Aux journalistes, le discours officiel est de plus en plus difficile à gobés par le peuple

Puisque je lis des milliers d’articles par mois, je constate, depuis quelque temps un durcissement de l’opinion publique sur le discours officiel.

De plus, je remarque qu’ils sont de plus en plus informés, et le baratin habituel ne passe plus, on commence à voir un ‘écœurantite’ aigu des arguments traditionnels et ils sont critiqués sans ménagement.

Conseil, M. les journalistes arrêtés de prendre le peuple pour des cons. Ils sont de plus en plus informés et ne passent pas nécessairement par les médias traditionnels pour acquérir leurs informations, donc des articles mal ficelés et vous risquez de vous faire ramasser par vos propres blogueurs.

Même dans la revue The Economist, il se fait drôlement ramasser, les gens sont dégoutés de ce discours, du marché libre qui nous annonçait ‘bonheur et prospérité’ ou de l’avidité du milieu financier.


Extrait de : The Greek protesters need a haircut, Globe and Mail , Oct. 21, 2011

Neither the violent, Molotov-cocktail-throwing few nor the more than 100,000 non-violent employees who held a general strike this week will save the Greek economy or stop the country’s GDP from getting smaller…

George Papandreou, the Prime Minister, is to be congratulated on the passage in the Greek parliament of his latest austerity measures, which will lead to the payment to the Greek government of €8-billion, more or less on schedule, from the triad of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. …

Les blogueurs:

always_skeptical, 1:52 AM on October 22, 2011

What is generally missed in discussions about Greek debt is that debt default only deals with half the problem - getting debt down to a manageable level. The Greek economy will not recover until Greece becomes more competitive, and a debt writedown does little to solve this problem. Greece needs to swallow its pride, leave the eurozone, default (probably to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar) on it debt, and adopt the drachma.

Do that and Greece will suffer significant pain for 12-18 months, following which its economy would be growing rapidly again. Any of the current plans will just result in years of financial pain and social upheaval

Doug_F. 7:33 AM on October 22, 2011

Another Globe editorial based firmly in fantasy-land. The Greek Government is a dead thing walking and there is no way that it can enforce much of anything.

And what Greece can afford to pay of these bad debts is pretty much zero at this point.

The banks who lent this money should take the bath because it was a STUPID decision to give funds to a deadbeat. First it was a 21% 'haircut' ; now it's suggested that it will be a 60% trim. But in reality it will be a 100% right down to the scalp write-off.

If not today, then tomorrow. If not tomorrow, next week. The only question is the timing. Until then the Euro-twits can just keep feeding money in to the maw. The beast is always going to be hungry

Uncledavid 4:55 PM on October 22, 2011

The austerity policies of not only Greece but all western developed countries blames the wrong people and holds them accountable for what others have done. I sympathize with their plight.


Extrait de: People are right to be angry. But it is also right to be worried about where populism could take politics, The Economist, Oct 22nd 2011

«… Global integration has its costs. It will put ever more pressure on Westerners, skilled as well as unskilled. But by any measure the benefits enormously outweigh those costs, and virtually all the ways to create jobs come from opening up economies, not following the protesters’ instincts. Western governments have failed their citizens once; building more barriers to stop goods, ideas, capital and people crossing borders would be a far greater mistake. To the extent that the protests are the first blast in a much longer, broader battle, this newspaper is firmly on the side of openness and freedom»

Les blogueurs:

OhioOct 20th 2011 3:58 GMT

Finance saps global productivity by taking far too large of a rent for the task it accomplishes. Goverments must act (preferably in concert) to reduce the systemic dangers of finance while simultaneously reducing finance's profitability. Finance needs to become again, as it once was, boring. Perhaps the greatest cost of the rise of the finance industry in the last quarter century has been the loss of talent to the finance industry. An acquaintence of mine got his PhD in geophysics at M.I.T., where he modelled the multi-phase behaviour of petroleum in rock formations. He was hired by a Wall street firm to create and simulate the behaviour of derivatives. He has made a small fortune and lives very comfortably these days. What a terrible waste of his talents. Finance will not be reformed until talented people like that geophysicist are no longer tempted away from productive pursuits by the rape and plunder offered by the rent-seeking pirates of Wall Street.

 Recommend (433)

New ConservativeOct 20th 2011 4:14 GMT

"If they had a goal, it was selfish—an attempt to impoverish the emerging world through protectionism."

How did your editor let this go through?

When people talk about impoverishing from protectionism, they were referring to WTO rules that allowed companies to sue countries for lost revenue if they passed labor and environmental laws. So if Indonesia said it no longer wanted 8 year olds making shoes and that the new minimum age was 14, Nike could demand that the Indonesian government give them millions of dollars in "lost" revenue.

This whole article is an anemic defense of maintaining the status quo. The Economist can do better.

 Recommend (290).

KroneborgeOct 20th 2011 5:27 GMT

One of the big problems is that so much of the economy is being devoted to a sector that doesn’t add much value, finance. Yes efficient equity and debt markets are important for economic growth, but we are WAY beyond that. We need to get back to plain boring finance, and leave all the fancy engineering to regular instead of financial engineers.

1. Max of 10x leverage for all banks and financial institutions.

 2. Tie executive bonuses to long term performance say over 10 years. 20% in years 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10.

 3. Stop loan securitization. Make banks keep all that debt on their books. If they need to raise more money they can sell bonds.

 4. Break up any financial institution that is too big to fail.

 5. Break up and privatize the GSE’s. Get government out of housing.

 6. Minimum 10% down on homes that MUST be buyer financed.

If you do this you won’t need thousands of rules trying to micro manage the finance industry. Because you won’t have crazy leverage, or banks making loans to people that can’t repay. And people that put up 10% plus in cash have some skin in the game.

To reduce the rest of the effects of crony capitalism, you’re going to need to reduce the size of government. People invest (bribe) politicians because there’s a great return right now. Smaller simpler government is how you stop it.

 Recommend (201)

FreedomUSAOct 20th 2011 6:18 GMT

How could Americans not be angry?

 1) We just wasted over $5.5 trillion that was orchestrated by a few neocon special interest groups and not a single person is in jail for fabricating lies to justify the wars

 2) We just assumed trillions of bad debts and fluded the banks with trillions of liquidity in order to rebuild their profits (majority of which was paid out as bonuses). Not a single person responsible for the massive fraud committed on Wall Street has been jailed. In fact most of the executives like Fuld, Schwartz, Cohen, Blankfein, Rubin, Greenberg, Prince, etc. have either walked away with hundreds of millions each and/or are continuing to run these houses of fraud. Our presidents excuse: they were immoral but no laws were broken.

 3) Even if the bailouts were really necessary (you remember "power of nightmares" that justified the war in Iraq?) to "save the modern civilization from chaos," why were the banks not nationalized, their equity wiped out and the managers fired/jailed?

 4) The political system is so corrupted that a few special interest groups can direct funding and donations from Wall Street to the election campaigns of their candidate of choice in exchange for support of their foreign policy agenda (like the wars in the middle east) or the protection of the way they do business on Wall Street with no disclosures or restricting laws. Most people would consider this bribery. In America, we call it politics.

 All this with the background of 1 in 4 children in America living in poverty, over 17% of underemployment and 70% of our economy dependent on consumption.

 Who, other than the few that benefit from this corrupted structure, would not be angry?

 Recommend (190)

CanukOct 20th 2011 4:20 GMT

What a surprise to read that your newspaper is on the side of openness and freedom - your mantra for the past century really.

So would I be if I was so "entrenched" in the 1% as you and all the other narrow minded financial capitalist elites are, which we now know has produced, even according to Paul Volcker, nothing of any use to civil societies in the last decade or two, except for the ATM machines.

Led and underwriten by the five stooges - Greenspan, Rubin, Summers, Bernanke and Geithner(plus Paulsen I guess as well),we have had three(3)zero rate policies from 1997 / 1998(the far east crisis), the dot com bubble and this latest financial crisis, which I think even you would have to agree has not served the real economies of say, the OECD countries, as compared to the fundamentally morally currupt elite's of "Financial Capitalism" who have achieved this 1% as a consequence of their institutions speculating in the financial, commodity, energy and metal markets again producing nothing useful for the 99% of civil society.

Many of us have been banging the drum about this for a year or two but without a real army to persuade the politicians to get their act together and curb, curtail or even closedown speculative market trading activities of the real and shadow banking world and again as Paul Volcker said, there are only really 20 or so global banks that control the markets all under the jurisdictions of the Public Servants of the US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland and Japan and only really located in New York and London, so it would not take longer than say 48 hours to take this route if they act together.

Surely this kind of approach to resolving the latest economic, financial, political and social crisis has to be a more "moral" or even handed way of finding resolutions for all levels of say, the OECD civil societies, rather than just the few(Davos) financial capitalist elite's that you seem to support, week after week in your newspaper.

So good on the OSW for waking up civil society as to what is really happening to their lives in their communities in the "Real Economy, and I for one, will do everything I can to help them survive the attack from the 1% which I suspect is already on its way - we shall see.

 Recommend (149)

9KuaGeUsvvOct 20th 2011 5:41 GMT

Me thinks the Economist protests against the protestors too much.

OWS appears as a group of concerned citizens looking to change the political-financial dynamic. They rightly protest against the puppeteers (Wall Street and other sources of outsized financial contributions to the political system) and not the puppets (the politicians). They look toward a day when citizens are considered people and corporations are not (in juxtaposition to US Supreme Court rulings).

Once this political-financial dynamic is fixed, democracy can be restored and even improved, especially through the use of tools of the ongoing technological revolution.

Capitalism remains the best economic system devised by humans, since it can channel many of our worst instincts to produce our best results (hat tip to Milton Friedman). However crony-capitalism (what we now have in the US and in many other countries) is NOT capitalism and deserves to be relegated to the scrap heap of history.

OWS protests appear as a step in the right direction...

Et ainsi de suite ….