MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10350 posts, RR: 40 Posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2198 times:
France has turned into a fiscal nightmare for everyone except those who live on benefits, and they keep changing the laws thus making any financial planning an impossibility.
Daily Telegraph:
France 'totally bankrupt', says labour minister Michel Sapin
France's labour minister sent the country into a state of shock on Monday after he described the nation as “totally bankrupt”.
Michel Sapin made the gaffe in a radio interview, which left French President Francois Hollande battling to undo the potential reputational damage.
“There is a state but it is a totally bankrupt state,” Mr Sapin said. “That is why we had to put a deficit reduction plan in place, and nothing should make us turn away from that objective.”
read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...-labour-minister-Michel-Sapin.html
Daily Mail
France is 'totally bankrupt', jobs minister admits as concerns grow over Hollande's tax-and-spend policies
Minister Michel Sapin said: 'There is a state but it's a totally bankrupt state'
Unemployment and living costs have spiralled since party came to power
President trying to revive economy through cutting spending by £51billion
Finance Minister Pierre Moscovici said Mr Sapin's comments were 'inappropriate' and tried to blame Nicolas Sarkozy's government
An online poll in Le Figaro newspaper showed that 80.5 per cent of readers agreed that France is bankrupt
'France is totally bankrupt': French employment minister Michel Sapin embarrasses President Francois Hollande with shocking statement on state of the country's economy
FRANCE IS 'TOTALLY BANKRUPT' HOLLANDE SHATTERED AS MINISTER REVEALS STATE OF ECONOMY
FRANCOIS Hollande was left picking up the pieces after France was sent into a state of shock as his labour minister described the nation as "totally bankrutpt.
The Socialist government's tax-and-spend policies are not working. President Francois Hollande's handling of the economy and the deficit reduction plan don't seem to be a viable solution. France’s richest are leaving the country as the Socialist government sets new 75% tax on the millionaires.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5705 posts, RR: 29 Reply 1, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter): France has turned into a fiscal nightmare for everyone except those who live on benefits
I know their auto industry isn't doing well. I have been hearing about that here in Detroit.
Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter): France’s richest are leaving the country as the Socialist government sets new 75% tax on the millionaires.
What a racket, I'd leave too. I would put a 75% tax on the poor, they usually use most of the services that drain the government. Start cutting what you hand out and I bet a lot of people would get off their butt or leave the country and go mooch someplace else.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2155 times:
This is making more ruckus in the UK than in France, it seems. I guess they still hope we'll collapse, a good way to not look at their own problems.
The last person to say this was prime minister François Fillon in 2007. Since then, and under his watch until last may, the debt has grown, taxes were first lowered then increased. Nothing has significantly changed with Hollande, Fillon was finally righting the budget and Hollande continued to do so, every serious organization recognize that (IMF, EU...).
In the meantime the debt in many countries has risen more, taxes have risen too, pensions and benefits have been cut (in France they have risen). So all in all France's relative situation has actually improved ! In fact even Sarkozy was saying so during his campaign (always saying to look at Spain and Italy for comparison's sake).
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
A quick check on Wiki says France has 280,000 millionaires so I assume accumulated wealth not per year income and a population of 65M. Even with those numbers that is expecting .004% of the population to carry a 75% tax load.
So if you were a millionaire and made a 1M per year and moved to a country with say a 50% tax rate then you would have $250,000.00 savings per year just to go back and visit France.
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5705 posts, RR: 29 Reply 4, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2105 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 3): A quick check on Wiki says France has 280,000 millionaires
After the tax increase there will be a lot less.
How many unemployed people in France? How many of them are chronically unemployed (have not held a job in a LONG time and not looking)
A few years ago (I want to say 2008) I was seated on a NW flight, STL-DTW, next to a worthless lazy hippy who was on his way to France. He claimed to be a student who loved France and was talking about how wonderful it was that people didn't have to work to get by. He said that the US government wasn't fair because it expected productivity even if you just didn't feel like working and wanted to remain a student forever. He went on and on how how it was so terrible that he would have to pay back his student loans and that knowledge should be free. I asked him if he was serious because I just assumed he was joking, but he was serious as a heart attack. I never spent enough time in France to know if it is really like that, or if this guy was just living in a hippy fantasy. When we got off the plane I wished him a good trip to CDG and said I hope it's a one way trip. He asked why I said that I said "we don't need anymore lazy bums here". He gave me a dirty look and walked away. Stupid hippy.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 3): Socialist government sets new 75% tax on the millionaires.
That tax has been deemed unconstitutional (not for its level, though, but on a technicality). There is a wealth tax on millionaires (ISF) and it's between 0,5% and 1,5% (and has been there for more than 30 years, socialist government or not). The 75% tax is a marginal rate of income tax, so at 1 million per year you're not paying anything more, you're still at the 46% marginal rate (and something like 30% effective). Only your gains over 1 million get taxed at 75%.
Many millionaires in France are only millionaires because our housing market has bubbled for the last 15 years, lots of people bought an average house at a normal price and it is now valued a million or more for the simple reason that there aren't enough houses. My parents who are public servants and not very good at putting money aside are technically millionaires because of their two houses (but not taxed since the first house counts less).
And finally, those taxes are only political cookies for the hard left, they have no bearing on the state of France's finances. Most people concerned have armies of fiscal specialists that allow them to pay less taxes than the average worker.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
Sadly the position of France is not uncommon. What may be uncommon is any view that people on "benefits" will be protected at the expense of those who are not. Typically, when States try to reduce expenditure it will likely be those who are the least able to fight back who suffer. While pious speeches regarding the valuable contributions of past generations might be made on appropriate national holidays, the first areas that governments seek to cut are access to age, disability pensions and housing allowances for the unemployed, etc. Why? Because such people have little collective power.
The staff at the Paris Metro going on strike has an immediate effect. Old Age Pensioners deciding to stay at home has none. While Governments might wax lyrical about the effects on patients if nurses go on strike, no one cares if patients decide not to go to hospital or simply cark it. Indeed, as a Minister in Japan recently said, he wished that the elderly were free to "hurry up and die". There is honesty for you. No bullshit: just simple truth of what he stands for. That might balance the books. Either way it will free Conservatives from worrying about whether it is more important to pay for bombs or welfare.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 8, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
Quoting falstaff (Reply 4): He claimed to be a student who loved France and was talking about how wonderful it was that people didn't have to work to get by.
Well people don't starve here, I don't think they starve in the US either. Aside from that nobody is "living the life" on benefits (legally, that is, there is some fraud like in everything).
Unemployment is high, in fact it just hit a new high, but contrary to the US even in the best economic times it's never low, so it makes less of a difference. Just like there has not been any kind of mass evictions from homes or things like that, and everybody gets good health care.
MadameConcorde is in the minority but may not have gotten the memo yet. Bashing Hollande was a trend until recently but that has changed with him managing to broker an accord between unions and employers never seen before, that could help lower unemployment structurally in the long run. The right-wing opposition is really in shambles trying to find something to crow about because they dreamed of such an accord without ever managing to get it. Same with the war in Mali, they can only approve, in fact a few have voiced some critics and have been flamed by their peers. The fact that there is also a left-wing opposition is telling me that Hollande is right where he needs to be.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7526 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2058 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 3): Even with those numbers that is expecting .004% of the population to carry a 75% tax load.
My money would be to bet that France, like the US, has a lot of loopholes to ensure the wealthy legally avoid as much as they can when paying income taxes. We saw it here in a very clear demonstration with Romney filing a 300+ page tax return.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 8): I don't think they starve in the US either.
We actually have a lot of hunger in the US, especially among low income kids. Our best efforts in that area are meals in schools.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2016 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter): and they keep changing the laws thus making any financial planning an impossibility.
The same applies here in Australia. But where is the impetus coming from? Is it the idle, never did a a day's work, seven kids from eight fathers (well, she couldn't remember the last) of popular opinion?
No, it is coming from the industry that assured us that self reliance by means of personal income plans was the best guarantee of a future when we retired. Now, as the value of the state provided pension has been reduced and more people have signed up for these plans that are by definition better than what ever the state could ever provide, we are seeing a growing gap between the expectation and the delivery.
How many people around the world have seen their "much better than what ever the state can provide you with" income shrink? An example we see here in Australia, which is not untypical. To benefit from all these schems requires a withdrawal from the scheme of a certain proportion each tax year. However, as the world gambling scheme (sorry, remain objective and state the best economic system ever devised) takes a nose dive, people are forced to sell a greater portion just to recieve the same amount. Great for the funds because their liability is less. Not so good for investors who receive less than they paid in.
Tough luck, say the Conservatives as they pour themselves another cognac and accept their multi-million dollar parachutes, justifying it all on their superior capabilities. In a true democracy it is always better that someone else benefits from your loss.
okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2410 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1985 times:
Quoting hOmsAR (Reply 6): In other words, economically, France is pretty much just like the US.
No France is much better shape.
According to the statistics that I googled which are about a year old.
France only has a debt of 86% of GDP
The US has a debt of 121% of GDP
The problem France has is that they just cannot keep printing money expecting somebody else to pay for it as the US does.
If the US would have to borrow the money on the open market creditors would be demanding maybe 18% as in the Carter years.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7886 posts, RR: 22 Reply 13, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1977 times:
Interesting how things haven’t changed since Periclise and Aesop were around
1. In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
-- John Adams
2. If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.
-- Mark Twain
3. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But then I repeat myself.
-- Mark Twain
4. I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
--Winston Churchill
5. A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
-- George Bernard Shaw
6. A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.
-- G. Gordon Liddy
7. Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
--James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
8. Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.
-- Douglas Case,
Classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University .
9. Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-- P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
10. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.
-- Frederic Bastiat, French economist(1801-1850)
11. Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan (1986)
12. I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
-- Will Rogers
13. If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free!
-- P. J. O'Rourke
14. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to
the other.
--Voltaire (1764)
15. Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you
-- Pericles (430 B.C.)
16. No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
-- Mark Twain (1866)
17. Talk is cheap, except when Congress does it.
-- Anonymous
18. The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
-- Ronald Reagan
19. The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-- Winston Churchill
20. The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.
-- Mark Twain
21. The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
-- Herbert Spencer, English Philosopher (1820-1903)
22. There is no distinctly Native American criminal class, save Congress.
-- Mark Twain
23. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians
--Edward Langley, Artist (1928-1995)
24. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -- Thomas Jefferson
25. We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
– Aesop
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 14, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1944 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 12): If the US would have to borrow the money on the open market creditors would be demanding maybe 18% as in the Carter years.
Are you sure about that because the US sells its treasury bonds at basically 0%, because the US is the safest place to park money. It is the best of the bad essentially.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1929 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13): Interesting how things haven’t changed since Periclise and Aesop were around
But they have. At least in the western world where the definition of poverty is no longer a corpse lying in a ditch. Someone may still be in the ditch but at least they are alive. That's progress for you and it is a good thing that no-one wishes to impede that. If people want to live in a ditch they should be free to.
But I wonder why so many people choose to when every year the world throws away twice as much food as is necessary to feed the world's population. Perhaps people prefer their right to choose and rather starve than buy stuff that Sizzzzlers and McWhatever throw away.
The sad reality is that no-one dies for a lack of food. They die because they can't afford to buy that food. While some are paid subsidies to plough food into the ground or let it rot on trees in order to keep the price high, others literally see their children waste away. It is a comforting thought to think that the world is civilised and is happy to see that the price guarantee can be provided to farmers by destroying food. Property has always been more important than people.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1903 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter): and they keep changing the laws thus making any financial planning an impossibility.
You say "they" as in "the big bad socialists" but the right-wing was in power for 10 years and passed a record number of laws, often 5 or 10 on the same subjects. Taxes went up and down every year without even trying to explain the reasons behind the changes.
Yes the socialists have made changes of their own, exactly what you would expect from their first 6 months in power. They are saying that there will now be a fiscal stability, I'll take a wait and see approach but it can't be worse than before.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 11): How many people around the world have seen their "much better than what ever the state can provide you with" income shrink?
Fortunately that hasn't happened here yet. Pensions are still socialized nationally and have continually grown even during the worst of the crisis. Reforms are planned but no politician is foolish enough to suggest a privatization.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3252 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1884 times:
France has been 'bankrupt' for ages. The realization that we are living above our means has hit home some time ago. The previous government kept crying they had no money whatsoever to spend. Yet spend they did.
The current government is saying the exact same thing. They also said they were the ones who were going to save countless billions and put the country back in the black. So far it seems they keep spending away just like everybody else before them.
I strongly disagree with most of their political choices and legislations regarding the economy and budget, but to be fair, the ones prior weren't much better.
Yet, France is borrowing at a record low rate... Go figure.
Quoting okie (Reply 12): No France is much better shape.
It is, technically. The main difference is the strength of the commercial and industrial motor that's running behind. The US has a lot more potential on that front than France IMO, all proportions kept.
Quoting okie (Reply 12): The problem France has is that they just cannot keep printing money expecting somebody else to pay for it as the US does.
I believe it's a good thing. It forces the Euro governments to get their s#|t together. An incentive that countries sovereign regarding their currency might not have as they'll tend to lazily rely on the presses.
There is nothing new in this fact that wasn't true years ago.
The fact that these articles suddenly appear in the UK press stems from the recent decision from Cameron to authorize a referendum on leaving the EU, which opens the door out for the UK.
The Euro countries are not too thrilled about it, but don't appear too intimidated either.
The recent comments from France's foreign affair minister, Laurent Fabius, who basically told Cameron something to the tune of: 'go shove it, good riddance' (in a slightly more politically correct fashion, mind) might have a thing to do with this flurry of articles...
[Edited 2013-01-29 14:50:16]
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Dano1977 From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 417 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
okie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2410 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1835 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14): Are you sure about that because the US sells its treasury bonds at basically 0%, because the US is the safest place to park money. It is the best of the bad essentially
There is really no one buying treasury bonds other than we print money to purchase them ourselves. QE1 QE2,QE3 and now we are buying Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae notes since they are basically Tango Uniform.
The old concept that China has invested heavily in US Treasuries does not hold true anymore as better rates can be had in other countries. It is risk-reward. US is very low risk no reward. France would be low risk better reward. Greece moderate risk even better reward.
Pu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 12): France only has a debt of 86% of GDP
The US has a debt of 121% of GDP
The US debt held by the public is 11.5 trillion, which is about 68% of GDP. Much better than France or most any European nation.
Debt not held by the public aka "intragovernmental holdings" is NOT used in the debt calculations of any other country and therefore only debt held by the public is accurate for the sake of comaprisons between nations.
Intragovernmental holdings are merely the tax revenues the US government already collected under the social security line item in your paycheck, but which it has spent in other areas. It is NOT debt in any conventional sense, no one can sue to recover it if it goes unpaid, no other nation counts this as debt and we can say Americans owe the debt to no one, except arguably themselves. Intragovernmental debt is an accounting placeholder: not real debt.
US public debt according to the CIA = 67.8% GDP
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
The fact that almost no Americans have any clue as to what their own national debt is or what intragovernmental holdings are is a great testament to the shortcomings of universal suffrage ... and a fine justification for government by a ruling elite who actually understand what the weak minded think they can grasp in a quick google search.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7886 posts, RR: 22 Reply 21, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1761 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 20): Intragovernmental holdings are merely the tax revenues the US government already collected under the social security line item in your paycheck, but which it has spent in other areas. It is NOT debt in any conventional sense, no one can sue to recover it if it goes unpaid, no other nation counts this as debt and we can say Americans owe the debt to no one, except arguably themselves. Intragovernmental debt is an accounting placeholder: not real debt.
While technically you are correct, this borrowing is not free. Basically it goes like this:
1) The treasury sends out checks for which it has no money.
2) To cover the overdraft, the Treasury issues T-bills. But very few people in their right mind wants to buy more T-bills at the moment.
3) The Federal Reserve literally invents money - buying the T-bills and crediting the Treasury's account with the proceeds.
This practice (monetization of debt) is hugely inflationary - the only reasons inflation is somewhat low is that the Federal Reserve is accepting the risk of less than 0% real rate of return - skewing world markets, and that the US economy is still in the crapper. If we used the same labor force participation rate today as when Obama took office, unemployment is now at 11.0%.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7506 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 7): While pious speeches regarding the valuable contributions of past generations might be made on appropriate national holidays, the first areas that governments seek to cut are access to age, disability pensions and housing allowances for the unemployed, etc. Why? Because such people have little collective power.
Old people have unsurpassed political power in any democracy.
But, when the government budget must stop growing, it means the recipients of government checks must necessarily stop growing in number, and the amount of money engraved on said checks must stop constantly increasing. That's all it means.
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 15): The sad reality is that no-one dies for a lack of food. They die because they can't afford to buy that food.
The irony is that the give-away dependence culture is actually the corrupt cesspool that starves people in Africa. Capitalism feeds people, something unique to capitalism.
planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5546 posts, RR: 34 Reply 24, posted (4 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 1694 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 19): The old concept that China has invested heavily in US Treasuries does not hold true anymore as better rates can be had in other countries. It is risk-reward.
It does hold true for the original reason... financing American debt allows us to continue purchasing Chinese made products.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 23): The irony is that the give-away dependence culture is actually the corrupt cesspool that starves people in Africa. Capitalism feeds people, something unique to capitalism.
It is politics... all the sacks of food aid with "USA AID" blazoned across it is a great subsidy to American farmers. Much easier to "export" agriculture paid for by tax dollars than to actually help African farmers with tax dollars so that they can improve their farms and yields.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8422 posts, RR: 13 Reply 25, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1662 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 20): The US debt held by the public is 11.5 trillion, which is about 68% of GDP. Much better than France or most any European nation.
Debt not held by the public aka "intragovernmental holdings" is NOT used in the debt calculations of any other country and therefore only debt held by the public is accurate for the sake of comaprisons between nations.
Excellent! Tomorrow let's tell the Chinese government that their $1.1 trillion in Treasuries are worthless. Oh wait...that's debt, isn't it? Debt that counts against GDP?
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, RR: 9 Reply 26, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1596 times:
Quoting okie (Reply 19): US is very low risk no reward. France would be low risk better reward. Greece moderate risk even better reward.
The future is very uncertain and yes you may want a return but in a lot of cases people and countries want to make sure that their money is safe. Yes the interest rate on a Greek bond may be 25% but there is always the chance that they will default thus getting nothing or you have to agree to a loss that is better than 0.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10569 posts, RR: 21 Reply 27, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1598 times:
If it makes the Mme feel any better, AP reports:
Quote:
Zimbabwe's finance ministry said it has just $217 left in its accounts after paying the nation's civil servants and government employees earlier this month.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 28, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1577 times:
Quoting Pu (Reply 20): The US debt held by the public is 11.5 trillion, which is about 68% of GDP. Much better than France or most any European nation.
What about the debt of the 50 states, is it included in the national debt ? And the debt of the cities ? Because in France all that debt is bundled together. And 20% is owned by the public in the form of life insurance investments.
As for the "tax-and-spend red socialists", each time the right-wing has been in power in France the debt has grown more than under the socialists. They may spend more (which I don't know, but doubt, or only marginally) but at least by taxing they keep the books in better order than the right does.
Or should we talk about Japan, a known red communist state where the debt is at 200% ?
Frankly I have no idea why Sapin has said this at this moment when the budget is not on the table or anything, maybe the journalists where asking him to put more money on employment help and he answered that way ? But even that is doubtful since lots of money is already being poured in his direction and the government just added a couple more billions to help create more jobs.
At the end of the day 65% of the debt is foreign owned and France has no problem selling new bonds at levels never seen so low before, which means one thing : France pays its debt and is trusted to do so for the years to come. That is the exact opposite of bankruptcy.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10350 posts, RR: 40 Reply 29, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1497 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 28): each time the right-wing has been in power in France the debt has grown more than under the socialists.
This is 100% FALSE. Your vision of the country's history is incredibly narrow.
France was quite well off and without any debt with Presidents Coty, de Gaulle, Pompidou and Giscard d'Estaing.
In fact money was over flowing and the country was able to engage in very costly futuristic projects and prestigious events such as Winter Olympic Games.
All was well, the coffers were full until Mitterrand accessed power and spent all the State money nationalizing all the banks and most important companies/industries under his Social-Communist government starting 1981.
Valery Giscard d'Estaing had left the country afloat money-wise and without hardly any debt.
You are too young to remember all this.
Your political awareness probably started with the Socialists after 1981 and all that happened before 1981 is something you only know from articles in magazines or books (which are most often presenting a distorted truth) not from your own personal experience.
It helps to be older. I can make the difference and I would go back to that whole period in a flash if I could. That period of time was known as "30 Glorieuses" (the thirty glorious years).
If you left you job you were assured to get hired the next day somewhere else with the same job and more money going in your pockets.
This is the whole difference between then and now, and we built Concorde, France and Britain alone on each side of the pond. We did not need the E.U. to build Concorde.
That, and more, and it made all the difference in the world.
Sapin knows exactly what he is talking about. France IS totally bankrupt.
[Edited 2013-01-31 02:28:16]
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
You mean the taxing and spending that they haven't implemented yet?
Quoting MadameConcorde (Thread starter): France’s richest are leaving the country as the Socialist government sets new 75% tax on the millionaires.
Which isn't being set
Quoting falstaff (Reply 1): . I would put a 75% tax on the poor, they usually use most of the services that drain the government.
Wow... A government shouldn't exist to act as a corporation to cut losses and make profit, but to increase the fortunes of all its inhabitants.
Quoting slider (Reply 10): I guarantee this cautionary tale will be overlooked by the leftists in the US, however, sadly.
Seeing as the current crisis was brought about by 10 years of a right wing government, I doubt that.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13): Interesting how things haven’t changed since Periclise and Aesop were around
Perhaps the most pointless post I've seen for a good while.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 22): When you have no money, you can't spend money. Leftists need to get that in their heads.
Wow, thanks for that refreshing blast of simplicity, it's really opened everyone's eyes. FYI, that's not nearly as clever a comment as you think it is, and betrays that you don't understand modern economics.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 31, posted (4 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1429 times:
Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 29): France was quite well off and without any debt with Presidents Coty, de Gaulle, Pompidou and Giscard d'Estaing.
It is perhaps appropriate that you mention Pompidou as it was he, a former general director of the Rothschild Bank, who adopted a law that meant that France could no longer obtain discounted loans from the Bank of France. This law meant that France could no longer finance the treasury through zero interest loans but would have to obtain credit on the open market. The significance is that where before France could "balance the budget" by creating money through the central bank it must now pay interest and has effectively extended money creating capacity to private institutions.
But wait, there is more, as the catch phrase goes. Private banks are able to lend up to six times more than they have in reserve and can themselves borrow from the central bank at anything from zero to whatever percent. This can mean that the taxpayers are providing subsidies to the banks. In the past coinage was debased by money-clipping and Faux-monnayeurs : today the banks can simply create money out of thin air. And the state has effectively lost control of money supply. The traditional methods of debt reduction - hyper-inflation and devaluation of the franc - are no longer available to France as part of the Eurozone.
Is this a good or bad thing? That I can not say. Is it specific to Socialist or Conservative Governments? No. We see similar policies being adopted both in France and in other countries regardless of the colour of the pretty ribbon they attach to their lapels at election time. In 1980 debt to GDP in France stood at 20.7%. Chirac (if I am not mistaken not a socialist) was appointed PM by Mitterand and during his term 1986-1988 the ratio grew from 30.6% in 1986 to 33.3% in 1988. It continued to rise after he was replaced. It was no different when Mitterand appointed Édouard Balladur as PM. Debt to GDP rose. After Mitterand, when Chirac became President the ratio was 46.2%. Under his leadership it grew to 66.4% by the time Sarkozy took over. Under Sarkozy it continued to grow, reaching 86% by 2012. As far as I am aware, Sarkozy is also not a Socialist.
The problem is not whether the politicians have pseudonyms like left or right but how the debt burden is to be reduced, whether it be reduced absolutely or relatively, and whether austerity will work. Will the medicine kill the patient or make it better? But on one thing that everyone appears to be in agreement: someone else should pay.
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, RR: 9 Reply 32, posted (4 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1405 times:
Under De Gaulle the communists had much power and that's when social security (universal free health care) was implemented, that's hardly related to the right-wing of today (Gaullists in name only). Debt started piling up after the first oil crisis and that is similar to many countries, so I don't blame that specifically on the right. It's what has been done since that counts, and the right has for some reason a reputation of being better money managers that doesn't pass muster.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10350 posts, RR: 40 Reply 33, posted (4 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 1278 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 32): Under De Gaulle the communists had much power
3 June 1944 was the beginning of the temporary governments of the French Republic presided by General de Gaulle.
The first Charles de Gaulle government is a part of the temporary governments of the French Republic (1944-1947). There were no Communist members in this government.
The end of this first government was due to a strong progression of the Communists in the October 1945 elections 26% of the votes and 160 seats.
21 November1945 Charles de Gaulle names his second government
Communist members:
Ambroise Croizat (PCF) Ministry of Labour
Charles Tillon (PCF) Ministry of the Air
François Billoux (PCF) Ministry of Public Health
Marcel Paul (PCF) Ministry of Industrial Production
Maurice Thorez (PCF) Ministry of state
along with Jules Jeanneney Vincent Auriol, Francisque Gay, Louis Jacquinot (not Communists)
Charles de Gaulle resigned 19 January 1946 after he had formed two successive governments. Felix Gouin took his place as President of the Council (Prime Minister).
Temporary governments of the French Republic
de Gaulle 1
de Gaulle 2
Felix Gouin
GeorgesBidault
Leon Blum
Blum was a French politician usually identified with the moderate left and three times Prime Minister of France.
Blum's government was composed exclusively of SFIO members, the French Section of the Workers' International, a result of conflicting views towards the October 1917 Russian Revolution and the Bolshevik-led Third International.
These temporary governments went from 1944 to 1947.
A very complex period of the French History that began right after the end of WWII.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Tupolev160 From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 361 posts, RR: 1 Reply 34, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1124 times:
Quoting falstaff (Reply 1): What a racket, I'd leave too. I would put a 75% tax on the poor, they usually use most of the services that drain the government. Start cutting what you hand out and I bet a lot of people would get off their butt or leave the country and go mooch someplace else.
Very stupid and immature comments. How come the "super hard working" US is also on the edge of bankruptcy? Those people made millions using public infrastructure: roads, airports, grid-line...rely on public police for the security of their companies. So what? It is unfair to tax those earning more than 1 million now that the entity that directly and indirectly enabled them to earn that fortune is on the verge of collapse? I say - don't pay the tax but build your own roads, waterworks, security and everything else that state provides. The simple truth that nobody talks about is that Europe is going bankrupt because it was rebuilt after the WW2 with American credits (Marshall Plan) and it is only more than obvious that no economy that was resurrected in such a way ever becomes profitable on its own again, except by cannibalizing other countries and their resources (what they're trying to do now: Libya, Mali, Iraq, Syria)....
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7506 posts, RR: 2 Reply 36, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1087 times:
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 34): he simple truth that nobody talks about is that Europe is going bankrupt because it was rebuilt after the WW2 with American credits (Marshall Plan) and it is only more than obvious that no economy that was resurrected in such a way ever becomes profitable on its own again, except by cannibalizing other countries and their resources (what they're trying to do now: Libya, Mali, Iraq, Syria)....
So in that narrative, actually the US is responsible for France going bankrupt. Even though the US has defended Europe for 70 years, free of charge. "Interesting..."
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7802 posts, RR: 13 Reply 37, posted (4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1070 times:
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 34): Europe is going bankrupt because it was rebuilt after the WW2 with American credits (Marshall Plan) and it is only more than obvious that no economy that was resurrected in such a way ever becomes profitable on its own again, except by cannibalizing other countries and their resources (what they're trying to do now: Libya, Mali, Iraq, Syria)
This is false on so many levels ...
Your mono causal reasoning is historically and intellectually unfounded.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9164 posts, RR: 37 Reply 38, posted (4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 899 times:
Quoting Aesma (Reply 35): It's rather the German economy cannibalizing its neighbors, right now.
Absolutely - but I hope that it's accepted that it's in no way Germany's fault. They just happen to have the strongest economy in the Eurozone. While the Eurozone persists with the single currency, the problems will persist.
By contrast, EU members who did NOT adopt the Euro (like the UK) have no such problems.
The solution is to phase out the Euro and have each Eurozone country revert to its own currency. If that is done, the current looming crisis will abate within months - and be 'history' within a few years. If it is NOT done, I would expect a crisis of unpredictable (but very severe) proportions within a year.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10350 posts, RR: 40 Reply 39, posted (4 months 2 weeks ago) and read 879 times:
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 38): While the Eurozone persists with the single currency, the problems will persist.
The UK was smart to keep the Pound.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 38): EU members who did NOT adopt the Euro (like the UK) have no such problems.
I hated the Euro since its inception and I predicted that with the Euro trouble would happen.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 38): The solution is to phase out the Euro and have each Eurozone country revert to its own currency.
The Brussels gnomes will never accept this. They would rather sink the place to the bottom of the ocean floor and see people starving.
One factory is closing after the other. Thousands are losing their jobs and it will only get worse. Soon there will be no more production units because of high labour cost they will go belly up one after the other.
All the big wigs have saved their assets they can flee to the Bahamas or any other tax havens of their choice. They can't care less about the people.
If anything they will start a major war.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7886 posts, RR: 22 Reply 40, posted (4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 867 times:
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 34): Europe is going bankrupt because it was rebuilt after the WW2 with American credits (Marshall Plan) and it is only more than obvious that no economy that was resurrected in such a way ever becomes profitable on its own again, except by cannibalizing other countries and their resources (what they're trying to do now: Libya, Mali, Iraq, Syria)....
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 37): This is false on so many levels ...
Your mono causal reasoning is historically and intellectually unfounded.
His argument is straight out of the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. The Zero-Sum principle, where the the only way to become rich is to make someone else poorer, is an attractive concept to those who would rather shake their fist at those who work hard than to work hard themselves.
MadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10350 posts, RR: 40 Reply 41, posted (4 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 749 times:
French steel mills workers along with their Belgian and Luxembourg colleagues protesting at the E.U. headquarters in Strasbourg against the closing of the Arcelor Mittal Steel mills in their region.
They tried to get to the European Parliament but they were cordoned off by riot police and it all ended up in violent clashes.
NAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9164 posts, RR: 37 Reply 42, posted (4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 578 times:
The Eurozone crisis has eased somewhat in recent months, but only because the European Central Bank has been pouring bailout funds into the countries that have weaker economies. It now appears that the ECB will shortly have to stop doing that:-
"BRUSSELS (REUTERS) - The euro zone is considering capping the amount of direct assistance that banks can get from the bloc's 500 billion euro (S$830 billion) bailout fund, finance ministers said on Monday, in a potential blow to some countries hoping for help for their lenders.
"Euro zone leaders agreed last June that the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) bailout fund should be able to directly inject funds into banks to ease the debt burden on already struggling sovereigns.
"The decision was mainly meant to help Spain, where the banking sector has been hit by the collapse of the property market and the government was struggling to regain market confidence amid a recession and record high unemployment.
"In order to preserve the ESM capacity for other instruments and the ESM's high credit rating, we agreed to explore the possibility of defining limits for the various ESM instruments," Eurogroup chair Jeroen Dijsselbloem told a news conference."
This was predictable - because, as I said earlier, the Euro is not a 'sovereign currency.' The only way the wealthier Eurozone countries can go on exporting to their neighbours is to go on lending (in effect, 'donating') Euros to the weaker ones to buy the stuff with. And those loans can never be repaid.....
Now that it looks as if the European Central Bank has 'shot its bolt,' and has to stop lending, there appears to be no reasonable room for doubt that yet another 'Eurozone crisis' will develop over the next few months.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
Sponsor Message: 
From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10350 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5705 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4934 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3234 posts, 
From British Indian Ocean Territory, joined Jun 2008, 417 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 642 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 5106 posts, 
From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5546 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 547 posts, 
From Ukraine, joined Oct 2011, 361 posts, 
From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7802 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
