Aller au contenu

Qui a dit ?


A.B.

Messages recommandés

Kikadi :

Although America has higher per capita income than other advanced countries, it turns out that that's mainly because our rich are much richer. And here's a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else.

Vous pouvez tricher, ya pas d'offense.

Lien vers le commentaire
Kikadi :

Vous pouvez tricher, ya pas d'offense.

En lisant ça, je me suis dit : voilà au moins le genre de connerie qu'un Krugman défonce pour nous :icon_up:

A noter que la citation est décontextualisée par la personne qui la diffuse en amont de Lucilio.

Lien vers le commentaire

Pour Obama en effet les declarations de campagne… voici le programme des democrates en 1933, a contraster avec la politique fasciste de FDR

Democratic Party Platform of 1932

In this time of unprecedented economic and social distress the Democratic Party declares its conviction that the chief causes of this condition were the disastrous policies pursued by our government since the World War, of economic isolation, fostering the merger of competitive businesses into monopolies and encouraging the indefensible expansion and contraction of credit for private profit at the expense of the public.

Those who were responsible for these policies have abandoned the ideals on which the war was won and thrown away the fruits of victory, thus rejecting the greatest opportunity in history to bring peace, prosperity, and happiness to our people and to the world.

They have ruined our foreign trade; destroyed the values of our commodities and products, crippled our banking system, robbed millions of our people of their life savings, and thrown millions more out of work, produced wide-spread poverty and brought the government to a state of financial distress unprecedented in time of peace.

The only hope for improving present conditions, restoring employment, affording permanent relief to the people, and bringing the nation back to the proud position of domestic happiness and of financial, industrial, agricultural and commercial leadership in the world lies in a drastic change in economic governmental policies.

We believe that a party platform is a covenant with the people to have [sic] faithfully kept by the party when entrusted with power, and that the people are entitled to know in plain words the terms of the contract to which they are asked to subscribe. We hereby declare this to be the platform of the Democratic Party:

The Democratic Party solemnly promises by appropriate action to put into effect the principles, policies, and reforms herein advocated, and to eradicate the policies, methods, and practices herein condemned. We advocate an immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than twenty-five per cent in the cost of the Federal Government. And we call upon the Democratic Party in the states to make a zealous effort to achieve a proportionate result.

We favor maintenance of the national credit by a federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate executive estimates within revenues, raised by a system of taxation levied on the principle of ability to pay.

We advocate a sound currency to be preserved at all hazards and an international monetary conference called on the invitation of our government to consider the rehabilitation of silver and related questions.

We advocate a competitive tariff for revenue with a fact-finding tariff commission free from executive interference, reciprocal tariff agreements with other nations, and an international economic conference designed to restore international trade and facilitate exchange.

We advocate the extension of federal credit to the states to provide unemployment relief wherever the diminishing resources of the states makes it impossible for them to provide for the needy; expansion of the federal program of necessary and useful construction effected [sic] with a public interest, such as adequate flood control and waterways.

We advocate the spread of employment by a substantial reduction in the hours of labor, the encouragement of the shorter week by applying that principle in government service; we advocate advance planning of public works.

We advocate unemployment and old-age insurance under state laws.

We favor the restoration of agriculture, the nation's basic industry; better financing of farm mortgages through recognized farm bank agencies at low rates of interest on an amortization plan, giving preference to credits for the redemption of farms and homes sold under foreclosure.

Extension and development of the Farm co-operative movement and effective control of crop surpluses so that our farmers may have the full benefit of the domestic market.

The enactment of every constitutional measure that will aid the farmers to receive for their basic farm commodities prices in excess of cost.

We advocate a Navy and an Army adequate for national defense, based on a survey of all facts affecting the existing establishments, that the people in time of peace may not be burdened by an expenditure fast approaching a billion dollars annually.

We advocate strengthening and impartial enforcement of the anti-trust laws, to prevent monopoly and unfair trade practices, and revision thereof for the better protection of labor and the small producer and distributor.

The conservation, development, and use of the nation's water power in the public interest.

The removal of government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and natural resources in the common interest.

We advocate protection of the investing public by requiring to be filed with the government and carried in advertisements of all offerings of foreign and domestic stocks and bonds true information as to bonuses, commissions, principal invested, and interests of the sellers.

Regulation to the full extent of federal power, of:

(a) Holding companies which sell securities in interstate commerce;

(:icon_up: Rates of utilities companies operating across State lines;

© Exchanges in securities and commodities. We advocate quicker methods of realizing on assets for the relief of depositors of suspended banks, and a more rigid supervision of national banks for the protection of depositors and the prevention of the use of their moneys in speculation to the detriment of local credits.

The severance of affiliated security companies from, and the divorce of the investment banking business from, commercial banks, and further restriction of federal reserve banks in permitting the use of federal reserve facilities for speculative purposes.

We advocate the full measure of justice and generosity for all war veterans who have suffered disability or disease caused by or resulting from actual service in time of war and for their dependents.

We advocate a firm foreign policy, including peace with all the world and the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; no interference in the internal affairs of other nations; and sanctity of treaties and the maintenance of good faith and of good will in financial obligations; adherence to the World Court with appending reservations; the Pact of Paris abolishing war as an instrument of national policy, to be made effective by provisions for consultation and conference in case of threatened violations of treaties.

International agreements for reduction of armaments and cooperation with nations of the Western Hemisphere to maintain the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine.

We oppose cancelation of the debts owing to the United States by foreign nations.

Independence for the Philippines; ultimate statehood for Puerto Rico.

The employment of American citizens in the operation of the Panama Canal.

Simplification of legal procedure and reorganization of the judicial system to make the attainment of justice speedy, certain, and at less cost.

Continuous publicity of political contributions and expenditures; strengthening of the Corrupt Practices Act and severe penalties for misappropriation of campaign funds.

We advocate the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. To effect such repeal we demand that the Congress immediately propose a Constitutional Amendment to truly represent [sic] the conventions in the states called to act solely on that proposal; we urge the enactment of such measures by the several states as will actually promote temperance, effectively prevent the return of the saloon, and bring the liquor traffic into the open under complete supervision and control by the states.

We demand that the Federal Government effectively exercise its power to enable the states to protect themselves against importation of intoxicating liquors in violation of their laws.

Pending repeal, we favor immediate modification of the Volstead Act; to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of such alcoholic content as is permissible under the Constitution and to provide therefrom a proper and needed revenue.

We condemn the improper and excessive use of money in political activities.

We condemn paid lobbies of special interests to influence members of Congress and other public servants by personal contact.

We condemn action and utterances of high public officials designed to influence stock exchange prices.

We condemn the open and cover resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by Congressional Committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of the Government and to revoke improvident subsidies granted to favorite interests.

We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator in farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demands of domestic markets.

We condemn the usurpation of power by the State Department in assuming to pass upon foreign securities offered by international bankers as a result of which billions of dollars in questionable bonds have been sold to the public upon the implied approval of the Federal Government.

And in conclusion, to accomplish these purposes and to recover economic liberty, we pledge the nominees of this convention the best efforts of a great Party whose founder announced the doctrine which guides us now in the hour of our country's need: equal rights to all; special privilege to none.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showplatfor…platindex=D1932

Lien vers le commentaire
:icon_up:

C'est certes un poil exagéré, mais on ne peut pas nier le fait que FDR se soit un temps inspiré de ce qui se faisait de "mieux" en Italie puis en Allemagne.

Lien vers le commentaire
A noter que la citation est décontextualisée par la personne qui la diffuse en amont de Lucilio.

La source, extraite du New York Times. Voilà ce qui arrive un futur Prix Nobel d'économie, rien que pour pouvoir casser du Bush :

[…]

IV. The Price of Inequality

It was one of those revealing moments. Responding to an e-mail message from a Canadian viewer, Robert Novak of ''Crossfire'' delivered a little speech: ''Marg, like most Canadians, you're ill informed and wrong. The U.S. has the longest standard of living -- longest life expectancy of any country in the world, including Canada. That's the truth.''

But it was Novak who had his facts wrong. Canadians can expect to live about two years longer than Americans. In fact, life expectancy in the U.S. is well below that in Canada, Japan and every major nation in Western Europe. On average, we can expect lives a bit shorter than those of Greeks, a bit longer than those of Portuguese. Male life expectancy is lower in the U.S. than it is in Costa Rica.

Still, you can understand why Novak assumed that we were No. 1. After all, we really are the richest major nation, with real G.D.P. per capita about 20 percent higher than Canada's. And it has been an article of faith in this country that a rising tide lifts all boats. Doesn't our high and rising national wealth translate into a high standard of living -- including good medical care -- for all Americans?

Well, no. Although America has higher per capita income than other advanced countries, it turns out that that's mainly because our rich are much richer. And here's a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else.

That statement -- which is simply a matter of arithmetic -- is guaranteed to bring accusations of ''class warfare.'' If the accuser gets more specific, he'll probably offer two reasons that it's foolish to make a fuss over the high incomes of a few people at the top of the income distribution. First, he'll tell you that what the elite get may look like a lot of money, but it's still a small share of the total -- that is, when all is said and done the rich aren't getting that big a piece of the pie. Second, he'll tell you that trying to do anything to reduce incomes at the top will hurt, not help, people further down the distribution, because attempts to redistribute income damage incentives.

These arguments for lack of concern are plausible. And they were entirely correct, once upon a time -- namely, back when we had a middle-class society. But there's a lot less truth to them now.

First, the share of the rich in total income is no longer trivial. These days 1 percent of families receive about 16 percent of total pretax income, and have about 14 percent of after-tax income. That share has roughly doubled over the past 30 years, and is now about as large as the share of the bottom 40 percent of the population. That's a big shift of income to the top; as a matter of pure arithmetic, it must mean that the incomes of less well off families grew considerably more slowly than average income. And they did. Adjusting for inflation, average family income -- total income divided by the number of families -- grew 28 percent from 1979 to 1997. But median family income -- the income of a family in the middle of the distribution, a better indicator of how typical American families are doing -- grew only 10 percent. And the incomes of the bottom fifth of families actually fell slightly.

[…]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html…mp;pagewanted=6

Lien vers le commentaire
Pour Obama en effet les declarations de campagne… voici le programme des democrates en 1933, a contraster avec la politique fasciste de FDR

Tiens donc… Et Bush est un libertarien sans doute ?

C'est certes un poil exagéré, mais on ne peut pas nier le fait que FDR se soit un temps inspiré de ce qui se faisait de "mieux" en Italie puis en Allemagne.

Et après Rincevent niera sa proximité nanarcap ? :icon_up:

Ce sont surtout des idées économiques qui étaient dans l'air du temps. D'autre part, le fascisme n'avait pas de doctrine économique bien définie.

EDIT : et il est donc non pertinent de qualifier de fasciste une politique économique, puisque ce n'est pas un critère déterminant du fascisme.

Pour ne pas réitérer une discussion oiseuse à ce propos, relire ce fil.

Lien vers le commentaire
Tiens donc… Et Bush est un libertarien sans doute ?

Et après Rincevent niera sa proximité nanarcap ? :icon_up:

Ce sont surtout des idées économiques qui étaient dans l'air du temps. D'autre part, le fascisme n'avait pas de doctrine économique bien définie.

Pour ne pas réitérer une discussion oiseuse à ce propos, relire ce fil.

Bien écrit, RH ! :doigt:

Lien vers le commentaire
Ce sont surtout des idées économiques qui étaient dans l'air du temps.

C'est tout à fait vrai. Ce qui n'empêche que c'est en premier en Italie et en Allemagne qu'elles ont connu leur plus complète implémentation.

D'autre part, le fascisme n'avait pas de doctrine économique bien définie.

Re-vrai. C'est bien pourquoi j'ai parlé de "ce qui se faisait", et non de "ce qui se pensait".

Lien vers le commentaire
C'est tout à fait vrai. Ce qui n'empêche que c'est en premier en Italie et en Allemagne qu'elles ont connu leur plus complète implémentation.

Re-vrai. C'est bien pourquoi j'ai parlé de "ce qui se faisait", et non de "ce qui se pensait".

Et c'est pourquoi j'ai également parlé de politique économique (cf. message édité pendant que tu rédigeais le tien). Ce n'est pas un critère discriminant d'un point de vue idéologique pour qualifier de fasciste telle décision - contrairement au communisme, par exemple.

De plus, à ce jeu de "qui imite qui", c'est plutôt Hitler qui a voulu copier Roosevelt que l'inverse.

Lien vers le commentaire
:icon_up: non franchement. Si tu lis la phrase suivante tu vois qu'il traite cette idée avec distance et de façon générale le texte se veut une discussion sans a priori. Bref Krugman reste équivoque.
Lien vers le commentaire
:icon_up: non franchement. Si tu lis la phrase suivante tu vois qu'il traite cette idée avec distance et de façon générale le texte se veut une discussion sans a priori. Bref Krugman reste équivoque.

Honnêtement, je ne trouve pas. Et le reste de l'article est on ne peut plus clair.

Lien vers le commentaire
Honnêtement, je ne trouve pas. Et le reste de l'article est on ne peut plus clair.

On voit dans la phrase qui suit la citation qu'il traite l'idée avec distance, il critique sa réfutation plus directement qu'il n'en fait la promotion. Par ailleurs, croire que les riches sont riches aux dépens des pauvres est une croyance naïve, contrairement à ce que dit Krugman qui la qualifie de radicale, mais cette croyance n'est pas nécessairement fausse : Louis XIV est riche et ses sujets sont pauvres à cause de lui.

Lien vers le commentaire
  • 3 weeks later...
Je sens bien un marxiste si ce n'est Marx lui-même (Le 18 Brumaire de Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte ?).

Pas loin. Tu vends la mèche un peu vite, moi qui voulait combattre le droit à la paresse intellectuelle avec une citation pour le port d'arme libre d'un auteur du mauvais camp.

Lien vers le commentaire
Pas loin. Tu vends la mèche un peu vite, moi qui voulait combattre le droit à la paresse intellectuelle avec une citation pour le port d'arme libre d'un auteur du mauvais camp.

Héhé, je te connais un petit peu tout de même. :icon_up:

EDIT : Effectivement, je viens de jeter un petit coup d'œil sur Google, ça n'est pas loin du tout.

Lien vers le commentaire
Tous ces pronostics seraient éventuellement pertinents si l'expérience avait prouvé que les déclarations d'un politicien avant son élection avaient un rapport quelconque avec les décisions qu'il prendrait ensuite. Or l'expérience ne l'a pas prouvé.

Est-ce qu'avant d'utiliser ton clavier pour avancer une telle affirmation tu as réflechi qu'elle risquait de saper les fondements mêmes de nos sociétés démocratiques ?

Lien vers le commentaire
Est-ce qu'avant d'utiliser ton clavier pour avancer une telle affirmation tu as réflechi qu'elle risquait de saper les fondements mêmes de nos sociétés démocratiques ?

Euh, très sincèrement, c'est peut-être contradictoire avec l'idée que l'on a généralement de la démocratie moderne, mais ça n'est pas du tout contradictoire (au contraire) avec le fonctionnement réel de ce système politique moderne (cf. Principes du gouvernement représentatif de Bernard Manin, entre autres)

Lien vers le commentaire
Euh, très sincèrement, c'est peut-être contradictoire avec l'idée que l'on a généralement de la démocratie moderne, mais ça n'est pas du tout contradictoire (au contraire) avec le fonctionnement réel de ce système politique moderne (cf. Principes du gouvernement représentatif de Bernard Manin, entre autres)

C'était juste un clin d'oeil à Gadrel et à ses idées anarcaps … :icon_up:

Lien vers le commentaire
Qui a écrit :

Le danger des coups d'Etat et du despotisme militaire ne cessera d'exister que lorsque l'armée permanente sera abolie et que la nation sera armée.

Lénine, Staline, Trotsky? Un français?

Indice: il est vivant, ce n'est donc pas son père…

Le fils de William Buckley?

Lien vers le commentaire

Créer un compte ou se connecter pour commenter

Vous devez être membre afin de pouvoir déposer un commentaire

Créer un compte

Créez un compte sur notre communauté. C’est facile !

Créer un nouveau compte

Se connecter

Vous avez déjà un compte ? Connectez-vous ici.

Connectez-vous maintenant
×
×
  • Créer...