France’s protests raise a question that goes well beyond France: what happens when people keep paying into a system that seems to deliver less every year?
Schools, pensions and household bills are immediate concerns. Behind them sits a political argument about how much governments can promise, who finances those promises and what happens when borrowing becomes expensive. That is where I want to begin this series.
The anger behind the protests
In Limoges, a group attacked the town hall after a protest on 17 October 2026, setting fire to part of the historic building. Thousands subsequently gathered to condemn the destruction. The protest and the attack should be distinguished. Le Monde’s reporting from Limoges makes that distinction clear.
The grievances deserve attention in their own right. A parent worried about a school needs a functioning school. But I also want to understand why governments with enormous budgets struggle to meet expectations they helped create.
I am Greek and conservative, and my criticism of socialism comes from that perspective. I lived through Greece’s banking crisis in 2015. Banks closed and ATM withdrawals were initially limited to €60 a day. The restrictions were real, as the National Bank of Greece’s announcement records. You remember that experience when somebody assures you that the state has everything under control.
My argument concerns a familiar habit: expanding obligations, postponing difficult choices and borrowing to cover the difference. Governments of more than one political colour have done it. That is the part of the European model I oppose. The numbers explain why.
Promises that depend on tomorrow’s workers
France’s social protection benefits amounted to an estimated 31.9% of GDP in 2024. Pensions and healthcare are included in that figure. These are substantial, recurring commitments which the economy has to support. Eurostat’s estimate.
Meanwhile, French public debt reached 119% of GDP in the second quarter of 2026. This is a stock of accumulated debt measured against annual output, rather than the amount France must repay in a single year. Even so, servicing a large debt absorbs resources before a government can address new demands. INSEE’s quarterly figures.
Pensions show why the age of the population matters. In a system financed largely by current contributions and public revenue, today’s workers help pay today’s pensions. Retirees have contributed during their working lives. The question is whether the current economy produces enough taxable income to meet the obligations now falling due.
The EU’s fertility rate was 1.34 children per woman in 2024, according to Eurostat. Persistently low fertility changes the size of future generations entering work. Its effects unfold over decades, alongside longer lives, migration and changes in employment.
Headcounts alone do not settle the calculation. Higher productivity and more people in paid work can increase the resources available. But a government cannot simply assume those improvements will arrive while making commitments today.
This is the part of the welfare debate that frustrates me. Announcing a benefit earns immediate political credit. Explaining the taxes, spending choices or future borrowing needed to finance it is considerably less popular. The payment still comes due. I explored the related Greek problem in my article on debt, pensions and repayments after 2032, in Greek.
Immigration needs a route into work
Immigration is often proposed as an answer to an ageing workforce. The United Nations examined this question in its Replacement Migration study, modelling different population and age structure scenarios. The UN study.
Adding residents and increasing the number of people contributing to a pension system are connected, but they are not identical. People need access to jobs, language skills and a place in the legal economy. Someone working informally for cash may be producing value while remaining outside the protections and contribution systems that integration is supposed to strengthen.
There is also evidence of a real contribution. A 2026 paper published by the European Commission’s economics department finds that immigration has supported EU employment growth and helped ease labour shortages. Its findings also underline why employment is central to this debate. The paper’s findings.
My criticism concerns incentives and the quality of integration. Learning the language, working, respecting the law and participating in society should be central expectations. Support that leaves people indefinitely dependent has failed to achieve that purpose.
This requires examining actual employment outcomes and the obstacles people face. The useful measures are participation in work, contributions and the prospects of the next generation. The policy question is whether the system helps people become independent and contribute.
Who benefits from the arrangement?
An employer and an employee can experience the same economic policy very differently. Access to more workers may help a business recruit and control costs. For someone competing for the same jobs, the concern is bargaining power and pay. The outcome depends on the market, the skills involved and the jobs created; an aggregate growth figure cannot describe every household’s experience.
This is what I mean by an economy shaped like the letter K. Some people see rising profits or asset values. Others find that rent, food and energy leave less of their pay available at the end of the month. Both experiences can exist within an economy described as growing.
The distance between decision makers and those affected matters too. A politician who can afford private schooling and an expensive neighbourhood has options unavailable to a family dependent on its local public services. It is reasonable to ask whether that politician experiences the consequences of the policies being promoted.
Following the money means examining those differences: who receives revenue, who carries the cost and who makes the decision. It takes more evidence to establish that somebody deliberately caused a crisis. Financial benefit alone does not prove it.
Defence spending adds another claim on the budget
Europe is making larger defence commitments while facing pressure on domestic budgets. NATO’s Hague agreement set a target of 5% of GDP by 2035, comprising at least 3.5% for core defence requirements and up to 1.5% for related security and resilience investment. Infrastructure is part of the latter category. The commitment therefore reaches beyond weapons purchases. NATO’s explanation.
The EU has also agreed a €90 billion support loan for Ukraine covering 2026 and 2027. Its indicative allocation is €60 billion for military assistance and €30 billion for economic support. The financing comes through EU borrowing backed by the EU budget, with repayment linked to war reparations due from Russia. The Council’s account of the loan.
The cost is carried through a European financing arrangement. Repayment depends on future events, while the borrowing has to be supported in the meantime. That belongs in the public discussion too.
I want these commitments debated alongside the demands being made of households. If citizens are told that domestic spending must be restrained, they deserve a concrete explanation of the priorities, expected results and funding of new commitments. Russia’s invasion is the context for the support to Ukraine. Its financial cost still deserves scrutiny.
There are commercial interests in these markets. Palantir supplies software to government and commercial customers, including defence applications. Bloom Energy supplies fuel cell systems for electricity generation. They illustrate businesses positioned around demand for technology and power. Their own descriptions clarify Palantir’s business and Bloom Energy’s technology.
A taxpayer financing public spending and a shareholder in a supplier occupy different positions. Understanding that difference is more useful than assuming that a company which has already risen in value must be a good purchase now.
America already has an interest bill
Americans do not need to wait for a European style crisis to ask these questions. In fiscal 2026, US federal net interest reached $1.052 trillion and the deficit approached $2 trillion. Axios’s report on Treasury figures.
Those payments represent resources committed to past borrowing. Adding new permanent promises means explaining how they fit alongside the obligations already there.
The political appetite matters. Gallup’s August 2026 survey found that 43% of Americans viewed socialism positively. Among adults aged 18 to 34, the figure was 57%, compared with 43% for capitalism. However, small business and free enterprise also remained popular. These answers measure attitudes towards economic concepts; they are not votes for one detailed spending programme. Gallup’s results.
My concern is the appeal of promises presented as free when their financing is left vague. People facing expensive housing and childcare have real reasons to want relief. They also deserve to know what a proposal costs, who pays and whether its funding lasts.
America has considerable capacity to build businesses and create wealth. I want that capacity protected. A warning from Europe is useful if it encourages scrutiny before commitments become difficult to change. There is still time to question what is being promised and insist on an answer.
What this means for your own money
The practical starting point is learning how borrowing, inflation and ownership affect your finances. Owning an asset does not make it immune to losses. Understanding what you own, its price and the risks involved gives you a better basis for decisions than reacting to frightening headlines.
I have traded since 2017. Trading is a skill that takes time, and it is not suitable for everyone. A political argument about government debt is no reason to rush into a trade. Market losses are real, including when the broader analysis sounds persuasive.
I also have a commercial partnership with UFunded, a third party offering access to funded trading accounts. If you are considering that route, understand the fees, account conditions, loss limits and withdrawal rules before committing. Access to a funded account does not mean cost free participation or guaranteed earnings. You can start with the explanation of our UFunded partnership in the episode and establish the terms before deciding whether to proceed. You can also visit our UFunded partner page. This is an affiliate link; I may earn a commission.
For me, the useful response to this debate starts with being able to examine the numbers yourself. When a politician promises something, ask how it will be paid for. When an investment is offered, understand what you could lose. You should be able to get a clear answer to both.