French Elections thread

[UGLYGUTS]

Originally Posted by philiplaos

Election nights are not fun anymore.

They announce the exit polls and there's an immediate concession with the winner declared at that point.

It's all over in minutes. No tension at all.

I'm going to bed.


Philip

I know dude, and no Simon Cowell, what the duce is up with that

Not sure what type of bloke France has landed itself with but the word "socialist" keeps getting levied.

Is he a staunch socialist or more of a Tony Blair "claims he is but is not really"

I am not a fan of austerity measures for the sake of it but at this moment in time its prudent for all nations in Europe to steer thier budgets to a more living within means territory.

The socialism we have this side of the pond usually means none state jobs of the week, borrowing, and strikes etc.

Hope for Frances sake that thier brand is better.

Didnt mind Sarkozy too much but then again ive not had to follow his daily doings very closely on a domestic front.

To any French here, was he in your opinions one of your better presidents, worst, in the middle?

Would also like to know what our French brethren here make of the very good vote share Front National recieved this year,

[Kimi]

Originally Posted by Cheetah772

That's true, but at the same time, I'm wondering if it's more wise to wean people off various public assistance programs more slowly, enacting austerity measures more gradually?

Extreme austerity measures will turn some people off, as evident in Greece's case, where mass protests are common, and a revolution nearly occurred. As matter of fact, in California, some cities decided to adopt austere budgets, leading to mass protest rallies. Imagine if this were to be enacted nation-wide, massive riots will occur and some city sectors will look like ravaged war zones.

However, I don't know if gradual austerity will stave off the looming economic disaster, or this will calm down the investors and creditors alike, giving a much needed boost to confidence in various sovereign governments trying to solve the crisis.

Dan

Gradual austerity would mean that other countries (mainly northern europe) would take over the burden of a good chunk of the social spending in those countries. Of course without giving the people in northern europe the chance to vote there where their taxes are spend.

The rusult will be / is that "gradual" austerity just means less austerity. After all, the problem is fixed. A managable level of austerity has been achieved by having other people perpetually pay for your spending without giving them the right to stop it (deomcratic decision, european solidarity etc.)

Its very important that the greeks get to vote and that when they vote that others shall have to pay, that this democratic will is enacted. Screw those others.

So, no. Its like "gradual" corruption fighting. Either you do fight corruption or you dont.

In greece for instant ~ 80% of the people want that "everything has to be done for greece to remain in the euro and the EU" and at the same time they want big spending raises and an immediate stop to austerity. Those two points can only be reconciled by interpreting "everything that has to be done for greece to remain" as "others should do everything that has to be done" instead of "we should do everything".

Thats also the pitch of the 2nd biggest party and biggest vote winner Syria. I mean Syriza, the "Coalition of the Radical Left" whose program is to remain in EU and euro but at the same time stop every austerity measure.

Other people should be made to pay for everything.

[Snowygerry]

Originally Posted by Kimi

Gradual austerity would mean that other countries (mainly northern europe) would take over the burden of a good chunk of the social spending in those countries. Of course without giving the people in northern europe the chance to vote there where their taxes are spend.

The rusult will be / is that "gradual" austerity just means less austerity. After all, the problem is fixed. A managable level of austerity has been achieved by having other people perpetually pay for your spending without giving them the right to stop it (deomcratic decision, european solidarity etc.)

Its very important that the greeks get to vote and that when they vote that others shall have to pay, that this democratic will is enacted. Screw those others.

So, no. Its like "gradual" corruption fighting. Either you do fight corruption or you dont.

In greece for instant ~ 80% of the people want that "everything has to be done for greece to remain in the euro and the EU" and at the same time they want big spending raises and an immediate stop to austerity. Those two points can only be reconciled by interpreting "everything that has to be done for greece to remain" as "others should do everything that has to be done" instead of "we should do everything".

Thats also the pitch of the 2nd biggest party and biggest vote winner Syria. I mean Syriza, the "Coalition of the Radical Left" whose program is to remain in EU and euro but at the same time stop every austerity measure.

Other people should be made to pay for everything.

Problem with all that is that the crisis did not result from government defecit spending, it came about because mismanagement in the commercial financial sector.

The money given to greece is not being used to pay greek "social spending", it's being used to keep defacto failed european banks afloat, northern europe is not funding greece, it is in effect subsidizing it's own banks for want of a better idea.

"gradual austerity" assumes *investing* in things like infrastructure, education, things that would offer a long-term return on investment, not running costs - defcit spending should be no problem in such a case.

The combined european austerity measures are bringing the economy to a stop as people are continiuously told they'll "have to make do with less".

For supply-side economics to work, you need effective consumers, they are running out quickly.

[Johan Banér]

Afaict Hollande is at least right in principle that the EU needs economic growth. How and if he/we can afford it remains to be seen.

[Silent Hunter]

Originally Posted by Snowygerry

The combined european austerity measures are bringing the economy to a stop as people are continiuously told they'll "have to make do with less".

Exactly - people who know they're likely to lose their jobs through cuts are going to slow down or stop "unnecessary" spending to plan ahead. In the process, they take out other businesses and make more people unemployed.

[Kimi]

Originally Posted by Johan Banér

Afaict Hollande is at least right in principle that the EU needs economic growth. How and if he/we can afford it remains to be seen.

Yeah and OF COURSE Merkel is against growth. Yes, surely. I heard her say "We want to prevent growth because we hate it! To the KZ with growth!"

In other news, the weather on the north pole is cold and the sky is blue.

Also growth is generated by stealing from person a and giving it to person b, but only if that is legalized by person B voting that they are entitled to person a's money. Person A of course, as a foreigner is not allowed to participate in that election.

[Kimi]

Originally Posted by Snowygerry

Problem *snip*

Yeah, you are aware that greece is bankrupt? The whole state was unable to pay but a single cent of pension or wage to its pensioners resp. civil servants unless the EU/IMF had given them a lot of money.

The one time the greek government was upfront about it and you seem to have missed that whole 2 months.

Let me repeat: Every single thing that the greek government spends money on, they can only spend money on because of EU/IMF loans. Because there is no more left.

Exactly - people who know they're likely to lose their jobs through cuts are going to slow down or stop "unnecessary" spending to plan ahead. In the process, they take out other businesses and make more people unemployed.

so you're saying that theres no "unnecessary" spending and the wealth will eventually trickle down? Huh... call me old fashioned but wealth and riches are created by working in my world, not by throwing all the money can borrow out the window.

[Snowygerry]

No-one cares about greek pensioners, if that was the only problem they wouldn't get a dime.

They get money to pay the interest on their debts, if they don't several european banks go bust, several countries follow closely after, that's why everyone is so desperate to keep them in the euro.

[Kimi]

Originally Posted by Snowygerry

No-one cares about greek pensioners, if that was the only problem they wouldn't get a dime.

They get money to pay the interest on their debts, if they don't several european banks go bust, several countries follow closely after, that's why everyone is so desperate to keep them in the euro.

Ah yes, the good old "Its their fault for trusting somebody like me with money!" routine.

Not the guy who overspends is at fault for overspending, no its the guy who was the enabler. Thats also the reason no sensible person will lend them any money, we know what happens. They dont pay back any of it after spending it and then insult the lenders.

"Yeah, I know you lend me 10 bucks for that pizza but it wasnt even very good so screw you, i'm not paying you back. Also, I am hungry, give me 10 bucks for a pizza"

[Snowygerry]

We've created a banking system that's dependent on non-existent money, there's simply more debt then money in the world.

You can shuffle it around and keep collecting interest, but the money to pay back the loans simply isn't there.

No amount of greek austerity is gonna change that.

To make matters worse our governments are dependent on those very same banks for their own finances.

To carry on your own analogy, you're paying greek people to eat at your own pizeria - stop paying and you're out of business.


EDIT: Just stating my view on things, nothing was said about who's at "fault" - I doubt it's you though

[the ace]

Thank you, France.

I do have reservations about the high NF vote, though.

[Kimi]

Originally Posted by Snowygerry

We've created a banking system that's dependent on non-existent money, there's simply more debt then money in the world.

Yes, of course. Unless you can hit people with a currency and they start bleeding its not a "real" currency. Stones, gold, iron... all good currency. Paper: Bad currency.

Because after all you cant eat paper, but you can eat stone and gold. Off we go to the barter economy and bailouts for everyone... did I forgot anyting? Ah yes, this:

To carry on your own analogy, you're paying greek people to eat at your own pizeria - stop paying and you're out of business.

Please open a pizzeria and every single day "lend" me the money to eat there with me never paying back.

And then tell me why you went out of buisness with your brilliant idea. You have work, yes. Because you have to make me my pizza. But you dont have buisness because I ain't paying you.

sometimes I really wonder how some people can even survive in the world? Are you working in a government office perchance?

[Snowygerry]

And then tell me why you went out of buisness with your brilliant idea. You have work, yes. Because you have to make me my pizza. But you dont have buisness because I ain't paying you.

Yet this is exactly how all european banks raked in the profits during the nineties/early 2000's.

Profits doubled about every quarter, stock rates where soaring so hard even chimpansees could make money speculating.

Never heard anyone complain about overspending greeks in those days.

They lent money to whomever, even when it was quite obvious they would never be repaid.

Yes, of course. Unless you can hit people with a currency and they start bleeding its not a "real" currency. Stones, gold, iron... all good currency. Paper: Bad currency.

Paper money would be quite good, we don't even have that anymore, there's not a bank in the world who has a reserve that even comes close to what they own in savings etc.

It would suffice for a country the size of Belgium to collectively withdraw their savings and the whole system would be exposed for what it is: fraud.

Are you working in a government office perchance?

I'm old nobility, live off my family's estates

[Kimi]

Originally Posted by Snowygerry

Yet this is exactly how all european banks raked in the profits during the nineties/early 2000's.

Profits doubled about every quarter, stock rates where soaring so hard ven chimpansees could make money speculating.

Never heard anyone complain about overspending greeks in those days.

They lent money to whomever, even when it was quite obvious they would never be repaid.

Hmm... and your solution is to just perpetualize this. Interesting...

It didnt work before so lets continue doing it. Some get to work without being paid and others get paid without having to work.

We could call it Sparta and every greek gets a number of slave workers assigned, we could call those "helots". Ah, one more problem fixed in a humanitarian and socially just way. After all, both sides are happy! The greeks get their "spending" and the helots get "buisness". They just dont get paid, but when did slaves ever?

I'm old nobility, live off my family's estates

Well thats nice, but some of us have to work. And those that have their own buisness have to understand that with a profit margin of 2% you need to have 50 new customers who buy your product for every 1 customer who steals one from you by not paying. And I mean new customers, not old ones.

[Snowygerry]

Oh no - don't get me wrong, I'm not offering a solution, I'm disputing your analysis.

That is I do not agree with you're apparent assessment that everthing would have been ok had the greeks just worked a little harder.

You (or so it seems at least) claim to paying greek pensioners, while I claim you're subsidizing german (or even belgian) banks.