|
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. |
On April 26 2017 02:53 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 02:27 warding wrote:On April 25 2017 11:53 cLutZ wrote:On April 25 2017 10:42 warding wrote:On April 25 2017 10:19 cLutZ wrote:
Can someone from France explain how Le Pen is considered so threatening to the status quo? Her economic illiteracy is the same as all the other candidates (except the one that finished 3rd), and my understanding is that if she tries to unilaterally do something on EU you can no-confidence vote and get a new President?
Unless immigration is really the #1 issue of the time in France, but idk how that's possible given that they don't get to vote. Why do you consider Macron economically illiterate? In the realm of ideas, Le Pen comes from the same place fascism came from. We tried it out a whole ago on this side of the pond and it left us a really bad taste in our mouths. Edit: to add a little bit of seriousness to the snark, she doesn't have to unilaterally try to leave the EU - nor could she - but I'm guessing she could call s referendum which would run the risk of going the same way the UK did. To everyone in Europe, that is real economic and social upheaval if it happens. Its my understanding he is marketed as an "economic centrist/realist" but doesn't have anything about the early retirement age, 35 hr work week, or pension cuts in his platform. Also I haven't seen a plan for reducing the youth unemployment rate. He's fine elsewhere, and certainly better than Le Pen, but I dont see why she's cataclysmic. The immigration thing, IMO seems like a predictable response to a country with a large welfare state. Open borders or a welfare state, pick one, is the old Milton Friedman saying. (...) What's really baffling to me is the aspirational side of what each candidate represents and the preferences of (some of) the French. If you look at which countries are ahead of France in both the Human Development Index and GDP per capita this is the list you get: Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, Switzerland, United States, Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, Germany, Iceland, Denmark, Canada and the United Kingdom. It seems to me that jobs and the economy is the single most important issue in the election. What those countries have in common are much more liberal economic and labour market policies - as per the doing business ranking or the economic freedom ranking. Macron's ideas for France aspire to that model. Meanwhile, Melanchon's aspiration is Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Fidel's Cuba. Le Pen's aspirations belong in the first half of the XX century. I don't understand how someone can enjoy the high standard of living the French do and think "you know what's missing? Toilet paper shortages and rationed soap". Repeating stupid caricatures from the neoliberal press does not make them any more true, stick to your TINA worshipping instead of being smug and pretending like you understand anything to the socialist left
Then educate me. Anything but George Monbiot articles tho, he's unreadable and does not really understand what he hates.
|
|
|
That article makes no sense because it says "we are all living under this thing called neoliberalism and no one knows what it is." The reality is, people just called it "conservative economics" at least in the US & UK, so the entire premise of people not knowing about it is just wrong. On top of that, neoliberalism is not what governs us, the FDR/New Deal/Social Welfare systems are predominant everywhere and the Reagan/Thatcher style reforms simply oriented the welfare states in a more sustainable direction for some time. This needs to be done again in quite a few places (like the US's healthcare system), or the pensions & youth unemployment in France.
If he was correct and neoliberalism had triumphed, Western governments would look like that of Hong Kong, or Singapore.
|
Yesterday, as said here, Le Pen stepped down from her party presidency, so according to the statutes of the party, the vice-president replaced her. Guess what? It turned out that this guy had made negationnist statements about gas chambers a few years ago.
See, this is why you simply can't take this scum seriously. They're just so hopelessly dumb.
|
This article actually really shows what the problem with this mindset is. We all get the criticism of neoliberalism. Very few people passionately think that it is a great way to organise society, but what is interesting about this article is that it's entirely void of offering a concrete, palpable path out and a positive vision.
There's a ton of words in that article and it ends with "A coherent alternative has to be proposed". I would have liked if Monbiot would have actually taken more time to explain that coherent alternative to me.
you can rehash the critique as often as you want but 'neoliberals' aren't going to voluntarily self-destruct. It's not just enough to complain, there actually needs to be some kind of real plan on the left that people are willing to buy. Instead people like Mélenchon, almost in nostalgic style only have to offer the 60's and 70's national welfare state. But we have all seen that this has already failed.
Bernie, Corbyn and Mélenchon are all sentimental traditionalists in a way, not revolutionaries. They even look like they're a hundred years old. That Mélenchon resorted to holograms to give his ancient program a new touch basically was satire
|
On April 26 2017 04:42 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 04:34 Big J wrote:On April 26 2017 04:27 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 04:26 Big J wrote:On April 26 2017 04:24 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 03:53 Big J wrote:On April 26 2017 03:44 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 03:28 Big J wrote:On April 26 2017 03:12 Poopi wrote:
I am not sure what problem you have with the 100%: is it because it's not 100%-ε?
In which case it's just cleaner to just write 100%.
Or is it that you think that writing 100% means we predict the future for sure and this is what will happen?
In which case it's not predicting the future, it is giving a picture of the outcome at time T according to a model which can give different results every day since it's based on data that is renewed every day (but they are very likely not to change that much). With this model it's possible that its output is 100% / rounded to 100%.
For example, if I were to play a bo7 against ByuN, aligulac would predict that ByuN wins with around 100%, maybe they will say 99.999% if they are cheeky and don't like esthetic ways to present results, but it's the same. Yes, the first one. As I said, and as Danglar said a few pages ago: You shouldn't mention 100% certainty with a prediction. It's hard enough alreay to have people understand, that these are exact mathematical procedures, based on data that might be not be as well-researched as a scientist would like. It's not the math that's wrong, it's people's interpretations of it and working with rounded 100% certainty for these purposes is missleading them further. Yet you accept that the probability density of a single point in continuous probabilities is 0? Okay Yeah, of course I accept that. It is not rounded to zero, it is actually zero. Yes but do we call such an event impossible or almost impossible?  Obviously impossible.  Then I'd like the source, because for an event of probability 1 I'm pretty sure that we call that "almost certain" or "almost sure" so I guess it's the other way for 0. Oh sorry, you are right. It is possible. The probability is still actually zero, unlike what we were taking about before with your rounded up 100%, that is not actually 100%. Yes I know that it is not exactly 100% but if we can agree on calling a 0 probability event "almost never" instead of "never" we could agree on calling 99.99x% 100%  . Anyways seeing the other probabilities they are giving, they only show one decimal and seem to round to the superior, so their prediction is most likely between 99.9 % and 100%. About the fact that it's hard to make people understand the intricacies of such processes, well if everyone understood it easily, you wouldn't work in the same field would you? :o
Let's just say that's not how math works, but we understand each others positions and are happy to have discussed them.
It's quite annoying when you get attacked all the time because people, in particarily journalists, publish wrong interpretations. When even people close to you are calling your work "unnecessary", because you are "wrong all the time", when in fact it is them getting distorted pictures from the media. That's why I'm so allergic on these issues I guess. Sorry.
|
France12886 Posts
Okay .
I'm not yet in that position but I feel you.
|
Damn, I linked an article just for the few first lines that I remembered and you actually all read it, my bad, I'll be more careful next time
“Sentimental traditionalists” lol... You liberal centrists are really something, Macron literally wants to take back our social model to the XIXth century with piecework, little to no social protection and individualized funded pensions and he's the one you'll all be licking as young, fresh, modern and dynamic
Macron's results = 1 million of extra jobless people, dozens of billions spent on companies for nothing (except their dividends, 56 billions in 2016, record in Europe, cocorico), +650 FN voters per day (but +1650 for us, so actually maybe it's good that he lingers a bit)
Some of his best statements:
“French workers are paid too much”
“Employees need to work more without being paid more if trade unions agree”
“The FN is, other things being equal, a kind of French Syriza”
“I don't like the expression social model”
“British people were lucky to have Margaret Thatcher”
“I dream of a society without status”
“I'm not here to defend existing jobs”
“There's mass unemployment in France because workers are protected too much”
“I won't forbid Uber, otherwise they would just go back to selling drug [about suburb youth]”
“Given the economic situation, not paying overtime is a necessity”
“I want France to be a start-up nation [sic]”
Much modernity, such wow
Dozens of reforms to liberalize the labour market were passed since the 80's, unemployment has never been higher, but of course it's because not enough was done! Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Then they snivel and wonder why people increasingly vote for what they call “populists” ... Geez
Someone proposes another path and he's a romantic who read too much the Mao book, OK
Our political current proposed tons of things to de-financialize the economy, organize international trade/globalization differently, decrease the power of shareholders, prevent obscene wealth accumulation, fight fiscal fraud, redistribute, improve social protection, but you don't care, you don't read, you discard it with disdain, since it comes from our side it's just “Cuba without the sun” as Mr. Macron mockingly puts it
Macron will understand his pain in a few months, he didn't realize that he's dancing above a volcano, he thinks it'll be just business as usual brutalizing people to extort more profit... he's set for a big surprise. Just give us 2-3 years and he'll be running from the pitchforks to the German border, you can have him then
|
France12886 Posts
On April 26 2017 05:43 TheDwf wrote:
Macron's results = 1 million of extra jobless people
I remember that line from the Youtube video of some angry hairy dude, so I'll ask there in hope for an honest answer:
is there a proof that this is (100%) due to his politics when he was finance minister, and not the natural consequences of his predecessors? If so, where is it?
If there isn't, then you are being fallacious so why should I listen to you?
|
You can't on the one side complain about people simplifying Mélenchon or making a caricature of him and then act as if Macron has sinister intentions and wants to sell his mother and all the workers so that the banks can make more profit. That's the exact same shitty generalisation into the other direction. I guess you could at least grant him a little benefit of the doubt and wait until he actually fucks up.
If Macron does what Schröder did in Germany the result will be very ambiguous. It's not clear at all objectively ten years later if has only hurt us, improved the situation or whatever. Even on the left people disagree about this.
But to act as if he's automatically going to fail even before he's in office is just not reasonable.
|
On April 26 2017 05:52 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 05:43 TheDwf wrote:
Macron's results = 1 million of extra jobless people I remember that line from the Youtube video of some angry hairy dude, so I'll ask there in hope for an honest answer: is there a proof that this is (100%) due to his politics when he was finance minister, and not the natural consequences of his predecessors? If so, where is it? If there isn't, then you are being fallacious so why should I listen to you?
In the first months it was of course the consequence of Sarkozy/Fillon's policies, but after that it was Hollande/Macron yes (who didn't deviate at all from what was done before anyway). Macron was the economic advisor back in the first 2 years. The austerity, the supply-side policies with the CICE and the pacte de responsabilité, obviously the loi Macron but also the labour bill (which was supposed to be the loi Macron 2), it's all him
On April 26 2017 05:56 Nyxisto wrote:
You can't on the one side complain about people simplifying Mélenchon or making a caricature of him and then act as if Macron has sinister intentions and wants to sell his mother and all the workers so that the banks can make more profit. That's the exact same shitty generalisation into the other direction. I guess you could at least grant him a little benefit of the doubt and wait until he actually fucks up.
If Macron does what Schröder does in Germany the result will be very ambiguous. It's not clear at all objectively ten years later if has only hurt us, improved the situation or whatever. Even on the left people disagree about this.
But to act as if he's automatically going to fail even before he's in office is just not reasonable.
...
He has already been tried during 4 years under Hollande, he inspired or was associated with all the big economic decisions, as close advisor then minister. I don't even need to make predictions, even if I actually could; I only need to look at the current (lack of positive) results. I don't need to wait him to actually f*ck up because he already f*cked up.
And yes he wants to do what Schröder did
|
“French workers are paid too much”
“Employees need to work more without being paid more if trade unions agree”
“The FN is, other things being equal, a kind of French Syriza”
“I don't like the expression social model”
“British people were lucky to have Margaret Thatcher”
“I dream of a society without status”
“I'm not here to defend existing jobs”
“There's mass unemployment in France because workers are protected too much”
“I won't forbid Uber, otherwise they would just go back to selling drug [about suburb youth]”
“Given the economic situation, not paying overtime is a necessity”
“I want France to be a start-up nation [sic]”
I think most of these statements are fine (what's wrong with start-ups?) but the first one made me laugh. It's astonishing to see a banker complain about other people's earnings.
|
France12886 Posts
On April 26 2017 06:07 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 05:52 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 05:43 TheDwf wrote:
Macron's results = 1 million of extra jobless people I remember that line from the Youtube video of some angry hairy dude, so I'll ask there in hope for an honest answer: is there a proof that this is (100%) due to his politics when he was finance minister, and not the natural consequences of his predecessors? If so, where is it? If there isn't, then you are being fallacious so why should I listen to you? In the first months it was of course the consequence of Sarkozy/Fillon's policies, but after that it was Hollande/Macron yes (who didn't deviate at all from what was done before anyway). Macron was the economic advisor back in the first 2 years. The austerity, the supply-side policies with the CICE and the pacte de responsabilité, obviously the loi Macron but also the labour bill (which was supposed to be the loi Macron 2), it's all him Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 05:56 Nyxisto wrote:
You can't on the one side complain about people simplifying Mélenchon or making a caricature of him and then act as if Macron has sinister intentions and wants to sell his mother and all the workers so that the banks can make more profit. That's the exact same shitty generalisation into the other direction. I guess you could at least grant him a little benefit of the doubt and wait until he actually fucks up.
If Macron does what Schröder does in Germany the result will be very ambiguous. It's not clear at all objectively ten years later if has only hurt us, improved the situation or whatever. Even on the left people disagree about this.
But to act as if he's automatically going to fail even before he's in office is just not reasonable. ... He has already been tried during 4 years under Hollande, he inspired or was associated with all the big economic decisions, as close advisor then minister. I don't even need to make predictions, even if I actually could; I only need to look at the current (lack of positive) results. I don't need to wait him to actually f*ck up because he already f*cked up. And yes he wants to do what Schröder did
That's not really my question, nor a proof that this is what actually led to 1 more million jobless people.
Can you prove that another person would have had a significatively different outcome?
|
On April 26 2017 06:09 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 06:07 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2017 05:52 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 05:43 TheDwf wrote:
Macron's results = 1 million of extra jobless people I remember that line from the Youtube video of some angry hairy dude, so I'll ask there in hope for an honest answer: is there a proof that this is (100%) due to his politics when he was finance minister, and not the natural consequences of his predecessors? If so, where is it? If there isn't, then you are being fallacious so why should I listen to you? In the first months it was of course the consequence of Sarkozy/Fillon's policies, but after that it was Hollande/Macron yes (who didn't deviate at all from what was done before anyway). Macron was the economic advisor back in the first 2 years. The austerity, the supply-side policies with the CICE and the pacte de responsabilité, obviously the loi Macron but also the labour bill (which was supposed to be the loi Macron 2), it's all him On April 26 2017 05:56 Nyxisto wrote:
You can't on the one side complain about people simplifying Mélenchon or making a caricature of him and then act as if Macron has sinister intentions and wants to sell his mother and all the workers so that the banks can make more profit. That's the exact same shitty generalisation into the other direction. I guess you could at least grant him a little benefit of the doubt and wait until he actually fucks up.
If Macron does what Schröder does in Germany the result will be very ambiguous. It's not clear at all objectively ten years later if has only hurt us, improved the situation or whatever. Even on the left people disagree about this.
But to act as if he's automatically going to fail even before he's in office is just not reasonable. ... He has already been tried during 4 years under Hollande, he inspired or was associated with all the big economic decisions, as close advisor then minister. I don't even need to make predictions, even if I actually could; I only need to look at the current (lack of positive) results. I don't need to wait him to actually f*ck up because he already f*cked up. And yes he wants to do what Schröder did That's not really my question, nor a proof that this is what actually led to 1 more million jobless people. Can you prove that another person would have had a significatively different outcome?
Can you prove that unicorns don't exist? You seem to imply that there would be no relation between the economic policy and unemployment?
|
On April 26 2017 05:56 Nyxisto wrote:
If Macron does what Schröder did in Germany the result will be very ambiguous. It's not clear at all objectively ten years later if has only hurt us, improved the situation or whatever. Even on the left people disagree about this.
Given that unemployment came falling down and gdp growth has been pretty decent in comparison with the rest of the EU, how are those reforms not viewed as a success?
|
France12886 Posts
On April 26 2017 06:15 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 06:09 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 06:07 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2017 05:52 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 05:43 TheDwf wrote:
Macron's results = 1 million of extra jobless people I remember that line from the Youtube video of some angry hairy dude, so I'll ask there in hope for an honest answer: is there a proof that this is (100%) due to his politics when he was finance minister, and not the natural consequences of his predecessors? If so, where is it? If there isn't, then you are being fallacious so why should I listen to you? In the first months it was of course the consequence of Sarkozy/Fillon's policies, but after that it was Hollande/Macron yes (who didn't deviate at all from what was done before anyway). Macron was the economic advisor back in the first 2 years. The austerity, the supply-side policies with the CICE and the pacte de responsabilité, obviously the loi Macron but also the labour bill (which was supposed to be the loi Macron 2), it's all him On April 26 2017 05:56 Nyxisto wrote:
You can't on the one side complain about people simplifying Mélenchon or making a caricature of him and then act as if Macron has sinister intentions and wants to sell his mother and all the workers so that the banks can make more profit. That's the exact same shitty generalisation into the other direction. I guess you could at least grant him a little benefit of the doubt and wait until he actually fucks up.
If Macron does what Schröder does in Germany the result will be very ambiguous. It's not clear at all objectively ten years later if has only hurt us, improved the situation or whatever. Even on the left people disagree about this.
But to act as if he's automatically going to fail even before he's in office is just not reasonable. ... He has already been tried during 4 years under Hollande, he inspired or was associated with all the big economic decisions, as close advisor then minister. I don't even need to make predictions, even if I actually could; I only need to look at the current (lack of positive) results. I don't need to wait him to actually f*ck up because he already f*cked up. And yes he wants to do what Schröder did That's not really my question, nor a proof that this is what actually led to 1 more million jobless people. Can you prove that another person would have had a significatively different outcome? Can you prove that unicorns don't exist? You seem to imply that there would be no relation between the economic policy and unemployment?
I am not the one trying to use my opinions as facts .
Thanks for confirming that it was a scam.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
As with most attempts to pin a term on liberal groups, "neoliberal" suffers from ambiguity of definition. Hard to use unless you give it a specific working definition in a specific scenario.
|
On April 26 2017 06:16 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 05:56 Nyxisto wrote:
If Macron does what Schröder did in Germany the result will be very ambiguous. It's not clear at all objectively ten years later if has only hurt us, improved the situation or whatever. Even on the left people disagree about this.
Given that unemployment came falling down and gdp growth has been pretty decent in comparison with the rest of the EU, how are those reforms not viewed as a success?
Higher inequality, at least in the beginning lots of low tier pseudo employment, but nowadays it's mostly legitimate jobs. Then also people are putting it in the context of the Euro which gave us a competitive advantage so some people dispute that it actually did anything, and of course embracing liberal labour market policies was a huge ideological shift for a Social Democratic party of the size of the SPD. And well many SPD members left, hundreds of thousands actually. Same fate that Blair labour did go through essentially.
|
Economic policy has an effect on unemployment and economic performance but it often takes a long time horizon to be felt and it's impact may be minimal compared to other exogenous factors. On top of that, policy makers have constraints, namely corporatist interests, which significantly limits their range of actoon.
|
On April 26 2017 06:18 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2017 06:15 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2017 06:09 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 06:07 TheDwf wrote:On April 26 2017 05:52 Poopi wrote:On April 26 2017 05:43 TheDwf wrote:
Macron's results = 1 million of extra jobless people I remember that line from the Youtube video of some angry hairy dude, so I'll ask there in hope for an honest answer: is there a proof that this is (100%) due to his politics when he was finance minister, and not the natural consequences of his predecessors? If so, where is it? If there isn't, then you are being fallacious so why should I listen to you? In the first months it was of course the consequence of Sarkozy/Fillon's policies, but after that it was Hollande/Macron yes (who didn't deviate at all from what was done before anyway). Macron was the economic advisor back in the first 2 years. The austerity, the supply-side policies with the CICE and the pacte de responsabilité, obviously the loi Macron but also the labour bill (which was supposed to be the loi Macron 2), it's all him On April 26 2017 05:56 Nyxisto wrote:
You can't on the one side complain about people simplifying Mélenchon or making a caricature of him and then act as if Macron has sinister intentions and wants to sell his mother and all the workers so that the banks can make more profit. That's the exact same shitty generalisation into the other direction. I guess you could at least grant him a little benefit of the doubt and wait until he actually fucks up.
If Macron does what Schröder does in Germany the result will be very ambiguous. It's not clear at all objectively ten years later if has only hurt us, improved the situation or whatever. Even on the left people disagree about this.
But to act as if he's automatically going to fail even before he's in office is just not reasonable. ... He has already been tried during 4 years under Hollande, he inspired or was associated with all the big economic decisions, as close advisor then minister. I don't even need to make predictions, even if I actually could; I only need to look at the current (lack of positive) results. I don't need to wait him to actually f*ck up because he already f*cked up. And yes he wants to do what Schröder did That's not really my question, nor a proof that this is what actually led to 1 more million jobless people. Can you prove that another person would have had a significatively different outcome? Can you prove that unicorns don't exist? You seem to imply that there would be no relation between the economic policy and unemployment? I am not the one trying to use my opinions as facts . Thanks for confirming that it was a scam.
I don't know what to say really, the consequences of the austerity policies in the eurozone after 2011 are largely analyzed as having slowed down growth, but whatever. Can search a few links if you want but you're probably only interested in trolling
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
