Being immigrated in France what can happen to me if Marine Le Pen wins the elections - by Cardia
Stefan_Key on 8/5/2017 at 21:25
Quote Posted by nickie
Could someone ask Macron not to do that 'hand over heart' thing?
Maybe the beginnings of a new country named
FrUSAnce ?
(And it sounds like a label or even a franchise :p )
Maybe he was betrayed by his body language ?
I found it
bizarre too...
Well the main goal to counter MLP and her FN has been achieved. We'll see what's next....
Speaking of which (or the witch), I'm a bit frightened by the votes in my region (Hauts-de-France), MLP scored a good percentage.... :(
Renzatic on 8/5/2017 at 22:18
Quote Posted by Thor
Hooo nice. Finally.
So some well-rounded guy won or what? Is this person having a grasp for reality (understands things like mass immigration being a real problem in the real world) and empathy for an opposing opinion (since it's not left) while also isn't stubbornly set in his ways and over-the-top against change (since he's not right)?
From what I understand, he's French Hillary Clinton without the baggage. He's competent, and has at least some idea of how things work, but his heavy pandering to the financial sector over other interests will only serve to continue an economic trend that already has everyone's politics up in arms.
In short, he represents the downside to our current status quo. The only reason people are celebrating his win is because of what he was running against.
Cardia on 9/5/2017 at 07:32
Quote Posted by Stefan_Key
Maybe the beginnings of a new country named
FrUSAnce ?
(And it sounds like a label or even a franchise :p )
Maybe he was betrayed by his body language ?
I found it
bizarre too...
Well the main goal to counter MLP and her FN has been achieved. We'll see what's next....
Speaking of which (or the witch), I'm a bit frightened by the votes in my region (Hauts-de-France), MLP scored a good percentage.... :(
Yes, MLP is the Queen of Nord pas de calais, but she scored more in the small villages, while in the cities like Lille, Amiens, Reims or the cities close to me Laon, Saint-Quentin, chauny she lost. but small villages here like the one i´m living MLP has won.
zacharias on 9/5/2017 at 07:55
Quote Posted by demagogue
It's the weird thing in our era that people have inherited all these narratives of why finance and bankers are so bad, but they've detached from all of historical context, so this curious orphaned resentment and distrust remains without remembering why we resented and distrusted them pretty much since the medieval era, since this is far from a new narrative.
eh? Detached from all historical context? So what about the global financial crisis, y'know the one that happened less than a decade ago..
Thor on 9/5/2017 at 10:18
Quote Posted by Renzatic
From what I understand, he's French Hillary Clinton without the baggage. He's competent, and has at least some idea of how things work, but his heavy pandering to the financial sector over other interests will only serve to continue an economic trend that already has everyone's politics up in arms.
In short, he represents the downside to our current status quo. The only reason people are celebrating his win is because of what he was running against.
Jeez, that sucks. What was he up against that was so demonic? Was he/she unlikeable due to quirks in their character and some unpopular identity politics opinions? Or did they pose a threat to
actual issues, as in somehow destroying the economy even beyond what this guy will do? That would be an important distinction to make, because if it's not the latter, then France as a country probably deserves everything that's coming to it from this.
Starker on 9/5/2017 at 11:07
Btw, all discussions about French elections improved instantly when I started to read MLP as My Little Pony.
demagogue on 9/5/2017 at 13:13
Quote Posted by zacharias
eh? Detached from all historical context? So what about the global financial crisis, y'know the one that happened less than a decade ago..
Well if you're asking me to respond to a direct question like that...
Toxic morgage derivatives and the dysfunction in the housing bubble (which btw was pretty antithetical to free market principles since legal mechanisms were propping up the losses so price signals weren't working) would make people's eyes cross in complexity and obfuscation. If someone had the wherewithal to properly research them in advance of the collapse & got the securities agency paying attention my hat is off to them. That's the kind of thing you need to stop financial crises from occurring. Bemoaning "oh if only we thought bankers were just a little more greedy and corrupt we would have surely avoided all of this" sounds laughable in comparison. Unless we think people won't research toxic derivatives unless they thought corruption oozed in peoples' souls, in which case I'd distrust their analysis for different reasons. I wished someone had done it because it's prudent policy making and not from a random soundbite they may or may not have heard depending on if they got the meme in their feed or not.
Are you interested in stopping financial crises or do you just assume there's a class of people that are corrupt by nature & it's our job to purify them? It's the emotive rhetoric I don't like. Makes my skepticism meter twitch. Learn securities law and policy & research it properly with the public welfare in mind if you really cared.
----------
Edit. It's what I do. We did an expose on labor rights abuses in China at textile factories making clothes for H&M and Uniqlo, then we followed up with pressure on the companies and they gave in and insisted on some labor protections (not enough, we're still pushing). Are all Chinese factory managements corrupt (nevermind its a Communist country)? It's embedded in the entire labor culture in Asia. The workers aren't even clear when their rights are being violated. Our campaign worked (to the extent it did) because we were meticulous with our documentation and analysis. Painting the entire labor culture of east and southeast Asia as subhuman wouldn't have been constructive. I read an article that went on and on about our case as if these factory owners and liberalism itself were pathologic (lol at assuming textbook liberalism in China though), but she missed every part that made our campaign actually work. And no matter what, the local economy still needs the factories, they just need to be unable to sweep abuses under the rug per old cultural norms. It's about the slow process of capacity building, not some kind of social purity or soul reconstruction whatever that would be.
Edit2. I suppose it's only fair I cite the report & press release on our campaign: (
http://hrn.or.jp/eng/news/2015/01/12/investigative-report-on-the-working-conditions-in-uniqlos-china-suppliers/)
Melan on 9/5/2017 at 17:06
Actually, that's incorrect. Numerous people - and not just economists - had warned that massive bubbles would emerge from tearing down the firewalls in the US and world financial system. Numerous people had warned that repealing the Glass - Steagall act and deregulating the financial industry would reproduce the rampant speculative behaviour leading to previous financial crises, including the Great Depression. It did not take rocket science to understand the consequences of unchecked human greed, only a little familiarity with history, human nature and economic cycles.
However, the people who had warned about these problems - and especially the economists - were attacked and dismissed as outdated, "fringe theorists" and conspiracy nuts. Economic history was discounted as irrelevant after Fukuyama's ridiculous end of history argument, human nature was considered to have been supplanted by sophisticated algorithms and advanced econometric models, and economic cycles - along with all the work done by Keynes - were considered a thing of the past. But it was not for a lack of sound evidence and clear arguments that the new financial crisis had happened. No. It had happened contrary to all that evidence and all those arguments. It had happened because mainstream economics had embraced shills and apologists like Lawrence Summers and Alan Greenspan (who had foreseen the mortgage bubble, but did very little to deflate it), and dismissed their opponents as has-beens and crackpots. These professionals had accepted quite a lot of money, cushy positions and media hype in exchange for saying the "right things". It was - and to a large extent, still is - a case of deeply rooted institutional corruption. But just because there is corruption does not mean everyone was corrupt. Ann Pettifor had written a book on it. David Korten had foreseen it back in the 1990s. Joseph Stiglitz had criticised the root causes leading to it. Nouriel Roubini had put money on it. The Keynesians knew how to prevent it - there was a working system in place to prevent or at least diminish the consequences of financial crises before this system was deliberately junked.
So no, it is incorrect to claim that nobody could foresee it. A lot of alternative economists foresaw it. Hell, I foresaw it when I was a student (although I thought it would happen a few years later). It was the crooks and liars who had described these issues as so complicated only the anointed experts could understand them. They weren't: they were actually painfully, blatantly clear to anyone who paid attention. The exact mechanism was complex, but the underlying dynamics were just a rerun of previous episodes. Yes, we could have prevented this if we learned from experience, and we had restrained the greedsters on Wall Street and The City. Damn right they are corrupt by nature, and they need firm rules to be restrained. They weren't, and we will have to live with the consequences.
zacharias on 10/5/2017 at 07:36
Quote Posted by demagogue
Bemoaning "oh if only we thought bankers were just a little more greedy and corrupt we would have surely avoided all of this" sounds laughable in comparison.
Are you interested in stopping financial crises or do you just assume there's a class of people that are corrupt by nature & it's our job to purify them? It's the emotive rhetoric I don't like. Makes my skepticism meter twitch. Learn securities law and policy & research it properly with the public welfare in mind if you really cared.
Not sure if this was directed at me specifically; but if so you are putting words in my mouth, and also being pretty condescending. My point was pretty simple: it's clearly absurd to say people's resentment towards big banking mechanisms has zero historical context after the gfc.
