What French people actually think about him?

so who's next up in line, le pen?

A new regime. We hate Le Pen.

Le pen is literally nuts, she is never getting in

Economic liberalism won't get you anywhere electorally in France these days

there's really no opposition leader? you should try to run

I hope not, the fact she is so bad at everything is one of the main reasons why the ""far right"" can't win

desu if we had elections right now, it would probably some one like Macron that would be elected...
Because, no one will ever vote for the "far right" apart from their electoral base...

Macron is not even liberal. I'm fed up of the medias telling that. He taxes like the fat socialist he is. I wish he was really liberal and didn't touch to the economic sphere and lower taxes on people AND COMPANIES which are asphyxiated to feed those politicians, and the NEETs, and the immigrants and the civil servants whose many are completely useless.

Macron wasn't to blame for Libya

I like him.

He's ok, but not enough liberal for what i was expecting.

This is right. France already has the highest tax burden outside of Scandinavia and among the world's larget public sectors outside of literally socialist countries. Cutting taxes on companies is a good thing (his planned jump from 33% to 25% will help French companies become a lot more competitive), but he tries to finance this by taxing the commons even harder. What he should do is counterbalance these cuts by reduction in expenditure.

I honestly blame WW2. The French Resistance allowed commies to get disproportionate influence in post-war France.

>I honestly blame WW2.
Me too. After WWI France retained its essence, we are not done yet being defeated by WWII.

*Unemployed incels want him beheaded, normal people don't care and just want to have a nice christmas.

I think he's a good president that doesn't give a shit about public opinion and only cares about the greater good even if it mea's beeing seen as a monster

>Greater good
I don't see how nearly doubling the price of diesel serves the greater good. I was with him on his labor reforms, I was with him when he wrestles the unions, I was with him when he dismantled the bullshit of the national railways. Now I'm not so sure about his taxes. At the very least he withdrew it, let's hope he manages to keep the deficit in tow by cutting expenditure.

Attached: Macron Diesel.jpg (1920x1080, 204K)

Nigger loving cuckold who wants to take from Pierre to give to Mohammed and Mamadou

Diesel tax is good since it pollutes the air and shit. He should use the revenue to cut VAT or something like that

>Diesel tax is good since it pollutes the air and shit
1. All fuel is being taxed, not exclusively diesel
2. Diesel being more polluting than petrol is, in recent years, questionable (theconversation.com/fact-check-are-diesel-cars-really-more-polluting-than-petrol-cars-76241)
3. Over 60% of France drives Diesel
4. Corporations are responsible for over 80% of pollution. In fact, a mere 100 of them are responsible for 71% of pollution (theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change)
The whole green argument is bullshit. It's all about balancing the budget by levying taxes on the middle class instead of cutting expenditure. Of course cutting expenditure will result in a lot of protest as well because the French love their gibsmedit, but there's absolutely zero justification for this fuel tax. It hits the hardest polluters the least and results in a draconian increase in living expenses.

The more I learn about the background, the more I sympathize with the cause of the GJ (but not their actions, fuck those retarded hooligans).

Furthermore, let's not forget that France is already among the lowest in the industrialized world, both in total terms and per capita. To a large extent due to France's world class nuclear power plants. The exact same plants Macron has pledged to reduce and shut down.

The green agenda is a pretext, it's irrelevant to the discussion. It's all about money.

Attached: list-countries-co2-per-capita[1].png (922x625, 104K)

Aren't his approval ratings almost as bad as Hollande's now?

No one, because the French don't like anybody.

>Corporations are responsible for over 80% of pollution. In fact, a mere 100 of them are responsible for 71% of pollution
Communist bullshit. Corporations are "responsible" for 71% of pollution only inasmuch as they make things and then sell them to normal everyday people. If you stopped them from using diesel in some other way the benefit would be identical to a tax and the costs greater

Not french but from an outsiders point of view he's trying to save france from economic insignificance by making them more competitive on an international stage. The ones who grew fat on trade union guarded industry jobs back when large scale industry was still viable in western countries are doing everything in their power to stop him. Not that different from finland, unemployment is a problem and the national budget has been in the red since 2008. Something had to be done.

It's honestly pretty funny. He was elected to make painful decisions, like cutting government expenditure and reforming taxation to be more palatable for foreign companies and investments, and now when he's trying to do that edgelords are threatening to cut his head off. Let the man do his job and then after his term is done judge him at the polls. Burning paris to the ground becasue you have to spend a bit more money on car fuel is retarded.

t. brainlet

>Corporations are "responsible" for 71% of pollution only inasmuch as they make things and then sell them to normal everyday people
Yes. What is your point here? If your problem is pollution, that doesn't change that 71% of pollution comes from exactly 100 companies.

>If you stopped them from using diesel in some other way the benefit would be identical to a tax and the costs greater
1. If the argument is "saving the environment" then costs don't matter. Not saving the environment is cheaper.
2. How is it proportionate to let the brunt of the taxburden come down on those who pollute the least?

It makes 0% when analyzing the situation from a green agenda perspective. It only makes sense when you realize it was needed as a means to fill the state's coffers in order to bring down the deficit. Good goal, bad methods.

We're seeing the traditional parties break down, that's for sure. The PS is down for the count, they even needed to sell their traditional headquarters to... I think some software company just to not go bankrupt. LR will remain your generic right wing (by Euro standards), their position is neither bad nor good. With FN being "too extreme" and EM discredited, I wouldn't be surprised if in the next elections we see a lot of new parties taking advantage of the power vacuum.

I do agree with you. The gvt is obviously raising taxes to help fixing the debt but there is WAY better ways to fix that. For instance your employer in France pays 3000€ for your 1500€ salary. This means in reality all the healthcare, services etc are 2x too expensive. There's surely a way to cut on something like for instance all the nigger welfares.

t. unemployed / < bac +2 or < 2500€/month

>There's surely a way to cut on something like for instance all the nigger welfares.
>nigger welfares
Why not all welfare? Oh wait, I bet you're one of those people who thinks socialism works if it's only for white people. Minorities don't help but balancing the budget is possible even with them.

>Sweden
>Yes
Managed to balance their budget so what's stopping France? Just cut expenditure in general. Privatize more.

>Sweden
>Yes
Sweden YES

Everytime we elect a president that was worse than the previous one

That's not how economics works. Google "tax incidence." Simple thought experiment: if you taxed the evil corporations enough that it no longer made sense to produce as much diesel, what would happen to the the price? Diesel tax works the same way; it raises the price to reduce demand, leading to a decrease in production. If we acknowledge that just banning diesel overnight would be too drastic, the alternatives are either a tax or regulation. Both would hurt consumers the same amount (the harm is not being able to use diesel) but regulation costs more so it's worse

Imagine being a consumer

Imagine making Consumer into a central part of your identity and being an advocate of Consumer's Rights

I know how economics works, we're talking past eachother. My point is this: if your argument is "muh environment", then economics DOES NOT MATTER.

Is taxing the middle class for their diesel consumption economically viable? Sure.
Does it change ANYTHING in the context of saving the environment? About as much as pissing in the ocean raises sea levels, I'd say.

My entire point is that the diesel tax is merely a means to justify a tax that's intended to balance the budget. It has nothing to do with the environment because it targets the least polluting demographic in the least polluting industrialized country.

How does a diesel tax target "the least polluting demographic?" Driving is the largest source of emissions and other harms besides. And what makes you think environmental benefits are of infinite value, such that any cost is worth paying to get them? That's retarded

>How does a diesel tax target "the least polluting demographic?"
While it targets every driver, it disproportionately targets the average consumer. Whose pollution is next to nothing compared to companies, cars or no.

>And what makes you think environmental benefits are of infinite value, such that any cost is worth paying to get them?
So why are you justifying this tax with an environmental argument? You're flipflopping between "this tax is good because it marginally reduces pollution" and "the environment isn't worth enough to suffer economically for". We can't have a conversation unless you pick one.

We've gotta break the pattern somehow

Guys, I was a yellow vest protester, but Macron speech really touch me, we need to go back to work and start rebuilding this great country.

You say you understand tax incidence but it's obvious that you don't. Those large corporations you mentioned are all oil and coal companies; they produce that stuff because people are going to buy it. Your average car driving Pierre would admittedly have a hard time driving much without oil companies, but only because the fuel wouldn't be available for him to buy without them. That would be worse for him than even a very high tax on diesel fuel

Yet it is not going to drive down consumption. That's the big problem, environmentally it changes nothing. Forcing the bill on corporations would, purely environmentally (ignoring economic consequences) actively drive down production. Which is why I keep repeating the same thing over and over: environmentally speaking, the impact of this tax is close to zero. Which undermines the main justification for this tax.

The fact is this tax should never even have been proposed as anything but an attempt to balance the budget.

That's unlikely. Taxing something will pretty reliably result in people consuming less of it, especially in the longer term. People definitely started switching to more fuel-efficient cars back when gas prices where high around 2007

le p*N is never getting in

>Taxing something will pretty reliably result in people consuming less of it, especially in the longer term
Unless it's something they require and/or there are no viable alternatives present. The obvious/exaggerated example is something like taxing food, it would drive food consumption down incredibly marginally. The French public transit system, though solid, isn't good enough to transport significantly more people than it already does. On top of that, it's also not a viable alternative for the rural demographic (who were naturally overrepresented among those protesting the tax).

To top it all off, this sounds suspiciously like what the Netherlands did in the 90's, het "kwartje van Kok". But the Dutch government at the time at least openly admitted that this was to fill the state's coffers rather than moralizing grandstanding about the environment (and the tax burden was -and is- lower here than it is in France right now so it was easier to swallow).

>People definitely started switching to more fuel-efficient cars back when gas prices where high around 2007
True, but that isn't exclusively related to gas prices.
1. Efficient alternatives will always be preferable as long as something costs money. Even if fuel prices are low, people will prefer (ceteris paribus) cars that use less.
2. The alternative of fuel-efficient cars was present due to standards that forced the automobile industry to move in that direction (hence the VW scandal, they presented their cars as being more efficient than they are to get out of regulations)
3. Obama's "cash for clunkers" initiative also played a big role, as it made it cheaper to get a more fuel-efficient car
The American and French scenario's are not 1:1 comparable.

shut the fuck up, there are no heroes in politics

A tax on "food" would depend on what exactly was being taxed. The effect of a tax on calories would probably be marginal but increasing VAT on food would make a big difference. People wouldn't stop eating but would switch from ie eating steak to eating pork chops, things like that. It's why prices are such a good way to control behavior.
>people will prefer (ceteris paribus) cars that use less.
Sure, but ceteris isn't paribus. Americans like big cars but they also like money. If a big car costs more to run some of the people who would have bought one will instead buy small cars
>The American and French scenario's are not 1:1 comparable.
They don't have to be. Any scenario where you tax something, you will get less of it. The only thing that needs to be the same is for people to have limited purchasing power and they do everywhere

No, she shat herself and ruined her party after the last debate before Macron was elected. People won't forget it. But if someone else makes a similar party, they might have a little chance. But even if they were to win, it wouldn't be a big win.
People voted Macron because there was no one else really believable, and people didn't want Le Pen either.
The right and left parties are fucked too. Wauquiez is a poor excuse that is rejected by most of his own party, and the lefts have just no one really coming in.
Melenchon is fucked too.
But it's really hard to predict at this point, things could evolve fast.

>A tax on "food" would depend on what exactly was being taxed. The effect of a tax on calories would probably be marginal but increasing VAT on food would make a big difference. People wouldn't stop eating but would switch from ie eating steak to eating pork chops, things like that. It's why prices are such a good way to control behavior.
I agree, but that's because there's a structural problem of overeating. Even then, it would still more heavily burden those who have always retained a healthy calorie restrictive diet as their costs of living would increase as well. In such instance, it would be better (in terms of preventing obesity at least) to tax a certain number of disproprtionately fattening foods.

>Sure, but ceteris isn't paribus. Americans like big cars but they also like money. If a big car costs more to run some of the people who would have bought one will instead buy small cars
The fact that smaller and more efficient cars are already actively preferred in Europe actually undermines this idea that a fuel tax would lead to more efficient car purchases.

>Any scenario where you tax something, you will get less of it.
That depends on the scenario and how much less you get of it, as well as the existence of alternatives.

They're worse. But also because the yellow vests are mostly people that have been fed up for a long time with governments. Sarkozy and Hollande have fucked us both hard, so Macron is definitely gonna get fucked hard for this.

Europe already has high fuel taxes; yuros driving small cars proves me right