Bye bye Sarkozy

Channel Zero

rumour wrote: »

For some more acccurate analysis read the economist article

That's only an accurate analysis from the scaremongering market speculators point of view.
Who cares about them?

If, instead of the election, a dictator like Pinochet had siezed power in France and vowed to slash taxes on the rich and destroy public welfare, healthcare and education, the boys down at the Economist would be wetting themselves with joy at the prospect. So you'll forgive me if i don't take their "accurate analysis" seriously.

How is neoliberalism relevant to any of this?

Oh it's very relevant. The vote for Hollande was a vote against neoliberalism. The gutting and outsourcing of industrial jobs (400,000 lost in France under Sarkozy), the privatisations, the closing down of schools and hospitals, the lowering of marginal taxes and the absence of financial speculation taxes, and last but not least, the mistaken belief that harsh austerity leads to recovery and growth.

It's convenient to blame "expansion of government and state and the 'rights' that go with it", as it sidesteps the fact that it is the utter failure of unregulated neoliberal casino capitalism that is the real culprit.

Hollande is (hopefully) going to put a spanner in the works, so it's no wonder the 'markets' are unhappy at the result. I'm sure they'll also be unhappy when Italy soon votes in the same direction as many predict they will.

liammur

Channel Zero wrote: »

That's only an accurate analysis from the scaremongering market speculators point of view.
Who cares about them?

If, instead of the election, a dictator like Pinochet had siezed power in France and vowed to slash taxes on the rich and destroy public welfare, healthcare and education, the boys down at the Economist would be wetting themselves with joy at the prospect. So you'll forgive me if i don't take their "accurate analysis" seriously.



Oh it's very relevant. The vote for Hollande was a vote against neoliberalism. The gutting and outsourcing of industrial jobs (400,000 lost in France under Sarkozy), the privatisations, the closing down of schools and hospitals, the lowering of marginal taxes and the absence of financial speculation taxes, and last but not least, the mistaken belief that harsh austerity leads to recovery and growth.

It's convenient to blame "expansion of government and state and the 'rights' that go with it", as it sidesteps the fact that it is the utter failure of unregulated neoliberal casino capitalism that is the real culprit.

Hollande is (hopefully) going to put a spanner in the works, so it's no wonder the 'markets' are unhappy at the result. I'm sure they'll also be unhappy when Italy soon votes in the same direction as many predict they will.

The markets are never unhappy. No emotion. It's investors/speculators reacting to what they see and think.

MrMister

rumour wrote: »

For some more acccurate analysis read the economist article

He is in favour of taxing financial transactions, seperating banks by their activities, taxing the rich further, limiting bonuses and stock-options, and banning toxic assets. I can see why the Economist doesn't like him.

Hollande's plans for a public investment bank are superb, in addition to the expansion of the Livret A in order to fund more housing. I would also back him to make the judicial branch more independent and I believe he can more appropriately handle the Eurozone crisis as he is willing to go beyond the limitations Sarko and Merkel have set in repairing the damage.

golden lane

hollande....is replacing a man who tried his best for france......and no doubt he will do his best for france.......

but like all leaders, they have not got a free hand..........teducing the pension age for instance.....great idea, and the wish of every sensible leader ........

but who will pay for it...and is the money available.......or will people be forced to pay.....

Wild Bill

golden lane wrote: »

but who will pay for it...and is the money available.......or will people be forced to pay.....

Well, for starters, he is going to save a fortune by immediately pulling out of Afghanistan. He could save more by withdrawing from NATO's aggression across the globe and curtail France's imperial twitch in Africa.


Lots of options.

rumour

Channel Zero wrote: »

That's only an accurate analysis from the scaremongering market speculators point of view.
Who cares about them?

If, instead of the election, a dictator like Pinochet had siezed power in France and vowed to slash taxes on the rich and destroy public welfare, healthcare and education, the boys down at the Economist would be wetting themselves with joy at the prospect. So you'll forgive me if i don't take their "accurate analysis" seriously.



Oh it's very relevant. The vote for Hollande was a vote against neoliberalism. The gutting and outsourcing of industrial jobs (400,000 lost in France under Sarkozy), the privatisations, the closing down of schools and hospitals, the lowering of marginal taxes and the absence of financial speculation taxes, and last but not least, the mistaken belief that harsh austerity leads to recovery and growth.

It's convenient to blame "expansion of government and state and the 'rights' that go with it", as it sidesteps the fact that it is the utter failure of unregulated neoliberal casino capitalism that is the real culprit.

Hollande is (hopefully) going to put a spanner in the works, so it's no wonder the 'markets' are unhappy at the result. I'm sure they'll also be unhappy when Italy soon votes in the same direction as many predict they will.

goodness, what in the article do you disagree with???

As for the 'neoliberalism' relevance, your trying to fit a word to something you perceive rather than applying analysis. I guess you'll believe what you want to believe. Distinguishing facts from the dearth of useless information is of course less topical.

Led by the latest headline and buzz word is another phenomena I have yet to come to grips with.

rumour

MrMister wrote: »

He is in favour of taxing financial transactions, seperating banks by their activities, taxing the rich further, limiting bonuses and stock-options, and banning toxic assets. I can see why the Economist doesn't like him.

Hollande's plans for a public investment bank are superb, in addition to the expansion of the Livret A in order to fund more housing. I would also back him to make the judicial branch more independent and I believe he can more appropriately handle the Eurozone crisis as he is willing to go beyond the limitations Sarko and Merkel have set in repairing the damage.

More expansion of the state.....who is going to fund this????

What you have is promises promises from another politician who thinks there is no end to the money. The limitations you perceive set by Merkel and Sarko are not their limitations. In a matter of weeks maybe months this will be borne out.
Of course if you really want two plus two to equal five you must discredit the person who states two plus two equals four. Whether it is true or not then becomes an irrelevance as we engage in the who is credible argument.

rumour

jmayo wrote: »

Maybe the election of Hollande and the end of her ally sarkozy may finally force Merkel to realise that Germany is going to have to suck it up and allow the printing presses to roll?

I think this will be the eventual political outcome, and it will appease the masses and make them all poorer without them appreciating it.

Meanwhile the capital flight will continue to the east. If I can conclude this, others immeasurably superior to my good self must also see this.

Guess what its already happening and has been for the last 5 yrs...Europe for our children is looking a much more ugly place!!!

Channel Zero

rumour wrote: »

goodness, what in the article do you disagree with???

It's a typical scaremongering pro-austerity hatchet-job of scary Socialist Mr. Hollande, written by speculators for speculators.

It tellingly says things like, "Nobody has a serious agenda for reducing France’s eye-watering taxes". Am presuming this is the marginal rates and business rates they're referring to.
They're of the opinion of course that he is definitely not the man to institute "the radical reforms or the structural downsizing of spending that France needs", being barriers to what they term "wealth creation".
They're obviosuly horrified at his proposed methods to cut the budget deficit; he plans to do so by raising marginal and financial taxes, not just cutting spending.

As for the 'neoliberalism' relevance, your trying to fit a word to something you perceive rather than applying analysis.

Led by the latest headline and buzz word is another phenomena I have yet to come to grips with.

It's just a buzz word now?? Not the dominant economic policy of the last 30 years then?
And the relevance of the failures of neoliberalism to this issue is not just something i perceive. Wish it was. It's something that millions around Europe are perceiving aswell.

Here's another recent article that has a bit more info and perspective to it than just the cock-eyed financial speculators' view of that Economist one:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34408.html
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34530.html

rumour

Channel Zero wrote: »

Here's another recent article that has a bit more info and perspective to it than just the cock-eyed financial speculators' view of that Economist one:
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34408.html
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article34530.html

Why am I not surprised, if you believe the:

Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission.

You are destined to be 'lead'.

As for the

cock-eyed financial speculators

of the economist, care to share which if the figures are incorrect? Is the cost per employee in France really significantly higher than in Germany? Why? Is this 'neoliberalism' or a failure of 'neoliberalism'?

I am in danger of being perceived as defending 'neoliberalism' which I am not doing. I am trying to understand why it is cited at all when its definition seems to be anything that does not support 'state' orthodox thinking.

To me 'neoliberalism' is of no relevance, neither are the traditional constructs of 'left' and 'right'. The media love these classifications but their relevance is rapidly fading. A recent phenomena of the extreme right almost agreeing with the extreme left can be seen in may countries is this a failure of 'neoliberalism'? I think not. It is a distraction from discussing how we can live within our means. That is the issue facing Europe.

Channel Zero

rumour wrote: »

I am in danger of being perceived as defending 'neoliberalism' which I am not doing.

No, you're just ignoring it and denying it has relevance to the issue.
You say mentioning the failures of neoliberalism is a "distraction".
Blaming the "continual expansion of government or state (and 'rights' that go with it)" over the last 30 years for the mess is your distraction, but not a surprising stance if you get your info. on this solely from the likes of the Economist.
And you say I'm being led?

Nobody is denying the need to live within our means. It's the shifting of the blame from the system that caused the problems that people have a problem with.

dsmythy

Wild Bill wrote: »

Well, for starters, he is going to save a fortune by immediately pulling out of Afghanistan. He could save more by withdrawing from NATO's aggression across the globe and curtail France's imperial twitch in Africa.


Lots of options.

The reduced pension age is an expense that keeps giving.

jmayo

liammur wrote: »

The markets are never unhappy. No emotion. It's investors/speculators reacting to what they see and think.

Yes the markets are important in that if they don't fanyc you, you find it hard to get funds.
But I don't know why people put such store on how "the markets", and even worse the ratings agencies, are great at predicting the future and how to proceed.
If anything they have proven they can predict jack sh**.
After all these were the same groups that thought derivatives and fancy investment products, ultimately made up with subprime crud, were a AAA investment and these were the same entities lending to and lauding the same banks that are now bust and have left their debts on the taxpayers of various countries.
Do markets not have a herd mentality ?

rumour wrote: »

I think this will be the eventual political outcome, and it will appease the masses and make them all poorer without them appreciating it.

You may not favour it, but the alternative is not going to work either.
You cannot push through such austerity measures in so many countries and firstly hope it doesn't affect chances of necessary growth and secondly hope that the people being affected will appreciate it.

BTW your language about masses not knowing what's good for them smacks of the elitist attitude displayed by some of the major players who are driving the direction of the so called solution.
The so called experts and leaders have been shown to be no better at running things than the dumb masses they often disparage.

rumour wrote: »

Meanwhile the capital flight will continue to the east. If I can conclude this, others immeasurably superior to my good self must also see this.

I think the other thing to factor into this is that we are now so interlinked globally that if Europe does fail it will still have knock on affects in the Far East.
The capital can fly, but the likes of China still need the Western world as a market place.

rumour wrote: »

Guess what its already happening and has been for the last 5 yrs...Europe for our children is looking a much more ugly place!!!

Europe for our children is going to be an ugly place.
Hell it will be an ugly place for anyone that is nowhere near retirement.

Wild Bill

dsmythy wrote: »

The reduced pension age is an expense that keeps giving.

Keeps taking you mean!

rumour

Can't fault what you say,

jmayo wrote: »

BTW your language about masses not knowing what's good for them smacks of the elitist attitude displayed by some of the major players who are driving the direction of the so called solution.
The so called experts and leaders have been shown to be no better at running things than the dumb masses they often disparage.

Valid criticism although not my intention. Perhaps the latest terminology en vogue at the minute is 'group think' to excuse loads of people ignoring blatant blindingly obvious facts.

However I struggle with the vast array of people who think taxation is the solution to all our ills. This is a europoean problem. For example I wonder why so many people have not figured out why Sarkozy was so insistent on targeting Irelands corporation tax rate when he is supposedly a 'neoliberal' champion of austerity.

If you have ever investigated doing business in France, please advise me of the positives....apart from climate and food. To employ someone the cost is unreal. There is a 45% contribution of gross salary on top of the gross salary to be paid by the employer to the government. Then try sacking someone who is not good at their job.
They also pay a high corpo tax. The cost of business in France is extortionate. Quietly most of the french major employers car manufacturers etc are relocating. Talk to any of the graduates of the grade ecoles they will substantiate this. Btw you'll find most of them in London.

Sarko had to attack our low corpo tax as it was a direct threat to Frances sources of revenue. Because their system is so heavily dependent on high tax's there is no room for maneuver, they simply cannot compete.

Expect Hollande to jump on this within weeks if not days. It will suddenly become part of our budget once we hand over control (if not already done) of our budgets via this new treaty. It will of course be presented in the interests of the european union without being specific that we need to protect France.

In true 'group think' we will be told it is essential because the alternative is 'worse', no funding. Our political class in order to secure funding will dump another couple of thousand private sector workers to the fate of emigration in order to protect their salaries.

rumour

Channel Zero wrote: »

The vote for Hollande was a vote against neoliberalism. The gutting and outsourcing of industrial jobs (400,000 lost in France under Sarkozy), the privatisations, the closing down of schools and hospitals, the lowering of marginal taxes and the absence of financial speculation taxes, and last but not least, the mistaken belief that harsh austerity leads to recovery and growth.

I think you see 'neoliberalism' as the cause of all ills and if only people would pay their tax's as directed the world would be fine. I disagree.

The gutting and outsourcing of jobs is related to costs. Simple. This is not a function of 'neoliberalism'. Why did the economies of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact collapse??? Are you to tell me that neoliberalism caused this?

I have a simple question. If I lend you money, how will you pay me back?

Are you going to say my children will do it!!

Of course if you don't like having to ask to borrow you could always steal/re-appropriate it and tell everyone it was my fault you had to ask me. Zimbabwe comes to mind.

Eggy Baby!

Bye bye Sarky Nick!

seamus

Ahaha, so Hollandé is already indicating that the finances are worse than he had planned for.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/hollande-french-deficit-worse-than-previously-indicated-551173.html

I mean, we all knew that he was going to have to backtrack on some of his fiscal nonsense policies, but he seems to be laying the groundwork for reneging on his policies before he's even officially entered into office.

What will the French do if he ends up basically doing nothing different to his predecessor?

K-9

seamus wrote: »

Ahaha, so Hollandé is already indicating that the finances are worse than he had planned for.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/hollande-french-deficit-worse-than-previously-indicated-551173.html

I mean, we all knew that he was going to have to backtrack on some of his fiscal nonsense policies, but he seems to be laying the groundwork for reneging on his policies before he's even officially entered into office.

What will the French do if he ends up basically doing nothing different to his predecessor?

They already had a wealth tax brought in by Sarkozy IIRC so I suppose he'll raise that. France doesn't have the same cultural opposition to raising taxes as we have, whether it will work economically will be interesting.

Wild Bill

seamus wrote: »

Ahaha, so Hollandé is already indicating that the finances are worse than he had planned for.

I mean, we all knew that he was going to have to backtrack on some of his fiscal nonsense policies, but he seems to be laying the groundwork for reneging on his policies before he's even officially entered into office.

What will the French do if he ends up basically doing nothing different to his predecessor?

The death of democracy, thanks to the EU superstate dream, eh? :mad:

We now accept that not only will the democratic will of the people be ignored by the political establishment, but that it should be.

The Russians are lucky to have a democracy that actually reflects the views of the majority.

Western "democracy" is dying.

Almost as fast as the Western economic system.

Eggy Baby!

The Russians are lucky to have a democracy that actually reflects the views of the majority.

Western "democracy" is dying.

Almost as fast as the Western economic system.

Although I do agree with your opinion that Russian democracy exists (Many people do not share this view with me), I remain adamant that western democracy is currently a better system (although some democratic systems, such as that of the USA and the UK, are flawed). It is by no means "dying".

But yes, this trend of high national debt will come crashing down soon enough. Russia certainly has an impressive economy, with very little debt and an unusually high standard of living for such a low national debt.

P.S Russia is still a fledgeling democracy, maybe only ten years old. The USA was very similar after its independence- robber barons etc.

Channel Zero

rumour wrote: »

I think you see 'neoliberalism' as the cause of all ills and if only people would pay their tax's as directed the world would be fine. I disagree.

Where have a ever said that "neoliberalism is the cause of all ills" or "if only people would pay their tax's as directed the world would be fine"?
Is that a wee bit of straw?:o
(Also am not sure why you've put the word neoliberalism in comma's there..)

The gutting and outsourcing of jobs is related to costs. Simple. This is not a function of 'neoliberalism'.

Eh? "Not a function" of neoliberalism"? It's a defining characteristic and consequence of recent neoliberal economic policy in France and elsewhere is it not?
It's too easy to say it's related to "costs, Simple!" and fob it off as the most natural thing in the world.

Why did the economies of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact collapse??? Are you to tell me that neoliberalism caused this?

I have a simple question. If I lend you money, how will you pay me back?

Are you going to say my children will do it!!

Oh think of the children!! For Gods sake!!!

Sorry, am not having that.
Your question is not a "simple question". It's a bit of a weasely, loaded question which tries to simplistically and unfairly paint this issue in shallow emotional 'think of the childer'!!!' terms.
The answer to that rhetorical outbreak (not that it's relevant) is of course no.

Of course if you don't like having to ask to borrow you could always steal/re-appropriate it and tell everyone it was my fault you had to ask me. Zimbabwe comes to mind.

What? Zimbabwe comes to mind? Oh dear.
This is more emotionally-loaded strawmanning that has nothing got to do with what i dropped in briefly to comment on.

To remind you what that was, it was your contention in post #53 that neoliberalism had nothing to do with this election or this issue, and on top of that, your quite apparent attempt to deflect it to, as you put it, "the continual expansion of government or state (and 'rights' that go with it) over the past forty years.

This is not an unusual tack it has to be said, mind you it doesn't get any less fallacious each time it's parroted. Or preposterous.
What you're failing spectacularly to appreciate or admit, is that neoliberalism and it's failures has plenty to do with this.
We've had 30 years of neoliberal deregulation that has led us directly to a financial meltdown. Huge inequality, wage stagnation, billions lost in tax avoidance, the dismantling of public welfare, healthcare and education, the offshoring of jobs. And you're telling me with a straight face that the real problem lies with "the continual expansion of government or state (and 'rights' that go with it) over the past forty years."
You couldn't make it up.

Excuse me for assuming that this line of argument is similar to witnessing a crisis of the unfettered free market being cleverly transformed by a free market ideologue into a crisis of public spending.

Just as a parting shot, can i just quote you again in response to another poster.
You said, "However I struggle with the vast array of people who think taxation is the solution to all our ills."
Let me fix that for you.
"However I struggle with the vast array of people who think taxation of corporate interests, the very wealthy and speculators is the solution to all our ills."
Because you seem to have no problem with heavy taxation (harsh austerity) for Joe Public. For the childrens sake of course!