Market Currents
Francois Hollande has defeated Nicolas Sarkozy by a comfortable margin in the race for the...
-
Sunday, May 6, 2012, 2:13 PM ETFrancois Hollande has defeated Nicolas Sarkozy by a comfortable margin in the race for the French Presidency, reports Bloomberg, citing exit polls. It will put the Socialist party in power for the first time in 2 decades. Sarkozy's defeat makes him the 11th EU leader tossed from power since the sovereign debt crisis began.
Other date
Latest Global Articles
This news story has 49 comments:
The end of austerity will be very beneficial for commodities and equities, and bad for German savers.
Get ready to hand back your gains for the year.
For the long term, a repudiation of Sarkozy's attempt to win the far Right vote by pandering to ethnic and religious fears, as well as waving the flag à `l'Américaine, can only be good for the world. If change must come, a response towards the Left during the Great Recession can only be better than the eventual European response to the Right after the Great War and the Great Depression.
On a completely trivial note, while watching TV5 from France, it was good to see electoral maps where Right was colored blue and Left was red, as tradition and history dictates. ( Will Red China and Red Menace of yesteryear have to be translated to Blue for comprehension by future American students?)
I too welcome the failure of Sarkozy's attempt to win the far Right vote by pandering to ethnic and religious fears etc. It may, however, be a mistake to assume that a significant portion of Le Pen's first round vote did not actually go to Hollande today. It is a fact that areas of National Front strength (northern industrial towns and the deep south east of France) were, until the collapse of voting strength of the French Communist Party, traditional areas of support for the Communists. In short, in the first round many of these voters voted their fears and hatreds and in the second round they voted their economic interests.
Arguably it is very much in the interests of both Hollande and Merkel to compromise. Firstly, if they fail to do so constructively the EU project goes into serious crisis thereby threatening the core goal each strives for and leaving both with the blame for the crisis and chaos. Secondly, Merkel appears to have gained added flexibility domestically to now agree to round out the current EU austerity pact with a serious growth strategy.
Here is an interesting analysis given May 6th in a leading German newspaper illustrating how today’s election in Schleswig-Holstein helps give Merkel this grater room to accommodate the objectives of France and the peripheral EU States
http://bit.ly/IxjQsg
As to Sarkozy's pandering to the far Right, Sarkozy did better than the polls indicated. Unfortunately it would seem that his strategy was working, but fortunately he ran out of time.
http://bit.ly/IOgQLH
There will be no place like Rome for the Hollandays.
gold and silver is the trade...also, .glad i put huge shorts/puts on equities last friday.
http://bit.ly/IB271X
if we have blood bath, it should be from Greece or after the German local élection the 13th of May, Merkel power may be become weak.
Russia = Plutocracy/socialism
France = Socialism
USA = near socialism
Germany = CDU loses/more socialism
Bernanke printing more too. It's Paul Krugman's world. You're only living in it!
http://seekingalpha.co...
one day top management wish to save more profit and the company cost, they fire workers.
the day after fired guy's are no money and can buy anything, the company go to bankrupt, that is the capitalist life.
Capitalism without moderation is self destructive.
Pure, unfettered capitalism already died in the abyss of 1932.
Karl Marx was right until that point.
The real trick for society is to create a balance between productivity and equality.
I love how communists call themselves "socialists" now. As if Communist is a derogatory word, just come out and say what you are. I am amazed that communists now prance around in our streets in plain view, it amazes me that the goverment even asks the question on an application if you have ever been a member of the communist party. So because you are socialist you can plausibly say no.
Let me further confuse you by admitting that my late aunt was a Communist. But, she was not a materialist, determinist Marxist. She was a Roman Catholic nun. She too would have been placed in that faraway forest on the Left, at least in her economic practices.
Socialists love the blur the line because it gives them cover and deniablility to who they are, communists. Socialists believe in the marixist principles, they just call it an apple instead of a banana. You cannot confuse me sir, you are not smart enough.
Those who see in black and white with no nuances accepted, label themselves as well as the quality of their arguments.
I want to make it simple for you to understand, but you keep muddying the waters and your own brain is getting in the way.
The mindset that Madav exhibits has old and enduring roots in the intellectual history of Near Eastern and Western civilizations. Zoroastrianism with its view of the universe divided into two ever contending camps, the forces of light or good versus those of darkness or evil (with we all being called upon to discern and contend on the good side), arguably laid much of the moral foundation of our tradition. So far so good but discerning what is the good and what is the evil and deciding how best to reject and contend against the evil is no easy task and it is all too easy to inadvertently find oneself on the wrong side in retrospect. It is through an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, that Islamic and Christian civilization was most influenced by this philosophical predisposition to see the world in sharply contrasted and arguably overly simplified black and white terms (and act violently in consequence against the perceived ‘evil’ of the moment) and Christian and Islamic scholars wisely cautioned against the distortions of the thought process that this could engender (Jewish scholars had earlier likewise been very careful in the extent to which they allowed Zoroastrian concepts to enrich Judaism). On the other hand, Manichean tendencies too often energize and oversimplify sectarian disputes between these religious communities and within each of these communities as well. The same can be said for political schools of thought which, arguably, take on for their adherents many of the attributes of the religious traditions of the civilizations in which they arise.
Arguably Marxism is in many ways is a secular offshoot of Christian and Jewish thought as it had evolved by the 19th century and has been all too ready to exhibit these Manichean tendencies. Democratic Socialism and Social Democratic thought at their best struggle to avoid this Manichean heresy (as do Liberal and Libertarian thinkers on the more free market part of the political spectrum). Interestingly, as you are suggesting in your dialogue with Madav, many of those who see themselves as polar opposites of Marxists and their ilk are like the Communists quick to become full throated Manichean in their world view.
These Manichean tendencies of the polar opposites of Marxists allow them to lump together all those who disagree with their enthusiasms (presumably everybody to the left of President Eisenhower is a commie whether they know it or not – the truth will come out when such miscreants gain power) and to totally reject such people and all their works. It also so simplifies their thought process that one fact (there are a lot of commies out there and they are bad) serves to explain too much (i.e. something that seems to explain everything actually avoids explaining much at all).
All that I’m saying is that we all must take care to avoid the jihadist impulses lurking in our historical philosophical too kit.
My comment was directed at the "mindset that Madav exhibits"; in other words, the comments in this thread that you directed to Rich. I wouldn't presume to judge you as a person as I don't know you (and try generally to avoid misdirected efforts at judging others).
On the other hand, might you be judging me on rather skimpy evidence?
touché!