The industrial earthquake of PSA in France

[sen-no-sen]

Sen-no-sen

Elsewhere:

... without a strong decline (at home) there will be no solution to global misery.

With a sharp decline and sufferedthere will be no more solution to world misery.

When it comes to decay, it is in general (and that is why current policies evade this notion) from a voluntary renunciation of growth in material assets and GDP.
In the case of a sudden decrease it would be more judicious to speak of recession.

Degrowth (happy sobriety way) is the most effective way to limit "extractivism" ( ) that you often refer to.

[sen-no-sen]

(...) Indeed, a generalized redistribution supposes a prosperous economy, able to support it, but the economy is the cause of these disorders to which it amounts to put an end! It should therefore intensify the cause to better spread the solution!

Absolutely, difficult to synthesize better!
This should be explained to some people, say "very left".
The problem is not a redistribution, but a redesign (I have not said destruction, no, no!) Of the system.



Philippe Schutt:

@ Sen-no-sen
Social conditions? if we talk about the security and unemployment, for me it is relentlessly therapeutic on old and mismanage, professions protected from competition and contempt of patients.

We must not confuse "social" and assistantship ...
Unfortunately, like many concepts, the successive policies of right and left have caused trouble on both notions.
At the present time it is mainly a matter of buying social peace through family allowances, social housing and income solidarity ... yet the social is above all in the establishment of means enabling citizens to get by for real, not to live on a drip.
On a global scale, international aid has the same ideas, has seen the result ...

[Philippe Schutt]

So no offense: we would like to believe Philippe's somewhat reductive scheme, when he says that"It will always be necessary to fight to survive, and whatever the method it will always be a form of work". But seen without ethics or equity - so without justice - it is Aristotelian logic.

Yes it is reductive and binary, but ... to build complex models on top of each other, we forget the fundamental elements, as if beyond a certain sophistication it was no longer necessary to respect them. Maybe this is the case some timebut not in the long run.

[Obamot]

I confirm !

Force is to respect this paradigm, and this by all its actors! But is this the case?

Force the executive to bend the reacalcitans! But is this the case?

However, it should not prevent us from debating the legislative aspect ...!

But for WHO we take, eh ... We, little needy ants, insignificant and invisible ... to want to take care of what we do not care!

[Philippe Schutt]

no it is not the case and there will always be recalcitrant and the executive is unable to control everything, when he is not himself a recalcitrant.

The case Peugeot does not really look at us, but the economic conditions are bad, yes.

[Janic]

But for WHO we take, eh ... We, little needy ants, insignificant and invisible ... to want to take care of what we do not care!

that's the demo-cratie!

[Obamot]

No more no less,

The very fact of estimating:
1) that the potential unemployed would be potential recalcitrants.
2) that one would eventually find normal, that the executive (I mean by that the judicio-repressive system intended to bend the working masses) come to penalize innocent de facto, by nature deprived and innocent. According to the principle of responsibility, whereas this is not required for the top of the hierarchy.
3) that the unfavorable "economic conditions" would be enough to make the pill go from the two preceding points (which seem a bit short as justification for any explanation)!

... Is not the idea that I'm doing justice, Philippe.

With regard to keeping thebasic elements"(As described above, but without knowing very well what it is elsewhere? *) And this in order to make the therapeutic relentless, so as not to attack the causes , on the grounds that "it would not be a prioritySeems to me a little fast! Who can be satisfied with this?

There is not even "social", but the direction of the firing squad towards what takes the place of "cannon fodder"! How to "get by" under such circumstances, when the system has been trusted and everything is botched in a region! These large-scale dismissal plans are a bit like the army generals ordering the heavy artillery and the air force to fire on his own troop, just because"They would think it was no longer fit to fight ...!"

On the other hand, I admit that faced with the realities of the world as it is, both politicians and business leaders are poor.

This is why it is necessary to open new perspectives.

* but it does not matter in the end ... let's do it in abstraction.

[Philippe Schutt]

: Cheesy:

No more no less,

The very fact of estimating:
1) that the potential unemployed would be potential recalcitrants.

no, not them, their economic weight is too small to force us to return to the fundamentals

2) that one would eventually find normal, that the executive (I mean by that the judicio-repressive system intended to bend the working masses) come to penalize innocent de facto, by nature deprived and innocent. According to the principle of responsibility, whereas this is not required for the top of the hierarchy.

decidedly, you only reason according to this scheme of the plot added with Marxism. The system is redistributive, not repressive

3) that the unfavorable "economic conditions" would be enough to make the pill go from the two preceding points (which seem a bit short as justification for any explanation)!

... Is not the idea that I'm doing justice, Philippe.

if I understand your idea of ​​justice, it is always to take to those who have succeeded to give to those who do not have.

With regard to keeping thebasic elements"(As described above, but without knowing very well what it is elsewhere? *)

for example, it is necessary to create wealth in order to consume them

in order to be aggressive in such a way as not to attack the causes, under the pretext that "it would not be a prioritySeems to me a little fast! Who can be satisfied with this?

We should first identify the causes, which is not done for fear of displeasing the masses. They should be told that their standard of living is well beyond the wealth created, and that it should be divided by 2 or 3

There is not even "social", but the direction of the firing squad towards what takes the place of "cannon fodder"! How to "get by" under such circumstances, when the system has been trusted and everything is botched in a region! These large-scale dismissal plans are a bit like the army generals ordering the heavy artillery and the air force to fire on his own troop, just because"They would think it was no longer fit to fight ...!"

oh no, it's demobilization because the battle is lost. Closing a site or a redundancy plan are findings (and consequences) of failure.

[Obamot]

One can not dissociate thus the points that I announced.

A one-piece text designed to respond to the thought system you seemed to refer to. I understand that it can be very convenient to put my post in a carpentry so as to possibly avoid going into the background. It's not a little naive?

By the way, you should avoid too the argumentum ad consequentiam. Treating someone to do in Marxism and conspiracy ideology, while he is a rather liberal (in the best sense of the word) business leader and a graduate in management and business organization - on the pretext that he Do not be so conciliatory and he would like to broaden the debate while taking into account your arguments - you're not a little bit ahahaha!

I was also the first in my class in marketing, in my promotion, and we had as a teacher a lot of the grand distrib, if you want to know everything ...

Sorry, but many have seen the consequences of this system in their application, alas I do not need to be reminded of its mechanisms and its springs ... As to draw hasty conclusions about the consequences, without going through the background analysis! Menfinbref.

Some remarks on this and the above:

1) I could be wrong, but it always feels grave the syllogism (which becomes sophism since you deduce that: «if I said that, then inevitably I have a Marxist typeI repeat again, because it makes me laugh ... ^^)

2) Moreover, it is explained above, which may push some of us to consider that conspiracies could exist, which is excessive in some cases, while they exist perfectly in others! Impossible to deny, the facts are there. This is because opposing worldviews clash - it has always existed, you should read Attali's diary - But it may well be that plots are fomented on both sides, but not by the lamplers or the precarious ... Forced.

3) We still do not know what you mean by fundamentals. Well, you'll end up telling us, huh ... :-) The dogma of growth and / or wealth creation, is not enough to condone in the name of a procedure that would eventually be generally accepted. The fact is that there are no rules (or so few ...)

4) I have many examples which contradict your answer to point (two), there are several possibilities: a) you are in angelism, B) you believe "thoroughly" in the surrounding paradigm (except for a few well-felt remarks about which you know how to reward us wisely) c) nothing like this (by that I mean, that you were not possibly targeted) has happened to you in your career and therefore you do not see it clearly (think of what would happen if you had been personally involved in a scenario where it would have been impossible to assert your rights ... I doubt that could have happened given your arguments) d) some reason that escapes me but you will possibly explain it to us e) or do you defend your fat? (It might sound derogatory on my part, but you treat me well as a Marxist, ahahaha) I give you the choice, but you should open your eyes a little, examples are pouring in, and it's not "crisisWhich is in question! Let's stop the syllogisms, thank you.

5) Ok for the retributive system (which works as long as it does not become repressive, in its general rule), or as long as we are not the prey of lawless predators (alas), as long as it is not simply driven, constrained and controlled by spheres of influence such as the world of finance, as long as ...

etc, etc ... (In the end, we realize that the cases where the economy works according to the theoretical model are rather exceptions - and this is no doubt as brilliantly described by Ahmed - to the intrinsic permissiveness of the system itself - even, which self-feeds the schmilblick (if I have "understood" everything correctly)

I work in prevention, so I know a little about what I'm talking about and I confirm, it depends on whether we place ourselves in the strict sense or in a broad sense, if there is a way to defend the victims and in what areas ...) the problem is the positioning of the cursor between the legal game and the predation .... And of course on the penal level, the manifest and proven will to harm.

6) You say again: "Take to those who have succeeded to give to those who do not have". In some cases that I describe in this forum, I haven't seen this Peter Pan syndrome yet ^^. And if one day that did happen, would it be wrong? I do not know many of those who have become immensely rich, who do not have their closets filled with corpses, to the point that like Bil Gates, they pour into patronage to give themselves a clear conscience, and this after having twisted half of the planet for their benefit we find them set up as "models" of successes and adulated! So that got him started in the fraud, when they were not even in possession of the property he had sold to IBM! (MS-DOS) Do you want more examples, there are plenty of them, I can tell you about the boss of Ikea, also set up as a "model" and his "legal" embezzlement which falls under tax evasion rather than royalties on the value of the brand etc ... On the other hand I have mainly seen actions of the type: "the big fish come to help themselves by taking EVERYTHING from those who had "a little bit of success" and who are nevertheless satisfied with that to live”, Like the large-scale distribution which over-exploits“ independent contract producers ”. But that the system has completely ruined. These people, yes, become extremely dangerous for the system whose abuses you seem to ignore, which have become the rule. The Breivik case in Norway, which had a farm and which obviously could not get by, says a lot about the rise of extremism when precisely the "causes" are not addressed !!!

But since these people there who are ruined, are not a critical mass, so yes they are forgotten a bit quickly. Except when they commit carnage, but there, "society" protects itself and above all does not talk about the causes. There is a lamp-keeper or a scapegoat, like the chief of police who is made to resign. No there is no other cause, the guy was crazy. Move around there is nothing to see ...

And in conclusion, we can only note that, starting with the legal system and social assistance, there is no longer anyone to "take charge" of these "victims" ... I put victim on hold, because that both executioners and prey are victims).

7) Conclusion of the point above, maybe you did not notice that you were dealing with a system of predation, expressed so we understand immediately how it can be "retributive". (I'm talking outside the classic pattern "offer VS request", No matter what definition one gives to drift or to the said mechanism ...) But the fact that you declare that the economic weight of the unemployed potential: "Is too weak to force us to return to fundamentals", shows somewhere a tug between two paralogisms (or at least one, and in this case I will remove the word syllogism in this regard). And it is heavy with significance on the few cases that are made by the drifts of the system by those who - somewhere - defend it ...

With regard to preserving the "fundamental elements" (as described above, but without knowing very well what it is from elsewhere? *)

for example, it is necessary to create wealth in order to consume them

As it stands, only 20% creates tangible wealth (primary and secondary sectors), if you want to talk about the "fundamental" aspect! Like what the predation model is surely victim of its success ... Should we applaud?

With regard to keeping the "fundamental elements" and this in order to make the therapeutic relentlessly, so as not to attack the causes, under the pretext that "it would not be a priority", seems to me to go a little fast in work! Who can be satisfied with this?

should first identify the causes,

Bein then, did you pretend that some axes would not be priority? No blue, blue name !!! ° _O

We should first identify the causes, which is not done for fear of displeasing the masses.

Go ahead, you can tell me to me, between us nobody listens (honestly, is this an argument ...)

We should tell them that their standard of living is far beyond the wealth created, and that we should divide it by 2 or 3

Hypocrisy begins and ends in the most unexpected conclusions! But promise, we will not touch the tertiary sector ... Well, there it borders on the gag, although you are partly right, suddenly you deviate from the fundamentals when it suits you. Watch out for turns in a car, that's how you can take a plane tree. Ah! What if we don't have a car? So much the better for those who come across

Here it is not even a question of "social", but of orienting the firing squad towards what takes the place of "cannon fodder"! How to "get by" in such circumstances, when you have trusted the system and it ruins everything in a region! These large-scale layoff plans are as if army generals are ordering heavy artillery and aviation to fire at their own troops, just because "they would it will no longer be able to fight ...! ”

oh no, it's demobilization because the battle is lost. Closing a site or a redundancy plan are findings (and consequences) of failure.

But no, but no, the tertiary sector of the PSA group would be doing like a charm! So why create real wealth when you can steal it from others to make money without getting too tired?

Sorry for the pavement.

[Did67]

[I'm republishing: written before the previous post, finally during, before I read it; I was higher - so there is no link and no answer]

It is obvious to me that factories are closing. A century ago, there was a great future in scythe, flail, hammer, chisel, anvil, coffee grinder (Peugeot!) Factories ... Then it was the mower's turn, tractors, plows, etc ...

At each of these "revolutions", those who had invented the object had a head start ... then it was those who had the best production conditions: labor, resources, etc ...

There were still a few "niches" of excellence, such as Opinel or Laguiole knives (although there are more fakes than real ones!) ...

So we cannot be "against closure", per se. In principle, in a way.

What poses a problem is the speed of obsolescence (x times changing technique does a generation), these are the effects of globalization (and among other things the fact that the Chinese, or today the Vietnamese, Sri Lankans, Malaysians) agree to work much more, with hardly any social protection (they agree to .... die, them!), with hardly any pensions ...

Here. That's all.

Coming back to Peugeot. The "classic mid-range" car is a dying technology. Emerging markets (those that make volume) are elsewhere. With us, it's more than renewal. And if you look around you, it's more and more C1 / 107, Twingo (at least the 2nd cars), Dacia, so these low costs mounted in countries with cheap labor and reduced social protection (even if it is in the EU) ...

Or else you have to do in ostentatious luxury and produce at a high price for people who do not need to count: BMW, Mercedes or ... Ferrari / Bentley / Jaguar / Bugatti ... or whatever I.

So Peugeot, the automotive Opinel of tomorrow ???

I am afraid that all the agitation of Montebourg will not be used for much, that subsidies will go into "holes" ...

If at least this French production was a guarantee of excellence. However, it is often the low costs that rank best. Not because Dacia's Romanian opener works better. But because simplification also means a lot less hassle. And that the "fundamental" parts (the running gear, the engine ...) are ... the same!