France is going wild

[Elliott]

23 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

This is so silly.

Russia is not going to break up.

Maybe caucuses like Chechnya or Dagestan may break away one day. There is literally zero push or desire for a separate nation in any of those other places and they are all firmly under Russian control. 

Russia has nukes and there government administration is very strong, even if there is a political crisis over who succeeds Putin the state will go on and they have everything they need to hold the country together. 

But yeah Russia will be rough if you’re a young person with no money.  

It would be from trade pressure, for Russia to get back into the 'first world'. Without Europe Russia will be Romania.

Things aren't going back to normal. These scenarios are modeled out extensively, with how to improve and capitalize on the flux. Times like these are when the world changes, an inflection point.

 

Edited Monday at 07:20 PM by Elliott

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

It would be from trade pressure, for Russia to get back into the 'first world'. Without Europe Russia will be Romania.

Things aren't going back to normal. These scenarios are modeled out extensively, with how to improve and capitalize on the flux. Times like these are when the world changes, an inflection point.

 

I don’t doubt things are changing but no, that is one poor model if you think Russia will break apart. Russia has nukes and tons of oil and natural resources. A small area like Chechnya which has a history of fierce conflict for statehood, yeah maybe, but they have squashed that before and I doubt Chechnya would have enough resources or military to deter Russia. Their only hope would be diplomatically, they are already an autonomous region. The whole country breaking apart? No, ridiculous. China fully backs Russia in trade as well as India. What you can expect is a more dilapidation, less prosperous, an economy which doesn’t have much variety, etc. 

Edited Monday at 08:31 PM by Lyubov

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

It would be from trade pressure, for Russia to get back into the 'first world'. Without Europe Russia will be Romania.

Things aren't going back to normal. These scenarios are modeled out extensively, with how to improve and capitalize on the flux. Times like these are when the world changes, an inflection point.

 

Well, Russia is pretty untouchable if it threatens with nukes. So militarily it cant be beat. 

And if Russia stopped the war, it would have a lot more resources to stabilize the economy. Also there are still asshole countries trading with russia. So I think its likely russia will pull out its spikes, lick its wounds and carry on a lot weaker then before with worse living standards but not taken over. 

Maybe in the long game you could trade nukes for trade benefits with russia. 

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

5 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

I agree that it's a pity that students who want to study are being prevented from doing so, but isn't that precisely the point of these protests?

If we want to address the underlying problems, we need more funding for public education and services. And that money will have to come from somewhere, which means looking at where the wealth and financial resources are actually concentrated.

Despite what is regularly said in the media, France is far from being broke. The state is heavily indebted, but private wealth is massive and continues to grow.

According to l'INSEE, French households held nearly €15 trillion in net wealth at the end of 2024, an increase of 0.7% in just one year. Meanwhile, the wealthiest 10% of households hold almost half of all household wealth (48%). For comparison, France's public debt stood at approximately €3.6 trillion in mid-2026.

So the question isn't simply whether France has wealth. It's how that wealth is taxed and distributed, then how much of it can reasonably be mobilised to finance public services as fundamental as the Education Nationale.

 

I want to point out something important. Most people still think governments operate like households, but they don't. That way of thinking is held by orthodox economists and pushed also by the neoliberal agenda. In France it’s a bit more complicated. France doesn’t have its own currency, the French state can’t do everything a country with its own currency can do. But that still doesn’t make it like a household. The limits are mainly political and institutional, which are rules we chose. The real constraints are political will, public awareness, and actual resources like teachers and materials.
Of course, this doesn't mean we don't also need to address wealth inequality, but it is made worse by falsely believing governments need to impose austerity when they should spend.

[Elliott]

4 hours ago, Lyubov said:

I don’t doubt things are changing but no, that is one poor model if you think Russia will break apart. Russia has nukes and tons of oil and natural resources. A small area like Chechnya which has a history of fierce conflict for statehood, yeah maybe, but they have squashed that before and I doubt Chechnya would have enough resources or military to deter Russia. Their only hope would be diplomatically, they are already an autonomous region. The whole country breaking apart? No, ridiculous. China fully backs Russia in trade as well as India. What you can expect is a more dilapidation, less prosperous, an economy which doesn’t have much variety, etc. 

@Jannes

Countries don't like to go backward. Putin doesn't run Russia alone, there's an entire upper echelon that will want to return to their lifestyles and be in the first-world politicaly.

[Elliott]

United CEO Scott Kirby who earned $32M last year calls for national wealth tax on the rich https://nypost.com/2026/10/19/business/united-ceo-scott-kirby-calls-for-national-wealth-tax-on-the-rich/

 

[Etherial Cat]

9 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

I want to point out something important. Most people still think governments operate like households, but they don't. That way of thinking is held by orthodox economists and pushed also by the neoliberal agenda. In France it’s a bit more complicated. France doesn’t have its own currency, the French state can’t do everything a country with its own currency can do. But that still doesn’t make it like a household. The limits are mainly political and institutional, which are rules we chose. The real constraints are political will, public awareness, and actual resources like teachers and materials.
Of course, this doesn't mean we don't also need to address wealth inequality, but it is made worse by falsely believing governments need to impose austerity when they should spend.

In theory, political institutions and the rules governing them are supposed to reflect the will of the people. But as elsewhere, the political system has been increasingly gamed, to the point where it no longer seems to represent the actual political will or needs of ordinary citizens.

The government is deeply unpopular, and while Macron's approval ratings have remained relatively stable at rock-bottom levels (around 17–18%), the constant turnover of prime ministers tells a different story.

He's had to replace his prime minister repeatedly, particularly since 2024, struggling to find anyone capable of securing enough parliamentary support to govern effectively.

So there's a pretty significant gap between the apparent stability of the presidency and the political instability unfolding underneath it.

It's also worth pointing out that Macron enjoys a considerably more favourable reputation internationally, particularly in Europe, than he does at home. So when I talk about his unpopularity, I'm referring specifically to how he's perceived by the French themselves, rather than his standing on the international stage.

As for the country's finances, its currency and its economic resources, none of these are immutable. They're all variables that can be revisited, renegotiated or restructured over time. Economic and monetary arrangements are ultimately political choices, not laws of nature.

That said, I'm not particularly convinced that leaving the Eurozone would be a good idea for France in the current circumstances. And fundamentally reforming the European monetary framework from within would be an enormous political challenge. Revising the EU treaties, including the Maastricht framework, requires agreement from every member state, which is hardly something I can see happening in the current political climate.

So while I certainly don't consider the existing economic and institutional arrangements set in stone, I'm also aware that changing them is a rather different matter.

Which is precisely why I suspect France might once again end up taking the extra-institutional route rather than the institutional one. In other words, a profound political rupture that eventually forces institutional change, rather than institutional reform bringing about the change itself.

And historically, that wouldn't exactly be unprecedented. France has repeatedly seen its constitutional order overturned or fundamentally transformed following revolutions, coups and major political crises. A remarkable number of its constitutional transitions have emerged from ruptures with the existing order rather than through the ordinary procedures designed to reform it.

I'm not saying that's necessarily desirable, or even inevitable. But given French history, I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

Btw, I am just analyzing things. I am by no mean revolutionary myself as I prefer stability and this scenario freaks me out.

[Etherial Cat]

France has a rather interesting constitutional history in that respect. A remarkable number of its major constitutional transformations have followed revolutions, coups, military defeats or political crises rather than ordinary institutional reform.

You can see the pattern in 1792, 1799, 1830, 1848, 1851 and 1870, among others. The political rupture often came first, and the new constitutional framework was established afterwards.

Of course, there are important counterexamples, and the Fifth Republic has proved much more capable of reforming itself than most of its predecessors, even though it seems like it is coming to an end or significant transformation.

My point isn't that another rupture is inevitable or desirable. It's simply that French history gives us plenty of reasons not to assume that all major political transformations necessarily begin within the existing institutional framework.

[Etherial Cat]

Automatic translation available in English. 

It's political satire, making fun at the usual right-wing and far-right propaganda (fox news type) by turning its own arguments to highlight how billionaires are the ones actually destroying the country.

Edited Tuesday at 08:45 AM by Etherial Cat

[Willy Phallicus]

The elites cant do it without you so everyone is complicit.

The lesson for France is, sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.  Soon to be the case for a western country near you.

But remember, the system aint broken, its designed to be this way.

[Etherial Cat]

 

[Ajay0]

On 10/20/2026 at 2:01 AM, Jannes said:

Well, Russia is pretty untouchable if it threatens with nukes. So militarily it cant be beat. 

And if Russia stopped the war, it would have a lot more resources to stabilize the economy. Also there are still asshole countries trading with russia. So I think its likely russia will pull out its spikes, lick its wounds and carry on a lot weaker then before with worse living standards but not taken over. 

Maybe in the long game you could trade nukes for trade benefits with russia. 

Russia has its BRICS partners which encompass 50 % of the world population and 35% of world gdp and is fast growing as well with a higher percentage of youthful population. Consequently it has a bright future economically and politically,provided it has good capable leaders in the future.

Nato countries account for a mere 12% of the world population and is suffering from a fast ageing and reducing population due to  low fertility levels and incessant warmongering that had greatly reduced its population growth, and has poor leadership as well, individually and collectively speaking.

Due to past issues of political and economic colonialism, nato countries are heavily despised around the world as well, and this is why they are not able to get the diplomatic clout which russia has in asia, africa and latin america due to its communist past when it actively supported freedom movements in these continents. Consequently they have heavy support officially and clandestinely from these continents.

The only way Nato countries can get some diplomatic clout in the world is by developing the quality of its leadership, increasing aid to the third world, and reduce its warmongering and military alliance expansion for a substantial period of time so that the rest of the world would have reason to believe that nato is sincere about world peace and harmony.

 The two world wars which originated in europe on the basis of military alliances  killed over a hundred million people, and historians have stated that poor and incompetent leadership and diplomacy brought about this unwanted disaster to europe which has spilled an ocean of blood and traumatized europe. 

So obviously the west needs to keep away from military alliances, warmongering and foolish leaders for a major period of time to heal its trauma and get healthy again. Otherwise it will continue to make mountains out of molehills and then keep crying over spilt milk again and again foolishly.

[Jannes]

5 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

Russia has its BRICS partners which encompass 50 % of the world population and 35% of world gdp and is fast growing as well with a higher percentage of youthful population. Consequently it has a bright future economically and politically,provided it has good capable leaders in the future.

Nato countries account for a mere 12% of the world population and is suffering from a fast ageing and reducing population due to  low fertility levels and incessant warmongering that had greatly reduced its population growth, and has poor leadership as well, individually and collectively speaking.

Due to past issues of political and economic colonialism, nato countries are heavily despised around the world as well, and this is why they are not able to get the diplomatic clout which russia has in asia, africa and latin america due to its communist past when it actively supported freedom movements in these continents. Consequently they have heavy support officially and clandestinely from these continents.

The only way Nato countries can get some diplomatic clout in the world is by developing the quality of its leadership, increasing aid to the third world, and reduce its warmongering and military alliance expansion for a substantial period of time so that the rest of the world would have reason to believe that nato is sincere about world peace and harmony.

 The two world wars which originated in europe on the basis of military alliances  killed over a hundred million people, and historians have stated that poor and incompetent leadership and diplomacy brought about this unwanted disaster to europe which has spilled an ocean of blood and traumatized europe. 

So obviously the west needs to keep away from military alliances, warmongering and foolish leaders for a major period of time to heal its trauma and get healthy again. Otherwise it will continue to make mountains out of molehills and then keep crying over spilt milk again and again foolishly.

Interesting perspective which I havent considered yet. 

The warmongering of NATO is something I am sceptical about though. What war mongering? NATO is defensive alliance against russia. 

First and second world war were before NATO and well both european countries started and solved the conflict largely internally (+ russia, USA and Japan in WW2) although I am sure other countries around the globe felt the effect. 

The US involves itself in stupid wars sometimes and european countries sometimes support that. Thats problematic for sure. 

[Schizophonia]

On 19/10/2026 at 8:01 PM, Etherial Cat said:

Yes, that's how the game is played.

Why would you sit on cash when:

• Money sitting in your bank account earns next to nothing.
• You can borrow against your assets without having to sell them.
• Those assets can appreciate in value and generate far better returns.
• Unrealised capital gains generally aren't taxed until you sell, allowing your wealth to keep growing without triggering an immediate tax bill.

Of course, dividends and realised capital gains are generally taxable in France. But that's precisely where the distinction matters: you don't necessarily need to sell your assets to access liquidity. You can borrow against them while retaining ownership and benefiting from any further appreciation, all without having to liquidate a thing.

That's why wealthy people tend to accumulate assets rather than cash. Once you've built up enough capital, you can use it as collateral, access liquidity and potentially keep accumulating wealth, provided the returns outweigh the borrowing costs.

And then, once you've accumulated enough economic clout, you can start playing an entirely different game: buying up media outlets, throwing your weight behind whichever corrupt and incompetent politicians will best serve your interests, and relentlessly feeding the public whatever self-serving narratives will keep your privileges intact.

And the cherry on top? Having the finance minister on speed dial so you can lobby for whatever tax breaks and fiscal policies happen to suit your interests best.

After all, why let your fellow citizens question the system when you can help shape the very rules of the game, as well as the narratives through which they understand it?

 

What you tell is condused. 

On 19/10/2026 at 8:32 PM, Etherial Cat said:

@Schizophonia
 

-

Automatic subtitle available in English.

It seems like 95.00 % + of whatever is the current french culture is only available in French, so I usually never publish or forward what's being produced there. But it's literally a very dense whole world to dive in.

Ahah Juan Branco.

Is he a kind of conservative far leftist or something like that if i remember well ? I don't know the character well.

[Etherial Cat]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

What you tell is condused. 

Let me know if you want me to dive further into one of these points.

 

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

What you tell is condused. 

Ahah Juan Branco.

Is he a kind of conservative far leftist or something like that if i remember well ? I don't know the character well.

"Conservative far-leftist"

Beautiful oxymoron, though!

But by today's standards, he's definitely on the hard left, especially given how much the Overton window has shifted.

That said, I'm not entirely convinced by his political conclusions, and I'm particularly uneasy about his revolutionary, almost seditious ambitions. I mean, one would have to be mad to support something like that, unless it genuinely becomes a legitimate last resort, almost a form of self-defence.

And the troubling thing is, how do we even know when we've reached that point? I'm not sure we ever really do. 

He seems to be trying to build political support both within the established institutions and outside of them, especially with his ambitions to run in the 2027 presidential election.

But then again, I don't know. At this point, with Donald Trump back in power after his attempt to overturn the 2020 election, I can hardly bring myself to clutch my pearls over where politics is heading anymore.

For all I know, sanity might have left the room a long time ago, and we're just like the proverbial frog in slowly heating water, failing to notice how bad things have become.

Civil unrest seems to be on the cards in both the US and France anyway.

At this point, I think the question is less whether it will happen than how bad things will get before we manage to mend back together the social fabric in a healthier, more sustainable way.

I think what we really need, both in France and the US, is something along the lines of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid. A way to confront what has happened, establish accountability, and hopefully find a path towards genuine, lasting reconciliation. I hope this is the way it goes, but I am not holding my breath.

Edited 18 hours ago by Etherial Cat