In fact, Fillon's positioning on identity themes is bad for her; she will be forced to criticize him on the European Union and his economically liberal program, but economy is an area in which the FN is generally perceived as “non credible,” so… We'll see when the campaign really begins anyway. Le Pen isn't gaining ground lately by the way, she's been high in polls for years (too high if you ask me) and I don't think she has room left to rise. At some point you simply run into mathematical realities. If Fillon applies his program, the French society will explode anyway. | ||
| ||
