This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
French Nobel-Prize Winning Economist Slams "Big State" Socialism: "Not Enough Money To Pay For It"
One would think: i) French + ii) economist + iii) Nobel prize winner = the French version of Paul Krugman, which immediately means someone who exists in a permament state of eternal hubris and confused shock at the endless stupidity of all those others who (have a functioning frontal cortex and thus) fail to recognize his brilliance (hence, are capable of rational thought), whose only explanation for the failure of all his promoted policies is that not enough, never enough of them was attempted, and that, like a good socialist, the only thing better than a massive government apparatus is an infinite government apparatus, coupled with 10 Princeton economists sitting in a circle, chanting and micromanaging the world, the economy and the capital markets.
One would be wrong. Because hours after winning the economics Nobel Prize, speaking on France 24, French economist Jean Tirole advocated Scandinavian-style labour market policies and government reform as a way of preserving France’s social model. Wait, he said he believes in... less government? Sacre bleu, A French economist advocating less socialism? Was that Krugman's head just exploding?
From France 24:
“We haven’t succeeded in France to undertake the labour market reforms that are similar to those in Germany, Scandinavia and so on,” he said in telephone interview from the French city of Toulouse, where he teaches.
France is plagued by record unemployment and Tirole described the French job market as “catastrophic” earlier on Monday, arguing that the excessive protection for employees had frozen the country’s job market.
“We haven’t succeeded also in downsizing the state, which is an issue because we have a social model that I approve of – I’m very much in favour of this social model – but it won’t be sustainable if the state is too big,” he added.
If Krugman had a second head, this is where it, too, would explode. And while Krugman is stuck with his usual rhetorical, unreadable, intellectual masturbation, the Frenchman unleashes even more shocking common sense:
Tirole remarked that northern European countries, as well as Canada and Australia, had proven you could keep a welfare social model with smaller government. In contrast, he said France’s “big state” threatened its social policies because there will not be “enough money to pay for it in the long run”.
Now if only US socialists would learn from their French peers, then this truly would be a memorable week.
»
- 15059 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
clowns
if a FRENCH economist is finally realizing this, it must be bad...
"We're French", Dan Akroyd
The Coneheads
That 1st sentence is one of the longest I've seen in a while
lol, the Fed can print as much Money as the masters want
Socialism is only allowed for the rich
This is actually a "Trojan Horse". Scandinavia has the highest rates of basic personal Income tax on the globe. So, what he is actually saying is "if we want Big Government socialism, we have to increase taxes for all".
"not enough money to pay for it"
wow. never considered that as a possibility.
hugs,
frances
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Fox_Piven
Yooowhooo, but always enough money for big state Corporatism. We sure are printing lots of fiat for military industrial complex and wall st.
When the middle class needs some services and stimulus there is never enough money. When the special interests and crooks on wall st need bailouts let the printing presses run nonstop folks.
This little French POS, does he have and Goldman Sucks in his DNA?
I down arrowed you not because I disagree with the first part of your sentiment but because it is dangerously incomplete. If you oppose corporate welfare, is it because you don’t believe that money stolen from producers should be given to corporations and instead given to the "middle class"? If so, you are missing the point. It is all STOLEN currency. If I were to rob a bank at gunpoint it does not matter whether I use the money for blow and hookers or give it to the poor box at the parish, it is still theft and I will be punished. Yet, when an IRS employee steals money from you and I we only object as to the uses of such money.
The problem is not the welfare, whether corporate, poor or middle class recipients. The problem is the initial theft.
Maybe he's thinking of automating the .gov automatons, like the ones who's only job description is to say "Take a number and have a seat" or push paper around all day (very important business that...lol).
Hey, its a start ;-)
Incidentally, we also have some of the highest living standards, literacy levels and educational standards in the world.
It seems difficult to fathom to many here that a competent government, using well-researched planning, is indeed capable of putting this tax money to good use.
I think the inconsistency is in the "competent government, using well-researched planning, is indeed capable of putting this tax money to good use."
In The US and most of Western Europe that is simply not the case. Governments are generally inefficient, self-enlarging and wasteful without any discipline as a result of no balanced budget requirements etc. Give these Governments more tax revenues and they will simply spend them on new Departments, more regulations, more regulatory enforcment and "Social welfare" programs generally designed to encourage people not to work.
There are many of us here who still have this quaint old-fashioned idea about free markets, limited Governments and self-responsibility.
If you Scandinaviians are happy with what you have, paying 70% income taxes (And $10 Dollars for a beer because it's bad for you and Mummy knows best) then good luck to you. But it's not the kind of society I want to live in, thanks.
Last I checked they took half (or more) right off the top (combined), pin it down. Saying you're "Scandanavian" is a regional concept, like saying you're Central American, it doesn't mean anything on the issue of sovereign taxation, what country are you talking about?
Denmark, Norway and Sweden all operate very similar regimens so, in the context of taxation, "Scandinavian" is an accurate description.
Yeah, suppose so, they all have parasitical kings & queens.
A state welfare system, by another name ;-)
Your forefathers would absolutely piss on you...right before viciously hacking you to bite sized pieces and deny you or any of yours could be even remotely of the same blood as they.
No Valhalla for you, that's for those with balls...not sell outs that make clever furniture and worship technocracy.
Unintentional comedy at its finest.
Personally, I always found it ironic that white supremacists idolize Vikings, considering the Vikings murdered other whites throughout Western & Eastern Europe in droves and sold the survivors off as slaves to the Arabs. The Vikings also had no concept of "racial purity" at all, having sex (and consequently children) with women from literally all the regions in the world they journeyed to for trade, exploration or conquest.
I think people such as yourself are systematically confusing the Vikings with the Normans. The former were pagan Scandinavian explorers/traders/pirates who were active during the 10th & 11th centuries. The latter were an ethnically mixed group, born from Christian Western European women that became impregnated during the Viking's incursions of those lands. They went on to develop their own regionally distinct culture, and were the ones who first combined martial spirit with Christian zealotry/bigotry. It was this particular group which laid down the basis of the Teutonic ideal the Nazis were so fond of. Not surprisingly, one of the most important princes of the Normans, Bohemund I of Antioch, was the champion of the first Crusade.
In other words, your great heroes of the past were in fact half-breeds. The Scandinavian openess to other peoples & cultures, our "liberalism" and our deep skepticism about Gawd & monotheism certainly aren't recent. In fact, they far predate modern ideas such as Socialism. The emblem of Thor's hammer, for example, was worn as a symbol of open defiance against Christianity for well over 200 years after the religion first reached Scandinavia.
Exactly what part of my comment was based on race, you self loathing spineless fuck?
That comment had nothing to do with race and everything to do with balls.
If you had a set you'd know this.
Acussing people who have married someone from another ethnicity of being "self-haters" is characteristic of white supremacist nutjobs. The visceral hatred in your tone leaves no doubt as to what your political orientation is.
Maybe the French just need to increase their oil output like certain Scandahoovian countries. Oh wait...
Au contraire mon frere;
With the rich, it's actually "socialism for thee, but not for me."
And the private banks can create money by loaning it out in nearly unlimited amounts to run up asset prices and cause inflation that damages the savings of the vast majority.
Good Times.
The Best Of Times. I did read some of Tirole's, and I can endorse what Tyler is saying. Funny how here the mood switched from how money should be spent to... it should not be collected/taxed at all
A long sentence like that is the equivalent of a director doing a 5+ minute uncut shot in a movie. It looks grammatically correct to me, so AWESOME use of the language.
ZH must have run out of "."s. Hopefully their suppliers will deliver some by morning.
Remulac, France to be specific.
In fairness to Krugman.. I can't actually tell if he's a lunatic, or a genius. Throwing more fuel on the fire "Krugman style" might actually blow the system up faster. So I guess it all comes down to how much you value time.
I mostly joke. He has shifty eyes. I don't trust him as far as I could throw him, and believe me, in Krugman's case it wouldn't be for lack of trying.
The Nobel Prize is a tool used by the Elites get the world to commit to their biggest directional ideas/plans vs the multidute of others in public debate. It's always been this way.
Hmm...
Presenting this year's Zerohedge Noble Prize...
Or something like that. If they can have a Nobel why can't we have a Noble?
I nominate Edward Snowden...and Ms.Manning.
And WB7 for the Arts and Satire Catagory.
How about all the medical people who have died trying to help people during this latest Ebola outbreak?
"CLOWNS"...With pockets filled with other people's money...
How did they slip this appostate past the Nobel committee?
El Oregonian,
Money is not the problem... Money is going to die in the next 10/20 years.
The problem is growing population in a finite world.
Money will do just fine. The USD on the other hand...
Capitalism, Industrialization, State, and Humanity are marked for death.
Just why, exactly, do you even bother getting out of bed each day?
You go first; I'll watch our six.
“Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it.” -- George Santayana
a) Because money is immoral. That’s why you see debt (serfdom), inflation, hyperinflation, deflation, and depression
b) Because human brain has not evolved beyond the level of Darwinism; and never will. So, when the “PTB” (elites, government, and academia) won’t have enough (chicken in every table) for redistribution, their days in power will be numbered
c) And thermodynamics (THE and ONLY source of growth) are against humanity
there will always be a "money". count on it.
What , you mean they have finally realised they will eventually run out of Other People's Money ? Naa don't beleive it.
Yes. They sure did. So if pumping the money supply to the edge of the Milky Way doesn't work....what to do, what to do? Oh dear.
"Where's that vial of nasty shit marked "excess people remover" at? Someone call Cheney. He had it last...."
I think that gets us to the present.
there was a boy named quince; he printed money in a pinch
print print print quince did he
did the quince boy know; that he was fucking you and me?
his mom came yellen
There's enough money to pay for it.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do...
www.job-reports.com
But I bet he has NO problems whatsoever with the government spending billions on military and military equipment!
petkovplamen,
It's even worse than that:
The Nobel Prize in Economics is a fraud perpetrated by the Sweden's central bank (Sveriges Riksbank) … Check it yourself:
First Example:
Milton Friedman was awarded the 1976 prize in part for his work on monetarism.
Friedman was accused of supporting the military dictatorship in Chile because of the relation of economists of the University of Chicago to Pinochet, and a controversial six-day trip[32] he took to Chile during March 1975 (less than two years after the coup which deposed President Salvador Allende).
Friedman himself answered that he never was an adviser to the dictatorship, but only gave some lectures and seminars on inflation and met with officials, including Augusto Pinochet, in Chile.[33]
Milton Friedman also pointed out that there were no such protests over his visit to Maoist China (as a guest of the government) even though the socialist government of Mao had murdered tens of millions of people, Dr Friedman found this double standard very strange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences
Second Example:
(Philip Mirowski) He and his team investigate how the Bank of Sweden's goal of political independence wound up elevating the status of neoclassical thinking within the economics profession. Writing the history of the Nobel Memorial Prize….
http://ineteconomics.org/video/30-ways-be-economist/philip-mirowski-why-there-nobel-memorial-prize-economics
Longest sentence EVER.
Excellent one too. This Tyler is a Sean Corrigan wannabe
There goes the Noble Prize...
There is not a Noble Prize for Economics. This guy won the "
his year's Sveriges Riksbank prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel goes to a single receipient, Jean Tirole of Toulouse
Those who claim there is one are liars.
Naw. They let Camacho keep his Nobel Bling, so, they don't do claw backs apparently. He melted his down to make a fist ring that says "Peace" that he wears on the same hand he signs drone death warrants with.
Those Nobel folks got irony up to thier eyeballs.
This guy looks like a Frog though he's really a Mole, cause if he "got the prize" you can bet your ass he's found a very new and interesting definition for the word and application of "peace". That ain't no small thing, either. Big jackboots to fill, that....
There`s nothing small about Australia`s gov`t.
Paging Mr. Krugman... Mr. Krugman you have a rational call on line three.
The economist is exactly correct as all Austrian economists and educated conservatives profess.
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" — Margaret ThatcherCreepy A. Cracker,
"The trouble with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
That is exactly what happened in 2008. You must have been drinking lots of Koll-Aid.
2008 was about capitalisim? LOL!!! Read a book.
Creepy,
So, refresh my mind and give me some dates about 'your interpretation' of capitalism.
Most important: No government intervention and/or coercion (socialism/fascism/communism) in the markets. 2008 was all about government intervention and coercion, not capitalism. So is the disaster that the Fed is creating.
If my brief definition isn't good enough for you try Merriam Webster:
An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
(Note: No government intervention/coercion/ownership mentioned in the definition.)
The socialism v capitalism argument doesn't really apply to 2008. It was about corruption, cronyism, graft, and regulatory capture. None of these is a requirement for either political philosophy.
It was about Market Cycles and bubbles. This has happened for hundreds of years, nothing new. 1929, 1987, dutch tulips, Asian crisis blah blah blah. 2008 was a bit larger due to the fed's super loose policies but it wasn't an outlier, just as the coming corrections will not be an outlier either. Just because bubbles pop doesn't mean life stops. It might mean life's a lot worse (or in reality, just back to the way it was at some other point in time), but the world doesn't end, as long as people exist.
Eh, yeah, I kind of agree. It was a confluence of things. Though, I tend to shy away from the word "cycle" because it suggests a natural evolution of events that can't be controlled, which is not really the case here. I'll throw one thing out there though and say if glass-steagall hadn't been repealed it's likely that it wouldn't have happened. I maintain now as I always have that it was about saving deposits that were levered up in the markets. If it wasn't for that, it would've been much easier to let the banks fail.
The idea of cycles is that yes things do inevtiably happen one way or another. How they happen is irrelevant, but they happen. I.e., ok maybe glass steagall wasn't repealed? Bankers or someone would have found something else to inflate and then tons of products would be created upon the new golden hen to make returns and generate 'wealth' in the economy and retirement portfolios until the hen suddenly dies, like MBSs did.
The implication that you are making is that private organizations cannot ever have coercive aspects to them based on their possession of an advantageous market position. Of course the common refrain among libertarians is that any coercion carried out by private parties is the result of "crony capitalism" or "corporatism", and not the all but inevitable result of private ownership of large amounts of capital.
Private ownership of the means of production should extend only to small and midsized businesses. Larger businesses should not, in general, be owned by the state in accordance to the failed Soviet model, but should rather be governed by a corporate board elected democratically by the workers (which would in turn choose executives) and involve elections for upper management as well at the presidential and vice-presidential level.
In fact, I would favor a downsizing of the state to about 5% smaller as a percentage of GDP than it is now, to be achieved by reducing military power to peacetime levels and reducing the number of working poor using public services through higher wages achievable in worker-managed companies.
Really20,
Great post!
Bottom-up management and 'very' small government on top not to burden the system with cost.
That's would be as close as free market capitalism could be.
Good luck implementing it.
I think that the state shrinkage would take time. Ideally the government, federal and state, would overall shrink to about 2/3 to 1/2 its present size (20-25% of GDP), with far fewer people being reliant on social services due to lower prices and higher wages (shareholders are generally paid a lower and more reasonable amount of dividend/buyback, as a direct conseqence of worker control, thus reducing idle profit and lowering price). Responsibility for most remaining social services should shift to the several states, with federal government only mandating that they are provided rather than playing a major role in their funding or execution.
Creepy A. Cracker,
When you wrote socialism/fascism/communism instead of that:
1) The US has been running the largest “Private and Public” deficits, with NO ability to ever pay back
2) And that the United Sates and Americans are the least fiscally sound country and society in the world history
Then, I knew that I wasn’t talking to a serious person.
Ya Capitalism. That was before my time, we should try that again some time.
As long as a few privileged men can set interest rates you don't have capitalism.
Let's stop and think. Who ran us out of money? Let's see... 2.5 trillion dollars a year to run the U.S. Guv. Hmm... put HALF that back in the pockets of the middle class, we'd already have bought up half of France and opened businesses, hiring all the talented French. They could take a break from cooking and have new experiences.
Or cut military spending by 75%, that would work too.
Maybe invent an even better blow job...or re-animate the corpse of Jerry Lewis and make more movies? Maybe invent a battle flag other than a white one? A baret with built in headphones? 100 proof wine? Deorderent and razors? French bread hotdog buns? A Magenot Circle instead of a line?
There's any number of things they could do.
@IndyPat "Maybe invent a battle flag other than a white one?"
Again ...
All this ugly disdain and nasty jokes come from the firm refusal of the French to join America in Irak, in 2003.
Since France refused to go to Iraq, American warmongers and neo-cons made French army look like cowards – as a punishment.
But History has proved the French were right, and that the WMD were only a dirty trick to serve as a pretext.
Nevertheless, the hate of American warmongers against France remains still there, well alive, even in ZH.
This stale hate still shows through "innocent good jokes" about the “surrender monkeys” and their white flags …
As for the rest, the French can be proud of their Military History: According to the British historian Niall Ferguson, since 387 BC, France has fought 168 major wars against such badasses as the Roman Empire, the British Army and the Turkish forces. Their track record isn't too shabby, either: They've won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10 times.
This makes France the most successful military power in European history - in terms of number of fought and won …
The French have succeeded to conquer and guard the largest country in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_France
@IndyPat "Deorderent and razors?"
Racist joke. Have you ever been to France? There are more hairy and smelly women in the US than in France … and more obese ones ;-)
Capitalism withered beginning in 1913. It was killed for good in 1971. What happened in 2008 had nothing whatsoever to do with rational and self-interested divestment of capital.
Before you get a man-crush, you should know that he likes the models of canada and scandanavian countries, meaning large social programs, but small government so that it doesn't sink the programs overall.
In any case, based on the interviews I've heard with him, he seems to be a reasonable fellow. Unlike Krugman, he knows he's a researcher and an academic and doesn't want to play politics.
France has economists? Who knew. Cheesy, right? Winers maybe?
What’s ahead for the future of the average American, prepared in recent years by the banking Establishment: POVERTY. In an explosive, packed with facts assault on the system, Ted Rall delivers the squeeze play ahead now for Generation X and those to follow.
And never mind that the U.S. Census Bureau reports that Generation X statistically holds the highest education levels when looking at current age groups, according to Wikipedia, or that “Gen Xers are arguably the best educated generation with 29% obtaining a bachelor’s degree or higher (6% higher than the previous cohort),” according to William J. Schroer.
Millions of Gen Xers Will Be Homeless Before You Know It | Ted Rall |October 13, 2014
We’re staring down the barrel of an epic old age crisis. For the average American, to be elderly will mean not mere belt-tightening, but real, grinding poverty: homelessness and hunger.
Throughout the last few decades, vulnerable people living from payday to payday have gotten battered by the shredding of the government safety net, a lack of accumulated savings caused by the boom-and-bust cycle... and a lackluster real estate market.
Now members of the poor and lower middle class in their 50s and 60s are heading into a retirement crisis created by a perfect superstorm.
Traditional defined-benefit pension plans have been replaced by stingy 401(k)s and similar programs which employers no longer pay into, cap how much you can contribute (assuming you can afford it), take a beating during downturns in the stock market, and allow workers to tap when they’re laid off or run into financial trouble. After years of sketchy raids and outright theft, workers with old-fashioned corporate and government pensions can’t be sure their money will be there when they need it. The first Generation Xers — many of whom never had the opportunity to accumulate wealth due to several long recessions that impacted them particularly hard — will reach the traditional retirement age of 65 in the year 2024.
The facts are brutal:
No savings: The average Gen Xer only has a net worth of about $40,000 — enough to live on for a year. Maybe. In Akron. 36% of Americans don’t have a dime saved for retirement.
Later Social Security: Thanks to that lovable wacky Ronald Reagan, the Social Security retirement age was quietly raised to 67 for Gen Xers born after 1960. When you finally get Social Security, it doesn’t pay enough. The U.S. ranks third to last in social security benefits among developed nations.
Age discrimination: The continuing post-2008 recession hit those in their 50s especially hard; employers want cheaper, younger workers. 25% of Americans over age 55 now have no savings whatsoever.
About those pension plans: When journalists mention the retirement crisis, they focus on problems with the defined-benefit system. But that’s irrelevant to most Americans. 90% of private-sector workers don’t have one. Most government workers do — but 85% of Americans work in the private sector.
401ks suck (if you have one). Three out of four workers have no pension plan. What they might have is a 401k. The average Gen Xer who has a 401k — 69% don’t — has a $63,000 balance.
Financial experts say 92% of U.S. workers fall significantly short of what they’ll need to live decently after retirement. “In the decades to come,” Edward Siedle writes for Forbes, “we will witness millions of elderly Americans, the Baby Boomers and others, slipping into poverty. Too frail to work, too poor to retire will become the ‘new normal’ for many elderly Americans.”
This is about you — not some theoretical lazy Other….
We can hit the streets to demand action now — or we’ll be living on them later.
http://rall.com/2014/10/13/syndicated-column-millions-of-gen-xers-will-be-homeless-before-you-know-it
http://www.socialmarketing.org/newsletter/features/generation3.htm
Full of lies, distortions and half truths, with a dash of bullshit. Things are bad enough as it is, why make shit up.
I’ll give you equal time; let’s hear your rosy picture. But I have to give warning; it’ll take me longer than it took you, i.e., 3 minutes, to evaluate your story.
From Wikipedia;
Moses Harry Horwitz (June 19, 1897 – May 4, 1975), known professionally as Moe Howard, was an American actor and comedian best known as the de facto ...
< end Wiki quote >
Just so ya' know, JR has been a trusted friend to me since I got here. Moe Howard was, even as a likeness of himself, a cruel, and manipulative shithead. So basically, fuck you, Moe!Gotta sell some newsletters, dontcha know.
"Traditional defined-benefit pension plans have" bankrupted, nearly bankrupted, or are heading toward bankruptcy, every company and government that has them in place. They were set up as ponzi schemes where the amount that one pays in no where NEAR covers what they are promised to get paid out (even after interest over one's career).
There is nothing to rejoice about here.
He still is a socialist, he just thinks they got the formula wrong.
Read what is written please.
Socialism is only allowed for the rich
Very much so Socialism is wealth proteciton for the rich. In truth socialism is just a form of feudalism. Under Feudalism rigid class structures kept people from changing income groups. Under Socialism rigid income groups keep people from changing classes. This is helps the wealthy because they no longer have to worry about outside competition.
And the vast majority of the wealthy are those in the government or those well connected to the government.
Outside of astrophysics, keynesian economists are my favorite mathmagicians.
In other news the first person in France to quit drinking also happened to be an economist.
Socialism is a family with a three-legged pig as a honored member of the household.
Asked how the pig came to have three legs they reply, "Well, when you love someone you don't just eat them all at once."
Theoretically, Keynes was no dumb bastard, but the problem that we have today is not due to his mistakes alone. The central planning model as a whole cannot function if one dismantles regulation that was built into the system by previous governance that actually experienced the fallout
of investment banking largesse back in the Great Depression.
Glass-Steagall was an outgrowth of the first depression and Greenspan deregulated it thinking that nothing would go wrong in his theoretical world view of a central planning model that did not exist in reality. Greenspan decided to skip 'reality 101' in favour of subprime borrowing because
he wanted to generate wealth transfer for his cronies in the 1% classless kleptocratic oligopoly. Keynes was a brilliant scholar in his time. Unfortunately, most people in society are not that brilliant today. Bashing Keynes today might seem fashionable but it reveals a lack of knowledge of the historiography of economics and theories of economics, as well as theorists of economics. Theoretically, Professor Emeritus Maynard Keynes is within
his right to hypothesize based on his theories of social science, econometrics, and hypothesis testing. Refutation of theory via peer-reviewed research is a slow slog and truth does not sell in contemporary journal publications that generate the scientific paradigm we have today. Science has departed from being an honest investigation into being an agenda of the state and corporatist class
alone. Historiography gives us ample indication that Keynes
was a masterful thinker. We cannot judge his theories by a post-2008 implosion of the dark pool derivatives universe that did not exist in the time that Keynes was theorizing.
Post-Lehman Bros. was never thought possible when Greenspan de-institutionalized Glass-Steagall. The problem is not Keynes whatsoever if one decides to look at Greenspan in light of de-regulation that Keynes would have said no to.
Enough of the Keynes bashing without a few facts. Reflexive Keynes bashing is old now, and long on the tooth IMHO.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is still to be found in Europe some semblance of intellectual tradition and, in certain circles, class. It is perhaps the one principal boon that still remains to them.
Two Krugatron seeking missiles in a day... nice.
Just once, abandon ZH for an evening and seek out other sites where you can post nasty-o-grams in response of a Kruginator article. It is time for some counter trolling.
Australia has a sustainable welfare model and "small government"? That's a laugh. I guess that's why we've gone from no government debt only seven years ago to almost $400 billion today with builit in structural deficits as far as the eye can see. Yep, must be living within our means. How sustainable.
This is a solid endorsement for big state socialism considering that Obama won the nobel peace prize.
There isn't enough stuff in the world to support western middle class lifestyles for a majority of the world's population, regardless of the economic system.
I think it's time for the angry white man's revolution - survival of the fittest.
Y'all got guns, right?
Spastica Rex, I disagree on this. There is, but it depends on the definition of "middle class lifestyle". Some consume twice as much oil as others, for example. I think you can have a very good lifestyle for the majorities of the populations if we'd just challenge... waste. And there is lots of waste
No, you and I don't disagree. Consumerism isn't required for good life. Happiness isn't dependent upon growth in personal consumption. The world has been told a lie.
France has a social model he approves of... and gets praise? Yikes, seems like the bar is set incredibly low for anyone from France. Note: Completely remove state and social models from France and the economy of France will grow like gangbusters. Never happen, of course. All states and all [enforced] social models cause proverty... and slavery. Period.
In France, one in five are employed by the state, another one in five live off social revenus. Looks like a giant conflict of interest to me rather than pure slavery. So good luck with your plan to 'completely remove the state'. Which may explain why Tirole goes for something more subtle : http://www.voxeu.org/article/four-principles-effective-state
Yes, it is a conflict of interest, but is also slavery. Think about the nature of "the system" and also the nature of "slavery".
In the typical slavery that most people think of, only part of the population are slaves. Another part of the population are "masters". Sometimes there is another portion of the population that is somewhere in-between (slaves, but get favorable treatment for administering the slavery).
Most modern fictitious nations don't have a single "king" or "royal family", so the "predator-class" AKA "masters" who are not slaves is a very substantial number of people (for example, everyone who works for every level of "government"). In addition, there is another kind of "predator-class" that I call the "parasite-class". Essentially, these folks are slaves, but receive a large benefit for accepting and voting-for their enslavement, namely "free money or services paid for by the predator-class who pretend to be "government".
Finally there is the "producer-class", who works and creates the goods and goodies that everyone needs to survive, prosper and enjoy life. They are the most mistreated slaves, because they receive negative value from the predator-class and parasite-class (on net).
As far as I know, every fictitious nation on earth works this way. Some people produce (more than they consume), other people receive handouts (more than they produce), and other people are slave masters (produce nothing but steal enormous quantities of wealth from producers, and mistreat all below them).
Without a doubt these kinds of systems are absolutely chock full of "conflict of interest". But they are very much slavery too.
-----
Note: Yes, I talk a lot about "end government". And I'm not surprised that most people imagine that would require such an enormous endeavor and dislocation that almost nobody would be willing to attempt or support this.
However, this is not necessarily true. Think about it. What we call government could be "entirely eliminated" at the same time it was "entirely retained". How is that? The problem with so-called "government" is only one issue... voluntary versus involuntary.
Therefore, if a fictitious nation (or the whole world) was to "abandon government", what would likely happen (and be easiest by far) is to simply make every "government program" fully voluntary. Therefore, anyone who likes a government program can subscribe to that program, pay the amount necessary to sufficient fund that program so it had enough resources to deliver the promised services, and then receive the promised services when appropriate.
Therefore, on day one of this "massive switch", nothing happens. Everyone retains every government program for at least the next month. Every individual who takes "no action" remains subscribed to every government program indefinitely.
Of course, as months pass, some people would want to "opt-out" of some government programs, either because they don't want those services, or because they prefer to purchase those services from some other private supplier.
Once all government programs are "by subscription" in this way, the fictitious entity that people currently call "government" becomes just one more "private supplier". You might call it the "default supplier", but nonetheless, it would still be just one of many suppliers for many services. The new-and-improved "private government" might be the only supplier of many services for some time. Who knows? And who cares?
My point is, to switch from "predatory government" to "benevolent non-government" is a tiny change, and not one that creates some huge dislocation in the world.
I heard that in NZ it is 1 in 3. Could that be correct?
"US socialists"
stop kidding yourself Tyler.
corporate socialism maybe, but that's as far as it goes.
Exactly. Where are the "US socialists"? All I see are corporate whores doing what they're told and that ain't socialism.
Corporates LOVE the warfare & welfare state because most of that spending flows straight back to their bottom line and it's the only thing keeping revenues up when consumers are so burned out that they can't even run up more debt to support spending.
Of course, said corporates scream "Socialism" if the govt tries to claw back spending via corporate taxation, instead demanding that govts borrow to fund corporate profits.
This shows up in any chart of sectoral balances. A public sector deficit is a private sector surplus. Cut govt spending back and the corps. will soon cry about it...how the fuck is that socialism?
When the govt. aggressively nationalises banks and other systemically important enterprises, when it hikes the top tax rate to 90% (where it was in the 50's and 60's), when it take $1.50 in corporate tax per $1.00 in income tax (as it did in the 50's and 60's, vs $0.25 now), when it tears up free-trade agreements and places tariffs on imports from exploitative nations to protect domestic incomes and manufacturing, when it introduces free education and a single-payer healthcare system, when it actually shows preference towards raising labor income rather than capital income, when trade unions actually have more power than corporate lobbyists, then yeah, ok, let's start throwing the word "socialism" around.
Until then, it's just bullshit right wing propaganda.
This French guy, what a laugh. Alfred Nobel never intended to give any price to economist. He considered them as conmen, explicitly stated that economy is not a science. Well in late sixties of last century Wall Street took finally hold of Nobel foundation, reduced gold, increased Wall Street shit holdings. Since then every year financial world pee in pants waiting for economic/financial puppet show and a queue of profiteering prophets, apologists for world conquest and mayhem concocted by self indulged oligarchs from east and west. These types excel in kidnapping, rapping and then cutting to pieces words and concepts necessary to see trough their malfeasance and often crime, rendering us mute, unable to understand each other. One thing is crystal clear though fog of lies. The only priority, God or ideology rulers submit to, is self preservation at all cost, all other priorities rescinded. Just like Aliens, they think they constitute perfect, superior organism and we are expendable crew of Nostromo. Are you still alive hiding somewhere or you are already on the menu.
Can we please stop saying "Nobel prize winning economist"?
The six prizes are officially called:
- The Nobel Prize in Physics
- The Nobel Prize in Chemistry
- The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
- The Nobel Prize in Literature
- The Nobel Peace Prize
- The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.
Spot the odd one out?
The five Nobel Prizes were established in 1895 by the Will of Alfred Nobel.
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize was established in 1968 by the Swedish Central Bank and it has fuck all to do with Alfred Nobel.
If Nobel had wanted a prize for economics, he would have asked for it. He was a smart guy, so he probably didn't because he knew economics was bullshit, more politics than science. (It's known that he despised market speculators).
I don't care if the Sveriges Riksbank Prize is now awarded at the same ceremony by the same committee, it's clearly a gate-crasher and Alfred would have bounced it out.
Tirole is not a "Nobel Prize winning economist", he's a "Swedish Central Bank Prize winning economist". Fucking bankster frauds.
+1 old Alfred had an aversion to economists in general and one economist in particular
Thank you Tyler.