Speakeasy forum

General discussion

The Economist warns about the French election

by Ziks511 / May 19, 2012 12:25 PM PDT

"Needless to say, that's not what you heard from the usual suspects in the run-up to the elections. It was actually kind of funny to see the apostles of orthodoxy trying to portray the cautious, mild-mannered Francois Hollande as a figure of menace. He is "rather dangerous," declared The Economist, which observed that he "genuinely believes in the need to create a fairer society." "

That's a baby eating Red for you, believing in a fairer society. What's funny is that the very intelligent writers in The Economist don't see the peculiarity of disparaging a man who actually believes it is necessary to soften the inequalities in society. But then the Economist is the magazine of the biggest of big business (just check out the Jobs Postings), and Conservative to the bone.


I'm not all that concerned with what Paul Krugman had to say, though I tend to agree with him. I'm more taken with what the Economist says about the dangerousness of a distinctly middle of the road politician "cautious and mild mannered". Political discourse, particularly on the Right has lost touch with reality. But we knew that when they refused to tax millionaires.

It was well known in the 19th century that the wealthy didn't create jobs, and that static wealth didn't create jobs. Consumer activity creates jobs, people buying things creates jobs, in other words spending creates jobs.


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: The Economist warns about the French election
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: The Economist warns about the French election
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
by TONI H / May 19, 2012 11:10 PM PDT

>>>>Consumer activity creates jobs, people buying things creates jobs, in other words spending creates jobs.>>>

I would like to clarify that idea.....It is PRIVATE spending that creates jobs. Such as a PRIVATE person coming up with an idea for a product that consumers will want to buy (supply and demand) and risking his own money and PRIVATE investors' money to create the product, including manufacturing of that product, creating an environment through advertising so the public/consumer knows it's available able at a reasonable price, and have the CONSUMER decide it's something it wants.

It is NOT the government's place to spend taxpayer money to create a product and then force it down a consumer's throat by taking away competition in the PRIVATE sector by basically eliminating choice for a consumer. There are laws that prohibit the government from competing with the private sector and when you have a government that fundamentally eliminates or bans competition to drive their own agenda and use taxpayer money to do it, that does NOT create jobs...it ELIMINATES them.

Collapse -
Well Toni, Government spending in WW2 created a lot of jobs
by Ziks511 / May 21, 2012 11:10 AM PDT
In reply to: Interesting

but I grant you that's a rather disingenuous argument.

Government spending on Welfare and other similar programs creates jobs. People receiving Social Assistance spend it in the Economy, they don't stick it in Investments which no longer generate the jobs they once did. Unfortunately the huge sector of the economy governed by Military Spending (roughly 50%) doesn't create jobs, it just keeps those currently employed in Defense Industries working.

Improving the Tax system, whereby the lower and middle classes get to keep more of their money, would generate spending which would generate consumption which would improve the economy and employment.

I've said for years here that the post Regan trend in Tax Policy has been a war on the middle class and the poor, and has consisted of transfer payments to the wealthy. It's true, whether you choose to agree or even look at the issue closely or not.


Collapse -
Actually, I agree with you.

Throughout this credit crunch which means slowed economy I've spoken against bailouts that go beyond insuring all deposits are covered, even those larger than previously. I've also pointed out the way to prime an economy is not by putting money at the top, but at the bottom where the need is. Where you and I differ is on how that money is put there. I'd rather see it by increased work projects that employ low skill labor and middle level managers. When an economy is facing deflationary forces, why add money back into the economy by putting it in bank vaults where it sits instead of doing anything within the economy. It's all the people's money and a credit crunch and resulting deflationary forces is an excellent time to create and place money where it will do the most good, back directly into the economy, through jobs, tax refunds, etc. In fact, if deflation forces are strong enough, enough money can be printed to pay for the govt cost a year, maybe two, in which most taxes are not collected. You do not inflate an economy with extra money that goes nowhere.

Collapse -
Pelosi would be so proud of you
by TONI H / May 21, 2012 8:26 PM PDT

You bought into her "food stamps are a job creator" stance. I don't know about how it is where you live, but with almost 50% of my county on food stamps, when I walk into our local grocery store, I only see about 20 people in there at any given time...including food stamp day...and there are only two register lines open (one speedy line and one regular one). That tells me that not only are cashiers not being hired, but it also tells me that people aren't spending the food stamps all at once but rather spreading them out over the entire month so fresh foods/produce/meat aren't being displayed in the same quantities as before when people could stop on their way home from work and pick up 'daily' meals supplies.

Tax Reform is definately needed here....not to balance out the rich paying more, but so the 50% of our country who don't pay anything at all finally begins to pay their fair share. The small amount of Federal taxes they do pay currently not only is completely refunded back to them, but they get additional funds (earned income credits) that give them upwards of ten times more than was originally taken from their paychecks...all paid for by other taxpayers (usually via the upper middle class or lower 'rich' brackets). The loopholes have to be closed and subsidies (credits) given to special interests such as ethanol (what a joke that's turned out to be), agriculture paying farmers NOT to plant,, etc. need to come to an end.

Popular Forums
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?