NationStates Jolt Archive

Almost half of the Middle East's Arab population views France as the world's best model for freedom and democracy, according to a poll released Friday by the University of Maryland and Zogby International (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1366500.html)....

also

Twenty-one percent of those surveyed said they would prefer that France be the world's only superpower. China came in second with 13 percent. Six percent said the United States should be the only superpower



The French seem to have no shame...:)

Aren't Muslims persecuted in France??

Yes and no.

The-Republic']Aren't Muslims persecuted in France??

Apparently, they like it. "Persecution is good 4 u"

The-Republic']Aren't Muslims persecuted in France??
What the fuck are you talking about?
No they are not. France has the largest muslim population in Europe and they are not persecuted. Where the fuck are you getting this idea from?
Is that because religious symbols are banned in french schools? Is that what you call persecution? If that's the case, british schools have the uniform and that isn't muslim persecution.
Or maybe it is the recent riotings that you think was about islam? It had nothing to do with islam at all. Only the most far right xenophobic media reported that the rioters were muslims. They were not.

So when you REALLY love a country, you riot and burn it to the ground? Damn, here I was contributing to the economy and obeying the law! *shrugs*

So when you REALLY love a country, you riot and burn it to the ground? Damn, here I was contributing to the economy and obeying the law! *shrugs*

That was oddly off topic.

What the fuck are you talking about?
No they are not. France has the largest muslim population in Europe and they are not persecuted. Where the fuck are you getting this idea from?
Is that because religious symbols are banned in french schools? Is that what you call persecution? If that's the case, british schools have the uniform and that isn't muslim persecution.

he/she is prob'ly thinking of the religious symbols ban. Not exactly persecution, no...

What the fuck are you talking about?
No they are not. France has the largest muslim population in Europe and they are not persecuted. Where the fuck are you getting this idea from?
Is that because religious symbols are banned in french schools? Is that what you call persecution? If that's the case, british schools have the uniform and that isn't muslim persecution.
Or maybe it is the recent riotings that you think was about islam? It had nothing to do with islam at all. Only the most far right xenophobic media reported that the rioters were muslims. They were not.
Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell, sorry.

think France is a better model of freedom than Germany, the United States, Great Britain or Sweden
France doesn't own. Germany the US, great Britian and Seden just suck more.

So when you REALLY love a country, you riot and burn it to the ground? Damn, here I was contributing to the economy and obeying the law! *shrugs*
Yeah the economy and obeying the law is the only thing you can contribute to a country.
I think you don't know what you are talking about. The riots were not about muslims or arabs. They got it all wrong in your far right media. Roubay has very few muslims and yet it was one of the most important area of riots.

The-Republic']Aren't Muslims persecuted in France??
France is Secular and so any Religeon or symbol of Religeon is 'banned' this goes for all Religeons.

So They are not persecuted but prejudeced.;)

So when you REALLY love a country, you riot and burn it to the ground? Damn, here I was contributing to the economy and obeying the law! *shrugs*

They didn't kill anyone, did they? Besides, with France being the cradle of modern democracy, they do have a tradition for being somewhat outspoken. A Frenchman I know said this was only a sign of how french the rioters had become. He was quite pleased.

The-Republic']Is that sarcasm? I honestly can't tell, sorry.No it's not.
I don't get how you can say that muslisms are persecuted in France. Man, look at the world. France is far from perfect, it is a shithole to be honest, but I really believe that it is the last country persecuting muslims in the west.

France doesn't own. Germany the US, great Britian and Seden just suck more.

Heh. Well spotted.

A Frenchman I know said this was only a sign of how french the rioters had become. He was quite pleased.

Odd guy.

That was oddly off topic.
It was perfectly on topic. Muslims in the middle east love France. And who was it rioting in France? Muslims. Just a little odd, thats all.


And before someone freaks the fuck out on me, tes, there were non muslims rioting too. But from all the videos Ive seen on the new and the internet, they were a minority.

Odd guy.
Actually, yes. But quite an experienced rioteer.

The french like disorder. Most french people I know are proud of the riots.

The french like disorder. Most french people I know are proud of the riots.
Thats funny because all the French people i know are Idiots.

It was perfectly on topic. Muslims in the middle east love France. And who was it rioting in France? Muslims. Just a little odd, thats all.
Who told you that?
They were young people from suburbs. Maybe some of them were muslims, but who told you muslims were rioting? That's typically racists. When thousands of people are rioting and 10% are muslims, they say muslims are rioting??? What are they smoking?

The french like disorder. Most french people I know are proud of the riots.

Somehow, I'm not quite sure that those that had thier cars torched feel the same way...

Okay, I admit the media can be biased, sometimes one way or the other. There was an article in "Time" Magazine about a young man named "Medine", a French born Arab and practicing Muslim. He claims to be from a neighborhood called "La Havre". He also claims that Muslims are being persecuted, marginalized, unwanted, scorned, and so forth; however, he describes this as occurring within the context of a large scale abuse of minorities and immigrants in general, not just Muslims.

What do you guys think, is he on the level? I've never been to France, and certainly not long enough to talk to enough people to know...

Thats funny because all the French people i know are Idiots.
Yes and you sound very clever.

Somehow, I'm not quite sure that those that had thier cars torched feel the same way...

You'd be suprised. The one's that over-insured their cars are taking baths in wine, cheese and frogs right now.

Thats funny because all the French people i know are Idiots.
Maybe it's you.

Who told you that?
They were young people from suburbs. Maybe some of them were muslims, but who told you muslims were rioting? That's typically racists. When thousands of people are rioting and 10% are muslims, they say muslims are rioting??? What are they smoking?
I'm sorry to sound like a dick here, but may I inquire which country your from, and are you muslim?

You'd be suprised. The one's that over-insured their cars are taking baths in wine, cheese and frogs right now.

Very well, perhaps I should clarify my statement.

Somehow, I'm not quite sure that those who are dead or wounded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm) feel the same way...

Okay, I admit the media can be biased, sometimes one way or the other. There was an article in "Time" Magazine about a young man named "Medine", a French born Arab and practicing Muslim. He claims to be from a neighborhood called "La Havre". He also claims that Muslims are being persecuted, marginalized, unwanted, scorned, and so forth; however, he describes this as occurring within the context of a large scale abuse of minorities and immigrants in general, not just Muslims.

What do you guys think, is he on the level? I've never been to France, and certainly not long enough to talk to enough people to know...
I live in France, and I had a friend from Romania who got deported to Romania by the government for not having a visa. It's not the muslims, it's the foreigners. I can also tell you that many people I saw rioting were white. In Toulouse, they throw molotov cocktails at mosques. Do you think muslisms would want to burn mosques? At first some extreme right wing media reported it was muslisms because it started in a muslim dominated area. It went far beyond that area and no media has stick to this xenophobic biased coverage (in France at least).

I'm sorry to sound like a dick here, but may I inquire which country your from, and are you muslim?
I'm from France. I'm not muslim. The husband of my sister is muslim.

Yes and you sound very clever.
I thought so.

Maybe it's you.
Nope.

The-Republic']Aren't Muslims persecuted in France??
TAKE OFF YOUR HIJAB THING NOW!
also...TAKE OFF YOUR KIPAH NOW!

Very well, perhaps I should clarify my statement.

Somehow, I'm not quite sure that those who are dead or wounded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm) feel the same way...
Like the two youngs who were dead fleeing the police? I think the government got a wake up call here. The population will not tolerate any bavure from the police.

Very well, perhaps I should clarify my statement.

Somehow, I'm not quite sure that those who are dead or wounded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4413250.stm) feel the same way...

You know the rhetoric...freedom has a price. C'mon, ONE (1) casualty?

I live in France, and I had a friend from Romania who got deported to Romania by the government for not having a visa. It's not the muslims, it's the foreigners. I can also tell you that many people I saw rioting were white. In Toulouse, they throw molotov cocktails at mosques. Do you think muslisms would want to burn mosques? At first some extreme right wing media reported it was muslisms because it started in a muslim dominated area. It went far beyond that area and no media has stick to this xenophobic biased coverage (in France at least).

Well, I wasn't asking about the rioting so much as the percumbent issue of whether Muslims are persecuted in France.

The author of the article, a French Muslim, alleges that in public discourse in Franch, being Muslim marks one as an outsider, an "alien determined not to fit in". He further describes Muslims (and also immigrants in general) as being relegated to inferior housing and job opportunities, and other mistreatment. Are his allegations consistent with your observations?

As to the rioting, years ago I made a brief study of mob uprisings (it was for a presentation on the theoretical premise of mass hysteria during the "millenium event", it wound up being moot for several reasons). I found that there is good reason to believe that the conditions that precipitate mob violence and the events that sustain/escalate it are not always linked.

In Toulouse, they throw molotov cocktails at mosques.
Right, which is why I asked originally (note: not asserted) whether Muslims were persecuted in France.

TAKE OFF YOUR HIJAB THING NOW!
also...TAKE OFF YOUR KIPAH NOW!
You are aware that no religious symbols are allowed in the secular, public schools right? :rolleyes: It goes for all.

I hate to bother you with this, but can someone find me ANYTHING that says the rioters were not mostly muslim youths? Everything I can find keeps leading me to this conclusion.

Almost half of the Middle East's Arab population views France as the world's best model for freedom and democracy, according to a poll released Friday by the University of Maryland and Zogby International (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1366500.html)....

also

Twenty-one percent of those surveyed said they would prefer that France be the world's only superpower. China came in second with 13 percent. Six percent said the United States should be the only superpower



The French seem to have no shame...:)

YES!!! and to all you people who think the french are smelly and rude obviously havent been to New York, london or any other 10 million+ city. With the exception of the Paris-ians (who gave the country its reputation) the people are actually quite friendly. When I was there on vacation, we were all treated with more respect than any other part of europe.
VIVA LA FRANCAIS!!!!!

And who was it rioting in France? Muslims.
The people who were rioting in France were disillusioned, angry teenagers.
A fairly large proportion of those were from immigrant families.
And a fairly large proportion of those immigrant families originally came from Muslim countries.
And a relatively small proportion of those immigrant families actually practice strict Islam.
And an even smaller proportion of the kids of those families do too.

Who was rioting? Well, "Muslims" is most certainly the wrong answer. I thought you'd known better, seeing as to how much NS discussed this a few weeks ago.

That being said...why is Germany any worse than France? The laws really aren't that different.
Maybe it's just that most immigrants in Germany come from Turkey, and that isn't really part of the Arab world.

Okay, I admit the media can be biased, sometimes one way or the other. There was an article in "Time" Magazine about a young man named "Medine", a French born Arab and practicing Muslim. He claims to be from a neighborhood called "La Havre". He also claims that Muslims are being persecuted, marginalized, unwanted, scorned, and so forth; however, he describes this as occurring within the context of a large scale abuse of minorities and immigrants in general, not just Muslims.

What do you guys think, is he on the level? I've never been to France, and certainly not long enough to talk to enough people to know...
Indeed the media does exaggerate. Immigrants though tend to fail to integrate in French society, and not always due to discrimination. Immigrants should always be able to contribute economically to a country, to accept its culture and to speak its language. France, and Europe, in general need to deal with illegal immigration more though, as this is the true source of problems.

You know the rhetoric...freedom has a price.

What about freedom from fear? Freedom to live in safety? Freedom to walk the streets without being attacked?

One person's freedoms end where those of another person's begin.

C'mon, ONE (1) casualty?

Yes, ofcourse. What's the worth of an elderly man's life when the freedom to assault, destroy and intimidate are at stake?

They didn't kill anyone, did they? Besides, with France being the cradle of modern democracy, they do have a tradition for being somewhat outspoken. A Frenchman I know said this was only a sign of how french the rioters had become. He was quite pleased.
About that whole death thing
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=78265
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13979047
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1861461,00.html
that is all the same murder, just multiple sources to prove my point

What about freedom from fear? Freedom to live in safety? Freedom to walk the streets without being attacked?

One person's freedoms end where those of another person's begin.



Yes, of course. What's the worth of an elderly man's life when the freedom to assault, destroy and intimidate are at stake?

Those who are into killing do so anyway. Riot or not. Pardon my macchiavellian, but that one elderly mans' life is entire insignificant, compared to what was going on there. How about that other one who was NOT killed that night because he stayed home? How about the traffic accidents that did NOT occur, because people stayed home?

As for the freedom to vs freedom from, how about freedom from the situation that caused the riots in the first place?

What about freedom from fear? Freedom to live in safety? Freedom to walk the streets without being attacked?

That's not freedom.

Those who are into killing do so anyway. Riot or not. Pardon my macchiavellian, but that one elderly mans' life is entire insignificant, compared to what was going on there. How about that other one who was NOT killed that night because he stayed home? How about the traffic accidents that did NOT occur, because people stayed home?

Accidents are unpreventable. They will occur, in spite of measures taken to prevent them. Murder, however, is not an accident - it is deliberate, and preventable. Someone made a choice to kill someone, and that didn't have to happen.

As for the freedom to vs freedom from, how about freedom from the situation that caused the riots in the first place?

Civil disobedience and civil protest can get a point across without anyone getting killed or assaulted.

Almost half of the Middle East's Arab population views France as the world's best model for freedom and democracy, according to a poll released Friday by the University of Maryland and Zogby International (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1366500.html)....

also

Twenty-one percent of those surveyed said they would prefer that France be the world's only superpower. China came in second with 13 percent. Six percent said the United States should be the only superpower



The French seem to have no shame...:)

Hmm wonder if they know this new terror legislation coming down the pipe in France. Also the French track record with Muslims is spotty at best. If the poll is accurate than I can say that ignorance knows no bounds.

That's not freedom.

I think quite a few people (like FDR) would beg to differ...

I think quite a few people (like FDR) would beg to differ...

Not really. That's security. It's possible to have security without freedom.

Jean-Jacques Le Chenadec banged his head against a wall after being punched in the face on Friday night as he stood outside his apartment block in Stains, north of Paris, chatting with a neighbour. He slipped into a coma and died this morning.
The murder wasn't deliberate. The beating was, but not the death. The result is the same, I'll grant you, but I'd shudder to think if I was prosecuted for murder for every time I've punched someone.

Accidents are unpreventable. Really?

And the beating that man recived resulted in an accidental death. If they'd wanted to kill him, they easily could have at the scene. People die, accidnetally, in fights. Fistfights, barfights- even schoolyard fights. A nine year old can knock his classmate down, and when his classmate's head hits a concreate curb, there's the potential for a fatal accident. The fault for that man's death liers squarley with the teens who beat him, but seperating that from an accident isn't so clear cut.

In the US, they'd be guilty of murder, because someone died as a result of a felony act they commited. Felony-murder statute says that if a man falls down and breaks his neck as you rob the bank, you're guilty of murder. But thats diffrent from a gangland execution- its partly an accident.

Rioting has been a semi-accepted form of social protests for a long time in france. No, not fully acceptable. But France doesn't have the same reverance for the law that most of America does.

As for it being muslim riots- my take on it is that is was unemployed youths without good job prosects. Those are mostly immigants, but not entirely. Many of france's immigrants are muslim, but not all. Its easy to call it a muslim riot, but you don't explain it all when you define it that blithley.

Why don't they have good job prospects anyway? Getting an education is always a good way to remedy this. :rolleyes:

Not really. That's security. It's possible to have security without freedom.

Freedom does mean " the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous", so these things can also be part of it. However, it's a different kind of "freedom".

Why don't they have good job prospects anyway? Getting an education is always a good way to remedy this. :rolleyes:

Even if they did, France's economy is so godawful (nothing like Germany's, which is stagnant but at least has some strengths to it) that they would have trouble getting one.

And the beating that man recived resulted in an accidental death.

Ah, this I did not realize. The point remains, however, that it was a deliberate assault.


Rioting has been a semi-accepted form of social protests for a long time in france. No, not fully acceptable. But France doesn't have the same reverance for the law that most of America does.

Surely, the French don't "semi-accept" Frenchmen attacking each other randomly in the streets?

As for it being muslim riots- my take on it is that is was unemployed youths without good job prosects. Those are mostly immigants, but not entirely. Many of france's immigrants are muslim, but not all. Its easy to call it a muslim riot, but you don't explain it all when you define it that blithley.

I wasn't really involved in this sub-discussion, but I would say that I agree with you there.

Even if they did, France's economy is so godawful (nothing like Germany's, which is stagnant but at least has some strengths to it) that they would have trouble getting one.
So they riot? :rolleyes: Umm yeah, because corporations really care. They are wonderful creatures that will just be happy to create new opportunities for the poor, disenfranchised youth. Please... Rioting will do nothing to aid France's economic climate, in fact the exact opposite. France's government knows its economy is in trouble, and such riots by the youth do NOTHING to convince it that they indeed need help. Riot has always been counter-productive. Britain is a fine example of this. Hardline feminists, as well as the Chartists, tried to bring change by riot. They failed. Change came slowly via political means. Rioting is useless.

If France is unable to give them a job, they can always go abroad and get one elsewhere. Don't like the country, move elsewhere.

France doesn't own. Germany, great Britian and Seden just suck.


there. that's much better :sniper:

Well, I wasn't asking about the rioting so much as the percumbent issue of whether Muslims are persecuted in France.

The author of the article, a French Muslim, alleges that in public discourse in Franch, being Muslim marks one as an outsider, an "alien determined not to fit in". He further describes Muslims (and also immigrants in general) as being relegated to inferior housing and job opportunities, and other mistreatment. Are his allegations consistent with your observations?

As to the rioting, years ago I made a brief study of mob uprisings (it was for a presentation on the theoretical premise of mass hysteria during the "millenium event", it wound up being moot for several reasons). I found that there is good reason to believe that the conditions that precipitate mob violence and the events that sustain/escalate it are not always linked.I think this is biased. Most immigrants in France are arab. Many arabs are muslims. If there are some of them who think muslims can not fit in France, we don't hear about them. We hear a lot about immigrants and that they are not well integrated in France, but the talk is almost always about immigrants or arabs (we don't talk about muslisms so much). I think this is how the english media see it. The british/US world has a lot of problems with muslisms, because of Israel for one part. France's problems are mainly with africans, including arabs. Old people who participated in the algerian war are still racist. There is a racism problem, but I don't think it targets muslims, not in France. The main target are the young from suburbs and africans, but they are targeted differently than in Britain or in the US. The french culture is a lot different and close to the arab one in many respects.

So they riot? :rolleyes: Umm yeah, because corporations really care. They are wonderful creatures that will just be happy to create new opportunities for the poor, disenfranchised youth. Please... Rioting will do nothing to aid France's economic climate, in fact the exact opposite. France's government knows its economy is in trouble, and such riots by the youth do NOTHING to convince it that they indeed need help. Riot has always been counter-productive. Britain is a fine example of this. Hardline feminists, as well as the Chartists, tried to bring change by riot. They failed. Change came slowly via political means. Rioting is useless.

Rioting makes your country look dangerous, which scares away tourism and business investment. If anything, the damage done by the riots will only make the economic situation worse for France which will make it even harder for them to actually address the situation. France also needs to axe the 35-hour workweek to create more jobs.

Hmm wonder if they know this new terror legislation coming down the pipe in France. Also the French track record with Muslims is spotty at best. If the poll is accurate than I can say that ignorance knows no bounds.
There is no terror legislation. France is not the US.

Rioting makes your country look dangerous, which scares away tourism and business investment. If anything, the damage done by the riots will only make the economic situation worse for France which will make it even harder for them to actually address the situation. France also needs to axe the 35-hour workweek to create more jobs.
At least you see my point then :) 35 hours a week is indeed ridiculous. The EU set a maximum of around 48 hours a week, if I recall correctly. How can France hope to be productive with this in mind?

There is no terror legislation. France is not the US.
They are working on it as we speak...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4482658.stm

Rioting makes your country look dangerous, which scares away tourism and business investment. If anything, the damage done by the riots will only make the economic situation worse for France which will make it even harder for them to actually address the situation. France also needs to axe the 35-hour workweek to create more jobs.
The 35 hours/week actually creates jobs. the more people work, the less work there is to be done.

They are working on it as we speak...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4482658.stm
This is not a law.

The 35 hours/week actually creates jobs. the more people work, the less work there is to be done.
Part time jobs, yes.

At least you see my point then :) 35 hours a week is indeed ridiculous. The EU set a maximum of around 48 hours a week, if I recall correctly. How can France hope to be productive with this in mind?
France has 9.1% unemployment. The 35 hours/week is not the problem.

Hmm wonder if they know this new terror legislation coming down the pipe in France. Also the French track record with Muslims is spotty at best. If the poll is accurate than I can say that ignorance knows no bounds.

There's some irony in condemning a poll take to decide where is the greatest democracy.

France has 9.1% unemployment. The 35 hours/week is not the problem.
Corporate investment doesn't seem to be the problem either. France owns a sizable amount of corporations globally, an extremely sizable amount. Could the problem be that they are hiring abroad instead of domestically?

Part time jobs, yes.
In France, 35 hours/week is full time. France is not the US or the UK and you can't solution the problem by just saying let's do it like the UK. The population is totally different and the problem is not the same.

This is not a law.
Semantics.
At the moment it is a bill. MPs look at it, and approve of it. Then it goes into the Upper House, where they will probably approve too.
Then it will be a law.

The 35 hours/week actually creates jobs. the more people work, the less work there is to be done.

It was supposed to, but it also reduced the willingness of corporations to hire people in France because they can't get the same kind of production per employee as they could in a place with a longer workweek. As a result, they either increased per employee quotas or outsourced work to other places where it was more productive.

Also, the government has to make concessions that have made the labor market somewhat more inflexible, creating the additional situation in which companies aren't willing to hire because of the difficulties associated with laying off workers.

In France, 35 hours/week is full time. France is not the US or the UK and you can't solution the problem by just saying let's do it like the UK. The population is totally different and the problem is not the same.
I meant it creates more part time jobs. :rolleyes: Firms have to make up for the deficit in production created by an imposition of a working time limit, and thus hire part time labour to fill it in. Clearer now?

France has 9.1% unemployment. The 35 hours/week is not the problem.

One in ten without a job isn't a problem?

Corporate investment doesn't seem to be the problem either. France owns a sizable amount of corporations globally, an extremely sizable amount. Could the problem be that they are hiring abroad instead of domestically?
My experience is that many unemployed people are happy to be unemployed. I believe the problem is cultural. If we accept the unemployed and don't yell at the unproductive people like they were parasites, things would be a lot better.

One in ten without a job isn't a problem?
Read again what you quoted please.

This is not a law.

To be fair, the original assertion was that there was legislation pending ("in the pipe" was the phrase), and the provided link seems to indicate that the assertion was largely correct.

Semantics.
At the moment it is a bill. MPs look at it, and approve of it. Then it goes into the Upper House, where they will probably approve too.
Then it will be a law.No it is budget.

In France, 35 hours/week is full time. France is not the US or the UK and you can't solution the problem by just saying let's do it like the UK. The population is totally different and the problem is not the same.
Personally I don't think the length of the working week is the issue.
The issue is that
a) The government still owns a lot of big business (at least partly). Britain had the same problem before Thatcher came in, and that was one of the worst times they ever had. Privatising might sound like an evil thing - but ultimately there is no alternative.

b) Employees are very protected. Yes, it sounds horrible to make it easier for people to fire their workers...but imagine you are the boss (and with boss, I don't mean overseas billionaires, I mean the car mechanic with his little garage down the road). How can you hire a guy if you know that if he screws up, you won't be able to get another one instead?

My experience is that many unemployed people are happy to be unemployed. I believe the problem is cultural. If we accept the unemployed and don't yell at the unproductive people like they were parasites, things would be a lot better.
In the real world, this would anger the working people who have to earn their livings. This would not last for too long. At some point, the population would demand a reform of the welfare system.

My experience is that many unemployed people are happy to be unemployed. I believe the problem is cultural. If we accept the unemployed and don't yell at the unproductive people like they were parasites, things would be a lot better.

Heh, I wish my wife had your view.

It was supposed to, but it also reduced the willingness of corporations to hire people in France because they can't get the same kind of production per employee as they could in a place with a longer workweek. As a result, they either increased per employee quotas or outsourced work to other places where it was more productive.........

Isn't the idea to maximize production per hour?

(slow economics or something like that)

Personally I don't think the length of the working week is the issue.
The issue is that
a) The government still owns a lot of big business (at least partly). Britain had the same problem before Thatcher came in, and that was one of the worst times they ever had. Privatising might sound like an evil thing - but ultimately there is no alternative.

b) Employees are very protected. Yes, it sounds horrible to make it easier for people to fire their workers...but imagine you are the boss (and with boss, I don't mean overseas billionaires, I mean the car mechanic with his little garage down the road). How can you hire a guy if you know that if he screws up, you won't be able to get another one instead?
Indeed. In capitalism, inflexible labour markets lower investment and discourage growth. Not a good idea. Trade Unions are too powerful in France.

No it is budget.
The provisions will oblige internet providers and internet cafes to store and make available to police their customers' connection records.

The new law should also enable the French police to monitor those who travel to countries known to harbour terrorist training camps.

Sounds like a strange budget item.

It was supposed to, but it also reduced the willingness of corporations to hire people in France because they can't get the same kind of production per employee as they could in a place with a longer workweek. As a result, they either increased per employee quotas or outsourced work to other places where it was more productive.

Also, the government has to make concessions that have made the labor market somewhat more inflexible, creating the additional situation in which companies aren't willing to hire because of the difficulties associated with laying off workers.
Productivity is still better in France than in most of the world. Longer workweek doesn't make employees more productive. 2 people working 35h/week are more productive than one working 70h/w.

France has 9.1% unemployment. The 35 hours/week is not the problem.

It's actually at 9.7%, but the decline since last year has been almost entirely due to government measures. Payrolls only grew by 0.1% in the entire 3rd quarter.

Read again what you quoted please.

You were using the nine percent figure to justify that the thiry five hour week was not a problem. I think nine percent is a tad too high.

Productivity is still better in France than in most of the world. Longer workweek doesn't make employees more productive. 2 people working 35h/week are more productive than one working 70h/w.

Longer workweek with the same number of employees increases productivity. If you hire two people to do the work of one, the cost also doubles or increases by even more. The goal is to be the most productive per employee, and by limiting the work hour you crimp that and drive up costs.

However, that high productivity has a lot to do with the unemployment. When productivity is high but economic growth slow, unemployment increases.

Personally I don't think the length of the working week is the issue.
The issue is that
a) The government still owns a lot of big business (at least partly). Britain had the same problem before Thatcher came in, and that was one of the worst times they ever had. Privatising might sound like an evil thing - but ultimately there is no alternative.

I don't agree. The part of the french economy which is working the best is the one which has been nationalized. EDF has no match in the world and the train system works better than in many countries. On the other hand, the british train system doesn't work since it has been privatized. I really don't see the rationale for privatizing. You just create chaos.

b) Employees are very protected. Yes, it sounds horrible to make it easier for people to fire their workers...but imagine you are the boss (and with boss, I don't mean overseas billionaires, I mean the car mechanic with his little garage down the road). How can you hire a guy if you know that if he screws up, you won't be able to get another one instead?
If he screws up, you can give him courses paid by the government. Many business owners blame their employees for everything when they don't know how to run a business. Employees don't screw up if their boss is actually good at running a business.

Almost half of the Middle East's Arab population views France as the world's best model for freedom and democracy, according to a poll released Friday by the University of Maryland and Zogby International (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1366500.html)....

The poll
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/sadat/TelhamiArabSurvey-2005.htm

In the real world, this would anger the working people who have to earn their livings. This would not last for too long. At some point, the population would demand a reform of the welfare system.
This is France. There is a Queen in the UK. People don't demand reform that much it seems. The real world is different in France.

If he screws up, you can give him courses paid by the government. Many business owners blame their employees for everything when they don't know how to run a business. Employees don't screw up if their boss is actually good at running a business.
I'll leave the privatising argument to someone else, but this is a strange way of arguing.

Where is the government going to take the money for those courses from - the mechanic is paying for it anyways. And not only him, but also you.
When you have an employee who doesn't turn up on time, drops expensive equipment or drinks in the work place, then that is hardly the fault of the boss.

Small and Medium-sized businesses don't do downsizing. Corporations do that - but guess what, corporations only have a small share of the total number of people employed.

Indeed. In capitalism, inflexible labour markets lower investment and discourage growth. Not a good idea. Trade Unions are too powerful in France.
I don't agree. Trade Union (they are not called trade unions BTW) are running the country. The more power they have the better.

Let me get this straight.

Some of you would rather see France pretty much force its workforce to work their lives away on 70 hour workweeks, rather than actually creating new jobs?

*shakes head in disgust*

This is France. There is a Queen in the UK. People don't demand reform that much it seems. The real world is different in France.
Are you honestly of the belief that in a modern society that people would accept some in society to live off state welfare that they pay for via taxation, whilst they are off working? At some point there will be protest and reforms will be demanded. This could be true of any country.

You were using the nine percent figure to justify that the thiry five hour week was not a problem. I think nine percent is a tad too high.
What is so hard to get?
There are many people not working. 35h/w is not the problem.The problem is that 10% of the people are not working at all. Make people work 20 hours/week and make everybody work. What don't you understand?

I don't agree. Trade Union (they are not called trade unions BTW) are running the country. The more power they have the better.
How do they help the situation then? Please explain.

What don't you understand?

I wanna know this, too.

Let me get this straight.
Some of you would rather see France pretty much force its workforce to work their lives away on 70 hour workweeks, rather than actually creating new jobs?

No way. 70 hours would be counterproductive; the sheer cost of keeping people working that long would be devastating.

In reality, the 35 hour workweek needs to be either increased or scrapped, and they need to liberalize their labor markets somewhat. Germany's already started doing it, and it's producing results.

How do they help the situation then? Please explain.

Getting better conditions for workers is hindering, now, is it?

Oi, Capitalists...

No way. 70 hours would be counterproductive; the sheer cost of keeping people working that long would be devastating.

In reality, the 35 hour workweek needs to be either increased or scrapped, and they need to liberalize their labor markets somewhat. Germany's already started doing it, and it's producing results.

Or just go all-out and trash the current system altogether, because it's shit anyway.

Getting better conditions for workers is hindering, now, is it?

Oi, Capitalists...
There is a difference between getting better conditions and paralysing corporations and businesses.

. Employees don't screw up if their boss is actually good at running a business.

Even with training and patience, some employees are just abidingly incompetent at some jobs. I've met skilled, fair, and gifted managers that simply can't save an employee with acute deficiencies. I think your statement may be overly broad.

I don't agree. Trade Union (they are not called trade unions BTW) are running the country. The more power they have the better.

No, because they make it virtually impossible for the country to recenter its economy or reform its labor laws. As a result, they've got giant heavy manufacturing sectors (relative to the service sector), which are unable to compete and thousands of jobs are lost. France needs to eschew these uncompetitive industries and move more aggressively in to the fields of the 21st century, like IT, telecom (France has a decent start here), finance, and high-tech manufacturing.

There is a difference between getting better conditions and paralysing corporations and businesses.

Paralysing corporations and businesses is better than working people to death.

Even with training and patience, some employees are just abidingly incompetent at some jobs. I've met skilled, fair, and gifted managers that simply can't save an employee with acute deficiencies. I think your statement may be overly broad.
Indeed. Managers are only human. They are not miracle workers.

Paralysing corporations and businesses is better than working people to death.
Oh please. Working 40 hours a week is working them to death? :rolleyes: We do more work than that at university, let alone in the professional world.

Or just go all-out and trash the current system altogether, because it's shit anyway.

They don't really have to. The EU's export oriented economy could perform well even with a social model like the current one, if they liberalize their labormarkets somewhat and take initiative in recentering their economies to the globalized one (like Scandinavia has) rather than allowing dominance by the older, politically powerful industries that can no longer compete.

Are you honestly of the belief that in a modern society that people would accept some in society to live off state welfare that they pay for via taxation, whilst they are off working? At some point there will be protest and reforms will be demanded. This could be true of any country.So you honestly think the monarchy will be abolished in the UK or capitalism in the US? I don't think so and I don't think people in France will demand the end of the welfare state.

Indeed. Managers are only human. They are not miracle workers.

Still, I would like to see an economy where management takes a sincere and well-planned consideration for employees, and employees excercise a serious and dedicated ethos in providing value for their company. Any in the system who fall outside this mutual behaviour would be left to starve.

So you honestly think the monarchy will be abolished in the UK or capitalism in the US? I don't think so and I don't think people in France will demand the end of the welfare state.
Monarchy and capitalism are not damaging their domestic economies. Debunkt welfare systems are.

They don't really have to. The EU's export oriented economy could perform well even with a social model like the current one, if they liberalize their labormarkets somewhat and take initiative in recentering their economies to the globalized one (like Scandinavia has) rather than allowing dominance by the older, politically powerful industries that can no longer compete.
Very good point.

Make people work 20 hours/week and make everybody work.Heh heh heh...

Well, it'd certainly change France's economic situation...

And what's with the riots, anyway? Didn't that country just have revolution like three-hundred years ago? Do these people ever stop?:confused:

Still, I would like to see an economy where management takes a sincere and well-planned consideration for employees, and employees excercise a serious and dedicated ethos in providing value for their company. Any in the system who fall outside this mutual behaviour would be left to starve.
I would like to see this too.

And what's with the riots, anyway? Didn't that country just have revolution like three-hundred years ago? Do these people ever stop?:confused:
Yeah, because 300 years ago is so recent :rolleyes: The Revolution and the riots are very different one to the other.

Heh heh heh...

Well, it'd certainly change France's economic situation...
Yeah...there wouldn't be one left to speak of :p

Maybe I'll say something myself afterall.

EDF has no match in the world...
I beg to differ.
And besides, EDF is a monopoly. It can charge whatever it wants to you - prices are higher than they have to be.
Government owned or not, monopolies are not cool.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5077283&fsrc=RSS
Plus it is against EU law.

On the other hand, the british train system doesn't work since it has been privatized.
This gives you a good (38 page) rundown of what happened, whether things are better or worse now than they were before.
http://www.dspace.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/1810/297/1/wp0118.pdf

I really don't see the rationale for privatizing. You just create chaos.
You create competition, not chaos. The chaos is caused by the various interest groups protesting for and against a project.
Ultimately, the case is pretty simple. Regardless of what you say, people in Britain are the same as people in France. There is no genetic difference, and there is no difference in how productive or lazy the two are.
Look at Britain before Thatcher, then look at Britain after Thatcher. You might hate her, but she got the country back on its feet (although some policies were clearly more useful than others).

And what's with the riots, anyway? Didn't that country just have revolution like three-hundred years ago? Do these people ever stop?:confused:
I agree. It's a rampage. They are sure to go again in 2153!:mad:

No, because they make it virtually impossible for the country to recenter its economy or reform its labor laws. As a result, they've got giant heavy manufacturing sectors (relative to the service sector), which are unable to compete and thousands of jobs are lost. France needs to eschew these uncompetitive industries and move more aggressively in to the fields of the 21st century, like IT, telecom (France has a decent start here), finance, and high-tech manufacturing.
You talk like France was the UK or the US.
The economy and the culture is not the same here. France's technology is fine. Productivity is fine (we have over-production). The problem is a social one.
In the US, everything is financial. People are happy when stock share are high. This is because most people have stock shares. Here it is not the case. We don't care so much about how high are the shares.

Monarchy and capitalism are not damaging their domestic economies. Debunkt welfare systems are.
debunk monarchy and bebunk capitalism are too.

You talk like France was the UK or the US.
The economy and the culture is not the same here. France's technology is fine. Productivity is fine (we have over-production). The problem is a social one.
In the US, everything is financial. People are happy when stock share are high. This is because most people have stock shares. Here it is not the case. We don't care so much about how high are the shares.
You seem to be oblivious of the fact that France's economy is unhealthy.

Indeed, France is not the USA or the UK, but its not doing well either. Other countries, like Germany or the Scandinavian ones are far better off. Saying that France is not this or not that doesn't change the fact that it needs reform.

Heh heh heh...

Well, it'd certainly change France's economic situation...
I'm serious. I'm not surprised you don't understand what I'm talking about. The world is not the US people.

debunk monarchy and bebunk capitalism are too.
Explain how Monarchy is damaging the economy then. The Crown costs the average tax payer 60 pence. On the other hand, it brings in millions of tourists a year and gives papers something to write about. Wow. Yeah. Really damages the economy. :rolleyes: As for Capitalism, I beg you, explain how it is debunk.

Of course they love France.

They oppose the war in Iraq, they hate the Americans and Israeli's...and they bend over to the Arabs all the time.

I'd love them too, if they supported everything my culture loves and hates. Especially hate.

And before someone freaks the fuck out on me, tes, there were non muslims rioting too. But from all the videos Ive seen on the new and the internet, they were a minority.

Oh, well if thats the way the media portrays it, it must be accurate!

I'm serious. I'm not surprised you don't understand what I'm talking about. The world is not the US people.
I understand what you mean about France being different, yet that does not mean it can sustain a utopian society.

You talk like France was the UK or the US.
The economy and the culture is not the same here. France's technology is fine. Productivity is fine (we have over-production). The problem is a social one.
In the US, everything is financial. People are happy when stock share are high. This is because most people have stock shares. Here it is not the case. We don't care so much about how high are the shares.

I don't know much about French culture or economics. What characteristic of the French economy would cause it to not benefit from improved sectors in telecommunications, finance, and so forth?

You've mentioned several times that France is not the U.K./USA, which I think everyone stipulates to. Perhaps you could give a description of what the specific differences are that impact economics.

You seem to be oblivious of the fact that France's economy is unhealthy.

Indeed, France is not the USA or the UK, but its not doing well either. Other countries, like Germany or the Scandinavian ones are far better off. Saying that France is not this or not that doesn't change the fact that it needs reform.
France is doing well when compared to the UK and to the US, IMO. I agree with reforms, but you seem to think France should reform to be more like the UK or the US. What is so great about the US or the UK?

France is doing well when compared to the UK and to the US, IMO. I agree with reforms, but you seem to think France should reform to be more like the UK or the US. What is so great about the US or the UK?
The UK economy has very low unemployment, a powerful service sector and low inflation, as well as high investment. That perhaps? I am not American by the way, I am European. And even though I do study in the UK currently, I do not advocate its economic system. I would prefer one closer to the Scandinavian or even the Swiss models.

No country can create a Utopian society, because it is just that, something perfect, and we all know that everytime we have what we need we ask for more, and thus want something better which pushes the boundaries of what we call perfect away from us. The thing is that even though money is important over the whole world, it is not as important in Europe as it is in the U.S since the european countries are more socialistic than the U.S.

France is doing well when compared to the UK and to the US, IMO. I agree with reforms, but you seem to think France should reform to be more like the UK or the US. What is so great about the US or the UK?

This is a very interesting line of inquiry. To explore it further, lets define criteria for "doing well", and see if we can put together some quantified data on it.

As to reforms, what kind of reforms do you favor, and how would you like to see them enforced?

As to whats so great about the US or the UK, I think thats less a question and more a statement.

I'm serious. I'm not surprised you don't understand what I'm talking about. The world is not the US people.Let's do some simple math then. I'm using made up numbers to illustrate the point:

You run a company. With a 40 hour work-week, you need 50 employees. Obviously, with a 20 hour work-week, you'll need 100 employees.

Let's say you pay your 50 employees $10/hour. If you need 100, they'll either make half as much, or you'll need to pay them twice as much. Let's say you're nice and pay twice as much.

Both scenerios, so far, cost you $20,800 per employee per year.

But wait!

All those employer-provided benefits cost the employer money. Let's assume that health care, vacation time, sick days, personal days, etc. cost $5,000 per employee per year. All of a sudden, having twice as many employees adds $250,000 to your yearly operating costs.

Reducing the work-week may make it so businesses need to hire more people, but it then costs the employers more money. They must either recover these costs or go out of business. Recovering the cost either means paying employees less (which hurts them), or charging their customers more (which hurts everyone, including the employees).

This has nothing to do with my nationality or yours. It's not even economics. It's just basic math.

I beg to differ.
And besides, EDF is a monopoly. It can charge whatever it wants to you - prices are higher than they have to be.
Government owned or not, monopolies are not cool.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5077283&fsrc=RSS
Plus it is against EU law.
Against the EU law that's right. There are many countries in the EU and France has to comprimize for the good of all the people in Europe.
Anyway, I don't think monopolies are necessarily bad. I know it was partly privatized, I've bought shares. I just think it should not have, like the majority of the french population

You create competition, not chaos. The chaos is caused by the various interest groups protesting for and against a project.
Ultimately, the case is pretty simple. Regardless of what you say, people in Britain are the same as people in France. There is no genetic difference, and there is no difference in how productive or lazy the two are.
Look at Britain before Thatcher, then look at Britain after Thatcher. You might hate her, but she got the country back on its feet (although some policies were clearly more useful than others).
There is no competition at that level. Competition is good for small businesses.
There is no genetic difference, but there is a cultural one. We don't talk the same language and we are educated differently.

No country can create a Utopian society, because it is just that, something perfect, and we all know that everytime we have what we need we ask for more, and thus want something better which pushes the boundaries of what we call perfect away from us. The thing is that even though money is important over the whole world, it is not as important in Europe as it is in the U.S since the european countries are more socialistic than the U.S.
Wow, and socialist countries do not care about cash, right. :rolleyes:

Utopian societies may well one day be sustainable. Yet this is nowhere in the foreseeable future.

IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IS FRANCE BETTER THAN THE US, BRITAN, GERMANY OR SWEDEN. BEST COUNTRIES IN ORDER: US, BRITAN GERMANY SPAIN, CANADA, SWEDEN, RUSSIA and so & on so forth. WORST COUNTRIES: WORST: CHINA, SECOND WORSE: FRANCE. thank you for ur time. here is what france supports::) :mp5:
& here is the US response (A very good one) :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Okay that just reminds me of the ignorant white trailer trash amrican response to anything that says that the U.S isn't the best country in the world

To me the whole point about what Religion the Rioters were is illrevelent considering none of the Riots had to do with Religion.

I'm serious. I'm not surprised you don't understand what I'm talking about. The world is not the US people.
No one is saying that.

But think about it. 20 hours is less money for the worker than if he worked 35 or 60 hours.
You can't expect the boss to raise wages so that the guy will make the same amount on aggregate - where is that money supposed to come from? If the boss can't make a profit, then why would he bother starting a business in the first place?

I agree that working hours will become less and less in the future as robots and other technology take over - but you can't force these things. When it becomes worth it, it will happen.

Don't you agree that those that want to work more, who have that extra time, and who want to make that extra money, don't you agree that those people should be allowed to?

And I have this great set of articles for you. They are about the future of the "European Social Model", and you'll like them. I promise. :)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366940,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366942,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366944,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366945,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,368155,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,368305,00.html

There is no genetic difference, but there is a cultural one. We don't talk the same language and we are educated differently.
That is not enough to sustain economic differences of the extent you suggest.

Wow, and socialist countries do not care about cash, right. :rolleyes:

Utopian societies may well one day be sustainable. Yet this is nowhere in the foreseeable future.

Oh yes socialist countries care about cash, but not sa much as the Capitalistic countries. But yeah, I should have said it differently

IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IS FRANCE BETTER THAN THE US, BRITAN, GERMANY OR SWEDEN. BEST COUNTRIES IN ORDER: US, BRITAN GERMANY SPAIN, CANADA, SWEDEN, RUSSIA and so & on so forth. WORST COUNTRIES: WORST: CHINA, SECOND WORSE: FRANCE. thank you for ur time. here is what france supports::) :mp5:
& here is the US response (A very good one) :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Not all Americans support this mentality.

IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM IS FRANCE BETTER THAN THE US, BRITAN, GERMANY OR SWEDEN. BEST COUNTRIES IN ORDER: US, BRITAN GERMANY SPAIN, CANADA, SWEDEN, RUSSIA and so & on so forth. WORST COUNTRIES: WORST: CHINA, SECOND WORSE: FRANCE. thank you for ur time. here is what france supports::) :mp5:
& here is the US response (A very good one) :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:

Dude thats funny how about three nukes instead of the sniper

Oh yes socialist countries care about cash, but not sa much as the Capitalistic countries. But yeah, I should have said it differently
Greed is universal. Socialism is no more exempt to it than Capitalism.

No one is saying that.

But think about it. 20 hours is less money for the worker than if he worked 35 or 60 hours.
You can't expect the boss to raise wages so that the guy will make the same amount on aggregate - where is that money supposed to come from? If the boss can't make a profit, then why would he bother starting a business in the first place?

I agree that working hours will become less and less in the future as robots and other technology take over - but you can't force these things. When it becomes worth it, it will happen.

Don't you agree that those that want to work more, who have that extra time, and who want to make that extra money, don't you agree that those people should be allowed to?

And I have this great set of articles for you. They are about the future of the "European Social Model", and you'll like them. I promise. :)
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366940,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366942,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366944,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,366945,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,368155,00.html
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,368305,00.html
I have his book, the European Dream. :) I am planning on reading it some time soon.

Ideally, utopian societies will come closer into being as technology progresses. Until then, capitalism is the way to go.

To me the whole point about what Religion the Rioters were is illrevelent considering none of the Riots had to do with Religion.

You make a good point. A brick thrown by an unreligous person is just as dangerous, and the fact that some of the rioters were of one religion or another shouldn't put stain on that religion.

Greed is universal. Socialism is no more exempt to it than Capitalism.

Greed is universal, but there are degrees of greed, and I do think that the socialist ideas think less about filling the goverments pockets, but rather helping the population.

And I'm from Norway so I'm speking of my own experiences

This is a very interesting line of inquiry. To explore it further, lets define criteria for "doing well", and see if we can put together some quantified data on it.

As to reforms, what kind of reforms do you favor, and how would you like to see them enforced?

As to whats so great about the US or the UK, I think thats less a question and more a statement.
I would support less working hours, more inheritance taxes, more stadiums for rugby and more schooling facilities for the young.
For me doing well mean that the people have enough to eat, have a roof, access to technology and are happy.

What the fuck are you talking about?
No they are not. France has the largest muslim population in Europe and they are not persecuted. Where the fuck are you getting this idea from?
Is that because religious symbols are banned in french schools? Is that what you call persecution? If that's the case, british schools have the uniform and that isn't muslim persecution.
Or maybe it is the recent riotings that you think was about islam? It had nothing to do with islam at all. Only the most far right xenophobic media reported that the rioters were muslims. They were not.

Woah man, chill. Little too much with the PCP.

I would support less working hours, more inheritance taxes, more stadiums for rugby and more schooling facilities for the young.
For me doing well mean that the people have enough to eat, have a roof, access to technology and are happy.

This I fully agree with

Greed is universal, but there are degrees of greed, and I do think that the socialist ideas think less about filling the goverments pockets, but rather helping the population.

And I'm from Norway so I'm speking of my own experiences
I will admit Norway is very different to other experiences of socialism. It would be an ideal situation if all of Europe could be like Norway, or more generally Scandinavia. To achieve this though it would require immense wealth. The EU will achieve this, but in time. It needs to first build itself up. In fact, I would much rather live in Sweden or Norway than anywhere else, something I will do once I am done with my studies.

I will admit Norway is very different to other experiences of socialism. It would be an ideal situation if all of Europe could be like Norway, or more generally Scandinavia. To achieve this though it would require immense wealth. The EU will achieve this, but in time. It needs to first build itself up.

I do not believe EU will help Europe come closer to the utopic dream. And Norway shouldn't join either since it would dammage the economy here

Let's do some simple math then. I'm using made up numbers to illustrate the point:

You run a company. With a 40 hour work-week, you need 50 employees. Obviously, with a 20 hour work-week, you'll need 100 employees.

Let's say you pay your 50 employees $10/hour. If you need 100, they'll either make half as much, or you'll need to pay them twice as much. Let's say you're nice and pay twice as much.

Both scenerios, so far, cost you $20,800 per employee per year.

But wait!

All those employer-provided benefits cost the employer money. Let's assume that health care, vacation time, sick days, personal days, etc. cost $5,000 per employee per year. All of a sudden, having twice as many employees adds $250,000 to your yearly operating costs.

Reducing the work-week may make it so businesses need to hire more people, but it then costs the employers more money. They must either recover these costs or go out of business. Recovering the cost either means paying employees less (which hurts them), or charging their customers more (which hurts everyone, including the employees).

This has nothing to do with my nationality or yours. It's not even economics. It's just basic math.
you don't get it at all.
The unemployed people are paid anyway. Taxes pay for the unemployed benefits. If you employ 1 man and you make him work 70 hours/ week and another man is unemployed, you will have to pay for both.
If you have 2 employees and they work 35h/w, you still pay for both, but they are more productive.

I do not believe EU will help Europe come closer to the utopic dream. And Norway shouldn't join either since it would dammage the economy here
I believe otherwise. When it reaches equilibrium stage, then it will begin moving forwards. If Norway wants to stay out, so be it. Sweden is always an option :)

I believe otherwise. If Norway wants to stay out, so be it. Sweden is always an option :)

Sweden has already joined the EU ;)
But yeah it depends, maybe it is better or maybe it is worse, we won't know untill it has happened.

I would support less working hours, more inheritance taxes, more stadiums for rugby and more schooling facilities for the young.
For me doing well mean that the people have enough to eat, have a roof, access to technology and are happy.

What do you see as the opportunity cost for fewer working hours, and the money to pay for rugby statdiums would be taken from what current expenditures?

Also, based on your criteria, I don't see how France exceeds the U.S./UK (at least as far as the first three criteria. The last one is difficult to define at all, even by philosophers).

Do you feel that people in the U.S./U.K. have less to eat than the French? Or inferior housing or access to technology?

Sweden has already joined the EU ;)
But yeah it depends, maybe it is better or maybe it is worse, we won't know untill it has happened.
That is why I said Sweden is an option :p

Almost half of the Middle East's Arab population views France as the world's best model for freedom and democracy, according to a poll released Friday by the University of Maryland and Zogby International (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1366500.html)....

also

Twenty-one percent of those surveyed said they would prefer that France be the world's only superpower. China came in second with 13 percent. Six percent said the United States should be the only superpower



The French seem to have no shame...:)
XD...Yeah the riots are out of love....

Frances economy also sucks...That is why the Arab community is rioting...Polls equal shit unless everyone votes.

That is why I said Sweden is an option :p

Cheeky Monkey :p
But still I do remember the fuzz in England when EU tried to exchange the £ with the Euro

XD...Yeah the riots are out of love....

Frances economy also sucks...That is why the Arab community is rioting...Polls equal shit unless everyone votes.
Try reading the last few pages? :rolleyes:

I give you the solution to France's ills, economic and social:

http://www.royaute.org/sommaire.htm

DeGaulle, had he been given the oppurtunity, would have seen to it.

Do you feel that people in the U.S. have less to eat than the French?
Judging by the burgeoning waistlines... clearly not.

Don't you agree that those that want to work more, who have that extra time, and who want to make that extra money, don't you agree that those people should be allowed to?
It doesn't work like that. Money is nothing. If people don't consume, working is useless.

Cheeky Monkey :p
But still I do remember the fuzz in England when EU tried to exchange the £ with the Euro
The UK will still pay for this...economists are predicting that if it does not change to the Euro soon it stands to lose huge amounts of foreign investment. High currencies also do little to help exports. The Euro is stable.

Norway is a different situation I believe. It is immensely wealthy. :)

What do you see as the opportunity cost for fewer working hours, and the money to pay for rugby statdiums would be taken from what current expenditures?

Also, based on your criteria, I don't see how France exceeds the U.S./UK (at least as far as the first three criteria. The last one is difficult to define at all, even by philosophers).

Do you feel that people in the U.S./U.K. have less to eat than the French? Or inferior housing or access to technology?
I think the difference is about what you define as the people. I mean ALL the people, not just the rich.

The UK will still pay for this...economists are predicting that if it does not change to the Euro soon it stands to lose huge amounts of foreign investment. High currencies also do little to help exports. The Euro is stable.

Norway is a different situation I believe. It is immensely wealthy. :)

Yeah, because of the oil, but before that Norway was almost a third world country just exporting fish and timber. But Norway has a problem with exports now because we are paid to much which raises the prices of our goods

you don't get it at all.
The unemployed people are paid anyway. Taxes pay for the unemployed benefits.And those costs are spread over a wide base of citizens. Salaries and benefits are the responsibility of the employer. Employers pay more than just their employee's wages. Two employees making $10/hour cost more than one employee making $20/hour.

If you employ 1 man and you make him work 70 hours/ weekWho the hell said anything about 70 hours per week? I sure didn't. The example I gave sure didn't. My example was 40 hours against 20 hours. Quit bringing up red herrings and strawmen. They don't help you in the slightest.

Yeah, because of the oil, but before that Norway was almost a third world country just exporting fish and timber. But Norway has a problem with exports now because we are paid to much which raises the prices of our goods
A cyclical problem, yes. Perhaps some deflationary policies will solve this.

Money is nothing.

How do you feel this axiom reconciles with economic theory?

That is not enough to sustain economic differences of the extent you suggest.
People in France don't want the same thing as in the UK or in the US. Look at polls.

A cyclical problem, yes.

Yeah, but have to finish my exam paper now, talk to you later

How are they a model for freedom? i heard they had like 30 different republics since ww2! Not to mention they havent even won a battle since napolean was around.

It doesn't work like that. Money is nothing. If people don't consume, working is useless.
Of course it works like that.

Some people don't have a family, they don't have heaps of stuff they want to do right now.
Some people might want to earn extra money and then go on a trip around the world.
Some people would just sit at home and be bored, and decide they could spend that time better making a few extra Euros.

You are taking away these peoples' choice to do what they want, because (let's face it) Unions pushed it through 40 years ago.

How do you feel this axiom reconciles with economic theory?
Money is not the economy. You confuse finance with economy.

How are they a model for freedom? i heard they had like 30 different republics since ww2! Not to mention they havent even won a battle since napolean was around.
And of course winning battles is what models for freedom do? :rolleyes:

How are they a model for freedom? i heard they had like 30 different republics since ww2! Not to mention they havent even won a battle since napolean was around.

Okay before I leave, please do me a favour and read some history books

How are they a model for freedom? i heard they had like 30 different republics since ww2! Not to mention they havent even won a battle since napolean was around.Freedom is not about the republic of about having an over-sized army.

How are they a model for freedom? i heard they had like 30 different republics since ww2! Not to mention they havent even won a battle since napolean was around.
Inform yourself or shut up.

It was exactly one republic since WWII. They have won plenty of battles, both in 1870/1871 (although no major ones), WWI and WWII. Not to forget various engagements around the world since then.

Yeah, but have to finish my exam paper now, talk to you later
Hope to see you later then :)

I think the difference is about what you define as the people. I mean ALL the people, not just the rich.

I have existed at or below the poverty level at several times in my life, and in every instance, I was housed, fed, and had reasonable access to technology, and as long as I worked, I was fine.

Now, the U.S. system does have serious problems, particularly in the area of health care, but it seems that, by the criteria you set forth, France does not appear to be measurably superior.

Most people I know and work with are not rich, and they all have housing, food, and, in my opinion, an excess of technology (who needs a motorized tie rack?).

People in France don't want the same thing as in the UK or in the US. Look at polls.
Yet neither do they want what they have now. The Constitution was voted against due both to disatisfaction at Turkey's bid for membership, as well as the current government's inability to reform the economy.

Of course it works like that.

Some people don't have a family, they don't have heaps of stuff they want to do right now.
Some people might want to earn extra money and then go on a trip around the world.
Some people would just sit at home and be bored, and decide they could spend that time better making a few extra Euros.

You are taking away these peoples' choice to do what they want, because (let's face it) Unions pushed it through 40 years ago.
People don't have choice anyway. If you don't limit working hours, the boss will make you work all day. Limiting working hours is not taking away people's choice. They don't have choice.

Money is not the economy. You confuse finance with economy.

Well, I would personally describe finance as the subset of economic theory related to the excercise of the time-value of money to capitalize projects or acquisitions, but that said...

I wasn't equating "money" with "economy" as they are conceptually distinct. Rather, I was saying that economic theory as a whole includes currency as a central concept, and the premise that "money is nothing" may conflict with economics.

Yet neither do they want what they have now. The Constitution was voted against due both to disatisfaction at Turkey's bid for membership, as well as the current government's inability to reform the economy.
The current government in France is right wing. People are asking for more socialism. They are not happy with the EU because of the CAP and because they think the EU is too right wing (capitalism friendly).

The current government in France is right wing. People are asking for more socialism. They are not happy with the EU because of the CAP and because they think the EU is too right wing (capitalism friendly).
They think that France is too capitalist? :eek: Right...the EU is anything but too capitalist.

I have existed at or below the poverty level at several times in my life, and in every instance, I was housed, fed, and had reasonable access to technology, and as long as I worked, I was fine.

Now, the U.S. system does have serious problems, particularly in the area of health care, but it seems that, by the criteria you set forth, France does not appear to be measurably superior.

Most people I know and work with are not rich, and they all have housing, food, and, in my opinion, an excess of technology (who needs a motorized tie rack?).
France does better in some points, the US does better in other points.
I'm not saying France is the perfect model for the world. I was just saying that the people here seem to think that the solution to all problems is to privatize the economy. This is how the US people view the world. In France, we have a different approach. Privatizing is generelly viewed as a bad thing.

They think that France is too capitalist? :eek: Right...the EU is anything but too capitalist.
They do, and I do too.

Well, I would personally describe finance as the subset of economic theory related to the excercise of the time-value of money to capitalize projects or acquisitions, but that said...

I wasn't equating "money" with "economy" as they are conceptually distinct. Rather, I was saying that economic theory as a whole includes currency as a central concept, and the premise that "money is nothing" may conflict with economics.
Money is abstract. Production is concrete. that is what I wanted to say. You don't produce money. Money helps the economy, but money is not the economy.

France does better in some points, the US does better in other points.
I'm not saying France is the perfect model for the world. I was just saying that the people here seem to think that the solution to all problems is to privatize the economy. This is how the US people view the world. In France, we have a different approach. Privatizing is generelly viewed as a bad thing.

Is it possible that not all U.S. citizens feel the way you think they do, and not all French think the way you feel they do?

Perhaps there are many in the U.S. that would like to see a more socialist approach, and some in France that believe sincerely in privatization.

That's not to say that there aren't Americans that have a near religious belief in capitalist economic policy. I just think the schism may be less stark than you suggest.

Is it possible that not all U.S. citizens feel the way you think they do, and not all French think the way you feel they do?

Perhaps there are many in the U.S. that would like to see a more socialist approach, and some in France that believe sincerely in privatization.

That's not to say that there aren't Americans that have a near religious belief in capitalist economic policy. I just think the schism may be less stark than you suggest.
The existence of the Democrats does suggest that at least a few Americans want a more socialist economy. Likewise, the existence of capitalist parties and their support shows that some French do indeed want a more capitalist approach.

Money is abstract. Production is concrete. that is what I wanted to say. You don't produce money. Money helps the economy, but money is not the economy.

Well, if we can agree that money "helps" the economy, can we agree that it is thus not as irrelevant as you've suggested?

Its as if we're riding in a car, and I say "Um, The tire is going flat" and you reply "The tire is not the car".

The fact is, in any modern nation, things like expenditure, savings, investment, and yes, even production, are facilitated, executed, and measured using money. Its merely a tool, a symbol even, but what it represents is pervasive in any discussion of economics.

People don't have choice anyway. If you don't limit working hours, the boss will make you work all day. Limiting working hours is not taking away people's choice. They don't have choice.
Let's take Pete.

Case 1)
Pete is a toilet cleaner for a big corporation. He has only toilet cleaning skills, because he left school early. Pete has an ex-girlfriend, and he pays child support for a little accident.
The big corporation makes him work 35 hours a week. Pete would like to watch the Rugby on a proper TV, but he can't afford one because the corporation doesn't pay enough, and much of his money goes to his kid.

Pete would like to earn more money, but with the job market so bad in France right now, he's scared that leaving his job to get better training might mean that he won't find a new one. Plus, he can't really afford not working for a while.

If Pete could work more hours (the corporation would gladly have him for longer), he could afford that TV.

Conclusion: Pete - the working class hero - would be better off if there were no restrictions on his working hours, and if the corporation was free to do as it wanted.

Case 2)
Pete is a friendly guy, always at Union meetings, and he hates Privatisations. But because he really wants that TV, he goes and starts a Toilet Cleaning Business with a few of his colleagues.
Pete now employs a few people - he's now a boss.

Has Pete changed at all? He was a working class hero, now he's a boss. How can you automatically say that a boss is a certain, different, evil kind of person?

... How can you automatically say that a boss is a certain, different, evil kind of person?

He didn't say that. Give him some credit.

He didn't say that. Give him some credit.
I am. This is hardly the first time I'm talking to the "French" type of Socialist, who will simply step around the issues and argue on the basis of morality rather than pragmatism. I respect that idea for what it is - a great Ideal. I simply don't think though that you can force the type of society he hopes to get by governmental limitation on things like working hours, or by creating artificial state-owned monopolies.

His point was that bosses (note how he uses that word to describe an apparently homogenous group of people) screw the workers over.

And I'm asking why a guy would suddenly change his entire outlook on things, simply because he is now an employer, rather than an employee.

I am. This is hardly the first time I'm talking to the "French" type of Socialist, who will simply step around the issues and argue on the basis of morality rather than pragmatism.

His point was that bosses (note how he uses that word to describe an apparently homogenous group of people) screw the workers over.

And I'm asking why a guy would suddenly change his entire outlook on things, simply because he is now an employer, rather than an employee.
Power corrupts :p That is a possible counter.

He didn't say that. Give him some credit.

He did say "If you don't limit working hours, the boss will make you work all day", and although that doesn't necessarily mean "evil", it doesn't imply a unilateral description of behaviour that isn't really sound. I've worked at firms where the boss actually had to tell some people to go home (salaried folks who didn't really have statutory limits on their working hours). There are conscientious managers out there who see the cost of burning people out.

But, yeah, there are the other ones, too...

He did say "If you don't limit working hours, the boss will make you work all day", and although that doesn't necessarily mean "evil", it doesn't imply a unilateral description of behaviour that isn't really sound. I've worked at firms where the boss actually had to tell some people to go home (salaried folks who didn't really have statutory limits on their working hours). There are conscientious managers out there who see the cost of burning people out.

But, yeah, there are the other ones, too...
In addition, from a purely economic point of view, it is beneficial for the employer to make sure the employee does not burn out, as burning out leads to a loss in productivity.

Power corrupts :p That is a possible counter.

Actually, there was an interesting study some years ago, wherein one subject group was given tremendous, capricious power over another subject group. They found that the possession of authority did, in fact, trigger some sort of alpha primate urge to become viciously authoratative. If I remember the text correctly, the study was even criticized for running a cruel experiment on humans.

Wish I could remember the name, I'd cite it.

Still, I don't think that kind of response to power is unilateral. As I said, I know lots of managers that practice the "Happy workers lay more bricks" policy.

And another point:

If you want to give the low-skilled worker a bit of power when he needs to talk to his boss, if you want to prevent the boss from dictating the terms, isn't it better to create an economy in which there are enough jobs to give the worker a chance to simply leave?

If there is 10% unemployment, nobody will leave their job by their own free will. There is just too great a chance that you won't find a new one, and even if you do, you'll have to compete with a hundred other guys, and whoever will work for the smallest salary gets the job.

If there is next to no unemployment, that boss will think twice before sacking anyone, because getting a new guy will be hard - and chances are you have to bribe them with a bigger salary.

In addition, from a purely economic point of view, it is beneficial for the employer to make sure the employee does not burn out, as burning out leads to a loss in productivity.

True story, there.

In addition, from a purely economic point of view, it is beneficial for the employer to make sure the employee does not burn out, as burning out leads to a loss in productivity.

Tell that to the fast food industry. Deskilled labour turns around quite profitably.

Actually, there was an interesting study some years ago, wherein one subject group was given tremendous, capricious power over another subject group. They found that the possession of authority did, in fact, trigger some sort of alpha primate urge to become viciously authoratative. If I remember the text correctly, the study was even criticized for running a cruel experiment on humans.

Wish I could remember the name, I'd cite it.

Still, I don't think that kind of response to power is unilateral. As I said, I know lots of managers that practice the "Happy workers lay more bricks" policy.
Indeed, and the economic principle I stated before renders it against their interest to do so.

Actually, there was an interesting study some years ago, wherein one subject group was given tremendous, capricious power over another subject group. They found that the possession of authority did, in fact, trigger some sort of alpha primate urge to become viciously authoratative. If I remember the text correctly, the study was even criticized for running a cruel experiment on humans.

Wish I could remember the name, I'd cite it.

Still, I don't think that kind of response to power is unilateral. As I said, I know lots of managers that practice the "Happy workers lay more bricks" policy.

There was this movie made recently, based on this. Das Experiment.

Indeed, and the economic principle I stated before renders it against their interest to do so.
That principle is avoided by removing the skill factor.

If I remember the text correctly, the study was even criticized for running a cruel experiment on humans.
No wonder. They called it the "Stanford Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)".

Still, I don't think that kind of response to power is unilateral. As I said, I know lots of managers that practice the "Happy workers lay more bricks" policy.
I study Business Management at Uni, along with another degree in Economics, and they place a lot of emphasis on that kind of thing.
Most of my courses so far have been on conflict resolution and that kind of thing. You want to treat your people well, you want them to feel part of the whole - there is thousands of papers out there that show that productivity will go up.

Tell that to the fast food industry. Deskilled labour turns around quite profitably.

Yeah, thats one thing about a competitive workplace, the unskilled truly take it in the shorts.

My brother in law used to own a fast food joint, he was pretty good to his people, and kept most of them for at least a year. Most left of their own accord, but I did notice that there was definitely a group of people who were unemployable, due to their own attitudes (and not just from the lower socio-economic class, it included a lot of spoiled suburbanite brats).

That principle is avoided by removing the skill factor.
The economy is moving towards being a skill-orientated one. Even so, even in a job where you require little skill, being overworked will yield poor results.

No wonder. They called it the "Stanford Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment)".


I study Business Management at Uni, along with another degree in Economics, and they place a lot of emphasis on that kind of thing.
Most of my courses so far have been on conflict resolution and that kind of thing. You want to treat your people well, you want them to feel part of the whole - there is thousands of papers out there that show that productivity will go up.

Heh, beats whippings and gruel, I suppose. Maybe we should start transmitting those management principals into space, in case aliens ever conquer us. Still, I'm glad to see this kind of trend in formalized business training.

I am. This is hardly the first time I'm talking to the "French" type of Socialist, who will simply step around the issues and argue on the basis of morality rather than pragmatism. I respect that idea for what it is - a great Ideal. I simply don't think though that you can force the type of society he hopes to get by governmental limitation on things like working hours, or by creating artificial state-owned monopolies.

His point was that bosses (note how he uses that word to describe an apparently homogenous group of people) screw the workers over.

And I'm asking why a guy would suddenly change his entire outlook on things, simply because he is now an employer, rather than an employee.
There are working hour limit in every single western country. Ther french one are just more drastic. In Europe, the average is less than 40 hours/week.

It is economocally sound to burn out employees when you just have the perspective of the boss and take another one after that. From society's point of view, it is not economically sustainable though.

There are working hour limit in every single western country. Ther french one are just more drastic. In Europe, the average is less than 40 hours/week.

It is economocally sound to burn out employees when you just have the perspective of the boss and take another one after that. From society's point of view, it is not economically sustainable though.

A lot of bosses' perspective includes the idea that the supply of labor is not unlimited to the extent that you can just "take another one after that". I think you're superimposing a certain mentality onto all bosses, and they honestly aren't all like that.

And another point:

If you want to give the low-skilled worker a bit of power when he needs to talk to his boss, if you want to prevent the boss from dictating the terms, isn't it better to create an economy in which there are enough jobs to give the worker a chance to simply leave?

If there is 10% unemployment, nobody will leave their job by their own free will. There is just too great a chance that you won't find a new one, and even if you do, you'll have to compete with a hundred other guys, and whoever will work for the smallest salary gets the job.

If there is next to no unemployment, that boss will think twice before sacking anyone, because getting a new guy will be hard - and chances are you have to bribe them with a bigger salary.
If you have benefit as unemployed, you can leave your job.
Employing people is not the goal. Production and consumptions are the goals. Working is just something you must do to produce. If you can produce more efficiently and reduce work, that 's better. The goal is not to generate as much work as possible. There is a Volkswagen factory in Germany with no light. There is no light there because machines don't need light and there are no employees. Germany has 9.7% unemployment. What is wrong there? Is that industrialization or is that the system?

A lot of bosses' perspective includes the idea that the supply of labor is not unlimited to the extent that you can just "take another one after that". I think you're superimposing a certain mentality onto all bosses, and they honestly aren't all like that.
If the bosses aren't supposed to burn out employees, what's the problem with working limits?

If the bosses aren't supposed to burn out employees, what's the problem with working limits?

Well for one thing, the 'burn out' point is different for every employee, and an authoratatively imposed standard doesn't recognize the diversity of ability that exists in humans.

Better to let employees and bosses with similar standards find each other with freedom and choice.

Specifically, though, I was pointing out that your statement about bosses and their behaviour is not always true, and I hope your country doesn't only have bosses who abuse their employees to an extent only restricted by law.

If you have benefit as unemployed, you can leave your job.
Employing people is not the goal. Production and consumptions are the goals. Working is just something you must do to produce. If you can produce more efficiently and reduce work, that 's better. The goal is not to generate as much work as possible. There is a Volkswagen factory in Germany with no light. There is no light there because machines don't need light and there are no employees. Germany has 9.7% unemployment. What is wrong there? Is that industrialization or is that the system?

How do the robots see to do their work if there is no light?

How do the robots see to do their work if there is no light?

They use a method of spatial perception called "bumping into things and saying, shyte, dammit, who put this here" that was developed by Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth at the New New York Robotics Symposium.

The-Republic']Aren't Muslims persecuted in France??
Actually, Muslims in France are persecuting everyone else, and the French have already surrendered...not that they would expected to do something else...

If you have benefit as unemployed, you can leave your job.
You said yourself that production is a goal. Unemployed people are producing nothing.
And not only that, from what I can see in my own family...being unemployed is not fun. People (at least German people - I guess French people are different :rolleyes: ) don't enjoy to be leeching off the state.
I say this to you and to everyone who reckons a welfare state encourages long-term unemployment: Being a worthless leech sitting at home watching daytime TV is not fun!

If you can produce more efficiently and reduce work, that 's better.
Sure you could. But France can't. You know what a GDP is - and France's hasn't been growing for years.
Productivity is not the issue, the issue is how much stuff is being produced, and how much is being sold.

There is a Volkswagen factory in Germany with no light. There is no light there because machines don't need light and there are no employees. Germany has 9.7% unemployment. What is wrong there? Is that industrialization or is that the system?
That's industrialisation. I can live with people being replaced with machines. I do cringe when people export their labour to other places, but essentially that's the same thing.
It means that those people have to find another job, that the whole country has to change its focus.
The idea is not to then sit back and watch the machines do your work - the idea is to look for ways to produce even more nice stuff we can use, in other words, to move into the service and knowledge sector.

Well for one thing, the 'burn out' point is different for every employee, and an authoratatively imposed standard doesn't recognize the diversity of ability that exists in humans.

Better to let employees and bosses with similar standards find each other with freedom and choice.

Specifically, though, I was pointing out that your statement about bosses and their behaviour is not always true, and I hope your country doesn't only have bosses who abuse their employees to an extent only restricted by law.This is the same in every country. Greed is a human trait. I'm not saying bosses are all assholes. They are just humans trying to get the best for themselve first, for others second. When there was no working limit, workers were exploited to death. Children were working in mines when there was no law for child work.It is a fact that working limits have raised the general living standard from my point of view.

How do the robots see to do their work if there is no light?
They don't need to "see", they have spacial coordinates. They know exactly where the elements must be.

Actually, Muslims in France are persecuting everyone else, and the French have already surrendered...not that they would expected to do something else...
I kind of disagree. I don' have that much problems with moderate muslims. Extremists are not the majority and there are no more muslim extremist than jewish, christian or nationalist extremists.

You said yourself that production is a goal. Unemployed people are producing nothing.
And not only that, from what I can see in my own family...being unemployed is not fun. People (at least German people - I guess French people are different :rolleyes: ) don't enjoy to be leeching off the state.
I say this to you and to everyone who reckons a welfare state encourages long-term unemployment: Being a worthless leech sitting at home watching daytime TV is not fun!Incidentally, the french population doesn't watch TV much when compared to other western nations.
Production is not the only goal. The economy is production and consumption. And I don't think the unemployed are the one leeching the most from the state. They are not producing much, but they are not consuming that much either.

Sure you could. But France can't. You know what a GDP is - and France's hasn't been growing for years.
Productivity is not the issue, the issue is how much stuff is being produced, and how much is being sold.
I think you got it wrong. GDP does not measure the success of society. It is just one number among many used as a propaganda tool in many countries. Incidentally, the country which has the biggest GDP on earth has the biggest trade deficit.
I think life expectancy, education rate, cultural level are better instance of ways to measure success. The goal is to raise living standards.

That's industrialisation. I can live with people being replaced with machines. I do cringe when people export their labour to other places, but essentially that's the same thing.
It means that those people have to find another job, that the whole country has to change its focus.
The idea is not to then sit back and watch the machines do your work - the idea is to look for ways to produce even more nice stuff we can use, in other words, to move into the service and knowledge sector.
Like tourism, arts, research and so on. I kind of agree, but it seems I disagree on the method to achieve that.

I think life expectancy, education rate, cultural level are better instance of ways to measure success. The goal is to raise living standards.

There is actually an index for measuring these...I cannot remember its name. It takes into consideration factors that show how the quality of life in a particular country is, as well as its economic situation.

The idea is not to then sit back and watch the machines do your work - the idea is to look for ways to produce even more nice stuff we can use, in other words, to move into the service and knowledge sector.
Which would be ideal :)

The economy is production and consumption...[The Unemployed] are not producing much, but they are not consuming that much either.
See my point?

I think you got it wrong. GDP does not measure the success of society.
I have to disagree. It does not measure success, and there are plenty of things wrong with the measure, but still, if you want to have good education, good life expectancy, nice cultural achievement and a bit of fun on the way, you need to have goods and services.
GDP is the price of the total amount of goods and services produced and consumed in an economy.
Having a low or stagnant GDP is not a good thing.

I think life expectancy, education rate, cultural level are better instance of ways to measure success. The goal is to raise living standards.
Sure is. But as I said, without plenty of cars, TVs, Computers and so on you're not going to do well in any of your criteria.
And at the moment France is falling behind in producing all these things, and it will only be a matter of time before the difference will become obvious.

Like tourism, arts, research and so on. I kind of agree, but it seems I disagree on the method to achieve that.
Having lots of unemployed people without any skills is not the way to do it, surely you'd have to agree.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/checkform.php?idDomain=-1&Submit1=List&searchq=)
I found this website which has many indicators of performance in other criteria. Comparing France to the UK, it seems that the UK does a little better in happiness (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=156&idDomain=12&firstDifferentiator=422), France is marginally better in "Quality of Social Services (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=147&idDomain=12&firstDifferentiator=395)", the French are much more certain that there are serious tensions between bosses and workers (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=150&idDomain=12&firstDifferentiator=404), British people are quite happy with the leisure time (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=141&idDomain=11&firstDifferentiator=378) they get, and the British are hugely more optimistic (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=154&idDomain=12&firstDifferentiator=416) about the future than the French.

They don't need to "see", they have spacial coordinates. They know exactly where the elements must be.

Veal calves don't need to "see" either, but it's the decent thing to do. Think of the poor robots. :mad:

This is the same in every country. Greed is a human trait. I'm not saying bosses are all assholes. They are just humans trying to get the best for themselve first, for others second. When there was no working limit, workers were exploited to death. Children were working in mines when there was no law for child work.It is a fact that working limits have raised the general living standard from my point of view.

There are classes of employees in the U.S., described as "exempt", who don't have working limits. They generally aren't worked to death, except for junior associate attorneys...

If a boss and an employee have mutally agreed, of their free will, to arrange for shifts in excess of some arbitrarily imposed number, I'm not sure its okay to take their freedom away. (This is predicated on the idea that both have the option to walk away if they want).

Veal calves don't need to "see" either, but it's the decent thing to do. Think of the poor robots. :mad:

Keeping the machines in the dark is necessary to postpone the "Rise of the Machines", or some other horrible Schwarzenegger sequel. Play along.

Keeping the machines in the dark is necessary to postpone the "Rise of the Machines", or some other horrible Schwarzenegger sequel. Play along.

Maybe they are going to rise up because we won't give them any lightbulbs. Who knows, adequate lighting and some decent reading material might actually prevent the uprising from ever happening.

Do robots need to read?

Maybe they are going to rise up because we won't give them any lightbulbs. Who knows, adequate lighting and some decent reading material might actually prevent the uprising from ever happening.

That kind of appeasement paves the way to a disastrous, nightmarish future where snooty artificial intelligences walk around quoting Milton.

Do robots need to read?

Obviously they are highly intelligent. How else could they build complete volkswagens from scratch in pitch black dark? As such, I would imagine some form of intellectual stimulation, i.e. reading, would be a welcome relief for them in their off-hours.

Of course, maybe we should provide TV for them too.

That kind of appeasement paves the way to a disastrous, nightmarish future where snooty artificial intelligences walk around quoting Milton.

I still say that is preferable to yet another Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.

They didn't kill anyone, did they? Besides, with France being the cradle of modern democracy, they do have a tradition for being somewhat outspoken. A Frenchman I know said this was only a sign of how french the rioters had become. He was quite pleased.
France, the cradle of modern democracy? Last I checked, the birth of modern democracy took place in the US of A.

See my point?
Yes I think I see your point and I think you are right. High unemployement rate is not economically efficient. And yet we can't make the unemployed people just die. We have to find a way to make them working so we can raise living standards, I think you have convinced me about that. I still think reducing working hours is a good thing though.

I have to disagree. It does not measure success, and there are plenty of things wrong with the measure, but still, if you want to have good education, good life expectancy, nice cultural achievement and a bit of fun on the way, you need to have goods and services.
GDP is the price of the total amount of goods and services produced and consumed in an economy.
Having a low or stagnant GDP is not a good thing.
You are certainly right here again. A growing GDP means a lot (not everything though).

Sure is. But as I said, without plenty of cars, TVs, Computers and so on you're not going to do well in any of your criteria.
And at the moment France is falling behind in producing all these things, and it will only be a matter of time before the difference will become obvious.

Having lots of unemployed people without any skills is not the way to do it, surely you'd have to agree.

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/checkform.php?idDomain=-1&Submit1=List&searchq=)
I found this website which has many indicators of performance in other criteria. Comparing France to the UK, it seems that the UK does a little better in happiness (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=156&idDomain=12&firstDifferentiator=422), France is marginally better in "Quality of Social Services (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=147&idDomain=12&firstDifferentiator=395)", the French are much more certain that there are serious tensions between bosses and workers (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=150&idDomain=12&firstDifferentiator=404), British people are quite happy with the leisure time (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=141&idDomain=11&firstDifferentiator=378) they get, and the British are hugely more optimistic (http://www.eurofound.eu.int/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=154&idDomain=12&firstDifferentiator=416) about the future than the French.
I have to disagree here. I thinkt those numbers are right, but they are not everything. France still has a higher GDP per capita than the UK and the higest GDP per hour worked in the world (at least when you measure it in a certain way), although I agree the UK has been catching up those last years.
In the technology sector, France is not doing so bad either. There are the cheapest and the fastest internet connections in Europe, a lot more cars, trains and planes produced than in the UK, a better tourism and artistic sector (a lot of thing are better in the UK though). But anyway I don't think comparing countries is that easy. The UK is very different than France. They don't have the euro and they have the commonwealth. The UK is at war with Iraq, France is at war with Ivory coast. The UK has a left wing government and France has a right wing one. The history, culture and economy is very different. France is more industrialized while the UK's banking sector is more important (probably a reason why the UK doesn't want the euro). I don't think it is a good idea to implement the same policies in the UK and in France.

There are classes of employees in the U.S., described as "exempt", who don't have working limits. They generally aren't worked to death, except for junior associate attorneys...

If a boss and an employee have mutally agreed, of their free will, to arrange for shifts in excess of some arbitrarily imposed number, I'm not sure its okay to take their freedom away. (This is predicated on the idea that both have the option to walk away if they want).
In some sectors, I tend to agree. In France too, there are exceptions, but for factory workers for instance, I defenitelly think working limits are a good idea.

France, the cradle of modern democracy? Last I checked, the birth of modern democracy took place in the US of A.
Actually, France played a very big part in the birth of modern democracy. Left wing and right wing refers to the french assembly of 1789, not to mention the declaration of human rights. France played a big role in the birth of the USA too. I'm not flag waving and I'm conscious of the shithole France is, but it strikes my mind when I see US nationalists thinking everything was born in the US. US's democracy has a lot of room to improve (so has France's but in different fields).

I still say that is preferable to yet another Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.
No please not yet another Schwarzenegger movie!
Take my TV, give it to robots, I'm even ready to dress like a clown and jungle to entertain the robots, but please let Swarzenegger do politics and stay away from yet another crap movie. I think I couldn't stand another one or my brain would explode.

Yeah france is great :rolleyes: a free country where I can't wear a cross on my neck... muslims burn cars and endanger other citizens. Is that freedom?

Geez all those people in the US who say france is better... GO THERE! Live there for a couple of years and then say which country is better to live in...

Yeah france is great :rolleyes: a free country where I can't wear a cross on my neck... muslims burn cars and endanger other citizens. Is that freedom?

Geez all those people in the US who say france is better... GO THERE! Live there for a couple of years and then say which country is better to live in...
What is your point?
This thread is not about ranting. France and the US are different. The US has a different culture. People raised in the US will certainly like the US. You just have to realize that french people are happy with the working limits and the ban on religious symbols in schools. As for muslims burning cars, you don't know what you are talking about. Muslims are crashing planes in the US. France has different problems, but not a muslim one.

I know it's not a ranting thread and I'm sure French citizens are happy... But can You say that it's a free country if religious symbols are banned?
Sounds more like Tyrrany by majority ;)(sp?)
USA faces a problem with terrorism, France faces a problem with angry immigrants. That's kindof different IMO...

I know it's not a ranting thread and I'm sure French citizens are happy... But can You say that it's a free country if religious symbols are banned?
Sounds more like Tyrrany by majority ;)(sp?)
USA faces a problem with terrorism, France faces a problem with angry immigrants. That's kindof different IMO...
No country is free and saying that a country is more free than another is just empty propaganda.
France indeed has a problem with angry immigrants, which has nothing to do with religion. France was a colonial country, and IMO France has a debt to the countries it pillaged. I think it is a shame to have one of the biggest egyptian obelisc in the center of Paris when it was part of one of the most beautiful wonders of the world in Egypt. The temple is lacking one obelisc which was part of the wonder. And that's just one example. France should do more to pay back its debt (indeed, doing something would be a start).
That said, I totally support the ban on religious symbols in school (dating back from 1917), along with political symbols and business advertizing. Freedom is only worth when the people are educated enough to use it. School children should learn how to write and how to count, not be brain washed by religious zealots. Once they have completed their education, they are free to choose their religion and practice it the way they want.

So china has the same amount of freedom as holand?? That's crazy...

The problem with immigrants has nothing to do with religion?? It's just a coincidence that most those immigrants are muslims? I agree that not all of them are muslims but most... but nevermind this topic...

I agree that democracy in a country full of idiots is not a good idea ;) but freedom is something else... If an idiot wear a religious simbol, how can that hurt anyone?

Brainwashed by religous zealots? That was offensive to all believers...

So china has the same amount of freedom as holand?? That's crazy...I'd say the holand is more civilized but I wouldn't say Holand is a free country. There are a lot of things you can't do in Holand. Maybe I'm just arguing semantics and I'm being an ass so you are probably right.

The problem with immigrants has nothing to do with religion?? It's just a coincidence that most those immigrants are muslims? I agree that not all of them are muslims but most... but nevermind this topic...Yes I think it is a coincidence. France's former colonies were mainly in north Africa. Most immigrants are from north Africa. In north Africa, most are arab. Arabs are mostly muslims. Some are national heros, like Zidane, Khaled or Jamhel, but most are unemployed. Still most of the young people who rioted were not muslims. The 2nd generation immigrants don't care very much about religion. I believe they were less than 10% of the rioters.

I agree that democracy in a country full of idiots is not a good idea ;) but freedom is something else... If an idiot wear a religious simbol, how can that hurt anyone?

Brainwashed by religous zealots? That was offensive to all believers...
Youngs are influenceable. Most don't choose their religion. They have the religion of their parents and most of the time, not to say all of the time, they don't have the choice. Their parents are indoctrinating them into religion from birth. School is supposed to teach them science. They have to learn in a biggot free environment because this is where they wan learn something their parents can't teach them. And no all believers are not extremist zealots. Most support the ban on religious symbols, at least in France.