38 2 mins 9 yrs

As you know, the French President elect, Francois Hollande, has declared that France is going for growth! He has started the way he means to go on by lowering the retirement age, and soon he will be introducing punitive taxation on those who create wealth. Sounds like a plan, right?

The French central bank cut its second-quarter growth estimate for the eurozone’s second biggest economy, and now expects it to contract by 0.1pc. It had previously expected growth to be essentially unchanged in the three months from April through June. If the figures are confirmed it would be the first contraction since France pulled out of recession in 2009.

I am sure people will look back at -0.1% as the golden age, once the implications of Francois’s programme rips through the economy in la belle France! It doesn’t matter how often you say it but the central truth remains – you cannot spend what you do not have.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

38 thoughts on “GOING FOR DECLINE!

  1. “you cannot spend what you do not have.”

    For some reason unknown to me Socialists believe just printing more and more money is the answer to spending a country’s way out of a recession.

    And, because the “world economy” rules, Nations that are on the brink will always be saved in the “nick-of-time” to prevent an economic domino collapse.

  2. Eddie – it depends on what is done with the money created and who creates it. In the UK, the Bank of England (management all owned by private banks) creates money, gives it to private banks then borrows the money back from these private banks as national debt and charged at interest i.e the country borrows its own money from private banks. Likewise in the US.

    If the money created were then spent on infrastructure projects which generate demand which would match the new supply of money, then this usury-free money is non-inflationary. For example, if the east coast of England needed a new railwayat a cost of £6 billion and the economic benefits match or exceed the £6million, then it works.

  3. Economic illiteracy.

    Including you, Allan. for example: “usury-free money” — this makes no sense.

    people buy money….or borrow money with interest, if you prefer…at the lowest price they can find on the market; the market sells money…or lends money with interest, if you prefer…. at the highest price it can command on the market.

    “Usury” is a value judgement and is best left to describe money lending under duress, and by duress I mean “knee capping” and the like. “Usury” does not apply when discussing the usual highly efficient money markets. even if you feel the banking system is corrupt, etc.

    And this, Alan: “If the money created were then spent on infrastructure projects which generate demand which would match the new supply of money, ” this is just hogwash.

    if money generated demand???? what the f are you going on about??? are you now a Paul Krugman-type economic illiterate??

  4. Paul Krugman-type economic illiterate??

    Patty thinks she knows more than Paul Krugman about economics. Yikes!

  5. Yes, the Nobel Laureate Economist don’t know nuttin and is a joker and people here know more than he does. Got it.

  6. Krugman, who I’m no particular fan of, is a serious scholar. Calling him an “economic illiterate” is like telling a very experienced surgeon he knows nothing at all about medicine.

  7. Pantom and Petr,

    Too bloody right apropos Krugman’s capabilities.

    I’m continually amused at the knee-jerk reactions here to economists and politicians with socialist leanings.

    Tell me, what’s the secret? How does one go about acquiring such a juvenile, black-and-white Weltanshauung?

  8. There is an anti-intellectualism on the right that frequently veers into comical delusion.

  9. Petr,

    Are you suggesting that only socialsts can be intellectuals? I don’t agree. I could provide numerous examples that call your theory into question.

  10. Paul Krugman is still advocating a few more trillion in government spending – claiming it will “stimulate” the economy.

    Krugman is clearly insane – I don’t expect him to know any better.

    But the rest of you, please! Use your brains and common sense if you have any.

  11. A number of us here are rightwing chew the carpet extremists, well outside the bounds of mainstream conservative thought.

    Troll has the additional burden of being a servile follower of the Republican Party, Pete has the additional burden of having heard of Ron Paul, Allan never quite returned from that spring semester on Mars.

  12. “There is an anti-intellectualism on the right”

    This represents the Bill Maher Approach to political analysis and understanding:

    “I’m right because I say I’m right and I think I’m smart. Cogito ergo sum: you must be anti-intellectual stupid because you disagree with me.”

  13. Phantom: you really do live in a bubble. You seem to think that “mainstream conservative thought” is more David Frum or Meghan McCain than Sarah Palin and the Tea Party.

    Have you learned nothing from the 2010 elections and now Wisconsin??

  14. Richard: Are you suggesting that only socialsts can be intellectuals? I don’t agree. I could provide numerous examples that call your theory into question.

    No. And Krugman isn’t a socialist.

    Patty: This represents the Bill Maher Approach

    Your references come from American pop culture, mine do not. I already said I don’t particularly agree with or like Krugman, but to say he is economically illiterate really is bordering on the insane.

  15. If Palin and the Tea-baggers are so mainstream why didn’t one of them get the presidential nomination? Serious question.

  16. Troll has the additional burden of being a servile follower of the Republican Party, Pete has the additional burden of having heard of Ron Paul, Allan never quite returned from that spring semester on Mars.

    Patty

    What did I say that is wrong in any way?

    Troll wants to bomb the next town over in PA, Pete wants to have no government at all and thinks the Queen of England is a traitor, and Allan, well never mind about him.

  17. Krugman continues to advocate more and more government spending. He calls it “stimulus.”

    If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again despite the same unwanted results than Krugman is clearly insane – but this is assuming Krugman really does seek economic recovery, of course.

    Now, it’s possible that Krugman doesn’t really care much about any “recovery” – like so many on the Left – it’s possible that what Krugman actually seeks is greater state control over the “unwashed masses”…

  18. Even if these guys were some kind of a majority, they disagree with each other on loads of things

    The Tea Party is a bunch of nonsense.

    It doesn’t exist.

  19. I guess 2010 and Wisconsin didn’t happen and I guess mainstream McCain is still “leader” of the Republican Party – lol!

  20. The Tea Party have always seemed like a knuckle-dragging pack of bums. Am I missing something?

  21. 2010 certainly happened, we didn’t skip from 2009 straight until 2011. Wisconsin certainly happened, why I recall it as far back as Laverne and Shirley, though I’ve never been there.

    Sarah Palin is currently a quasi-celebrity looking to be a part of the lamestream media.

  22. Patty mentioned her twice this week, so that should raise Palin’s profile once more big time

  23. The Tea Party is a genuine cry from the heart for some – but they’re all over the place politically.. Most of them would be very decent people. But some of them are being led around by the nose by the real bums like Rush Limbaugh, the Koch Brothers, etc. –ie fighting against health care for their own families. That is as dumb as it gets

  24. Yes. Someone – as a joke – recently played me some clips of Mark Levine, Limbaugh & a few others. I realised Troll and Patty are essentially repeating talking points here rather than using their own heads.

  25. Suit yourselves, Statist lefties….your self-willed ignorance is not playing well for you and your goals…but then, that’s not my problem. 🙂

  26. And this, Alan: “If the money created were then spent on infrastructure projects which generate demand which would match the new supply of money, ” this is just hogwash

    .

    Patty – it’s pretty straight-forward once you think about it. Money is a commodity like anything else. Too much and its value declines as in inflation and too little would cause its value to increase which means deflation.

    Specifically, if an infrastructure project on its completion were to increase the productivity of that economy into which the money were released by at least the same value as the cost of the project, then the demand for the money (increased productivity) and its supply (the money created to fund the project) would increase almost equally and there would be no inflation.

  27. A year plus ago, someone brought up the health care problems in America

    Levin responded

    So what if there’s a problem? Who says that every problem needs to be solved anyway?

    Swear…to…God

    And this is a guy that Troll and Patty worship like a God

  28. Hahah… I can just see him saying it.

    In one clip Levin was calling Barney Frank a “slob”, in another O’Reilly was calling him a “big fat toad” !

    Real highbrow stuff.

  29. “And this is a guy that Troll and Patty worship like a God”

    As a Statist, Phantom, this sentence of probably makes sense to you.

    But I’m a Christian; it makes no sense to me.

    I worship in church. I don’t worship politicians, or political philosophies, or radio talk show hosts….

Comments are closed.