NationStates Jolt Archive

...Nicolas Sarkozy! (yes I know hes not officially president till the 16th smart-arses :p )

what do you think of the result? did you vote? did you see this coming? does democracy work?

I for one am disappointed but not surprised, I for one wouldn't of voted for him since I oppose his views and being 17 and British it gets a bit iffy but I can see why people did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9OlqDLbD9sU&refer=home

I am happy for him, and for France. I think the French have made the right decision. Hopefully, unlike Chirac, he will actually have the balls to take measures that will improve France's ailing economy and bring law and order to the streets.

I was really, really, really, really, really hoping Royal would win, but alas.

Sarkozy is just a better sounding name, really.

Sarkozy is just a better sounding name, really.And that is, after all, the most important criterion in any election....

I was really, really, really, really, really hoping Royal would win, but alas.

Same here, man after just losing a similer election in Earth ESS this was another big loss :( too bad

And that is, after all, the most important criterion in any election....

Most considered, no doubt.

Sarkozy is just a better sounding name, really.

so thats why Bush was elected over gore ;):p

and I think spell checkers around the world are weeping to this they where clearly hoping for royal

And that is, after all, the most important criterion in any election....

Why do you think I voted for Bush in the last election?

Heh, I hope this turns out like Bush, co., really.

I mean, if your country is fucking stupid enough to vote for a guy who doesn't have a very healthy stance on civil liberties, you deserve to at least see what you've brought upon your fellow countrymen.

All hail the terrible power of Democracy. Hahahahahaha.

Heh, I hope this turns out like Bush, co., really.

I mean, if your country is fucking stupid enough to vote for a guy who doesn't have a very healthy stance on civil liberties, you deserve to at least see what you've brought upon your fellow countrymen.

All hail the terrible power of Democracy. Hahahahahaha.

part of me hopes this too, but on the other hand i really hope nothing Bushlike will happen. i wonder what the impact on Europe will be though, and especialy on my country (because we're next to france and also in the EU i guess there will be at least some influence, i also fear that the conservatives will gain power next federal election, although i think that the extreme right will at least fracture a little bit)

My French pen pal was very disappointed by the election results. He said Sarkozy was dangerous to democracy.

Politics aside, I think Royal is MUCH more attractive than Sarkozy ...

Sarkozy, though somewhat unsavory, is probably the best choice for France for the time being, that country needs some strong medicine.

At any rate, congratulations to the French people for their strong, robust, successful democracy.

Heh, I hope this turns out like Bush, co., really.

I mean, if your country is fucking stupid enough to vote for a guy who doesn't have a very healthy stance on civil liberties, you deserve to at least see what you've brought upon your fellow countrymen.

All hail the terrible power of representative democracy. Hahahahahaha.

Fixed.

My French pen pal was very disappointed by the election results. He said Sarkozy was dangerous to democracy.

That says a lot about a man's character, because Democracy itself is dangerous to people on many levels.

Fixed.

I thought that went without saying, but yeah, for truth.

I would've voted for Royal, no doubt about it since Sarkozy's personality frightens me especially together with right wing politics.

Off the topic. I just heard a french free lance journalist or something that speak Swedish claim that 50% of the population in France don't pay taxes. Truth or reeeeeally professional bullshitting?

Heh, I hope this turns out like Bush, co., really.

I mean, if your country is fucking stupid enough to vote for a guy who doesn't have a very healthy stance on civil liberties, you deserve to at least see what you've brought upon your fellow countrymen.

All hail the terrible power of Democracy. Hahahahahaha.

I dont wish bush style governance on anyone.

I hope Sarkozy manages to shore up the economy, sort out some of the problems with immigrants and banlieues, make things better for France and then get replaced by someone who can fix other problems.

I dont wish bush style governance on anyone.

I hope Sarkozy manages to shore up the economy, sort out some of the problems with immigrants and banlieues, make things better for France and then get replaced by someone who can fix other problems.

That would be nice, but that's some pretty wishful thinking.

Off the topic. I just heard a french free lance journalist or something that speak Swedish claim that 50% of the population in France don't pay taxes. Truth or reeeeeally professional bullshitting?

Children, stay at home parents, the disabled, the elderly/retired, and so on...

You wouldn't quite get 50%, I don't think, but it would be a large chunk.

Sarkozy is just a better sounding name, really.
But Royal had the power of bewbies!

Heh, I hope this turns out like Bush, co., really.

I mean, if your country is fucking stupid enough to vote for a guy who doesn't have a very healthy stance on civil liberties, you deserve to at least see what you've brought upon your fellow countrymen.

All hail the terrible power of Democracy. Hahahahahaha.

He did say that he wanted to re-establish Napoleons empire. I wonder what that means?

Children, stay at home parents, the disabled, the elderly/retired, and so on...

You wouldn't quite get 50%, I don't think, but it would be a large chunk.

Same thing for most western nations. I believe the US runs near the 50% mark for not paying into the federal tax system.

He did say that he wanted to re-establish Napoleons empire. I wonder what that means?

That he's a douchebag?

I like how it's the conservative who held his cool during the debate while the liberal lost it, even though Mrs. Royal claimed that the conservatives were "...too unstable [and] too brutal..." to lead the nation (link (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007705030491)).

Ah well. Maybe he'll stop France from gleefully destroying its own economy. It's good to hear a conservative voice in power where liberalism has run amok, even though lots of people here are already dismissing his government-to-be as "Bush, co." Shame.

Children, stay at home parents, the disabled, the elderly/retired, and so on...

You wouldn't quite get 50%, I don't think, but it would be a large chunk.

Yes, I could imagine. But it struck me a bit odd that she would take that as an example after claming that France was a really unfair society.

Rioting ahoy, methinks.

Wish Royal had won, but hey, what's a British person to know about France, eh?

Same thing for most western nations. I believe the US runs near the 50% mark for not paying into the federal tax system.

Exactly. Sounds like typical media spin to me.

Yes, I could imagine. But it struck me a bit odd that she would take that as an example after claming that France was a really unfair society.

Looking for excuses to raise taxes? *shrugs*

But Royal had the power of bewbies!

Maybe if she showed them and kept her mouth shut she may have won?

Ah well. Maybe he'll stop France from gleefully destroying its own economy. It's good to hear a conservative voice in power where liberalism has run amok, even though lots of people here are already dismissing his government-to-be as "Bush, co." Shame.

"Liberalism" in the sense of Socialism and Socialism-Lite, or Liberalism in the sense of a free economy and a high level of civil liberties?

Gotta love blanket statements.

Maybe if she showed them and kept her mouth shut she may have won?
It worked for Sarzoky . . .

I mean, I guess that's what he did. I really haven't heard anything from him, all the (minimal) coverage I saw of the race focused on Royal and her french female socialist-ness.

"Liberalism" in the sense of Socialism and Socialism-Lite, or Liberalism in the sense of a free economy and a high level of civil liberties?

Gotta love blanket statements.

You know, both of those things would have been really nice.

"Liberalism" in the sense of Socialism and Socialism-Lite, or Liberalism in the sense of a free economy and a high level of civil liberties?

I've yet to meet a liberal who truly believed in a free economy, so the first one. I highly doubt these French lefties want a free (capitalistic) economy. If they did, they wouldn't have created the socialist system that they did, now would they?

In fact, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that they're trying to damage their own economy. Short workweeks and punishments (in the form of extra taxes for those who are already over-taxed) for working overtime aren't doing anything short of hurting the economy.

Gotta love blanket statements.

As a matter of fact, I do. How could you tell? :p

You know, both of those things would have been really nice.

Yep.

I've yet to meet a liberal who truly believed in a free economy, so the first one. I highly doubt these French lefties want a free (capitalistic) economy. If they did, they wouldn't have created the socialist system that they did, now would they?

In fact, if I didn't know any better, I'd say that they're trying to damage their own economy. Short workweeks and punishments (in the form of extra taxes for those who are already over-taxed) for working overtime aren't doing anything short of hurting the economy.



As a matter of fact, I do. How could you tell? :p

I'm guessing you don't get out much...

Heh, I hope this turns out like Bush, co., really.

I mean, if your country is fucking stupid enough to vote for a guy who doesn't have a very healthy stance on civil liberties, you deserve to at least see what you've brought upon your fellow countrymen.

All hail the terrible power of Democracy. Hahahahahaha.

Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the others.

Strangely appropriate here, I feel.

The French electorate is sarkotic.

Bah. France will be ruined because of this.

Strangely appropriate here, I feel.

So, whenever conservatives win, democracy sucks? That's what I got out of your post, and if that's the case, then shame on you. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize, but I can't see how else to construe that...

So, whenever conservatives win, democracy sucks? That's what I got out of your post, and if that's the case, then shame on you. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize, but I can't see how else to construe that...

Well, people lose when they get rights taken away from them, be they economic or otherwise...

...So yeah, when a Conservative wins, the people lose. Same goes for when a Moderate or a semi-Liberal/Libertarian wins.

Bah. France will be ruined because of this.

Yes, just like all the other countries which have adopted a more capitalistic system of government; damn those higher growth rates and lower unemployment! Thank God France has finally realized that its outdated economic system was crumbling and took a small step forward in rectifying the problem; unfortunately, decades of leftist rule have eroded France's foundations and stringent and arduous reforms will be immediately necessary to avert financial chaos. Hopefully, Sarkozy will swiftly and decisively suppress any and all rioting and quickly bring about change; he's the boss, and he better live up to his expectations. France has suffered under ineffectual bureaucrats for far too long; a man with a grand idea and firm resolve is essential in lifting France from its dire straits.

I wouldn't mind if Sarkozy were to show enough cojones to take down that infernal "May of 1968" mindset and get the French unions to strike...maybe...once a month instead of once a week.

Well, people lose when they get rights taken away from them, be they economic or otherwise...

...So yeah, when a Conservative wins, the people lose. Same goes for when a Moderate or a semi-Liberal/Libertarian wins.

What are you talking about? Sarkozy wishes to expand rights, economic and otherwise. He wishes to remove cancerous government regulations which are strangling business; he wants to prosecute the disgruntled rabble which occasionally paralyze the country with their criminal activity; he desires to give people the right to fairly compete with each other and work for as long as they choose; he wishes to afford more opportunity to all by reforming a grossly inefficient government morass which is crippling the country. The people will benefit in the form of faster growth, less unemployment, increased choice, and less crime. The people are tired of inept leftist administrations; they have expressed their exasperation by turning to the reform candidate. Have no doubt about it: they have won and their voices will be heard.

What are you talking about? Sarkozy wishes to expand rights, economic and otherwise. He wishes to remove cancerous government regulations which are strangling business; he wants to prosecute the disgruntled rabble which occasionally paralyze the country with their criminal activity; he desires to give people the right to fairly compete with each other and work for as long as they choose; he wishes to afford more opportunity to all by reforming a grossly inefficient government morass which is crippling the country. The people will benefit in the form of faster growth, less unemployment, increased choice, and less crime. The people are tired of inept leftist administrations; they have expressed their exasperation by turning to the reform candidate. Have no doubt about it: they have won and their voices will be heard.

http://www.marianne2007.info/Le-retournement-de-Sarkozy-sur-Airbus_a884.html

Oh yeah, sounds like a really honest guy to me... Coupled with La République, les religions, l'espérance, that makes him absolutely fabulous, honestly.

http://www.marianne2007.info/Le-retournement-de-Sarkozy-sur-Airbus_a884.html

Oh yeah, sounds like a really honest guy to me...

Do you happen to have that article in English? From what I gather using Google's translation tool, Sarkozy is a leftist in many matters. I'm not denying that it would be better from France to have someone who is more economically liberal than Sarkozy, who has a few socialist elements about him, but you have to settle with what you're given. Of course, Le Pen would have been a far superior choice.

Do you happen to have that article in English? From what I gather using Google's translation tool, Sarkozy is a leftist in many matters. I'm not denying that it would be better from France to have someone who is more economically liberal than Sarkozy, who has a few socialist elements about him, but you have to settle with what you're given. Of course, Le Pen would have been a far superior choice.

Copy and paste the link into Babelfish.

So, whenever conservatives win, democracy sucks? That's what I got out of your post, and if that's the case, then shame on you. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize, but I can't see how else to construe that...

Um... as a mixture of a conservative and a communist, I'm certainly not stating such a thing...
I'm merely posting a quote which reiterates that which Potarius said.

Democracy sucks when Labour win. Big difference.

Edit: how could you construe it in that way anyway? I've just looked at it again and can't figure out how on Earth you could've so...

Edit 2: I just realised; I made it slightly ambiguous. With that 'democracy sucks when Labour win' thing, I am not trying to make it look as though that's Potarius' point, because it isn't.

Of course, Le Pen would have been a far superior choice.
*chuckles*

Freedom and glory, eh?

Um... as a mixture of a conservative and a communist, I'm certainly not stating such a thing...
I'm merely posting a quote which reiterates that which Potarius said.

Democracy sucks when Labour win. Big difference.

Edit: how could you construe it in that way anyway? I've just looked at it again and can't figure out how on Earth you could've so...

Then I apoligize. I guess it was your quote and the context of the thread that threw me off...

Then I apoligize. I guess it was your quote and the context of the thread that threw me off...

The combination of the two, I suppose...
Apology accepted.

Friends? *waggles hand vaguely in mid-air*
:)

Besides:
Anyone who is not a socialist up until forty has no heart. Anyone who is not a conservative after forty has no brain.

The combination of the two, I suppose...
Apology accepted.

Friends? *waggles hand vaguely in mid-air*
:)

Besides:

Of course friends :fluffle: . Especially after that quote, it ranks as one of my favorites.

I am happy for him, and for France. I think the French have made the right decision.

lol, pun.

Oh France, what have you done to yourself? :(

And why is it foreigners (as in, you) are so intent on claiming France should be like everyone else, when you know little or nothing about our country?

By the way, there was already a thread here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521301).

The good news is that so many french people hate him could combine with growing political militancy within the country and lead to a bit of a ruck, and everyone loves a good ruck.

lol, pun.

Well, France has made the right choice, by all definitions of the word.*

*Actually, there are a few exceptions. The statement does not hold true in the mathematical sense (ie, a right angle), nor in the verb for of "right" (ie, to right a wrong), or in the legal sense (ie, the right to a trial by jury), or in the boxing sense (ie, Ali had a powerful right), or in the clothing sense (ie, make sure your shirt is worn right side out), or in the psychiatric sense (ie, right in the head).

bloody hell, they always go for the right wing bastard, meh royal should have won

here in Ireland fine gael are likely to get in to which I can only say smeg

And Sarcozy is a Euro-Bushevik getting into office just when Blair is on his way out.

Ah well. Maybe he'll stop France from gleefully destroying its own economy. It's good to hear a conservative voice in power where liberalism has run amok..Chirac is From the French "right-wing" Party.. just like Zarko.

please peps.. some perspective is not going to hurt...

May whatever power there may (or may not) be bless France, 'cause they gon' need it. :(

Thank you, thank you, oh dear god, thank you.

In your face, commie NS bastards!

...Nicolas Sarkozy! (yes I know hes not officially president till the 16th smart-arses :p )

what do you think of the result? did you vote? did you see this coming? does democracy work?

I for one am disappointed but not surprised, I for one wouldn't of voted for him since I oppose his views and being 17 and British it gets a bit iffy but I can see why people did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9OlqDLbD9sU&refer=home
I'm sorry, Madam Royal, but you have lost. :(

I was really hoping she would win...France could use a left-winged President right about now...

I was really hoping she would win...France could use a left-winged President right about now...

Yes, when immigration and law and order have gone out of control, legalise looting and rioting! :rolleyes:

In your face, commie NS bastards!
That's a bit of a stupid reason to support a candidate.

As for the actual election: I said from Day One that Sarkozy is the least bad candidate. I'm glad he won, because I still think that Royal wouldn't have offended anyone, but also wouldn't have changed anything, and the French deserve better than that.

So now it's up to Sarkozy to deliver. He needs to pull a mini-Thatcher or something and make just that rupture happen that he talked about.

Yes, when immigration and law and order have gone out of control, legalise looting and rioting! :rolleyes:

I know, I know. You'd prefer to put immigrants into gas chambers.

Yes, when immigration and law and order have gone out of control, legalise looting and rioting! :rolleyes:

Oh, I am not going to start with you...honestly, I'm not. I shared my opinion and that's that.

I know, I know. You'd prefer to put immigrants into gas chambers.

No, just kick them out, back to where they belong. Pay your way in or get lost.

That's a bit of a stupid reason to support a candidate.

Are you kidding? I'd support Satan if it meant a socialist doesn't win.

France will go straight to hell and so will Europe. This guy will do everything to make it worse for immigrants, he will stop Turkey from joining Europe and he's economiclly liberal. I see rioting coming ahead.

...Nicolas Sarkozy! (yes I know hes not officially president till the 16th smart-arses :p )

what do you think of the result? did you vote? did you see this coming? does democracy work?

I for one am disappointed but not surprised, I for one wouldn't of voted for him since I oppose his views and being 17 and British it gets a bit iffy but I can see why people did

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Sarkozy
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9OlqDLbD9sU&refer=home

Dammit! I lost again. :(

I should stop sending in my resume. :(

No, just kick them out, back to where they belong. Pay your way in or get lost.

Sure sure, nazi boy.

Are you kidding? I'd support Satan if it meant a socialist doesn't win.

What a simplistic, idiotic mindset.

Are you kidding? I'd support Satan if it meant a socialist doesn't win.

The fact that we strike such fear into the hearts of people like you is reason enough to fly a red flag and sing the "Internationale" any day.

Oh God no, don't tell me they elected that fascist, our only hope now lies in the Scandinavian socialist governments...

I was rooting for Royal, but only because she was far more attractive, and (yes I'm saying it).....wait for it........wait..................................................



I'd hit it.



But, I'm not a big fan of socialists, so Sarkozy was the more preferable choice.

Sarkozy looks like a creepy person to me.

The people are tired of inept leftist administrations

What "inept leftist administrations"?

Chirac's? Are you using some definition of "leftist" with which I'm not familiar?

I'm disappointed that Sarko won, but it's the result I was expecting. :(

I'm disappointed that Sarko won, but it's the result I was expecting. :(

It's been a given for a while.

May the French people receive his proposals with the same enthusiastic approval they gave the CPE.

People of France, Welcome to the Future! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France)

People of France, Welcome to the Future! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France)
Hehe, considering that Sarko's probably the archetype of the modern Gaullist...

But seriously, what is so hard about accepting that the French preferred Sarkozy to Royal, and by a pretty sizable margin too? Democracy was just fine when people approved of Chavez or elected Michelle Bachelet, so maybe this is the time to accept the result and see what comes next.

May the French people receive his proposals with the same enthusiastic approval they gave the CPE.

Don't worry; we probably will.

Third consecutive right-wing President elected, and this one a lot worse than Chirac. At least Chirac didn't go around saying that France should not be sorry for what it did during the colonial era, and should instead be proud (as Sarkozy said again last night).

Hehe, considering that Sarko's probably the archetype of the modern Gaullist...


You're kidding, right? Sarkozy is the antithesis of a Gaullist. He's hinted at it more than once himself. Chirac was a Gaullist, and Sarkozy has been very careful to portray himself as different from Chirac.

(Unless... What's your definition of a "modern Gaullist"?)

By the way, interesting (and short) BBC article: "Washington relief at Sarkozy win" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6631083.stm).

Sarkozy's message to the US last night was also rather interesting. He said (if I recall correctly) that the US could consider France as a friend and be assured of our support when needed, but that friendship also means we can agree to disagree sometimes. And he said that the US, as a "great nation", should lead the way in terms of tackling environmental issues, and should therefore start doing something about it.

What's this guys stance on the EU?

Ah, the BBC has part of Sarkozy's speech, translated into English.


I am going to restore the status of work, authority, standards, respect, merit. I am going to give the place of honour back to the nation and national identity. I am going to give back to the French people pride in France...


He's been throwing the word "authority" around a lot as one of his most cherished values, without ever explaining exactly what he means by that. And the media have never asked him...

He spoke mainly on international issues, though:


I want to issue an appeal to our European partners, to whom our destiny is profoundly linked, to tell them that my whole life I have been a European, that I believe deeply, that I believe sincerely in European construction, and that tonight France is back in Europe. But I entreat our European partners to hear the voice of the people who want to be protected.

I entreat our European partners not to remain deaf to the anger of people who perceive the European Union not as a source of protection but as the Trojan horse of all the threats that come with the changes in the world.


He's left out the fact that he intends to block Turkey's entry into Europe, however. (While Royal, by contrast, followed Chirac's line, saying the French people would decide by referendum. Sarkozy will, therefore, break Chirac's promise.)


I want to issue an appeal to our American friends, to tell them that they can count on our friendship, which has been forged in the tragedies of history which we have faced together.

I want to tell them that France will always be by their side when they need it, but I also want to tell them that friendship means accepting that your friends may think differently and that a great nation such as the United States has a duty not to put obstacles in the way of the fight against global warming, but on the contrary to take the lead in this fight, because what is at stake is the fate of humanity as a whole. France will make this battle its primary battle.



I want to issue a call to everyone in the world who believes in the values of tolerance, freedom, democracy, humanism, to all those who are persecuted by tyranny, by dictatorships. I want to tell all of the children throughout the world, all of the ill-treated women throughout the world - I want to tell them that it will be France's pride and its duty to be at their side.

France will be at the side of the Libyan nurses [Bulgarian nurses imprisoned in Libya], imprisoned for eight years. France will not abandon Ingrid Betancourt [held by Farc rebels in Colombia]. France will not abandon the women condemned to wear the burqa. France will not abandon the women who do not have freedom. France will be on the side of the oppressed of the world. This is France's message, it is France's identity, it is France's history.


The full BBC article is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6631125.stm).

Not surprisingly, the pro-Sarkozy BBC has left out the part where Sarkozy said that to "repent" for France's past actions (colonisation) meant "self-loathing", and that we should stop "repenting" and start being proud. He said again that France had "always" been a force for good in the world, that France has never done anything wrong, etc, etc...

Usual simplistic ultra-conservative nationalist rhetoric. As I listened to him, he reminded me of the ultra-conservative, borderline racist John Howard (PM of Australia), who keeps saying Australians should forget about the massacres, dispossession, theft, degradation, humiliation and kidnapping of children that was inficted on Aboriginals for two hundred years, and should instead feel only "pride".

Hehe, considering that Sarko's probably the archetype of the modern Gaullist...

But seriously, what is so hard about accepting that the French preferred Sarkozy to Royal, and by a pretty sizable margin too? Democracy was just fine when people approved of Chavez or elected Michelle Bachelet, so maybe this is the time to accept the result and see what comes next.
I doubt anybody doesn't accept the result - I don't see anyone calling for a rerun or recount, and I don't call winning with 53% a sizeable margin, either.

What's this guys stance on the EU?

He has promised that there will be a "mini Treaty" to replace the failed Constitution, and that this Treaty will be adopted by Parliament, not submitted to the French people by referendum.

In other words, "Democracy didn't give us the result we wanted, so to hell with democracy!".

Nor has he explained how he intends to get the other 26 EU members to agree to his "mini Treaty"...

Looking through this thread - is it national right wing vitriol day or something? There's plenty of people who supported Sarkozy here, and even if I disageed with them, had good reasons for doing so, and importantly, got their facts straight before doing so. I mean, how can anyone even consider that France is 'fed up with left-wing governments' considering that Sarkozy's party has had majority governments in France for years. He was even in the last government. But then, I suppose that would mean that people don't have an excuse for an "evil French commies!" bash.

Are you kidding? I'd support Satan if it meant a socialist doesn't win.
This is exactly what I'm talking about...

Looking through this thread - is it national right wing vitriol day or something? There's plenty of people who supported Sarkozy here, and even if I disageed with them, had good reasons for doing so, and importantly, got their facts straight before doing so. I mean, how can anyone even consider that France is 'fed up with left-wing governments' considering that Sarkozy's party has had majority governments in France for years. He was even in the last government. But then, I suppose that would mean that people don't have an excuse for an "evil French commies!" bash.


Indeed. Sarkozy has been in government for 5 years now. He's preceded by ten years of right-wing presidency. France has been right-wing for a very long time.

So when does he get given control of the white flags?

I made this crappy joke to hide my shame at knowing so little about the politics of a major European country. :(

Hehe, considering that Sarko's probably the archetype of the modern Gaullist...

But seriously, what is so hard about accepting that the French preferred Sarkozy to Royal, and by a pretty sizable margin too? Democracy was just fine when people approved of Chavez or elected Michelle Bachelet, so maybe this is the time to accept the result and see what comes next.

Oh, I agree with you. I just don't like the result, that's all, and I'm sure everyone else is expressing their opinions about the result as well, not declaring that this election was faulty in some way...same reaction we had to Bush's reelection, basically.

Look, all the candidates were bloody French! I mean, wot did we all expect!:rolleyes:

Look, all the candidates were bloody French! I mean, wot did we all expect!:rolleyes:
A Frenchman got elected. Good lord.

Sarkozy is just a better sounding name, really.

Well no one can beat Jacques Chirac. There is something oddly compelling about having a rhyming name.

Not surprisingly, the pro-Sarkozy BBC has left out the part where Sarkozy said that to "repent" for France's past actions (colonisation) meant "self-loathing", and that we should stop "repenting" and start being proud. He said again that France had "always" been a force for good in the world, that France has never done anything wrong, etc, etc...

Does this mean Germany can stop 'repenting' now? *looks for some lebensraum*. Sorry Ariddia.

Usual simplistic ultra-conservative nationalist rhetoric. As I listened to him, he reminded me of the ultra-conservative, borderline racist John Howard (PM of Australia), who keeps saying Australians should forget about the massacres, dispossession, theft, degradation, humiliation and kidnapping of children that was inficted on Aboriginals for two hundred years, and should instead feel only "pride".

Well Howard isn't so much an ultra-conservative (though he has twisted the centre-right party he is charge of further to the right and increased the 'christian' nature of it with a few of his frontbench members). He is an intelligent rightie, e.g: whilst he would be a socially conservative economic liberal person he has decided to suddenly flip on his opinion on emissions from power stations.

He did follow the general theme of One Nation (now that was a racist, ultra conservative party) after One Nation became defunct

Look, all the candidates were bloody French! I mean, wot did we all expect!

Yes, because as we all know, all Americans are exactly the same, right? :rolleyes:



[Snip, since it's been fixed]

I think you said that, not me. ;)

part of me hopes this too, but on the other hand i really hope nothing Bushlike will happen. i wonder what the impact on Europe will be though, and especialy on my country (because we're next to france and also in the EU i guess there will be at least some influence, i also fear that the conservatives will gain power next federal election, although i think that the extreme right will at least fracture a little bit)

Aren't you the home for the E.U apparatus? That must suck for many of the E.U skeptics slagging your country.

Just this one: Silvio Berlusconi hoped that Sarkozy would win. That says all.

Bleah.:p
Anyway, Royal lost mostly because of faults of her own, like not taking a clear stance about those who voted for Bayrou at the first turn. She should have declared very clearly "I look for an alliance with Bayrou" or "I do not wish to steer centre". She kept her position about the centre too hazy, while Sarkozy - expecially in the TV debate - was clearer.

Too bad for France, Sarkozy likes too much to play the though guy role - this will lead to problems. On the positive side, he said that he's going to take France back to European issue - Europe needs France. I don't know how Sarkozy will work for Europe, but stating that France will take a significant role in the unification process is a good thing, I think. Well, we'll see.

I think you said that, not me. ;)

Sorry about that.

On the positive side, he said that he's going to take France back to European issue - Europe needs France. I don't know how Sarkozy will work for Europe, but stating that France will take a significant role in the unification process is a good thing, I think. Well, we'll see.

My problem is that he will try to have it dominated by France and will try to set that in his 'treaties'.

My problem is that he will try to have it dominated by France and will try to set that in his 'treaties'.

Maybe he will try, but he won't be able to do so. How can you dominate a group that includes also Germany, Italy, Great Britain and Spain? Look at the economical figures for these countries in the CIA world factbook - they're pretty influential as well.

Also, most of the european theatre policies of France in the last 30 years are in favour of a Franco-German sort-of-unification. Most businessmen have benefitted from that. So, I guess that there's a lot of political pressure for a cooperative approach rather than a domination approach.

EU unification, yay!

Ps.Anyway, still I don't like Sarko. Oh well, I was pissed off when Jospin didn't make to the second turn, but Chirac turned out not all that horrible, didn't he? I guess that the french right-wing isn't so sucky as the italian one (yes, I hate Berlusconi).

Maybe he will try, but he won't be able to do so. How can you dominate a group that includes also Germany, Italy, Great Britain and Spain? Look at the economical figures for these countries in the CIA world factbook - they're pretty influential as well.

GB/UK: France never wanted U.K in the E.U and they would probably go with Germany and France as the be all and end all of decision making.

Germany: Would probably be a joint part of any control of the E.U.

Italy: Their economy seems to be in a slump and they are not that influential internationally (or at least it seems that way to me)

Spain: Damn, I don't know that much.

I am more worried about what Sarko's 'treaties' will mean for the non E.U 3 (Germany, France & U.K), especially when countries in eastern europe get economies close to Germany and France/U.K.

The good news is that so many french people hate him could combine with growing political militancy within the country and lead to a bit of a ruck, and everyone loves a good ruck.

Isn't that what Soccer is used for in europe?

bloody hell, they always go for the right wing bastard, meh royal should have won

here in Ireland fine gael are likely to get in to which I can only say smeg

I prefer Smee-Heee

So now it's up to Sarkozy to deliver. He needs to pull a mini-Thatcher or something and make just that rupture happen that he talked about.

Thatcher is a prat.

And that is, after all, the most important criterion in any election....

Second only to political alignment. Sad.

Hehe, considering that Sarko's probably the archetype of the modern Gaullist...

But seriously, what is so hard about accepting that the French preferred Sarkozy to Royal, and by a pretty sizable margin too? Democracy was just fine when people approved of Chavez or elected Michelle Bachelet, so maybe this is the time to accept the result and see what comes next.

Yeah! Fucking commie-fascists.

Not surprisingly, the pro-Sarkozy BBC has left out the part where Sarkozy said that to "repent" for France's past actions (colonisation) meant "self-loathing", and that we should stop "repenting" and start being proud. He said again that France had "always" been a force for good in the world, that France has never done anything wrong, etc, etc...

Usual simplistic ultra-conservative nationalist rhetoric. As I listened to him, he reminded me of the ultra-conservative, borderline racist John Howard (PM of Australia), who keeps saying Australians should forget about the massacres, dispossession, theft, degradation, humiliation and kidnapping of children that was inficted on Aboriginals for two hundred years, and should instead feel only "pride".

I didn't do any of that shit, I don't want my elected politician, who represents me, apologising for anything. I don't expect the French to do the same.

Does this mean Germany can stop 'repenting' now? *looks for some lebensraum*. Sorry Ariddia.

They should have 20 years ago. The bulk of the people who lived in that era, let alone were actually involved, are dead.

This is exactly what I'm talking about...

People talk about socialism like it's a normal, moderate system. Bullshit! It's step away from communism! Look up Marx and Lenin!

GB/UK: France never wanted U.K in the E.U and they would probably go with Germany and France as the be all and end all of decision making.

Germany: Would probably be a joint part of any control of the E.U.

Italy: Their economy seems to be in a slump and they are not that influential internationally (or at least it seems that way to me)

Spain: Damn, I don't know that much.



www.cia.gov

Rank Country GDP (purchasing power parity) Date of Information
1 World $ 65,000,000,000,000 2006 est.
2 United States $ 12,980,000,000,000 2006 est.
3 European Union $ 12,820,000,000,000 2006 est.
4 China $ 10,000,000,000,000 2006 est.
5 Japan $ 4,220,000,000,000 2006 est.
6 India $ 4,042,000,000,000 2006 est.
7 Germany $ 2,585,000,000,000 2006 est.
8 United Kingdom $ 1,903,000,000,000 2006 est.
9 France $ 1,871,000,000,000 2006 est.
10 Italy $ 1,727,000,000,000 2006 est.
11 Russia $ 1,723,000,000,000 2006 est.
12 Brazil $ 1,616,000,000,000 2006 est.
13 Korea, South $ 1,180,000,000,000 2006 est.
14 Canada $ 1,165,000,000,000 2006 est.
15 Mexico $ 1,134,000,000,000 2006 est.
16 Spain $ 1,070,000,000,000 2006 est.

Italy has a greater gdp that Russia, Brazil or Canada, while having only about 60 M inhabitants. The italian gdp is rising very slowly and slower than most EU countries, but that's another story. Influence is more about what you have than what you are likely to have in the future. Spain, while a small country, is in the top 20.

Rank Country Exports Date of Information
1 World $ 12,440,000,000,000 2004 est.
2 European Union $ 1,330,000,000,000 2005
3 Germany $ 1,133,000,000,000 2006 est.
4 United States $ 1,024,000,000,000 2006 est.
5 China $ 974,000,000,000 2006 est.
6 Hong Kong $ 611,600,000,000 2006 est.
7 Japan $ 590,300,000,000 2006 est.
8 France $ 490,000,000,000 2006 est.
9 United Kingdom $ 468,800,000,000 2006 est.
10 Italy $ 450,100,000,000 2006 est.
11 Netherlands $ 413,800,000,000 2006 est.
12 Canada $ 405,000,000,000 2006 est.
13 Belgium $ 335,300,000,000 2006 est.
14 Korea, South $ 326,000,000,000 2006 est.
15 Russia $ 317,600,000,000 2006 est.
16 Singapore $ 283,600,000,000 2006 est.
17 Mexico $ 248,800,000,000 2006 est.
18 Spain $ 222,100,000,000 2006 est.

That is, France, UK and Italy have about the same export capability. And Spain beats Saudi Arabia, without needing to export crude oil.

Also, leading the UNIFIL 2 mission in Lebanon is an international acknowledgement for Italy. And it has been given to Italy with a large consensus.

Spain is rising since the '80s (that is, after the dictatorship of Franco has been replaced by a democratic government), and the rise is becoming every year more significative. Aznar has been good for the economy (while being a neofascist jerk when it came to other issues), and Zapatero will take Spain into the G-club.

No way for any of the great EU countries to dominate the others. No way differencies in political wingedness (current: Spain-left; Italy, UK centre-left; Germany centre; France right) will stop the EU unification, there is too much to be gained in doing it, economically and politically.

They should have 20 years ago. The bulk of the people who lived in that era, let alone were actually involved, are dead.

There is a difference between wanting to stop repenting (though you could argue that it is the state of Germany that should repent) and being proud of what you did in the past.

Yeah! Fucking commie-fascists.

Errr...... What?

People talk about socialism like it's a normal, moderate system. Bullshit! It's step away from communism! Look up Marx and Lenin!

Actually Communism is considered a subgroup of Socialism.

I think Burmecia was trying to say that some people do not get their fact straight when talking about politics in other countries.

That and some people are rather irrational when it comes to not wanting the 'other person' voted in.

There is a difference between wanting to stop repenting (though you could argue that it is the state of Germany that should repent) and being proud of what you did in the past.

1) I don't think he meant to be proud of what they did, but to be proud of being French.

2) Germany has nothing to apologise for any more. Nations are not static, they are dynamic. Modern Germany should not be repentant for WWII any more than Italy should be repentant for the annihilation of Carthage.

Errr...... What?

Communism and fascism are NOT mutually exclusive; communism is a socio-economic system and fascism is a socio-political system.

Actually Communism is considered a subgroup of Socialism

Well, then someone fucked up. Socialism is the step before communism; the Soviet Union was socialist.

*Snip all information that proves my inadequate knowlege of Europe*

I see where I thought Italy's economy was slumping - Public debt: 107.8% of GDP (2006 est.)

What a simplistic, idiotic mindset.

IIRC, The Potato Factory used to be called Kievan Prussia or something like that. If you do a post search on that nation, you'll see him posting on numerous occasion how his autism precludes him from functioning like a regular person. When you take that self-professed medical history into account, you can sort of see how he can hold the opinions that he does, and the futility in arguing with him over them.

Communism and fascism are NOT mutually exclusive; communism is a socio-economic system and fascism is a socio-political system.

Fascism is actually a economic and political system with the only society parts the devotion to the head of state. It was corporativism for the elite with the dictator held as the personification of the state (and thus deserving of the adoration that was required by the general public for the state).

Marxist-Lenninist had the complete social, economic and political package (though it wasn't very good at stopping the control stalin developed).

Fascism is actually a economic and political system with the only society parts the devotion to the head of state. It was corporativism for the elite with the dictator held as the personification of the state (and thus deserving of the adoration that was required by the general public for the state).

Marxist-Lenninist had the complete social, economic and political package (though it wasn't very good at stopping the control stalin developed).

Fascism is hardly economic. The core of fascism is the absolute rule of the party/dictator over the state, and the devotion of the people to the state and ruler. With that in mind you can apply just about any economic system.

Thatcher is a prat.
See, the weird thing is that I actually agree with you. Thatcher is a prat, and Sarkozy probably is too.

But I've come to the sad conclusion that only one type of person can achieve something as monumental in politics as wipe away decades of statism and build the foundation for better government. And that type of person is a prat.

I see where I thought Italy's economy was slumping - Public debt: 107.8% of GDP (2006 est.)

Yes, that's one of the heavier burdens Italy has on its shoulders, along with large penetration of organised criminality into the society and illegal (and tax-eluding) economy.
I hope that Prodi will use the excess of taxation income Italy has this year to begin lessening the debt.

See, the weird thing is that I actually agree with you. Thatcher is a prat, and Sarkozy probably is too.

But I've come to the sad conclusion that only one type of person can achieve something as monumental in politics as wipe away decades of statism and build the foundation for better government. And that type of person is a prat.

No offence, but it's easy for you to say that when you're not living here, and the consequences won't affect you.

Fascism is hardly economic. The core of fascism is the absolute rule of the party/dictator over the state, and the devotion of the people to the state and ruler. With that in mind you can apply just about any economic system.

No. Actually, fascism is just an authoritarian version of capitalism, filled with nationalism and populism. The main supporters of Mussolini since the beginning were the great industries of Italy (FIAT, Pirelli, Montecatini, Caproni...) and the land owners.

By your definition, Stalin and Louis XIV were fascists. While we could find analogies, stretching the definition that much leads only to confusion and oversimplification.

Well, then someone fucked up. Socialism is the step before communism; the Soviet Union was socialist.

That's why the Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics was led by the Communist Party. They were supposed to be building communism, not to have already reached communism.

No offence, but it's easy for you to say that when you're not living here, and the consequences won't affect you.
I'll be you a dollar that they won't affect you either. You've just come through a very tough and very personal election campaign, in which Sarkozy was pretty much portrayed as the devil.

I'm not saying that a whole lot of people who aren't affected won't get involved anyways (ie street protests by students with middle class parents pretending it's 1968 again), but I am saying that the world isn't going to end because someone cuts taxes (or unemployment benefits for that matter).

The thing is, Germany just went through the very same thing. Hartz IV was demonstrated against like it was the end of mankind. Those bastards in the east even dared call their marches "Montagsdemo", just like they called them when they brought down the GDR, as if there was any sort of moral equivalence.

Schröder ended up leaving government, his party still hasn't fixed itself. It was a hard few months as far as politics was concerned.

But look at what's happening today. Look at what happened after Reagan and Thatcher were done. Or Chile before Pinochet and today. Or even compare Russia today to Russia when Yeltsin took over. These reforms are often painful, and it takes a person of character and conviction to make them happen (provided, I suppose, one isn't a bloodthirsty, mass-murdering dictator), but so far the evidence points pretty squarely at them being on balance a good thing.

No. Actually, fascism is just an authoritarian version of capitalism, filled with nationalism and populism. The main supporters of Mussolini since the beginning were the great industries of Italy (FIAT, Pirelli, Montecatini, Caproni...) and the land owners.
But he's actually right on a polisci level. Fascism doesn't specify a clear economic policy, it's neither free market right nor state control left.

Mussolini had the whole corporatism thing lined up because, as you said, he had backers from big interest groups like this, but also because at the time that was pretty much what people thought the ideal system might look like. Fascism's economic policy is a "do what works" sort of thing.

Hell, Mussolini personally even ended up wanting to build a sort of socialist paradise in the Salo Republic for a few days, because he suddenly remembered his early days as a communist.

My personal idea of modern fascism is something like Putin's Russia (sorta free market, but with the government taking all the key positions to use the economy as a tool of politics) or maybe even the PRC.

See, the weird thing is that I actually agree with you. Thatcher is a prat, and Sarkozy probably is too.

But I've come to the sad conclusion that only one type of person can achieve something as monumental in politics as wipe away decades of statism and build the foundation for better government. And that type of person is a prat.

Very true, very true. There are a few problems with France right now, and while I despise his politics and his vague "authority" statements...Sarkozy might be better than Royal for now after all.

But then it's also possible Royal could have changed things for the better. At the very least I want that woman to run in the next Presidential election, presuming she won't suffer from the kind of "You lost so you're pathetic" stance that American politicians so often do.

As for the Potato...if he does have autism, then I must ask forgiveness for everything I've ever said to him...my little brother is mildly autistic, and while he does not do anything to the severity Potato does, I can definitely see why Potato would act the way he does, and can emphasize.

I see the French have done two things right. They rejected the Socialist candidate, with her plans for expanding the size of the government, and they voted on a weekend.

We should seriously consider voting on Sundays, rather than Tuesdays. Why? Almost every working person has to make some outrageous arrangements to take time away from work and vote. The choice between work and voting would be so much easier if the voting day didn't conflict with a workday.

But he's actually right on a polisci level. Fascism doesn't specify a clear economic policy, it's neither free market right nor state control left.

Ehm... right isn't necessarily free market. Look at the USA, they're about the most protectionistic state of the G-8.

[QUOTE]
Fascism's economic policy is a "do what works" sort of thing.
Do what works to secure support, you mean.


Hell, Mussolini personally even ended up wanting to build a sort of socialist paradise in the Salo Republic for a few days, because he suddenly remembered his early days as a communist.
1.He was a socialist, not a communist.
2.Salò republic a socialist paradise? The accounts of my grandparents are quite different, you know.


My personal idea of modern fascism is something like Putin's Russia (sorta free market, but with the government taking all the key positions to use the economy as a tool of politics) or maybe even the PRC.
Mmh... yeah, might be.

People talk about socialism like it's a normal, moderate system. Bullshit! It's step away from communism! Look up Marx and Lenin!

Most of the supporters of socialism and communism on this forum will be quick to point out that they believe that there haven't been any "true" socialist or "true" communists or communist nations, and that the former USSR and any other "Communist" or "Socialist" nation is just a fake.

Pointing out that their position is bullshit just incites flames.

I see the French have done two things right. They rejected the Socialist candidate, with her plans for expanding the size of the government, and they voted on a weekend.

We should seriously consider voting on Sundays, rather than Tuesdays. Why? Almost every working person has to make some outrageous arrangements to take time away from work and vote. The choice between work and voting would be so much easier if the voting day didn't conflict with a workday.
Well, here in the UK Sunday usually is a workday for most people, so I don't think that would be to much of an advantage, but I can't say the same for the US. What they do in Italy is run the election over two days, which I think would give more people an opportunity to work and vote - perhaps over a weekday and a weekend.

Indeed. Sarkozy has been in government for 5 years now. He's preceded by ten years of right-wing presidency. France has been right-wing for a very long time.

Silly how people think that France is some bastion of leftist politics, isn't it? They often forget that 5 out of 6 of the 5th Republic's elected Presidents have been right wing.

Anyway, I'm seeing some very funny statements from people in this thread who know nothing about France and seem rather confused in general. This thread would be a total failure if it weren't for people like Neu Leonstein and Arridia punctuating the flood of meaningless garble with intelligent posts.

People talk about socialism like it's a normal, moderate system. Bullshit! It's step away from communism! Look up Marx and Lenin!
According to Marx and Lenin capitalism was one step away from socialism. Does that mean that capital isn't 'normal' - however you define that - either?

And Aridd, I've got something else from the "pro-Sarkozy" BBC to rile you up. But don't get too bothered, it's the same people who endorced the BNP at the last UK elections. ;)
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=6266&edition=1&ttl=20070507152338&#paginator

I said from Day One that Sarkozy is the least bad candidate.I still think the least bad one is Bayru (sp?)

Yes, when immigration and law and order have gone out of control, legalise looting and rioting! :rolleyes:IFAIK..
Zarko is the first "son-of Immigrants" president.. Jewish-Hungarian Parents.

IFAIK..
Zarko is the first "son-of Immigrants" president.. Jewish-Hungarian Parents.

I guess you believe the World Jewish Conspiracy is in action in France... :rolleyes:

Are you kidding? I'd support Satan if it meant a socialist doesn't win.then I guess you were very happy when Chirac was elected..

BTW you are invited to the "we kicked Blair on the ass" UK throw away party. :D ;) :D

And Aridd, I've got something else from the "pro-Sarkozy" BBC to rile you up. But don't get too bothered, it's the same people who endorced the BNP at the last UK elections. ;)
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=6266&edition=1&ttl=20070507152338&#paginator

The one-sided nature and the lack of intelligence in most of those comments frighten me.

I guess you believe the World Jewish Conspiracy is in action in France... :rolleyes:If you look at my post history.. You will figure I supported Zarko over Segolene on the Tiebreaker round. (but still I liked neither)
You will also notice that.. I did prefer to have Joe Lieberman as a vice President.. instead of Dick Cheney..

I still think the least bad one is Bayru (sp?)

It would've been so much better if he got through the first round instead of Royal. Then he would probably have been elected since he would get the Royal votes and the rest of the left votes.

It would've been so much better if he got through the first round instead of Royal. Then he would probably have been elected since he would get the Royal votes and the rest of the left votes.You are reading my mind..
Segolene never had a shot.. only Bayrou could defeat Zarko.. and some of her lieutenants told her.. but her sheer ambition to make history.. was the overriding factor.

It would've been so much better if he got through the first round instead of Royal. Then he would probably have been elected since he would get the Royal votes and the rest of the left votes.

I'm willing there would have been some abstention from parts of the left, like the LCR and the PCF. Not that either of these parties have much support, but every percentage counts. I've been watching the news a bit for the last few weeks and when it was suggested that Royale ally with Bayrou people on both sides went nuts.

Although I'm not a fan of Sarkozy I consider this election to be a victory because Le Pen didn't make it into the second round. With any luck his political career is finished and the FN will shrivel up and die.

IFAIK..
Zarko is the first "son-of Immigrants" president.. Jewish-Hungarian Parents.

So? I thought that the latest 'immagrants that are evil' are the Turkish.

I see the French have done two things right. They rejected the Socialist candidate, with her plans for expanding the size of the government, and they voted on a weekend.

Did she actually support enlargenment?

We should seriously consider voting on Sundays, rather than Tuesdays. Why? Almost every working person has to make some outrageous arrangements to take time away from work and vote. The choice between work and voting would be so much easier if the voting day didn't conflict with a workday.

You should consider compulsory voting with the day(s) that is used for voting being non-full work shifts (or if it is across multiple days only having up to half the period having work shifts).

Most of the supporters of socialism and communism on this forum will be quick to point out that they believe that there haven't been any "true" socialist or "true" communists or communist nations, and that the former USSR and any other "Communist" or "Socialist" nation is just a fake.

Pointing out that their position is bullshit just incites flames.

Welfare states are part of many socialist ways.

I think that you are confusing communist utopias being achieved with what really happened.

Russia did have many elements of communism initially but their shortage of resources (raw, manufactured and intellectual) and culture of having a powerful single figure or small group, along with opportunists (Stalin) made the USSR what it was.

Well, here in the UK Sunday usually is a workday for most people, so I don't think that would be to much of an advantage, but I can't say the same for the US. What they do in Italy is run the election over two days, which I think would give more people an opportunity to work and vote - perhaps over a weekday and a weekend.

Actually, our turnout figures haven't changed much since the two-days election have been reintroduced by the Berlusconi cabinet (2002 iirc). I guess that keeping the polling station open 7-22 on sunday alone was ok, we had turnouts in the range of 75% to 80%.

So? I thought that the latest 'immagrants that are evil' are the Turkish.Immigrants are NOT evil.
Islam, Judaism , Christianity, Buddhism are NOT evil.
Turkistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea.. are NOT evil. (I just made it up)

you people need to stop believing everything FOX (and the others) say.

What a disaster :(

But we'll not give up the struggle. As the century old song says, "tout ça n'empêche pas, Nicolas, que la Commune n'est pas morte !" ("all that doesn't change, Nicolas, that the Commune is not dead !"). We lost a battle, but not the war, and will continue to struggle to defend our ideals of freedom, justice, solidarity and defense of human rights, and we shall never stop to do so.

You are reading my mind..
Segolene never had a shot.. only Bayrou could defeat Zarko.. and some of her lieutenants told her.. but her sheer ambition to make history.. was the overriding factor.

It's a bit ironic how democracy can work sometimes. Even though she has greater support than Bayrou, her chances of winning were smaller than they would've been for him.

I'm willing there would have been some abstention from parts of the left, like the LCR and the PCF. Not that either of these parties have much support, but every percentage counts. I've been watching the news a bit for the last few weeks and when it was suggested that Royale ally with Bayrou people on both sides went nuts.

Although I'm not a fan of Sarkozy I consider this election to be a victory because Le Pen didn't make it into the second round. With any luck his political career is finished and the FN will shrivel up and die.

The same argument can be applied for Sarkozy. Some of the far right voters may have stayed home instead of voting for him. But I don't think enough voters would've stayed home in order for the outcome to change. People will always prefer the least bad alternative.

I too detest Le Pen and parties like FN don't tend to live very long. They tend to implode after a while. Unfortunately the lack of intelligence, the racism and the fear of other cultures that make parties like that possible will never die.

I too detest Le Pen and parties like FN don't tend to live very long. They tend to implode after a while. Unfortunately the lack of intelligence, the racism and the fear of other cultures that make parties like that possible will never die.

Well, Le Pen is strong since like 20 years... and if he got a lower score this time, it's only because Sarkozy took so many of his ideas and values that many people voted for Sarkozy instead... saddly, the big winner of those elections are Le Pen's ideas :(

Well, Le Pen is strong since like 20 years... and if he got a lower score this time, it's only because Sarkozy took so many of his ideas and values that many people voted for Sarkozy instead... saddly, the big winner of those elections are Le Pen's ideas :(

True, sadly those kind of ideas never seem to go away. But Le Pen is to old and so is probably his voting base. I don't see how his party will manage to achieve the same results as they did last time if the voting turnout is as high as it was now.

What a disaster :(

But we'll not give up the struggle. As the century old song says, "tout ça n'empêche pas, Nicolas, que la Commune n'est pas morte !" ("all that doesn't change, Nicolas, that the Commune is not dead !"). We lost a battle, but not the war, and will continue to struggle to defend our ideals of freedom, justice, solidarity and defense of human rights, and we shall never stop to do so.

So, what makes it a disaster?

Will a 40-hour work week ruin your life?

Well, Le Pen is strong since like 20 years... and if he got a lower score this time, it's only because Sarkozy took so many of his ideas and values that many people voted for Sarkozy instead... saddly, the big winner of those elections are Le Pen's ideas :(LePen may have lots of ideas..
But he gets 99% of his votes on ONE idea "Anti-Immigration Nationalism"

Immigrants are NOT evil.
Islam, Judaism , Christianity, Buddhism are NOT evil.
Turkistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea.. are NOT evil. (I just made it up)

you need to stop believing everything FOX (and the others) say.

What?

Maybe I should clarify myself: I meant that being of Hunagrian (jew or not) descent would not be nearly as damaging when trying to get the protectionist right vote than if he was Turkish (whether they would be of Turk or Kurd ethnicity).

I dislike religion but I would not call them evil ('evil' itself is a rather outdated term).

I support Turkey (I think you meant Turkey and not Turkmenistan?) joining the E.U.

I'm glad the Front National guy didn't even get into the 2nd round.

What?

Maybe I should clarify myself: I meant that ...My mistake.
I jumped the gun.

True, sadly those kind of ideas never seem to go away. But Le Pen is to old and so is probably his voting base. I don't see how his party will manage to achieve the same results as they did last time if the voting turnout is as high as it was now.

They don't need to. Sarkozy has adopted some of his ideas, and drawn Le Pen's voters over to him.

Which means that Le Pen's ideas (to some degree) will now be represented in government, even if his party is not.

This thread would be a total failure if it weren't for people like Neu Leonstein and Arridia punctuating the flood of meaningless garble with intelligent posts.

You have something on your nose.

They don't need to. Sarkozy has adopted some of his ideas, and drawn Le Pen's voters over to him.

Which means that Le Pen's ideas (to some degree) will now be represented in government, even if his party is not.

Apparently, Sarkozy also drew a fair number of Bayrou voters.

So, what makes it a disaster?

Will a 40-hour work week ruin your life?

I thought he wanted to reduce the taxes on ovetime pay, not increase the work week to 40 hours.

I support Turkey (I think you meant Turkey and not Turkmenistan?) joining the E.U.


So do I.

Chirac promised that the French people would be given the opportunity to decide on that issue. Ségolène promised the same. Sarkozy, by contrast, said he would block Turkey's entry, and that would be that.

Now that Sarkozy is in power, all those negotiations on Turkey's entry are going to be for nothing. Because my fellow citizens have elected a populist. :(

My mistake.
I jumped the gun.

At least you didn't jump the shark.

So, what makes it a disaster?

Will a 40-hour work week ruin your life?

I'm already working 40 hours per week, even a bit more usually.

What will be a disaster is the destruction of the working code (protection of workers' rights on the workplace), the destruction of the three branches of the Social Security (healthcare, unemployment, retirement), the criminalization of unions and strikes, the increased aggressivness of police, the harsh anti-immigration policies (which already started, this year, for the first time since 1944, policemen went to arrest children and their parents at schools' exit, and even beaten teachers who tried to protect the kids), the destruction of public school system, the destruction of the public services, and so on.

Sarkozy has a very clear program: to destroy everything that was built at the Liberation, in 1944, in order to protect workers from the harsh capitalism that was the norm before World War II and leaded to the rise of fascism all around Europe. That's his program.

LePen may have lots of ideas..
But he gets 99% of his votes on ONE idea "Anti-Immigration Nationalism"

That's one of them, the second one which was very important was a very brutal, violent and repressive answer to all kind of "criminality". And in that too, Sarkozy is using Le Pen's program. A few weeks ago, a 8-years old and a 11-years old boy had their DNA and fingerprint added for life to the police record (that was initial created for heavy crimes like rapes and child abuse) because they tried to stole a toy from a supermarket ! And they'll, forever, be banned from entering many jobs, for one stupidity they did during their childhood ! That's the world of Sarkozy.

But Royal had the power of bewbies!

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20070507/capt.xfm10305071111.france_socialist_upheaval_xfm103.jpg

She is pretty hot. Plus being a socialist with 4 kids you know shes' got to be easy.

Maybe I should clarify myself: I meant that being of Hunagrian (jew or not) descent would not be nearly as damaging when trying to get the protectionist right vote than if he was Turkish (whether they would be of Turk or Kurd ethnicity).

Yeah, and being from a family who collaborated with Hitler but then fled when the Red Army arrived is a positive point, to get the far right vote... saddly. Sure, Nicolas Sarkozy himself wasn't born and I don't blame him for what his family did. But that didn't harm him to gather FN votes, quite the opposite.

Now that Sarkozy is in power, all those negotiations on Turkey's entry are going to be for nothing. Because my fellow citizens have elected a populist. :(

Which probably would push Turkey to a more radical government (that along with the millitary being impotent).

Turkey has been trying to get in for 40 odd years now?

At least you didn't jump the shark.no that was the Redwings.. :D

BTW Turkistan had an OcceanEgg
*hint look at the the hidden message on post #145*

I thought he wanted to reduce the taxes on ovetime pay, not increase the work week to 40 hours.

He wants to completly suppress the taxes on overtime work, which is completly insane when 10% of the population is unemployed...

For the work week, he always opposed the 35 hours week made by the 1997-2002 governement, so he'll probably move back to 39 hours, as it was before. But that won't affect me, since in small companies, the 35 hours never became true (they were granted a delay to adjust, and it should have applied in 2003, but the right-wing gov elected in 2002 just cancelled it).

That's one of them, the second one which was very important was a very brutal, violent and repressive answer to all kind of "criminality". And in that too, Sarkozy is using Le Pen's program. A few weeks ago, a 8-years old and a 11-years old boy had their DNA and fingerprint added for life to the police record (that was initial created for heavy crimes like rapes and child abuse) because they tried to stole a toy from a supermarket ! And they'll, forever, be banned from entering many jobs, for one stupidity they did during their childhood ! That's the world of Sarkozy.

Yup, what a lovely world we're going to liv in for the next five years. :(

Well, Sarkozy's been saying for a long while that he wants to "identify future criminals" right from pre-primary school (i.e., between the ages of 3 & 5). It fits in with his belief that criminal behaviour is due to genetics, I suppose.

God, the guy is a disaster. :(

Yeah, and being from a family who collaborated with Hitler but then fled when the Red Army arrived is a positive point, to get the far right vote... saddly. Sure, Nicolas Sarkozy himself wasn't born and I don't blame him for what his family did. But that didn't harm him to gather FN votes, quite the opposite.

I guess you have a problem with George Soros, the richest opponent of Republicans in the US.

He was 14 when the Nazis entered Budapest. On December 20, 1998, there appeared this exchange between Soros and Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes":

Kroft: "You're a Hungarian Jew ..."
Soros: "Mm-hmm."

Kroft: "... who escaped the Holocaust ..."

Soros: "Mm-hmm."

Kroft: "... by posing as a Christian."

Soros: "Right."

Kroft: "And you watched lots of people get shipped off to the death camps."
Soros: "Right. I was 14 years old. And I would say that that's when my character was made."

Kroft: "In what way?"

Soros: "That one should think ahead. One should understand that--and anticipate events and when, when one is threatened. It was a tremendous threat of evil. I mean, it was a-- a very personal threat of evil."

Kroft: "My understanding is that you went ... went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews."

Soros: "Yes, that's right. Yes."

Kroft: "I mean, that's--that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?"

Soros: "Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't ... you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all."

Kroft: "No feeling of guilt?"

Soros: "No."

Kroft: "For example, that, 'I'm Jewish, and here I am, watching these people go. I could just as easily be these, I should be there.' None of that?"

Soros: "Well, of course, ... I could be on the other side or I could be the one from whom the thing is being taken away. But there was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that was--well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in the markets--that is I weren't there--of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would--would--would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the--whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the--I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

I am not a Frenchman, but if I was one, I would have voted for him.

Which probably would push Turkey to a more radical government

Yup, exactly. Giving Turkey hopes that they can enter the EU was encouraging them to continue democratic reforms, to uphold secularity, to increase civil rights... If France now tells them they have no hope, then they have no reason to continue.

Chirac once put the matter very clearly: Turkey is at a geographical crossroads, and it's much better to have them integrated in Europe than to push them towards Syria, Iran, etc...

But Sarkozy doesn't care about such things. Opposing Turkey's entry in the EU made him popular among mindless nationalists and assorted racists and Islamophobes, so, like the smart little populist that he is, he promised to block Turkey's entry into the EU.

But France doesn't care about such things. Opposing Turkey's entry in the EU made him popular among mindless nationalists and assorted racists and Islamophobes, so, like the smart little populist that he is, he promised to block Turkey's entry into the EU.

Corrected.

no that was the Redwings.. :D

BTW Turkistan had an OcceanEgg
*hint look at the the hidden message on post #145*

Ahh, I see. Huzzah for making stuff up I guess.

That's one of them, the second one which was very important was a very brutal, violent and repressive answer to all kind of "criminality". And in that too, Sarkozy is using Le Pen's program. A few weeks ago, a 8-years old and a 11-years old boy had their DNA and fingerprint added for life to the police record (that was initial created for heavy crimes like rapes and child abuse) because they tried to stole a toy from a supermarket ! And they'll, forever, be banned from entering many jobs, for one stupidity they did during their childhood ! That's the world of Sarkozy.

I would support a fingerprint & D.N.A database for everyone.

That event does seem rather extreme.

Yeah, and being from a family who collaborated with Hitler but then fled when the Red Army arrived is a positive point, to get the far right vote... saddly. Sure, Nicolas Sarkozy himself wasn't born and I don't blame him for what his family did. But that didn't harm him to gather FN votes, quite the opposite.

Well I didn't know that (my lack or knowlege of french politics shows itself again!) but I suppose they (voters) like vichy france. Was his family a forced collabarator or willing?

Corrected.

You can't correct something which was not incorrect.

You can't correct something which was not incorrect.

Looks like the majority of French voted for Sarkozy.

So that means the majority of French don't care, as I corrected you.

Looks like the majority of French voted for Sarkozy.

So that means the majority of French don't care, as I corrected you.

I said that Sarkozy did not care. I was correct in that. So my point stands: you cannot correct something which is not incorrect.

Also, you're oversimplifying. People may have had a great many reasons for voting for him.

Jean-Marie Le Pen National Front (Front national) 3,834,530 10,44%


No one is botherred by Jean-Marie Le Pen getting 1/10th of the votes in the first round of the elections?

I said that Sarkozy did not care. I was correct in that. So my point stands: you cannot correct something which is not incorrect.

Also, you're oversimplifying. People may have had a great many reasons for voting for him.

Their reasons were obviously more important than Turkey. Which means that they cared more about the problems they see Sarkozy addressing, than they did about Turkey.

So they could care less.

Looks like the majority of French voted for Sarkozy.

So that means the majority of French don't care, as I corrected you.

If I was elected tomorrow by the majority of the population and I only had one piece of unpopular policy I could say that the majority elected me to enact that policy.

The majority did not vote to enable someone to exclude Turkey from the E.U.
The majority of voters voted for this guy because of either a single or combination of the following (short list):

A) Like his economic opinions/policies
B) Like his foreign relations opinons/policies
C) Like his social opinions/policies
D) Like him as a person
E) Dislike other candidates
F) Like the party he was from

Chirac was going to allow a referendum on whether the population wanted Turkey to join the E.U which seems much more democratic (as it is a major Inter-country decision).

Jean-Marie Le Pen National Front (Front national) 3,834,530 10,44%

No one is botherred by Jean-Marie Le Pen getting 1/10th of the votes in the first round of the elections?

Yup, but you have to look at it in context. He's lost almost 6 points since last time, so the main reaction was to be very glad that he's "collapsed".

Their reasons were obviously more important than Turkey. Which means that they cared more about the problems they see Sarkozy addressing, than they did about Turkey.

So they could care less.

You mean they couldn't care less. That's a common mistake, but it's rather irritating, and could be avoided if people stopped to think a moment about what they write.

If you say you could care less it means you could; it's plain English. In other words, it would be possible for you to care less than you actually do - meaning, of course, that you do care. What you were trying to say is that they couldn't care less. (Don't they teach basic grammar at school?)

Anyway, as Soleichunn said:

If I was elected tomorrow by the majority of the population and I only had one piece of unpopular policy I could say that the majority elected me to enact that policy.

The majority did not vote to enable someone to exclude Turkey from the E.U.
The majority of voters voted for this guy because of either a single or combination of the following (short list):


Indeed.

What was the voter turnout for the second round. I tries looking it up but only got the first round (85%). It could turn out that he didn't get the majority of potential voters, just the majority that turned up to vote.

Was reading the NYT, which had some comments by French voters for and against the two candidates.

One struck me as odd:

Nabil Mohamedi, 24, an educator in a high school in the town of Auxerre in Burgundy, voted for Ms. Royal in both rounds of the election.

“I had no hesitation for both rounds. I believe more in Ségolène; she’s going to cheer us up and help us find work. Sarko only favors the wealthy.”


Wait just a second. So, you can create jobs just by cheering people up? How is the government going to "help you find work" if the economy isn't supporting the creation of jobs?

ROFLCOPTER

Wait just a second. So, you can create jobs just by cheering people up? How is the government going to "help you find work" if the economy isn't supporting the creation of jobs?

Notice the and in that quote you used. There is an easy way to increase jobs: Create new industries or services.

Notice the and in that quote you used. There is an easy way to increase jobs: Create new industries or services.

So how does the government create new industries?

If such industries were profitable (and thus could employ people) to begin with, someone would already have invested in creating those industries.

And what does making people "happy" have to do with anything?

So how does the government create new industries?

If such industries were profitable (and thus could employ people) to begin with, someone would already have invested in creating those industries.

First of all not everything has to be profitable (to the same extent it shouldn't be excessively wasteful when there is no need).

Increasing public transport (especially cargo) infrastructure would be a good one, creating new tourism areas, devoloping more expansive internet/telecommunication services, making new factories and setting up new energy resource systems (such as making more renewable energy manufacturing facillities) ,increasing research in order to enable new products, techniques, services and so on.

Lastly (talking about the far future here) there is going to be a point where there will be so few people required for working in the economy that there will be massive unemployment.

And what does making people "happy" have to do with anything?

From an economic/production p.o.v: Happiness tends to increase production and makes people want to buy/use more products/services.

Corrected.

Depends what you call "France"...

Jean-Marie Le Pen National Front (Front national) 3,834,530 10,44%


No one is botherred by Jean-Marie Le Pen getting 1/10th of the votes in the first round of the elections?

Since he got 16% of them 5 years ago, no. More bothered by the fact that the one who won, Sarkozy, took massively into Le Pen's ideas, program and speech. That's what is really bothering.

Wait just a second. So, you can create jobs just by cheering people up?

Well, yes, you can. Morale affects a lot how people act, people who are depressed or very gloomy will work less efficiently, do more mistakes, they'll also tend to buy less, take less risks in creating companies, and so on. While people who are hopeful and cheered up will go on, do things, have more energy. Sure, it wouldn't be the primary way I would chose to suppress unemployment, but it's not a factor to completely disregard.

How is the government going to "help you find work" if the economy isn't supporting the creation of jobs?

By creating jobs itself instead of suppressing them ? By helping people to find jobs with a working employment agency ? And most of all, by doing the exact opposite of Sarkozy is proposing on extra hours. By removing taxes on extra hours, Sarkozy will very clearly encourage corporations to make people who have a job work more, instead of employing new people, and that is disastrous.

Lastly (talking about the far future here) there is going to be a point where there will be so few people required for working in the economy that there will be massive unemployment.


Doubtful, the market would expand to meet the need. There might be temporary, short term displacement for certain segments, such as unskilled or low skilled workers, but the situation would evolve over one or two generations.

New jobs would be created in new fields, research and development would become increasingly important, as would support and service. Given that these fields are more competitive and specialized, they would be higher paying, thus permitting those who hold jobs in these fields to be able to spend more, creating greater demand to increase production, creating demand for jobs, and so on and so on.

So how does the government create new industries?

By creating them ? Should I remind you that the world biggest builder of aircraft engines, the SNECMA, was owned at 95% by French government until 2004 (the 5% remaining percent by workers of the company themselves) ? That didn't prevent them from being the world leaders, and from making huge profits. Maybe we should look at the TGV too ? World fastest train, sold in many other countries... a creation of the french government and the workers of the public services, too. Same for EDF nuclear technology, and nearly things in which France is, or was, a world leader. In all of them the state played a key role.

If such industries were profitable (and thus could employ people) to begin with, someone would already have invested in creating those industries.

Are healthcare, fundamental research, education "profitable" ? They don't have to. Being profitable or not is important, but much less than being useful to the society. The same goes for public transports, a train line may not be profitable economically (because tickets don't pay for the whole of the cost), but still be profitable for the society, because it lowers pollution (and therefore save lives), decrease traffic jams, prevent the death of small villages and support the local industry in those villages, and so on.

But then, as seen above, the state can also make profitable, industry-leader technologies, in fields which rely on heavy investments with only long-term hope of profits (since most shareholders except to receive money in the next few years, if not the next few months, long term investment is mostly disregarded by private investors).

And what does making people "happy" have to do with anything?

That it should one of most fundamental goals of any government ? With protecting freedom and basic rights, making people happy should be the goal of a sane government.

SNECMA was a prime example of the use of public-private partnerships to attain success, though. It operated in tandem with GE, Pratt & Whitney and several other private firms to develop and produce aircraft engines. The CFM56 which accounted for roughly 50% of Snecma engine production was produced in partnership with GE. To say that it was merely a government industry is false.

SNECMA was a prime example of the use of public-private partnerships to attain success, though. It operated in tandem with GE, Pratt & Whitney and several other private firms to develop and produce aircraft engines. The CFM56 which accounted for roughly 50% of Snecma engine production was produced in partnership with GE. To say that it was merely a government industry is false.

Well, I didn't say the state should do everything, I don't believe in totally planed economy USSR-style. The same goes for the TGV, it's not 100% made by the "state". But my point was that the state can play a key role is such industrial projects, and that being state-owned is in no way a handicap for a corporation to succeed.

What removing the 35 hour work week is designed to do is to increase the competitive desirability of the French worker, and in doing so, attract other firms to locate newly created jobs to France, instead of to other countries.

It's a proven fact that training an employee is an expensive proposition, meaning every employee hired is a certain guaranteed cost of training. If I wanted to accomplish 280 man hours of work, (each group being paid equal wages) you would have to hire 7 Germans or 8 Frenchmen to accomplish that amount of time. Naturally it is going to cost less to hire the Germans, simple as that.

Of course, without the hindrance of the 35 hour work week, the choice suddenly becomes less clear, and there are benefits and hindrances to hiring in either country, although the odds that France would be chosen increase.

My father works at a firm that does manufacturing of a certain specialty heavy industrial product in Northern France, and is currently considering expansion in several of its facilities worldwide. Some of the talk of the foreign investment division at this firm has revolved around the possible choice of choosing the facility in Northern France for expansion if the 35 hour work week is removed for this very reason. France is a prime choice because of the quality of the workers and the interconnectedness with the rest of Europe.

So yes, you're right, this policy will not magically induce firms to hire new workers, rather this policy will encourage firms to choose to expand, and therefore hire new workers, by limiting one of the costs involved in expansion.

Well, yes, you can. Morale affects a lot how people act, people who are depressed or very gloomy will work less efficiently, do more mistakes, they'll also tend to buy less, take less risks in creating companies, and so on. While people who are hopeful and cheered up will go on, do things, have more energy. Sure, it wouldn't be the primary way I would chose to suppress unemployment, but it's not a factor to completely disregard.

By creating jobs itself instead of suppressing them ? By helping people to find jobs with a working employment agency ? And most of all, by doing the exact opposite of Sarkozy is proposing on extra hours. By removing taxes on extra hours, Sarkozy will very clearly encourage corporations to make people who have a job work more, instead of employing new people, and that is disastrous.

No wonder your candidate lost.

Want to know what reducing taxes does?

It boosts the economy.

The Presidency: Years from now, pundits and academics will surely wonder why
President Bush's greatest achievement -- his stewardship of the economy -- got so little notice during his time in office. Yet that's how it is.
ADVERTISEMENT

Bizarrely, polls show that many people think the economy has fallen into a recession. Or that we never left the slump that began in March 2001, a bare month and a half after Bush entered office, and that ended in November of the same year.

Last summer, a national poll taken by American Research Group showed 38% of Americans thought the economy was in a recession. By last month that had fallen to 28%, but it's still a big share. Of course, we weren't in a recession. Nor is it the case, as also has been asserted, that "things got worse" under Bush.

What factually is true is Bush faced the greatest economic challenge of any incoming president since President Reagan. Like Reagan, Bush met the challenge -- something for which the media and his foes refuse to give him credit.

It's hard to overemphasize how nasty things were. But the media were too busy penning loving tributes to
President Clinton to note that the economy was falling apart as he left office. Here are the facts about what Bush faced:

The economy was already in recession. It actually began shrinking the summer before Bush entered office -- by 0.5% in the third quarter of 2000.

The stock market, as measured by the popular Nasdaq, had already plunged 46% from its peak in 2000 -- the biggest drop since 1929, slicing nearly $8 trillion from Americans' wealth.

Not until Jan. 3, 2001, a mere three weeks before Bush took office, did the
Federal Reserve cut interest rates -- a first step in reversing six rate hikes over the prior two years. Since there's about a one-year lag between Fed rate moves and the economy, the bank's tardy response to the slowdown pretty much doomed Bush's first year.

Bush was also hamstrung early on by Democrat claims that his victory in the disputed 2000 election was somehow "illegitimate."

As 2001 wore on, things got worse. Democrats screeched about Bush's proposed tax cuts. Later they blamed him for "soaring" deficits -- even though, with the economy's slowdown, deficits were entirely predictable and, indeed, inevitable. But the much-feared deficits have now shrunk to 1.6% of
GDP, below the long-term average of 2.6%. Soon we may have surpluses.

For real pain, however, look at the stock market's plunge. As the chart above shows, the late-1990s Nasdaq collapse was worse even than that suffered by the Dow industrials in the 1929 crash.

The similarity is more than just coincidental -- it's spooky.

On the heels of that devastating decline, of course, came 9/11 -- a national psychological trauma that created mass fear and even panic. We tend to forget how people just stayed home, stopped shopping and traveling.

An IMF study reckoned that 9/11 cost the U.S. economy about $75billion in lost GDP -- not counting property losses of well over $100 billion. The U.S. also incurred future yearly costs of roughly 0.75% of GDP to pay for greater security, another big hit.

No question: The year 2001 marked a major break for the economy, with one of the largest hits ever to the wealth of Americans.

It could have been an epic disaster. But it wasn't. Bush did exactly the right thing -- though he's still criticized for it today. To get the economy moving again, he pushed through tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Some 113 million people got an average tax cut of $2,216. Families with children got even more -- $2,864 on average.

Since the last round of cuts in 2003, we've had the quietest, and most significant, boom in wealth, income and profits in our history. This explains why the economy, to the surpise of economists and the chagrin of liberal pundits, keeps humming. We've gone over the numbers before, but they bear repeating. Since 2002:

Real gross domestic product has soared $1.64 trillion, or 16.5%, during a five-year stretch that has yet to see a downturn and that has witnessed average annual growth of 3%.

Disposable personal income -- what's left after taxes -- has jumped $2.16 trillion, or 29%, to $9.68 trillion.

Productivity, the fuel for future standards of living, has improved 14.3%.

Overall employee compensation has expanded 4% a year.

Net wealth, the amount people would have after paying off their debts, has swelled $15.2 trillion, or 38%, to $55.6 trillion. That gain in just five years is more than the total wealth amassed in the first 210 years of America's existence -- an unprecedented surge.

About 69% of Americans now own their homes, an all-time high.

The jobless rate, now at 4.4%, remains below its 40-year average. Since August 2003, 7.8 million new jobs have been created.

Tax receipts have surged 43%, or $757.6 billion, again thanks to economic growth.

Today, some signs point 15 slowing. All the more reason to keep Bush's tax cuts, the engine of our prosperity. But the new Democrat-led Congress has threatened not just to roll back Bush's cuts, but to impose new taxes that would sink the economy.

A recent study by economists Tracy Foertsch and Ralph Rector for the Heritage Foundation found that letting Bush's tax cuts lapse in 2010, as they are scheduled to do, would cost the U.S. $75 billion in GDP each year, kill 709,000 jobs and slice $200 billion from real personal income. It'd be a crime to let that happen.

George W. Bush's economic miracle is both real and sustainable. Too bad he won't get credit for it until the current generation of biased journalists and academics has retired.

No wonder your candidate lost.

Want to know what reducing taxes does?

It boosts the economy.

First, the question about "reducing taxes" in general but about a very special tax cut which is suppressing taxes on extra hours. While I can understand (even if I disagree with them) the arguments that lowering taxes in general may boost the economy, this way of lowering tax is a very bad way to create new jobs. Just a general lowering of taxes on work would do much better, if you really want to lower taxes.

As for reducing taxes boosting the economy, the myth was proven false since long. It may on the short term, but will not on the long term, for many reasons. The first one being that lowering taxes means the state can invest less in infrastructure, which in the long term costs a lot (just look how much costed the insufficient upkeep of the New Orleans dam...). It also means lesser quality education, less public research, ... which is very bad on the long term.

But the worse is that it makes the whole economy less stable, by destroying the social safety net. Social safety net (unemployment, healthcare, ...) makes any blow to the economy softer, while no safety net makes any problem (be it a stock market crisis, a natural disaster, ...) becomes much worse, and that is very bad on the long term.

The last but not the least in the widening of inequalities and major increase of poverty which is created by tax cuts. It may not harm the economy on the short term, but it will on the long term. If you look at countries like UK or USA, the debt of households is above their GDP, around 130% for UK and 160% for USA (compared to 70-80% for more social countries like France or Germany). This debt is terrific on the long term. Since poverty is widening and the wealth more and more concentrated, the majority of the population is forced to live on debts, and that's how the economy works. But that just cannot continue forever.

As for USA, you should also consider that USA economy is boosted by wars, which is well known to boost capitalist economies, especially when the cost of the wars are paid by other countries through USA control over the dollar... USA economy would collapse if it were not for China and other countries massively buying dollars (that is, giving money to USA) to prevent a stronger of fall of the dollar, which would hurt USA but also themselves...

'Petrodollars' are also extremely useful to keep opinion of the dollar as stable and sought in trade.

What removing the 35 hour work week is designed to do is to increase the competitive desirability of the French worker, and in doing so, attract other firms to locate newly created jobs to France, instead of to other countries.

So, in order to become more competitive than third world countries, we have to become third world countries ourselves, increasing working hours, lowering wages, and disbanding the social system ? That's the wonderful world you offer us ?

Because if at 35 hours we are not competitive against people working 60 hours like in China, will we be so at 39 our 40 hours ? No more. This infernal loop of "we must be competitive" as one end: when everyone will have the worse conditions.

Or... there are other things to consider. Like infrastructures, education, health, happiness, ... of the population.

It's a proven fact that training an employee is an expensive proposition, meaning every employee hired is a certain guaranteed cost of training. If I wanted to accomplish 280 man hours of work, (each group being paid equal wages) you would have to hire 7 Germans or 8 Frenchmen to accomplish that amount of time. Naturally it is going to cost less to hire the Germans, simple as that.

It is also a proven fact that people are more productive when they are rested, have free time to take care of their family, do things they like and recover their strength, and so on. A recent study showed that for intellectual works, after between 32 hours and 35 hours of work each week (depending of people and of the job), the productivity falls quickly. The same is true with holidays, I witness it at my work (software engineering), when I or co-wokers are back from holidays, we tend to be much more productive than after a long period without any.

A few numbers to finish it: just compare the GDP/inhabitant of UK and France. They are roughly the same (31k for UK, 30k for France). But in France, we have 35 hours of work each week and 5 weeks of paid holidays, that makes 1645 worked hours each year. In UK, it's 48 hours of work each week (by law, I'm not sure if it's really true for everyone, if not the figures change a bit, but not the overall outcome), with 2 weeks of paid holidays. That makes 2400 worked hours each year. Working 145% more than us, they produce 103% more than us. Is it really worth the price ?

Ehm... right isn't necessarily free market. Look at the USA, they're about the most protectionistic state of the G-8.
:p
You know what I meant though.

Do what works to secure support, you mean.
If you want to call it that. I always use this little snippet at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.html to tell people what fascism is.

It's obviously not complete, but it conveys the mindset. Any system that has the nation all pulling in the same direction and that actually works to some extent (though that's more in theory, I seem to recall parades of Italian planes which all didn't actually have engines in them...the German system seemed to work better than the Italian one) should be under consideration by a fascist.

2.Salò republic a socialist paradise? The accounts of my grandparents are quite different, you know.
Well, as far as I know, Mussolini had trouble staying with any thought for particularly long, especially in those late days. There are writings and speeches where he said that fascism had all gone wrong, and he was gonna remake it in Salò with a much more socialist elements. I was always under the impression that he never really let go of socialism, that he was just really disappointed that apparently the proletariat preferred to slaughter each other for their nations in WWI to having a big-ass global revolution.

So, in order to become more competitive than third world countries, we have to become third world countries ourselves, increasing working hours, lowering wages, and disbanding the social system ? That's the wonderful world you offer us ?
No one is offering you this world any more than they offer you that gravity stops you from flying. That's what human interaction looks like when it comes to a scarce amount of resources on the planet.

But to address your point: you aren't competing with China. You're competing with Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy and now Poland, Bulgaria and so on. And at the moment you're losing out. Just look (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,479149,00.html) at what happened just across the border from you. Don't you think that on balance this is better to what was going on before?

It's easy for workers now to lay back and rest on their safety nets, but if it's not sustainable then it's going to collapse eventually. And I don't want to be your worker if that happens.

Because if at 35 hours we are not competitive against people working 60 hours like in China, will we be so at 39 our 40 hours ? No more.
See, that's the classic cry of the old left: "We can't do anything, so let's resign to our end".
When is a new left finally going to appear which cares about people getting a fair go, about things like proper education and healthcare, but doesn't see everything in opposition to employers? A left which doesn't see work as a plot to oppress people? A left without envy? A left for the 21st century?

Or... there are other things to consider. Like infrastructures, education, health, happiness, ... of the population.
If Sarkozy can do anything, maybe it will be to finally kill the idea that work and work-related achievement and happiness are somehow mutually exclusive.

Working 145% more than us, they produce 103% more than us. Is it really worth the price ?
Well, first of all I assure you that not every Briton works almost 50 hours a week, just like not every Frenchman works 35 hours.

Secondly, I think the growth rates over the past few years have perhaps answered your question.

And finally...if it wasn't worth the price, why would an employer pay for it?

No one is offering you this world any more than they offer you that gravity stops you from flying. That's what human interaction looks like when it comes to a scarce amount of resources on the planet.

But why for gravity do we find away around it (like planes), and shouldn't we for economic "laws" ? Even more when economic "laws" are created by ourselves, while so laws of physics are not !

But to address your point: you aren't competing with China. You're competing with Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy and now Poland, Bulgaria and so on. And at the moment you're losing out.

The idea is the same. Under your model, there is no way to increase living condition of people, as the goal of politics should be, but only to constantly decrease them in order to "compet" with your neighbours. They work 39 hours and we 35 ? Fine, let's work 39. And then, they'll work 45. And we'll have to work 45. And so on. That's the logic of the neoliberal european union, and what's the result ? Everywhere, lower social protection, lower purchasing power for the median people, longer working time (every week, before retirement), and more and more people living in poverty. Wonderful results for a wonderful logic.

I don't accept this, like scientists didn't accept that "gravity" means we would never cross a sea by flying. And even more, because the economical "laws" are man-made !

It's easy for workers now to lay back and rest on their safety nets, but if it's not sustainable then it's going to collapse eventually. And I don't want to be your worker if that happens.

What is not sustainable is growth based mostly upon credits, as it in UK and USA or other more capitalist countries. What is not sustainable is to see an always larger part of the population sinking into poverty. What is not sustainable is to continually shift the capital-work split in favour of the capital (was 85-15 in the 70s, it's 70-30 now, and it's continuing to shift in favour of the capital). THAT are the real problems.


See, that's the classic cry of the old left: "We can't do anything, so let's resign to our end".

No, "we can't do anything" always was the motto of the right, Tatcher's "There Is No Alternative" as all the traditional right yelling to scandal and collapse of the economy when the Popular Front created paid holidays in 1936 or decided to lower the working week to 48 hours ! We claim high and strong that there ARE alternatives, that we CAN do a lot, at a little small condition: that we have the courage to defy the power of the 1% of the population who own 50% of the stock market and use it for only one single purpose: increasing their short-term profit, at any cost, social, human, ecological, and even economical in the long-term.

When is a new left finally going to appear which cares about people getting a fair go, about things like proper education and healthcare, but doesn't see everything in opposition to employers?

The left I know, including the communist party, doesn't have anything against the small employers who pay reasonably well their workers. We do have against people like the CEO of Airbus, who fire 10k people and then go out of the company with 8 millions of euros (that's 400 years of the minimal wage !). If you look at the program of the PCF you'll actually see that we proposed... a tax cut for companies who invest most of their money in paying their employee, and a tax raise for those who spend most of it to their shareholders. THAT is helping small companies, workers, "employers" who really want to play a positive role in the economy, while taking money from what is wasted.

A left which doesn't see work as a plot to oppress people?

Work is a form of oppression. A needed one, perhaps, but it is a form of oppression. Spending most of your time not doing what you would like to do, but obeying to the orders of someone else you didn't even really chose, that's not freedom. We need people to work, so it's necessary evil, but one of the goals of the society should be to lower the time people spend working, and therefore increasing the time people spend doing other things, which may be very useful for the society too (taking care of your children, reading, doing hobby music or hobby writing, helping some NGO, ...)

A left without envy?

Envy of what ?

A left for the 21st century?

What about a right of the 21st century ? One which dream is not the society of the beginning of the 20st century/end of the 19st century, in which there were no of the "evils" they fight nowadays (public healthcare, public education, unemployment protection, paid holidays, limited weekly working time, ...) ? Because that is the dream of Sarkozy.

If Sarkozy can do anything, maybe it will be to finally kill the idea that work and work-related achievement and happiness are somehow mutually exclusive.

Too much work and happiness are mutually exclusive, unless you're very lucky to do a job that please you totally, which is not the case of the vast majority of the population. Too much poverty and happiness are mutually exclusive too. And during the lovely 5 years of Chirac-Raffarin-Sarkozy and then Chirac-Raffarin-De Villepin governments, poverty increased so much than NGO reported a 20% increase, yearly, of demands for help, something they never saw in their history. That's the consequence of a right-wing government.

And finally...if it wasn't worth the price, why would an employer pay for it?

Oh, it is worth the price for an employer... not for the employee ;)

I'm a socialist for the twentyfirst century and I definately see the benefits of not overworking the population.

And how is letting people work a few extra hours more going to "overwork" them? Especially when a good deal of them apparantly want to work more but can't because of some crazy law limiting them to 35hr work weeks?

"Oh no, you want us to work 60hrs a day like those Chinese!" Get a grip, no one's advocating that, all you're doing is setting up a strawman. Yes a third-worlder can do factory work for chump change compared to his Western counterpart, but there are many jobs in the West that requires more then unskilled labor, labor which could produce more and earn more if given the opportunity.

So do I.

Chirac promised that the French people would be given the opportunity to decide on that issue. Ségolène promised the same. Sarkozy, by contrast, said he would block Turkey's entry, and that would be that.

Now that Sarkozy is in power, all those negotiations on Turkey's entry are going to be for nothing. Because my fellow citizens have elected a populist. :(

Victory is ours! Go France! Go France! You're a legend! You're a legend!

But why for gravity do we find away around it (like planes), and shouldn't we for economic "laws" ? Even more when economic "laws" are created by ourselves, while so laws of physics are not !
The important distinction being that a plane isn't something that eliminates gravity, it's something that works around it.

I have no problem in setting up an efficient state that does what voters want. That's your plane.

I do have a problem with people complaining about competition as a thing in and for itself, and who rather than set up something that incorporates competition and uses it try to suppress it.

Because what is your alternative to trying to do something that the Chinese worker cannot do? It's tariffs, in other words hurting both the consumer in France and the worker in China so that a select interest group is better off.

The idea is the same. Under your model, there is no way to increase living condition of people, as the goal of politics should be, but only to constantly decrease them in order to "compet" with your neighbours.
What do living conditions have to do with the competitiveness of the worker?

As long as workers can produce something that other workers cannot, they can work as long as they bloody well want.

At this point however French workers don't seem to be capable of doing that, and part of the reason for this is the ridiculously overregulated labour market, in which every worker isn't a productive helper in creating value, but a liability to the company.

They work 39 hours and we 35 ? Fine, let's work 39. And then, they'll work 45. And we'll have to work 45. And so on. That's the logic of the neoliberal european union, and what's the result ?
No, actually that's a strawman. The French idea of "neoliberalism" is a strawman. It's one of the best examples of groupthink in modern history, almost like a neurotic psychosis.

The logic of the market is that people get paid for what they add in value. Value is determined by supply and demand.

If French workers find that they don't add enough value to justify to their customers why their labour is a good buy, then they will have to think about providing a better service. Part of providing a better service is to cut down on all the extras (ie non-wage labour costs) and actually provide either more bang for your buck or the same bang for less buck.

In the current climate, it looks like both require deregulation.

Everywhere, lower social protection, lower purchasing power for the median people, longer working time (every week, before retirement), and more and more people living in poverty. Wonderful results for a wonderful logic.
No, that's another burning strawman. But then, I could build my own...I've been in the GDR, I've seen the empty supermarket shelves.

But hey, everyone had job security!

And even more, because the economical "laws" are man-made !
Not really. Once I've handed in my assignment tomorrow, I'll continue my story about the market in that other thread. You're welcome to look into it.

Suffice to say that with a scarce amount of resources, some sort of distribution has to occur. The market is the most efficient way of doing that and there is no way that political decisionmakers can accurately recreate its results.

So basically, the market as a mechanism is not only not man-made, but it can't even be replicated at this point.

What is not sustainable is growth based mostly upon credits, as it in UK and USA or other more capitalist countries.
Why? If the majority of the credits are invested in profitable projects and the debts are paid back, then what harm is being done?

What is not sustainable is to see an always larger part of the population sinking into poverty.
Actually, it's not poverty. Hardly anyone is actually being made poorer.

The thing is that liberalisation offers opportunities for wealth to those who see and take advantage of them. So basically some make a lot of money and some don't.

Inequality rises, I grant that. But no one is actually being made poorer in absolute terms, and in those terms society on aggregate gets richer. It's a pretty good outcome, which there is no way of achieving otherwise.

What is not sustainable is to continually shift the capital-work split in favour of the capital (was 85-15 in the 70s, it's 70-30 now, and it's continuing to shift in favour of the capital). THAT are the real problems.
You know, there was a time when stagecoach workers thought they had job security. Turns out they didn't (even though people like you would have preferred to outlaw cars rather than have them lose their jobs) and we're all better off for it.

There was a time where one might have argued that people leaving work in agriculture was unsustainable. Afterall, who was gonna grow the food for everyone else?

So what has happened simultaneously to the shift away from using labour in manufacturing is more and more focus on service industries, which now employ the majority of people. And at this point there is no realistic scenario in which humans will be replaced as far as face-to-face contact is concerned.

But then, if you were to argue that there is no way we can employ everyone in services, then the market is self-correcting. Because there'd be so many potential factory workers, it might actually be worth again to hire some.

In short, I don't know what will come of the future, but I know that people are going to continue to make economic decisions based on their pay-outs, and that this mechanism alone ensures sustainability in that respect.

No, "we can't do anything" always was the motto of the right, Tatcher's "There Is No Alternative"...
Actually, Thatcher was referring to economic liberalisation. And at the time, there really was no alternative because Britain's economy was even running into the ground even worse than the French one at the moment. It was on the way to becoming a mini 1980s USSR.

...as all the traditional right yelling to scandal and collapse of the economy when the Popular Front created paid holidays in 1936 or decided to lower the working week to 48 hours !
Not too familiar with 1936 French domestic politics.

We claim high and strong that there ARE alternatives, that we CAN do a lot, at a little small condition: that we have the courage to defy the power of the 1% of the population who own 50% of the stock market and use it for only one single purpose: increasing their short-term profit, at any cost, social, human, ecological, and even economical in the long-term.
You're going off at a tangent, and completely unmotivated too.

It doesn't matter whether that 1% exists or who they are. There is no will to be defied, only economic logic.

And defying economic logic comes with a price. That's a fact. Sometimes it can be worth paying the price, usually it isn't.

But the real issue with this price is that not everyone pays equally. You're always arbitrarily choosing someone to get hurt. If you pick employee protections, you're consciously deciding to hurt the unemployed. If you pick wealth taxes, you're consciously deciding to hurt the successful (and to some extent the productive).

In this case the French electorate decided that another politician who would comfort the middle classes by hurting everyone else wasn't for them. And I say: Good on them.

The left I know, including the communist party, doesn't have anything against the small employers who pay reasonably well their workers.
In whose opinion?

We do have against people like the CEO of Airbus, who fire 10k people and then go out of the company with 8 millions of euros (that's 400 years of the minimal wage !).
Airbus of course being a basically state-controlled company...

If you look at the program of the PCF you'll actually see that we proposed... a tax cut for companies who invest most of their money in paying their employee, and a tax raise for those who spend most of it to their shareholders. THAT is helping small companies, workers, "employers" who really want to play a positive role in the economy, while taking money from what is wasted.
No, actually that's putting a band-aid on a ripped jugular.

It's trying to treat the symptoms while ignoring the disease. The disease in this case is that labour costs are so high and the laws are so inflexible that employers will in most cases try and do without an extra worker. Giving them gifts if they decide to hire may lower the threshold required, but it only works as long as the program works. If another government comes in, or the money runs out, things go back to normal and the problem isn't solved.

Aside from the fundamental misunderstanding about what a company is and who it owes allegiance to...its owners.

Work is a form of oppression. A needed one, perhaps, but it is a form of oppression. Spending most of your time not doing what you would like to do...
...is a problem you caused yourself.

We need people to work, so it's necessary evil, but one of the goals of the society should be to lower the time people spend working, and therefore increasing the time people spend doing other things, which may be very useful for the society too (taking care of your children, reading, doing hobby music or hobby writing, helping some NGO, ...)
And we all live off the love created in the process?

Envy of what ?
That 1% you mentioned. The entrepreneur. Anyone happy with their lives and achievements.

There's a lot of envy dished out by the left, I'm sure everyone can have some.

What about a right of the 21st century ?
It's all around you. It's people who don't see the point in fixed employment anymore and want everyone to be on temporary contracts. People who want others to be allowed to keep their achievements and build monuments to themselves and their lives. People who want others to be held to the same high standard they hold themselves to. People who see an opportunity and grab it.

Every achiever, every goal-getter is part of the mindset the new right aspires to. TPS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome) just doesn't fit in there.

Because that is the dream of Sarkozy.
Proof?

Too much work and happiness are mutually exclusive, unless you're very lucky to do a job that please you totally, which is not the case of the vast majority of the population.
Then the vast majority of the population should change their lives.

That's the consequence of a right-wing government.
No, that's the consequence of an overly generous welfare state. Make it worth working and you'll be amazed at how quickly the claims start going away.

Oh, it is worth the price for an employer... not for the employee ;)
Same thing. Price is where demand meets supply, remember?

http://mason.gmu.edu/~tlidderd/104/gifs/Fig3-3.gif

And how is letting people work a few extra hours more going to "overwork" them? Especially when a good deal of them apparantly want to work more but can't because of some crazy law limiting them to 35hr work weeks?

That's a misunderstanding of french working code. The "normal" weekly work hour is 35 hours, but that doesn't mean people can't do extra hours. It means that the minimal wage and all wages negociated by unions are on a 35 hours basis, and that, in theory at least, an employer cannot force a worker to do more than 35 hours weekly. But not that people are forbidden to do it.

As for people wanting to work more... yes, because they lost purchasing power, especially with the very high prices of housing (thanks to the low amount of social housing and the heavy speculation on buildings). But the solution is not to make them work more, but to increase wages (and with the record profits done by the big corporations those latest few years, it's possible), to build houses and to fight against speculation.

"Oh no, you want us to work 60hrs a day like those Chinese!" Get a grip, no one's advocating that, all you're doing is setting up a strawman.

No. When I'm doing is showing the flaw of your logic. If the argument is "we have to be competitive against the chinese, because they work more", then the only limit is when we work as much as they do. The whole "we have to compete by lowering the cost of workers (increasing working hours, lowering wages, lowering social protection, ...)" is in itself an endless loop, because the more we do it, the more our competitors will have to do it to compete against us, and so on.

Or we consider that first we just don't HAVE to compete (I totally refuse this logic of competing against brothers of other countries, and there are many to prevent this, it just requires to give up the silly dogma of "free trade"), and then that we can compete in other ways (high quality infrastructure and education, ...). And then, the weekly working hours stop to be the main problem.

The important distinction being that a plane isn't something that eliminates gravity, it's something that works around it.

I have no problem in setting up an efficient state that does what voters want. That's your plane.

The plane uses other forces to make the effects of gravity disappear. I'm speaking about using legal ways to make the effects of "competition" disappear.

I do have a problem with people complaining about competition as a thing in and for itself, and who rather than set up something that incorporates competition and uses it try to suppress it.

Competition IS an evil in itself. It is the exact opposite of what a human society should aim for. Human society should aim for cooperation, for people working together, helping each other, for people considering others as their brothers. Competition makes people work against each other, harm each other, consider others as their foes.

Because what is your alternative to trying to do something that the Chinese worker cannot do? It's tariffs, in other words hurting both the consumer in France and the worker in China so that a select interest group is better off.

Smart tariffs doesn't hurt either the consumer in France nor the worker in China. 30 years of neoliberal globalization have lowered living conditions of the majority of the population nearly everywhere in the world, and increase profits by the same amount.

What do living conditions have to do with the competitiveness of the worker?

High wages, low working hours, strong social system increase the living conditions, but decrease the competitiveness. Both are incompatible.

At this point however French workers don't seem to be capable of doing that, and part of the reason for this is the ridiculously overregulated labour market, in which every worker isn't a productive helper in creating value, but a liability to the company.


They may be the strongest difference between you and me. I consider workers as HUMAN BEINGS what rights and deserve protection from abuses. You consider them as ressources, like a barrel of oil or an iron mine, and the only thing which matters for you is if he can "create value". Creating value is secondary to preventing women to be fired because they become pregnant (as it happens regularly with the new "CNE" created by the right wing which allows small companies to fire workers without reasons during the first 2 years). And that's just one example among many. Yes, if you consider that "economy" is more important than everything, than human are just ressources, then your argument may be considered. I don't.

The logic of the market is that people get paid for what they add in value. Value is determined by supply and demand.

That's utterly false, Walras-Smith economics are utter bullshit and that's proven since long. It doesn't account for volume effect (often, increasing the demand _lowers_ the price and doesn't increase it, for example), for speculation (in which the higher the price is, the higher the demand is, to the opposite of the supply and demand law), and so on. And btw, in capitalism, people are not paid for what they add in value, but by a part of it, since another part of it goes to owners of the company. And what of the main problem of today economics is that this share shifted. In the 70s, 85% of the value added was given to the worker, and 15% taken by the owner. Nowadays, it's 70% given to the worker, and 30% taken by the owner, and the shift is continuing. There is a real, strong problem which lowers the living condition of the vast majority of the population.

If French workers find that they don't add enough value to justify to their customers why their labour is a good buy, then they will have to think about providing a better service.

You forget the part taken by the capital, by the "owners", it's this part which increased a lot recently. Price is not "raw material + labour" but "raw material + labour + profits" and the "profits" part is the one increasing a lot.

Suffice to say that with a scarce amount of resources, some sort of distribution has to occur. The market is the most efficient way of doing that and there is no way that political decisionmakers can accurately recreate its results.

No. Market was proven to be inefficient by the Nash theory. Vast areas of economy are structured like the prisonner's dilemma, in which cooperating leads to a higher equilibrium to everyone, while acting selfishly leads to lower equilibrium to everyone. It also was proved to be inefficient once you have asymmetry of information or speculation, which is the case of all stock markets.

So basically, the market as a mechanism is not only not man-made, but it can't even be replicated at this point.

Money, property, working contracts, wages, that owners decide, ... are all man-made. We can alter the rules of them much more easily than we can alter the laws of physics.

Why? If the majority of the credits are invested in profitable projects and the debts are paid back, then what harm is being done?

They are invested. The credits are used for consuming. It's not having a debt to buy an house, that's fine. It's paying TV, car, food, ... on credit, and always living in an increasing debt.

Actually, it's not poverty. Hardly anyone is actually being made poorer.

That's just utterly false. Many people in UK or USA who have "only" one job live in poverty, and it's starting to appear in France. More and more people are living in utter poverty, homeless, suffering from lack of food, in western countries. In France, those latest 5 years of right-wing gov were disastrous. NGO witnessed a 20% yearly increase of demands for help. In the school nearby where my mom is a teacher they start seeing kids fainting during the day because they're suffering from lack of food ! They see families going to take the trash of the school restaurant to eat ! That's the reality after 5 years of right-wing government.

The thing is that liberalisation offers opportunities for wealth to those who see and take advantage of them. So basically some make a lot of money and some don't.

Exactly. Some, who are lucky to have a family that could provide them with good conditions to study (quiet place to study, buying books, feeding them well, allowing them to not work by night, ...), who are lucky to have acquaintance with people with money or who have money themselves, who are lucky to have a skin colour that doesn't make bankers or employers reject them, make a lot of money. While those who are not that lucky live in utter poverty. Wonderful world.

Inequality rises, I grant that. But no one is actually being made poorer in absolute terms, and in those terms society on aggregate gets richer.

The purchasing power of the median worker is LOWER than it was 10 years ago in most countries. I'm not speaking of the average purchasing power, but of the purchasing power of the median. And yes, as I explained earlier, more and more people are living in real poverty, and this poverty is getting worse and worse.

You know, there was a time when stagecoach workers thought they had job security. Turns out they didn't (even though people like you would have preferred to outlaw cars rather than have them lose their jobs) and we're all better off for it.

You're the one making a strawman here. I never spoke of continuing to have obsoleted jobs. If you look at the proposal of the PCF, we want a "safety of work-training", meaning the people don't stay at the same job during their all life, but go from periods of work and periods of training to get a "better" job, but with a safety of wage. That's what we are trying to build, not a USSR-style work safety. We want the safety for the worker without the hindrance and paralysis that comes with it, and we have proposals to build it.

So what has happened simultaneously to the shift away from using labour in manufacturing is more and more focus on service industries, which now employ the majority of people. And at this point there is no realistic scenario in which humans will be replaced as far as face-to-face contact is concerned.

And ? I never opposed that. What I oppose is when people are fired and left without nothing. Not because they should continue to do jobs that aren't useful anymore, but because as human beings they don't deserve to be left out. So we should give them training for a job they can do, and in the while, provide them with a "pay" so they continue to live decently and feed their family.

But then, if you were to argue that there is no way we can employ everyone in services, then the market is self-correcting. Because there'd be so many potential factory workers, it might actually be worth again to hire some.

Market isn't self-correcting at all, market was proven to be thermodynamically unstable, that is, to INCREASE the problems (never heard about "crisis" ?). A company goes bankrupt ? People are fired. So people have less money. So they buy less. So another company goes bankrupt. And it's providers have less business and have to fire workers. And so on. That's the basic working of the market: a small initial problem usually leads to a greater problem. That's why after World War II, knowing that the 1929 crisis combined to this instability leaded to so much suffering than people like Hitler or Mussolini managed to take power, even the right-wing accepted to build a social system in most countries, inspired from Keynes works. Because a social system is a safety net against this amplification effect.

Actually, Thatcher was referring to economic liberalisation. And at the time, there really was no alternative because Britain's economy was even running into the ground even worse than the French one at the moment. It was on the way to becoming a mini 1980s USSR.

Of course there was an alternative. To do the exact opposite of what Thatcher did, which was absolutely disastrous for the majority of UK citizen.

Not too familiar with 1936 French domestic politics.

The idea is the same everywhere and every time. Every thing that was earned by the working class during the late 19est century and first half of the 20est century, from 48 hours week to paid holidays to ban of child labour to allowed unions to free public schooling and so on was always rejected, at that time, by the majority of employers and by the "right" because it would, according to them, destroy the economy.

It doesn't matter whether that 1% exists or who they are. There is no will to be defied, only economic logic.

Economic logic doesn't exist. And of course those 1% do matter.

And defying economic logic comes with a price. That's a fact. Sometimes it can be worth paying the price, usually it isn't.

It's not defying "economic logic", it's defying the 1% of population who control the economy. And yes, it comes with a price, because the previous governments have given them more and more power by privatising and deregulating. Making France (and all other western countries) more and more a plutocracy and less and less a democracy. So yes, it'll have cost to defy them, because they acquired a very strong control of our country. But it'll be definitely worth it, because if we don't do it, they'll continue to take more and more from us, and seize more and more power, while our living conditions will continue to go down.

But the real issue with this price is that not everyone pays equally. You're always arbitrarily choosing someone to get hurt.

Indeed. I'm choosing to hurt the 1% of the population who act like parasites and feed their profits in lowering our living conditions.

If you pick employee protections, you're consciously deciding to hurt the unemployed.

Not if at the same time you help the unemployed.

If you pick wealth taxes, you're consciously deciding to hurt the successful (and to some extent the productive).

I'm glad to "hurt" them. I'm pretty sure they'll still be fine with "only" a couple of hundred of thousands of euros in yearly income.

In this case the French electorate decided that another politician who would comfort the middle classes by hurting everyone else wasn't for them. And I say: Good on them.

Sarkozy will harm the middle class. On the latest tax cut his government did, 70% of it went to the 10% wealthiest. That's not the "middle class". Sarkozy will comfort the upper class, not the middle class.

Airbus of course being a basically state-controlled company...

Not really. The state is very passive about it, and doesn't control the majority of the capital. And it was just the most recent example, we have scandals like several times a year.

No, actually that's putting a band-aid on a ripped jugular.

How so ? Encouraging, with different tax rates, companies to spend their money in wages and not in profits is a way to change the "economical laws". It's not a band-aid, it's deep change of the working of economics, because it changes the incentive, helps the ones behaving "well" and hurts the ones behaving "bad".

It's trying to treat the symptoms while ignoring the disease. The disease in this case is that labour costs are so high and the laws are so inflexible that employers will in most cases try and do without an extra worker.

No, the disease is that stock owner want insane profit rate on the short term.

Giving them gifts if they decide to hire may lower the threshold required, but it only works as long as the program works. If another government comes in, or the money runs out, things go back to normal and the problem isn't solved.

If you read carefully, it's not "gifts". That's what the right-wing, random, blind gifts to corporations, costing the state billions without any effect. What we are proposing is a change of the system, a reward/penalty system comparable to the one we have on car insurance (if you don't have accidents, your insurance is lower, if you have a lot of accidents your insurance is higher). Not "gifts", but rules which rewards certain behaviour and punish others.

Aside from the fundamental misunderstanding about what a company is and who it owes allegiance to...its owners.

This is not a misunderstanding. It's one the main reason for which I oppose capitalism: that a company's goal and purpose is not to be useful but to give profits to its owners, whatever the costs may be. But since we don't want to suppress capitalism at once (that was tried and failed), what we want is to workaround this fact, exactly as a plane workaround the gravity. By making laws, by changing the way taxes are collected, by granting workers a say on how corporations are run, so a company is less single-mindly aimed towards short-term profit of owners but more towards having a responsible role in the society.

And we all live off the love created in the process?

Do you know how to read ? Is "We need people to work, so it's necessary evil" not clear to you ? I never said we should all stop working. But that, since with mechanization and technology we produce more and more every worked hour, we can slowly lower the amount of time spent working (as it was done during the whole 20est century, from over 60 hours to 39 hours in France, and continuing at 35 hours).

That 1% you mentioned.

I consider them as parasites, as thefts, I've absolutely no envy for them (nor hatred). I just want to lower the harm they do.

The entrepreneur.

Which one ? The small "entrepreneur" who does as much work as I do if not more ? Or the one who reached the top of big corporation because of the network of relations of his father and earn millions for not doing much ? Considering all "entrepreneur" to be the same is completly silly. But that's what the right-wing rhetoric is doing, by pretending to defend the first one in order to help the other one.

Anyone happy with their lives and achievements.

I am very happy with my life and achievement, why should I envy someone who is ?

It's people who don't see the point in fixed employment anymore and want everyone to be on temporary contracts.

Good, that's what we propose to. The difference being that you don't consider the consequences on the worker, on the human being, who is fired and find himself in a disastrous situation. While we do want a flexible working path, but WITH protection and security for the human being. Flexibility of the contract and job, security for the worker.

People who want others to be allowed to keep their achievements and build monuments to themselves and their lives.

You mean, to inherit from the wealth and contact network of their parents ? The National Council of the Resistance, in 1944, was very insightful to warn us
against "economic feudalism". That's exactly Sarkozy's goal, when he proposes to suppress nearly all inheritance taxes.

People who want others to be held to the same high standard they hold themselves to. People who see an opportunity and grab it.

What opportunity can you see when at the age of 9 you faint in school because your parents can't afford to pay you the school restaurant so you don't eat at lunch ? That's the reality.

No, that's the consequence of an overly generous welfare state. Make it worth working and you'll be amazed at how quickly the claims start going away.

So, why is it getting worse quickly under a right-wing gov which destroys the "welfare state", while it was getting better under a moderate left-wing gov like between 1997-2002 which, for example, made the 35 hours ?

Same thing. Price is where demand meets supply, remember?

As long as you'll believe in your 19est century economic theories, and ignore everything that was done since (consequences of game theory of Nash, of asymmetry of information of Stieglitz, the wage-profit considerations of Marx, and so on), you'll fail to understand what the reality is.

The plane uses other forces to make the effects of gravity disappear. I'm speaking about using legal ways to make the effects of "competition" disappear.
You'd only be suppressing them. You can't make them disappear, that's the point.

Competition IS an evil in itself. It is the exact opposite of what a human society should aim for. Human society should aim for cooperation, for people working together, helping each other, for people considering others as their brothers. Competition makes people work against each other, harm each other, consider others as their foes.
Not really. Competition makes people work to a standard, and that standard is the best that the best can do. Hardly a bad thing.

And that's quite beside the fact that it has been proven that every cooperative outcome that exhibits optimality actually is in fact a market outcome.

Smart tariffs doesn't hurt either the consumer in France nor the worker in China.
There is no such thing as a "smart" tariff. It's a lobby group using government force to protect its interest at the expense of someone else. There's nothing smart about it.

30 years of neoliberal globalization have lowered living conditions of the majority of the population nearly everywhere in the world, and increase profits by the same amount.
Proof?

High wages, low working hours, strong social system increase the living conditions, but decrease the competitiveness. Both are incompatible.
Not really. Compare workers in the UK with workers in China.

If what you said were true, no one in the UK would be employed. But it is in fact true that workers in the UK can do things workers in China cannot. And because they can provide that extra value, they can afford to take more liberties as far as protections, rights and general living conditions are concerned.

The two are not incompatible.

They may be the strongest difference between you and me. I consider workers as HUMAN BEINGS what rights and deserve protection from abuses.
That's a tear jerking response that doesn't address my point in the least. I can consider the person a human being all I want (and as a matter of fact I personally consider everyone I meet a human being), but that doesn't change the fact that I won't be able to employ him or her if it loses me money. I'd be endangering myself and my other workers.

Creating value is secondary to preventing women to be fired because they become pregnant...
So basically we'll have lots of pregnant workers but no value? Do you realise who pointless that is?

If no one produces value, or value production isn't considered important, then what the hell do we live off? We can't eat fairness.

That's utterly false, Walras-Smith economics are utter bullshit and that's proven since long.
Proof?

It doesn't account for volume effect (often, increasing the demand _lowers_ the price and doesn't increase it, for example), for speculation (in which the higher the price is, the higher the demand is, to the opposite of the supply and demand law), and so on.
Of course it does. You think economists just look at those things and say "meh, not important"?

This is 2007, remember. If in the 1940s a model didn't incorporate global financial markets that hardly disproves the market mechanism's features.

And btw, in capitalism, people are not paid for what they add in value, but by a part of it, since another part of it goes to owners of the company.
I don't know how deep you want to delve into this. There is something called "economic rent", which is the return on investment. Most firms earn that and no more.

And then there's something called "supernormal", "economic" or "Schumpeterian" returns. Firms can earn that, but not in all markets. It's usually the reward for doing something really, really well.

So you're right that firms earn some sort of return. But it would be simplistic to represent it in the way you did. The profits don't necessarily come from hiring another worker, the profits come from the firm's operations as a whole.

And what of the main problem of today economics is that this share shifted. In the 70s, 85% of the value added was given to the worker, and 15% taken by the owner. Nowadays, it's 70% given to the worker, and 30% taken by the owner, and the shift is continuing. There is a real, strong problem which lowers the living condition of the vast majority of the population.
Well, first of all I'd like to see some sort of source for those numbers.

You forget the part taken by the capital, by the "owners", it's this part which increased a lot recently. Price is not "raw material + labour" but "raw material + labour + profits" and the "profits" part is the one increasing a lot.
And it couldn't simply be that the economic rent improves because the combination of labour with capital becomes more productive?

No. Market was proven to be inefficient by the Nash theory.
No, it really wasn't. Where do you get this stuff from? Game Theory is in fact one of our best hopes of actually explaining the process in which a market reaches the price system that ends up with that optimal distribution within a general equilibrium setting.

Vast areas of economy are structured like the prisonner's dilemma, in which cooperating leads to a higher equilibrium to everyone, while acting selfishly leads to lower equilibrium to everyone.
Well, with "everyone" you mean "everyone involved". And you're correct...the thing is just that we have laws against cartellisation and price cooperation because precisely the people not involved in the game end up suffering.

It also was proved to be inefficient once you have asymmetry of information or speculation, which is the case of all stock markets.
You're using the word "inefficiency" way too liberally here. Information asymmetry can be a form of market failure, that's correct.

But that's what the information revolution of the last decade is moving towards eradicating.

Money, property, working contracts, wages, that owners decide, ... are all man-made. We can alter the rules of them much more easily than we can alter the laws of physics.
And then come up with another form of distributing resources. So you haven't done away with the problem at all. You've just done away with the only solution that has actually worked, because you believe it hasn't worked 100% flawlessly.

Exactly how long are you willing to experiment before you come up with a better idea?

It's paying TV, car, food, ... on credit, and always living in an increasing debt.
That's not a problem of economics, that's a problem of psychology. If people are that stupid, they need medical help, not angry socialist tirades.

That's just utterly false. Many people in UK or USA who have "only" one job live in poverty, and it's starting to appear in France. More and more people are living in utter poverty, homeless, suffering from lack of food, in western countries.
Proof?

And not just relative inequality. I mean real, actual, absolute poverty increasing.

In the school nearby where my mom is a teacher they start seeing kids fainting during the day because they're suffering from lack of food ! They see families going to take the trash of the school restaurant to eat ! That's the reality after 5 years of right-wing government.
First of all that is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and hearsay. But you're probably in a better position to explain to me how someone can manage to not get enough money from the pretty generous French welfare system.

While those who are not that lucky live in utter poverty. Wonderful world.
You're again building a strawman. Just because in France big firms employ managers by name rather than qualification doesn't mean that the free market has anything to do with what happens when politics and power is considered more important than economic prowess.

The purchasing power of the median worker is LOWER than it was 10 years ago in most countries.
Source?

You're the one making a strawman here. I never spoke of continuing to have obsoleted jobs.
You complained that labour was being replaced by capital, were you not?

If you look at the proposal of the PCF, we want a "safety of work-training", meaning the people don't stay at the same job during their all life, but go from periods of work and periods of training to get a "better" job, but with a safety of wage.
Funded with what? You have to know, everything that a private individual wouldn't personally pay for isn't worth it to that individual. So you're once again putting fuzzy criteria up in front of what people actually believe they need.

That's what we are trying to build, not a USSR-style work safety. We want the safety for the worker without the hindrance and paralysis that comes with it, and we have proposals to build it.
So having a worker removed from your company to train for something different and having him paid a wage isn't a hindrance?

What I oppose is when people are fired and left without nothing.
Look, if someone is left with nothing, that's first and foremost a case of bad planning on their part. And otherwise a case for charity.

So we should give them training for a job they can do, and in the while, provide them with a "pay" so they continue to live decently and feed their family.
What's stopping you? Why don't you take your money and give it someone in that unfortunate situation? Why do you feel you need to use someone else's money to fund your personal utopia?

Market isn't self-correcting at all, market was proven to be thermodynamically unstable, that is, to INCREASE the problems (never heard about "crisis" ?).
Proof?

A company goes bankrupt ? People are fired. So people have less money. So they buy less. So another company goes bankrupt. And it's providers have less business and have to fire workers. And so on. That's the basic working of the market: a small initial problem usually leads to a greater problem.
But those problems correct themselves. A small problem in a command economy doesn't...instead it eventually brings the whole system down.

Because a social system is a safety net against this amplification effect.
It can be. Unemployment insurances and that sort of thing.

Unfortunately this has apparently been taken as a card blanche to simply continue expanding these systems to the point where they actually make it a bad idea for a person to work or plan for rainy days.

Of course there was an alternative. To do the exact opposite of what Thatcher did, which was absolutely disastrous for the majority of UK citizen.
And within a few years there would have been the same empty shelves I saw in the GDR. It really was that bad, as difficult that must be for you to accept.

The idea is the same everywhere and every time.
And it was the same the other way around. Every time some reform was done or some economic freedom allowed or something privatised the left called it the end of the social system and prophecised the return of children in coal mines.

It's all political rhetoric. In this case it's pretty simple: non-wage labour costs and red tape are killing the French labour market. Lower the costs and free up the market and unemployment will fall.

Fortunately for those unemployed it looks like the majority of French voters understood that regardless of all the rhetoric and mudslinging.

Economic logic doesn't exist.
Ooooookay?

So in other words you can use a resource time and time again. And two people can use it at the same time.

And of course those 1% do matter.
Obviously they do. They're human beings, as you put it previously. They deserve no harm coming to them because they happen to be that 1%.

It's not defying "economic logic", it's defying the 1% of population who control the economy.
1% of people control the thousands and thousands of small and medium-sized firms that employ most people?

1% control what people spend, where and when?

1% make fiscal and monetary policy?

That other 99% must be pretty damn lazy.

Also, does 50% of the share market equate to control of the economy?

And finally, I hadn't actually asked you for a source yet, so I'll do that now. Who says that 1% of people own 50% of the stock market?

But it'll be definitely worth it, because if we don't do it, they'll continue to take more and more from us, and seize more and more power, while our living conditions will continue to go down.
They don't happen to be part of the stone masons too, do they? :eek:

Look, as fun as conspiracy theories can be, there's a time and place for them. This ain't it.

Not if at the same time you help the unemployed.
Because of course a life on welfare payments is much better than a life doing a productive job.

My dad's been a long-term unemployed person in his early 50s. You may want to consider whether that's all that much fun.

I'm glad to "hurt" them. I'm pretty sure they'll still be fine with "only" a couple of hundred of thousands of euros in yearly income.
More likely they'll just move to Monaco. Nice weather there and lots of celebs. Good shopping too.

Wealthy people are no more a resource than poor people are. You can't exploit them.

Sarkozy will harm the middle class. On the latest tax cut his government did, 70% of it went to the 10% wealthiest. That's not the "middle class". Sarkozy will comfort the upper class, not the middle class.
Yes, yes, we heard the same story with Bush. Obviously if the wealthy pay the highest euro amount in taxes, an equal percentage change will equate to a larger euro reduction.

And besides, tax cuts always have to be considered in the context of the tax system they are made in.

And it was just the most recent example, we have scandals like several times a year.
I know. Deutsche Bank boss did the same thing.

Very bad PR, that. Lots of angry shareholders. Even threatened customer boycots. Not in the interest of the firm at all.

How so ? Encouraging, with different tax rates, companies to spend their money in wages and not in profits is a way to change the "economical laws". It's not a band-aid, it's deep change of the working of economics, because it changes the incentive, helps the ones behaving "well" and hurts the ones behaving "bad".
Not really.

It's free money if you do things a certain way, even if otherwise you wouldn't do it. The policy you are talking about would simply have reduced the productivity threshold needed for a worker to be employed. It wouldn't have changed the cost structure of the labour itself.

And that's not even addressing the insanity of first making labour expensive and then using tax money to make it a bit cheaper.

No, the disease is that stock owner want insane profit rate on the short term.
Funny that. Seems that in Germany reducing labour costs has resulted in unemployment going down, not some sort of special reeducation camp for shareholders.

That's what the right-wing, random, blind gifts to corporations, costing the state billions without any effect.
You'll laugh, but that's actually the thing I hate most about Sarkozy, even more than his appeals to populist nationalism.

Not "gifts", but rules which rewards certain behaviour and punish others.
But it's all money on top of an existing cost structure. It's not a change of the cost structure itself.

This is not a misunderstanding. It's one the main reason for which I oppose capitalism: that a company's goal and purpose is not to be useful but to give profits to its owners, whatever the costs may be.
They're the owners. They own it. They get to decide what it does, and that may or may not include earning them money.

For Bodyshop, it was something else. Whatever floats your boat.

By making laws, by changing the way taxes are collected, by granting workers a say on how corporations are run, so a company is less single-mindly aimed towards short-term profit of owners but more towards having a responsible role in the society.
Except that all the ideals in the world aren't going to help you if you go bankrupt.

But as I said, if you think a company should so something, go and buy a few shares. Then you can vote on stuff and see what happens.

Of course you may be outvoted, but that's what happens in a democracy. And while we're at it, that might be a good message for those kids throwing bricks and torching cars right now. I wanna bet they didn't protest when democratic elections got Morales into office in Bolivia.

I never said we should all stop working. But that, since with mechanization and technology we produce more and more every worked hour, we can slowly lower the amount of time spent working (as it was done during the whole 20est century, from over 60 hours to 39 hours in France, and continuing at 35 hours).
Exactly. But it was still done according to economic logic. If the costs of this reduction exceeded the gains, it wasn't done.

The thing is that the goal is not to stay still at one level of wealth. We could have done that a billion times throughout history, simply stuck with one level and increase our spare time. But it turns out that sticking with working and instead increasing our wealth hasn't been all that bad an idea.

A world without work would be a stagnated world. And it's hard to believe that you really understand that if you call work and happiness incompatible.

Which one ? The small "entrepreneur" who does as much work as I do if not more ?
All proper entrepreneurs do more work than you do. That's why they get so much money.

Or the one who reached the top of big corporation because of the network of relations of his father and earn millions for not doing much ?
Huh? That's not an entrepreneur, that's a lucky bastard.

But that's what the right-wing rhetoric is doing, by pretending to defend the first one in order to help the other one.
Because it is in my interest to have some rich kid get into nice elite universities and end up the first female head of a major French political party not for being very good at anything, but by having the right daddy and the right husband?

Hardly. Capitalism is fundamentally a meritocratic system, and I have a fundamentally meritocratic mindset.

I am very happy with my life and achievement, why should I envy someone who is ?
Because you advocate taking it away from people to give it to those who aren't happy with theirs.

The difference being that you don't consider the consequences on the worker, on the human being, who is fired and find himself in a disastrous situation.
The beauty is, a contractor isn't "fired" in the same way an employee is. For a contractor it's simply moving on to the next job, it's no big deal.

There is no security, and that is precisely what makes it normal, which takes the sting away from it. Precisely because people want to imagine so hard that employers owe them anything other than the pay for their labour does it become such a big deal if they don't require your services anymore.

It's a change of mindset more than anything else that I want.

While we do want a flexible working path, but WITH protection and security for the human being. Flexibility of the contract and job, security for the worker.
Okay, I'll need you to define the words "flexibility", "contract" and "security".

What opportunity can you see when at the age of 9 you faint in school because your parents can't afford to pay you the school restaurant so you don't eat at lunch ? That's the reality.
Again with the tears.

Maybe it would be better to simply have social workers make sure people aren't completely incompetent when raising their kids rather than sending those same incompetent people free money.

So, why is it getting worse quickly under a right-wing gov which destroys the "welfare state", while it was getting better under a moderate left-wing gov like between 1997-2002 which, for example, made the 35 hours ?
What sort of "destruction" are you talking about here?

As long as you'll believe in your 19est century economic theories, and ignore everything that was done since (consequences of game theory of Nash, of asymmetry of information of Stieglitz, the wage-profit considerations of Marx, and so on), you'll fail to understand what the reality is.
Look, I'm in my fourth year of studying economics now. None of the things you mentioned have any bearing on demand meeting supply.

The former has nothing to do with something as simplistic as a one-product market.
The second simply tells us that demand and supply don't accurately reflect economic reality, but don't change the fact that price is where the two meet.
And the latter has just been put in the bin where every disproven theory belongs.

So, in order to become more competitive than third world countries, we have to become third world countries ourselves, increasing working hours, lowering wages, and disbanding the social system ? That's the wonderful world you offer us ?

Because if at 35 hours we are not competitive against people working 60 hours like in China, will we be so at 39 our 40 hours ? No more. This infernal loop of "we must be competitive" as one end: when everyone will have the worse conditions.
Stop creating strawmen. The competition that exists for French workers is not in China, rather it's in the US, UK and Germany, not the developing world. The developed world has qualities that are not available in the developing world, such as high levels of human capital, existing capital for investment and first rate infrastructure.

You make it sound like I want to take us back to 1850, I don't. I just think it's best for the government to loosen the reigns it has over labor markets, not drop them entirely.

Or... there are other things to consider. Like infrastructures, education, health, happiness, ... of the population.
That's all fine and dandy, but when you're country is inspiring little new private investment



It is also a proven fact that people are more productive when they are rested, have free time to take care of their family, do things they like and recover their strength, and so on. A recent study showed that for intellectual works, after between 32 hours and 35 hours of work each week (depending of people and of the job), the productivity falls quickly. The same is true with holidays, I witness it at my work (software engineering), when I or co-wokers are back from holidays, we tend to be much more productive than after a long period without any.
Why does it have to be mandatory, though? If that's the case, then employers will see the value in shorter work weeks for intellectuals, and offer them that. The government doesn't need to impose that restriction though.

A few numbers to finish it: just compare the GDP/inhabitant of UK and France. They are roughly the same (31k for UK, 30k for France). But in France, we have 35 hours of work each week and 5 weeks of paid holidays, that makes 1645 worked hours each year. In UK, it's 48 hours of work each week (by law, I'm not sure if it's really true for everyone, if not the figures change a bit, but not the overall outcome), with 2 weeks of paid holidays. That makes 2400 worked hours each year. Working 145% more than us, they produce 103% more than us. Is it really worth the price ?

There are cultural influences at play here besides other factors.

On a side note: I can't keep up with five foot long posts...I don't have the patience.