'Iron Lady' and Thatcherism: funerals! And after...?

[Philippe Schutt]

I guess there is no general solution, at least I don't know of any.

We cannot blame the indebtedness of the states for the bankers, but we can blame them for having taken big risks, therefore yes for having been irresponsible for the money of their customers. In my opinion, for these people, the principles are made for others.

Sarko had planned a VAT modiff and I think he would not have made certain gifts that Hollande made. What obviously would not have been enough is far from it.

I think that especially the miners lacked imagination, they did not believe that it would hold. Finally she innovated.

For me it is the fault of the politicians for being truthful, and the people for playing the ostrich and for refusing to take responsibility.

[Obamot]

Nice 'cropping', simple, a little hard but effective Philippe!

I guess there is no general solution, at least I don't know of any.

We cannot blame the indebtedness of the states for the bankers, but we can blame them for having taken big risks, therefore yes for having been irresponsible for the money of their customers. In my opinion, for these people, the principles are made for others.

Sarko had planned a VAT modiff and I think he would not have made certain gifts that Hollande made. What obviously would not have been enough is far from it.

I think that especially the miners lacked imagination, they did not believe that it would hold. Finally she innovated.

For me it is the fault of the politicians for being truthful, and the people for playing the ostrich and for refusing to take responsibility.

wi, wi wi ...

This is a realistic speech that I like (sometimes there is no need to look for noon to two o'clock!).

Especially for the part "civic sense"(see good citizenship), because if there were more, our world would undoubtedly be much better (and in my humble opinion)! We also have"the political system we deserve", Somewhere ...

Okay yapuka guys! At work!

[Philippe Schutt]

yapuka ... get the fuck out?

[Ahmed]

I answer with a little delay.
Phillipe schutt, you write:

But since it is the working and middle classes who represent the votes during the votes, we must consider that they are completely masochistic or that this reasoning does not hold.

Neither one nor the other! The electorate is not masochistic but simply, and at the same time, abused and resigned to having to choose (?) Between candidates who strive all the more to appear different as they are similar in essence. .
It is also often a non-choice since this kind of observation generates a high rate of abstention.
Elsewhere, you speak of "convoluted analyzes"; of course, if a simpler vision was enough, why not? But things are complex, and simplistic explanations don't do them justice.

Obamot, you blame Maggie its harshness, but you seem to admit, in substance, the need for such measures, but it is not.
How can we justify the defense of a system which had promised (and started to hold) and which questions its word when it no longer seems useful to it, and this, when the conditions of its functioning ( according to its own criteria) are even better (increase in productivity)?

It is indeed, in reality, a deliberate policy aiming to sacrifice certain classes for the benefit of another, from the moment or the balance of power allows it. The "necessity" invoked is only a crude screen.

[Philippe Schutt]

Given the wide range of candidates and programs, I will not say that they are all the same. Of course if we limit ourselves to the parties in the center, politics is likely to be ... in the center
Besides, said center is only an appellation, it doesn't seem to me to be in the center.

When a company has a department that loses money without the possibility of raising the bar, it is closed because it handicaps the whole company. It is better to support a new activity than to make a structurally deficient activity last. Brought back to a country, this is what Maggie did: Abandon mines that worked only with aid and subsidies and use the cash to help the creation of new companies. I had seen it in the building industry at the time the IT revolution with 10 years ahead of us.

[Obamot]

Leave the camp, but to go where Philippe (not really a Q.)

Well, well, when the ex-PM is buried, the debate is not so much on his political, strategic or whatever (was it "his"), but rather on arrogance - or even the hatred - which she used to serve them under her reign (and which, moreover, was his characteristic). And there she was frankly vomiting. Mostly:
- when it eliminated the milk distributed free of charge in schools to children from the poorest families! (There it had no "educational value" in the liberal sense of the term ...)
- the fact that she wanted to be clearly and openly "Pinochet's friend", or suddenly it seemed that a sort of syndrom of monarchism joined that of fascism (for some observers);
- his quasi mania "of control", which went hand in hand with a taste for authoritarianism described above;

Not to mention that in terms of "so-called virtue", the IMF was largely created to come to the aid of Great Britain! There was a kind of confiscation of a "public good". An unthinkable and unacceptable paradox for someone claiming to be rigorous (to ultimately apply it to the weakest, even middle classes, bluntly, while during this time, we are entitled to wonder what served the aforementioned "international" monetary FUND, so that after - oh irony - England would be choosy about entering the single currency, when it had largely benefited from the largesse of other countries ... British egoism!)

How indeed to admit this confiscation of aid, when England had needs of that money for a stimulus package. In short: where did this money go and what was it really used for?

Being ironic with the iron lady it's not trivial, no!

In terms of his personal profile too, was it not just the kind of egocentric person (eccentricity being left to others?), Who
led her to do - the worst thing she could have done to be blamed - (as Freud would have said at the end of the psychometrician) because indeed, apparently, she absolutely had to do the worst thing as you can imagine in terms of conservatism, but it seems to be an all-inclusive tradition in England (see what Tony Blair did) "just to be seen well in these circles", and it lasted almost fifteen years!

(Notice again the paradox, in France with socialo, it is not much better)

Let us return to Earth with the "comparison between systems" thatcher's legacy is paradoxically to have sat on the debt bomb. Under Thatcher the VAT went from 8% to 17.5%! Who would've believed that!

"Paradigm" which has become endemic across the Atlantic, while the spotlight is in fact against the Euro (and not the opposite: another paradox that certain "poorly enlightened" minds have difficulty in understanding, and are even surprised that 'we are talking about it!)

I answer with a little delay.
Phillipe schutt, you write:

But since it is the working and middle classes who represent the votes during the votes, we must consider that they are completely masochistic or that this reasoning does not hold.

Neither one nor the other! The electorate is not masochistic but simply, and at the same time, abused and resigned to having to choose (?) Between candidates who strive all the more to appear different as they are similar in essence. .
It is also often a non-choice since this kind of observation generates a high rate of abstention.
Elsewhere, you speak of "convoluted analyzes"; of course, if a simpler vision was enough, why not? But things are complex, and simplistic explanations don't do them justice.

Obamot, you blame Maggie its harshness, but you seem to admit, in substance, the need for such measures, but it is not.
How can we justify the defense of a system which had promised (and started to hold) and which questions its word when it no longer seems useful to it, and this, when the conditions of its functioning ( according to its own criteria) are even better (increase in productivity)?

It is indeed, in reality, a deliberate policy aiming to sacrifice certain classes for the benefit of another, from the moment or the balance of power allows it. The "necessity" invoked is only a crude screen.

Responded with even more delay, hoping that I would say less nonsense ...

Yes, "but" ... If you want I can see at least two axes.
- on the one hand, the appreciation "outside all ideology" dealing with the substance, and with a pragmatism which would avoid being tainted with anything, and which could be the voice of certain business leaders who would give their opinion without wanting too much to take a position (even if a priori they cannot exclude not being classified by their status: there is none less that it is worth for them to be listened to and heard and especially for us to understand, since without them ...!)
- on the other hand, the substantive questions (while taking care not to dive into some ideology in order to keep a cool head), to which I will later dare some modest developments in order to make a link between the said axes so that reflection serves to both simultaneously (otherwise the discussion would hardly make sense, but when the climate is more favorable, and at my humble level).

[Ahmed]

Philippe Schutt, you write:

Given the wide range of candidates and programs, I will not say that they are all the same.

Basically, I said, they all agree: even Mélenchon finds that capitalism is something so extraordinary, that it is urgent to put it at the service of all (at least that is what it proclaims!) ...

As for comparing a nation to a business, it is a logical bias that is not admissible.
At the subordinate level of the enterprise, totally subject to the constraints of the micro-economy there is only the horizon of profitability; it is its only, but demanding finality.
The state, for its part, evolves at the level of the macro-economy, and if it cannot completely avoid all economic considerations, its theoretical purpose remains the common good. By an unfortunate, but explainable slip, he came to consider that obtaining the means of politics was a priority prerequisite, which led de facto the renunciation of all politics and a morbid fascination for "value creation" and for those who claim to be at the origin of it.
It is quite astonishing that there remains in public opinion some credit for political personnel who all hide behind "the laws of the market" and boast of being their mere heralds * ...

* There is no pun intended!

[Philippe Schutt]

Precisely, the common good wants us not to make everyone bear the cost of maintaining outdated activities, just because a strongly structured and united group has a strong capacity for nuisance.
And yes, even a state must one day find the money it spends, and the longer it waits, the harder it will be. Even if the scale of amounts and time are not comparable, the principle of balance remains.
After that, to whom to pay the bill, that ....

[Ahmed]

Philippe, the removal of obsolete mining is not the issue, but the way a highly structured and united group and having high nuisance capacity had the consequences for the weakest group.

Certainly the state must find the means of its policy, but, as I have already said, by a classic inversion, the means end up phagocysting the ends. From then on, an endless (and endless) race begins which only benefits the oligarchy.
Where it would be necessary to imagine radically new solutions, one only knows how to propose costly which makes run (for how long?) The "machine".

[Philippe Schutt]

But for you the group in question is the oligarchy while for me it is the minors.
Once an individual has acquired capital, trying to steal it from him is not only unfair since he has already paid his due but also counterproductive.

Who paid for the maintenance of this activity? Not just the wealthiest class, but all other taxpayers, especially the middle class.
Always accusing the rich as you would like to convince us of the merits does not hold. They were minors against everyone else.

There is a balance to be found and, in my opinion, it has not been on the social side for a long time.