French Elections 2012

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

try this

and this

and this

and this

closer to home

you will deride this but what the hell Simon ...


and they are just a quick clip off the top from the last few days ....

the neo liberal [USA version] Austerity [Ggerman and UK versions] are based on the economics of serious failure .... austerity kills by starvation, sickness and anomie .... my parents fought 80 years ago and for most of their lives against the poverty of the early 20th century and the Great Depression and the rich and corporatist interests that sacrificed people for money ... and the factions that hold power are making the same awful noises they made then in EU and USA ....as if nothing was ever learned or known ....

i don't care what YOU think Simon.... you don't get it sunshine, you don't get it ... the whole 112years from 1900 to 2012 has escaped your attention ... some of us are interestd in identifying what there is that might work to make a positive difference that is not just a rerun of the failed politics since 1951 to the present .... why don't you go somewhere else if you are not interested and have nothing but knocking copy to contribute ... or do you not want to run the risk that we might just occasionally agree with you?

[aeolium]

Good links, Calum. I especially agree with George Soros about the damaging effects of the Maastricht treaty and flawed monetary union, which contributed as much to the present intractable European crisis as financial deregulation. But surely there was a distinction - for economic purposes anyway - between the politics of 1951 to c 1979 and that from 1979 in that the former was largely governed by Keynesian policies and the latter has been governed by monetarism, which has had a much more pernicious effect (and still has).

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

agreed aeolium but my feeling is that such differences as there are between these approaches are now overshadowed by the failure of both in the medium term ... and it could be argued that the Wilson Callaghan Governments did not invest so much as pay off the unions [Thatcher's case] and that the best Keynesian politicians were Brown & Darling ... even Maggie, monetarist as she was, did not suffer the hubris of the neo liberal deregulation in the heady delusions of winning the Cold War ...these latter twits still think they are right .....

it is time to stand up and say boo very loudly to the bond markets and hedge funds, largely disguised versions of the banks who owe us all their money ....

[Simon]

[ And so yet another thread turns into the usual polarised, tetchy, sarcasm-ridden ding-dong...

I'm really sorry, Caliban. I hadn't realised that we were only allowed to post as long as we agree with the views of the OP. I didn't understand that the forum is simply so that like-minded people of left-of-centre views could have the opportunity to comment on various subjects, free of any opposing argument.

Mea culpa.

[Simon]

i don't care what YOU think Simon.... you don't get it sunshine, you don't get it ... the whole 112years from 1900 to 2012 has escaped your attention ... some of us are interestd in identifying what there is that might work to make a positive difference that is not just a rerun of the failed politics since 1951 to the present

Conversely, I'm always interested in your posts Calum. I agree with many of them.

However, I can't in this case: the fundamental problem of Greece lies with irresponsible borrowing and unsustainable public sector growth. It really is almost that simple. And I most certainly do "get" it!

That said, in general terms I agree that it's time for the false economic bubbles to be burst once and for all. You may recall that a few months ago I linked to an organisation asking for just that. The current model of basing massive credit on chimera is ridiculous and has been for years. In fact, if you look at how banking has developed, that too is ridiculous. The problem of course is that the system is now so pervasive that it's tough for anyone to fiind the political will to alter it. Try getting a majority on a ticket of widespread change!

[ahinton]

"a 100% tax on earnings over £300,000"? Who on earth would or even could take that seriously?!

[Simon]

Good links, Calum. I especially agree with George Soros about the damaging effects of ... flawed monetary union ...

Indeed. As I've noted on here on more than one occasion.

[Caliban]

I'm really sorry, Caliban. I hadn't realised that we were only allowed to post as long as we agree with the views of the OP. I didn't understand that the forum is simply so that like-minded people of left-of-centre views could have the opportunity to comment on various subjects, free of any opposing argument.

Mea culpa.

And there we have it. A sarcastic, points-scoring answer illustrating my point precisely.

[Lateralthinking1]

"a 100% tax on earnings over £300,000"? Who on earth would or even could take that seriously?!

Britain. 100% is an outrageously low rate compared with 1947 and 1967:

Special rates have been introduced twice within the post-war years, causing income tax in certain circumstances to exceed 100%.

For 1947-48 a special contribution was payable when a person’s total income exceeded £2,000. For investment income over £5,000 it was 50%. So with income tax at 45% and surtax at 52.5%, the effective rate was 147.5%.

In 1967-68, the special charge was imposed. For investment income over £8,000, the rate was 45% which - with income tax at 41.25% and surtax at 50% - meant a total rate of 136.25%.

Source - HMRC

As for our horrendous national debt in 2012, it is far less severe than at any time between 1918 and 1970. It is currently 63% of GDP compared with 180% in 1949. In Japan it is currently 194%.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

way to go Lat

if the debt deficit knot is as toxic a national emergency as we were led to believe at the outset of this government then the schoolboy politics that have been played with tax are intolerable ... if indeed it is a one off very bad level of deficit [not the same as debt] we should temporarily impose very high rates of tax on higher incomes and reduce spending to immediately address the deficit ... ...the Atlee Government did so and some of the higher rates lasted well into Thatcher's era

additionally without regard to other policy choices it is a matter of evident fact that there remains indulgent expenditure and poor stewardship of the taxpayers money by national and local government £50bn per annum would not be an unrealistic target [fraud, defence spending, IT, general laxity etc ] it is not in the least apparent to me what this coalition is doing to save that sort of amount with any urgency ...

economic growth , earning our way out of the pits and creating wealth to address the debt is the only available real option .... getting to it is the rub ... i do not see how cutting the 50p does that at all .... or in any way constitutes a 'growth policy' .... nor do i see how printing £££ to give to banks does much ...why not print £££ to pay off PFI?