NationStates Jolt Archive

I've always found it remarkable how socialist France was. For one, the climate was never exactly business friendly. Labor unions seem at times more powerful than the government. There's a government sponsored pension plan, the government gurantees jobs for life (even if it can't provide them), universal healthcare, the declining institution of marraige, and the Catholic Church becoming increasingly meaningless, and less powerful. So this is pretty much as socialists as many societies are willing to go, I thought. But boy was I wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31484-2004Mar28.html
What the hell are these guys gonna think of? The government being the only retailer of clothing allowed?

I'm going to say that it probably can get more socialist, even though I understand that that's not the intention of your question, because I'm a jerk. :)

Stupid server.

Yes, by abolishing property and giving workers genuine control of the means of production. It's really state capitalist now.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Stupid server, part 2.

...

I've always found it remarkable how socialist France was. For one, the climate was never exactly business friendly. Labor unions seem at times more powerful than the government. There's a government sponsored pension plan, the government gurantees jobs for life (even if it can't provide them), universal healthcare, the declining institution of marraige, and the Catholic Church becoming increasingly meaningless, and less powerful. So this is pretty much as socialists as many societies are willing to go, I thought. But boy was I wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31484-2004Mar28.html
What the hell are these guys gonna think of? The government being the only retailer of clothing allowed?You make it sound like a bad thing. It works for them, and I say, good for them. They've decided that it's more important that the folks at the bottom of the economic ladder are taken care of than that the folks at the top of the economic ladder get even richer. As long as they're deciding it and it's not being forced on them from outside, I say, more power to them.

Vive la France, vive la socialisme!

Yes, by abolishing property and giving workers genuine control of the means of production. It's really state capitalist now.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
No, capitalism is when you make money, in the hopes of being able to provide for yourself. However, the state is not practicing its form of capitalism. It's practicing, in short, economic suicide. For example, in France, everyone who wants a job has one, as the government gurantees. Those who don't want one aren't in the workforce. So within the workforce, can you guess the unemployment rate? 12%. It's hurting the economy. And after the French government taxes the hell out of the citizenry, they mismanage money, sometimes into programs that need huge bureaocracies to survive. And, of course, each one needs their own labor unions, and as we've seen with their mass transit systems, the French government makes them extremely powerful. In fact, they were able to go on a nice, long strike, because the French government was loosing money in their pensions. Further socialization will only drive their economy into the ground.

Capitalism must be brought down by the working class itself, not by the government.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I've always found it remarkable how socialist France was. For one, the climate was never exactly business friendly. Labor unions seem at times more powerful than the government. There's a government sponsored pension plan, the government gurantees jobs for life (even if it can't provide them), universal healthcare, the declining institution of marraige, and the Catholic Church becoming increasingly meaningless, and less powerful. So this is pretty much as socialists as many societies are willing to go, I thought. But boy was I wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31484-2004Mar28.html
What the hell are these guys gonna think of? The government being the only retailer of clothing allowed?You make it sound like a bad thing. It works for them, and I say, good for them. They've decided that it's more important that the folks at the bottom of the economic ladder are taken care of than that the folks at the top of the economic ladder get even richer. As long as they're deciding it and it's not being forced on them from outside, I say, more power to them.
See my last post. Plus, in fifty years, they'll have an extremely elderly population, and a small workforce. Right now, they have a 1.4 fertility rate, less than replacement levels, and rather low immigration. Their population will contract, and with a smaller workforce, yet more people to support, it'll be much harder to support a socialist society. The only way to do that is to destroy their economy, and poverty will become a reality for many people. Similar trends are happening all throughout Europe. So, they'll have to make a choice: turn capitalist, and send a few into poverty, or remain socialist, and drive the entire society into poverty.

Capitalism must be brought down by the working class itself, not by the government.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg
And what'll be in place of a government they bring down? A new government! People need some form of order in their lives. Read some Locke for me, will ya?

History has shown us the future of France if they keep going down the ath they've apparently chosen....I had a buddy...served at the US Embassy in Moscow before perostroika (sp?) He recalls long lines for such simple things as loaf of bread...companies with antiquated equipment, no incentive to perform higher then the norm because everyone was working, there was no upward mobility..so why perform better?..He never understood how communism lasted in the USSR as long as it did..then he remembers..those long lines of tanks that would be paraded out in Red Square...and the numerous instances of KGB intruding in the personal lives of their citizens...I wonder if the people of France willl like their system when the baby boomers can't work anymore, a declining birth rate and fewer taxable people to provide for their welfare state.

As long as it doesn't effect the USA, I couldn't care less what they do. Well, not entirely. If they started violating human rights, I'd care.

It can and probably will.

Friggin French.

Apparently you miss the point - France, like many other nations cannot afford the huge liability of the over-generous social give-aways.

For now it is working, but it is like living on credit cards. Eventually there will be no room left to charge, then payments will be too high, and the bell will ring for thee.

Ever wonder what a country does when it can't afford it's own bills? All you need do is look south of the border at some third world countries for an answer: They print more money.

If you have any grasp on economics then you know this leads to inflation and the devalueing of that currency in the global markets. Mass poverty ensues, and government corruption follows closely.

Presently France has, among other things, a 35 hour workweek and retirement at 55. TO call their economy unproductive would be an understatement.

What was the last thing you bought with a 'Made in France' tag? Want to buy a French car? Of course not, Renault and Peugot are crap. Were it not for the fact that much of their food (wine/cheese) sector were substantially less regulated then it would be unlikely that they would have any exports at all. The same goes for any other socialist economies. Name one that exports anything of quality and value?

Without incentive, mediocrity ensues.

As long as it doesn't effect the USA, I couldn't care less what they do. Well, not entirely. If they started violating human rights, I'd care.
But it will. One of the big reasons the Marshall plan went into effect after WWII was because most economists agreed that in order to continue American prosperity, we needed good trading partners. Europe has always been a trading partner. Letting them decline is depriving us of that advantage. Of course, when their economy does weaken like that, they'll lose global market share, and become less important of an economy. But they'll still need us. Really, it'll be a favor to themselves if they start abandoning such socialism. Even a social system more like what we have would be better (although I think ours is way too generous, but certainly not like the French's).

We have the Chinese to replace the French. The standard of living there has been doubling every three years. At that rate they will surpass the French very soon.

Odd that they are both going in pposite directions...

History has shown us the future of France if they keep going down the ath they've apparently chosen....I had a buddy...served at the US Embassy in Moscow before perostroika (sp?) He recalls long lines for such simple things as loaf of bread...companies with antiquated equipment, no incentive to perform higher then the norm because everyone was working, there was no upward mobility..so why perform better?..He never understood how communism lasted in the USSR as long as it did..then he remembers..those long lines of tanks that would be paraded out in Red Square...and the numerous instances of KGB intruding in the personal lives of their citizens...I wonder if the people of France willl like their system when the baby boomers can't work anymore, a declining birth rate and fewer taxable people to provide for their welfare state.

One must remember that Communist Russia, while the apparent focal point of socialist and Communist thought worldwide, wasn't actually true socialism -- it hadn't been since Stalin took over the politburo. Citing the USSR as a foil in the debate over socialism and capitalism is like citing William Shatner (or any other Canadian) in the debate of who's the best American.

I have a different take on issues:

1. The military keeping the Soivet Union together. If you review the arms reduction talks between the US and the USSR in the 1960's you'll find it was the US that wanted to keep the arms race going. Some historians argue that the militatisation of the USSR economy was brought about due to US increases in military spending. There is some evidence that that economic reform was considerd by the Soviet's as early as the 1970's but US moves, such as increased military spending, disallowed this.

2. State ran enterprises. Where I live, Victoria, Australia, we once had state ran power companies, eletricity, gas etc. In the late 1990's we privatised this sector of our economy and US companies took over it, laying off many workers. Net result - a gas plant blows up becasue they didn't employ enough people to maintain it properly. A few workers were killed and Victoria was left without enough gas for 2 weeks, shutting down most of the states industry and I couldn't take a hot shower. Would you call that efficent? Our public transport has similar stories, just not aas spetacular.

3. 35 hour week. That's actually 5 hours more than you should work, haven't you heard of a '30 hour week' or an '8 hour day'.

In closing, to the attitude that seems to prevail "The US way is the right way" - it's not, simple. If a government spends more on looking after its people than developing ways to blow up others, the better for everyone. Look at the higher crime and murder rates in the US, I think you'll find it's your system that dosen't look after your poor and dosen't protect workers rights sufficently.

Apparently you miss the point - France, like many other nations cannot afford the huge liability of the over-generous social give-aways.

For now it is working, but it is like living on credit cards. Eventually there will be no room left to charge, then payments will be too high, and the bell will ring for thee.

Ever wonder what a country does when it can't afford it's own bills? All you need do is look south of the border at some third world countries for an answer: They print more money.

If you have any grasp on economics then you know this leads to inflation and the devalueing of that currency in the global markets. Mass poverty ensues, and government corruption follows closely.

Presently France has, among other things, a 35 hour workweek and retirement at 55. TO call their economy unproductive would be an understatement.

What was the last thing you bought with a 'Made in France' tag? Want to buy a French car? Of course not, Renault and Peugot are crap. Were it not for the fact that much of their food (wine/cheese) sector were substantially less regulated then it would be unlikely that they would have any exports at all. The same goes for any other socialist economies. Name one that exports anything of quality and value?

Without incentive, mediocrity ensues.

Actually, the French will tell you that a 35 hour work week and early retirement is all the incentive they need to keep things productive during the time they are working. They kinda like that scenario.

Looking at things in purely economic terms, France has an almost identical debt-to-GDP ratio as the US (both around 60%), and France is obligated under EU rules to control it's deficit. The US will have a much larger deficit-to-GDP ratio than France this year. You can argue in generalizations, but France is still a capitalist country in many ways as well. Heck, every western country has some elements of socialism in its programs. IT is a question of degree rather than calling any one socialist while denying those elements of our own public policy that can be interpretted in that way.

As to quality of products, I could argue that many US cars are crap too! And many of us have used a largely French made product recently - Airbus has been taking huge chunks out of Boeing's previously unchallenged market over the past decade or so.

-Z-

I've always found it remarkable how socialist France was. For one, the climate was never exactly business friendly. Labor unions seem at times more powerful than the government. There's a government sponsored pension plan, the government gurantees jobs for life (even if it can't provide them), universal healthcare, the declining institution of marraige, and the Catholic Church becoming increasingly meaningless, and less powerful. So this is pretty much as socialists as many societies are willing to go, I thought. But boy was I wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31484-2004Mar28.html
What the hell are these guys gonna think of? The government being the only retailer of clothing allowed?

Why not? France still has quite a distance to go before it reaches the point where it can be no more socialist.
After all, it's France you're talking about.

I've always found it remarkable how socialist France was. For one, the climate was never exactly business friendly. Labor unions seem at times more powerful than the government. There's a government sponsored pension plan, the government gurantees jobs for life (even if it can't provide them), universal healthcare, the declining institution of marraige, and the Catholic Church becoming increasingly meaningless, and less powerful. So this is pretty much as socialists as many societies are willing to go, I thought. But boy was I wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31484-2004Mar28.html
What the hell are these guys gonna think of? The government being the only retailer of clothing allowed?

Ever been there?

France can indeed become more socialist, but I doubt if it will. In the main the French are as proud of their country as anyone is about theirs. They have some good things going for them and many others that in time will drag them down. Whenever a government decides to try and be all things to all people it has to have lots of cash flow to run the innumerable programs required to prop up the unproductive. The productive segments of the population have to foot the bill. Human nature being what it is they will tire of having the bulk of their labor go to supporting these programs few of which will benefit them in the near term.

By cutting the work week to 35 hours they can run 4 shifts and thus keep more people working but at less wages per person. Since most of the healthcare and social programs are funded by the government, the employer does not have to shoulder the burden of the cost of many benefits per worker which makes hiring more workers less expensive in the long run. The workers pay for the benefits through taxation as does the employer(to a lesser extent). With the government running all these programs they have to maintain a very large number of ministries et. to manage all the administrative aspects and so on. I think you can see where this is leading to.

I do not think that I would like to live in France, or most anywhere else for that matter and I am sure a Frenchman would feel much the same.

3. 35 hour week. That's actually 5 hours more than you should work, haven't you heard of a '30 hour week' or an '8 hour day'.

Um, shouldn't it be 40 hour week? Either that or 32 hour week, with 8 hours/day for 4 days.

I have a different take on issues:

1. The military keeping the Soivet Union together. If you review the arms reduction talks between the US and the USSR in the 1960's you'll find it was the US that wanted to keep the arms race going. Some historians argue that the militatisation of the USSR economy was brought about due to US increases in military spending. There is some evidence that that economic reform was considerd by the Soviet's as early as the 1970's but US moves, such as increased military spending, disallowed this.

2. State ran enterprises. Where I live, Victoria, Australia, we once had state ran power companies, eletricity, gas etc. In the late 1990's we privatised this sector of our economy and US companies took over it, laying off many workers. Net result - a gas plant blows up becasue they didn't employ enough people to maintain it properly. A few workers were killed and Victoria was left without enough gas for 2 weeks, shutting down most of the states industry and I couldn't take a hot shower. Would you call that efficent? Our public transport has similar stories, just not aas spetacular.

3. 35 hour week. That's actually 5 hours more than you should work, haven't you heard of a '30 hour week' or an '8 hour day'.

In closing, to the attitude that seems to prevail "The US way is the right way" - it's not, simple. If a government spends more on looking after its people than developing ways to blow up others, the better for everyone. Look at the higher crime and murder rates in the US, I think you'll find it's your system that dosen't look after your poor and dosen't protect workers rights sufficently.
I have a few rebuttle points.
1. Good. The Soviet Union needed to go. You're actually quite generous in saying that we played such a role. And Russia is better off today. The economy is two-thirds of what it was in 1991, but growing at a much faster rate than ever. Besides, Moscow is now the city with the most billionaires after New York.
2. I'm sorry that happened. But if American energy firms are really that bad, the Australian government could've set up conditions for privatization, like having it owned by Australian entities.
3. I just don't understand this. I believe a 40-hour work week is fair. Overtime in America requires time-and-a-half wages. It sounds perfectly fair to me. If we need to reform our work schedule at all, we should include paid vacation days. A couple of weeks away from work is enough time to regroup emotionally, and productivity soars. I think 18 or 19 paid vacation days should do.

The French seem to enjoy it. They rarely work. I think what they've done is pretty admirable, they've basically said "screw you business, we wanna goof off and have holidays." I cracked my skull in France and got it fixed in a state-of-the-art facility absolutely free of charge. I'm not even a French citizen. They get the whole month of August as paid vacation. Sure, they sacrifice some business for that, but they're still one of the richest countries in the world.

France is actually getting less socialist. Pensions are being scaled down and state industries are being privatized. France is getting less socialist but more LIBERAL; there is a difference. I am really liberal and I consider socialism to be stupid, because liberal means freedom. Freedom for people and freedom in the markets.

France should liberalize immigration laws, thus allowing more workers to replace the aging population.

And billionaires aren't exactly tied to wealth, standard of living is much more important then having wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

[quote=Bozzy]Apparently you miss the point - France, like many other nations cannot afford the huge liability of the over-generous social give-aways.

For now it is working, but it is like living on credit cards. Eventually there will be no room left to charge, then payments will be too high, and the bell will ring for thee.

Ever wonder what a country does when it can't afford it's own bills? All you need do is look south of the border at some third world countries for an answer: They print more money.

If you have any grasp on economics then you know this leads to inflation and the devalueing of that currency in the global markets. Mass poverty ensues, and government corruption follows closely.

Presently France has, among other things, a 35 hour workweek and retirement at 55. TO call their economy unproductive would be an understatement.

What was the last thing you bought with a 'Made in France' tag? Want to buy a French car? Of course not, Renault and Peugot are crap. Were it not for the fact that much of their food (wine/cheese) sector were substantially less regulated then it would be unlikely that they would have any exports at all. The same goes for any other socialist economies. Name one that exports anything of quality and value?

Without incentive, mediocrity ensues.

Actually, the French will tell you that a 35 hour work week and early retirement is all the incentive they need to keep things productive during the time they are working. They kinda like that scenario.
I'm sure it may keep them productive when they are working. But in the business world, time is money. They work 35 hours a week, as opposed to 40. They take 6 week vacations in the summer, simultaneously. In this time period, most of the nation just shuts down. Look at the healthcare debacle during that summer heatwave. It's just an inefficient use of time. But the French have never been known for efficiency.

Looking at things in purely economic terms, France has an almost identical debt-to-GDP ratio as the US (both around 60%), and France is obligated under EU rules to control it's deficit. The US will have a much larger deficit-to-GDP ratio than France this year. You can argue in generalizations, but France is still a capitalist country in many ways as well. Heck, every western country has some elements of socialism in its programs. IT is a question of degree rather than calling any one socialist while denying those elements of our own public policy that can be interpretted in that way.]
A few years ago, the US government had a surplus of $3 trillion. It's possible for such a reversal to come again. In fact, the deficit is predicted to start coming down this year because of more available tax revenue.
Anyhow, France is, overall, socialist. They'll control the debt, perhaps. But with the bigger socialist government, they'll cut little. So, they'll raise taxes. While it'll save the government from debt, it'll have the far worse consequence of stifling economic growth. Especially since a large bureaocracy is needed for everything France controls.

As to quality of products, I could argue that many US cars are crap too! And many of us have used a largely French made product recently - Airbus has been taking huge chunks out of Boeing's previously unchallenged market over the past decade or so.
Our cars are not crap. They're actually more reliable than European makes, according to a recent study (Asians are the best). But Airbus, as well as many companies in Europe, suceed like they do because a large part of their operations are off shore, away from Europe. I find Airbus to be quite helpful in the air industry, with the new A-600 (I think that's it's name). But Boeing is not finished with it. It'll come back, especially when it starts producing the 7E7. The future of aviation, however, goes to Bombardier and that other regional aircraft company (forgot the name).
But other than Airbus, what other sucessful French companies are there? Or German? Sure, German companies are big. But I don't see any "made in Germany" tags anymore. And quite a few German companies can't grow in their current environments.

The other scary thing about this is that some people are so disillusioned with the far left, that they drift to the far right. The National Front party, an anti-immigration, far-right outfit, got 13% of the vote. I feel they're even worse. At least the socialists have good intentions. These National Front guys are socialists, but in an exclusionary way. That's even more destructive to the nation.

All economies and nations crumble eventually. In retrospect, it is not how long they lasted that matters, but the prosperity of their citizens. Sure, the hunter-gatherer system lasted longer than all of the others combined, but they would have been better off with five years in a mansion than in thirty in a hut.

Though technology plays a role in that example...

Apparently you miss the point - France, like many other nations cannot afford the huge liability of the over-generous social give-aways.

For now it is working, but it is like living on credit cards. Eventually there will be no room left to charge, then payments will be too high, and the bell will ring for thee.

Ever wonder what a country does when it can't afford it's own bills? All you need do is look south of the border at some third world countries for an answer: They print more money.

If you have any grasp on economics then you know this leads to inflation and the devalueing of that currency in the global markets. Mass poverty ensues, and government corruption follows closely.

Presently France has, among other things, a 35 hour workweek and retirement at 55. TO call their economy unproductive would be an understatement.

What was the last thing you bought with a 'Made in France' tag? Want to buy a French car? Of course not, Renault and Peugot are crap. Were it not for the fact that much of their food (wine/cheese) sector were substantially less regulated then it would be unlikely that they would have any exports at all. The same goes for any other socialist economies. Name one that exports anything of quality and value?

Without incentive, mediocrity ensues.Hell, the situation you're describing sounds more like the US than France. After all, we're the ones running half-trillion dollar deficits and record trade deficits while simultaneously hemorrhaging jobs. Our balance sheet is far more in line with that of Argentina circa 1999 than France's is.

Yes. :D

It's a good thing. A socialist heart will fail a body. It will take a while for the E.U. to be a threat to us.

Oh well, now i have a reason to move to france? :wink:

Can France become anymore socialist?

Yes, look at the Mitterand administration during the 80's. You will see how the world market essentialy forced France to abandon Mitterand's socialist ideals.

Also as far as I can remember France's Labour movement isn't particularly large, but it is commited and very volatile (which is why the French baggage handlers seem to on strike every summer). But it probably is the most anarcho-syndicist (sp?) influenced labour movement in the world.

Oh well, now i have a reason to move to france? :wink:

Johnny Depp lives in France. That's all the reason anyone needs.

I've always found it remarkable how socialist France was. For one, the climate was never exactly business friendly. Labor unions seem at times more powerful than the government. There's a government sponsored pension plan, the government gurantees jobs for life (even if it can't provide them), universal healthcare, the declining institution of marraige, and the Catholic Church becoming increasingly meaningless, and less powerful. So this is pretty much as socialists as many societies are willing to go, I thought. But boy was I wrong.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31484-2004Mar28.html
What the hell are these guys gonna think of? The government being the only retailer of clothing allowed?

Yes, it could get more socialist, because its along way away from being perfect, would you like to tell me what exactly is wrong with a society in which the workers actually own the means of production? Please? Or is 'the economy' everything? Because I happen to think that the quality of life of the citizens (*all* of them, not just those that get lucky) is the most important factor in a country, which I why I would choose to live in Scandanavia and France long before I would live in the US.

It's France, what d'you expect?

My mathematical error - sorry, I'm pretty sick and heavily medicated so it slipped past me.

Why did the Soviet Union have to go? Because it challenged US hegemony? If you look at it objectively, the US posed more of a threat to world peace at the time taking an essentially offensive stance whilst holding the right to 'first stirke' and having a 'launch on warning' policy. The US also had many times more ICBMS than the Soviet Union. But then, the commies were baddies, weren't they?

Dose the term 'oligarch' mean anything to you? Number of millionaires in a city dosen't mean it's any better. Moscow now has a higher crime rate and much more social problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of state secret police and I'm not saying communism is the way to go, it just that you can't measure everything in 'economy' and 'productivity'.

You haven't heard of '8 hours sleep, 8 hours work, 8 hours recreation'? Yet again, the US is not exactly renown for treating its workers as well as other modern industrialised countries.

'Free market forces' is why our state goverment didn't enforce too many regulations. US companies can out bid Australian companies and if it was only opened to Australian tenders the US would complain about 'protectionism'. You don't see what it's like to be on the smaller end of the economic scale, do you? We can't be as hypocritical when we talk about 'free trade'. What I was also getting at is that privatised 'efficency' is not all they say it is.

Don't you have paid holidays? We do in Australia, I think it's protected by law. I'm currently working in China for six months where I get two weeks paid holidays.

BTW - Don't take things I say personally, I'm not having a go at you.

Capitalism must be brought down by the working class itself, not by the government.

What about by a government of the people? :wink:

Yay dictatorship of the proletariat!

Dose the term 'oligarch' mean anything to you? Number of millionaires in a city dosen't mean it's any better. Moscow now has a higher crime rate and much more social problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of state secret police and I'm not saying communism is the way to go, it just that you can't measure everything in 'economy' and 'productivity'.
Actually... yes we can. When you have an orderly, safe and relatively free society, business flourishes. When investors see no one is going to barge into their offices and demand briefcases of money, they feel free to spend their money, yes, in order to make more money, but this results in the betterment of the lives of others they employ through their investment. When investors see businesses right and left being indicted for minor book cooking, with government regulation and programs sucking up their revenue, they're going to take their money out of tangible investments (businesses, futures, etc) and put it into fields that are safer and less likely to result in a loss thanks to Government intervention.

Progress comes in three ways. 1. The Governing body forces progress (see: U.S.S.R.), 2. The Free Market Encourages Progress (See: United States, Age of Global Imperialism), 3. Revolution takes place when means of peaceful progress are stymied by political intrigue.

I'm all for 2, myself, but 3 has its time and place, especially here in California, where a good Revolution to take the Bay Area's self important hypocritical aristocrats out of power would be wonderful.

The free market would not inspire progress. In a free market, the most popular pharmaceuticals would still be the "panacea tonics" made of cocaine, alcohol and gods knows what else.

If this woman gets more support, France may end up being traditional liberalist.

http://www.theatlasphere.com/photos-columnists/sabine-herold.jpg

Who is she?

Apparently you miss the point - France, like many other nations cannot afford the huge liability of the over-generous social give-aways.

For now it is working, but it is like living on credit cards. Eventually there will be no room left to charge, then payments will be too high, and the bell will ring for thee.

Ever wonder what a country does when it can't afford it's own bills? All you need do is look south of the border at some third world countries for an answer: They print more money.

If you have any grasp on economics then you know this leads to inflation and the devalueing of that currency in the global markets. Mass poverty ensues, and government corruption follows closely.

Presently France has, among other things, a 35 hour workweek and retirement at 55. TO call their economy unproductive would be an understatement.

What was the last thing you bought with a 'Made in France' tag? Want to buy a French car? Of course not, Renault and Peugot are crap. Were it not for the fact that much of their food (wine/cheese) sector were substantially less regulated then it would be unlikely that they would have any exports at all. The same goes for any other socialist economies. Name one that exports anything of quality and value?

Without incentive, mediocrity ensues.

Well interestingly enough, the french gnp/capita is higher than that of britain (an adept of the oh so wonderful anglo-capitalist system). This means that even with a sky-rocketing unemployment and a 35 hour week an average french person still produces more than an average brit. This means that a country that is willing to invest in social security and other public service is rewarded with a higher productivity rate.

An other remark is about the frase 'living on credit cards'. if there is one country in the world that is living on credit cards, it is the united states because of their huge trade deficit. Yes all their nice SUV's are actually paid for with foreign money.

And it is simply not true that peugeot en renault make crap cars. Ok I prefer the german cars, but the french achieve very high standards at very sharp prices.

But i tend to agree on the fact that a to elaborate social system has a nefast effect on the entrepeneurial spirit.

The problem I have with free-marketeers like Pearly Euclid is that they appear to measure the quality of life solely in economic terms. Surely the definition of a successful nation/society is one where its citizens are happy?

I'm not making a claim for France here. It's clear from the far-right's emergence that people there aren't that happy. I would however advocate the Scandinavian nations as good models (though there is the high suicide rate...hmph, maybe not then), or perhaps New Zealand since they turned their back on rampant capitalism. These are nations that are succeeding economically as well.

Stop the France-bashing. They, like the US, have many positive and many negative aspects facets. I don't think you can truly judge until you've been there.

And the accent's beautiful...

The problem I have with free-marketeers like Pearly Euclid is that they appear to measure the quality of life solely in economic terms. Surely the definition of a successful nation/society is one where its citizens are happy?

I'm not making a claim for France here. It's clear from the far-right's emergence that people there aren't that happy. I would however advocate the Scandinavian nations as good models (though there is the high suicide rate...hmph, maybe not then), or perhaps New Zealand since they turned their back on rampant capitalism. These are nations that are succeeding economically as well.

Stop the France-bashing. They, like the US, have many positive and many negative aspects facets. I don't think you can truly judge until you've been there.

And the accent's beautiful...

I'm afraid that I must disagree..Pearly Euclid has a better determiner of the quality of life..there is nothing in our Constitution that provides for someone to "be happy"...that is up to them and them alone...the Constitution only provides for the "opprutunity to be happy"...not "the result of being happy"

The problem I have with free-marketeers like Pearly Euclid is that they appear to measure the quality of life solely in economic terms. Surely the definition of a successful nation/society is one where its citizens are happy?

I'm not making a claim for France here. It's clear from the far-right's emergence that people there aren't that happy. I would however advocate the Scandinavian nations as good models (though there is the high suicide rate...hmph, maybe not then), or perhaps New Zealand since they turned their back on rampant capitalism. These are nations that are succeeding economically as well.

Stop the France-bashing. They, like the US, have many positive and many negative aspects facets. I don't think you can truly judge until you've been there.

And the accent's beautiful...

I'm afraid that I must disagree..Pearly Euclid has a better determiner of the quality of life..there is nothing in our Constitution that provides for someone to "be happy"...that is up to them and them alone...the Constitution only provides for the "opprutunity to be happy"...not "the result of being happy"

Who cares if France decided to become more socialist? It's there country, they are free to do as they please. They hold free elections. If that is what their people want who is any one else outside of France to bitch. Not every one subscribes to "The American Way" .. and really.. why would we all want to any way given recent events in the US. Change administrations and I'm sure the good will of the world will return to the USA.. in the meantime.. reap what you sow. :P

I was going to veheemently argue against the idea that France (or anywhere else in the world) is "socialist" at all, but then I remembered that this is Nation States, a crazy world in which the moon is made of cheeze and people collect shrunken heads. The constant misuse of the word socialism is the least of my worries.

What a load of crap in this thread.
I'm from France and I saw this thread so I wanted to post my opinion and so I started read the thread in order to reply to some interesting post, but...
Where are they?
Obviously some people here don't know what they are talking about. They talk about the USSR, their beautiful america, their big SUV, the socialist pigs, whatever. You don't even know what socialist mean in french. You don't know there is a communist pary in France, which is different from the socialist one. You never ever saw a Peugeot car in your life (which do not sell anything in the US.

I suggest you take a look at the market. Peugeot was the highest performer last year of all the car manufacturers, WORLDWIDE. The latest Peugeot 307 has been named the car of the year (after the Ford Focus the year earlier) and sold out so that many people were not able to buy it. You may prefer your big oil-sucking SUV so you can go to the grand canyon and drive in the desert but most of the world live in densely populated areas and buy small cars, fuel-efficient cars. The european market of cars is much more competitive than the US one. We have much more different brands and inovations is faster and french cars perform very well in Europe and the world (except the US maybe). Airbus' plants are mainly in Toulouse, not in the third world. You talk about credit card, the carte à puce has been invented in France (I let you check the dictionary if you want to know what it is). Credit cards would not work without the french industry of inovation.

So we have 12% unemployment rate. How much do you have in the US? You don't even know. It is a matter of counting practices. I've saw some studies which say we only have 8% rate, it depends what you count as unemployed and what you count as able to work. How much times do someone need not to work before they are counted as unemployed in the US? 2 years? 5 years?
Moreover, unemployed people in France do not live out on the street. Enemployment is more of a problem in the US than in France. Our crime rate is much lower.

About the church not owning the french government, yes we do not have 'in god we trust' printed on our notes and that's something I'm proud of.

Well... whatever, I'm not gonna reply to all the flawed logic (or lack of), distorded/invented facts and all that crap you call an argument about France. Go kiss your flag and don't forget to rename your wine before you drink it. Oh and watch behind, god is watching if you don't become a socialist.

BTW we rocked at rugby last week-end.
Where are the americans at rugby? Lol. Any junior team in France would beat the US at rugby.

I realy hate Americans.

That is unfortunate Simkaria, but here in America that is your right. No one nation can please everyone or meet their needs physically, morally or philosophically. The real problem might be that many people cannot immigrate to where they want to be for a myriad of reasons. Then one must also consider the chance of disappointment when people get to where they are going only to find that they have carried along the true problem within themselves.

What a load of crap in this thread.
I'm from France and I saw this thread so I wanted to post my opinion and so I started read the thread in order to reply to some interesting post, but...
Where are they?
Obviously some people here don't know what they are talking about. They talk about the USSR, their beautiful america, their big SUV, the socialist pigs, whatever. You don't even know what socialist mean in french. You don't know there is a communist pary in France, which is different from the socialist one. You never ever saw a Peugeot car in your life (which do not sell anything in the US.

I suggest you take a look at the market. Peugeot was the highest performer last year of all the car manufacturers, WORLDWIDE. The latest Peugeot 307 has been named the car of the year (after the Ford Focus the year earlier) and sold out so that many people were not able to buy it. You may prefer your big oil-sucking SUV so you can go to the grand canyon and drive in the desert but most of the world live in densely populated areas and buy small cars, fuel-efficient cars. The european market of cars is much more competitive than the US one. We have much more different brands and inovations is faster and french cars perform very well in Europe and the world (except the US maybe). Airbus' plants are mainly in Toulouse, not in the third world. You talk about credit card, the carte à puce has been invented in France (I let you check the dictionary if you want to know what it is). Credit cards would not work without the french industry of inovation.

So we have 12% unemployment rate. How much do you have in the US? You don't even know. It is a matter of counting practices. I've saw some studies which say we only have 8% rate, it depends what you count as unemployed and what you count as able to work. How much times do someone need not to work before they are counted as unemployed in the US? 2 years? 5 years?
Moreover, unemployed people in France do not live out on the street. Enemployment is more of a problem in the US than in France. Our crime rate is much lower.

About the church not owning the french government, yes we do not have 'in god we trust' printed on our notes and that's something I'm proud of.

Well... whatever, I'm not gonna reply to all the flawed logic (or lack of), distorded/invented facts and all that crap you call an argument about France. Go kiss your flag and don't forget to rename your wine before you drink it. Oh and watch behind, god is watching if you don't become a socialist.
Whatever you said about French business and whatnot, more power to ya. I really do hope you guys prove my economic predictions for you guys wrong. I doubt it'll happen, but I'm hopeful.
As for unemployment. The unemployment rate is 5.6%, peaking at around 6.5% last year. You are counted as unemployed as soon as you apply for unemployment benefits. If I remember correctly, the federal government offers 13 weeks worth of payments. It's enough time to regroup and find a new job. There are always jobs here. The only reason why there isn't 0% unemployment is because no one wants a low paying job. If you were a software programer, and you're laid off, there are at least a hundred different jobs to choose from. But they aren't that great: pizza delivery, grocery clerck, secretary, etc. The reason why unemployment rates are so high is because people have saved a lot of money to live off for a few years, in hopes of finding a job identical to their old one.
As for homelessness, look at the homeless themselves. There are many who are legitamitly in need. In fact, 12% of the homeless population are employed. But, for the vast majority of homeless people, they've really screwed up along the way. They could be on drugs. Or they could be outcasted from a gang, whose members are officially "unemployed" because they make money off undocumented crimes and such. Some of the nation's homeless only have themselves to blame for being homeless.

Why did the Soviet Union have to go? Because it challenged US hegemony? If you look at it objectively, the US posed more of a threat to world peace at the time taking an essentially offensive stance whilst holding the right to 'first stirke' and having a 'launch on warning' policy. The US also had many times more ICBMS than the Soviet Union. But then, the commies were baddies, weren't they?
I don't know if you're being sarcastic in that last sentence, but yes, they were bad. Worse than we ever were. At least none of the first world nations of the time held their economies down. True, in a foreign policy perspective, we are equally culpable for the same things. But at least the US and allies gave its citizens a chance to suceed. The Soviets and their allies didn't.

Dose the term 'oligarch' mean anything to you? Number of millionaires in a city dosen't mean it's any better. Moscow now has a higher crime rate and much more social problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of state secret police and I'm not saying communism is the way to go, it just that you can't measure everything in 'economy' and 'productivity'.
The oligarchy is an unpleasant reality of any state liberalization program. However, the social problems and crime became rampant because Boris Yeltsin did little to stop them. Putin may be, perhaps, a little more autocratic. But from as far as I can tell, it's not in a way that'll permanently damage the Russian Federation, nor make him absolute ruler. Within the limits of the presidency, he's done a rather good job at reducing the wild monopolies and such. Crime is also starting to decline with an improving economy.
You see, society today has positioned itself so that an economy is everything. However, the government must play only a limited role in providing a good economy, if you ask me. However, when a government intereferes heavily into an economy, like the French, that's when I attack them, because I firmly believe an economy, or the long term health of a nation, can never succeed with that type of intervention.

You haven't heard of '8 hours sleep, 8 hours work, 8 hours recreation'? Yet again, the US is not exactly renown for treating its workers as well as other modern industrialised countries.
No, I've heard of the idea, and I think it's great. Sounds more or less like us. And as for worker treatment, we have a different idea of worker treatment. It's not how long an employee has to work that's the issue here. What we define as employee mistreatment is verbal/physical/sexual abuse by coworkers or employers. Most of the reported offenses do get prosecuted.
'Free market forces' is why our state goverment didn't enforce too many regulations. US companies can out bid Australian companies and if it was only opened to Australian tenders the US would complain about 'protectionism'. You don't see what it's like to be on the smaller end of the economic scale, do you? We can't be as hypocritical when we talk about 'free trade'. What I was also getting at is that privatised 'efficency' is not all they say it is.
Bad things happen immediatly after privatization of an industry, all the time, every time. Russia, as I said, is a perfect example. The process needs to go slower. If a government owned industry is privatised slowly, a company preforms better than before. Take the water system in Jersey City, NJ. Cast-iron pipes from the 1880s were rusting, making tap water brown. City maintainance men were always responsible for pipe maintainance, but were usually busy with road repair, and had insufficient equipment for a water system that big. So, their city concil gave a private water company their contract to repair it. Today, that same company now has full control, and the water supply is ranked one of the best in the nation. The water prices stayed the same, too.

Don't you have paid holidays? We do in Australia, I think it's protected by law. I'm currently working in China for six months where I get two weeks paid holidays.
Those free market forces are why you're in China. Anyhow, we get paid for Christmas and such. But paid vacations aren't the law. However, most employers I know of offer them to employees, as little loyalty awards. They may get about a week and a half of paid vacation days once a year, but only after they work there for a certain number of years. But hey, I've heard of some employers not even allowing sick days for the first six months, or you're fired. I'll admit that's extreme.
BTW, no offense taken.

Why did the Soviet Union have to go? Because it challenged US hegemony? If you look at it objectively, the US posed more of a threat to world peace at the time taking an essentially offensive stance whilst holding the right to 'first stirke' and having a 'launch on warning' policy. The US also had many times more ICBMS than the Soviet Union. But then, the commies were baddies, weren't they?
I don't know if you're being sarcastic in that last sentence, but yes, they were bad. Worse than we ever were. At least none of the first world nations of the time held their economies down. True, in a foreign policy perspective, we are equally culpable for the same things. But at least the US and allies gave its citizens a chance to suceed. The Soviets and their allies didn't.

Dose the term 'oligarch' mean anything to you? Number of millionaires in a city dosen't mean it's any better. Moscow now has a higher crime rate and much more social problems. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of state secret police and I'm not saying communism is the way to go, it just that you can't measure everything in 'economy' and 'productivity'.
The oligarchy is an unpleasant reality of any state liberalization program. However, the social problems and crime became rampant because Boris Yeltsin did little to stop them. Putin may be, perhaps, a little more autocratic. But from as far as I can tell, it's not in a way that'll permanently damage the Russian Federation, nor make him absolute ruler. Within the limits of the presidency, he's done a rather good job at reducing the wild monopolies and such. Crime is also starting to decline with an improving economy.
You see, society today has positioned itself so that an economy is everything. However, the government must play only a limited role in providing a good economy, if you ask me. However, when a government intereferes heavily into an economy, like the French, that's when I attack them, because I firmly believe an economy, or the long term health of a nation, can never succeed with that type of intervention.

You haven't heard of '8 hours sleep, 8 hours work, 8 hours recreation'? Yet again, the US is not exactly renown for treating its workers as well as other modern industrialised countries.
No, I've heard of the idea, and I think it's great. Sounds more or less like us. And as for worker treatment, we have a different idea of worker treatment. It's not how long an employee has to work that's the issue here. What we define as employee mistreatment is verbal/physical/sexual abuse by coworkers or employers. Most of the reported offenses do get prosecuted.
'Free market forces' is why our state goverment didn't enforce too many regulations. US companies can out bid Australian companies and if it was only opened to Australian tenders the US would complain about 'protectionism'. You don't see what it's like to be on the smaller end of the economic scale, do you? We can't be as hypocritical when we talk about 'free trade'. What I was also getting at is that privatised 'efficency' is not all they say it is.
Bad things happen immediatly after privatization of an industry, all the time, every time. Russia, as I said, is a perfect example. The process needs to go slower. If a government owned industry is privatised slowly, a company preforms better than before. Take the water system in Jersey City, NJ. Cast-iron pipes from the 1880s were rusting, making tap water brown. City maintainance men were always responsible for pipe maintainance, but were usually busy with road repair, and had insufficient equipment for a water system that big. So, their city concil gave a private water company their contract to repair it. Today, that same company now has full control, and the water supply is ranked one of the best in the nation. The water prices stayed the same, too.

Don't you have paid holidays? We do in Australia, I think it's protected by law. I'm currently working in China for six months where I get two weeks paid holidays.
Those free market forces are why you're in China. Anyhow, we get paid for Christmas and such. But paid vacations aren't the law. However, most employers I know of offer them to employees, as little loyalty awards. They may get about a week and a half of paid vacation days once a year, but only after they work there for a certain number of years. But hey, I've heard of some employers not even allowing sick days for the first six months, or you're fired. I'll admit that's extreme.
BTW, no offense taken.

2 Purly Euclid,

Is it a socialist country if:

= The budget deficit has ballooned to almost $500 billion (~4.5% of GDP)
= The gov't has raised non-military spending by 32% over the previous 3 years
= The legislature with the approval of the Chief Executive has increased farm subsidies by $170 billion over the next 10 years
= Yet another legislative enactment (again, cheered on by the Chief Executive) raises government healthcare spending by $530 billion over the next 10 years
= This country runs a pay-as-you-go pension system slated to run a deficit in 15 years' time?

Perhaps you should worry less about the French and more about the United Soviet Socialist States of America :wink:

Who is she?

Sabine Herold.

That is unfortunate Simkaria, but here in America that is your right.
Here in America that is your right? So it isn't a right anyplace else? I live in the Netherlands. And so far I've never been arrested for hating the warmongering American terrorist. If anything I was suprised to find how many people feel the same.

No one nation can please everyone or meet their needs physically, morally or philosophically. The real problem might be that many people cannot immigrate to where they want to be for a myriad of reasons. Then one must also consider the chance of disappointment when people get to where they are going only to find that they have carried along the true problem within themselves.
What? :?:

More Sabine Herold pics here:
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040112_schwartz_herold.php

Libertarianism through sex appeal. How very French :wink:

The more, the merrier - about time there were some good guys out there as there's way too many bad

Oh, and Sabine's a babe

Whatever you said about French business and whatnot, more power to ya. I really do hope you guys prove my economic predictions for you guys wrong. I doubt it'll happen, but I'm hopeful.You confuse economy and finance. I have to defend the 35H/week. You know, finance is a game : the goal is to amass as much money as you can; it does not necessarily translate in real production, it translates in work you do to increase your capital. You wear a suit and try to impress the customers. The customers are proud to have good looking people wearing suits working for them. You try to talk fluently and to present the work the best way you can, but actually you know and everybody knows you are playing a game and that there is no substence behind. You are proud to work for a big name, a corporation which does advertising on TV and everything and actually your work is to surf the internet and post on Nationstates. You are highly paid to play the game, you may work for big accounts and you may sell stuff they don't need or you may extort funds from the people via complex means but in the end you know you are not productive. Some people do actual work but those can't be productive for more than 7 hours/day because real work is hard. So what do people do the rest of the time? Nobody is ever useless. What you do outside the game is also productive. For instance what I do is work for Linux, I'm a member of the red cross and I spend 1 out of 2 week-ends monitoring events like racings to save lifes. I'm currently organizing a concert for Morocco where there has been earth-quakes (if anyone's interested, it will be held this week-end April 3th in Figeac, south of France, it's flamenco and hip-hop). All those things that are really useful are not counted in the game of business. That is why I support the 35H.

As for unemployment. The unemployment rate is 5.6%, peaking at around 6.5% last year. You are counted as unemployed as soon as you apply for unemployment benefits. If I remember correctly, the federal government offers 13 weeks worth of payments. It's enough time to regroup and find a new job.Does that mean that people who don't work after 13 week are no more counted as unemployed? If it is the case, then no wonder, lower it to 1 day and you have 1% unemployment rate
There are always jobs here. The only reason why there isn't 0% unemployment is because no one wants a low paying job. If you were a software programer, and you're laid off, there are at least a hundred different jobs to choose from. But they aren't that great: pizza delivery, grocery clerck, secretary, etc. The reason why unemployment rates are so high is because people have saved a lot of money to live off for a few years, in hopes of finding a job identical to their old one.And you think there is no pizzeria in France?

As for homelessness, look at the homeless themselves. There are many who are legitamitly in need. In fact, 12% of the homeless population are employed. But, for the vast majority of homeless people, they've really screwed up along the way. They could be on drugs. Or they could be outcasted from a gang, whose members are officially "unemployed" because they make money off undocumented crimes and such. Some of the nation's homeless only have themselves to blame for being homeless.Some don't play the little game as well. They can't figure out how to make money or they're not business people. The system does not work for everybody, but you can't change the people, if anything has to ever change it is the system (or what I call the game).

Whatever you said about French business and whatnot, more power to ya. I really do hope you guys prove my economic predictions for you guys wrong. I doubt it'll happen, but I'm hopeful.
You confuse economy and finance. I have to defend the 35H/week. You know, finance is a game : the goal is to amass as much money as you can; it does not necessarily translate in real production, it translates in work you do to increase your capital. You wear a suit and try to impress the customers. The customers are proud to have good looking people wearing suits working for them. You try to talk fluently and to present the work the best way you can, but actually you know and everybody knows you are playing a game and that there is no substence behind. You are proud to work for a big name, a corporation which does advertising on TV and everything and actually your work is to surf the internet and post on Nationstates. You are highly paid to play the game, you may work for big accounts and you may sell stuff they don't need or you may extort funds from the people via complex means but in the end you know you are not productive. Some people do actual work but those can't be productive for more than 7 hours/day because real work is hard. So what do people do the rest of the time? Nobody is ever useless. What you do outside the game is also productive. For instance what I do is work for Linux, I'm a member of the red cross and I spend 1 out of 2 week-ends monitoring events like racings to save lifes. I'm currently organizing a concert for Morocco where there has been earth-quakes (if anyone's interested, it will be held this week-end April 3th in Figeac, south of France, it's flamenco and hip-hop). All those things that are really useful are not counted in the game of business. That is why I support the 35H.
Volunteer work is never counted out, it's just moved to weekends or retirement. Besides, the most charitable thing most Americans do is donate. It's not as great as what we'd all like, but I'm sure it still does help. As for the rest of that paragraph, oftentimes productivity and finances do have a relation. With finances, you spend. When you spend, demand goes up, meaning more has to be produced. That's only one example.

As for unemployment. The unemployment rate is 5.6%, peaking at around 6.5% last year. You are counted as unemployed as soon as you apply for unemployment benefits. If I remember correctly, the federal government offers 13 weeks worth of payments. It's enough time to regroup and find a new job.
Does that mean that people who don't work after 13 week are no more counted as unemployed? If it is the case, then no wonder, lower it to 1 day and you have 1% unemployment rate
Beyond 13 weeks, I don't know how it is counted. But my statistics were misleading. Unemployment benefits last 13 weeks. Beyond that, we have Welfare payments. They use to as long as you needed them, but that was showed to keep people lazy, and kept poverty levels high. So in 1996, welfare reform was passed, which basically said no welfare payments would go out for more than two years in your lifetimes. This is not what you would think as welfare, but Welfare with a capital "W", reffering to unemployment benefits. Social Security and all that fancy shit wouldn't be affected. But you must be unemployed to recieve welfare, so I guess they're counted in unemployment levels. However, the self-employed are counted as unemployed, so the unemployment rate may be lower than officially reported.
There are always jobs here. The only reason why there isn't 0% unemployment is because no one wants a low paying job. If you were a software programer, and you're laid off, there are at least a hundred different jobs to choose from. But they aren't that great: pizza delivery, grocery clerck, secretary, etc. The reason why unemployment rates are so high is because people have saved a lot of money to live off for a few years, in hopes of finding a job identical to their old one.And you think there is no pizzeria in France?
There's probably lots of them. I should've included that all countries would have no unemployment if everyone didn't mind the pay. However, France has a rather generous social network that provides for the long term, certainly over 13 weeks. Even working such menial jobs as a pizza boy or cashier can help an economy, giving a chance for businesses to grow, which is why companies hire in the first place.

As for homelessness, look at the homeless themselves. There are many who are legitamitly in need. In fact, 12% of the homeless population are employed. But, for the vast majority of homeless people, they've really screwed up along the way. They could be on drugs. Or they could be outcasted from a gang, whose members are officially "unemployed" because they make money off undocumented crimes and such. Some of the nation's homeless only have themselves to blame for being homeless.Some don't play the little game as well. They can't figure out how to make money or they're not business people. The system does not work for everybody, but you can't change the people, if anything has to ever change it is the system (or what I call the game).
We don't believe in rewarding bad decisions in life. Notice how you Euros complain we have homeless people, unethical businessmen, the wackiest of wackos (like Michael Jackson), and the highest prison population of the free world? It's all related, if you look closely. These people have all made bad decisions in life. The government is just like most institutions if you wind up as one of these: your business, family, etc. doesn't want any part of it. The government should act the same. In fact, if you ask me, it's way too generous to these groups. It should be much tougher.

I don't know.

Just to see if there's any interest left, bump.

We don't believe in rewarding bad decisions in life. Notice how you Euros complain we have homeless people, unethical businessmen, the wackiest of wackos (like Michael Jackson), and the highest prison population of the free world? It's all related, if you look closely. These people have all made bad decisions in life. The government is just like most institutions if you wind up as one of these: your business, family, etc. doesn't want any part of it. The government should act the same. In fact, if you ask me, it's way too generous to these groups. It should be much tougher.[/quote]


Surely the idea is that you create a society which doesn't create such people or at least encourages them to make the right choices. A high crime rate is as much a symptom of a failing society as poor choices on behalf of that individual.

We don't believe in rewarding bad decisions in life. Notice how you Euros complain we have homeless people, unethical businessmen, the wackiest of wackos (like Michael Jackson), and the highest prison population of the free world? It's all related, if you look closely. These people have all made bad decisions in life. The government is just like most institutions if you wind up as one of these: your business, family, etc. doesn't want any part of it. The government should act the same. In fact, if you ask me, it's way too generous to these groups. It should be much tougher.

So why do you obsess with the French so much? Write an open letter to Shrub protesting his support for budget-busting healthcare entitlements and wasteful farm subsidies, his failure to fight for Social Security reform, and creating - on this administration's watch - of laughably incompetent bureaucracies like TSA. At least, the current French gov't vows to press on with liberalisation, despite defeat in regional elections. - Is there even a single spending bill that the current "Republican" president has vetoed?

We don't believe in rewarding bad decisions in life. Notice how you Euros complain we have homeless people, unethical businessmen, the wackiest of wackos (like Michael Jackson), and the highest prison population of the free world? It's all related, if you look closely. These people have all made bad decisions in life. The government is just like most institutions if you wind up as one of these: your business, family, etc. doesn't want any part of it. The government should act the same. In fact, if you ask me, it's way too generous to these groups. It should be much tougher.And how can a businessman be ethical please?
About the 35H, I'll add that it may harm our GDP, I don't give a toss, it is the right thing to do. We invented the human rights as well and it harmed the economy but I don't give a toss, it had to be done anyway.

More Sabine Herold pics here:
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040112_schwartz_herold.php

Libertarianism through sex appeal. How very French :wink:

If Ayn Rand looked that good, Objectivism and Libertarianism might be popular now.

We invented the human rights as well

Which one of y'all? Robespierre? :P

We invented the human rights as well

Which one of y'all? Robespierre? :PI mean humanity invented human rights, if it was in France or anywhere else is irrelevant since it was the UNIVERSAL declaration of human rights.

We must now invent social justice... GLOBAL social justice. (If it starts in France or anywhere else is not important).

Yes social Justice... let's kill anyone who does better than the average man, then kill off the average man unless he stops being better than the below average man, then kill them off unless they stop being superior to the mentally and physically infirm...

Yes social Justice... let's kill anyone who does better than the average man, then kill off the average man unless he stops being better than the below average man, then kill them off unless they stop being superior to the mentally and physically infirm...Big fat european/american asses not able to move without their big SUV owning the land of farmers in Africa working night and day until death and still having the highest standard of living. That's what I call the physically infirm killing the most productive people.

Actually the error you make is when you think that the people making the most money are the most productive.

Yes social Justice... let's kill anyone who does better than the average man, then kill off the average man unless he stops being better than the below average man, then kill them off unless they stop being superior to the mentally and physically infirm...Big fat european/american asses not able to move without their big SUV owning the land of farmers in Africa working night and day until death and still having the highest standard of living. That's what I call the physically infirm killing the most productive people.

Actually the error you make is when you think that the people making the most money are the most productive.

I've been a farmer...and I've been a paper-pusher...while I may have gotten more satisfaction out of being a farmer from a purely primitive instinct..I have definitely been more produtive as a paper-pusher, and accordingly have helped more people..as well as paid more for my efforts...I don't have a SUV...I have a Honda...

One thing Psylos that you'v not given rise too..with a sinking population... and your baby boomers (those born after ww2 up to 1960's) going into retirement and or your version of the socialist state taking care of the elderly...your taxable population willl drop..especially with fewer hours worked..that means you'll have to get taxed MORE to do the job that you previously could do with less.

Think of it like this...you have ten citizens....3 senior citizens...4 mature adults and 3 children...those 4 adults are paying for the retirement of the 3 senior citizens because they are the only ones working..let's say that 1 out of the 3 senior citizens dies...you wouldhave a surplus but now those 4 mature adults have moved into senior citizen status...and you have 6 senior citizens with those 3 children moved into mature working adult phase...you get the gist of my meaning..sooner or later you're going to have to change your system as your working population shrinks and the money necessary to keep the bloated system there in tact.

Yes social Justice... let's kill anyone who does better than the average man, then kill off the average man unless he stops being better than the below average man, then kill them off unless they stop being superior to the mentally and physically infirm...


You seem to assume that people have an equal opportunity to succeed in the US. Given that many people cannot afford a place at university or even a decent school education this is clearly not the case.

Equal opportunity is something you (the taxpayer) have to pay for.

Yes social Justice... let's kill anyone who does better than the average man, then kill off the average man unless he stops being better than the below average man, then kill them off unless they stop being superior to the mentally and physically infirm...


You seem to assume that people have an equal opportunity to succeed in the US. Given that many people cannot afford a place at university or even a decent school education this is clearly not the case.

Equal opportunity is something you (the taxpayer) have to pay for.

No...he's right..we do have equality of oppurtunity....there are so many scholarships, grants, financial aid packages it's is rare that a student who worked to make the grades couldn't get into college..Anyone who wants to work hard...do the job can get ahead....

What confuses most people, particularly non-Americans, is that they believe we are supposed to have equal results of oppurtunity.

That is unfortunate Simkaria, but here in America that is your right.
Here in America that is your right? So it isn't a right anyplace else? I live in the Netherlands. And so far I've never been arrested for hating the warmongering American terrorist. If anything I was suprised to find how many people feel the same.

No one nation can please everyone or meet their needs physically, morally or philosophically. The real problem might be that many people cannot immigrate to where they want to be for a myriad of reasons. Then one must also consider the chance of disappointment when people get to where they are going only to find that they have carried along the true problem within themselves.
What? :?:

:lol:
You see, they think we're all opressed people run by a terrorist organization... And we're all commies too.

That is unfortunate Simkaria, but here in America that is your right.
Here in America that is your right? So it isn't a right anyplace else? I live in the Netherlands. And so far I've never been arrested for hating the warmongering American terrorist. If anything I was suprised to find how many people feel the same.

No one nation can please everyone or meet their needs physically, morally or philosophically. The real problem might be that many people cannot immigrate to where they want to be for a myriad of reasons. Then one must also consider the chance of disappointment when people get to where they are going only to find that they have carried along the true problem within themselves.
What? :?:

:lol:
You see, they think we're all opressed people run by a terrorist organization... And we're all commies too.

Well...I don't believe y'all oppressed...nor all run by a terrorist organization but the pendelum as far as immigration goes..is definitely in the 'leaving the rest of the world for America"

That is unfortunate Simkaria, but here in America that is your right.
Here in America that is your right? So it isn't a right anyplace else? I live in the Netherlands. And so far I've never been arrested for hating the warmongering American terrorist. If anything I was suprised to find how many people feel the same.

No one nation can please everyone or meet their needs physically, morally or philosophically. The real problem might be that many people cannot immigrate to where they want to be for a myriad of reasons. Then one must also consider the chance of disappointment when people get to where they are going only to find that they have carried along the true problem within themselves.
What? :?:

:lol:
You see, they think we're all opressed people run by a terrorist organization... And we're all commies too.

Well...I don't believe y'all oppressed...nor all run by a terrorist organization but the pendelum as far as immigration goes..is definitely in the 'leaving the rest of the world for America"

Every year:
1.4 Million people move to the EU
2.3 Million people move to the USA

It doesn't sound like people are leaving the world for the USA...

That is unfortunate Simkaria, but here in America that is your right.
Here in America that is your right? So it isn't a right anyplace else? I live in the Netherlands. And so far I've never been arrested for hating the warmongering American terrorist. If anything I was suprised to find how many people feel the same.

No one nation can please everyone or meet their needs physically, morally or philosophically. The real problem might be that many people cannot immigrate to where they want to be for a myriad of reasons. Then one must also consider the chance of disappointment when people get to where they are going only to find that they have carried along the true problem within themselves.
What? :?:

:lol:
You see, they think we're all opressed people run by a terrorist organization... And we're all commies too.

Well...I don't believe y'all oppressed...nor all run by a terrorist organization but the pendelum as far as immigration goes..is definitely in the 'leaving the rest of the world for America"

Every year:
1.4 Million people move to the EU
2.3 Million people move to the USA

It doesn't sound like people are leaving the world for the USA...
Still, 2.3 million is quite a few. In fact, it is too many. While I don't support this law, we aren't supposed to have more than 650,000 immigrants a year (with the exception of refugees, of course).

Yes social Justice... let's kill anyone who does better than the average man, then kill off the average man unless he stops being better than the below average man, then kill them off unless they stop being superior to the mentally and physically infirm...


You seem to assume that people have an equal opportunity to succeed in the US. Given that many people cannot afford a place at university or even a decent school education this is clearly not the case.

Equal opportunity is something you (the taxpayer) have to pay for.

No...he's right..we do have equality of oppurtunity....there are so many scholarships, grants, financial aid packages it's is rare that a student who worked to make the grades couldn't get into college..Anyone who wants to work hard...do the job can get ahead....

What confuses most people, particularly non-Americans, is that they believe we are supposed to have equal results of oppurtunity.


Those help admittedly yet you cannot deny that private schools are superior to state schools and that admission to such schools are largely dependent on family income or location. This is not an even starting point.

As for universities, I am aware that many Ivy League universities charge up to $30,000 a year and despite the measures you mentioned, the idea that such a large fee would not be a deterrent to those from less wealthy backgrounds is simply wrong as far as I can see. Even if the measures you mentioned meant that the student was capable of attending college or university, it does not necessarily follow that the issue of payment would not be an enormous hurdle for them to overcome.

I believe that entrance to college and university should be determined on merit rather than wealth, of course this creates problems in itself with regard to funding but at least such a system can claim to embody a sense of social justice that I believe is somewhat lacking in the US educational system at the moment.

There is a clear difference between equal opportunity (meritocracy) and equal outcome (communism), the latter of the two clearly being fundamentally unfair and injust. The problem is that I do not believe the educational system in the US promotes the former either.

I've been a farmer...and I've been a paper-pusher...while I may have gotten more satisfaction out of being a farmer from a purely primitive instinct..I have definitely been more produtive as a paper-pusher, and accordingly have helped more people..as well as paid more for my efforts...I don't have a SUV...I have a Honda...What's a paper-pusher? Babylon.com doesn't know the word. Sorry for my bad english.
Anyway, I think I get the point. But you're not a farmer in Africa. In the US there are minimum wage laws, you were not paid $1 per day or you would still be a farmer in Africa. Without social laws there is no equal opportunity because the capitalists own the work of the poor.
So you have a Honda, good for you. It still doesn't make Peugeot crap. You would maybe have a Peugeot if they sold in the US. Renault bought Nissan also.

One thing Psylos that you'v not given rise too..with a sinking population... and your baby boomers (those born after ww2 up to 1960's) going into retirement and or your version of the socialist state taking care of the elderly...your taxable population willl drop..especially with fewer hours worked..that means you'll have to get taxed MORE to do the job that you previously could do with less.This is a problem. The baby boom and the ageing population. I don't have a solution, do you have one? You would have the same problem in the US. The oldies owning stocks do not produce anything and the shrinking working population makes the stocks fall. The problem is the population which is going older in Europe, not the social system. The raw capitalism doesn't resolve the problem.

Think of it like this...you have ten citizens....3 senior citizens...4 mature adults and 3 children...those 4 adults are paying for the retirement of the 3 senior citizens because they are the only ones working..let's say that 1 out of the 3 senior citizens dies...you wouldhave a surplus but now those 4 mature adults have moved into senior citizen status...and you have 6 senior citizens with those 3 children moved into mature working adult phase...you get the gist of my meaning..sooner or later you're going to have to change your system as your working population shrinks and the money necessary to keep the bloated system there in tact.And what is your solution? Kill the older people so they do not cost?

No...he's right..we do have equality of oppurtunity....there are so many scholarships, grants, financial aid packages it's is rare that a student who worked to make the grades couldn't get into college..Anyone who wants to work hard...do the job can get ahead....

What confuses most people, particularly non-Americans, is that they believe we are supposed to have equal results of oppurtunity.But if you are rich you don't have to work hard. Where is equal opportunity? It's not equal if someone has to work hard to have the same opportunity as someone who didn't move his fat ass.

Well...I don't believe y'all oppressed...nor all run by a terrorist organization but the pendelum as far as immigration goes..is definitely in the 'leaving the rest of the world for America"The country which has the highest immigration rate in the world is Iran. Why? Because people are fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq. Wonder why?

Think of it like this...you have ten citizens....3 senior citizens...4 mature adults and 3 children...those 4 adults are paying for the retirement of the 3 senior citizens because they are the only ones working..let's say that 1 out of the 3 senior citizens dies...you wouldhave a surplus but now those 4 mature adults have moved into senior citizen status...and you have 6 senior citizens with those 3 children moved into mature working adult phase...you get the gist of my meaning..sooner or later you're going to have to change your system as your working population shrinks and the money necessary to keep the bloated system there in tact.And what is your solution? Kill the older people so they do not cost?
Destroy the socialist system and replace it with privatized IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts) which are superior to Government retirement benefits in every way.

Destroy the socialist system and replace it with privatized IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts) which are superior to Government retirement benefits in every way.How does that solve the problem please? The IRAs will invest in stocks. Ask the people who had a retirement plan at Enron. If there are no people to work for you when you're retired, you have no retirement.

Destroy the socialist system and replace it with privatized IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts) which are superior to Government retirement benefits in every way.How does that solve the problem please? The IRAs will invest in stocks. Ask the people who had a retirement plan at Enron. If there are no people to work for you when you're retired, you have no retirement.
There is more than one type of IRA, not all of them involve stock portfolios. Mutual Funds, while technically being stock (just a huge variety of it), are surer and safer than individual stock. Banks also offer systems of IRAs compeltely independent from the Stock Market, from simple savings account to recurring CDs, etc. Each individual should have the right to decide how their retirement money is invested, instead of having the government mismanage their years of payments into the system only to have a tiny fraction come back out.

Well...I don't believe y'all oppressed...nor all run by a terrorist organization but the pendelum as far as immigration goes..is definitely in the 'leaving the rest of the world for America"The country which has the highest immigration rate in the world is Iran. Why? Because people are fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq. Wonder why?

Hmm, no idea...
(Yes, that was a tag. Sorry. lol)

Destroy the socialist system and replace it with privatized IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts) which are superior to Government retirement benefits in every way.How does that solve the problem please? The IRAs will invest in stocks. Ask the people who had a retirement plan at Enron. If there are no people to work for you when you're retired, you have no retirement.

The pension system is illegal anyway - it's a Ponzi scheme. It should be up to the individual how they fund their retirement. All investments carry a risk, even fixed interest, but with careful planning any person could fund their retirement with an income a lot larger than the government provides. Financial ignorance is not an excuse to keep a system that offers piecemeal amounts.

Those help admittedly yet you cannot deny that private schools are superior to state schools and that admission to such schools are largely dependent on family income or location. This is not an even starting point.

As for universities, I am aware that many Ivy League universities charge up to $30,000 a year and despite the measures you mentioned, the idea that such a large fee would not be a deterrent to those from less wealthy backgrounds is simply wrong as far as I can see. Even if the measures you mentioned meant that the student was capable of attending college or university, it does not necessarily follow that the issue of payment would not be an enormous hurdle for them to overcome.


I beg to differ. Most elite private colleges and universities are quite left-wing - read pro-affirmative action. Their admissions offices run essentially a disguised quota system: so many spaces for the academically gifted, so many for the legacies, so many for various "oppressed" minority groups. Additionally, places like the Ivies have very large endowments (Harvard has more than $20 billion, if I remember correctly) which enable them to make very generous scholarship offers.

Even if you're out of luck and didn't get into a wealthy private university or college, there are still cheaper but still quality state universities (Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Texas) and federally subsidised student loans to pay for them.

U.S. university system the best in the world - in large part because the state doesn't meddle much. If you ask me, I'd say the problem is with public schools, not the universities.

No...he's right..we do have equality of oppurtunity....there are so many scholarships, grants, financial aid packages it's is rare that a student who worked to make the grades couldn't get into college..Anyone who wants to work hard...do the job can get ahead....

What confuses most people, particularly non-Americans, is that they believe we are supposed to have equal results of oppurtunity.But if you are rich you don't have to work hard. Where is equal opportunity? It's not equal if someone has to work hard to have the same opportunity as someone who didn't move his fat ass.

There you go again psylos..you're confusing oppurtunity with outcome..you want equality of outcome..life isn't fair..never was...the vast majority of college students in the US aren't rich..they juggle grants, financial aid packages, help from parents, and even work jobs to get them thru college...I was lucky..the military paid for my college..well, not all of it...I had to contribute they matched funds...

to be honest, let France srew itself. French are only on this world to eat garlic, smell bad, be rude and impolite. Their women are indistinguishable from their men.

There is more than one type of IRA, not all of them involve stock portfolios. Mutual Funds, while technically being stock (just a huge variety of it), are surer and safer than individual stock. Banks also offer systems of IRAs compeltely independent from the Stock Market, from simple savings account to recurring CDs, etc. Each individual should have the right to decide how their retirement money is invested, instead of having the government mismanage their years of payments into the system only to have a tiny fraction come back out.And what if there is inflation? You keep $1000 under your bed, and 30 years from now, you just find yourself with $1 worth of money for living 30 more years. Money is worth nothing if nobody is here to work for it.

The pension system is illegal anyway - it's a Ponzi scheme. It should be up to the individual how they fund their retirement. All investments carry a risk, even fixed interest, but with careful planning any person could fund their retirement with an income a lot larger than the government provides. Financial ignorance is not an excuse to keep a system that offers piecemeal amounts.You think as a capitalist. You think money will give your retirement. But it is not the case. The people will work for your retirement no matter how you try to make it invisible.

There you go again psylos..you're confusing oppurtunity with outcome..you want equality of outcome..life isn't fair..never was...the vast majority of college students in the US aren't rich..they juggle grants, financial aid packages, help from parents, and even work jobs to get them thru college...I was lucky..the military paid for my college..well, not all of it...I had to contribute they matched funds...No I don't confuse the two. I agree people don't have the same opportunities, the rich have more opportunities because they have more income. I agree in a socialist system people still don't have the same opportunities but neithre do they in your system, as you seem to think.

to be honest, let France srew itself. French are only on this world to eat garlic, smell bad, be rude and impolite. Their women are indistinguishable from their men.It is unfortunate you think this of the french, but here you have the right to think it bla bla bla... freedom bla bla bla France is the greatest country on the planet bla bla bla your country suck ... and some more insults.

U.S. university system the best in the world - in large part because the state doesn't meddle much. If you ask me, I'd say the problem is with public schools, not the universities.There are more students in the EU than anywhere else.

There is a clear difference between equal opportunity (meritocracy) and equal outcome (communism), the latter of the two clearly being fundamentally unfair and injust. The problem is that I do not believe the educational system in the US promotes the former either.Communism is not about equal outcome. It is about absence of individual property. And Communism is not socialism.

There you go again psylos..you're confusing oppurtunity with outcome..you want equality of outcome..life isn't fair..never was...the vast majority of college students in the US aren't rich..they juggle grants, financial aid packages, help from parents, and even work jobs to get them thru college...I was lucky..the military paid for my college..well, not all of it...I had to contribute they matched funds...No I don't confuse the two. I agree people don't have the same opportunities, the rich have more opportunities because they have more income. I agree in a socialist system people still don't have the same opportunities but neithre do they in your system, as you seem to think.

AGAIN..you're not getting my point..everyone has the Equality of OPPURTUNITY to become whatever they want with hard work, guts, and determination, what you are saying is that their RESULTS TO BE EQUAL. In other words..I work for my money...you're in essense saying the other person who doesn't work should get the same benefits out of working for you money without working for it.

AGAIN..you're not getting my point..everyone has the Equality of OPPURTUNITY to become whatever they want with hard work, guts, and determination, what you are saying is that their RESULTS TO BE EQUAL. In other words..I work for my money...you're in essense saying the other person who doesn't work should get the same benefits out of working for you money without working for it.No I'm saying that the man who earns $1/day will never have the opportunity to be the president of the USA.

AGAIN..you're not getting my point..everyone has the Equality of OPPURTUNITY to become whatever they want with hard work, guts, and determination, what you are saying is that their RESULTS TO BE EQUAL. In other words..I work for my money...you're in essense saying the other person who doesn't work should get the same benefits out of working for you money without working for it.No I'm saying that the man who earns $1/day will never have the opportunity to be the president of the USA.

You wanna bet?..several US presidents started with nothing...at least 3 were military heroes who were propelled on nothing more then their war-time fame..Jackson....Grant....Eisenhower.....and Grant came from very humble middle class roots..and was a drunk to boot.

Harry Truman..also came from pretty much nothing..

Secretary of State Colin Powell came from Jamaica with nothing, and if their was any minority that had a shot at being President, he'll be it.

Look at me psylos...I'm the American Dream made flesh...raised on a dirt-poor farm on a dirt-poor reservation...a minority growing up in Jim Crow days yet thru hard work..perserverance...and a whole lot of sweat of my own making I did it..now I live in that nice upper middle class house with fairly decent salary...etc..if I can make it...anyone can.

AGAIN..you're not getting my point..everyone has the Equality of OPPURTUNITY to become whatever they want with hard work, guts, and determination, what you are saying is that their RESULTS TO BE EQUAL. In other words..I work for my money...you're in essense saying the other person who doesn't work should get the same benefits out of working for you money without working for it.No I'm saying that the man who earns $1/day will never have the opportunity to be the president of the USA.

You wanna bet?..several US presidents started with nothing...at least 3 were military heroes who were propelled on nothing more then their war-time fame..Jackson....Grant....Eisenhower.....and Grant came from very humble middle class roots..and was a drunk to boot.

Harry Truman..also came from pretty much nothing..

Secretary of State Colin Powell came from Jamaica with nothing, and if their was any minority that had a shot at being President, he'll be it.

Look at me psylos...I'm the American Dream made flesh...raised on a dirt-poor farm on a dirt-poor reservation...a minority growing up in Jim Crow days yet thru hard work..perserverance...and a whole lot of sweat of my own making I did it..now I live in that nice upper middle class house with fairly decent salary...etc..if I can make it...anyone can.

You wanna bet?..several US presidents started with nothing...at least 3 were military heroes who were propelled on nothing more then their war-time fame..Jackson....Grant....Eisenhower.....and Grant came from very humble middle class roots..and was a drunk to boot.

Harry Truman..also came from pretty much nothing..

Secretary of State Colin Powell came from Jamaica with nothing, and if their was any minority that had a shot at being President, he'll be it.

Look at me psylos...I'm the American Dream made flesh...raised on a dirt-poor farm on a dirt-poor reservation...a minority growing up in Jim Crow days yet thru hard work..perserverance...and a whole lot of sweat of my own making I did it..now I live in that nice upper middle class house with fairly decent salary...etc..if I can make it...anyone can.I suppose you believe it is true because the reality of the world is hidden from you. What you call the middle class is in the 6% of the wealthiest people on earth. people in Africa working for $1/day don't even know the president of the USA exist. They don't have access to education, news or anything, just to the land where they work which is owned by the europeans and americans.
You talk about the american dream but you work for the military which is a public service, paid by taxes. No corporation would have hired you without some background.

Think of it like this...you have ten citizens....3 senior citizens...4 mature adults and 3 children...those 4 adults are paying for the retirement of the 3 senior citizens because they are the only ones working..let's say that 1 out of the 3 senior citizens dies...you wouldhave a surplus but now those 4 mature adults have moved into senior citizen status...and you have 6 senior citizens with those 3 children moved into mature working adult phase...you get the gist of my meaning..sooner or later you're going to have to change your system as your working population shrinks and the money necessary to keep the bloated system there in tact.And what is your solution? Kill the older people so they do not cost?
Destroy the socialist system and replace it with privatized IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts) which are superior to Government retirement benefits in every way.

A couple of questions for the American.

Why do you call the mixed economy socialist?
Why do you think the mixed economy; the fairest, most efficient, most popular, and most useful for protecting peoples rights; is a bad thing?

You wanna bet?..several US presidents started with nothing...at least 3 were military heroes who were propelled on nothing more then their war-time fame..Jackson....Grant....Eisenhower.....and Grant came from very humble middle class roots..and was a drunk to boot.

Harry Truman..also came from pretty much nothing..

Secretary of State Colin Powell came from Jamaica with nothing, and if their was any minority that had a shot at being President, he'll be it.

Look at me psylos...I'm the American Dream made flesh...raised on a dirt-poor farm on a dirt-poor reservation...a minority growing up in Jim Crow days yet thru hard work..perserverance...and a whole lot of sweat of my own making I did it..now I live in that nice upper middle class house with fairly decent salary...etc..if I can make it...anyone can.I suppose you believe it is true because the reality of the world is hidden from you. What you call the middle class is in the 6% of the wealthiest people on earth. people in Africa working for $1/day don't even know the president of the USA exist. They don't have access to education, news or anything, just to the land where they work which is owned by the europeans and americans.
You talk about the american dream but you work for the military which is a public service, paid by taxes. No corporation would have hired you without some background.

Actually...I retired from the military and I didn't work for them..I served my country...a public service demanded by our Constitution..and got my present job long after I retired..upon retirement I worked as a $4.95hr Security Guard at a warehouse.....barely minimum wage.

As for those farmers in say..South Africa..you're of course referring to the prosperous white farmers who had farmed their land for over a century, in fact some of them being descendants of the Dutch Boers?....or are you referring to the landless youthful thugs that Mugabe let loose on them to terrorize them off their lands, lock them up when they had the gall to file a law suit against his government's psuedo-support...watch how these once prosperous farms go bellyup now..the thugs who are now squatting on these lands aren't farmers..they were former rebels who knew how to shoot a gun..and now think they have every right to disposess the white farmers who have worked that land for generations.

You wanna bet?..several US presidents started with nothing...at least 3 were military heroes who were propelled on nothing more then their war-time fame..Jackson....Grant....Eisenhower.....and Grant came from very humble middle class roots..and was a drunk to boot.

Harry Truman..also came from pretty much nothing..

Secretary of State Colin Powell came from Jamaica with nothing, and if their was any minority that had a shot at being President, he'll be it.

Look at me psylos...I'm the American Dream made flesh...raised on a dirt-poor farm on a dirt-poor reservation...a minority growing up in Jim Crow days yet thru hard work..perserverance...and a whole lot of sweat of my own making I did it..now I live in that nice upper middle class house with fairly decent salary...etc..if I can make it...anyone can.I suppose you believe it is true because the reality of the world is hidden from you. What you call the middle class is in the 6% of the wealthiest people on earth. people in Africa working for $1/day don't even know the president of the USA exist. They don't have access to education, news or anything, just to the land where they work which is owned by the europeans and americans.
You talk about the american dream but you work for the military which is a public service, paid by taxes. No corporation would have hired you without some background.

Actually...I retired from the military and I didn't work for them..I served my country...a public service demanded by our Constitution..and got my present job long after I retired..upon retirement I worked as a $4.95hr Security Guard at a warehouse.....barely minimum wage.

As for those farmers in say..South Africa..you're of course referring to the prosperous white farmers who had farmed their land for over a century, in fact some of them being descendants of the Dutch Boers?....or are you referring to the landless youthful thugs that Mugabe let loose on them to terrorize them off their lands, lock them up when they had the gall to file a law suit against his government's psuedo-support...watch how these once prosperous farms go bellyup now..the thugs who are now squatting on these lands aren't farmers..they were former rebels who knew how to shoot a gun..and now think they have every right to disposess the white farmers who have worked that land for generations.

You wanna bet?..several US presidents started with nothing...at least 3 were military heroes who were propelled on nothing more then their war-time fame..Jackson....Grant....Eisenhower.....and Grant came from very humble middle class roots..and was a drunk to boot.

Harry Truman..also came from pretty much nothing..

Secretary of State Colin Powell came from Jamaica with nothing, and if their was any minority that had a shot at being President, he'll be it.

Look at me psylos...I'm the American Dream made flesh...raised on a dirt-poor farm on a dirt-poor reservation...a minority growing up in Jim Crow days yet thru hard work..perserverance...and a whole lot of sweat of my own making I did it..now I live in that nice upper middle class house with fairly decent salary...etc..if I can make it...anyone can.I suppose you believe it is true because the reality of the world is hidden from you. What you call the middle class is in the 6% of the wealthiest people on earth. people in Africa working for $1/day don't even know the president of the USA exist. They don't have access to education, news or anything, just to the land where they work which is owned by the europeans and americans.
You talk about the american dream but you work for the military which is a public service, paid by taxes. No corporation would have hired you without some background.

Actually...I retired from the military and I didn't work for them..I served my country...a public service demanded by our Constitution..and got my present job long after I retired..upon retirement I worked as a $4.95hr Security Guard at a warehouse.....barely minimum wage.

As for those farmers in say..South Africa..you're of course referring to the prosperous white farmers who had farmed their land for over a century, in fact some of them being descendants of the Dutch Boers?....or are you referring to the landless youthful thugs that Mugabe let loose on them to terrorize them off their lands, lock them up when they had the gall to file a law suit against his government's psuedo-support...watch how these once prosperous farms go bellyup now..the thugs who are now squatting on these lands aren't farmers..they were former rebels who knew how to shoot a gun..and now think they have every right to disposess the white farmers who have worked that land for generations.

You wanna bet?..several US presidents started with nothing...at least 3 were military heroes who were propelled on nothing more then their war-time fame..Jackson....Grant....Eisenhower.....and Grant came from very humble middle class roots..and was a drunk to boot.

Harry Truman..also came from pretty much nothing..

Secretary of State Colin Powell came from Jamaica with nothing, and if their was any minority that had a shot at being President, he'll be it.

Look at me psylos...I'm the American Dream made flesh...raised on a dirt-poor farm on a dirt-poor reservation...a minority growing up in Jim Crow days yet thru hard work..perserverance...and a whole lot of sweat of my own making I did it..now I live in that nice upper middle class house with fairly decent salary...etc..if I can make it...anyone can.I suppose you believe it is true because the reality of the world is hidden from you. What you call the middle class is in the 6% of the wealthiest people on earth. people in Africa working for $1/day don't even know the president of the USA exist. They don't have access to education, news or anything, just to the land where they work which is owned by the europeans and americans.
You talk about the american dream but you work for the military which is a public service, paid by taxes. No corporation would have hired you without some background.

Actually...I retired from the military and I didn't work for them..I served my country...a public service demanded by our Constitution..and got my present job long after I retired..upon retirement I worked as a $4.95hr Security Guard at a warehouse.....barely minimum wage.

As for those farmers in say..South Africa..you're of course referring to the prosperous white farmers who had farmed their land for over a century, in fact some of them being descendants of the Dutch Boers?....or are you referring to the landless youthful thugs that Mugabe let loose on them to terrorize them off their lands, lock them up when they had the gall to file a law suit against his government's psuedo-support...watch how these once prosperous farms go bellyup now..the thugs who are now squatting on these lands aren't farmers..they were former rebels who knew how to shoot a gun..and now think they have every right to disposess the white farmers who have worked that land for generations.

That reminds me...I got offered a scholarship to go study in south africa for a bit.

I said no.

Actually...I retired from the military and I didn't work for them..I served my country...a public service demanded by our Constitution..and got my present job long after I retired..upon retirement I worked as a $4.95hr Security Guard at a warehouse.....barely minimum wage.So you didn't work 20 years for the military, did you? Anyway, either you got extremely lucky (you're already lucky to be born in the USA which is a rich country thanks to the raping of the third world) or you cheated the system. Anyway I don't think everybody has the same opportunity when the fat asses own your land and your work.

As for those farmers in say..South Africa..you're of course referring to the prosperous white farmers who had farmed their land for over a century, in fact some of them being descendants of the Dutch Boers?....or are you referring to the landless youthful thugs that Mugabe let loose on them to terrorize them off their lands, lock them up when they had the gall to file a law suit against his government's psuedo-support...watch how these once prosperous farms go bellyup now..the thugs who are now squatting on these lands aren't farmers..they were former rebels who knew how to shoot a gun..and now think they have every right to disposess the white farmers who have worked that land for generations.No I was talking about the farmers being paid $1/day in Africa. There are also people being paid $1/day in Asia and south america, because everything there is owned in europe and the north america. The game is not fair. check out the Bretton woods international monetary system. The dollar is oppressing the rest of the world. Botswana is paying its debt in dollars. The US is also paying its debt in dollars but is printing it as well.

Well...I don't believe y'all oppressed...nor all run by a terrorist organization but the pendelum as far as immigration goes..is definitely in the 'leaving the rest of the world for America"The country which has the highest immigration rate in the world is Iran. Why? Because people are fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq. Wonder why?
Actually, Afghanistan has been in the process of repatriation since 2001.

No...he's right..we do have equality of oppurtunity....there are so many scholarships, grants, financial aid packages it's is rare that a student who worked to make the grades couldn't get into college..Anyone who wants to work hard...do the job can get ahead....

What confuses most people, particularly non-Americans, is that they believe we are supposed to have equal results of oppurtunity.But if you are rich you don't have to work hard. Where is equal opportunity? It's not equal if someone has to work hard to have the same opportunity as someone who didn't move his fat ass.
Yeah, but look at what most billionaires do for a living. Only the oldest sit on their ass all day. One billionaire is actually an elisted member of the British Navy. Another (Silvio Berlusconi), is president of Italy. Then again, being president of Italy isn't hard :lol: .

Think of it like this...you have ten citizens....3 senior citizens...4 mature adults and 3 children...those 4 adults are paying for the retirement of the 3 senior citizens because they are the only ones working..let's say that 1 out of the 3 senior citizens dies...you wouldhave a surplus but now those 4 mature adults have moved into senior citizen status...and you have 6 senior citizens with those 3 children moved into mature working adult phase...you get the gist of my meaning..sooner or later you're going to have to change your system as your working population shrinks and the money necessary to keep the bloated system there in tact.And what is your solution? Kill the older people so they do not cost?
Destroy the socialist system and replace it with privatized IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts) which are superior to Government retirement benefits in every way.

A couple of questions for the American.

Why do you call the mixed economy socialist?
Why do you think the mixed economy; the fairest, most efficient, most popular, and most useful for protecting peoples rights; is a bad thing?
Socialist elements only reduce freedom. Freedom isn't only the opportunity to succede, it's the opportunity to fail as well.

The pension system is illegal anyway - it's a Ponzi scheme. It should be up to the individual how they fund their retirement. All investments carry a risk, even fixed interest, but with careful planning any person could fund their retirement with an income a lot larger than the government provides. Financial ignorance is not an excuse to keep a system that offers piecemeal amounts.You think as a capitalist. You think money will give your retirement. But it is not the case. The people will work for your retirement no matter how you try to make it invisible.

Explain to me how people work for your retirement in a system where the government doesn't provide pensions.

Well...I don't believe y'all oppressed...nor all run by a terrorist organization but the pendelum as far as immigration goes..is definitely in the 'leaving the rest of the world for America"The country which has the highest immigration rate in the world is Iran. Why? Because people are fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq. Wonder why?
Actually, Afghanistan has been in the process of repatriation since 2001.But you get the point as to why some people go to america.

Explain to me how people work for your retirement in a system where the government doesn't provide pensions.Is it really that hard to understand? If you're retired, you don't work. You still consume. The only thing you can consume is other people's work then.

Socialist elements only reduce freedom. Freedom isn't only the opportunity to succede, it's the opportunity to fail as well.You're blind if you think raw capitalism provides freedom.

Explain to me how people work for your retirement in a system where the government doesn't provide pensions.Is it really that hard to understand? If you're retired, you don't work. You still consume. The only thing you can consume is other people's work then.

But the work you consume, ie goods and services, is exchanged for money, money which has been earned by yourself. Taxation is the consumption of work in exchange of nothing.

Think of it like this...you have ten citizens....3 senior citizens...4 mature adults and 3 children...those 4 adults are paying for the retirement of the 3 senior citizens because they are the only ones working..let's say that 1 out of the 3 senior citizens dies...you wouldhave a surplus but now those 4 mature adults have moved into senior citizen status...and you have 6 senior citizens with those 3 children moved into mature working adult phase...you get the gist of my meaning..sooner or later you're going to have to change your system as your working population shrinks and the money necessary to keep the bloated system there in tact.And what is your solution? Kill the older people so they do not cost?
Destroy the socialist system and replace it with privatized IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts) which are superior to Government retirement benefits in every way.

A couple of questions for the American.

Why do you call the mixed economy socialist?
Why do you think the mixed economy; the fairest, most efficient, most popular, and most useful for protecting peoples rights; is a bad thing?
Socialist elements only reduce freedom. Freedom isn't only the opportunity to succede, it's the opportunity to fail as well.

Then go play chicken on the tracks, and leave civilized society out of it.

Explain to me how people work for your retirement in a system where the government doesn't provide pensions.Is it really that hard to understand? If you're retired, you don't work. You still consume. The only thing you can consume is other people's work then.

But the work you consume, ie goods and services, is exchanged for money, money which has been earned by yourself. Taxation is the consumption of work in exchange of nothing.That doesn't work if there's nobody to work for your money, you've got inflation and your money is worth nothing without people working for it -> you work all your life in exchange of nothing.

U.S. university system the best in the world - in large part because the state doesn't meddle much. If you ask me, I'd say the problem is with public schools, not the universities.There are more students in the EU than anywhere else.

Rrright. And USSR used to produce more steel than anyone else. And China has the most people.
I'm afraid you're confusing quantity with quality :wink:

French and German (and to lesser extent British) universities are overcrowded and short of funds necessary to expand their facilities and hire more faculty. -- Obviously, that has a detrimental effect on the quality of education.

For y'all's amusement, here's a link to a Chinese ranking of world's top universities. Speaks for itself, considering that the Chinese are not known to be terribly pro-American :D


---------------------------------------------------------

Shanghai Jiao Tong University's Academic Ranking of World Universities:
[ http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm ]

Methodology: This site offers an explanation of its methods on a page titled "Rankings Methodology".

This site created by the Institute of Higher Education at Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranks the top universities throughout the world. The site also narrows the ratings further, creating lists for the top 100 universities in America, Europe, and Asia. The rankings are based solely on academic or research performance, using five criteria: the number of nobel laureates, highly cited researchers, articles published in Nature and Science, articles in Science Citation Index-expanded and Social Science Citation Index, and academic performance per faculty at each university.

2 Psylos,

Newsflash for ya: Bretton Woods system collapsed when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard wa-ay back in 1971.

And please stop that silly scaremongering about how hyperinflation will turn all savings to dust... Won't happen the majority of of world's adult population quits working :wink:


2 Purly,

FYI, Berlusconi's job is Prime Minister, not President.

2 Psylos,

Newsflash for ya: Bretton Woods system collapsed when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard wa-ay back in 1971.

And please stop that silly scaremongering about how hyperinflation will turn all savings to dust... Won't happen the majority of of world's adult population quits working :wink:


2 Purly,

FYI, Berlusconi's job is Prime Minister, not President.I know that. Between 1971 and 1979, the gold price rose from $35 to $800.
But the debt of the third world has not being cancelled yet and is still in dollars.

Well...I don't believe y'all oppressed...nor all run by a terrorist organization but the pendelum as far as immigration goes..is definitely in the 'leaving the rest of the world for America"The country which has the highest immigration rate in the world is Iran. Why? Because people are fleeing Afghanistan and Iraq. Wonder why?
Actually, Afghanistan has been in the process of repatriation since 2001.But you get the point as to why some people go to america.
I see what you are saying. However, most of the immigrants come from Mexico. That is a fairly stable country. If anything, it's the economy that's bad south of the border, but GDP per capita is still above $10,000. However, I think it's fair to say that we are one of the few nations in the area (along with Canada) that is economically and politically stable. They just all come here because of the weather :D .

2 Psylos,

Newsflash for ya: Bretton Woods system collapsed when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard wa-ay back in 1971.

And please stop that silly scaremongering about how hyperinflation will turn all savings to dust... Won't happen the majority of of world's adult population quits working :wink:


2 Purly,

FYI, Berlusconi's job is Prime Minister, not President.I know that. Between 1971 and 1979, the gold price rose from $35 to $800.
But the debt of the third world has not being cancelled yet and is still in dollars.

Sounds like a FABULOUS deal for gold-exporting debtor nations!

Seriously, if the idea is to help the underdeveloped nations of the world, then instead of forgiving debt (it has been tried before -- merely encourages more reckless borrowing) the US, EU and Japan should relax remaining import restrictions on agricultural goods and cut domestic farm subsidies.

2 Psylos,

Newsflash for ya: Bretton Woods system collapsed when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard wa-ay back in 1971.

And please stop that silly scaremongering about how hyperinflation will turn all savings to dust... Won't happen the majority of of world's adult population quits working :wink:


2 Purly,

FYI, Berlusconi's job is Prime Minister, not President.
True. But he's pretty much the president. I hardly know who the real president of Italy is. In fact, I've always wondered what happened to Italy being a constitutional monarchy. Wasn't it restored after Mussolini was kicked out?

2 Psylos,

Newsflash for ya: Bretton Woods system collapsed when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard wa-ay back in 1971.

And please stop that silly scaremongering about how hyperinflation will turn all savings to dust... Won't happen the majority of of world's adult population quits working :wink:


2 Purly,

FYI, Berlusconi's job is Prime Minister, not President.
True. But he's pretty much the president. I hardly know who the real president of Italy is. In fact, I've always wondered what happened to Italy being a constitutional monarchy. Wasn't it restored after Mussolini was kicked out?

Well the monarchy itself was still around in the time of Mussolini. The King abdicated after the war. I'm not sure if another one took his place, or if they became a republic.

.... And many of us have used a largely French made product recently - Airbus has been taking huge chunks out of Boeing's previously unchallenged market over the past decade or so.

-Z-

From the airbus website: (history of page)

....
Airbus was established in 1970 as a European consortium of French, German and later, Spanish and U.K companies, as it became clear that only by co-operating would European aircraft manufacturers be able to compete effectively with the U.S.

http://www.airbus.com/about/history.asp

Not exactly a glorious statement of French capacity if they need four other nations to help them compete.
In spite of their international tag-team effort, Airbus still can't compete without government hand-outs:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/19923_airbus24.shtml

try again

2 Psylos,

Newsflash for ya: Bretton Woods system collapsed when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard wa-ay back in 1971.

And please stop that silly scaremongering about how hyperinflation will turn all savings to dust... Won't happen the majority of of world's adult population quits working :wink:


2 Purly,

FYI, Berlusconi's job is Prime Minister, not President.
True. But he's pretty much the president. I hardly know who the real president of Italy is. In fact, I've always wondered what happened to Italy being a constitutional monarchy. Wasn't it restored after Mussolini was kicked out?

Apparently, the Italians abolished monarchy in a referendum of 1946. The king was sent off into exile -- only relatively recently have his descendants been allowed to return. Italy is a parliamentary republic, so the office of the president is largely ceremonial, but the pres. does have power to veto legislation.

2 Psylos,

Newsflash for ya: Bretton Woods system collapsed when the U.S. abandoned the gold standard wa-ay back in 1971.

And please stop that silly scaremongering about how hyperinflation will turn all savings to dust... Won't happen the majority of of world's adult population quits working :wink:


2 Purly,

FYI, Berlusconi's job is Prime Minister, not President.
True. But he's pretty much the president. I hardly know who the real president of Italy is. In fact, I've always wondered what happened to Italy being a constitutional monarchy. Wasn't it restored after Mussolini was kicked out?

Apparently, the Italians abolished monarchy in a referendum of 1946. The king was sent off into exile -- only relatively recently have his descendants been allowed to return. Italy is a parliamentary republic, so the office of the president is largely ceremonial, but the pres. does have power to veto legislation.
As a partial Italian, I can say that I'd have loved it if they could at least keep themselves a constitutional monarchy. It'd be really no different than the current president, I believe.

.... And many of us have used a largely French made product recently - Airbus has been taking huge chunks out of Boeing's previously unchallenged market over the past decade or so.

-Z-

From the airbus website: (history of page)

....
Airbus was established in 1970 as a European consortium of French, German and later, Spanish and U.K companies, as it became clear that only by co-operating would European aircraft manufacturers be able to compete effectively with the U.S.

http://www.airbus.com/about/history.asp

Not exactly a glorious statement of French capacity if they need four other nations to help them compete.
In spite of their international tag-team effort, Airbus still can't compete without government hand-outs:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/19923_airbus24.shtml

try againAnd would Boeing or any other US aircraft manufacturer survive without government defense contracts? Not at their current levels, that's for certain, and perhaps not at all. Is there really any difference between what Airbus receives and what Boeing receives?

Incertonia your logic is flawed, unless Auriba makes tanks, ur comparision is like comparing printers and fruit.
Boeing makes stuff for the government, they dont get the money for free. Unlike auribus, they are exspected to make stuff and invent stuff to help keep the US military one of the best if not the best in the world.
You people in Europe <with the notable exception of England> are just jealous because we occupied a country across the world, <granted with major contributions from 2 other nations>, it barely put a dent into our economey and we didnt even need to have a draft.
France you are just envious because you are not a world power and short of becoming the only country with nukes or ww3 never will be.
We built cars that can go from 0 to 330 mph <not to be confused with kph> in 5 seconds, piss us off and see what we build, or you could ask the Japenese.
What would France do if you piss them off? ask Germany.
Oh and whoever said that any france jv rugby team could beat an american team, we dont play rubgy, we play football <not soccer> which is really rubgy heavy, give one of our college football teams 6 months to learn rubgy and we will woop ur nations team.
Ps. We have a really good soccer team too, Mens and Womans!
and Hockey and really every major sport we do!

Explain to me how people work for your retirement in a system where the government doesn't provide pensions.Is it really that hard to understand? If you're retired, you don't work. You still consume. The only thing you can consume is other people's work then.

But the work you consume, ie goods and services, is exchanged for money, money which has been earned by yourself. Taxation is the consumption of work in exchange of nothing.That doesn't work if there's nobody to work for your money, you've got inflation and your money is worth nothing without people working for it -> you work all your life in exchange of nothing.

There are plenty of investments out there which will earn a greater return than the rate of inflation. And if you knew anything about inflation you'd know that one of it's causes is when the government uses fiat money to fund government programs.

The french are panzy ass girls. They got their asses kicked in every war they fought. And they pretend to know everything about win but they don't know crap. I am a proud american. The french also like to talk about achievement they had hundreds of years ago. Who needs those frogs.

I have this sense that France can't avoid getting more and more capitalist pretty soon...after all they're running out of people to fund their ridiculous bureacracy and its only a matter of time before the boomers there retire..

So maybe France might turn around and admit that we had the right idea all along...or maybe thats just wishful thinking.. :roll:

:( Maybe it's the beer.
*barfs*Nope, correction. It's the Americans!!!

Very funny... :x

Very funny... :x
Not realy. Americanus Pukeus is a yet untreatable condition.

The person who started this thread is a complete and utter DOWNER

The person who started this thread is a complete and utter DOWNER
Downer right here!

Incertonia your logic is flawed, unless Auriba makes tanks, ur comparision is like comparing printers and fruit.
Boeing makes stuff for the government, they dont get the money for free. Unlike auribus, they are exspected to make stuff and invent stuff to help keep the US military one of the best if not the best in the world.
You people in Europe <with the notable exception of England> are just jealous because we occupied a country across the world, <granted with major contributions from 2 other nations>, it barely put a dent into our economey and we didnt even need to have a draft.
France you are just envious because you are not a world power and short of becoming the only country with nukes or ww3 never will be.
We built cars that can go from 0 to 330 mph <not to be confused with kph> in 5 seconds, piss us off and see what we build, or you could ask the Japenese.
What would France do if you piss them off? ask Germany.
Oh and whoever said that any france jv rugby team could beat an american team, we dont play rubgy, we play football <not soccer> which is really rubgy heavy, give one of our college football teams 6 months to learn rubgy and we will woop ur nations team.
Ps. We have a really good soccer team too, Mens and Womans!
and Hockey and really every major sport we do!
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_27/b3840095.htm
BTW the plane was not invented in america for those of you who think it was.

There are plenty of investments out there which will earn a greater return than the rate of inflation. And if you knew anything about inflation you'd know that one of it's causes is when the government uses fiat money to fund government programs.If I remember corrctly, we were talking about the population going older. It doesn't happen in the US for now but in Europe, it is happening and I can assure you it is a cause for inflation. The working force is shrinking and this is causing inflation because there are less people to work for the money. The investments you talk about are going to fall when the working force will shrink. You think money is an end but it is the working force that matters and only the working force. If your plan to save retirements is keep more money, then I have to say is is going to fail.

If I remember corrctly, we were talking about the population going older. It doesn't happen in the US for now but in Europe, it is happening and I can assure you it is a cause for inflation. The working force is shrinking and this is causing inflation because there are less people to work for the money.

Employment is not the cause of inflation. This is an economic fallacy. The ultimate cause of inflation has been government control of the money supply with the existance of a fiat money system. Such is the case in Europe where the governments provides more public services than other western nations. If your theory that inflation is caused by lower unemployment then why does a nation such as Zimbabwe have an unemployment rate in excess of 30% yet has an inflation rate that exceeds 100%?

The investments you talk about are going to fall when the working force will shrink.

Why will investments shrink if the work force strinks? You have given no reason in regards to this statement.

You think money is an end but it is the working force that matters and only the working force. If your plan to save retirements is keep more money, then I have to say is is going to fail.

So are you saying that the workforce is a means to end rather than money? Sounds like you want to treat them like slaves to me.

Your belief that pension system should be kept intact will only increase inflation if it cannot be adequately funded by taxation. This issue regarding a decrease in the working population could easily be solved by increasing immigration.

Employment is not the cause of inflation. This is an economic fallacy. The ultimate cause of inflation has been government control of the money supply with the existance of a fiat money system. Such is the case in Europe where the governments provides more public services than other western nations. If your theory that inflation is caused by lower unemployment then why does a nation such as Zimbabwe have an unemployment rate in excess of 30% yet has an inflation rate that exceeds 100%?Sorry I may not have expressed myself correctly. I wanted to say that UNemployment is causing inflation. Because enemployement means low working force, which means low production, which means less product to buy, which means higher prices. It is mathematics applyed to the market laws.

Why will investments shrink if the work force strinks? You have given no reason in regards to this statement.It is mathematics again. If you have no people to work, the production is low and if the production is low, the market shares are going down and if the markets are going down, the investments you made are going down.
SO in other words, when the population gets older, the investments they made for their retirement is geting worthless when there is less people to work for it.

So are you saying that the workforce is a means to end rather than money? Sounds like you want to treat them like slaves to me.No the happiness of the people is an end. What I meant was that the work force drives the production, which drives the happyness of the people. Money does not drive the production, but the work force. But if there is no work force, money drives nothing.

Your belief that pension system should be kept intact will only increase inflation if it cannot be adequately funded by taxation. This issue regarding a decrease in the working population could easily be solved by increasing immigration.not that easily actually. Immigration is not easy. How do you convince people to immigrate? And how do you educate the immigrated population? But I admit you have something here. Immigration in my opinion also could be a solution. I just wanted to point out a while ago to the man who said we could solve the ageing population problem with raw capitalism and the pure suppression of the retirement system that it didn't solve anything. And I agree it is a problem and a solution has to be found, but killing every people after 60 surely is out of question.