Display:
repeating the mantra of Sarkozy et al, you know...

  • debt is not 2,000 billion, it's 1,200 billion. Each time, it has increased a lot more under rightwing governments than under socialist governments (like everywhere else). But still at 65% of GDP, it's not out of control. It's the same as in the US, where it's universally seen as a sign of "dynamism" and "trust in the future". Doubls standards

  • same thign with the trade deficit: does it reflect healthy consumption (and sharing of benefits) à la US or "healthy" "reforms" as in Germany where wages have stagnated for the last many years?

  • it's not the "formation professionelle" which cost 60 bn euros, it's the sum of all job creation or support schemes, 3 quarters of which are statutoty social charges exemptions. At most, you could play around with 7-9 bn euros. Not nothing, but not quite the same sum. And that's money wasted to corporations, somethign the right loves and encourages at all times

  • generally, the "we'll cut waste" promises are typical demagogery of the right, which somehow never goes around to fulfill them once in power (quite the opposite). Maybe we need 70 years of the socialists, like in Sweden, to have an ultra efficient State...


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 12th, 2007 at 01:40:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
- sorry for the figure it's 1200, it was a typo. It's too much anyway. It was 21% in the late seventies. 77% of the French debt goes to pay the administration, 33% the Healthcare (Sécu). Sign of dynamism ?

Année Dette publique
en % du PIB Déficit public
en milliards d'euros Déficit public
en % du PIB Dette publique
en milliards d'euros

1978 21 % -4,5 -1,3 % 72,8
1979 21 % +0,3 +0,1 % 82,8
1980 20,8 % +0,7 +0,2 % 92,2
1981 22 % -10 -2 % 110,1
1982 25,3 % -14,4 -2,5 % 145,5
1985 30,3 % -21,4 -2,9 % 227,7
1986 30,9 % -25,2 -3,1 % 249,3
1990 35,3 % -24 -2,3 % 363,6
1992 39,8 % -48,8 -4,4 % 440,1
1994 48,9 % -63,1 -5,5 % 564,8
1995 55,1 % -65,5 -5,5 % 657,9
1996 57,6 % -49,8 -4,1 % 707,2
1997 58,5 % -37,8 -3 % 742,5
1998 58,7 % -34,6 -2,6 % 778
1999 58,2 % -23,6 -1,7 % 795,3
2000 56,7 % -21,1 -1,5 % 817,2
2001 56,3 % -23,2 -1,5 % 842,5
2002 58,2 % -48,8 -3,2 % 901,8
2003 62,4 % -66,6 -4,2 % 994,5
2004 64,4 % -60,6 -3,7 % 1069,2
2005 66,6 % -49,3 -2,9 % 1138,4
2006 (estimation) 64,6 % -42,6 -2,7 % 1152
'wikipedia)
the deficit has steadily increased under the Mitterand years and the Jospin years. No difference.

  • the trade deficit was historically high this year, when France was in excedent 4 years ago. Healthy "à la US" ? You must be kidding, why not invite Walmart and buy more chinese stuff ?

  • Formation professionelle :

see here it's at least 23 billions in "education that leads nowhere". I got the 60 billions from Jacques Marseille on a recent debate. But I might be wrong.
http://www.lepoint.fr/economie/document.html?did=188859

even if it isn't 60, we are NOT talking about subventions to enterprises.

- The pork in Sweden before its bankrupcy 1995 was cut by their first right wing government (Carl Bildt) in 50 years. It wasn't sufficient, the social-democrats
who won again 1996 had to fulfill the same policies. Remember that Sweden 1994 couldn't pay the interest rate on its debt any longer.

let me state something clearly : I don't defend the right here. I just try to see where the problems are. And it's obvious that France has an archaic administration compared to the Nordic countries. When I came back from Sweden 1999, I found myself proppelled back to the sixties arriving here... paper work, 36 different administrations doing the same thing... I couldn't believe my eyes...

For me the rethoric of those who more ore less defend this system (défense du service public mantra) is the same rethoric from the Swedish communists, not from social-democrats.

Both type of FRench governments tolerate a level of cheating and threats from unions, lobbies etc.. which would never been accepted in any Nordic country, Germany or even the UK. The mentality "somebody is going to make so I don't pay my parking fines" is everywhere...

Failing to say the reality is often fatal.

by oldfrog on Mon Feb 12th, 2007 at 03:40:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I personally agree with you that debt should be reduced and budgets more or less balanced (so that they can be used in downturns)

But look at when debt increased the most:
86-88
93-97
02_06

All Chirac/right wing governments.

Who stands a better chance of getting value for money from government? Those that value the output of government, or those that use it as an endless source of subsidies?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Feb 12th, 2007 at 04:01:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series