Elections en France et conséquences sur immo à MTL.

[Invité]

Qui a peur de François Hollande?

 

Qui a peur de François Hollande?

Publié le 08 mai 2012 à 06h31 | Mis à jour à 06h31

 

Sophie Cousineau

LA PRESSE

 

Les diseurs de bonne aventure de la Bourse avaient annoncé une correction, au lendemain des élections tenues en France et en Grèce.

 

En France, les socialistes ont repris la présidence pour la deuxième fois de leur histoire, mettant fin à leur traversée du désert de 17 ans. En Grèce, les électeurs ont divisé leur vote entre partis opposés à l'austérité, de sorte que la formation d'un gouvernement de coalition stable ressemble à une mission impossible.

 

Mais si l'indice phare de la Bourse d'Athènes a chuté de 6,7% hier, plusieurs des grandes places boursières d'Europe ont progressé. Cette résistance s'est même transposée de ce côté-ci de l'Atlantique, où les principaux indices nord-américains ont tenu le coup. De commotion, il n'y a pas eu.

 

Comment expliquer cette réaction tempérée? D'une part, l'élection de François Hollande ne représente pas une grande surprise. Les sondages l'anticipaient depuis une semaine.

 

D'autre part, le président élu compte rencontrer à la première occasion la chancelière allemande, Angela Merkel, la grande alliée de son rival à la présidence Nicolas Sarkozy. Cet empressement a calmé les inquiétudes de ceux qui craignent un schisme entre les deux puissances européennes qui ont dicté la rigueur budgétaire aux pays les plus endettés d'Europe.

 

François Hollande ne cache pas ses couleurs pour autant. «L'austérité n'est plus une fatalité pour l'Europe», a-t-il annoncé dans son discours de victoire de dimanche. Le candidat socialiste s'est fait élire en promettant d'adjoindre au pacte budgétaire européen des mesures favorisant la croissance économique. Ce à quoi Berlin s'oppose farouchement.

 

De plus en plus d'Européens adhèrent toutefois à cette idée, après deux années de coupes draconiennes et d'autres à venir. Les partisans de l'austérité pure et dure sont de moins en moins nombreux avec les pays d'Europe qui rechutent. Le Royaume-Uni est le dernier pays à avoir replongé en récession technique. Conséquence, le chômage en Europe atteint des proportions endémiques, en particulier chez les jeunes.

 

Rares sont ceux qui croient encore que les mesures d'austérité redonnent confiance et incitent les entreprises à investir.

 

Christine Lagarde, directrice générale du Fonds monétaire international, a réitéré hier que les mesures d'austérité et la croissance n'ont pas à se trouver en opposition. Si les gouvernements doivent se doter d'un plan rigoureux pour éliminer leur déficit à moyen terme, à court terme, ils doivent veiller à ne pas aggraver le ralentissement de l'économie avec des mesures d'une sévérité contreproductive. «Il est essentiel de trouver la bonne cadence», a dit cette ancienne ministre de l'Économie sous Nicolas Sarkozy.

 

Comme pour les régimes amaigrissants, le jeûne complet n'est peut-être pas la façon la plus saine de perdre du poids!

 

À la fin, toutefois, François Hollande ne fait que reporter d'une année l'atteinte du déficit zéro, en 2017 plutôt qu'en 2016, comme le prévoyait son prédécesseur.

 

Mais ce n'est pas la seule raison pour laquelle l'élection de «monsieur Normal» n'émeut pas tant que cela. Comme président socialiste, François Hollande n'est peut-être pas aussi dangereux («rather dangerous») que la revue The Economist voudrait le faire croire à ses lecteurs.

 

Par exemple, on a fait grand cas de sa promesse électorale d'embaucher 60 000 enseignants additionnels sur cinq ans. Mais comme ce politicien de 57 ans s'est aussi engagé à ne pas augmenter le nombre total de fonctionnaires, il devra supprimer autant de postes dans l'administration.

 

De la même façon, François Hollande s'est engagé à créer 150 000 «emplois d'avenir» pour les jeunes, en priorité dans les quartiers populaires. Or, il s'agit d'un chiffre révisé de moitié par rapport à l'engagement contenu dans le programme du Parti socialiste (PS), Hollande n'ayant pas voulu paraître trop dépensier.

 

Ce n'est d'ailleurs pas le seul cas où François Hollande a pris ses distances avec son parti, selon une analyse du magazine Le Point.

 

Par exemple, François Hollande s'est engagé à réclamer le remboursement des subventions et autres aides publiques aux entreprises qui délocalisent leurs activités à l'extérieur du pays. Or, le programme du PS prévoyait le remboursement de l'aide publique pour toute entreprise qui effectue des licenciements massifs. Cette différence d'approche est importante dans ce pays où il est difficile de remercier des employés, même quand la survie de l'entreprise est en jeu.

 

Bien sûr, François Hollande a joué une carte électoraliste en promettant de taxer plus lourdement les plus riches. Mais seule une infime minorité de Français seront touchés par l'impôt qui captera 75% des revenus de plus de 1 million d'euros par année.

 

Le président élu compte aussi mettre l'industrie bancaire au pas. Outre un plafonnement des frais bancaires, une idée repiquée à son ex-conjointe Ségolène Royal, François Hollande s'est engagé à détacher les activités d'investissement des activités bancaires traditionnelles et à limiter les pratiques spéculatives. Or, cette réforme à venir s'annonce assez similaire à celle que le Royaume-Uni est à imposer à la City. Difficile, dans ce cas, d'accoler à François Hollande une étiquette antibusiness.

 

Ce qui est tout à fait exact, c'est que François Hollande ne tient pas le discours de la «création de la richesse». Autant il souhaite remettre la croissance à l'agenda, autant il est silencieux sur les coûts élevés de la main-d'oeuvre en France et les règles étouffantes qui encadrent les relations de travail. Cela dit, Nicolas Sarkozy ne s'est pas beaucoup distingué par ses réformes à cet égard.

 

Dangereux, François Hollande? Disons que si d'aventure, il lui venait une «folle idée socialiste», les négociateurs d'obligations le rappelleraient vite à l'ordre en poussant les taux d'intérêt sur la dette de la France à la hausse. Le pays ayant déjà perdu sa note parfaite triple A, la marge de manoeuvre est très étroite.

[LindbergMTL]

Je viens d'entendre Jonhatan Miller de chez Miller Samuel sur Bloomberg TV. Beaucoup d'investisseurs étrangers achètent aux USA des propriétés au-dessus de $10 millions, et ils paient cash. Les marchés qui les attirent sont surtout les villes cotières de l'Est et de l'Ouest, pas seulement Manhattan. Ils achètent cash et y demeurent une couple de semaine par année. Montréal est peut-être de plus en plus sur la liste de ces villes?

 

http://www.millersamuel.com/

[Cataclaw]

This is such b.s. lol.

 

When Bush won, liberals threatened to move to Canada.

When Obama won, conservatives threatened to move too.

When X politician wins, Y group of people threatens to move away!

 

Please. There will be no "mass exodus". This kind of rhetoric is total nonsense.

 

As for Hollande, I applaud his progressive economic views. Austerity has been a disaster for Europe. The United States and Canada did the right thing with their stimulus packages, which is why they aren't in the same boat as Europe. Today everyone pretty much agrees that the stimulus mitigated the impact of the recession. The only people who still think the stimulus was a bad idea are libertarian far-right conservatives like the Fraser Institute. When recessions and deficits strike, you can act now and cut services and spending to lower the deficit. Bravo, now you've cut millions of jobs, increased unemployment and slowed down the economy. You've reduced the deficit in the short term, but increased it substantially in the long term. On the other hand, if you stimulate the economy you'll create more jobs now, add to the deficit in the short term, but drastically reduce it in the long term. This approach requires patience and vigilance though, two things that are in short supply in this world!

[Malek]

As-tu fais des recherches sur le sujet?

 

Il y a 300k français habitant à Londres seulement, l'émigration française est systémique et non pas par épisode selon la nouvelle du jour.

 

Il y a au net 50,000 français qui quittent la France à chaque année! C'est énorme.

 

Les plaintes des français sont toujours les mêmes, pas assez de liberté économique en France, ils fuient, ce n'est pas juste une question de taxes.

 

Hollande n'as rien à voir avec ça, mais il n'aidera pas la cause.

 

 

(p.s. dire que la politique n'influence pas les migrations c'est une blague j'espère, tu chiais sur le PQ parce qu’ils ont causé la migration de masse vers l'ouest.)

[Cataclaw]

(p.s. dire que la politique n'influence pas les migrations c'est une blague j'espère, tu chiais sur le PQ parce qu’ils ont causé la migration de masse vers l'ouest.)

 

Je pense que tu te trompes avec quelqu'un d'autre; je n'ai jamais dit ça dude.

 

Mais c'est vrai, oui la politique peut influencer la migration, mais les changements politiques ne sont pas tous égaux. On ne peut pas comparer, par exemple, une augmentation des taxes sur les riches -versus- abolir les droits de la personne ou une déclaration de guerre.

[Malek]

Austerity has been a disaster for Europe. The United States and Canada did the right thing with their stimulus packages, which is why they aren't in the same boat as Europe. Today everyone pretty much agrees that the stimulus mitigated the impact of the recession. The only people who still think the stimulus was a bad idea are libertarian far-right conservatives like the Fraser Institute. When recessions and deficits strike, you can act now and cut services and spending to lower the deficit. Bravo, now you've cut millions of jobs, increased unemployment and slowed down the economy. You've reduced the deficit in the short term, but increased it substantially in the long term. On the other hand, if you stimulate the economy you'll create more jobs now, add to the deficit in the short term, but drastically reduce it in the long term. This approach requires patience and vigilance though, two things that are in short supply in this world!

 

1-So you support Harper and his plan? nice lol

 

2-What you are referring as nutcases right wings, were simply pointing out that the stimulus should not be directed to companies to fix their mistakes, but at public works (or other short term relief programs) to keep the economy aflot. Other would simply say, don't do anything, it won't change a thing, and most probably they aren't far of reality (see point 3).

 

Don't you have an issue with the govt saving banks that did mistakes on their own? or car companies ? In Capitalism corporation pay their errors with bankruptcy.

 

3-The USA have spent almost 2 trillion in stimulus and the job market barely budge, still in woes.

 

4-What Austerity in Europe means is not the same as over here... if you take Québec as an example, our current yearly deficit is around 1% of GDP, we bitch and moan about it, but that's nowhere near what is normal and accepted in Europe (3%). So over there they accept 3 times more as deficit yearly (for the past 40 years), and what Hollande wants is to be able to go over that threshold! This is the core of the problem! This is why you have to analyze the context and the meaning of austerity here and there.

 

I can go on and on, but really I suggest you get a subscription of the Economist to broaden your economic and world affairs horizons (it's cheap and you get a nice deal if you click on one of the banners on top of this fine website lol)

[Cataclaw]

1-So you support Harper and his plan? nice lol

 

I support economic stimulus in times of need, yes. I supported the stimulus, although I think it didn't go nearly far enough.

 

2-What you are referring as nutcases right wings, were simply pointing out that the stimulus should not be directed to companies to fix their mistakes, but at public works (or other short term relief programs) to keep the economy aflot. Other would simply say, don't do anything, it won't change a thing, and most probably they aren't far of reality (see point 3).

 

Most people on the right didn't want any stimulus to begin with, so I don't think that's a fair characterization. Stimulus should be directed at public works, yes, but it should also serve to protect public (and in some cases private) sector jobs and prevent unemployment.

 

 

Don't you have an issue with the govt saving banks that did mistakes on their own? or car companies ? In Capitalism corporation pay their errors with bankruptcy.

 

I'm not thrilled with how some of the funds were spent, no. It's stupid that during times of hardship so many CEOs got enormous severance packages and/or bonuses financed by taxpayer dollars.

I support protecting jobs, but I'm against the gross mismanagement that ensued. The loans should been given out with more strings attached. Better regulation could have prevented some of the abuses.

 

3-The USA have spent almost 2 trillion in stimulus and the job market barely budge, still in woes.

 

Actually that's just not true. The consensus among economists, including the non-partisan congressional budget office, is that the stimulus saved and created at least 2 million jobs. Unemployment in the U.S., as high as it is now, would be 1-2% higher still without the stimulus. Similarly, studies show that had the stimulus been doubled, unemployment today in the U.S. would be in the neighborhood of 6.9%-7.1%.

 

4-What Austerity in Europe means is not the same as over here... if you take Québec as an example, our current yearly deficit is around 1% of GDP, we bitch and moan about it, but that's nowhere near what is normal and accepted in Europe (3%). So over there they accept 3 times more as deficit yearly (for the past 40 years), and what Hollande wants is to be able to go over that threshold! This is the core of the problem! This is why you have to analyze the context and the meaning of austerity here and there.

 

No, the problem is too much focus on spending cuts. When you cut spending drastically: you lay off millions of workers, you reduce government contracts. You raise unemployment. You reduce consumption. You slow the economy down. GDP growth slows down, and deficits grow in relation to GDP. You need to spend money to make money sometimes, and that's what helped save the economies of Canada and the U.S. Europe, going through its resurgence of neoliberalism, tried a different strategy, and now it's backfiring.

 

I can go on and on, but really I suggest you get a subscription of the Economist to broaden your economic and world affairs horizons (it's cheap and you get a nice deal if you click on one of the banners on top of this fine website lol)

Actually, I do get The Economist. A friend of mine has a subscription and he gives me his issues after he's done reading them. I've been reading it for about 3 years now. I like to vary my sources of information, and The Economist gives me the right-wing perspective.

Modifié 8 mai 2012 par Cataclaw

[MtlMan]

Those Revolting Europeans

 

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: May 6, 2012

 

 

 

The French are revolting. The Greeks, too. And it’s about time

 

 

 

Both countries held elections Sunday that were in effect referendums on the current European economic strategy, and in both countries voters turned two thumbs down. It’s far from clear how soon the votes will lead to changes in actual policy, but time is clearly running out for the strategy of recovery through austerity — and that’s a good thing.

 

Needless to say, that’s not what you heard from the usual suspects in the run-up to the elections. It was actually kind of funny to see the apostles of orthodoxy trying to portray the cautious, mild-mannered François Hollande as a figure of menace. He is “rather dangerous,” declared The Economist, which observed that he “genuinely believes in the need to create a fairer society.” Quelle horreur!

 

What is true is that Mr. Hollande’s victory means the end of “Merkozy,” the Franco-German axis that has enforced the austerity regime of the past two years. This would be a “dangerous” development if that strategy were working, or even had a reasonable chance of working. But it isn’t and doesn’t; it’s time to move on. Europe’s voters, it turns out, are wiser than the Continent’s best and brightest.

 

What’s wrong with the prescription of spending cuts as the remedy for Europe’s ills? One answer is that the confidence fairy doesn’t exist — that is, claims that slashing government spending would somehow encourage consumers and businesses to spend more have been overwhelmingly refuted by the experience of the past two years. So spending cuts in a depressed economy just make the depression deeper.

 

Moreover, there seems to be little if any gain in return for the pain. Consider the case of Ireland, which has been a good soldier in this crisis, imposing ever-harsher austerity in an attempt to win back the favor of the bond markets. According to the prevailing orthodoxy, this should work. In fact, the will to believe is so strong that members of Europe’s policy elite keep proclaiming that Irish austerity has indeed worked, that the Irish economy has begun to recover.

 

But it hasn’t. And although you’d never know it from much of the press coverage, Irish borrowing costs remain much higher than those of Spain or Italy, let alone Germany. So what are the alternatives?

 

One answer — an answer that makes more sense than almost anyone in Europe is willing to admit — would be to break up the euro, Europe’s common currency. Europe wouldn’t be in this fix if Greece still had its drachma, Spain its peseta, Ireland its punt, and so on, because Greece and Spain would have what they now lack: a quick way to restore cost-competitiveness and boost exports, namely devaluation.

 

As a counterpoint to Ireland’s sad story, consider the case of Iceland, which was ground zero for the financial crisis but was able to respond by devaluing its currency, the krona (and also had the courage to let its banks fail and default on their debts). Sure enough, Iceland is experiencing the recovery Ireland was supposed to have, but hasn’t.

 

Yet breaking up the euro would be highly disruptive, and would also represent a huge defeat for the “European project,” the long-run effort to promote peace and democracy through closer integration. Is there another way? Yes, there is — and the Germans have shown how that way can work. Unfortunately, they don’t understand the lessons of their own experience.

 

Talk to German opinion leaders about the euro crisis, and they like to point out that their own economy was in the doldrums in the early years of the last decade but managed to recover. What they don’t like to acknowledge is that this recovery was driven by the emergence of a huge German trade surplus vis-à-vis other European countries — in particular, vis-à-vis the nations now in crisis — which were booming, and experiencing above-normal inflation, thanks to low interest rates. Europe’s crisis countries might be able to emulate Germany’s success if they faced a comparably favorable environment — that is, if this time it was the rest of Europe, especially Germany, that was experiencing a bit of an inflationary boom.

 

So Germany’s experience isn’t, as the Germans imagine, an argument for unilateral austerity in Southern Europe; it’s an argument for much more expansionary policies elsewhere, and in particular for the European Central Bank to drop its obsession with inflation and focus on growth.

 

The Germans, needless to say, don’t like this conclusion, nor does the leadership of the central bank. They will cling to their fantasies of prosperity through pain, and will insist that continuing with their failed strategy is the only responsible thing to do. But it seems that they will no longer have unquestioning support from the Élysée Palace. And that, believe it or not, means that both the euro and the European project now have a better chance of surviving than they did a few days ago.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/opinion/krugman-those-revolting-europeans.html

[alliance habitat]

Ce fut une bonne nouvelle non? et qu'en est il de l'immobilier MTL en ce moment?

[vivreenrégion]

Ce fut une bonne nouvelle non? et qu'en est il de l'immobilier MTL en ce moment?

il y a quelques jours quelqu'un a dit que Gallery sur le Canal va lever car un groupe de Français a acheté en masse dans ce projet.