Organization of demonstration after the elections ...

[elephant]

I never said that the measurements were not necessary, but it is always NIMBY.

Only the measures that only affect the very wealthy do not cause a demo: they go away discreetly .....

[Fakir]

Because the ps is capable of nothing

It is true

get out of nuclear

When we have a real renewable energy sector ... otherwise it will further increase our dependence on China!

reduce working time to better distribute it,

Antisocial solution that does not work, which promotes relocations and increases in the social deficit.

pay the wealthy instead of increasing VAT all the time, increasing the wealth tax and lowering their threshold ...)

The middle classes are still the toast and I am already preparing my check book because the 3 programs (PS, MODEM and UMP) provide for large tax increases!

The subjects that I would have preferred to read in the programs:
- Priority to innovation
- Suppression of the French Soviet administrative millefeuille
- Income tax at source

[sen-no-sen]

reduce working time to better distribute it,

Antisocial solution that does not work, which promotes relocations and increases in the social deficit.

The reduction in working time is part of a societal logic, if the 35 hours have been a semi failure it is because of the lack of innovation of the government in terms of jobs.
Technically, nothing prevents us from reducing working time to 30 hours, the problem is that we cannot apply this kind of measure while continuing in the same logic as before: the search for growth.

Besides in this regard I am flabbergasted to hear the candidates (from one extreme to another) directly or indirectly advocating growth.
JL Mélenchon speaks in particular of a smic at 1700 euros to finance I quote: "by the growth obtained by household consumption"... that leaves you dreaming!

We're not in shit!

[Janic]

Sen no sen hello

JL Mélenchon speaks in particular of a minimum wage of 1700 euros to finance I quote: "by the growth obtained by household consumption" ... that leaves one dreaming!

The reasoning is not stupid insofar as this increase is taken on the immense profits distributed to the shareholders (who are also Mr and Mrs everyone!). But not all employers are wealthy!
This criterion is still valid only if this money promotes the consumption of what is produced in France otherwise it will not change anything either. It is therefore necessary to bring together a large number of particular criteria that are hardly possible in the short term without modifying consumption habits. However, the increase in low wages will translate into an increase in the purchase of products at low prices, therefore imported products. It's the vicious circle!

[sen-no-sen]

The reasoning is not stupid insofar as this increase is taken on the immense profits distributed to the shareholders (who are also Mr and Mrs everyone!). But not all employers are wealthy!

The reasoning is not stupid, no, but it is reasoning which takes people for idiots.
Advocating anticapitalism and wanting to wallow in growth is a fine oxymoron!

This criterion is still valid only if this money promotes the consumption of what is produced in France otherwise it will not change anything either.

From an ecological point of view that it is produced in France does not change much, because the raw materials - which are not infinite - do not come exclusively from our territory.

However, the increase in low wages will translate into an increase in the purchase of products at low prices, therefore imported products. It's the vicious circle!

Yes, but even though its products would be made in France, we would remain in an ever-increasing logic ... which would anyway be the same as today.

We can say without complex that all politicians are agents of the economic system, otherwise they would have no access to the media.

[Ahmed]

Sen-no-sen: [quo

te]
The reasoning is not stupid, no, but it is reasoning which takes people for idiots.
Advocating anticapitalism and wanting to wallow in growth is a fine oxymoron!

+ 100 !!!
The debate boils down to whether to distribute the products of capitalism over a small or a large number of people ...
Debate in reality closed, since the compromise between capitalism and democracy which had (painfully) been established is now broken in favor of the former.

[sen-no-sen]

Absolutely, the saddest thing is to constantly see this play unfolding before our eyes - or the apparently enemy actors - ultimately share the same purpose.

[Janic]

your reasonings are consistent with themselves! Only voters will have to choose between the worst and the least worst, even if they believe it is the best. So as long as society as a whole does not practice voluntary degrowth, shared growth is the least damaging. We must not lose sight of the fact that societies change slowly: between one and two generations at best!

[sen-no-sen]

your reasonings are consistent with themselves! Only voters will have to choose between the worst and the least worst, even if they believe it is the best. So as long as society as a whole does not practice voluntary degrowth, shared growth is the least damaging. We must not lose sight of the fact that societies change slowly: between one and two generations at best!

I might say something shocking, but in the current context and from an ecological point of view, your better from the poor to middle classes than having the middle to wealthy classes.
Recent history shows us anyway that the search for growth (on an infusion) is, on the contrary, THE factor of social inequality par excellence.

One must not be fooled to understand that the logic of sustainable development and sustainable growth (sic) has as its only ideology that to continue in the worst by giving itself a short time before the point of ecological no return.

Everything being linked in our small planet, the more our purchasing power will increase the more the living conditions in third world countries will deteriorate, with the consequences that we know and the false solutions that we are dangled (fight against immigration, relocation, etc.).

[Janic]

sen no sen

I may say something shocking, but in the current context and from an ecological point of view, your better from the poor to middle classes than from the middle to wealthy.

disagree with this analysis! The low-income classes are more numerous and more consuming than the wealthy classes who give more in luxury (which lasts) than in quantity (it is useless to have 10 baths or 5 cars since we use than one). On the other hand, low incomes buy of lower quality which must be constantly renewed. The price / quality / quantity ratio is to the advantage of the wealthy classes. So be all rich!