http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2013/10/10 ... 1381443272
No need to say, she has a face
Isabelle Maurer, Alsatian unemployed VS JF Cope
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79332
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11046
Isabelle Maurer, Alsatian unemployed VS JF Cope
Good little replacement of an unemployed Alsatian woman:
http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2013/10/10 ... 1381443272
No need to say, she has a face
http://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2013/10/10 ... 1381443272
No need to say, she has a face
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
-
LOGIC12
- I understand econologic
- posts: 116
- Registration: 28/01/08, 05:41
- Location: twelve o'clock Pyrenees
- x 5
hello, yes, but she would like magic: the lowest salary at 1700 euros. She should say what to do if she's so smart.
And the retiree from above who barely 650 euros, I know it's not much, but wanting increases in pensions, it amounts to making more puncture on the job of young people today.
And you have to look at the years of contributions.
It is true that we give a lot of money to people who have never contributed ...
It would have to be reviewed very closely.
And the retiree from above who barely 650 euros, I know it's not much, but wanting increases in pensions, it amounts to making more puncture on the job of young people today.
And you have to look at the years of contributions.
It is true that we give a lot of money to people who have never contributed ...
It would have to be reviewed very closely.
0 x
The analysis of this video can be done on two levels.
At the first level, it starts off with a well-run television show: a political leader tries out live dialogue with "real people" under the direction of a master of ceremonies.
It turns out that the guest, far from being confined to the usual role of tenure somewhat exceeds the traditional framework, despite the interventions of the journalist who tries, in vain, to regain control of the situation.
At the second level, on the merits, and whatever the degree of compassion that we can legitimately feel for this woman, the demand expressed relates to a regret of a past economic situation and to the incomprehension of the current situation, a situation which has been completely out of phase with the standard discourse of political representatives for decades.
The one on the set did not even have the opportunity to develop these clichés which are the heart of his profession.
It would be wrong to deduce that this woman could take, for once, the advantage over a dominant, because this is only an appearance.
Located at two opposite ends of the social hierarchy and beyond what opposes them, both share the same belief and the same superstitions on growth, employment, etc ... which all lead to the current impasse.
At the first level, it starts off with a well-run television show: a political leader tries out live dialogue with "real people" under the direction of a master of ceremonies.
It turns out that the guest, far from being confined to the usual role of tenure somewhat exceeds the traditional framework, despite the interventions of the journalist who tries, in vain, to regain control of the situation.
At the second level, on the merits, and whatever the degree of compassion that we can legitimately feel for this woman, the demand expressed relates to a regret of a past economic situation and to the incomprehension of the current situation, a situation which has been completely out of phase with the standard discourse of political representatives for decades.
The one on the set did not even have the opportunity to develop these clichés which are the heart of his profession.
It would be wrong to deduce that this woman could take, for once, the advantage over a dominant, because this is only an appearance.
Located at two opposite ends of the social hierarchy and beyond what opposes them, both share the same belief and the same superstitions on growth, employment, etc ... which all lead to the current impasse.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Good analysis from Ahmed,
except that Copé is probably aware of the finitude of resources, and the consequence: 'infinite' growth does not exist, full employment with high purchasing power either.
But of course, he speaks very differently, his role is to create hope and confidence among voters.
Regarding Ms. Maurer, probably she did not think much about these aspects. it's not his fault; she has very basic everyday problems that probably take her a long time and dare I say ... energy.
except that Copé is probably aware of the finitude of resources, and the consequence: 'infinite' growth does not exist, full employment with high purchasing power either.
But of course, he speaks very differently, his role is to create hope and confidence among voters.
Regarding Ms. Maurer, probably she did not think much about these aspects. it's not his fault; she has very basic everyday problems that probably take her a long time and dare I say ... energy.
0 x
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79332
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11046
Remundo wrote:except that Copé is probably aware of the finitude of resources, and the consequence: 'infinite' growth does not exist, full employment with high purchasing power either.
Flat: Humanity has never been as rich as it is today ... and the feeling of impoverishment in Western countries probably never been so high for decades ...
Conclusion?
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
the notion of "wealth" and "poverty" should be defined
There is clearly discomfort in developed countries, many factors combine, the general rule is that men generally make lucrative / individual / oligarchic and short-term political choices which result in bad long-term choices for the humanity, which for the cost (or blow?) will really lower the standard of living for everyone.
There is clearly discomfort in developed countries, many factors combine, the general rule is that men generally make lucrative / individual / oligarchic and short-term political choices which result in bad long-term choices for the humanity, which for the cost (or blow?) will really lower the standard of living for everyone.
0 x
-
Christophe
- Moderator
- posts: 79332
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11046
Remundo wrote:which for the cost (or blow?) will really lower the standard of living for everyone.
Absolutely, but I don't think we're there yet by far!
The prices of raw materials (including food) are currently fixed in a still largely arbitrary or even speculative manner ... and those who fix them are pigs of finance who get fat!
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
Yes, Remundo, I have no doubt that coppe do not be (a little) aware of these problems which, however, do not affect him since he applies to be among the winners of globalization, his role being to console the losers by explaining to them that it is their fault ... 
Your remark on the prior need to define what "wealth" and "poverty" is is absolutely fundamental!!!
Yes, Christophe, global "wealth" is increasing, which is not surprising (if we define it as the increase in the volume of available goods), the number of the rich is obviously also increasing ... as well as that of the poor (this n it's also not surprising: the two are linked).
As you know I do not share at all your analysis on speculation as responsible for the "drifts" of the economy: it seems clear to me that if economic agents use a behavior, say, "aggressive", it is not. is in no way due to personal inclinations to evil, but that they are, as their denomination "agent" indicates, only servants in the service of increasing value, just as are those who suffer from it, at the other end of the social scale (and which are harmless or virtuous only by default).
What is serious in this facility to castigate the "banksters", is that it obscures the real causes and therefore does not allow to move forward in any direction other than the traditional and sterile fight for a "fair" distribution of the fruits of the capitalism.
Your remark on the prior need to define what "wealth" and "poverty" is is absolutely fundamental!!!
Yes, Christophe, global "wealth" is increasing, which is not surprising (if we define it as the increase in the volume of available goods), the number of the rich is obviously also increasing ... as well as that of the poor (this n it's also not surprising: the two are linked).
As you know I do not share at all your analysis on speculation as responsible for the "drifts" of the economy: it seems clear to me that if economic agents use a behavior, say, "aggressive", it is not. is in no way due to personal inclinations to evil, but that they are, as their denomination "agent" indicates, only servants in the service of increasing value, just as are those who suffer from it, at the other end of the social scale (and which are harmless or virtuous only by default).
What is serious in this facility to castigate the "banksters", is that it obscures the real causes and therefore does not allow to move forward in any direction other than the traditional and sterile fight for a "fair" distribution of the fruits of the capitalism.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Back to "Society and Philosophy"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 164 guests