Yellow Vests: Is the call of the November 17 justified? #GiletsJaunes

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

We have a competent troll there ...

(you don't mind the smiley)

I don't know who you wanna talk to but it's great because I'm quite willing to laugh at myself

[Did67]

A synthesis, with computer graphics, of the "decoders" of the newspaper Le Monde. In general, they dig the topics quite well:

https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/ar ... 55770.html

For the future, we can only express convictions! And there, I think that extreme optimism is no more false than total pessimism. And vice versa.

However, my conviction is that oil, like food, are sensitive "products" (in economics, this is called a low elasticity with respect to supply): that there is a shortfall of 10% in relation to the supply. consumption, and the market is racing.

But Asian car markets are exploding; at home or in the States it is not decreasing (and a few tens or hundreds of thousands of electric cars per year will change absolutely nothing in the 10 years to come, as the renewal of the park is slow). Production regularly reaches limits: a) geopolitical (and to dream of all these countries becoming peaceful over the 10 years seems to me to be quite naive); b) technical (we are going to look further and further, deep, technically more and more expensive oil) ... I doubt that ITER will work on this scale ... well either "reproducible" on a large scale [We how long did it take to switch from the Cadarache "pilots" to the current nuclear fleet? And it was easier!]

The meeting of these two, in a time step of the next 10 or 20 years, will, according to my conviction, explode the prices. This is ONLY my reading of the crystal ball. Nothing more. But it is in this spirit that I act: replacement of my fuel-fired boiler by pellets, violent downsizing of our cars (from the C5 to the C1), compression of our electricity consumption (from 3 kWh / year to less of 700). And probably as soon as other domestic "investments" have been financed, probably a "PV + VE" pack ...

Optimists can keep driving SUVs and blockade the government because fuel is too expensive. I can't help but find them very naive. I would not go and join these calves (I am quoting De Gaulle). But that's just my opinion.

[Christophe]

Well it's decided, I will (you) prepare a "sign kit"made in Econology ... history of making a little political recovery (mouhahahha shit, don't say that!) on the occasion of November 17th!

My latest find is:

"I pollute therefore I suck"

[Bardal]

A synthesis, with computer graphics, of the "decoders" of the newspaper Le Monde. In general, they dig the topics quite well:

https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/ar ... 55770.html

For the future, we can only express convictions! And there, I think that extreme optimism is no more false than total pessimism. And vice versa.

However, my conviction is that oil, like food, are sensitive "products" (in economics, this is called a low elasticity with respect to supply): that there is a shortfall of 10% in relation to the supply. consumption, and the market is racing.

But Asian car markets are exploding; at home or in the States it is not decreasing (and a few tens or hundreds of thousands of electric cars per year will change absolutely nothing in the 10 years to come, as the renewal of the park is slow). Production regularly reaches limits: a) geopolitical (and to dream of all these countries becoming peaceful over the 10 years seems to me to be quite naive); b) technical (we are going to look further and further, deep, technically more and more expensive oil) ... I doubt that ITER will work on this scale ... well either "reproducible" on a large scale [We how long did it take to switch from the Cadarache "pilots" to the current nuclear fleet? And it was easier!]

The meeting of these two, in a time step of the next 10 or 20 years, will, according to my conviction, explode the prices. This is ONLY my reading of the crystal ball. Nothing more. But it is in this spirit that I act: replacement of my fuel-fired boiler by pellets, violent downsizing of our cars (from the C5 to the C1), compression of our electricity consumption (from 3 kWh / year to less of 700). And probably as soon as other domestic "investments" have been financed, probably a "PV + VE" pack ...

Optimists can keep driving SUVs and blockade the government because fuel is too expensive. I can't help but find them very naive. I would not go and join these calves (I am quoting De Gaulle). But that's just my opinion.

Well yes, the rise in the price of oil was and remains predictable, just like its scarcity, one explaining the other ...
There is something else predictable, it is the social tensions, and even the violent international tensions, which will go with these tensions on oil and energy sources ... We have already had a little foretaste with the Gulf War, some even claiming that the destabilization of the Middle East is not unrelated to these oil stories ...

We can certainly make fun of the naive who find no solution except to block the crossroads; on the bottom this criticism, a little elitist, of the naivety of the people is undoubtedly unstoppable, but ..

More

The art of governing is above all the art of planning, not that of knowing how to communicate. For decades now, we have been informed of this dramatic problem by its consequences, that we are able to evaluate it, to measure it finely, and we have stalled for 20 years; our dear elites, like the other naive ones, ranging from gadget measures based on Chinese PV panels (which by the way participate strongly in the consumption of fossil fuels) or communicating micro-measures of savings, if not not in ridiculous obscurantist fights against nuclear or glyphosate ... We have the right to be wrong, but we assume the consequences (and today, it is nothing compared to what is promised to us).

So, do we get started with this release of carbon energies, or are we slowly waiting for the story to unfold?

There are 50 ways to sort out these carbon energy exit stories; it is not a question of the availability of energy (even if ITER is not, and cannot be, the short-term solution; it is not made to produce electricity), nor of possibilities technical, it's a simple matter of political will (well ... simple, that's a way of speaking). In 30 years, we have moved away from the bulk of carbon-based fossil fuels ...
Well, that will not solve all the problems (there is also the question of mining resources, much more formidable, and the resources of the planet). But...

nb 2 million private vehicles are sold in France; with a simple objective of half for electric, that's still 10 million in 10 years; this is by no means negligible ... We could make the same reasoning for thermal wreck housing ...

[Christophe]

[Did67]

I admit the criticism of elitism ...

But just a small note: my income is much lower than the majority of what I have seen on TV, with cars sometimes (but not always, we should not generalize) substantial.

I'm going to be cash: I had "almost" 1 euros net, all pension plans combined. And the CSG has increased. My wife earns around 500 euros. We do not complain, even when near 1 euros, I go above the ceiling which would have allowed me to benefit from a reduction in the housing tax ... Infuriating.

I partly understand the anger of people.

Nevertheless, I would like us to explain to them what we have just shared about the inevitable rise in fuel prices, rather than stupidly stoking their anger. It won't change anything. Strictly nothing. We agree that the price of fuels, while oscillating, will increase. Well, maybe that's another way of having fun on Saturday than soccer games. We can even see it as an interesting new form of social organization, via the internet and other GAFAs.

It was the drop in fuels over the past two years that was abnormal. Suddenly, the cicadas cicada. Instead of anticipating. There, I find that the government was negligent: it was necessary to smooth out this decrease by a temporary, floating taxation (on a European scale; but there, I am dreaming standing!).

And if by chance the government was today stupid enough to be "understanding" (vis-à-vis the "popular people") and lower taxes on fuel, no one is unaware that it will tax elsewhere: its budget is at the limit of what is allowed in terms of deficit. France continues to indebt, and this still poses a serious moral problem vis-à-vis future generations. Any sane person would be ashamed to collect such a legacy. Collectively, however, we will!

If he is understanding, we will increase to 40 children per class, by laying off I do not know how many thousands of teachers? So the same, this time after the red caps and yellow vests, with green anoraks, will demonstrate against the closure of classes! The roads are already digging holes and the signs "holes in formation" are blooming. Hey, another protest theme for pink panties ...

So tax what ??? The VAT, which everyone, including the popular people, pays on things even more essential than gasoline ??? Hey, why not a demo of fluorescent underpants against that ???

Ah I forgot, the holy grail of the popular people: to tax the rich !!! By forgetting that their money has already been elsewhere for a long time. I know, it's not moral, but it's the reality. And the moral, not count on the rich. Otherwise, they wouldn't be. They never bothered to get rich - on the backs of the poor because someone explains to me how you get honestly rich with your own strength ???

So yes, at the risk of being treated as a super-elitist, I maintain that the reflection underlying the demonstration of the 17th does not exceed the level of the bovines of which de Gaulle spoke! When it does not have more secret but more political objectives - in France, we wanted a president-king and regularly, the popular people behead a king. A tradition. I specify, I am not a royalist for a penny!

[Ahmed]

The beheading of kings, even presidents, is out of fashion; besides, what good is it if it is to replace it by one of its double (since an inconsistent regicide never knew how to eliminate the royalty).

[Christophe]

To balance a budget we can work on revenues (= taxes, taxes ... etc ...) ... but also on expenses!

So why try to always tax to balance a budget when it would be enough ... to achieve a much better result, to cancel the (feudal type) share of interest on the public debt? Iceland did it and put some financiers in jail!

Oops sorry, I forgot that we could not criticize banks and high finance in France !!

Do you know 100% free banks in France? No, they all grease (more or less) ... while they should pay the least cent you have in your accounts! In Belgium, a 100% free bank exists: https://www.argenta.be/

Anyway, any French can open an account there: it's called Europe ... but most will obviously continue to grease their "adored banker" ... stop complaining without acting because solutions exist!

Here I bet that the average diesel surcharge of the new tax is lower than the average bank charges of the French! We can also reason in cumulative terms: billions are paid by the French to banks "for absolutely nothing" each year ...

[Exnihiloest]

The "optimists" seen by Did67, in my opinion, base themselves on the following points about the cost of energy:

• "we are going to look further and further, deep, for oil" : Yes, "technically more and more expensive": this is correct but" more expensive "essentially at the beginning of the use of new technologies because they have to be developed and prototyped. And then the extraction itself only represents a small part of the final cost of the refined product, the price of crude representing only 1/4 of the price at the pump.
• it's not just oil, it's all fossil fuels. We have seen that the massive exploitation of shale gas in the United States is an alternative that has lowered the price of oil by reducing demand.
  
• nuclear fusion: admittedly the technology is difficult to develop, physicists are struggling on the issue of plasma confinement. However the theory of operation is solid, and we know the human inventiveness, demonstrated in the past. Even if a 15-year forecast like mentioned here is questionable, no doubt that they will succeed in the next 2-3 decades. Confident, they already see beyond Iter.
  
• then, necessity rules. Buyers set prices, it is a well-known economic rule: the seller chooses the maximum price that the buyers are willing to pay, knowing that there is a match to be made between the price and the number of buyers. So as long as the seller can make his margin, he will not penalize himself by raising too much.
  
• last but not least, fuel is expensive because of taxation, which has increased in recent years. The crude was falling, the State therefore took the opportunity to discreetly increase its taxes, and as we can imagine they are not lower now that the price of crude is rising. No one would complain about paying for fuel at its actual cost of € 0,9 per liter.

It is therefore the State which has the greatest leeway to lower the price of fuel, now or in the future. We know that in this area as in others, power is deaf, unable to imagine the everyday life of ordinary citizens, unless they sense the economic or social crash. The call of November 17 was made to remind him of this.

PS- I heard this noon on the radio that international truck drivers crossing France are starting to equip their vehicles with additional tanks so as not to have to refuel in France. This is where the imbecile excesses of power lead.

[Christophe]

unable to imagine the everyday life of the ordinary citizen,

Barely!

We remember the buns of Jean-François Copé (a fact which, in my opinion, would have earned him a loaf, Balboa version, in his face and the immediate end of his political career ...), take a good look at how he tries to drown the fish by bouncing off the Chocolatine ... on this side it is quite a "good" policy ...

unless he feels the economic or social crash. The call of November 17 was made to remind him of this.

Quite right and that's why I want to participate! Just to "feel" people ...