French President Francois Hollande's challenges in his new job are daunting. And Germany, Europe and the regional debt crisis clearly head up the list. Not unlike US President Barack Obama in 2008, Hollande has started by tackling what worries his voters most: the economy. The difference - and Hollande's challenge - is that in the European Union one cannot fix a national economy without at the same time hammering out foreign policy: France's debt is a European issue.
On his first evening as President of France, Hollande ate dinner in Berlin with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a sign of the importance of French-German relations to both countries and to the future of Europe. What's more, when Hollande's plane was struck by lightning en route to Berlin, the new president simply returned to France to board another plane and set out again.
As evidenced by recent elections in Greece and in Germany's largest state, European voters are not happy with the austerity measures favored by Merkel and Hollande's predecessor, Nicholas Sarkozy. Hollande campaigned on promises of growth, even vowing to renegotiate the fiscal austerity pact recently agreed to by most EU members. As heads of the countries with the largest European economies, he and austerity-prone Merkel must now find common ground. Hollande needs to deliver the growth policies he promised, and Merkel must stand firm on her party's watchword: debt reduction.
Foreign policy issues dominate Hollande's challenges, especially during his first weeks in office. He has pledged to withdraw all French troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2012, and questions his predecessor's 2009 decision to place French troops under NATO command. He must quickly rebuild relations with countries that Sarkozy alienated, like Turkey, Egypt and Tunisia. And in Arab countries where Islamists dominate the political scene, the possibilities for cooperation are largely unknown.
Hollande must work all of these issues within the European framework, and not on the bilateral basis that Sarkozy favored. Having campaigned as a healer who can bringing opposing factions together, Hollande now has to repair relations within France, between France and Europe, and with the world at large.
Hollande doesn't have a foreign policy track record. Stephan Flanagan, the Henry A. Kissinger chair in diplomacy and national security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has remarked that, "Hollande has been mostly a party functionary." Only 4 points on his 60-point campaign agenda pertained to foreign policy, and his speeches consistently avoided the subject.
The French people elected Francois Hollande to fix France, and, paradoxically, his success has immediately thrust him onto the international stage. On May 18 and 19, he will attend the G8 summit at Camp David in the US, followed by a NATO summit in Chicago. Not long after, he's scheduled to attend a G20 summit in Mexico. Then in June he will be a key figure at the European Council meeting in Brussels.
In the midst of such a momentous calendar, Hollande will have to bone up on the euro zone crisis; the political instability in many Arab countries, the near civil war in Syria, and the stalemate on Iran's nuclear program. Europe and the world need him to rapidly announce his thinking in each of these arenas.
The most daunting of Hollande's challenges is that all of this takes place against the French-centric mindset of those who elected him. Though wholly cognizant of the global nature of politics and economics in today's world, French citizens remain largely protectionist. They regularly criticize auto maker Renault for manufacturing in Romania, Morocco and Turkey, though these are among Renault's most profitable operations. Like Renault, Hollande must find a way to emerge as a true global brand; and, like Renault, France must become profitable on Hollande's watch, while weathering repeated storms of discontent about the international stage on which economic growth has to play out.
Yet throughout his campaign, Hollande proved critical of European institutions, and offered not a hint of how France would operate in a globalized world. French voters, with their distaste for even European integration, seem unable to accept the reality that the economic focus has shifted to Asia. Or to assimilate the fact that if France is to become competitive, it must do so within the framework of an integrated European economy. And so far, neither Hollande nor any other French politician has been able to effectively impart these facts of life.
The Merkel-Hollande business dinner on the evening of the latter's inauguration day, when an American president would be partying, seems a good omen. Hollande's campaign was shot through with anti-Europe, France-centered themes at a time when Europe needs strong integrative leadership. Signaling the will to get productive German-French relations underway without delay is all to the good in a world hungry for a cooperative solution to its economic woes.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 52
" Clearly he promised the populace what they wanted to hear in order to get elected. "
Without the help of Merkel, H cannot improve the French economy, and he knows it. If, and that is a big IF, Merkel does decide to help, H will have to give up French sovereignty because like any GOOD banker, the Merkel will not loan without collateral, collateral that France does not really have. Bottom line is that the only way France can survive is to become subservient (a slave) to Germany just like Greece and other PIIGS.
Germany is the only major country that refused to try spending her way out of debt in 2008. End result is that while the rest of the world is drowning in debt, Germany is flush with cash. You would think that would be a lesson to the U.S. and others on how to build a strong economy, but apparently that lesson is lost on all except a few.
If the U.S. had done what Merkel did in 2008, the U.S. economy would rival Germany's economy today. As it stands, Germany has the only strong economy in the industrial world and H knows it, therefore he immediately heads to Germany for his marching orders.
When sting deductions on your own, at the least you should use:IMO, IMHO or INMhO.
I believe, and that's my opinion, that there are some differences between USA and Germany. Per example, the bank regulations far more accepted in Europe and in Germany - but not in UK who, IMO, is half in Europe and half in America!
Of course if you would have put in function the Dodd-Frank amendment .......
It couldn't be said better.
The actual government, which may change after the next elections of June, as Ayrault, the PM decided that no minister could remain in the government if not "confirmed" by the people, is made of quite knowledgeable people and I counted 4 economists, including a "nationalist" : Montebourg in charge of the economic recovery, Moscovici in charge of Economy/Europe.
Noticeable: Aubry - the promoter of the 35 hours a week is NOT in this government. To end any kind of war against women the Justice will be headed by Taubira, a rather active woman from Guyana, etc.
34 people against, under Sarkozy, 32. Out of the 34, 18 are "full" ministers and 16 are "attached to" (I am unable to translate). All of them agreed to reduce their own wages by 30%.
I noticed you comment below, and I notice how much deep is your knowledge in economics, Of course you are no alone: Mmerlinn and many others know that this WILL fail.
You imagine? If ever these "bl##dy" economists were right, if "regulations" were part of the answer, if this black, Muslim, young, active guy was right, this would be catastrophic!
I simply don't care about race. As far as I can see, melanin levels and diction are the only difference between Obama and Bush.
Is he a Muslim? Not practicing. Their laws on usury are exceedingly strict.
Maybe you were then in ...the rest room!
When you will chose to be into the reality, I will be back!
I said there is no difference between Obama and Bush beyond esthetic.
I inferred be was a lousy President, now I'll say it outright.
It wasn't a compliment, it was something I thought you wanted to know. A compliment is saying you look great for 80. You do. Please don't vote.
I responded to the points you made. Take it or leave it, they were freely given and well meant.
However I can research for you what has been accomplished then ....
A filibuster by whom?
His own party ever since he was elected?
Do you simply throw out words that sound impressive, and expect others to bow down?
A filibuster cannot be successful without a majority in the Senate. Republicans have never been in the Senate majority since Obama was elected!
Yes, it takes 60 to win a Cloture vote and officially end a filibuster.
But since the Democrats have had enough votes including sympathetic Independents and RINO’s, exactly how could Obama be “threatened?
Or is his OWN party stopping the votes (as is the case on several items presented, that Harry Reid refused to even vote on)?
You might want to 'research' BEFORE you comment, so as not to state things that sound incredibly imbecilic!
How come?
Instead of insulting people, you should explain with data and details. I'm sure you can describe what went on then, I will be very interested in having the full history counter-checked.
This could be of help. Thanks in advance.
He tried, IMO, to find a way not to penalize middle-class, while the GOP/TP was, obviously, interested to the contrary.
You may explain us how come Obama has not be able to get a law waiving the tax cut for the richest people while not raising the taxes for the people making less than 250,000 per year.
Your detailed explaination will be welcomed!
I in no way insulted you.
I simply pointed out the absurdity of your comment!
You blame the GOP for holding things up. Yet, as I stated, the Dems had control for the first two years in both houses, and still has control of the Senate. So how does a minority party (the GOP) block Harry Reid (a Dem) from voting on anything?
As too the Bush tax cuts, I have presented the actual facts repeatedly, that the middle and lower income had a much higher cut in their taxes (as much as 15%, plus increased credits) than the rich did (3.9%). In fact it hits the poor the most.
All you have to do, is look at the IRS.Gov, and check the tax rates for each income level before and after.
And THAT is the explanation, of why the Democrats do not want to end the cuts!
It is a great slogan and sound bite, but the aftermath of having the lower 49% of income earners seeing their taxes go up would not be pretty.
A 15% cut for the poorest, is more than a 4% cut for the wealthiest - what more "detail" is needed?
Lastly, if you still believe that no one earning below 250K is paying more in taxes you are sadly mistaken. His comments we3re always, "not one dime/penney in ANY tax increase4", yet raised taxes on tpobacco, alchoho, implemented a tax on tanning beds, increased taxes for roads and infrastucture, and has a law in effect that will ioncrease the Medicare tax by over 100% between now and 2014.
If so, obviously, Dems keep fighting this: they just want to raise the taxes on rich and not on middle-class.
Are you complaining on taxes on tobacco, alcohol, tanning beds?
As far as taxes on infrastructures, most of them are free. How come such tax?
As far as MediCare, first of all it is not a "tax" but a provision on last years of life expenses. But this depends on how old one is to appear as a tax or as a provision.
As far as MediCare is organized (through private insurances not granting the same services) I agree is a BIG error, mostly due to "privacy" feelings.
So if GWB tax cut would not be reinstated permanently, middle-class would see its taxes increased by 15%?
You really do not comprehend much of what is said.
I specifically stated, the 15% was for the LOWEST income – not middle class.
The middle class is in the 7 to 10% range of decreased taxes under the GWB plan.
The Dems conveniently “ignore” that fact when they rant and rave it all.
Are you complaining on taxes on tobacco, alcohol, tanning beds?
I am saying, that it all applies to people regardless of income level, and is yet another broken promise by Mr. Obama.
As far as taxes on infrastructures, most of them are free. How come such tax?
Are you kidding me? Free ?????? Do you think all the materials, and labor magically appears without cost (*POOF*)?
The laborers are paid the materials are bought, with tax dollars. Where on earth did you THINK it all came from if not a tax?
I will not even begin to get into a deep discussion about Medicare with you, as you have already displayed a complete lack of knowledge about the rest of it.
You may want to "twist" my words in order them to fit your imagination: It doesn't matter at all.
You may state that most of the highways are not paid through taxes but through "pass fees" similar to Florida's Sun Pass fees: It doesn't matter at all.
You may state that delivered material for infrastructures maintenance cost more in taxes than in jobs provided: It doesn't matter at all.
You may even state that the labor pays itself for the building material: It doesn't matter at all.
You are just far too clever to understand what is going on; you are just far too informed to be able to understand what's going on; but: It doesn't matter at all.
You are even so much aware about Medicare that no one can even suggest you to get the basic figures to confront mine but: It doesn't mater at all.
Why should I try to help someone who just need to utter nonsense as, at the end of the day: It doesn't matter at all.
You are such a Genius that I can't figure out how come you are not applying for , not even president of USA, far too small for you but as president of the whole Western world. Maybe you should help us understanding how come United States is so much delayed in technology, how come its students quit the country so often? Are they just scared to death to meet you? But ...
it doesn't matter at all!
You're following this pretty close, you're my go-to on this thing, Susan:)
Mmerlinn's right. We didn't avoid a depression, we're in one. Not great, not yet. Mortaging another generations' future for a couple more years of "just" recession is madness. This thing would be over if bad banks were left to burn in 2008. Of course there's no shortage of people who threw our money into Wall Streets' gaping maw who are happy to tell you HOW BAD IT WOULD HAVE BEEN. Consider the source. Are they the same gang betting our money at levels so high they actually move indexes, de facto insider trading with Congress and POTUS collusionists? Revenue is 15% of debt.
JP Morgan lost 2000000000$ 2 days ago. Should've gone for 22000000000. Then Congress would just have written a check, cuz they're too big to fail. Either way, there'll be no arrests, trials, or sentences. Just golden parachutes and the certainty of sequels until they kill that golden goose stone dead.
FOUR (4) FULL years later we are still in it because it went through the mind of a bunch of people to make a "short war" in order to obtain, in abundance, light oil while getting rid of a dictator we supported in his war against Iran.
Quite a short war it was up to "Mission accomplished" day! But then we spent means and the sweat out of us; a quagmire deeper with known interest and loans and some other concealed.
We wanted to attract rich people and corporations with low-rated taxes, with the freedom to do whatever they want without restrictions and, even then, they didn't come back because our banks were too busy speculating for themselves, to repay the TARPS​​, to the point that it took us to play their role to save GM.
A crisis that has lead the whole Western world, which has ruined millions of people, dried the markets, cut fundings to states already exhausted by wars for oil ... and religion while passing by!
We still have the same war (Afghanistan), we have always the same problems and financial rebates for the richest, we have offered subsidies to companies making the most important profits, we have virtually tax-freed 3/5 of corporations. By cons, in our very wisdom, we keep the same tax rate (approx. 25%) to national companies, defense-related ones, because they cannot outsource the jobs.
But the problem at the origin of such a catastrophic situation is: the wars, the rebates granted to the richest, the deregulation of the banks, the sub-prime fraud, the scam of the "financial scientific" roulette and, ultimately, you and me who have accepted and supported the entry into this mess.
And this is why it appears that Obama spent more than GWB: America had to face the expenses related to the sub-prime crisis which is a legacy, an accepted legacy, but a legacy which implies HUGE LOSSES.
Please , don't try to tell us that the Lehmann Brothers problem was initiated by Obama. I wouldn't appreciate!
You're expecting a different outcome?
The pair of them have tossed 10000000000000$ of taxpayers money into this black hole. Triple taxes, what difference would it make to men who say this is the right thing to do for us?
They pour water into the ocean instead of on the fire, have been nigh on a decade, while telling us more water is needed, and don't change firefighters, whatever you do, because THEY'RE STUPID. And racist, muslim, homophobe, foreign, rich, communist, dog eaters, bottom feeders, blah blah blah.
???
The French changed firefighters. They'll do it again, if it doesn't work. We won't know the result in time for November, but we do know the men currently driving our economic policy are criminals and morons.
This is bad, no doubt. But it is, No way to change it for now as it requires the members agreement which are the same ones. This is how things ARE organized and CHANGING them will be really complex. It has to be done but which is, in principle, ABSOLUTELY independent from the government and the members are the main banks.
All your other considerations, may I say, are just the fruit of a total ignorance of reality. Ignorance or denial?
At the end of the day, this offers no discussion or information ability.
Well ... Well I didn't hear you when DSK was heading the IMF. How come? Maybe you were just unable to speak then ... maybe having the mouth full ...
Here's what you said. The same fellows who set the course are still behind the wheel, they're heading for a cliff, and we can't change drivers or direction because, well, it's complicated.
Sure, they're our only option. Noone else on the entire planet understands high finance. It's not like Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner etal are appointees or employees who can be FIRED for incompetence, dishonesty, or utter worthlessness. The Executive can certainly do so. We have 7/8ths of fuck all where our treasury used to be and our great-great-grandkids piggyback busted flat by these clowns with NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to show for it but we have to keep them where they are because, well, it's complex. Bull. Shit.
Thanks for calling me an ignorant denialist. Dissembling and insults are typical of the neolib shill, and if this discussion that I entered in good faith degrades into the usual "You're a racist and a capitalist apologist and anyway the REAL issue is...(who's thread is this anyway, Gilbert?)", I want it noted you were the first to get personal.
You're right. I didn't mention Strauss-Kahn, and past noting that if one wants to be a cautionary tale when they grow up, they should learn guitar, I don't intend to.
Have you did the calculation of the cost of the Greece exit?
Have you been able to calculate the cost of the adjustments of the margins if related to each GDP within Europe?
Have you computed the cost of a starting recovery in Europe?
3 computations which are presently being done. But you know much better tan the computing people.
Crystal ball? Or just a misunderstanding about how this works in Europe?
Someone else might pay for it, given sufficient cause.
The only one who can is the one who understood the first sentence. Germany.
However many calculations are done, they make the call. Deidre's right.
Germany is not facing any choice: the problem is how this choice is done. Again very fine computations which will be done by the staff most probably this week still.
Of course, the banks who have gambled billions against the currencies are not at all interested in any recovery. They don't mind about people.
Free People of good will can solve any problem they put their mind to. I should be more optimistic.
Pardon the language:). Gilbert and I seem to have an oil/water thing going on here. I do look forward to your next post.
Hmm, what's that below me? I'm a Nazi now...good times, good times...be a good fellow and turn off the lights, Gilbert. Some time again.
A state or country budget is no about what the country will be spending on "received" tax money for an "immediate" goal, but, to the contrary, it is based on "estimated" money to be received (if the projected consumption keeps on -stable or rising) and which will the investment possibilities.
If the consumption is stable, there will be, any how, non-compressible necessities (debt interest and payments due) and a surplus to be invested (depending on priorities which imply often clashes).
If due to austerity, consumption looks South, proportionally, the share of non-compressible increases and the balance of what is left decreases, increasing the clashes.)
Up to now easy to get.
Out of the compressible share you still have to pay for security of any sort or type which could include police and bridge maintenance or airport landing parts, etc., and what you hate so much: social items as: care, education, R&D, projected retirements, etc.).
Up to now, I hope we are still on the same wave.
And now comes the problem: the consumption expansion is needed. Not to pay what is expected to be paid with he common tax but to ensure 2 years later revenue.
A bit as if a housewife was receiving her March salary based on January personal production as required by the boss, in order to pay the February invoices. The balance would be used to live (eat, drink, sleep, etc.) in April.
If in December the boss tells you that in January you still will have to work LESS, then you can preview that in April you will have not enough for other things than eating, and still, and so on.
However, if from month to month, the boss tells you that you wil have to work less hours, in order to produce less, at the end of the day you will have to spend the whole month without even eating.
To avoid this, the boss goes to the bank, receives a loan and asks you "not to produce what you should usually do but special items which, maybe, should enhance your normal production"
The question you face here, Les, is not so "what can I do if my boss is not providing me with enough work to achieve" but far more interesting: "what could I do in order to promote my own production?"
Of course, your boss can keep on asking you to shrink your production (austerity) but, at the end of the day, if this still goes on for 2 or 3 months, you, not him, you will end dead and he will not have you when consumption starts again on expected recovery. Don't ask what the country can do for yourself .... (JFK)
Blindly, you keep answering, austerity which means "cut my production" and I am telling you that such an answer is exactly the answer provided by those who have been using labor from concentration camps, providing them less daily calories than spent which ends into death! But these "indirectly killed people" are more useful alive than dead mainly when consumption starts all over again.
I understand the nature of a budget. I know in most cases the money is yet to be earned. But in a responsible entity, it has yet to be spent, too. It's a plan, that's all, and like most plans made under stress, results don't resemble intention.
I don't see a plan. I see a spasm.
"If due to austerity..." First, I never mentioned austerity, that was Deidre. Where I agreed with her is in the importance of Germany in this equation. I have no reason to believe any other government on Earth can spell austerity, much less practice it. But perhaps we can define it. If I understand you correctly, you've described the concept as, essentially, a government controlled economy, via credit deprivation("the boss tells you you must work less")
You'll never break a sweat trying to convince me government involvement in business brings diminishing returns. But I don't see austerity as a condition imposed on the private sector. I see it as a condition government should impose on itself. Not in emergencies. Always.
It is precisely this overreaching, this cross pollination, this incestuousness that has brought us to this point. When these players and their roles are separated and defined, forward movement begins. Until then, we're just flailing.
I don't hate social items "so much". I don't hate them at all. Many of them, I've paid taxes my adult life with the expectation of receiving. I won't. I've accepted that I have been betrayed, and prepared accordingly. I just wish they had stolen my money and spared me the bullshit. Here's where it falls down for me, Gilbert. I can follow your reasoning, even understand it from a certain place. If I was a person with a degree of insulation from the situation, I could approach it as an interesting mathematical problem, an economists' quandary. If I was a person who believed that the men and women making these decisions believed that any decisions made had the primary priority of the common weal.
What makes you think this is true?
What difference exists between their actions and those of ones who despise us?
I appreciate the housewife analogy. She's us, right? The boss is the government and its means of coercion(or industry? Let's go with industry) the bank is the banks? Let's add a husband, a breadwinner, to play the part of government, POTUS, whatever.
Your hypotheses works against the options set forth(stimulus or austerity), if one follows the premise that all parties are people of good will, they want the same destination, they feel a different path than preferred by the other is necessary to get there.
I want you to consider that may not be the case at all.
The housewife is on a diet now, never mind buying her bread with maxed out cards to be paid in April, June, December or next year. She's already emptied her savings because....
....her husband is a worthless, thieving drunk who, when he's not beating her or forcing himself on her, steals her money and laughs in her face when he does, before he....
....empties the kids' college fund, which the banker acquiesced to, the fees cover what he's lost gambling....
....with the boss, who keeps the man employed at ever worse wage and conditions, on the banks behest and against hubby's dissolute promises, on the promise of continued borrowing....
....which the housewife will honor....
....because she LOVES him.
The entire Goddamned government is corrupt.
Your housewife can extricate herself, or prepare for the killing blow. There is no difference, none, between Bush and Obama save pigmentation. The same wars, the intention for more, the same trashing and ashing of the Constitution, the same mechanism of control and coercion being implanted by a super-sized state completely out of control. And more control, by Obama no less, is the remedy? He can't control himself.
"How can I increase my own production?" I don't ask for or accept the government dictating my production. If some bad banks fail, if some stupid governments fall, Adam will strive and Eve will spin. Your counsel is to tether ourselves to a corpse.
I do not disdain your emphasis on education, research, or development. Good bankers will bank, it's what they do. Wise businessmen will thrive, good teachers will teach. If the government is shaped to allow them to do so in peace and under law. In the age of outsourcing, IP is what keeps the wheels rolling. This won't stop in the absence of government diktat. And you can expect that absence, and sooner than we wanted. We'll know they're worth saving if they were smart enough to save themselves.
That's a good JFK quote. I believe it exactly.
The Debt will be 50000000000000 in 2025 at our current course, and Romney and Obama haven't even started to promise good things with money that doesn't exist and will never happen. No stimulus now, even without the graft, theft, and fraud, will create the wealth to cover that bill. The demographics are impossible. Nothing is too big to fail.
What do you think of that?
Ad you are RIGHT. Due to shrinking expenditures, the GDP, in the last quarter, has been shrinking. This is were austerity, without any incentive for recovery, drives to.
"You'll never break a sweat trying to convince me government involvement in business brings diminishing returns."
I don't get exactly whay you mean. I may be deaf ... after all.
But if you intend to create a separation between government's shrinking expenditures and private investments, this is a wrong thought. In fact, when governments spend money "inside" they boost investors (foreign or not) because it may be too late to invest later on. Mainly as there is some time delay involved.
"But I don't see austerity as a condition imposed on the private sector" Again you are RIGHT. I would say that the present change in technology has distorted consumption: credit cards are creating the "debt" (this is to say that present consumption is mainly based on debts and the "fake" mortgages seriously contribute to it); while, on the other hand, speculation against the currencies, as not regulated for any reason, creates "fake" money which just exists as figures on computers. But this increases the debt as well and is being created by the banks, out of the FED control even.
I didn't get the 2 or 3 other questions, despite having read them 5 times. I seems to me that you complain about the loss in value of your investments through "maybe" pension plans. If this is the question, it happens to anyone vesting his own confidence into private services because they do group the concerns of many but use them for their own and private benefits. If they won you get a share of it, if they lose you pay for it.
As far as the analogy is concerned YES she's us . NO, he's the PRIVATE INVESTOR.
Maybe I was able to respond to all your questions. Maybe not.
It goes without saying that if everything was a little more concise, the answers would had been a little easier as English contains over 945.000 words (Shakespeare) and if I know 3,000 it should be a maximum!
But I want to answer all your questions as best I can.
I think I read English passed the million word mark last year. It's kind of like French cousine, or the American culture. It's strength is inclusiveness. Funny how rigid its practitioners are in other ways.
I don't believe most people use more than 3000 words. Shakespeare used 40000, I'm told. Anyway, I understand you okay. I spent 3 years under a Swiss Master. You write like he talked. Good days.
So I'm probably enjoying this more than you are.:) Too bad. I'm sure we'll chat again.
P S. 6th paragraph down, I meant there is little chance of seeing return from taxation. Gone, blown, spent, stolen, wasted, on war, wastrels, beauracracy and b.s. There will be no return for my generation on the state coerced payment. I'm okay, I know that. I think a lot of good people don't, and should. Governments sorely use their people, don't they?
I like them small, defined.
'voir.
1 invested dollar brings in, in an average 8.5 dollars invested from inside and outside the country
Shakespeare used 975,000 words
Small is beautiful, mainly for those who are not concerned because it implies quite a lot of small spheres "working" together but not cooperating together and this ends in HUGE lack of organization.
Health system shows it perfectly and this achieves in a whole mess.
Insurances are more expensive because they are invoiced with much higher figures and each component, independent from each other bills the maximum "acceptable" to be discussed.
This means that any disease costs far more than usually.
No one can organize anything if the "goal" is refused or ignored.
You may have all the spare parts of a watch, if the goal is ignored, you will never end being aware of the hour.
Each component tries to maximizes the profit but the goal is ignored.
This doesn't mean that BIG is good, it means that the goal appears to be BIG. This is just a decoy!
And such "organization", for restructuring the prices, is far not convenient o the many industries, services, liberal professions involved.
They do have enough money to delude the people with demagogy.
I've seen the 8.5/1 ratio before. Over what length of time is the return? Does it predicate other investment? 1.4 T in bailouts will bring us 11.9 in real economy? Bring soon the day.
I thought you meant vocabulary. Shakespeare's was actually a bit under 30000, but he used it within a 900000 word body of work.
I think the health care mess is a result of its layers of beauracracy, where one is needed. I don't believe it needs to go beyond the scope of a state, as per the Constitution. Taxes to all levels, sifted through all levels, cuts to the insurance and pharmacy cabals, all to give a weight and measure to the patients needs pre-op? Maybe we agree on this. But instead of the Central, only, BIG beauracracy, how about a structuring of law to eliminate it entirely, and make it a doctor/patient matter? 2 people can be a beauracracy, and since the hurt and the healer are really the focus of the experiment, why not move our efforts to make this all about them?
We are stuck, I think, in the idea only in the current paradigm is a solution possible.
Have a good day.
IMO, 1 dollar invested in healthcare should provide far more return (usually ab. 11)
English is the language with more words: 900,000 forwarded by Spanish 745,000 and French with some 545,000. These were the data I learned when graduating ( 1949).
On health care per state I agree but in any case, at the end of the day, the deficit, if any, will be centralized. County-State-Federal.
This is due to the properties of the population and is far different from NY to Miami. Once the characteristics of a county are recorded the type of hospitals is defined as well as the available beds.
The BIG bureaucracy is, nowadays, not really existing. However, this is the excuse provided in order to avoid, what will be instated any way, the patient card which will hold ALL the info about the medical history of the patient. Duplication of medical acts will therefore be avoided, among many other benefits.
Usually as a government, it worked the other way up to now. So things are now different? Since when?
Usually a government invested in Education, R&D, in order to prepare a future. Now it has to pay for having the right to invest into E and R&D.
Oh Sorry, Obvious, You cannot understand what I am talking about. I just mean that budgets are spent in FRONT, the resources coming later on.
It's obvious when you spent AFTER having the resources coming in, the resources used to contract themselves and, finally, you can't invest any more because you are left with nothing!
Obvious! But for sure not for you, Les and Co.!
SO, STOP READING FROM HERE ON. THANK YOU.
________________________________________________________________
When GWB managed to have less resources the business became so good, that it has been necessary to enhance spending into the home industry.
Immediately the banks, deregulated, took profit of this to created so-called "bad" mortgages and this "swindle" is not yet repaid.
(this is a resume of what went on, explained a bit too fast like this, but reflects reality)
You are still reading, Les & CO? Then this is for you:
Some people used to wear a hat and salute with it; you keep the hat on your head and salute with lifting your right hand ... when you dare to salute! It was such a nice period!