Your purchasing power and liberalism of Sarkozy

[Christophe]

Well, I just asked myself a stupid question ...

We talk a lot about the "purchasing power" which makes it go down ... let's admit ... I'm more or less in agreement but have you (you who are complaining) taken into account:

- your TPS or canal + subscription
- the 4 GSM subscriptions of your household ...
- the cost of crediting your plasma
- etc., etc
- brief full of expenses which I could very well do without if I did not live in a consumer society

I'm sure our parents didn't have all of this and I think they lived happily, by the way the young people at the time did not commit mass suicide !!

All this to say that there are ultimately 2 ways to increase purchasing power:

1) The one everyone thinks about: earning more money. Sarkosist method: you work more if you want to earn more (and you shut your mouth).

2) The one we think a little less about: by lowering prices which ultimately amounts to the same (see better since I don't have to work "more"). Do you believe that the sarkosist liberalism is compatible with downward regulation of prices?

Another argument from sarko pipo ...

[elephant]

Of course, you are right about the "luxury" expenses, although with 2 grown-up children (18 and 20) I do not see how I could do without our 4 GSM subscriptions and that of ADSL

but there are worse:

I bought a house in 1986, which I sold 8 years later.

this house is currently for sale again and has not undergone any notable development.

imagine the situation of a household owner of this very precise house, imagine that this household has a car (2 liters turbo diesel)

buy the same house, heat it, own an equivalent car, drive 30.000 km.
All monthly amounts (20-year mortgage for the house, total 4-year financing for the car)
1986 amounts indexed
reduction in consumption of the adapted car (from 8,5 to 6,5 liters)

well this set costs the household 4 to 5000 euros more per year: 3 to 6 months salary of one of the two spouses.

only compensation: a certain number of manufactured objects (clothing, electronics, furniture) have decreased in price per pcq made in Asia.

[Christophe]

Right, I thought about it but did not mention either the cars or the accommodation ...

I think that the speculative real estate situation is currently a SHAME in France (and elsewhere besides like in London).

Segolène, for the little I heard from her speeches, very rightly denounced this situation: rents and speculation bring more than work (in the industrial sense) then pkoi work? But what really creates wealth is the creation of products not speculation ...

Still points that are only likely to get worse with Sarkozy (in defense of the rich and the wealthy) ...

[bham]

...- brief full of expenses which I could very well do without if I did not live in a consumer society:

How many citizens are aware of this?

... The one we think a little less about: by lowering prices which ultimately amounts to the same (see better since I don't have to work "more"). Do you believe that the sarkosist liberalism is compatible with downward regulation of prices?

There are several ways to lower prices:
1-the producer or manufacturer lowers its margins and / or its production cost by outsourcing or automating its production. In the end, the employee is the loser.
2-the intermediary, the reseller, ... etc lowers its margins. We are in a society in which it is this type of trade which prevails because it makes it possible to create direct and indirect employment, to generate revenue for the State but obviously to the detriment of the purchasing power of the citizens.
3-lower VAT. In this case, as with other government revenues, the calculation to be made to determine what benefits most purchasing power is eminently complex. Because tax revenue makes it possible to benefit from certain subsidies, or to build roads, to make all kinds of road and urban improvements, to set up crèches, media libraries, to renovate schools, ... etc. So they are supposed to benefit everyone and if they did not exist (although we easily did without VAT before Giscard), the purchasing power would be higher but it would probably be necessary to put your hand in the pocket more often for things / activities taken into account by administrations.
So the drop in prices can depend, in my opinion, only on category 2 without harming the employees. But it would also be good if tax revenues were not dispersed for trivialities such as allowances for deputies or senators, travel expenses of all kinds, ... etc.
I would not approach the case of insurance, reinsurance, reinsurance and other banking organizations that agree to pluck the average citizen by reducing their purchasing power for the benefit of theirs.

..I think that the speculative situation of real estate is currently a HONTE in France (and elsewhere elsewhere like London).

Is speculation artificial or linked to the market? It can be artificial at the start, but as long as there is demand and generally more than supply, prices remain high. Buyers could choose to buy cheaper in the countryside, for example, and some do, but not the majority. When I see the many houses that are being built in my home, I am terrified of the cost that it represents in land + construction. In addition people always want more, bigger, more chic, more modern, more automatic, ... etc. It is the race for +, the race for consumption. Therefore it is normal that real estate goes up, and the worst is that people are ready to go into debt for 50 years! .
So some agents don't give a damn but consumers indirectly support the system by guaranteeing it.

... rents and speculation bring more than work (in the industrial sense) so pkoi work? But what really creates wealth is the creation of products not speculation ....

+1

[Christophe]

So the drop in prices can depend, in my opinion, only on category 2 without harming the employees.

This is what I also think and this method is incompatible with Sarkosist ultra liberalism ....

But it would also be good if tax revenues were not dispersed for trivialities such as allowances for deputies or senators, travel expenses of all kinds, ... etc.
I would not approach the case of insurance, reinsurance, reinsurance and other banking organizations that agree to pluck the average citizen by reducing their purchasing power for the benefit of theirs.

I think the cost of spending the government's lifestyle is not that high compared to other state "costs" ... assuming we can speak of "costs" since the state alters ALWAYS a large part of what he spends (just in VAT for example).

Concrete example: The famous safety hole ... is it corrected by:

a) The VAT paid by pharmacists and doctors (if there is one in both cases?)
b) the GDP created by the pharmaceutical industries and laboratories still present in France (and which allow millions of people to live directly and indirectly)
c) the GDP created by the people treated (therefore not deceased) during the continuation and end of their life.
d) the taxes of the pharmaceutical industry ... (even if bcp must not pay bcp through tax evasion schemes)

I am convinced that we can find many other points of indirect income linked to the security hole ...

It's always nice to take only the numbers that suit us without seeing the whole ...

Is speculation artificial or linked to the market? It can be artificial at the start, but as long as there is demand and generally more than supply, prices remain high. Buyers could choose to buy cheaper in the countryside, for example, and some do, but not the majority. When I see the many houses that are being built in my home, I am terrified of the cost that it represents in land + construction. In addition people always want more, bigger, more chic, more modern, more automatic, ... etc. It is the race for +, the race for consumption. Therefore it is normal that real estate goes up, and the worst is that people are ready to go into debt for 50 years! .
So some agents don't give a damn but consumers indirectly support the system by guaranteeing it.

I agree more or less with what you say on the balance of the law of the market but I will put a downside when the complicity of the tenants to pay high rents and to drive prices up. Housing is a basic need ... It is not an unnecessary expense of the type "How can I change my mobile phone every 6 months to stroke my pride in the direction of the hair". I mean by: as a tenant, has no choice, you have to pay the asking price, otherwise it's the street! Under these conditions many tenants have no real choice: they pay without arguing the high price to stay not too far from their job ...

When 50% of a household income goes into rent (this is the case for many Parisians I think) it is because there is a real problem ... right? Finally, a little thought that I had not long ago: the various social assistance for housing must have largely driven prices up ... which proves that the market is piped, overvalued and for the benefit of owners (sometimes unscrupulous)!

For the credit it is less serious because it is a situation deliberately chosen by the "future" owner

[ThierrySan]

As you point out in your last conclusions, Christophe, the market in France has always been boosted by the injection of state money. Consequently, it is distorted by an overbidding, overvalued ...

Let's take a few examples:
- tax credits for ecological products: would the market for heat pumps, solar panels, etc. be as important without this ?!
- aid for employment in companies: tax credits, state aid, subsidies to help pay employees, job checks ...
- aid for the development of businesses, tax credits for development, subsidy for construction, aid for the acquisition of land (below the price of agricultural land), zero-rated tax (during the first years of activity). ..
- now, what we also see is the sale of companies that have been made flourishing by the state at ridiculous prices, we also see subsidies which are directly injected into high-tech activity sectors (aeronautics for example) ...

To increase the purchasing power of the French, controlling prices can be a good way. But I especially think that it would be much more interesting to remove certain intermediaries who take intolerable margins on the products without bringing any added value. This practice is one of the ones that distorts the price system in any market.
It should also be remembered that the raw materials have increased and that this increase is passed on to the final price to the consumer. Moreover, during these increases, I would bet that intermediaries also took the opportunity to increase their margins ... Thus, I come back to the fact that it would be necessary to verify that the prices charged are well balanced: margins according to the actual added value brought to the final product. A huge example is that of the standard of living of farmers in France.
Finally, finding the products in each region of France is necessary. For this, we need a few intermediaries: at least, end sellers! However, there is another way of acting on distribution: it is to return to the methods that were used in the past, that is to say, to distribute production between various regions. It would be interesting to return to a more balanced production according to the markets. Here, I am not talking about offshoring for fiscal and social dumping, but about offshoring in order to remove certain intermediaries so that the price of the finished product is restored to its fair value. Is this no longer possible today ?!
Also, it would be possible to limit foreign competition which practices fiscal and social dumping so that the prices of their products are the most competitive on the market. They would either be forced to change the quality of life of their fellow (which would have the effect of increasing prices) or impose a tax on their products, which would greatly reduce the difference with the prices charged in the receiving territory ...

Purchasing power reduced by the cost of housing:
House and apartment prices have also represented the largest household expenditure in recent years. And, it only increases. This practice was initiated by the promoters, who now rebel because the owners also want the right part of the cake. Which is normal! When we see land bought through the town halls (or the promoter) for a handful of bread so that they fit into the porjet that has been chosen, on the pretext that it will be easier to control the urbanization, it makes me jump! Auj, I find it normal that some local owners do it for them, or that they take a larger share on the sale of their land ... All the more, that I also think that it is not them that make the market overvalued. These people must also find accommodation! Sometimes, they are forced to sell their land when they too will one day have to find accommodation ...

[bham]

Concrete example: The famous safety hole ... is it corrected by:

a) The VAT paid by pharmacists and doctors (if there is one in both cases?)
b) the GDP created by the pharmaceutical industries and laboratories still present in France (and which allow millions of people to live directly and indirectly)
c) the GDP created by the people treated (therefore not deceased) during the continuation and end of their life.
d) the taxes of the pharmaceutical industry ... (even if bcp must not pay bcp through tax evasion schemes)

I am convinced that we can find many other points of indirect income linked to the security hole ...

It's a bit twisted your example. It is as if you said that it does not matter that there is a hole since it is partly compensated by indirect receipts. It turns out that these returns should be direct since social security is paid by employees. But Sarko will put it in order since he plans to increase the franchise . It is easier to make patients pay than to impose strict management.

I agree more or less with what you say on the balance of the law of the market but I will put a downside when the complicity of the tenants to pay high rents and to drive prices up. Housing is a basic need ... It is not an unnecessary expense of the type "How can I change my mobile phone every 6 months to stroke my pride in the direction of the hair". I mean by: as a tenant, has no choice, you have to pay the asking price, otherwise it's the street! Under these conditions many tenants have no real choice: they pay without arguing the high price to stay not too far from their job ...... the various social housing benefits must have largely driven prices up ... which proves that the market is piped, overvalued and for the benefit of owners (sometimes unscrupulous)!

I understand your point of view as a tenant, but you were initially talking about real estate speculation. However, it affects bcq more people who want to buy for housing and / or speculate than tenants. So when I was talking about convenience, it was not about the tenants who obviously have to endure the market but about first-time buyers.
I also think that the increase in rents (regulated by law) is in disproportionate proportion to the increase in property prices (unregulated). And then rental prices are probably more linked to supply and demand and a shortage of rental properties than to an explosion in property prices.

[stef5555]

Well, I just asked myself a stupid question ...

We talk a lot about the "purchasing power" which makes it go down ... let's admit ... I'm more or less in agreement but have you (you who are complaining) taken into account:

- your TPS or canal + subscription
- the 4 GSM subscriptions of your household ...
- the cost of crediting your plasma
- etc., etc
- brief full of expenses which I could very well do without if I did not live in a consumer society

I'm sure our parents didn't have all of this and I think they lived happily, by the way the young people at the time did not commit mass suicide !!

All this to say that there are ultimately 2 ways to increase purchasing power:

1) The one everyone thinks about: earning more money. Sarkosist method: you work more if you want to earn more (and you shut your mouth).

2) The one we think a little less about: by lowering prices which ultimately amounts to the same (see better since I don't have to work "more"). Do you believe that the sarkosist liberalism is compatible with downward regulation of prices?

Another argument from sarko pipo ...

you are absolutely right on this point and the fact of working without making pay the additional charges will not encourage to employ other people since that will cost them less to pay overtime therefore can be dismissal if one can make overtime to sucker

now for the left the result is exactly the same increase wages up to 1500 euros + all the things that she wants to carry on the backs of companies results if wages increase ls companies will sell more expensive therefore the services too and that will not incite al hiring given already the heavy loads of the companies and moreover certain companies considering their price will no longer be competitive ( This is an understatement since it is already the case given the number of companies that are closing I am not talking about those who are relocating for more money)

now to lower the prices there are not 36 solutions it is those to lower the costs of the companies (in particular the charges, taxes etc), the cost of the life will fall naturally, there will be some additional hirings


now I am in favor of a company doing it all by itself so that it settles down and that we help it in terms of its expenses (reduction) rather than providing it with colossal sums to settle in and then 5 years later when it comes to paying her bills she leaves and leaves in the m **** all her employees

etc etc


I must stop believing in Santa Claus


so my choice is made

[gegyx]

Seen in Supermarket: The bread has just taken a slap of 20 cents.
Ordinary bread, goes from 0,65 to 0,84 €
Bread, better made, goes from 1 to 1,20 €…

We were told that there would be an increase because of the higher price of oil.
While the cause should only have affected an increase of 6%, we were talking about an increase of 10%…

With ordinary bread, we are now at 29,23%…

But at the same time, for Christmas, we were selling stuffed animals, as big as a 10 year old obese kid, € 5…
A super Select-Line microwave for € 30.
Long live China!
Meanwhile, our Good President VRP (accompanied by his family and mistress), will conclude in China EPR plants, sold off, and Joint Venture contracts. All the industrialists who accompany him will be convinced that manufacturing in China (Master-Slave company) is an example.
French bankruptcy, will come faster than expected.

On his return, he will tell us about what he intends to do, to fix our purchasing power…
We can trust him, he is well advised ...

[nofy]

Well, I just asked myself a stupid question ...

We talk a lot about the "purchasing power" which makes it go down ... let's admit ... I'm more or less in agreement but have you (you who are complaining) taken into account:

- your TPS or canal + subscription
- the 4 GSM subscriptions of your household ...
- the cost of crediting your plasma
- etc., etc
- brief full of expenses which I could very well do without if I did not live in a consumer society

I'm sure our parents didn't have all of this and I think they lived happily, by the way the young people at the time did not commit mass suicide !!

All this to say that there are ultimately 2 ways to increase purchasing power:

1) The one everyone thinks about: earning more money. Sarkosist method: you work more if you want to earn more (and you shut your mouth).

2) The one we think a little less about: by lowering prices which ultimately amounts to the same (see better since I don't have to work "more"). Do you believe that the sarkosist liberalism is compatible with downward regulation of prices?

Another argument from sarko pipo ...

Christophe, President, Christophe President, Christophe President, Christophe President !!!

Nofy (dream)