blog:
madic50.blogspot.com / Book: The Two forms, ed. Amazon
Paris, Thursday, January
3, 2019
CONTRIBUTION (1) TO THE
NATIONAL DEBATE WISHED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC IN 2019
1. Preamble
I know from experience
that the function of the poor is to pretend to believe what state
officials tell about themselves or their activities.
So, as the President of
the Republic says he wants to consult the French in the wake of the
Yellow Vests Movement, I submit to the public debate the presentation
of two reforms.
1- One would increase not
purchasing power but the availability of purchases of the poor and
avoid their misery leads them mechanically to bankruptcy.
2- The other would allow
to accompany the poor with dignity in their last home.
Part 1: Borrowing for the
poor
2) - Organized plunder
If the government wants
to "give back" or "give" "purchasing power"
to the poor, create "social justice", it can decide to stop
the private looting of their treasuries.
The yellow vests forced
the authorities and the media to recognize that from now on:
a- The poor and the
average wage earners resort to borrowing to balance their ordinary
budget.
b- The only loans that
are within their reach, in any case that of the poorest, is the loan
at 19%.
c- They are excluded from
all others.
d- The instrument of
exclusion is the rejection of proof of income.
This loan is therefore
primarily created for people in financial difficulty and it organizes
the looting of the cash of the most vulnerable.
3) - The specificity of
the loan
This loan has the
particularity that it doubles the debt.
a- For 1000 euros
borrowed, the refund is 2000 euros.
b- Repayment should be at
3% or 4% interest depending on current rates.
When we look at a refund
sheet, we see that it includes:
a- The sum borrowed,
b- Interest at 19%
c- Insurance
The result is the payment
each month of twice the amount borrowed.
Here is an example (see
the document in PS)
1- 14/11/2018 Previous
monthly payment withdrawal including
capital: 18,10 € /
interest: 12,15 € /
insurance: 5.75 €
(Total) 36.00
14/11/2018 Interest
(including insurance) 17,90
2- Amount of the due date
to collect on 14/12/2018: 39,00 €
Of which capital: 19,15 €
| interest: 13,16 € | insurance: € 6.69.
Number of remaining
monthly payments (estimate): 35 (including this one)
Rate following the
outstanding amount of your standard uses:
Annual Total Effective
Rate (APR): 19.130% /
Average Monthly Debt Rate
(MCT): 1.469%
Monthly rate of the
insurance borrower: 0.700%, applying on the balance remaining due.
Total amount payable:
39,00 €
4) - The risk argument
The argument of the
lenders is that of the risk they take to lend to people who are
likely to flee.
To stigmatize bad payers,
these same lenders say that 95% of borrowers normally pay back.
The French do not live in
the desert. They live in a society of law that has long provided
lenders with the means to get their money back.
The few times lenders are
there for their expenses are the cases where they lend money
equivalent to capital to people they know they will not be able to
repay at the slightest hitch.
This is the definition of
Subprimes. The famous crisis of 2008 was a voluntary fault on the
part of the lenders.
In the 1990s, with
revolving credit, the attack on the poor by soft loans was so brutal
that the government had to urgently take bank guarantee measures for
borrowers and moralizing for lenders.
Even in these
circumstances, the lenders were beneficiaries.
The over-indebtedness
caused by this looting is the main serious cause of bankruptcy of the
borrower.
5) - Insurance
There is no justification
for the payment of insurance to borrow a sum of 1500 or 2000 euros.
These unjustified
assurances are only an artificial means of looting.
In fact, the lender makes
the borrower pay, with profit, as a commercial service, an insurance
that concerns only him.
6) - The right of looting
The only justification
for this doubling of the amount reimbursed is the abuse of position
vis-à-vis vulnerable people, without defenses, who are obliged to go
through these conditions to pay basic necessities; furniture or
holidays are part of it.
It is a right of plunder
that these people give themselves. As the lords imposed on the
peasant women a right of cuissage.
This looting is in itself
a major cause of undue impoverishment of the poor.
a- For most of them, the
couch or TV bought by this credit will result in a reduction of meals
or their quality.
b- For some, this looting
leads to the ruin of overindebtedness. This can result in the loss of
housing and thus employment, etc.
Nothing, no honest
economic disposition, justifies this device of looting.
7) - The solution,
The government can act so
that:
a- These rates combine
with ordinary rates.
b- These redundant
insurance is taken care of by the lender.
In that case :
a- It would "give"
or "give" then "purchasing power" to the most
vulnerable.
b- It would better equip
poor households.
c- It would increase the
demand.
d- It would avoid the
disorders of over-indebtedness.
e- It would not be in any
way a commercial danger.
Or, it should be honest
to include the right to plunder, the benefit of the abuse of
weakness, in commercial law.
The sums involved are so
great that there is no risk that the lenders will stop lending.
Everyone knows it.
Part 2: Incineration of
the poor
On Friday, April 18,
2014, I addressed a letter to the Prime Minister regarding the
incineration of the poor.
The Yellow Vests forced
the authorities to recognize that they never reply to letters sent to
them by ordinary people.
The question is simple:
the poor can not afford to be buried or cremated under current
commercial conditions.
A way must be found to
market the least expensive departure or to ensure that the community
can bear the costs; which is also to reduce the costs.
Today, in our movement
society, the only way to ensure the dignity of the dead is cremation.
Burial is no longer
appropriate.
a- It has become too
expensive.
b- Land issues make
cemeteries relocate.
It is a massive fact that
the tombs are abandoned simply because of the dispersion of families.
d- The sale of the
funerary vaults of the Prouvost family should encourage humility as
regards tomb eternity.
It is pure hypocrisy to
pretend to give burial to people who can not afford to pay a grave,
nor to move to honor their dead.
The common wrong then
takes its full dimension mortuary discharge.
For the poor,
incineration allows:
a- reduce costs to a
minimum by leaving only the professionals the path of reduction of
bodies into ashes (collection of the body, driving to the local
crematorium, incineration).
b- pay homage to the dead
by the only ceremony of dispersion of ashes. It is made on an area of
land of 3m in diameter that serves every day. The employee who
disperses the ashes does not carry out any expensive technical
manipulation.
c- The religious
ceremony, if any, can be held at this time.
d- In case of miseries or
loneliness, associations can provide for families or relatives.
e- create a website for
the collation of the dead and their qualities.
Incineration also makes
it possible to operate on site and possibly only move the ashes or
retain them until the arrival of relatives.
All this should bring
down prices significantly.
It becomes possible to:
to create tariffs
accessible to low-income people.
b- allow associations and
communities to cover these reduced expenses; in part or in whole.
I do not see how burial
in a mass grave would cost the community less than cremation reduced
to the simplest.
The question of the
dignity of bodies outside public observation depends on the morality
of the public or private administrations, which are then the
responsibility of the Minister of the Interior and by no means a
contractual one.
Conclusion
Such arrangements for
cremation would be far more respectful of the poor than burial in a
mass grave in an eccentric cemetery.
More and more French
people will be cremated. This practice is much better adapted to
modern life. It is widespread in other European countries.
Marc SALOMONE
