Gonna keep it short here....
1: you need to calm down, cause your ideology is harming your reading comprehension. Never said any of the stuff you put in my mouth.
2: your facts are wrong from the start. "In the late '80's/early 90's Credit Lyonnais was the largest private bank in Europe"? Again: ALL French banks were nationalized in 82, along with big parts of the industrial sector. CL was privatized again in 99. Not gonna bother arguing with the rest of your drivel...just stop pretending like you know what you are talking about.
3: "eejit?" you know, insulting someone during an argument just proves how weak your mind is. That's some Trump shit. if you're not from the US, maybe you should move there, you would fit right in with the level of political discourse there at the moment.
anyways.... I fear this thread is gonna be political for a while. "Non-freedom country" is pretty funny.
Sanch would have a meltdown if he knew the UK is actually some hyper-capitalist system compared to France, Germany or Scandinavia.... 
Fair enough, let's stop arguing for the sake of this thread after this.
But, please, stop writing your own take on history out of thin air. In 1984 Mitterand announced his liberalization program for the French economy, meaning among other things that state-owned companies would go on to operate as private companies (a forerunner to what New Labour would later do in the U.K. for example, and essentially every social democratic party in Europe: copy the program of your right-wing/conservative/ultra-capitalist opponent, but give it a little friendlier face). As part of this program, the new 'banking law' of 1986 deregulated France's financial sector. This meant that 1. the French state cut down their majority stake in CL to a minority stake, 2. CL was free to expand internationally, buying up financial institutions left right and center across Europe, and shedding its primary focus on servicing the French economy. 3. remaining state-owned companies, for example in the real estate sector, weren't any longer obliged to find funding with France's (formerly nationalized) largest banks, such as CL, but could start using global capital markets, thus even further ripping up any semblance of CL's former monopoly-like position backed by nationalization. The only thing that the French state kept total control over after 1986 was that the French finance minister held a veto in appointing CL's CEO (which would become Haberer; who you can't, by any stretch of the imagination, call anything close to a socialist).
Summary: Credit Lyonnais was not a nationalized bank from 1986 onwards. That's not a debate I'm trying to have with you; it's factual information that I'm giving you, regardless of whether you decide to accept it.
p.s.: Eejit is a much more endearing term than you make it out to be. I'm a bit of an eejit. My mum's sometimes being an eejit. Fred Gall is definitely an eejit at the best of times.
p.p.s.: Don't insult your own intelligence by trying to make it seem like I'm a hardline, deeply committed commie. I just take issue with dudes willfully holding verifiably false and simple, comfortable, milquetoast opinions about stuff that's important (although, I'll admit, we're way past a focus on important stuff now). I'm not trying to be a revolutionary, I'm just trying to call out an eejit take every now and then.
p.p.p.s: Before you start calling me akin (inversely) to a Trump supporter, maybe have a look back at that one time you were arguing that the Middle East looks the way it looks because people in 'Islamic countries' (by which I think you meant some sort of wildly imaginary block of states, all getting along with each other nicely for centuries, just being Muslim together in the exact same way, and being on the same page on everything pretty much all the time) just don't like democracy, and that's a there is too it. A conclusion you arrived at through your observation that every Islamic country works as some form of dictatorship.
Topic: lame instagram posts by pros (Read 2858424 times)