US officials underwhelmed by French far-right's plans for economy | Hacker News Reader

US officials underwhelmed by French far-right's plans for economy

reuters.com

7 pointsvrganj20 comments

If the ambassador was a career diplomat with detailed knowledge of France, he would not be surprised because there has been minimal change (edit: in economic terms, in societal terms the change has been massive) ever since MLP took over from her dad.

It's also funny that Kushner says this because the RN program is literally the French version of Trump 2.0 economic agenda:

1. If we drop taxes we will grow above deficit = Bessent's "Run it hot".

2. There is billions of dollars of welfare fraud done by illegal = Trump's comments about Minessota/Somalians.

3. Reducing subsidies to public sector and removing "leftist" government agencies = DOGE.

4. Economic protectionism for French companies = Liberation day.

Do as we say, not as we do. They are unimpressed with the French far right's economic plans because they are not sufficiently subservient to the American far right's economic interests.

Americans can effectively nationalize TikTok through crony capitalism, but the French must not dare think about charging a 6% digital tax that might cost FAANG CEOs a yacht or two.

RN is extremely far from modern Trumpism economically. RN is on the socialist end of the spectrum when it comes to economics, by American standards anyway. By French standards they're merely liberal.

If this guy thinks your plan is stupid, that's a bad sign:

> Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 counts of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering.[18][19][20] The witness tampering charge arose from Kushner's retaliation against William Schulder, his sister Esther's husband, who was cooperating with federal investigators against Kushner.[21] Kushner hired a prostitute to seduce his brother-in-law, arranging to record a sexual encounter between the two and send the tape to his sister.

How is this supposed to make me agree with Kushner?

Well, France is a country with: one of the higher level of taxation, 20% of the workforce that works for the government and affiliates, rigid and unwelcoming business and labour regulations, etc.

At the same time, it is a country very difficult to reform because any changes, even small, immediately trigger riots.

Lastly, at this point, referring to the RN as "far right" is just political FUD. It is the main party of the right and, with perspective, not so different to Chirac's RPR when it won the 1986 general election. But it is also populist and the leading party of the "working class" so might promise a lot of things, even contradictory ones but it's anyone guess what it would really be able to, or willing to, do in power.

Basically this, far right has been overused as a term which led to it becoming useless, it is just the same right of 20-30 years ago, and even that is incorrect given the RN is not against abortion, homosexual marriage or many other points the right defended in the past

Dude, their party has literally been founded by SS officers.

That was the FN in 1972, not the RN in 2026. Your comment is like saying that the US Democratic party is pro-slavery, it is nonsensical.

So they changed their names and not their attitudes?

That is a weak evasion.

And the modern descendant of the SFIO party which is the Socialist Party were literal Nazi collaborators under Pétain, one can hold nuance and judge the party by its current constitution both in terms of people and policies. Also small detail, the original founder (Le Pen) of the FN/RN turned against his daughter in his latter years because she betrayed the line of Le Pen father.

The true hardcore far right is incarnated in Reconquete and the Zemmour/Knafo/Marechal axis.

I mean yeah, the "far right" is just a reaction to the migration policy, globalization effects and the suicidal EU energy policy which send shockwaves in its industry and larger economy. Denmark shows that if a normal, even social democrat party tackles the second order effects of immigration the population will not turn to the extreme parties.

This explains the fact that aside from the slopulist and bombastic subjects, they don't have any real plan or serious depth in their policy proposals.

If the traditional parties fixed those issues, and most notably the migration policies, the ECHR extensive read of asylum/immigration rights the whole momentum behind them would disappear. I think Bardella will unironically continue Macron I's economic reforms of liberalizing the market and removing the extreme social protections which in times of abundance are ok, but in times of recession seem to enhance the unemployment and productivity issues even more.

The entire EU is dying out slowly from low birth rates. Our only hope is replenishing our population through immigration and anyone that argues against that is arguing against the survival of Europe.

That doesn’t work though, over 1 generation the TFR and family completedness of 2ng generation immigrants coverges to 80-90% of the native one and over 2 it seems to be on par or lower.

This is without all the social issues of putting them in ghettos and pulling up the ladders to their kids to integrate in society.

It works like debt, in the sense that you are taking a band-aid solution and kicking the can 15 years but they have been doing it since the 1980s so the can is here now.

So you just keep adding new folks? That's my point, we need immigration, systematically, or our societies are dead.

Ok and people are blank pages without cultures or tendencies, which means we can just graft them without issues?

There is also a dilution process by which you assimilate or adapt a population and if the % of new people is too high the culture that produced those societies basically disappears.

You need integration initiatives and strong enforcement. Integration is a two-party process, if either side doesn't take it seriously, it won't happen. We should be generous in giving out chances, but strict in taking them away from people that prove they're not making use of them.

The last argument is empirically incorrect. Think of Vienna for example, most of the population there has roots from all over the Austrian Empire. Yet, it's distinctly Austrian.

It's not a given, it takes effort. But it can be done.

But that's not the survival of Europe. That's erasing Europe for the sake of an ever increasing labour and consumers pool (which seems to be the only thing that matters in this brave new world).

Population cannot grow forever, and for the sake of the planet it may even good if it dropped. So this is something that we'll have to face at one point and the argument that there is not choice but mass immigration is a fallacy pushed to silence dissenting opinions (along with labelling dissenters racist and far-right).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com