Warming up and purchasing power according to Jancovici (video)

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
gegyx
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6930
Registration: 21/01/05, 11:59
x 2870




by gegyx » 10/02/08, 19:45

The needs may have been overvalued at first, but the policy of the time was to privatize and under-treat.

So with this profile, the number of laureates waiting, was very overvalued ...

So, people blousé, passed after obviously ...
Dedit of the state.

(And years that do not count for retirement)
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 11/02/08, 06:39

gegyx wrote: There was talk of inheritance fees on a family home, the price of which has swelled disproportionately with the years (as on the island of Ré).
This is unfair because the emotional heritage is no longer in the family. It's sad. But the sale of the property, can accommodate all children in houses, in another city ...

No gegyx, if you divide the value of the family home by the number of children, it is not always possible to buy a house. A 1 or 2 heir children is playable but beyond. Not to mention that when you have the tax on the buttocks for the payment of duties, you have to act quickly and the selling price suffers.

gegyx wrote:Dilapid is the true word, because there is no investment, a useful counterpart for economic recovery, and the mismanagement continues every day.

No gegyx agreement, the money collected would have been used for what? to repay the public debt? to pay the interest on the debt? in any case not to invest in the economy. The state has already withdrawn from this kind of action that it prefers to leave to private companies and companies. It started with the privatizations and then it goes on with Iznogoud who makes them a golden bridge.
gegyx wrote:The boxes were empty before the election, but today they have no chance of being bailed out.

But they will never be bailed out! Does the state have an interest in them? it still allows to justify, among others, the maintenance of a high taxation. I have to find an article about it.

gegyx wrote:Because the bitch of the case, if it takes his last savings, while liberal lax is for the haves, it may be even more stupid than one might think, and a bloody spell, to donors of lessons.
We have always given crumbs to the most humble to the limit, so that they do not revolt and destroy the whole system.
Currently, Iznogood seems to forget it.

Iznogoud is indeed in a good position but I think you have noticed that our political leaders (right or left) are moving away from more and more citizens: they make their little sauce between them, decide to ratify (soon) a Treaty resembling the draft European Constitution rejected by a majority of French, the Senators make us a policy pro GMO, ... in short there is a cleavage that is accentuated and can only be detrimental to a good social balance. After the presidential elections, MAM declared that the weak representation of far-left parties could destabilize some of their constituents. His speech wanted to get viewers to understand a future surveillance policy at all costs of citizens, in order to protect them of course :D potential destabilized deviants or even nasty terrorists. Hence a national file base / pupils that lists from the nursery potential offenders, hence a policy of DNA carding, hence surveillance cameras in large numbers, hence an Internet mesh, where. ... I let you imagine the rest.
But what she does not imagine and what many elected officials do not imagine is, as you say gegyx, that there is a risk of an increasing number of fools who will set fire to powders and contaminate the population that does not demand more to demand accountability.
Citizens have become accustomed to political shenanigans, all sorts of abuses, abysmal deficits (fake or proven), taxes and surcharges, the day for the old, ... etc, without it being used elsewhere. to resorb them. It's been years that the citizens cash, grumbling, or being gently convince by beautiful speeches but a day that is probably not so far, the valve of the casserole will jump and may be well also the casserole. And that day, Iznogoud can do what he wants, nothing will do.
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 11/02/08, 07:15

Remundo wrote:I will provoke a little, but you can ponder the following ...
It is a fair return of things, because this debt, it is the French who made it, globally by their lack of seriousness having brought to power personalities (right and left) in the image of those who voted for them and who never had the courage to complete a positive budget since 30 years ... That's it It has been necessary to constantly honor a billion-dollar social system that only a powerful economy can support and electoral promises, sometimes totally illegitimate.

Yes it's easy to make the voter feel guilty, but you know, voters elect a person they do not know, assuming that the elected representative will keep the voter's interest. The latter can not imagine everything that happens in the corridors of power, always for his own good, of course :D he can not have a medium or long-term vision of the consequences of a policy, he has no idea of ​​the international economic issues that guide national policy. And then voters do not always think, often for lack of time, they live day to day, deal with everyday matters and the only free time they find for rest, escape, is devoted to TV. Then politics they live through the news, stories of left / right wars, corruptions, deficits, taxes, surcharges, etc .. Even when an elected official is sentenced for embezzlement, misappropriation of public money, we find this elected in the next election, as if nothing had happened, we erase the slate and we even let him retire as elected.
A weariness settles because they do not have the impression to be able to change much there.

When with the hypergenerous social system, can you detail where it seems to you "hypergenerous"?
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5187




by Remundo » 11/02/08, 14:10

Hello Bam!

For the first part of your text, I do not have much to criticize, as I said, my tone was knowingly provocative.

But still, elected officials are still a little the image of their constituents ... we can not dismiss it with the back of the hand.

The problem is that these 2 laxisms feeding each other (the voters and the politicians) now plunge France into a series of vicious circles.

When with the hypergenerous social system, can you detail where it seems to you "hypergenerous"?


Ah, ah ... innocent question from you :P

I will answer you that the French social system is the most envied and admired in the world for the almost total care of the average citizen, whether active or (mostly) inactive for many aspects of his life: health, retirement, sometimes housing, sometimes children ... Some of these care that are even extended to foreign citizens, in the context of political refugees, or not ...

And that at the same time, it is the most mocked system in the world for the abysmal deficits that it generates, for the disempowerment and the frauds that it induces among the "average" population.

I do not judge the social system, I just give both sides ... simple observation

And as in any problem, at a given moment, you have to know what you want. If we want this system, highly respectable, as I have already mentioned, the economy must imperatively be flourishing.

This system can only live if people to care for are few. (France of the 1980 years under Mitterand, under the impetus of Mimi Rocard)

As soon as the economy gets off the ground, there is an explosion of aid seekers (sick, unemployed, pensioners ...) and the collapse of aid funders (SMEs, companies, active individuals). And here it is ... France today.
0 x
Image
Supertux
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 25
Registration: 24/12/07, 02:26




by Supertux » 12/02/08, 01:26

Should we call you "SuperTAX?"

I see you again the compliment: Should we call you "SuperPopulist"?

Greenhouse gases and the excessive transmission of inheritances are problematic and in a liberal economy to reduce something it is taxed all over.

You speak of equality of opportunity and liberal economy; is not it antinomic? If we were under communist or even socialist rule, I'm fine.

Was Chirac a communist according to you? And Begag (near Bayrou)? Is not Bagag's success a good example of equal opportunity, child in a slum, adult in a ministry? Should he stay in a slum?

=> See:
http://www.egalitedeschances.gouv.fr/

If you do not believe that an economy should give all working and efficient people whatever their social background their luck, then you have a very good vision of liberalism.

The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor whether they perform well or not, both of them. Transmissions of social conditions by "blood" therefore and not merit. It looks more like a feudal system than a liberal one.

it is to put on the same level the guy who worked all his life and who put aside and the guy who also worked but who has all eaten while having fun.

I do not believe it is the role of the state to encourage hoarding.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5187




by Remundo » 12/02/08, 10:59

Supertux wrote:I do not believe it is the role of the state to encourage hoarding.


So true ! It must encourage useful reinvestment ... not blind consumption, for example the frantic purchase of Chinese gadgets that will not be worth anything in 10 months ...
0 x
Image
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 12/02/08, 11:27

Supertux wrote:
Should we call you "SuperTAX?"

I see you again the compliment: Should we call you "SuperPopulist"?

If you want it but it does not stick as well with my nickname Supertux and Supertax :D

Supertux wrote:Greenhouse gases and the excessive transmission of inheritances are problematic and in a liberal economy to reduce something it is taxed all over.

Quite stupid as you say then that it would be necessary first of all to wonder about the good use of the collected money before considering other taxes. I invite you to read or reread what I wrote on page 5 this topic.
Supertux wrote:
You speak of equality of opportunity and liberal economy; is not it antinomic? If we were under communist or even socialist rule, I'm fine.

Was Chirac a communist according to you? And Begag (near Bayrou)? Is not Bagag's success a good example of equal opportunity, child in a slum, adult in a ministry? Should he stay in a slum?
If you do not believe that an economy should give all working and efficient people whatever their social background their luck, then you have a very good vision of liberalism.

If you knew where I came from you would understand that you don't need to give me these kinds of examples. My grandparents and parents came from a very, very poor background and they made it all on their own. I come from a line of Breton workers (especially agricultural) who migrated to urban centers to find work. So I think we are not on the same wavelength. Yes of course liberalism gives everyone a chance and in this we can speak of equality of opportunity but if you talk about taxing inheritances to preserve this equality, how the money collected will help to preserve this equality? or you mean that everyone must prove their worth (merit) apart from all notions of transmission so that everyone is equal. But then do you think that every child is born with the same “luck” potential? in principle yes, but in reality you know very well not. What do you think of people who work in the audiovisual industry, for example? equality of opportunity or boosting? Between a Claire Chazal who earns ... € 150 / year (I don't know but it's staggering) and a worker who works three more and who earns € 000 / year, where is the equal opportunity? ? Are you going to tell me that Claire has more merit?
What do you think of all these simple people who used to come from the countryside to find odd jobs? They hoarded because they knew the importance of money, so much had they missed. My mother inherited from her father a sum that would be considered ridiculous today, not even enough to buy a car, but it was his way of leaving him something and he paid attention all his life in order to bequeath this qq thing, to help him in life. As for my father he inherited the house that his father had built on his own. Does it upset the equality of opportunity to do that?

Supertux wrote:The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor whether they perform well or not, both of them. Transmissions of social conditions by "blood" therefore and not merit. It looks more like a feudal system than a liberal one.
it is to put on the same level the guy who worked all his life and who put aside and the guy who also worked but who has all eaten while having fun.

I do not believe it is the role of the state to encourage hoarding.

But before talking about the transmission of social conditions by blood, think a little about what parents leave to their children on average and you will understand that to speak of a feudal system, it should be considered that there is a majority of wealthy people. outrageously rich, who leave their daughters or daddy's fools the means of not working; I do not think that's the case.
Regarding the 2è sentence, do you realize the stupidity of what you say? By and large we consume, joke everything in our lifetime to turn the economy and our country to the detriment of our children who will have to prove themselves to get there.
And do you think that hoarding brings nothing back to the economy and the state? If it does not pay VAT directly, it turns the economy because the banks use this money to reinject it.
0 x
Supertux
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 25
Registration: 24/12/07, 02:26




by Supertux » 13/02/08, 11:54

It must encourage reinvestment ... not blind consumption

No, it must encourage both, otherwise the economy will not turn (investment AND consumption). And the proportions are to be redefined constantly depending on the situation, otherwise there may be under investment or on the contrary overheating. All this is the work of the politicians.

And in economics there is no "useful" investment and "blind" consumption, value judgments do not apply. There are investments that meet consumer demand, that's all.
0 x
Supertux
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 25
Registration: 24/12/07, 02:26




by Supertux » 13/02/08, 12:55

Quite stupid as you say then that it would be necessary first of all to wonder about the good use of the collected money before considering other taxes.

The proper use of money is a very useful cover-up for some. If fossil fuels are taxed, their consumption will drop regardless of the use of money. At the "worst" use can increase efficiency but not reduce it.

For other taxes it has other purpose, their respective discussions is not to mix with a possible carbon tax.

If you knew where I come from, you would understand

That's a bit what I reproach you: always coming back to the river example of the "poor little average Frenchman", it sounds a little populist ... Your family story does not interest me in the least.

But then do you think that every child is born with the same “luck” potential?

Can you explain the depth of your thought on this subject? That would be very interesting I think ...

What do you think about people working in the audiovisual industry for example?

Since my opinion appeals to you: That people who earn their money honestly from their work should pay less taxes (but not less payroll taxes), even if it seems normal to me that the richest participates more. If their skills are in high demand and they can raise the stakes, and all the better for them, it is the law of supply and demand (and I understood that it worked for the craftsmen as well). plumber).

Regarding the 2è sentence, do you realize the stupidity of what you say?

See my previous message (and the other about the balance between indivudual and general interest).
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 146 guests