A victory for Socialism! Hollande defeats Sarkozy!

[Timminz]

Everyone knows that the only people who support being responsible at all are American, Christian, conservatives. The rest of us are going to hell for a reason.

Just because you think debt = prosperity does not mean you are going to hell.

You may have done it unintentionally, but you just said that everyone who isn't an American Christian conservative thinks debt = prosperity.

Do you even think about what you're writing before hitting the 'submit' button?

[Phatscotty]

Everyone knows that the only people who support being responsible at all are American, Christian, conservatives. The rest of us are going to hell for a reason.

Just because you think debt = prosperity does not mean you are going to hell.

You may have done it unintentionally, but you just said that everyone who isn't an American Christian conservative thinks debt = prosperity.

Do you even think about what you're writing before hitting the 'submit' button?

No comment needed

[Timminz]

Everyone knows that the only people who support being responsible at all are American, Christian, conservatives. The rest of us are going to hell for a reason.

Just because you think debt = prosperity does not mean you are going to hell.

You may have done it unintentionally, but you just said that everyone who isn't an American Christian conservative thinks debt = prosperity.

Do you even think about what you're writing before hitting the 'submit' button?

you really need to learn how to troll better

Teach me, oh troll master.

Seriously though, who did you think you were describing with your earlier, almost totally retarded statement? Is there someone, or some group in particular that you think thinks, "You know what? I'm pretty sure debt = prosperity." Either you honestly believe what you've written (which wouldn't exactly speak well for your critical thinking skills, in this case), or you're trolling (in which case, refer back to my first sentence in this post).

[Phatscotty]

Everyone knows that the only people who support being responsible at all are American, Christian, conservatives. The rest of us are going to hell for a reason.

Just because you think debt = prosperity does not mean you are going to hell.

You may have done it unintentionally, but you just said that everyone who isn't an American Christian conservative thinks debt = prosperity.

Do you even think about what you're writing before hitting the 'submit' button?

you really need to learn how to troll better

Teach me, oh troll master.

Seriously though, who did you think you were describing with your earlier, almost totally retarded statement? Is there someone, or some group in particular that you think thinks, "You know what? I'm pretty sure debt = prosperity." Either you honestly believe what you've written (which wouldn't exactly speak well for your critical thinking skills, in this case), or you're trolling (in which case, refer back to my first sentence in this post).

Still just talking about you. Why don't you try reading it again, and realize your premise is false from the start, and decide who is the one with the problem. By the way, the R word is highly offensive

Lick my boot

[chang50]

You are correct I was talking about the US gov't. I am not some shallow troll who rants and raves daily about a foreign country.

I understand some foreigners are obsessed with how America chooses to live, and that's just sad. Foreigners should mind their own business. I hear their countries have far too many problems of their own. Maybe that's because their subjects spend so much time worrying about a country they do not even live in.

The irony is staggering,when did the US start minding their own business,after Gautemala?Korea?Vietnam?Cuba?Chile?Grenada?Iraq?Afghanistan?To only mention a few,perhaps some of these interventions were justified,but to imply the US minds its own business,too laughable for words...

[Phatscotty]

You are correct I was talking about the US gov't. I am not some shallow troll who rants and raves daily about a foreign country.

I understand some foreigners are obsessed with how America chooses to live, and that's just sad. Foreigners should mind their own business. I hear their countries have far too many problems of their own. Maybe that's because their subjects spend so much time worrying about a country they do not even live in.

The irony is staggering,when did the US start minding their own business,after Gautemala?Korea?Vietnam?Cuba?Chile?Grenada?Iraq?Afghanistan?To only mention a few,perhaps some of these interventions were justified,but to imply the US minds its own business,too laughable for words...

Allow me to point out that I was talking about a person and some people, and not a country, and certainly not in the least that countries military endeavors, and most definitely not stretching back to before the person I was talking to was born. But hey.....do your thang.

I have always been for us minding our own business. I hear you about all your points, and I agree with them, and in fact what you pointed out has had a large impact on why I am who I am and do what I do. Why the F do you think I support Ron Paul and would not even consider Romney or Obama????

Now, about that irony...what was so laughable? what made you laugh so loud?

[chang50]

You are correct I was talking about the US gov't. I am not some shallow troll who rants and raves daily about a foreign country.

I understand some foreigners are obsessed with how America chooses to live, and that's just sad. Foreigners should mind their own business. I hear their countries have far too many problems of their own. Maybe that's because their subjects spend so much time worrying about a country they do not even live in.

The irony is staggering,when did the US start minding their own business,after Gautemala?Korea?Vietnam?Cuba?Chile?Grenada?Iraq?Afghanistan?To only mention a few,perhaps some of these interventions were justified,but to imply the US minds its own business,too laughable for words...

Allow me to point out that I was talking about a person and some people, and not a country, and certainly not in the least that countries military endeavors, and most definitely not stretching back to before the person I was talking to was born. But hey.....do your thang.

I have always been for us minding our own business. I hear you about all your points, and I agree with them, and in fact what you pointed out has had a large impact on why I am who I am and do what I do. Why the F do you think I support Ron Paul and would not even consider Romney or Obama????

Now, about that irony...what was so laughable? what made you laugh so loud?

You seemed to imply Americans in general were for minding their own business,I accept you were speaking personally.So are you an isolationist?

[Phatscotty]

no, I seemed to imply that Symmetry is obsessed with America.

I am not isolationist. I think non-interventionalism is the best way to go about a lot of things.

[Symmetry]

no, I seemed to imply that Symmetry is obsessed with America.

I am not isolationist. I think non-interventionalism is the best way to go about a lot of things.

I don't really understand your logic. You post mostly on American topics, so it's kind of natural that you take my replies to your posts as being mostly about America. Obsessed seems a little harsh given that you only post American threads.

I assume that you don't level the accusation of obsession at your good self.

[Fruitcake]

From my point of view I should point out that I have a vested interest in seeing the slow and inexorable slide in the value of the Euro. I have been making hay on this for some time now (ever since every one – including a couple here – said the mighty Euro would never slide in value when it was around €1.12/£1 as against a present €1.24/£1)

Pop back a few years and review. Various European Govts have tried, however ineffectually, to tackle the debt crisis. What is now happening, is that countries are seeing voters demanding precisely the high-tax and high-spend policies which caused the recession in the first place.

What has happened in France and Greece is the start of what will be many advances by the populist left. In both places, candidates were elbowing each other aside during the campaign to demand more intervention and an end to cuts.

In the UK we haven’t seen an unapologetic Socialist like François Hollande for nigh on 30 years. He has stated openly he wants wealth taxes, stimulus spending and a massive expansion of the state payroll. What no one has asked is whether or not, this is what got the situation to where it is today in the first place! But dear old Hollande isn’t stupid, he knows this will create uncertainty in the markets and perhaps create further downgrades in credit rating...so his answer is....(roll of drums) he will create a French credit ratings agency which, unlike the American ones, will tell him what he wants to hear....Great stuff! And how so typically Gallic.

His program is summarised as growth, not austerity’...righty ho. That’ll all be fine then. Truth be told, France is pretty much in the shitter anyway. The Govt accounts for a huge 56% of the economy and the country last balanced it’s budget in 1974! (Some time before many of you were born I’ll be bound). On his logic, France should be the wealthiest country in Europe!

I was fascinated that during their campaigns, not one of the candidates ever mentioned smaller Govt. Even Sarko (he of the challenged height) promised to make France ‘stronger than the markets’ by using Government funds....whatever that means??? (Always remember...Markets break Governments, not the other way round)Indeed, all 10 candidates offered more of the same medicine that has made this situation what it is today. It was the same in Greece.

In summary, any Politician who cries out ‘Make the rich pay!’ has the advantage over one who says (truthfully), ‘The rich don’t have anything like enough to pay for all the things that the government is doing, so we need to make savings’.

The Europeans who find themselves in this position should stop fooling themselves. There is too much debt, simple. In order to fund their growth, governments squeezed the private sector for all it was worth. When they exhausted its capacity, they started to tax future generations through borrowing. Sooner or later, of course, the money was bound to run out.

With the banking collapse 4 years ago, the moment of truth finally appeared close up and personal. So what did they do....well Govts responded by accelerating all the policies which brought them here in the first place: more regulation, more debt, more Brussels intervention.

As the overall economy deteriorates, voters feel angry and betrayed. They listen sympathetically to anyone who will say: ‘The bankers caused this mess: make them pay!’ Why wouldn’t they??? After all, they know no better, successive tinkering with education has left most classes unable to understand the macro economics I was taught as standard when I was at school....and it is obvious now, why these Govts did tinker...think about it.

[BigBallinStalin]

In summary, any Politician who cries out ‘Make the rich pay!’ has the advantage over one who says (truthfully), ‘The rich don’t have anything like enough to pay for all the things that the government is doing, so we need to make savings’.

"make savings"??? Yeah, that hardly sounds sexy at all.

With the banking collapse 4 years ago, the moment of truth finally appeared close up and personal. So what did they do....well Govts responded by accelerating all the policies which brought them here in the first place: more regulation, more debt, more Brussels intervention.

As the overall economy deteriorates, voters feel angry and betrayed. They listen sympathetically to anyone who will say: ‘The bankers caused this mess: make them pay!’ Why wouldn’t they??? After all, they know no better, successive tinkering with education has left most classes unable to understand the macro economics I was taught as standard when I was at school....and it is obvious now, why these Govts did tinker...think about it.

For real. Perhaps, in our times, we'll witness the consequences of a huge flaw in representative governments.

Clearly, deficit spending has to be curtailed, but it's political disadvantageous to promote real savings, decreased government spending, etc. The politics is geared toward seeing this to an ugly end, while many of the people have no idea what's going on...

Occasionally, I like to think that economics should be mandatory in high school and college.

[Neoteny]

Er, it was in my high school and college.

[Baron Von PWN]

same here.

[Symmetry]

In summary, any Politician who cries out ‘Make the rich pay!’ has the advantage over one who says (truthfully), ‘The rich don’t have anything like enough to pay for all the things that the government is doing, so we need to make savings’.

"make savings"??? Yeah, that hardly sounds sexy at all.

With the banking collapse 4 years ago, the moment of truth finally appeared close up and personal. So what did they do....well Govts responded by accelerating all the policies which brought them here in the first place: more regulation, more debt, more Brussels intervention.

As the overall economy deteriorates, voters feel angry and betrayed. They listen sympathetically to anyone who will say: ‘The bankers caused this mess: make them pay!’ Why wouldn’t they??? After all, they know no better, successive tinkering with education has left most classes unable to understand the macro economics I was taught as standard when I was at school....and it is obvious now, why these Govts did tinker...think about it.

For real. Perhaps, in our times, we'll witness the consequences of a huge flaw in representative governments.

Clearly, deficit spending has to be curtailed, but it's political disadvantageous to promote real savings, decreased government spending, etc. The politics is geared toward seeing this to an ugly end, while many of the people have no idea what's going on...

Occasionally, I like to think that economics should be mandatory in high school and college.

Surely, as resident economic expert, you can see that increased revenue plays a part too?

[BigBallinStalin]

In summary, any Politician who cries out ‘Make the rich pay!’ has the advantage over one who says (truthfully), ‘The rich don’t have anything like enough to pay for all the things that the government is doing, so we need to make savings’.

"make savings"??? Yeah, that hardly sounds sexy at all.

With the banking collapse 4 years ago, the moment of truth finally appeared close up and personal. So what did they do....well Govts responded by accelerating all the policies which brought them here in the first place: more regulation, more debt, more Brussels intervention.

As the overall economy deteriorates, voters feel angry and betrayed. They listen sympathetically to anyone who will say: ‘The bankers caused this mess: make them pay!’ Why wouldn’t they??? After all, they know no better, successive tinkering with education has left most classes unable to understand the macro economics I was taught as standard when I was at school....and it is obvious now, why these Govts did tinker...think about it.

For real. Perhaps, in our times, we'll witness the consequences of a huge flaw in representative governments.

Clearly, deficit spending has to be curtailed, but it's political disadvantageous to promote real savings, decreased government spending, etc. The politics is geared toward seeing this to an ugly end, while many of the people have no idea what's going on...

Occasionally, I like to think that economics should be mandatory in high school and college.

Surely, as resident economic expert, you can see that increased revenue plays a part too?

Go on...

(increased government revenues? via... what exactly?)

[Baron Von PWN]

In summary, any Politician who cries out ‘Make the rich pay!’ has the advantage over one who says (truthfully), ‘The rich don’t have anything like enough to pay for all the things that the government is doing, so we need to make savings’.

"make savings"??? Yeah, that hardly sounds sexy at all.

With the banking collapse 4 years ago, the moment of truth finally appeared close up and personal. So what did they do....well Govts responded by accelerating all the policies which brought them here in the first place: more regulation, more debt, more Brussels intervention.

As the overall economy deteriorates, voters feel angry and betrayed. They listen sympathetically to anyone who will say: ‘The bankers caused this mess: make them pay!’ Why wouldn’t they??? After all, they know no better, successive tinkering with education has left most classes unable to understand the macro economics I was taught as standard when I was at school....and it is obvious now, why these Govts did tinker...think about it.

For real. Perhaps, in our times, we'll witness the consequences of a huge flaw in representative governments.

Clearly, deficit spending has to be curtailed, but it's political disadvantageous to promote real savings, decreased government spending, etc. The politics is geared toward seeing this to an ugly end, while many of the people have no idea what's going on...

Occasionally, I like to think that economics should be mandatory in high school and college.

Surely, as resident economic expert, you can see that increased revenue plays a part too?

Go on...

(increased government revenues? via... what exactly?)

One way would be to collectivize agriculture. This increased Soviet revenues significantly!

[Symmetry]

In summary, any Politician who cries out ‘Make the rich pay!’ has the advantage over one who says (truthfully), ‘The rich don’t have anything like enough to pay for all the things that the government is doing, so we need to make savings’.

"make savings"??? Yeah, that hardly sounds sexy at all.

With the banking collapse 4 years ago, the moment of truth finally appeared close up and personal. So what did they do....well Govts responded by accelerating all the policies which brought them here in the first place: more regulation, more debt, more Brussels intervention.

As the overall economy deteriorates, voters feel angry and betrayed. They listen sympathetically to anyone who will say: ‘The bankers caused this mess: make them pay!’ Why wouldn’t they??? After all, they know no better, successive tinkering with education has left most classes unable to understand the macro economics I was taught as standard when I was at school....and it is obvious now, why these Govts did tinker...think about it.

For real. Perhaps, in our times, we'll witness the consequences of a huge flaw in representative governments.

Clearly, deficit spending has to be curtailed, but it's political disadvantageous to promote real savings, decreased government spending, etc. The politics is geared toward seeing this to an ugly end, while many of the people have no idea what's going on...

Occasionally, I like to think that economics should be mandatory in high school and college.

Surely, as resident economic expert, you can see that increased revenue plays a part too?

Go on...

(increased government revenues? via... what exactly?)

Taxation would be the big one.

[BigBallinStalin]

In summary, any Politician who cries out ‘Make the rich pay!’ has the advantage over one who says (truthfully), ‘The rich don’t have anything like enough to pay for all the things that the government is doing, so we need to make savings’.

"make savings"??? Yeah, that hardly sounds sexy at all.

With the banking collapse 4 years ago, the moment of truth finally appeared close up and personal. So what did they do....well Govts responded by accelerating all the policies which brought them here in the first place: more regulation, more debt, more Brussels intervention.

As the overall economy deteriorates, voters feel angry and betrayed. They listen sympathetically to anyone who will say: ‘The bankers caused this mess: make them pay!’ Why wouldn’t they??? After all, they know no better, successive tinkering with education has left most classes unable to understand the macro economics I was taught as standard when I was at school....and it is obvious now, why these Govts did tinker...think about it.

For real. Perhaps, in our times, we'll witness the consequences of a huge flaw in representative governments.

Clearly, deficit spending has to be curtailed, but it's political disadvantageous to promote real savings, decreased government spending, etc. The politics is geared toward seeing this to an ugly end, while many of the people have no idea what's going on...

Occasionally, I like to think that economics should be mandatory in high school and college.

Surely, as resident economic expert, you can see that increased revenue plays a part too?

Go on...

(increased government revenues? via... what exactly?)

One way would be to collectivize agriculture. This increased Soviet revenues significantly!

I see your economics teacher has taught you well.

ONWARD!!! TO UTOPIA!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

In summary, any Politician who cries out ‘Make the rich pay!’ has the advantage over one who says (truthfully), ‘The rich don’t have anything like enough to pay for all the things that the government is doing, so we need to make savings’.

"make savings"??? Yeah, that hardly sounds sexy at all.

With the banking collapse 4 years ago, the moment of truth finally appeared close up and personal. So what did they do....well Govts responded by accelerating all the policies which brought them here in the first place: more regulation, more debt, more Brussels intervention.

As the overall economy deteriorates, voters feel angry and betrayed. They listen sympathetically to anyone who will say: ‘The bankers caused this mess: make them pay!’ Why wouldn’t they??? After all, they know no better, successive tinkering with education has left most classes unable to understand the macro economics I was taught as standard when I was at school....and it is obvious now, why these Govts did tinker...think about it.

For real. Perhaps, in our times, we'll witness the consequences of a huge flaw in representative governments.

Clearly, deficit spending has to be curtailed, but it's political disadvantageous to promote real savings, decreased government spending, etc. The politics is geared toward seeing this to an ugly end, while many of the people have no idea what's going on...

Occasionally, I like to think that economics should be mandatory in high school and college.

Surely, as resident economic expert, you can see that increased revenue plays a part too?

Go on...

(increased government revenues? via... what exactly?)

Taxation would be the big one.

Representative governments have a tendency to avoid taxation because that conflicts with the plans of interest groups, but yes, taxes can increase government revenues (it depends, see laffer curve. Ask if you don't get it).

But taxes also decrease the revenue of all taxpayers. It's the Seen and Unseen costs that can't be forgotten.

Another problem: there are substitutes to taxation, e.g. deficit spending. If you spend more than you earn, what do? Sell Treasury bills/Securities. Woo! New revenue for the government! How about the next year? Same thing, but also buy some of those securities back....

but wait, if the government has a deficit, how the hell can it buy something back? With the magic of the the Federal Reserve's mouse: *click* click* [new money added to Bank A's account for sale of their Treasury bills]. Yay inflation! Yay artificially lowered interest rates!

[Symmetry]

Another bizarre non-sequitur BBS, how has Hollande, the French president, argued anything about the US Federal reserve?

[BigBallinStalin]

Does the French government have an equivalent of the US Federal Reserve?

Yes, they do. The ECB. The means are different, but the outcomes are the same. They just can't "print" their ways outta debt as easily as the US.


Anyway, is there a point to this conversation? Are you trying to defend deficit spending? Are you standing up for the current political means of running representative governments for the short-run?

[Symmetry]

Does the French government have an equivalent of the US Federal Reserve?

Yes, they do. The ECB. The means are different, but the outcomes are the same. They just can't "print" their ways outta debt as easily as the US.


Anyway, is there a point to this conversation? Are you trying to defend deficit spending? Are you standing up for the current political means of running representative governments for the short-run?

Are you trying to argue against deficit spending? Surely you should be all for Hollamde's promise.

[BigBallinStalin]

I wish him luck.

[GreecePwns]

ITT: People see the word socialist and say generic about their opposition to socialism, the definition of which apparently includes "inherent deficit spending and inflation"

[thegreekdog]

I wish him luck.

I think we've established in this thread that this is an inappropriate phrase to use (in addition to "Okay, we'll see.")

ITT: People see the word socialist and say generic about their opposition to socialism, the definition of which apparently includes "inherent deficit spending and inflation"

Technically...

ITT: Some people equate deficit spending and inflation to socialism.
ITT: Other people equate growng the government to socialism.

The first ITT is easily addressed. The second ITT... not so much apparently.