'Iron Lady' and Thatcherism: funerals! And after...?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 13/04/13, 22:57

[Edit, 3rd par.]: "Replace in minds the need for money with something intangible and above all more inspiring like art ... "
0 x
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 14/04/13, 18:59

So if I understand correctly, when a government stops indebtedness without limit, it means that it is in the boots of the dirty capitalists and that it is bleeding the poor people.
Damn, what evidence!
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 14/04/13, 19:21

Yes, indeed, I noticed this contradiction (between two systems) from the first post.

It doesn't explain either, why the "dirty capitalists»Have also occasionally proceeded to increase the said debt! Strange? (I'm not talking about Thatcher here, but it's another subject to bleed some popular streaks, there was the drama)!

In the current period, the reason for this paradox must surely be found in the fact that if the States were no longer able to repay their debt, it is indeed because the ripoux finance (via the sub-prime crisis) leap "the economy" out of its allowable adjustment variables ...! Suddenly, no one had the capacity to repay (neither the states already on the brink of the abyss, nor certain companies, nor many individuals who lost their jobs because of the crisis ...).

On the other hand, your remark is not really a question, since I see there a zest of underlying cynicism! : Lol:

So can you explain in a few words, how a certain debt can boost growth, I would like to know? This is something I have never been able to swallow!

Not understood either that we can accuse / make guilty the lower people of the fact that the governments which followed one another would have gone into debt? Is it not the role of banks and their profession to assess the ability to "the borrower" to repay? Even if it is bad, since the banks are accusing the facts of which they are the cause!

But what about the rating agencies at the time (Fitch Ratings, Moody's, S&P, etc.), when the game was going full blast !? We haven't heard them so much ...

Finally, when it comes to nationalizing losses (profits being ipso facto privatized ...), it is obvious that if the state coffers continue to be empty, this could constitute a danger for the banks, since they would have to so put your hand in the wallet to redo! Isn't that why they put pressure through their “sudden crisis of virtue”!

Definitely, it is to understand nothing ( 8) )
Last edited by Obamot the 14 / 04 / 13, 19: 49, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 14/04/13, 19:46

ripoux financiers and ripoux politicians, some taking advantage of the rules set by others. And who all have their hands in the same bag, the state also has stakes in banks.

The common people have taken advantage of the generosity of the welfare state, and always vote for those who promise them the delights of Capua. We can therefore consider that he only has what he deserves.

For a non-indebted state, going into debt to pass the bottom of an economic cycle (since it has cycles, it seems) is justified by the maintenance of the productive tool, which allows a faster and more restart powerful economy. Debt repayment is then much less painful than poverty at the bottom of the cycle and the country is generally doing better. Keynes has proven that. Cumulative debt for socializing has never been his purpose!

Did Ms. Tatcher get the country back on track or not? Did the Socialists Do It?
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 14/04/13, 20:02

Thanks for the explanation. it seems more than convincing to me.

Never having fully understood why a state had to go into debt! It seems to me that the example that you give (going through a low point) is far below the reality of the facts (see it is rather over-indebtedness). And that the banks knew very well!

There was no question of Thatcher here (I edited), because it is another subject to bleed white certain popular layers, there was the drama. And his intransigence his signature. Besides, we can drop this question, since this thread absolutely does not polarize the fault on a particular political tendency.

The essential question: has everyone lost in this crisis? Otherwise who won!

In other words: who benefits from the "crime"? (If there ever was one, but frankly, I'm thinking of dollars) Hey hey ...
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 14/04/13, 20:16

Obamot wrote:
Never having fully understood why a state had to go into debt!


Debt serves to compensate for the decrease in energy resources, and those in order to avoid a decrease in growth.
In France the massive debt to start in 1974 following the oil shock ... unemployment too!


In other words: who benefits from the "crime"? (If there ever was one, but frankly, I'm thinking of dollars) Hey hey ...


The indebtedness allows the establishment of globalism, by enslaving the nations by the means of the credit. It is about the dominant ideology in the "high spheres".
All the big bankers, heads of state, and "men in the shadows" are generally linked by "think tanks" and other occult groups which aim to establish this doctrine.
Last edited by sen-no-sen the 14 / 04 / 13, 20: 21, 1 edited once.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 14/04/13, 20:18

As long as everything was going well, growth or inflation, I doubt that the bankers saw the slap coming. Besides, a loan is not necessarily taken from national banks or even banks.
Look at Sarko with his big loan. I suspect that he applied the scorched earth technique ...

Yes, she was uncompromising, and I think she did well. If someone wants to go on hunger strike to the point of death, I don't think they should be prevented. Conversely, these mines cost an arm, it had to be cut. In France we have subsidized for decades, and these regions are still lagging behind.

By dint of dragging balls, everything else is planted.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 14/04/13, 20:22

You are right, Obamot, to emphasize that Mrs thatcher only applied the new directives that were in the air and that R.Reagan had followed before her, but she did so with a landmark inhumanity.

There is no contradiction between a state that goes into debt and one that applies rigor: they are the same, moreover; it just corresponds to two different periods.
In the first, it is a question of prolonging by artifices (borrowing) a formula which had had its heyday (the welfare state *), in the second, the fragmentation of society into isolated monads makes it possible to s 'to abstract from previous compromises, to take no account of the working class which exists less and less as such (the "lower people" (sic) of P. Schutt) and to attack a middle class deemed useless in turn: the oligarchy can savor its triumph.

* This specious formulation should be put in quotes, since it only corresponded to a provisional compromise, during which the advantages granted to the most disadvantaged have, ultimately, benefited the wealthy classes (including those who were indignant!). The decrease in overall profits then led to borrowing, then to extractivism to the detriment of the greatest number, a kind of internal colonialism ...
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Philippe Schutt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1611
Registration: 25/12/05, 18:03
Location: Alsace
x 33




by Philippe Schutt » 15/04/13, 08:40

But since it is the working and middle classes who represent the votes during the votes, we must consider that they are completely masochistic or that this reasoning does not hold.

The politicians' idea of ​​"after me the flood" seems to me more representative of reality, and does not need such convoluted reasoning.
0 x
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538




by Obamot » 15/04/13, 08:56

The big dilemma: should the public sector "take care" of the private sector? That too has never worked for long (to my knowledge, but I admit that it is very incomplete). Latest example: Venezuela "at the Chavez"no? And yet the guy was"very nice"for its people (but populist to death. And it's not populism that puts people to work)!

So the solution is ...?

Philippe Schutt wrote:As long as everything was going well, growth or inflation, I doubt that the bankers saw the slap coming.

Do you mean by that that banks only speculate based on market responsiveness? That they are not the engines of crises? So that their virtue cannot be called into question? Because indeed, if that is the case, we cannot blame them for anything, except to be irresponsible, which for a bank would be even more serious! So in theory you are possibly right, in practice there must be establishments which do not eat this bread there and others which wallow on the principles right?

Philippe Schutt wrote:Besides, a loan is not necessarily taken from national banks or even banks. Look at Sarko with his big loan. I suspect that he applied the scorched earth technique ...

And then what magic formula would Sarkozy have applied, if he had stayed in power, given that it didn't take much? He would have walked on the embers of fire that he would have himself lit? I have a doubt.

Rather the impression that IN HIS electoral PROMISES, by which he undertook to attack the financial sector, it was Hollande who had seen it right (Sarkozy had also said that he would attack the financial sector, but he had only said it ...)! Only in deeds, both are faced with the same dilemma that, and even if they wanted to tackle financial circles, they could hardly do anything, because France cannot afford to go it alone. . So caught in a pincer, Hollande (who I am not defending) did the only thing he could amha, that is to say defend the Euro by convincing Merkel that it was necessary to create an unlimited fund to come in aid of the "PIGGS" (it should nevertheless be remembered that at the time, speculation on the state debt was in full swing, and that following this announcement, the pressure has fallen and for the moment the attacks against the 'Euro by the financial sector have ceased).
http://archives-lepost.huffingtonpost.f ... -euro.html

Philippe Schutt wrote:Yes, she was uncompromising, and I think she did well. If someone wants to go on hunger strike to the point of death, I don't think they should be prevented. Conversely, these mines cost an arm, it had to be cut. In France we have subsidized for decades, and these regions are still lagging behind.

Again, you're right in principle. Except that it seems to me that a head of state is responsible for the population it admins. This requires a lot of flexibility. That if she had been forced into a drastic choice (and she was), she could have shown a little humanity, which might have helped to resolve the crisis (since she was supposed to know and understand the repercussions of its measures in the population)! She also lacked imagination.

Philippe Schutt wrote:By dint of dragging balls, everything else is planted.

Whose fault is it, the crisis did not appear overnight, anyway!?!
0 x

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 172 guests