Fact Check: French Streamer Debunks Neoliberalism & Leftist Economics

These issues deeply involve the history of France. We must not let these issues or the urgent choices of our time

wither away; we must be able to articulate them, uphold them strongly, and not let them be diluted in the

masquerade of political vanities and fleeting whims. A world is coming to an end. This world is the one that has

been laying down the law for 40 years. Neoliberalism. >> Extending to the entire planet.

>> After having used the Pinochet dictatorship as a research laboratory and extending to the entire planet all

the more quickly once the USSR collapsed. So, quickly, the word " neoliberalist" does not exist, just

like the word "ultraliberalism"; it is literally a neologism. In short, it is a portmanteau word created by the Left

to automatically disqualify people who want to weaken the State and give it less power. It’s funny because it’s

the same people who call certain parties fascist, even though those parties want to reduce the State's role

in the lives of citizens. Uh, neoliberalism doesn't mean anything. Now, if it could be a perverted form of

liberalism, which is that of crony capitalism, I am completely...I completely agree with this take: the

more space the State takes, the more the State wants to engage in politics with large financial groups, the more

the State will dilute and capture the money of the French to use for electoral purposes and for the purposes

of dominating power, while enriching billionaires. That is true, but that is only due to the fact that the State

takes up so much space. Once again, if an individual is freer to keep a portion of their work and we don't take

50%of the income they generate, well, in fact, we will have much less of this crony capitalism—what Mélenchon

calls neoliberalism. But the problem with the word "neoliberalism" is that " liberalism" is inside it. And

liberalism is the defense of individual liberties. That is the difference, that is the. It is the defense of private

property, the defense of everyone's freedom to do what they want with their money, and above all, to have a huge

personal investment in the fact that all the work they do will bring them money, and not just a small fraction of

the wealth they create. Therefore, people who are more productive, more invested, more passionate, and more

capable of converting their efforts into something even greater. And so, this neologism is deeply dangerous for

our society, which today has a cruel need for a return to more individual freedom. So there you go, obviously, he

had to bring it up after 3 minutes of debate or a meeting. And it's very scary. It's very, very scary. Yeah,

damn, there are 3,500 of us on the stream, but it says 22,000. I’m begging you, stop your crap, please.

You left-wing people who are botting, please. Stop it. It’s not good what you’re doing, actually. You lefties

love to alter signals way too much. I’m just going to use this as an example. In a functioning society, we

operate based on supply and demand. Meaning that when people want something , they say so. When people sell

something, they say so. It’s the exchange between those who sell and those who offer to buy that sets a

price. If people want a lot of something, the price might go up if that thing is in limited supply. But

meanwhile, if that thing is in huge supply and everyone can offer it, the price will go down. And there is an

automatic balance that occurs between supply and demand. And actually, what happens is that when we let the free

market work, you know, the invisible hand, these are economic theorems that are relatively consensual. Without

falling into clichés, right. Generally speaking, I mean, you're on Dofus, you buy something, well, if lots of people

are selling the resource, the price will drop because there’s always someone who will list it cheaper,

cheaper, and cheaper to make some money , and that's it. And the price will go down. And actually, if tomorrow at the

Bonta marketplace we decided that from now on, compressed Oural bread will always be 3,999 for 50, well, what will

happen is a total distortion of supply and demand, because the price is no longer set by the market itself; it’s

set by an external entity. And actually , what leftists don't understand is that the moment you do that, you create

, uh, problems of scarcity. You create problems, uh, of signals that mean you can instantly have shortages, uh,

because people no longer want to sell at a price that has been set lower than it should be, since there’s no longer

any profit for them in doing so. they would have been better off working to sell something else that sells for more

, rather than continuing to produce something that doesn't bring them what the market normally should offer. And

so this suppression of the price signal , which is normally created naturally by all the market intermediaries. I

don't know, tomorrow you buy some bread : there was flour, there was wheat, there was a moment when someone had to

transport the wheat. There are hundreds , thousands of actors who don't even talk to each other, who don't

communicate with one another, but who work to create this price value. And that's how an economy is built and

that's how, in the end, we get the right price signal, we have a good understanding of the market and we can

know where we should put in effort or not. And so the mentally ill and completely idiotic leftist, what he's

going to do is destroy this signal, for example by botting my channel to make it look like it has more views than it

really does. He’s going to completely distort the Twitch market and so it will make people want to watch my

channel more than another. even though the market had decided that I had 3,500 viewers. So in fact, he’s going to

completely parasitize this signal that normally allows us to know who should be highlighted or not. Do you

understand? So there you go, that's why the leftist hasn't understood anything about how things work and that

everything functions through cheating and lies. And that is very, very bad. But wait, when I talk about the leftist

in the sense of price manipulation, I'm not talking about Mélenchon here, I'm talking about the entire French

political scene because rent caps in France are something that is in the country's DNA. Uh, the system at the

pump, we are going to virtually reduce the price at the pump per liter of gas. Likewise, these are market

manipulations that have returns later on that are much greater than the money you saved at the time, right? It’s

what happens much later. A perfect example that happened a week ago, the € 1 cafeteria. There you go, the €

1 cafeteria, you know, for university students. Damn, it’s weird, you have to wait in line for 3 hours, so people

don't even have time to eat actually, and there are shortages. After 250 people have eaten, they tell you: "Well

, there's no more food actually, we don't have nearly enough to feed everyone anymore." We're in the USSR,

guys, because some idiot at the National Assembly decided, "Hey, let's set the canteen price to € 1 so

everyone's happy." Well, great. Except the meal doesn't actually cost € 1. So what do we do now? We can't eat

anymore, basically. Oh, that wasn't predictable at all. Nobody saw that coming. Anyway, there you go. Look,

this is just a little economics lesson here. It's the very first chapter you could read in any recent economics book

that doesn't date back 300 or 150 years like Marx. We're talking about books written after the 50s by people who are

truly qualified in economics and who really understand the challenges of our modern society. We're talking about

Mises, we're talking about Hayek, we're talking about Jevons, we're talking about Bastiat. See, you have plenty of

people who can explain the concept of the price signal today and why we can't afford to lie about that signal. And

there you go, that was a quick economics corner, it's very much a caricature, but it explains why the

term liberalism is misused today and, above all, why leftists love to lie so much about the signals that the market

is normally supposed to give us. There you go, >> there is in this room

>> and, by the way, one last thing regarding the signal the market gives us, you have something called the OAT,

which is basically, roughly over 10 years, how we predict France will be doing in 10 years from an economic

standpoint. Today, you could see that it went over 5%. Well, it's gone back down to 4.7, I think. But actually, 5%

is huge. Basically, the higher this figure is, the more it means that investors think France is going to

collapse economically over the next 10 years. And so basically, if you're an investor today, you can say, "Well,

look, I'm betting—I'm betting, it's gambling, it's a bet on an investment —that in 10 years, France will have

become an economic hellhole and won't have a penny left." And if you bet on the fact that France is going to die,

this rate goes up. And if you bet that France will pull itself together, this rate goes down. And this signal, in

fact, synthesizes all all all the economic actors orbiting around France. It synthesizes all the signals we see

today from the presidential candidates. Because obviously, depending on who gets elected, well, France's economic

trajectory won't be the same. Depending on who might get elected, one can predict that France's economic

trajectory won't be the same. And today , it is these speculative predictions that give an idea of whether or not to

invest in France. And that means today, with the current market functioning that you communists won't call into

question. That doesn't exist. That's how the market works, and that's that. You little French people won't be able

to decide on an international scale how it works, because the people investing in France aren't French; they are

foreigners. Uh, and so today, when these people see that Mélenchon is gaining percentage points, they bet on

the fact that France is going to die. When you see that Marine Le Pen has a socialist program and is about to be

elected—socialist-statist, sorry— they bet on the fact that France is going to die too. Investors aren't

betting on Marine Le Pen; they are betting on Lisnard. If Lisnard gains percentage points, uh, which is

unlikely, mind you, because he is very little known, investors will start to say there might be a little hope. But

all current policies, all the investors betting on France, see Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen rising, and they say, "

It's over, let's move on." And besides, the fact that we went from 5.2%to 4.7% today on 10-year OATs is because Marine

Le Pen announced a funded pension reform. So, the fact that people were going to, basically, perhaps understand

in France that maybe there is a pension problem that needs to be brought to light, maybe making a reform that would

allow us to stop losing 30%of all public finances on pensions every year, right. So there you go, sorry, uh

something is happening. No, but is what I'm telling you interesting? Do you think I should just let Mélenchon

speak here? But I think it's really the moment every time there's a message from Mélenchon, no? and to ramble a

little bit, obviously the >> people who witnessed this long journey where, year after year, month after

month, we saw in every country that had previously enjoyed incredible social gains that drew a different horizon for

the people. All that was taken back, and everywhere people were pushed into misery, retreating from their hard-won

gains. I’m coming to an end. >> So, just regarding the fact that he's saying that we are pushing all people

into misery, well, that's actually false. Extreme poverty, which is estimated as earning around 3 dollars a

day. Basically, people who really don't make a dime and work for peanuts and are slaves all over the world, that has

only decreased. I mean, when China completely left behind economic communism, and countries like Russia,

the USSR, etc., calmed things down a bit. Actually, we saw extreme poverty drop from about 20%down to 5 or 6%. I

don't know the exact figures, but in any case, it has only gone down. And in countries that are more liberal and

have less state appropriation of people's money, that is where it was the fastest, where extreme poverty

decreased the quickest. I mean, in China from 1978 to today, we went from 98%extreme poverty to 0.1%. It’s

unprecedented in the history of humanity. And besides, you can even see it in the number of—anyway, because

it is finished, because its own contradictions led it to the point where the empire that thought for a

moment it would dominate the world forever. This empire, the United States of America, led first by Mr. Trump,

then by Mr. Biden, who had no other direction, then by Mr. Trump again. Each time the worst arises because in

the meantime we trusted people who we thought, because they were less divisive, more pleasant, would restore

the people's rights here and there. They only accelerated the catastrophe. Actually, the problem with our society

is that we have much more communication . We went through a transition with social media where we see the worst

much more than before. But the worst has always existed. It's just more highlighted now. On that, I think we

can agree. We see much more of the guy who got stabbed or this person or that. That's why people are more racist,

because they see a lot more things going by, but in reality, well, it's not—I mean, it is increasing, but

it's increasing faster than we think it's actually increasing. That's for sure. The big tragedies, the big

civilizational shifts, and I think Mélenchon falls into this bias of seeing more poverty than there was

before, even though inequality has only gone down. Well, certain Gini coefficients in some countries haven't

necessarily just improved. The Gini index is what shows inequality. So, basically, it compares the top 20%

richest, the top 50%richest, and so on. It helps to estimate a little bit what we were saying earlier for those who

just arrived: in France, we have a ratio of 22 to 1 between what the richest 10%earn and what the poorest 10

%earn. 22 times is before state intervention, before taxes, before redistribution. So before it's 22x, and

after it's 3.5 x. So, basically, the state plays an enormous role in redistribution. We go from 22x down to

3.5 x. I repeat, the richest 10%earn 22 times more every month than the poorest 10%. And after state intervention and

redistribution, it's 3.5 x, you see? Or 2.6. Anyway, we are in a country that is much less unequal than it was in the

past, and yet they want to lower this ratio even further, which today is maybe at 1. But the day the ratio is 1

and everyone is equal, earning the same , why would people go to work? What is the point of going to work or

generating more wealth? None. None. And the more we reduce this ratio, the more we are reducing the incentive for

people to go to work and to produce wealth. And what the Mélenchonists don't want to understand, what the

communists don't want to understand, what the Marxists don't want to understand, is that the cake is not a

fixed size. The cake can grow. If we produce more wealth, maybe some people will have much bigger slices than

others, but the smallest slice, the people who will inherit that small slice will be bigger. We don't need

everyone to have the same slice. The day everyone has the same slice, the cake will have never been smaller, and

we will have never had a smaller individual slice, even if it is the same size as that of the rich

millionaire standing next to you. That is how it works. And the Marxists just don't want to understand that, even

though it's the foundation of every economy. I mean, today, in France, it's the easiest example to point to.

Someone on welfare earns barely less— once you take away the cost of haircuts , clothes, and lunches with colleagues

—than a guy on minimum wage. When there is a 300 or 400 euro difference at most at the end of the month between

what you earn on welfare versus minimum wage, accounting for everything that working implies, of course. You have to

buy clothes, you have to get up in the morning, you don't necessarily have the time to shop for cheaper goods, you

have to go to the supermarket where everything is more expensive because you don't have the time to go to all

the markets to get things cheaper. In the end, there's a 300 euro difference. So why would the guy on welfare bother

going to work for minimum wage? Working 35 hours a week doesn't interest them. Why? Because we wanted to reduce

inequalities so much that today we end up with people who no longer want to work. So there is less money. So we

have a poverty that starts to emerge, even for property owners, because there is no more wealth being created, since

there is less wealth in the country. Do you see the logic? Well yes, the fatigue, the gas, the time, but

obviously there is no debate today between welfare and minimum wage; you choose welfare every single day, of

course. And I—and once again—I don't even blame the people who choose welfare. It is a perverse strategy that

was created by the state. The state is making the French people vicious. The French are one of the most hardworking

peoples in the history of humanity. We had 95%of people working in the fields just 100 years ago. Today, people no

longer want to work, not because they are slackers, but because, strategically, it is more attractive to

be on welfare than to be on minimum wage. And so obviously people will stay on unemployment as long as they can

because they've contributed to it and because enough money was taken from them their whole lives for it. So

actually, people are just being smart. They are smart because the socialists allow them to be. There you go, it's

that simple.