EU election

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,275
3,477
118

Well here's the first round, it's looking like my prediction is holding true. Now is the time for Macron to get some gifts from Melenchon and then throw support behind him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,563
6,005
118
Country
United Kingdom
it seems you lack either the capacity or the inclination to do anything other than gesture vaguely and complain when I don't follow your lead on ignoring all relevant context including apparently the entire history of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.
Nope, you're free to decide the context absolves someone if you want, and that therefore you believe their racism is beyond criticism. But you'd have to A) be honest that's your approach, rather than offering waffling eulogies that entirely ignore or downplay their racism to begin with; and B) be consistent, rather than selectively using allegations of racism to damn some people (if you like the tyrant they live under) and not others.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,563
6,005
118
Country
United Kingdom
Well, what a shitshow. Much now depends on how Macron and his supporters decide to continue: support RN, support NFP, or be stubborn and refuse to do either.

Economy minister Bruno le Maire and Pays de la Loire council President Christelle Morancais have opted for the latter. Despicable assholes.

Macron himself and PM Gabriel Attal have both encouraged tactical voting against the RN in the second round, including support for NFP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,811
6,086
118
Macron himself and PM Gabriel Attal have both encouraged tactical voting against the RN in the second round, including support for NFP.
Well, whatever else you say about Macron, he has consistently been against RN. Which makes it ironic that he's likely to be the one that has handed them power.

What makes me despair about people voting for the far right is that the far right never like or respect democracy. The minute they get in they'll be chipping away at democratic norms as fast as they can - media, judiciary, etc.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,111
1,542
118
Country
The Netherlands

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,563
6,005
118
Country
United Kingdom
French second-round voting today. Third-placed candidates from the first round in each constituency are pulled out, leading to two-party contests. It's predicted that the RN will probably gain a plurality, but not a majority. Exit poll expected at 8pm BST.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,563
6,005
118
Country
United Kingdom
First exit poll projection from Ipsos:

NFP: 172-192 seats

Emmanuel Macron and allies: 150-170 seats

RN & allies: 132-152 seats

Looks broadly similar to the projection posted above. Fantastic if it holds.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,491
1,751
118
Interesting that Macron ended with more candidate than the FN. Was fucking risky to call an election but it seems to have broadly payed off for him, although now he'll have to deal with left crazy demand, better than the FN.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,563
6,005
118
Country
United Kingdom
Interesting that Macron ended with more candidate than the FN. Was fucking risky to call an election but it seems to have broadly payed off for him, although now he'll have to deal with left crazy demand, better than the FN.
Out if interest, what demands of the NFP would you consider "crazy"?
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,111
1,542
118
Country
The Netherlands
Wait so for all the bluster Le Pen came third and Macron didn't even come last?

This election is the biggest anime plot twist.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,491
1,751
118
Out if interest, what demands of the NFP would you consider "crazy"?
Lowering the retirement to 60 would be one, iirc the green are also really into shutting down nuclear reactor (they don't mention that this mean turning to fossil fuel). Bringing back the wealth tax is also stupid considering it barely brought any revenue and was more trouble to administer then it was worth.

Then its a bit hard to say since there's a bunch of party that each have their own demand, some of them farcical, but overall, wanting the state to spend a lot more when its already spending far more than it collect in tax.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,830
2,919
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Lowering the retirement to 60 would be one, iirc the green are also really into shutting down nuclear reactor (they don't mention that this mean turning to fossil fuel). Bringing back the wealth tax is also stupid considering it barely brought any revenue and was more trouble to administer then it was worth.

Then its a bit hard to say since there's a bunch of party that each have their own demand, some of them farcical, but overall, wanting the state to spend a lot more when its already spending far more than it collect in tax.
Is the wealth tax based on land ownership?

There should be a plan to replace nuclear.... A PLAN (like replacing it by the end of the life of the reactor). If it's just shutting down a reactor, that's stupid

Economically, the age of 60 anywhere is untenable
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,275
3,477
118

Also big if true. Unsurprising behavior from Macron, but all the respect to Attal.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,563
6,005
118
Country
United Kingdom
Lowering the retirement to 60 would be one,
From 62, whereas Macron had aimed to raise it to 65. That's hardly "crazy".

iirc the green are also really into shutting down nuclear reactor (they don't mention that this mean turning to fossil fuel).
The Ecologistes only favour moving from nuclear onto renewables. Not onto fossil fuels. If any phase-out would require an increase in fossil fuels, then the Greens would support a delay until it wouldn't.

Bringing back the wealth tax is also stupid considering it barely brought any revenue and was more trouble to administer then it was worth.
Then that was a problem of implementation, not principle. The super-rich are the single largest source of largely untapped revenue. The majority of that money is economically inactive, and we're talking billions. Taxing it makes absolute economic and moral sense.
 

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,491
1,751
118
Is the wealth tax based on land ownership?

There should be a plan to replace nuclear.... A PLAN (like replacing it by the end of the life of the reactor). If it's just shutting down a reactor, that's stupid

Economically, the age of 60 anywhere is untenable
Wealth tax was overall, well sorta, it was complicated (because wealth tax are really hard to implement).

The green don't make plan, look at Germany. They would have rush to shut them all down. There's also no reason to replace them, nuclear complement renewable perfectly.

From 62, whereas Macron had aimed to raise it to 65. That's hardly "crazy".

The Ecologistes only favour moving from nuclear onto renewables. Not onto fossil fuels. If any phase-out would require an increase in fossil fuels, then the Greens would support a delay until it wouldn't.

Then that was a problem of implementation, not principle. The super-rich are the single largest source of largely untapped revenue. The majority of that money is economically inactive, and we're talking billions. Taxing it makes absolute economic and moral sense.
62 is already crazy, 60 is economic suicide.

The problem is that the wealth of rich is untapped, or rather, hypothetical money. Look at it this way, someone make a company, make it public and create share of it, the share price explode and now the company is worth trillions, government comes in and tax the unrealized gain for (lets say) 100 millions. That's no different than the central bank printing 100 millions, its creating money that doesn't exist and injecting it into the economy. And eventually the market would price in the wealth tax which would depreciate the value of share by quite a lot, people would move to other system to hold their wealth, system that would be harder for average people to take advantages of (it would also destroy the retirement of millions). The only good use of wealth tax is to force inactive asset back onto the market (ie land based) but land based tax are really complicated to implement and their own bag.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,275
3,477
118

The final numbers are out

image_2024-07-07_234155289.png

The Republicans are bordering on a non-party and Ensemble has fallen apart, there by the grace of the left in service of defeating the right. But it's definitely a hung parliament. And I think Macron will be spending the rest of his term fighting the left and letting the right fester.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Seanchaidh

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 21, 2009
5,508
3,271
118
Country
United States of America
The problem is that the wealth of rich is untapped, or rather, hypothetical money. Look at it this way, someone make a company, make it public and create share of it, the share price explode and now the company is worth trillions, government comes in and tax the unrealized gain for (lets say) 100 millions. That's no different than the central bank printing 100 millions, its creating money that doesn't exist and injecting it into the economy.
???

someone is going to pay that tax: when they do, that is -100 million from the money supply. just because we're dealing with a situation in which someone is probably selling shares in order to pay the tax does not mean that the money is created from nothing. someone is buying the shares or, indeed, the person holding the shares is paying the tax themselves from some other source. this is literally contractionary fiscal policy, the opposite of expansionary: the opposite of 'creating money from nothing'. it is subtracting money from the money supply. The fact that it is Euros and not a real sovereign currency complicates things a little-- the money isn't simply deleted as it would be if it were dollars-- but the core point of whether it is contractionary or expansionary is unaffected.

And eventually the market would price in the wealth tax which would depreciate the value of share by quite a lot, people would move to other system to hold their wealth, system that would be harder for average people to take advantages of (it would also destroy the retirement of millions). The only good use of wealth tax is to force inactive asset back onto the market (ie land based) but land based tax are really complicated to implement and their own bag.
oh, sure, the rich would definitely surrender their ownership of the economy to retirees and poorer day traders, finding something other than the entire basis of personal wealth generation in our current economic system to hoard. and retirees will (well, would) be devastated to find out that the price to earnings ratios of stocks would be generally lower, meaning that the same contributions would buy more of the same value of asset.