• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

|OT| French Presidential election - 2012 edition

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mael

Member
You mean like the Figaro posted the PVs of the Carlton case?
DSK isn't relevant anymore to politic life, there's no use except to push a narrative.

Where did you get the idea that I see LeFigaro as anything else as a Libération from the right?
I don't give a shit about them too, I said so before.

Heck LeFigaro is only useful to get the point of view opposite of Liberation (but it's better written at least) and if you seek an appartment in Paris.

Our journalists mostly see their job as commentators, not as fact-checkers. Some of them do, though, even if they work for left-wing papers. Mediapart, Désintox on libé and Décodeurs on Le Monde.

I'd like Le Figaro to do the same for a balanced view, but they say it's part of the "normal" work and we know the result. I'd rather read Le Point or La Croix.


I'll read Le Point when they stop the freemason frontpages when they see their sales drop.
I agree on the décodeur on lemonde, I don't check libé which I despise on the way they treat information.
And I'll be caught dead before I take anything from Mediapart as gospel.
And you're right our journalists are certainly not fact-checkers, they expect to be given deference and have a proper status above the rabble.
They'll have my respect when they'll do their job.
 
So, you guys do know that global investors are going to take a run at French banks once Hollande is elected? Non-French investors and companies have very little interest in dealing with a "socialist" these days. Fortunately, for me at least, the French economy isn't that important to the US now.
 

Mael

Member
So, you guys do know that global investors are going to take a run at French banks once Hollande is elected? Non-French investors and companies have very little interest in dealing with a "socialist" these days. Fortunately, for me at least, the French economy isn't that important to the US now.

They're doing it right now anyway don't think that the market never anticipate an event or have you missed the index on French companies in the last 7 days?

Why the fuck do I keep reading stuffs that puts Hollande in a crappy light?

François Hollande [...] a déclaré à cette occasion que le 1er mai était "la fête des syndicalistes" et ne saurait être associée "à une bataille contre le syndicalisme".
I mean come on now!
 
They're doing it right now anyway don't think that the market never anticipate an event or have you missed the index on French companies in the last 7 days?

It'll get much worse over the coming months.


Then again, I've read stories that Hollande's economic advisors claim that the supposed future French President will not be anti-business as his current rhetoric. And with developed world politicians, I suppose hyperbole is simply used to stir-up one's base, yet for a politician to actually believe in or enact on more extreme proposals is more unlikely.
 

Mael

Member
It'll get much worse over the coming months.

It's better than if nothing happened right now, but still it'll be even worse if Hollande gets to do what he said he'll do.
And the market doesn't give a shit whether or not Hollande or even ShittyMcCallMack is elected, they however care about what he'll do and more importantly not do.
 

G.O.O.

Member
Non-French investors and companies have very little interest in dealing with a "socialist" these days.
Depends on what you call a socialist. Plus, "socialist" governments in France caused mostly positive response from the market so far.
 

Mael

Member
Depends on what you call a socialist. Plus, "socialist" governments in France caused mostly positive response from the market so far.

Wrong, the market plunge when the majority goes from right to left and soar when it's the other way.
Since the anticipation is done when the government in place is on the other way, the market reaction can be seen as different as what it actually is.
 

nib95

Banned
So, you guys do know that global investors are going to take a run at French banks once Hollande is elected? Non-French investors and companies have very little interest in dealing with a "socialist" these days. Fortunately, for me at least, the French economy isn't that important to the US now.

It's that sort of fearmongering that led to so much of the global financial crisis and corporations running amok in the first place. Eventually leaders (or the public) have to force a hand that says no, enough is enough, and pay your due's. Sure the fallout might hurt a bit at the beginning, but it should also help in the long run too.

Contrary to belief, business locality isn't all about taxes etc, so many things come in to play, including general goods, services, political and security stability, demand, supply etc etc. If companies start bailing, there'll just be more business to pick up for the one's that stay.
 

Mael

Member
When the majority moves, yes, but it gets better (or worse) after.

http://www.margincall.fr/2012/03/les-marches-sont-ils-de-droite-ou-de.html?spref=tw

Needs to take into account the various international crisis or the whole thing doesn't mean much.
I mean it's rather hard to claim that the drop on the market in 1974 and 2008 are because of the government...

It's that sort of fearmongering that led to so much of the global financial crisis and corporations running amok in the first place. Eventually leaders (or the public) have to force a hand that says no, enough is enough, and pay your due's. Sure the fallout might hurt a bit at the beginning, but it should also help in the long run too.

Contrary to belief, business locality isn't all about taxes etc, so many things come in to play, including general goods, services, political and security stability, demand, supply etc etc. If companies start bailing, there'll just be more business to pick up for the one's that stay.
Most companies in France are small to middle size companies (<500 employees) so they don't move out at the first sign of whatever.
Their investors on the other hand...
 

G.O.O.

Member
Needs to take into account the various international crisis or the whole thing doesn't mean much.
He does

La plus value de l'indice boursier constatée pour un gouvernement de gauche est de +4,12% contre -0,50% pour un gouvernement de droite. On pourrait expliquer cela par une situation économique, une conjoncture (du moment) plutôt favorable...que nenni. Si on décompose ce résultat en 2 avec d'une part le résultat "attendu" à cause d'une situation économique favorable et d'autre part la "bonne surprise" on constate que la part "attendue" donnerait seulement une hausse des indices boursiers de +2,56% pour la gauche contre +0,98% pour la droite. Cela nous permet donc de conclure que la part "surprise" non expliquée par l'environnement économique mais par le changement de gouvernement est de +1,56% pour la gauche et -1,48% pour la droite.
 
It's that sort of fearmongering that led to so much of the global financial crisis and corporations running amok in the first place. Eventually leaders (or the public) have to force a hand that says no, enough is enough, and pay your due's. Sure the fallout might hurt a bit at the beginning, but it should also help in the long run too.

Contrary to belief, business locality isn't all about taxes etc, so many things come in to play, including general goods, services, political and security stability, demand, supply etc etc. If companies start bailing, there'll just be more business to pick up for the one's that stay.

No, raising taxes on the upper incomes and business will help in the short-run (purely deficit-wise), but will crush France in the longer-run.

If companies start bailing, there'll just be more business to pick up for the one's that stay.

A) You overestimate France's labor pool. Running a major retail chain is one thing; running a major semi-conductor manufacturing company is another. France doesn't produce enough scientists or engineers to be well insulated against international companies.

B) France is more dependent on investment from the rest of Europe, the US, Canada, China, and India than the reverse. Raise taxes too high and those investments disappear.
 

Mael

Member

It still doesn't account for the time it takes for a policy to take effect.
Just looking not so far back, the Juppe government did some measures that quickly profitted the government just after (Jospin).
And in their turn they used the surplus they had from the good years they had to do the infamous 35h law which put a burden on the following administration.

I don't know who said it but it's beautifully summed up this way :
Le temps des politiques est décalé du temps de la vie réel.
Hence you can't exactly make that claim easily.
Especially far reaching decisions

No, raising taxes on the upper incomes and business will help in the short-run (purely deficit-wise), but will crush France in the longer-run.

Estimations have been made, it won't even help in the short term.
It's purely to win the election.
 

nib95

Banned
No, raising taxes on the upper incomes and business will help in the short-run, but will crush France in the longer-run.

This is imo more fearmongering malarkey. Trickle down doesn't work and higher taxes don't necessary scare away industry or business (if taxes were everything, there wouldn't be much industry in much of Europe and companies would all pack up ship to somewhere like Dubai). But obviously we can't know for sure what will happen, we just know based on recent history, trickle down does not work.

France actually has a lower highest tax rate than Germany, UK, Norway, Denmark etc etc. Imo it will not only not hurt France in the long run, but will likely help (the extra money in government is sorely needed right now and will be in future too come the next inevitable storm caused by the very same corporations you seek to give leeway too).
 

Mael

Member
This is imo more fearmongering malarkey. Trickle down doesn't work and higher taxes don't necessary scare away industry or business. But obviously we can't know for sure what will happen, we just know based on recent history, trickle down does not work.

France actually has a lower highest tax rate than Germany, UK, Norway, Denmark etc etc. It will not only not hurt France in the long run, but will imo help (the extra money in government is sorely needed right now and will be in future too come another rainy day caused by the very same corporations you seek to give leeway too).

And that is malarkey too, again the marginal increase of the budget doesn't even cover a day of the anual budget of the state.
It serves no other purpose as to be seen as being hard against the richer part of the population.
It's useless.
 

nib95

Banned
And that is malarkey too, again the marginal increase of the budget doesn't even cover a day of the anual budget of the state.
It serves no other purpose as to be seen as being hard against the richer part of the population.
It's useless.

In times like these, marginal increases are noteworthy. Every little helps. Irrespective of whether it's coming from the pockets of the wealthiest elite or through austerity measures in a range of different sector's, some with even more insignificant gains than the said tax increases.

Your argument loosely reminds me of the tactic used by the Tory government in the UK. Yes we must cut benefits to the poor and these new plans will net us a whopping extra £200 million! Oh no, these new tax cuts to the richest are insignificant and not to worry about, we'd only be losing £200 million anyway. End of the day, it all counts, but it is my belief that in times like this, it should be coming more off the top as it should the bottom.
 

Mael

Member

Personally I don't have a problem with the 35h law, and if there was a problem they had more than enough time to get rid of it.
So in this instance, I believe that since they spent so much of our fucking time talking about how bad it was they should have had the guts to repeal it.
For me it's really different from the "congés payés" laws from 36.
So them talking about it for me is just an expression of their incompetence.

In times like these, marginal increases are noteworthy. Every little helps. Irrespective of whether it's coming from the pockets of the wealthiest elite or through austerity measures in a range of different sector's, some with even more insignificant gains than the said tax increases.

Your argument loosely reminds me of the tactic used by the Tory government in the UK. Yes we must cut benefits to the poor and these new plans will net us an whopping extra £200 million! Oh no, these new tax cuts to the richest are insignificant and not to worry about, we'd only be losing £200 million anyway. End of the day, it all counts, but it is my belief that in times like this, it should be coming more off the top as it should the bottom.

Give me a fucking break, we'd actually earn more if the political class paid their taxes like everyone else and didn't have all the bonus they usually get.
Heck even making people that pay no taxes pay 1&#8364; would increase the budget way more than that (actually it would be a very big improvement on the accountability of the system).
This is populist bullcrap and should not be taken as anything else.
Taxing the private sector doesn't even make any sense if you're trying to spur growth as it'll end up in an even bigger increase in prices anyway.
And don't expect 200millions more on the budget with this btw.
And cutting benefits to the poor?
At least try to give them incentive to work unlike what we'll have now.
 

Jimrpg

Member
hey all

does anyone know how to watch the french presidential debate online?

and secondly - i don't speak any french so is there a service with subtitles or dubbing? would love to watch it live.

surely something from england BBC? or canada where its multilingual?

thanks.
 

Mael

Member
I've received the whole electoral "programs" for the 2nd part..
They give so little of a shit that I received advertisement for a yogurt inside a paper for some weird plan for my old age...
 

G.O.O.

Member
hey all

does anyone know how to watch the french presidential debate online?

and secondly - i don't speak any french so is there a service with subtitles or dubbing? would love to watch it live.

surely something from england BBC? or canada where its multilingual?

thanks.
Maybe on france24.com ? Really not sure though.
 

G.O.O.

Member
but is on at 5am australian time :( lol don't think ill get up for that
I wouldn't advise you to anyway.

And that'll learn you to live on the other side of the planet !

Also, on journalists : http://blogs.lexpress.fr/nouvellefo...g-balls-ou-jen-ai-marre-de-me-faire-agresser/

Also, just because :

571654941.jpg
 

Mael

Member

Blocked where I am so could you give the gist or excerpt?

Also, just because :

http://d3j5vwomefv46c.cloudfront.net/photos/full/571654941.jpg?key=1000665&Expires=1335961239&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA&Signature=1y1dtF68mXNUaMtyLkLMR0wcrJQ4fYLeKyG3nC-Y3e4EFQKGmLPqbsO~Vf3fDExFu7Bm2EOY3sYNcstAoqeEDoq1hT-flCbzTP3ORSl~mnsNJ7F0BF2fVS74omSLjT7s3s6k3i3BsZEevmeOMXqaJybmQUsgUmqzXD8p3AIje9U_[ /IMG][/QUOTE]

Come on don't do that! Magneto is cool!
 

G.O.O.

Member
Without the links

Nous ne sommes pas des punching balls (ou j’en ai marre de me faire agresser)

Ce matin, je pousse un coup de gueule.

Un coup de gueule contre des leaders politiques et leurs militants qui, faute d’arguments plus consistants, ont décidé de désigner à la vindicte du (vrai) peuple de France les responsables de tous leurs désagréments: nous, les journalistes.

Alors moi aussi, cette fois, je montre du doigt, je nomme, je précise – OK, je l’ai écrit, les journalistes ont également contribué à la dégradation des relations entre certains partis et les médias. Mais à l’aune des boutefeux qui, au sein des mêmes partis, multiplient les agressions, les accusations calomnieuses, les gros mensonges et les petites mesquineries fétides, cette contribution est tous comptes faits bien minime.

Cas no 1: au soir du premier tour et de la contre-performance du Front de gauche, une journaliste de mon équipe a été brutalement prise à partie par un mélenchoniste excité et trois de ses copains baraqués, qui l’ont accusée de sévir dans un journal d’extrême-droite – une variation sur un thème minaudé quelques jours plus tôt par le délicat directeur de campagne de Jean-Luc Mélenchon, François Delapierre, qui faisait de L’Express une « annexe hebdomadaire de Minute ». S’en prendre à une femme, la bousculer, la menacer, la mettre à la porte parce que le journal pour lequel elle travaille n’a pas l’heur de plaire au patron: comment appeler ça autrement qu’un dégât collatéral? Mélenchon et ses seconds font le coup de poing théorique, insultent, vilipendent, aboient, les gros bras traduisent.

Cas no2: hier, plusieurs journalistes, dont un de chez moi et, plus violemment, Marine Turchi, de Mediapart, ont fait les frais de la rhétorique victimiste de l’UMP, dont 200 000 partisans, prétend sans rire l’état major sarkozyste*, étaient réunis autour du Trocadéro. Appeler la foule à se révolter contre les élites, à se lever contre la « bien pensance » et le « politiquement correct », dont, bien sûr, nous sommes respectivement les plus abjects représentants et les plus zélés porte-parole, c’est peut-être vendeur électoralement, ça mobilise, ça chauffe les salles, ça défoule et ça pourra toujours servir en cas de défaite. C’est dangereux, aussi: pour la santé des journalistes et, mais oui, pour la démocratie.

Mediapart n’a jamais caché son engagement: la présidence actuelle ne lui va pas au teint, par ce qu’elle accumule de conflits d’intérêt, notamment. Bien. Plutôt que de lâcher ses rottweilers sur les plateaux de télé, et finalement, hier, ses primates sur une reporter, la majorité présidentielle ne pourrait-elle pas répondre aux graves questions qui lui sont posées, sur l’affaire Karachi ou ses relations avec la famille Bettencourt? François Hollande a répondu, sur les mauvaises fréquentations du PS, ça lui a coûté quelques rictus, il a probablement passé un assez mauvais moment, il a fait le job.

Il faut bien le dire: tous les partis ne sont pas égaux face au journalisme-bashing et à ses corollaires. François Bayrou a beaucoup dénoncé l’ostracisme médiatique dont il serait victime, aucun membre du MoDem n’a jamais agressé, oralement ou physiquement, un journaliste; le PS peut, à juste ou mauvais titre, se plaindre du Figaro ou du traitement déséquilibré que lui réserverait les chaînes « amis » du président, aucun participant à un meeting socialiste n’a jamais arraché l’accréditation d’un JRI de TFI ou Direct 8.

Ce genre de comportement indigne était jusqu’à présent le monopole du Front national – qui, rassurez-vous, n’a pas dérogé à la tradition lors de cette campagne. Que des partis républicains s’y livrent à leur tour est une mauvaise nouvelle. Et pas seulement pour les journalistes.

* PS qui a un peu à voir: ici-même ou ailleurs, je vais sans doute être copieusement taxé de sarkophobie pour cette réflexion-là, mais quiconque connaît le Trocadéro et ses étroits parages ne peut que glousser à l’idée d’y empiler autant de monde.

PS qui a tout à voir: la pression monte dans les meetings, elle monte aussi dans les commentaires – et les tireurs de coups francs sont les mêmes. Ca modère sec, en ce moment, à L’Express.
 

Mael

Member
Without the links

Ah ok,
I don't think I have any disagreement with the journalist here.
Violence is the weapon of the weakminded anyway.
I'm not at all surprised that Mélenchon's lackeys would do that kind of things, I mean he pretty much did it himself :/.

As for the threat on the freedom of press, I stand by what I said earlier.

PS qui a tout à voir: la pression monte dans les meetings, elle monte aussi dans les commentaires &#8211; et les tireurs de coups francs sont les mêmes. Ca modère sec, en ce moment, à L&#8217;Express.

Didn't catch this, lol if he takes commentaries on the web as anything but astroturfing.
 
So, you guys do know that global investors are going to take a run at French banks once Hollande is elected? Non-French investors and companies have very little interest in dealing with a "socialist" these days. Fortunately, for me at least, the French economy isn't that important to the US now.

I love that you so expressly state what's wrong with the Eurozone. You see it as a good thing, but any average French person would see it as thoroughly problematic. The inability to issue currency means that France has made itself subject to the whims and pressures of private investors. In other words, it has ceded some of its sovereignty to private investors. By giving up its power to issue currency, France must collect revenue before spending it and it must borrow money if it wants to spend more than it collects. This places the government in a position of dependence upon private capital that it need not be in. This dependence gives private capital leverage to influence the policies of the French government, and it may (and will) influence those policies to their benefit and at the expense of the French people.

The US, Canada, UK, Japan, etc., do not have this problem. Because they have the power to issue currency, i.e., to spend without collecting and to spend more than they collect without borrowing, they are never at risk of defaulting on any bonds or promises to pay money. Private capital simply cannot influence the policy of those governments by threatening to refuse to lend money to them for fear of default. (Indeed, when S&P laughably downgraded the US's credit rating, US debt only became more desirable.) Only countries within the Eurozone are subject to these threats.
 

Mael

Member
I love that you so expressly state what's wrong with the Eurozone. You see it as a good thing, but any average French person would see it as thoroughly problematic. The inability to issue currency means that France has made itself subject to the whims and pressures of private investors. In other words, it has ceded some of its sovereignty to private investors. By giving up its power to issue currency, France must collect revenue before spending it and it must borrow money if it wants to spend more than it collects. This places the government in a position of dependence upon private capital that it need not be in. This dependence gives private capital leverage to influence the policies of the French government, and it may (and will) influence those policies to their benefit and at the expense of the French people.

The US, Canada, UK, Japan, etc., do not have this problem. Because they have the power to issue currency, i.e., to spend without collecting and to spend more than they collect without borrowing, they are never at risk of defaulting on any bonds or promises to pay money. Private capital simply cannot influence the policy of those governments by threatening to refuse to lend money to them for fear of default. (Indeed, when S&P laughably downgraded the US's credit rating, US debt only became more desirable.) Only countries within the Eurozone are subject to these threats.

We wouldn't even have this conversation if the multiple governments hadn't spent like no tomorrow despite knowing that this would lead to this problem.
And don't come saying we weren't aware of this, it's blattantly false.
 
So, you guys do know that global investors are going to take a run at French banks once Hollande is elected? Non-French investors and companies have very little interest in dealing with a "socialist" these days. Fortunately, for me at least, the French economy isn't that important to the US now.

Just like when the Bolivian GDP doubled in the 7 years since socialist Evo Morales was elected? The only people that know less than you about the real world are the scaremonger neo-liberal economists pushing the same TINA bullshit.
 
We wouldn't even have this conversation if the multiple governments hadn't spent like no tomorrow despite knowing that this would lead to this problem.

No, that is not the problem at all. The problem is not that Eurozone governments spent like no tomorrow. (In a bad economy, government spending is necessary for recovery and good.) It is that they tied their hands behind their backs by agreeing to use a foreign currency and thereby made their spending subject to revenue collection and borrowing, when this isn't necessary at all. The problem is created by the use of a foreign currency that the governments lack the power to issue, not by the spending of money per se. As I said, the US and other governments do not have this problem and, as a result, do not and will not face the crisis that Eurozone countries do, regardless of how much they spend. Japan, for example, has a "debt" to GDP ratio over 200%, and it has no problems from bond vigilantes. It is invulnerable to such pressures because it issues its own currency and does not use a foreign currency that it must collect and/or borrow prior to spending.
 

Mael

Member
No, that is not the problem at all. The problem is not that Eurozone governments spent like no tomorrow. (In a bad economy, government spending is necessary for recovery and good.) It is that they tied their hands behind their backs by agreeing to use a foreign currency and thereby made their spending subject to revenue collection and borrowing, when this isn't necessary at all. The problem is created by the use of a foreign currency that the governments lack the power to issue, not by the spending of money per se. As I said, the US and other governments do not have this problem and, as a result, do not and will not face the crisis that Eurozone countries do. Japan, for example, has a "debt" to GDP ratio over 200%, and it has no problems from bond vigilantes. It is invulnerable to such pressures because it issues its own currency and does not use a foreign currency that it must collect and/or borrow prior to spending.

Actually as long as they don't spend like no tomorrow during the good times they wouldn't have the problem.
You'll also have to remember that while it wasn't an economic boom the begining of the 80's put the country in a deep shit it took years to recover.
in 83 there was a funny budget to see the government pass.
Using the printer to issue more money doesn't solve the underlying problems.
Also what you're advocating will never be done because of contract signed between countries in the eurozone.
If that was a thread about various european treaties, I'd see the point but here it's largely off topic (you'll note that there was a grand total of 1 runner that proposed this and he finished last).

Just like when the Bolivian GDP doubled in the 7 years since socialist Evo Morales was elected? The only people that know less than you about the real world are the scaremonger neo-liberal economists pushing the same TINA bullshit.

That would be a good reply if Hollande was anything like Morales :/
 
Actually as long as they don't spend like no tomorrow during the good times they wouldn't have the problem.

Yes, they would have a problem, a much, much worse problem in fact. They would have had a long, severe economic depression. This idea that government spending, even deficit spending, is inherently bad, is completely anathema to sound policy. Governments must spend--sometimes a metric shit ton--to foster or stabilize an economy. Economic recessions/depressions impose severe real costs on societies that ought to be avoided.
 

Mael

Member
Yes, they would have a problem, a much, much worse problem in fact. They would have had a long, severe economic depression. This idea that government spending, even deficit spending, is inherently bad, is completely anathema to sound policy. Governments must spend--sometimes a metric shit ton--to foster or stabilize an economy. Economic recessions/depressions impose severe real costs on societies that ought to be avoided.

There's spending and spending.
The spending that put the country in the shit it is is NOT the kind of spending we should have done/ should be doing.
I'm not even against more spending as it has its use but let's not act as if all spendings are equal either.
And the spending like no tomorrow the various government did (starting with the 81 budget) were clearly unreasonable spending.
 

Kafel

Banned

FYI the 35H are still a burden for the French economy.

What's worse is nowadays we're talking about the morons who created it (Aubry, and DSK behind her) to get seats in the future government.

I can't believe how stupid people are for not understanding basic Economics facts. And I perfectly get why people call the PS "dangerous", I totally agree.
 

Kafel

Banned
The workforce cost rise has been limited by the ones who tried to counter this stupid law. Good job explaining how it's not "bad" in the end since there were fireworkers.

But what the article doesn't say is that noone got the due pay raises during a LONG moment because of this (particularly the persons who merited them). The euro is not the only one responsible for the feeling of being able to buy less than before.

But guess what ? The PS traditionally gets the votes of the ones with little wages. Convenient.
 

Mael

Member
Woah mobile gaf is awesome!!!
The workforce cost rise has been limited by the ones who tried to counter this stupid law. Good job explaining how it's not "bad" in the end since there were fireworkers.

But what the article doesn't say is that noone got the due pay raises during a LONG moment because of this (particularly the persons who merited them). The euro is not the only one responsible for the feeling of being able to buy less than before.

But guess what ? The PS traditionally gets the votes of the ones with little wages. Convenient.
Actually that's no longer true.
They vote MLP or something else but they no longer are with the PS (which is an improvment if you ask me)
 
There's spending and spending.
The spending that put the country in the shit it is is NOT the kind of spending we should have done/ should be doing.
I'm not even against more spending as it has its use but let's not act as if all spendings are equal either.
And the spending like no tomorrow the various government did (starting with the 81 budget) were clearly unreasonable spending.

A country's debt to GDP ratio--the only reason I can think you would bring up France's budget way back in 1981--is meaningless for countries with currency sovereignty. It has meaning only to countries like France, and only because private capital assigns it meaning (and mostly arbitrarily). For a country like the US, its budget in 1981 or any other year has no relevance at all with respect to its policy options today.

It always goes back to the same problem.
 

Mael

Member
A country's debt to GDP ratio--the only reason I can think you would bring up France's budget way back in 1981--is meaningless for countries with currency sovereignty. It has meaning only to countries like France, and only because private capital assigns it meaning (and mostly arbitrarily). For a country like the US, its budget in 1981 or any other year has no relevance at all with respect to its policy options today.

It always goes back to the same problem.

Actually you didn't read the link provided (ok it's in French and not exactly easy to read but still).
the Deficit index means NOTHING at all, it's only a tool they put in place during the beginning of Mitterend's term to not have out of control spending.
It serves nothing else at all.
They chose 3% because 1% would seem way too little and 2% seemed a bit lopsided so they settled for 3%.
The guy who wrote the article in the link is actually on the people who were assigned this task (provide a tool to help govern the country and see how well the spending was doing).
Heck he even says that at first they had the barrier of not spending more than F 100 Bil on the budget and even then the final budget for the 1rst year was way beyond that.

Guy Abeille said:


What the link also prove is that technician or people from ENA are not the problem but clearly unscrupulous politician who would stop at nothing to get in charge.

Welp, I won't be able to watch it live so...freebox to the rescue, I'll record it.
I won't post here or see anything politically related till I watch, wouldn't want to spoil the "fun"
 

G.O.O.

Member
The workforce cost rise has been limited by the ones who tried to counter this stupid law. Good job explaining how it's not "bad" in the end since there were fireworkers.

But what the article doesn't say is that noone got the due pay raises during a LONG moment because of this (particularly the persons who merited them). The euro is not the only one responsible for the feeling of being able to buy less than before.

But guess what ? The PS traditionally gets the votes of the ones with little wages. Convenient.
Yes, since your point was "it still is a burden". It's not.

Overall, most of what they did can't be evaluated. Data is too old, and it's hard to know which measure caused what.
 

Shahadan

Member
Hype ! This will be sad, so it'll be fun.

I expect three minutes or so before Sarkozy brings up the fact that he wanted three debates.
 

Kafel

Banned
Yes, since your point was "it still is a burden". It's not.

Overall, most of what they did can't be evaluated. Data is too old, and it's hard to know which measure caused what.

It's a burden because now companies still have to deal with it. 35H paid like 39 is not something you recover from easily. The nurses not being paid for their extra hours is only the tip of the iceberg, the most extreme example.
 

G.O.O.

Member

Alx

Member
The whole thing hasn't really started yet and it's going places lol

Damn, Sarko is really good at that game...
edit : and Hollande not very smart. Comparing France performances to those of Germany won't serve his purpose.
 
"En effet mais Hollande s'est bien rattrapé, notamment en insistant lourdement sur le fait que Sarko est au pouvoir depuis 10 ans et a fait moins bien que l'Allemagne. A l'instant où j'écris, Sarko est selon moi nettement mené. Il est d'ailleurs sur la défensive, en train de défendre son bilan."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom