I am quite astonished that the author of the comic strip polarized (in his speech) only on the financial side (maximum deficit, inflation ...), institutional, and did not directly consider the social pressure on wages and the working conditions caused by unemployment? In a phase of systemic crisis, establishing pressure of this type amounts to increasing the difference in potential between the rich and the poor, and therefore to partially and temporarily remedy its consequences (I would remind you that in a state of equilibrium (which constitutes the absurd basic postulate of economists) nothing happens ...).
More general remark: this kind of left-wing discourse, moreover sympathetic, perfectly illustrates the historical ambivalence of this positioning and sheds light on its recurring failures. Indeed, what better arguments to justify paradoxically those who are designated as its adversaries than to rely on the same categories which constitute the immanent side of the system? The remark made by
ABC à
Humus* illustrates this perfectly: it is impossible to attack a system from the inside, by following its logic while pretending to escape it. It is an incoherent approach which easily explains the death, long recorded, of thought on the left for not having known how to define itself other than as an inverted mirror image of non-thought on the right. The right does not think, but therefore remains consistent, so to speak ...
Another remark: the decrease in potential human labor (an expression which is not equivalent to the concept of unemployment) is structural, due to an increase in productivity which is no longer correlated with the possibilities of a proportional increase in its flow.
* Both of which are right, each in his "category".
As a title, I propose: "
Is there another possible life outside of TINA?"