How the Media Helps the Macron Regime Hide Its Brutality Against French Citizens, Pt. 2

[LittleBird_]

It is not surprising that the media is still overwhelmingly siding with Macron and his authoritarian regime, they are the ones that helped him reach his position with their unabashed adulation and outright pro Macron propaganda which they have been pumping during and after his elections.

As a result Macron's goverment actually denies any documented police brutality ever took place against French protesters.

Interior Minister Christophe Castaner this week brushed aside criticism of the force. "I have never seen a policeman or gendarme attacking a protester", he declared despite and unending stream of photos and iveos depicting French police brutalising French protetsres.

The EU is also silent about the ongoing barbarity perpetuated by Macron against his own people, because of their support for him and his rabid pro EU stances.

While other countries or politicians which are critical of the EU and its policies are attacked by the EU ( countries like Italy, Poland and Hungary) for doing basically anything, the EU will never ever condemn Macron and his documented brutality and deliberate attacks on French protesters, which happpen to be EU citizens as well.

If the media had done its job and actually covered the Yellow Vests protests in a proper and honest way which showed the reality and brutality of French government towards the protesters there would have been a huge outcry and pressure would be put on Macron to stop his authoritarian crackdown.

But because this never happened, the French government can go as far as to say that it “"have never seen a policeman or gendarme attacking a protester."

How the Media Helps the Macron Regime Hide Its Brutality Against French Citizens, Pt. 1

[Jean-Marie_Céline]

Thanks for writing this.
This essentially confirms two facts:

-Media can and are based and often sacrifice integrity to pay lip service to whichever regime is in power: in my country a popular journalist regarded himself as "left-wing" until the centre-right government got in, then he switched and said the "the left can't be trusted" 🙄.
Guess he cares more about who signs his paychecks than being his own person with his own opinions.

-That even governments that says they are "democratic" and "liberal" can be as brutal and authoritarian as dictatorial one.

It's very true that power wears out, but those who don't have it.
The uprisings in France just demonstrated it.

[YHL6965]

The most ironic thing is that we constantly hear about Macron bashing the Venezuelan government while the same thing in worse is happening in his own country and he is doing the exact opposing of what he is saying to the Venezuelan government. We (the French) are living in a dictature, and many members of Macron's party are not even hiding it anymore. That's how bad this is!

[LittleBird_]

Lol, I have found this image.

[0112358]

Apart from the mild difference that macron won a fair election and Maduro didn’t.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Huh, many people are not so sure about that.

[0112358]

About which part?

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Illegal financement, the actual proportions (many people suspect blank votes and non-voters to have been used to inflate his score).

[0112358]

I’ve actually seen more evidence of illegal funding for le pen. But I don’t think any outside interference had much impact on that election.

Let’s be honest here... macron won because both the Center right and Center left imploded and were in disarray. Most don’t want le pen. Most don’t want the communists. Most didn’t want macron! Most didn’t want fillon. Macron was the most tolerable. And my apologies if I got someone’s name off...

But this is quite different from Venezuela which is closer to a flat out coup d’état.

Will macron win re-election? Will en marche stick around as a party? I’m not so sure. He seems more a placeholder only there till the traditional parties can get reorganized.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 In my opinion, the people who put Macron in place (the oligarchs) made sure the biggest contenders were crushed so that he could face Le Pen and, because most people blindly believe that Le Pen is a nazi, these people voted blindly for Macron who is behaving like a dictator and who is all for oligarchy.

[0112358]

Macron of course is tolerable to “the oligarchs”. But they would tolerate any centrist to business oriented Center right. And of course they hate melanchon or le pen.

But I think it’s dreaming to imagine the people are all extremists and that the only centrists are a few rich and powerful. There’s a huge constituency of people who are moderate and business oriented. So yes absolutely the moneyed class and businesses all piled behind macron as did many centrist voters. But they’d have all piled behind any moderate vs any more extreme candidate. And the same thing will happen in any run off election with one moderate and one more extreme candidate.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Sure, but Macron is extremely capitalism and money oriented for French standards.

[0112358]

I would agree he is quite market oriented.

To me it’s a bit odd they always call le pen (or anyone else who is anti-immigrant) “far right” when she was almost certainly left economically of macron.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Yes, France is very left leaning in terms of economic and society compared to the USA or the UK, and people really like this system. He is basically trying to tear down all that system that has worked for decades by telling everyone it costs too much.

[0112358]

The system does cost too much -given historical French economic strength and taxation- So the question of course is to what extent the system can be preserved while increasing economic strength in order to support the social goals desired. This is something you can be left or right and do a good or poor job on.

The status quo is not in fact possible to maintain. If a country keeps running deficits so its debt ratio gets too high, it’s credit rating is downgraded, interest rates increase in government debt and that makes things worse creating a spiral.

Nobody wants France to follow Greece. Macrons hope is that Anglo American economic reforms could grow the economy and so on. If France had Anglo-American or German levels of unemployment and growth its debt would be fine. So whether or not we like macron let’s hope that works!! The other alternatives are cut benefits or seriously increase taxes. You can do it now, or wait the longer a country waits the more severe it is.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 How do you explain that this system has run finely since its beginnings and only now it supposedly costs too much. More of our money is being take, yet nothing improves in terms of public services. Where does the money go?

[0112358]

Interest in debt.

France is hardly alone in this but in worse shape then some. Our governments have been doing the equivalent of living off credit cards. Now we have to both stop spending off credit cards and at the same time pay the interest on credit cards.

At first it’s great. You spend all your taxes and then more! At this point the French government spends more on interest on the debt than education and the military -combined- And every year it gets worse.

The second factor for most western economies is demographics - the boomers are retiring and we have lots of elderly relative to workers.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 I never understood why there were interests on states' debts...

[0112358]

It’s an actual loan. France has actually borrowed money from peolle and banks and countries with a promise to pay interest. And then spent the money. No interest- no loans.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Yes, but we are talking about states there, it's a whole other business there. In my opinion, this debt mechanic for states is only slowing down progress of humanity, just to basically feed a few already obese people even more (economically speaking).

[0112358]

So what does that mean?

That states shouldn’t borrow? France has a huge deficit. Either it borrows, prints money, taxes more, or spends less.

There are drawbacks to each.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Interests should be minimal to none for states.

[0112358]

Then why would anyone loan them money?

[YHL6965]

@0112358 To make humanity progress as a whole.

[0112358]

Well there’s not remotely enough people interested in doing that. Those that are typically want to allocate the money to charity, not help out governments pay a raise to unionized workers for another few months.

France, the federal government alone, has borrowed 2.3 trillion euros. They need to borrow more all the time as they currently can’t afford to pay the expenses they generate.

Of course it’s not just France. The USA for instance owes about 22 trillion dollars. Japan owes 10 trillion USD. And on and on. Each of thise just as worthy. But all of them people won’t just give them money. And one shouldn’t imagine it’s a bunch of nasty rich people refusing to help. Wealthy people don’t tend to own a lot of government bonds. No it’s your insurance company, your bank, the pension funds for unions, and so on. They pretty much have to pursue the interest, unless all the average people they deal with are willing to pay more or earn less.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 I still don't understand why someone would choose to slow global progress just for their own personal comfort. I guess I'm not self-centered enough.

[0112358]

Do you really think handing money to the French government helps global progress more than directly allocating money to global vaccinations, anti malaria work, improving internet in developing countries, job retraining, etc? Apparently people donating to charity don’t think so.

But government spending isn’t for that mainly. It’s gicing money to older people or poorer ones or supporting health care and education. Those are good things. But someone has to pay. By running up debt the government is saying “tomorrow’s people will pay for some of today’s benefits”. They have said for years “we will pay tomorrow, we will pay tomorrow”.

Well, it’s tomorrow. So now we have to pay for yesterday -and- today together.

If it’s not clear this has been a big wealth transfer from your age group and mine to the baby boomers and older.

As for no interest it just doesn’t make sense. There is only so much capital. Everyone wants it. France owes a few trillion. If there was no interest they’d gladly owe 10 times as much. So how would we decide which country gets to borrow it all?

Tbh borrow is misleading because most likely France will never pay it all back. On paper they do, they borrow money for 25 years and pay interest and at the end return the money. How do they get the money to return? They borrow again. Really France has no intention of ever paying the money back. The “deal” is give France the money and France will pay interest forever. But the amount of interest is recalculated every so often. If there was no interest it would just be “give France your money”.

If you want France to just take money, there is a way to do that. Increase taxes.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 The thing is, if any country gets its money without endless interests, they can set higher living expectancies, create a better environment for people to live in and basically raise the bar overall. Also, I on't know about other countries, but France does finance research among other things like hospitals for example. More money means improvement in these areas.

My point is that we could progress as a society, not solely scientifically.

[0112358]

Yes of course.

But what you’re actually noticing is that free wealth would make a country... wealthier. If France could borrow without interest it could say “hey rest of world lend us your money” and take it all and spend it and be wealthier. That would be great for France. Of course everyone else would be worse off. Because this would just be a financial transfer. The total world economy would be producing the same among of goods and services. France would just be consuming more of it.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Sure, but this should be regulated.

[0112358]

Without one world government that’s impossible? At least what you seem to be suggesting. If France wants people outside of France to loan them money, they need to give them an incentive to do so. Otherwise they can tax French Citizens, or spend less. There’s just no magic way to demand other people give you stuff because you’d do some nice things with it.

Besides which if we were going to actually allocate money by “fairness” globally, we’d need to cut all French social programs by about 90% and send all the savings to Africa and poorer parts of Asia.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 The thing with 3rd world country is that all the money in the world will not do a thing because they are not properly structured. I never understood why the economic system was so complex and pulled us back so much from progress.

[0112358]

If you mean corruption is a huge issue it’s very true.

But I think you’re confusing economic systems with the size of the economy. The limits of national wealth are not “designed by the system” they are real actual limits on what’s produced.

the only way to actually have more stuff and services and research without taking away someone else’s stuff and services is to have the economy grow.

With a fairly good economic system, it’s the economic strength that allows for progress in terms of helping people, not the other way around.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Honestly, I might lack some crucial economic knowledge to really grasp the whole situation there but, to me, all of this look like an over-complicated system.

[0112358]

Well maybe I can try explaining like this. I will eliminate money because it’s not important here. And I will call things and services all “stuff”.

So you have a country full of people and they make stuff or grow stuff or provide stuff. But they also want a government and want the government to do stuff. They want the government to give some stuff to people who need it. They also want the government to have people who do stuff like guard the country and those people need to be given stuff to live on. But the government doesn’t have any stuff. So it taxes people. It says “hey you have to give some percent of the stuff you make to the government”. And now the government has some stuff and can do things with it.

But people want the government to do more stuff. So the next thing they do is say “well maybe we can take more stuff from the people who have a lot”. And so they do that.

But people want more. So the government starts asking to borrow some stuff. They say “jean, you have lots of stuff how about you give it to us. And we will give you the same amount back next year”. And jean says “but I was going to give that stuff to Francois. He is a baker. He wants to open two new bakeries and then he will share the profit with me”. And the government says “that sounds risky. It might not work. If you loan us the money we will pay you a little bit more back next year. Less than Francois, but we are a sure thing”. And jean says “well maybe I should blend my risk. I will give half to jean. And loan half to you”.

So now the government has some more stuff this year and can do more but next year they have to pay him back. And of course while the government has more stuff, on other places there’s less stuff: Francois only opens one new bakery, and only hires two people instead of four. But the stuff the government does is hopefully good too.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Yes, I understand all of that, but I'm talking about the whole deal with banks and states, money values. I know the point of taxes, I get it, but that's the whole thing with loaning money to countries with enormous interests.

[0112358]

I suppose it depends what you mean by enormous. IN fact most stable states borrow at the lowest interest rates imaginable. For a 10 year loan, the French government pays only half a percent in interest each year.

But the total amount borrowed is so staggeringly large that the interest payments are then very big.

To be honest the low interest is sort of why it happens. Governments can borrow a lot cheaply. So they do! It’s so tempting. They tend to borrow and borrow and borrow until eventually they owe -so- much it becomes an issue.

The banks don’t matter much unless you want to get into what would happen if France said “forget it we aren’t paying back what we borrowed”.

Money doesn’t matter much here as long as France is in the euro. When France had the franc there would be another way to deal with things: print more francs. That has its own impacts but right now it’s not an option. For what it’s worth, giving up that option is making the interest cost much lower than it would have been.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 In my opinion, a good solution would be to print more but, for some reasons, it devalues the currency. That's precisely this system I don't understand, or rather don't understand the point of.

[0112358]

Ahh ok. That part is pretty straightforward. (Relative prices a little more complicated)

Money isn’t stuff. You have people doing jobs and making things and providing services. That’s the “stuff” or output of the economy. Without money everyone would have to trade. The baker would have to go to the movie theatre and say “can I watch the movie for 3 loaves of bread” and so on. That’s very inconvenient. So we use money. We trade the stuff we produce or work we provide for money on one side and then trade money for stuff on the other side. If the government simply prints more money the total amount of stuff hasn’t changed. But there’s now more money trying to claim the stuff. So one of two things can happen. If prices are nit allowed to change, there are shortages. People have money try to buy things but the things have run out (more money is chasing the same stuff). If prices are allowed to change, prices will go up, as people selling realize more money is coming for their item. They can ask for a little more money. Everyone else also asks for a little more until everything is balanced again except prices are up (currency has been devalued).

So it might seem like printing money does nothing. That would sort of be true exempt we haven’t talked about one thing: who has the new money- it’s the government usually. So what actually happens is,
Prices all go up, everyone except the government has the same money they had before so they’re a little worse off, but the government has more money so even though prices are up the government can buy more. In some ways it’s like the government taxed e everyone - they just didn’t see it.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Yes but I don't think shortage would occur that frequently if the prices did not move. In fact, I don't see any advantage in having a high money value : if you have a low money value and freeze the prices, everything will be cheaper and you can start paying people a little more, which will increase their purchasing power overall, therefore increasing overall production of stuff. Basically it would boost your economy.

However, wouldn't it cause trouble with international business (you need to pay more for foreign goods)? If so, wouldn't nationalism fix a big part of this problem (except for ressources you can't produce, like oil for instance)?

[0112358]

On the contrary, shortages would occur -instantly- if prices don't move.

" you have a low money value and freeze the prices, everything will be cheaper and you can start paying people a little more, which will increase their purchasing power overall, therefore increasing overall production of stuff. Basically it would boost your economy."

Everything would be cheaper, so everyone would attempt to buy more stuff. However, there's no more stuff! The actual economy, the real economy of things and services, hasn't changed at all. Unless the -actual economy- is more productive, there's no more stuff then before.

So what makes an actual economy more productive? More people (but the production is spread over them), more investments in things that have productive value, improved technology, improved productivity of workforce (a mix of education, skills linked to work, incentives). A reduction in unemployment is an obvious one - if more people begin work, more stuff is being done.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Yes but shortages won't last. People don't need 10 TVs, people don't need to buy 100 breads a day. I don't think shortages would be that common or would last long, at least most of them.

[0112358]

They would last forever until prices move (generally, if its actually like a deep recession or depression its a different scenario, but i'm describing the standard case).

I will be very specific then very general.

Sure, everyone does not need 10 TVs. some percent of people would like a new TV, just like some people would like a new car, new clothes, more wine, better food, a gym membership, etc. If you give everyone more money, people will try to buy more of different things, but for most things, -some- more people will be trying to buy it. Everyone doesn't need 10 TVs, but maybe 1% more people will try to buy TV's then today … but there are no more TVs. It's possible more TVs could be made, but only by making less of something else, and everything else there would -also- be people trying to get more of. The way prices work is to actually reallocate resources. So if for instance new TVs are suddenly much better and more people want one, the price goes up, sales go up, and companies start making more - and they do so by hiring people to make tv's away from other factories, by buying more steel and silicone and so on, and ultimately less of other things and more tvs are made. But if you just print money, it's not redirecting things, people immediately try to buy slightly more of everything. And the normal result is that prices of everything go up a little.

Even if literally nobody wanted to consume anything more then they have today (which isn't remotely the case) you'd -still- get inflation, but it would occur primarily in investment assets. Because people would do -something- with the money. They'd buy bonds! or houses, or businesses, or things like that, so the prices of -those- things would rise … which effectively, again, means the currency is worth less.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Why would locally produced goods that do not rely on international goods inflate though?

[0112358]

If there’s more money but the same amount of stuff, prices go up.

Basically the total amount of goods and services produced is going to sell for the total amount of money. IF you chance the amount of money but the economy hasn’t changed, prices change to reflect the new amount of money.

(This is the standard baseline case. There -are- exceptions but I’m trying to focus on the basics)

Also worth noting: macrons changes he believes will help the real actual economy grow faster so the total amount of stuff is bigger. Why he thinks that is a bit more complicated. Maybe it will work maybe not. But it’s certainly a good goal.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 Doing so at the expense of literally everyone except the richest is not a good goal in my eyes.

[0112358]

Of course not. Though to literally grow an economy only for the richest is not something competitive capitalism tends to do (that’s more something you see with corrupt countries where leaders are just pillaging... acrually that tends to shrink the country).

Generally most people in Europe (and Canada) want some benefit for hard word and also want the poor to be treated well. The best we’ve come up with is to use capitalism as a huge engine of growth - which it’s done better than any other system - and then have government use taxes and so on to support those still in need. How much to balance the emphasis on growth (which makes all of us - even those of us on welfare) richer 10 years from now vs more taxing and spending NOW is a very good debate. Other questions we have are whether it’s better to have the government only help those in need and otherwise stay out of the way, or if it’s better to have the government tax much more but provide some services for everyone. Most western governments do a bit of both but the mix varies. finally there are legitimate debates on how much the government should interfere in the economy (say setting minimum wages or rent controls or protection so workers can’t be laid off) or if thise things acrually end up costing everyone more than a tax would, and if it’s better to just let the economy go, apply taxes and directly help those in need.

[YHL6965]

@0112358 I think I need to research more about the debt and how much exactly our system is costing.

[Secretgardenblood]

Good take

[sawno]

If they report truthfully on the mayter they would have to report almost no western nation is actually living in freedom and this is what happens if you fall out of line from your dictator. They rather just keep the illusion up that benefits them. The same reason can be given for them not reportimg the hate crimes against whites in south africa.

[JimRSmith]

Excellent Take, the light does indeed need shining in on this outrageous man.

[MikeKnight1977]

The media is ALWAYS good at hiding dark truths when the political leader in question is aligned with the party they choose. Look at how Obama royally screwed up everything he touched in the USA from 2008 - 2016, but the media treated him like an immortal.

[Jager66]

Current state of politics

[0112358]

Violent clashes between protestors and the police are a traditional part of French culture.

[esotericstory]

Thanks for writing this mytake!

[LittleBird_]

You're welcome! You can find the part 1 here; How the Media Helps the Macron Regime Hide Its Brutality Against French Citizens, Pt. 1 ↗

[esotericstory]

Yes. I've also read it and commented as well :)

[DaMack999]

Fake News Macron is the only Sensible Man in Europe today.

[Nadim171]

The only thing he cares about is goatf*ckers

[DaMack999]

He also cares about his frogs.

[Nadim171]

Yeah

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@alice55

[alice55]

I'm happy someone noticed it and made take about it ^-^

[ZeussLightningBolt]

Did you read part 1?
I'm surprised Turkish girl knew about it.

[alice55]

Yes, I did.
I'm too but I'm really happy someone from another country know about it and write a Take about it.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@alice55 I didn't even know about it. American media reported, "Yellow vest protestors damage Parisian landmarks"

[alice55]

That's don't surprise me, media are extremely controlled here (nowadays it feel like living in China with Macron, seriously -_-)

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@alice55 OH WOW! I didn't know France has gotten THAT bad. My dad would be very sad.

[alice55]

It's really bad here nowadays and they also always lies about everything to make the yellow vest look bad and others things also.
Like Macron said he will give 100 euros to people who earn the minimum wage but that was a lie and he didn't do it. Only like 10 % of people who earn minimum wage had gotten it.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@alice55 That's really fucked up

[Ioso29640]

Agreed