It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
France
French presidential elections will take place in early 2017. The current betting is that Marine Le Pen's anti-EU National Front Party will do very well, although she is not expected to win.
The most likely forecasted outcome is that the newly elected conservative Republican Party leader Francios Fillon will be the victor next year. He recently defeated both former president (and his prior boss) Nicolas Sarkozy as well as Bordeaux mayor Alain Juppe in the presidential primary, in a 'come from behind' surprise win. Mr. Fillon was the former prime minister under Mr. Sarkozy, and is a big fan of Margaret Thatcher's free market policies. He proposes, like his heroine, to eliminate several public sector jobs. He also wants to increase the working age, is known to be anti-gay marriage and is also anti-Salafism and Muslim Brotherhood. He wants to have better relations with Russia & is relatively hard-line on immigration. Mr. Fillon is also pro-EU.
The weak ruling left Socialist Party is likely to do poorly next year. They will go into the elections with a new leader because unpopular current President Francoise Hollande recently announced that he will not run again. Their most likely candidate is Manuel Valls, the current prime minister, who threw his hat in the ring today.
It will be an interesting situation in France next year. Mr. Fillon has tacked to the right, and 'the EU establishment' see him as their hope to defeat Ms. Le Pen, who they fear due to her anti-EU and pro-France nationalist stance. A win for Ms. Le Pen will certainly mark the death knell for the EU. France has been the target of several terrorist attacks over the past few years, and it's likely that this will play into voter's thoughts. Will they trust Mr. Fillon to make good on his campaign promises, or will they see him as an 'insider' who is just saying what he has to in order to fend of Ms. Le Pen? How can he square a pro-EU stance with his anti-immigration rhetoric? We will see.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-valls-idUSKBN13U0J9
That is not true @BondJames. Here in The Netherlands, and especially in this (left-wing oriented) news discussion program -http://www.vpro.nl/buitenhof/lees/nieuws/deze-week.html- Marine Le Pen is favored to win. Because she actually is left-wing-conservative on public institutions; she wants to maintain pensions, healthcare, government subsidies and infrasturcture investments (as opposed to Trump, who will actually destroy more).
Moreover, her support comes from the regions with old industries in the North-East of France (black is Front National). And those will not vote for Fillon:
So the current betting is not that Fillon will win, but that Le Pen has the edge over Fillon. She can still attack Fillon as an establishment candidate who continues destroying the social institutions that continued to fall down during Sarkozy's and Hollande's reign. And you bloody well know it.
Will the EU get dismantled when Le Pen gets into office? Really, you're naive. The EU is already being destroyed as we speak. It's over. But because the destruction goes so slow, some of us don't see it. But then again @BondJames.....your love for all this destruction, your support for right-wing populism, your shameless exposition of news articles proving your right, is what you like no?
What does surprise me is the way you still see this entire process as a warning to the EU; as something that can still be used to actually create some positive change. That you actually believe that right-wing populist governments won't face the same shit in four to eight years from now as opposed to what many centrists governments are facing at this very moment.
My answer: No! Pandora's box has already opened. Within 10 years from now your naive world view will see in what bloody mess we live in, and then you wish you would still live in 2016.
Every evening when I watch the news I am shaking my head. I see interbellum 2.0 all over the place as we speak. And it depresses me, it makes me sad. And your numb, frivolous style of posting makes me even more depressed. It is up to you to actually come up with your world view after all these populists have actually become establishment assholes in an even more fucked up, dystopian world.
I am not aware of what the Netherlands forecasts on the French elections, but what I have seen is the following. So I might be wrong, and if I am that's fine, but there are certainly pollsters who feel that Fillon will win. I personally think that Le Pen could very well win, but that's my opinion and not the information that I am seeing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_French_presidential_election,_2017
http://www.ibtimes.com/france-election-2017-latest-polls-odds-ahead-presidential-vote-le-pen-fillon-set-run-2455690
I find it very very difficult to be calm, when you actually realize there's no reason to be calm. You know me by now. I can ask for your motives, your reasons, and what you believe will happen to the world in 10 years from now. But probably I won't get an answer to that.
I really think you are naive, in that you believe there's actually a reason to be calm. There isn't. My ideal, a more unified world, can be dragged to the cemetary now. And realizing that does not immediately result in calmness and tranquility.
I think it is you who should show some empathy for those people who realize their ideals are being destroyed as we speak. Because too many people who feel at least some empathy for right-wing populism, continue to throw mud at those who have different world views. Not necessarily you, but certainly others who 'love' Trump and Le Pen, and all those referendums that bring 'positive change'.
It could mean that the world that we have is not working properly for many people and needs reforms. The elections are a wake up call. I have lived long enough to know that things go in one direction once in a while, and then they swing back again. If one is concerned about 'extremes', then one should try not to be extreme on the other side as well.
It's messy and imperfect, but I still believe that democracy is the best thing we have going.
You know my views on the EU. It needs to be reformed. If not, it will fail, which is as it should be.
That's where I disagree with you. That's where I think you are naive. You still see all of this as some sort of 'democratic correction' that will lead to better things.
I don't. I actually think democracy is far far weaker than you are portraying here. You still see classic political persuasions, whereas I see an evergrowing disunity and polarization, that keeps destroying the political center. Cooperation is being replaced by gridlock, and empathy is being thrown away by smugness.
There's more hate in the western world than love. And all of this is an incentive for a more authoritarian style of politics, and certainly not for a stronger democracy. Right-wing populism will only facilitate this even more, because in its core it doesn't grow on pragmatism, nuance, understanding and calmness. And democracies need that.
Yes, democratic institutions are now used a lot. But I also see they are being exploited for the sake of destruction now, and not for the sake of finding solutions.
Again, I think you're naive when you say the EU needs to be reformed. We're past that moment. In this populist environment no reform will take place. Only slow and nasty destruction.
Regarding the EU: As I've said before, the 'one size fits all' model does not work for all of the countries in the union. Italy and Greece see the vast number of refugees because they are the 'port of call' for African migrants (where most are coming from - not only from Syria but also due to the mess that's in Libya). The UK sees it too because it's a highly educated and powerful economy historically connected to both North America, Europe and Asia. Who is voluntarily immigrating to Poland? Not that many people, I would think.
Furthermore, the 'one currency fits all' is a ridiculous construct. Some economies are more competitive than others, and moreover, they have different cultural, education and competitive advantages and disadvantages when it comes to work. The financial crisis of 2008 has laid all of these inherent EU problems and stresses bare.
At the end of the day, a large 'unwritten' part of the reason for the existence of the EU, in my view, is as a 'cultural construct'. I believe a large reason for its existence is to maintain and preserve 'Western culture' in Europe. It's a civilizational imperative more than anything. Why else would they deny Turkey membership? Are we to believe that it's really on account of economic considerations? Well, if you're allowing 1m (give or take) of refugees from other countries and cultures (as Germany did in 2015), how is that culture to be maintained? How is the social welfare system which is a cornerstone of advanced nations to be maintained? With some difficulty, I would surmise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/07/25/germany-is-in-a-dangerous-state-of-denial-about-immigration-isla/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/30/germany-said-it-took-in-more-than-1-million-refugees-last-year-but-it-didnt/?utm_term=.41591dcc5140
These are the kinds of questions that should have been addressed by now. It's still not too late, but the EU leadership keeps kicking the can down the road. If they don't make modifications to account for the different economic, cultural and immigrant strains that member nations are facing, then yes, it will fail and it will be very messy.
The one silver lining that I see is possible 'economic growth' in the US. If President Elect Trump can get overseas corporate money back into the US for investment, that could (in addition to the proposed tax cuts, reforms and infrastructure program) boost US GDP and consequently also imports from the EU. Better economic prospects can certainly alleviate some of Europe's problems, but not all. Structural reforms are also required.
Thank you for your kind words @Escalus5. I appreciate it. Please feel free to contribute with any comments here whenever you want to. I encourage all persuasions and views.
He is a credit to America and freedom loving peoples everywhere.
Yes I am laying it on thick of course, but his postings really are both informative and interesting.
@bondjames encourages "all persuasions and views" Exemplary. A fine choice to moderate discussions.
I also encourage all persuasions and views, except for left-wing views.
:P
Global conspiracy views are good though! :)
As a solid centerist I believe that democracy should rule. As much as I dislike Hillary, she DID win the popular vote.
Y'know, with a little help from the corrupt DNC & corporate media lapdogs squashing Bernie...
-Segue-
Both McDonald's & Amazon are phasing out the human element in favour of robots, and not the cool & friendly kind as seen in Lost In Space & Short Circuit. The end result of this action by them and in turn others (a $35,000 robot is a hard thing to resist by those seeking higher quarterly profits after all) will be absolute economic stagnation as fewer people employed than NOW with less disposable income THAN NOW simply cannot possibly drive a thriving economy.
Can any solidly RIGHT OR LEFT wing peeps here propose a tangible solution?
Of course, I see a Star Trek economy evolving from this.
A political & economic buffet, if you will. Rooted in none, limited by none, but using working ideas from all.
Sadly, rich folk will not like this, but they are not political- money is their sole belief system, and money is apolitical.
Thoughts?
Flames?
except before the federal reserve, an economic depression happened every decade and since, only one has happened (in 1929, when the federal reserve didn't act). but it sounds like a good conspiracy so hey why not hate it.
You've raised some very important points imho. Technological change has always been a concern (all the way back to the time of the Luddites, 19th century textile workers who protested when their jobs were threatened by technology), but to date, and at least during the industrial revolution, the jobs that were displaced as a result of it have been more than replaced by newer jobs. Having said that, the earlier jobs were the more secure and stable manufacturing kind, mainly unionized and worker protected, while the later jobs have increasingly been in the service sector, and not as stable or secure (many temporary). Beneficially though, technology has reduced the cost to manufacture several goods, thereby increasing their supply and reducing their cost. So we now can buy cars and tvs (for example) which are much more advanced for lesser cost (and therefore with lesser income) than we could before.
Despite this, it does appear that we are now at a time when robotics are about to reach a 'tipping point', and the McDonalds and Amazon examples you cite are just the first instances of this. If the pace of robotization accelerates, as I believe it will, then will be able to create enough new jobs in time to replace those that have been lost? Can we retrain and re-educate people fast enough? One wonders.
The share of capital as a % of GDP is increasing at a rapid pace, at the expense of labour. The owners of capital are also getting much richer, increasing income disparities. We can see the result in the unemployment data, where the number of long term out of work (who have basically given up looking for work) has been steadily rising. This is a recipe for massive social unrest and future revolution if not addressed.
So what's likely to happen? A few thoughts:
-The currency may depreciate, in order to make labour cheaper and more attractive for companies to hire. Paradoxically, that will make imported goods more expensive.
-Some theorists have proposed a higher minimum subsistence wage (say $25K per year) to accommodate the basic necessities. As technology improves, costs of manufactured goods are likely to continue to decline, so that one can survive on a lower income
-We are already seeing a trend towards a shared 'rental' 'on demand' economy in some sectors, which seems to be favoured particularly by the young. Examples include Zipcar for car rental, Airbnb for short term accomodation or Uber for taxis. This concept could be extended to housing & other industries on a more longer term basis.
-Even though manufactured goods costs have declined, the cost of other essentials have increased. I'm thinking of food, housing, education & healthcare. So either there have to be new Government programs to subsidize these essentials and provide increased access (a more left leaning approach) or there has to be increased market incentives to boost innovation in these sectors and increase supply (the more right leaning view).
-There probably has to be more redistributive tax policies for the extremely wealthy. Under any measure, they will probably have to pay more, since they own far more of the wealth these days.
-There will inevitably be demand for new types of jobs as machines take over the more mundane tasks. There may be demand for more emotive type jobs, such as therapists, counselors etc.
-Younger workers may have to learn to have multiple careers and be more flexible in their thinking, as the certainty of jobs may continue to decline.
So lots can happen, including a utopian Star Trek style world as you propose, based on a new economic model which combines the best of entrepreneurial capitalism with a robust social safety net. Somehow I think that's unlikely, but perhaps it's necessary.
I know that some question whether the link between 'money' and 'value' has been broken by the US Fed, especially since we went to a full Fiat currency system in the 70's and dropped the link to gold.
I also know that the US Fed (which has a part employment mandate) has propped the economy up over the past 8+ years with emergency level extraordinary low interest rates while Congress has dithered and not passed fiscal policy measures to boost the economy. While this has been helpful in some ways, the 'easy money' policies have also exacerbated income disparities, and helped borrowers at the expense of savers. Most damagingly, they've perhaps caused a new massive global real estate bubble.
Hopefully that changes with the new President Elect, but he will have to get his tax proposals through Congress, as you note, since they hold the purse strings.
Angela Merkel proposes Burka ban in Germany
Ms. Angela Merkel was re-elected the leader of the CDU party today, with 90% of the vote. She will represent her party in general elections next year. Ms. Merkel has seen her popularity slip after letting in almost 1m refugees from the war torn Middle East last year.
Perhaps in anticipation of a tough battle with the right wing AfD party next year, Ms. Merkel today proposed a ban on burkas in public places, where possible. She also indicated that Sharia law will never replace German law. Her comments and proposals will perhaps dismay those who see her as a staunch defender of liberal values.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/europe/merkel-calls-for-ban-on-full-face-veils-in-germany.html
So we won't come to the 'enlightened' solution without significant trauma first. Either we'll have a catastrophic war which will reset everything, or a massive cyberattack, or a natural disaster or plague or a population revolt. Perhaps that population revolt has already begun, with the rebellion against established power structures in several western economies.
Fundamentally, I think the elephant (or is that gorilla?) in the room is population. There are just too many people chasing too few resources, and the numbers keep increasing exponentially even as technology results in fewer and fewer jobs. You'll note that most of the trouble spots are in countries with young, unemployed and restless workers. Additionally, most of the population growth is in non-western countries, which is adding to 'stresses'. The 'complexion' of the world will certainly be very different 50 years from now and I think deep down, people realize that. This could be impacting & influencing the immigration discussion that is taking place globally.
President Elect Trump lays out a Non-Interventionist Military Policy
On his 'Thank You' tour through North Carolina, Mr. Trump outlined his military policy. As he suggested during the campaign, he intends to avoid foreign interventions and instead will deploy additional resources to defeating terrorism. He also advocated for an enhanced military, and asked Congress to remove spending caps pertaining to this.
"We don't forget. We want to strengthen old friendships and seek out new friendships," he said. He said the policy of "intervention and chaos" must come to an end.
"We will build up our military not as an act of aggression, but as an act of prevention," he said. "In short, we seek peace through strength."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-military-idUSKBN13W06L
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/06/politics/donald-trump-thank-you-tour-fayetteville-north-carolina/
http://wgntv.com/2016/12/07/trump-lays-out-military-plan-formally-introduces-james-mad-dog-mattis/
Mr. Trump had previously indicated during the campaign trail that he was against 'nation building'. It appears that he will attempt to make good on this promise when in office. His critics have asserted that Mr. Trump is a loose canon who could start WW3. They base this fear on some of his incendiary remarks during the campaign, including comments that he would "bomb the sh!#" out of ISIS.
ISIS/ISIL/Daesh or Radical Islamic Terrorism (or related elements like Salafism or Wahabbism) is more than a military force though. It is an 'ideology' and effectively dealing with them will involve discrediting this ideology. That is going to take patience and calm strategy.
The world is an unpredictable place, and any number of triggers could create conflict during the next four years. A steady and calm hand will be required, and that is why I remain anxious about Mr. Trump's Secretary of State pick, who will be critical to avoiding future issues.
Mr. Trump also said that he will be a unifier:
“When Americans are unified, there is nothing we cannot do. Nothing. No task is too great, no dream too large, no goal beyond our reach,” Trump said at the end of his speech. “My message tonight is for all Americans from all parties, all beliefs, all walks of life, it’s a message for everyone. No matter your age, your income, your background. I’m asking you to join us in this great, great adventurous world we’re living in.”
http://wgntv.com/2016/12/07/trump-lays-out-military-plan-formally-introduces-james-mad-dog-mattis/
President Elect Trump Announces that Softbank will invest in the US
CEO & billionaire Masayoshi Son of Japanese conglomerate Softbank (which owns most of Sprint) recently announced at Trump Tower that he is pledging to make a $50bn investment in the United States. This is expected to result in 50,000 new jobs in the country.
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is Masa from SoftBank of Japan, and he’s just agreed to invest $50 billion in the United States and 50,000 jobs," Mr. Trump said.
Mr. Son runs a technology investment fund and one of its major investors and contributors is Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-softbank-idUSKBN13V2LG
http://www.wsj.com/articles/softbank-investors-cheer-ceos-meeting-with-trump-1481095552
Separately but related, Foxconn, a Taiwanese manufacturer most well known for manufacturing the iPhone, also indicated that it will make a major investment of reportedly up to $7bn in the US.
"While the scope of the potential investment has not been determined, we will announce the details of any plans following the completion of direct discussions between our leadership and the relevant U.S. officials," said a spokesperson for Foxconn.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-foxconn-usa-idUSKBN13W0G2
I wouldn't be so proud to be called the 'President of the Divided States of America'. And sadly there's some truth in that title.
“When Americans are unified, there is nothing we cannot do. Nothing. No task is too great, no dream too large, no goal beyond our reach,” Trump said at the end of his speech. “My message tonight is for all Americans from all parties, all beliefs, all walks of life, it’s a message for everyone. No matter your age, your income, your background. I’m asking you to join us in this great, great adventurous world we’re living in.”
It all sounds lovely, really lovely. Yes, "Americans are unified" when they don't give up and when they realize that there's nothing they cannot do. Frankly, it is a lovely quote from Mr Trump. It's a unifying message. So true! And I agree with him. But only, and sadly, if you leave out the necessary context.
Because Mr Trump makes it sound as if this year's campaign wasn't the most polarizing, xenophobic, wasn't the nastiest and dirtiest campaign in the history of American politics. He makes it sound as if his message at times wasn't bordering certain neo-fascist traits. And he makes it sound as if 2016 was in fact as positive and hopeful as Obama's campaign in 2008. Obviously, that's not the case. And you know it. He himself was one of the co-facilitators of all this hate, division, anger, and resentment with his arsenal of demagogue vocabulary. Yes, he's not the only causer of all this. Off course not. But he certainly facilitated it, to such an extend that he could actually win the whole thing with it.
In such an atmosphere dear @BondJames, you have to do better if you ask me. Much better. You can not just copy-paste a message that could have been from previous president-elects. You can not just act as if not much has happened and ask all the people to "come together".
Mr Trump is already one of the most historically relevant president-elects since Roosevelt. True, but not in a good way. If he wants to be president of a true 'United' States of America, he better plans to write a rousing, empathic inauguration speech in which he self-reflects on his acts, in which he truly shows what Christian and Humanist values are, in which he empathizes with the losing side more than previous presidents, and in which he apoligizes to the people in a sincere and heartfelt way, before asking the people to "join him on this great, great adventurous world" he's talking about.
Hence why I think the subtitle of the Time 'Person Of The Year' portrait -"President of the 'Divided' States Of America"- is entirely fitting. It's up to him to make sure the tone and style of his campaign won't be reflected in his first term (which I already think is wishful thinking). At least not too much. Otherwise the word 'unification' means nothing to him; then it will merely sound and look like a fraud.
I think Mr. Trump has been unfairly vilified and convicted prior to him being able to do anything by a hostile media and others who are fear mongering. Yes, the campaign was very toxic, but he is not the only one to blame for that. This is perhaps where you and I disagree. I thought things were blown out of proportion by the press (complicit with the Hillary campaign) to win an election and it has exacerbated and further inflamed an already angry atmosphere in the country. As I said earlier, he isn't even in office, so I don't think he can be blamed for the divisions in the country (some of the blame must fall on his predecessor's inability to heal divisions despite the historic nature of his presidency). The campaign is not what created that - this already existed, and in fact Mr. Obama rose to fame by making a speech about it in 2004 (no blue American or red American etc.).
I prefer to see what Mr. Trump does in office before becoming so negative and agitated. So far, I have been quite satisfied with his approach since he won the election, and I look forward to the future optimistically but cautiously. I agree that he will have to give a very impressive inauguration speech, but more than that, he has to demonstrate his commitment to healing and unity through his actions.
He deserves the Time Person of the Year imho.
I did laugh when i saw this?!!!! =))
http://qz.com/854257/brace-yourself-the-most-disruptive-phase-of-globalization-is-just-beginning/
A snip: "What about Donald Trump’s promise to bring back US manufacturing jobs? He made a deal to keep nearly 1,000 jobs at the Carrier gas-furnace factory by offering a big tax break.
We shouldn’t try and protect jobs; we should protect workers. It’s really a fool’s errand to struggle with because after a year or two those jobs will still go. Either they will be replaced by robots or they’ll move to Mexico or China. If Carrier becomes inefficient from being forced to stay in the US, its business will go to competitors in Japan or Germany."
Exactly :-). The fact that there are actually two very similar topics, in which either side of the coin is highlighted, is actually a proof of some of the polarization we have seen this year. So why not really unite? And on top of that add a unifying song to it as well :-D!
We are now in 4th wave of globalization. The first phase was goods. Then came services, followed by capital. The fourth phase is people. The globalization of people (via immigration) is the most difficult, because it gives those who are the recipients of it someone to blame. As I suggested in an earlier post, this is probably the hidden reason for the populist revolts in a lot of western countries, and not economics or technology. It's a 'cultural revolt' more than anything.
May we see a similar cultural revolt against technology? It's likely, if governments are not careful. A rage against the machine?
Where I perhaps disagree with him is that the pace of this cannot be controlled. The technology part is more difficult to control, but the trade part can be managed.
China, as an example, has lifted almost a billion people out of poverty by executing on a long term, managed growth strategy. This has allowed fast knowledge transfer and the country has catapulted up the global table rankings very quickly. Far more quickly than if it had just left everything to the 'free market'. Now it is strategically making foreign investments in other countries (particularly in resource rich Africa, which has for the most part been neglected and abused by the west), with long term goals in mind. This is increasing its 'soft power'. Before China, countries like Singapore, Japan and South Korea used similar 'managed' strategies to fast track growth. Germany is doing it even today.
I think the way to solve this is to ensure that US government policies are similarly focused on 'strategic managed trade'. I realize that this is anathema to pure 'free marketers', but the Asian miracle and the German industrial machine shows that it works. This is not a discussion about capitalism vs. socialism (which is the same old simplistic debate that has been going on in the US for 30 years). It is more a discussion about federal and state governments working together to incentivize foreign companies to make investments which benefit the home country and its workers (through protection of worker rights and pay). It will only work if the local government officials truly understand the markets & industry before they can create the proper incentives. That's why I believe more business people must be enticed into public service, because they know how it works from the other side and have been successful there. Having said that, this approach will only get the foreign company here. Then it's up to the domestic workers to show their stuff with hard productive work, and ensure that they add value so the company won't leave.
This of course won't eliminate the effects of technology, which will continue to erode jobs. However, it can help to alleviate some of the pressures. Controlling mass immigration of unskilled workers will also help. Immigration must focus on skilled workers.