NationStates Jolt Archive

Discuss.

Here's a piece of advice, Try to add in your own opinion first, or at least say something beside "discuss", that way people will be more likely to reply to your thread and actually debate with you.

Nicholas Sarkozy: Good or Bad for France?I dont know yet if he is any good for France..

But he is good for US & Israel.. very good.

Here's a piece of advice, Try to add in your own opinion first, or at least say something beside "discuss", that way people will be more likely to reply to your thread and actually debate with you.

I'd love to, but that would sculpt opinion too much, now wouldn't it?

I'd love to, but that would sculpt opinion too much, now wouldn't it?

Yea, but aren't you already asking for opinion with the title? Comon, time to man up and actually offer an opinion in your threads.

I'd love to, but that would sculpt opinion too much, now wouldn't it?
Nobody here cares. Hell, there are people here that introduce bias into mathematics!

Yea, but aren't you already asking for opinion with the title? Comon, time to man up and actually offer an opinion in your threads.

I used to. But such open-endedness is so much more interesting.

I'd love to, but that would sculpt opinion too much, now wouldn't it?

Trust me when I say you have ZERO influence over what people on NSG think.

I used to. But such open-endedness is so much more interesting.

Trust me, you don't weild that much influence here.

Nickelass is bad for France as he has a boring name. I mean how is he to compete with Chirac? Chirac sounds like something that could eat you. This man could be bad news for France.

Trust me when I say you have ZERO influence over what people on NSG think.

Or what they post. If people want your thread to be an abortion thread, it will be an abortion thread.

Discuss.

Nicholas Sarkozy is a great man, and a great leader; if not only for his awesome name.

Nicholas Sarkozy is a great man, and a great leader; if not only for his awesome name.
Traitor! You want the terrorists to win too, don't you?

Traitor! You want the terrorists to win too, don't you?

Wasn't Sarkozy part of that Iranian student group back in '79? I thought I saw a photo with him in it next to the Iranian president. Or was that Chirac?

He's a Euro Bushevik running a nation that Busheviks call Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys.

It's the equivalent of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman becoming chairmen of the Democratic Party.

Bit early to tell, isn't it?

I like his cabinet though.
http://www4.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9226982
http://www4.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9196332

He'll be good for fundy Turks.

Bit early to tell, isn't it?

I like his cabinet though.
http://www4.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9226982
http://www4.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=9196332
Without meaning to sound like a cynic, I doubt this 'inclusiveness' will last much longer than the elections to Parliament, but as you say, it is too early to tell.

I think he'll be different than any 5th Republic president, and in this case, different is good. France has been an economic laggard ever since the 1970s. The response has been an expanded state and tighter labor regulations and protectionist policies. There is a very good chance that lots of those programs will end under President Sarkozy, and France's economic vitality will definitely soar.
I myself was initially doubtful that Sarkozy would do any good. Try to change policy in France, and protests break out everywhere. But I've heard that France has been quiet since he got elected. Maybe he knows something about the French that no other president has ever figured out.

I used to. But such open-endedness is so much more interesting.

It could also be considered trolling. :eek:

I support Sarkozy fully. Somewhere between his admirably resolute stance regarding the riots of 2005, and his being a thoroughgoingly right-wing politician, I must confess I would rather have Sarkozy as Prime Minister than either Blair, Brown or Cameron.

I think it's far too early to say whether or not Sarko will be good or bad for France. However, I'll just say that I'm not all that optimistic about the whole thing.

I think he'll be different than any 5th Republic president, and in this case, different is good. France has been an economic laggard ever since the 1970s. The response has been an expanded state and tighter labor regulations and protectionist policies. There is a very good chance that lots of those programs will end under President Sarkozy, and France's economic vitality will definitely soar.
I myself was initially doubtful that Sarkozy would do any good. Try to change policy in France, and protests break out everywhere. But I've heard that France has been quiet since he got elected. Maybe he knows something about the French that no other president has ever figured out.

If you looking for someone that isn't protectionist, I don't think Sarkozy is your man.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa3e0d70-d133-11d9-9c1d-00000e2511c8.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910083_mz054.htm

That being said, I am hopeful he will put forward some reforms and won't back down to protests. Some reforms are needed but there aren't many people in France that would have Thatcherite style reforms, the new president included. It is more likely there will be reforms more fitting of the European "Third Way."

If you looking for someone that isn’t protectionist, I don’t think Sarkozy is your man.
I don’t think anyone in modern mainstream politics is your man/woman.

There has never been a single state since the Industrial Revolution that hasn’t been protectionist in some manner.

Maybe, give Sarko a bit of time. I'm quite on the left, but we cannot judge Sarko yet.

Nicholas Sarkozy: Good or Bad for France?

Bad. Very bad. He'll destroy the social system, increase poverty and sufferings, give tax cuts to the wealthy, and make those who have a job work more instead of creating jobs for those who don't. As he did during those latest 5 years...

And at the same time reduce everyone's civil and political rights. The police will continue to act as "hunters" (as they describe themselves), harrassing the population of poor areas and committing violence without any fear of sanction, and this population will react violently feeding the violence infernal loop. Arresting children at schools' door, beating/arresting protesters, sending people to jail for little stuff while protecting those who steal millions will be the norm. The media will be more and more strictly controlled by him (he just put the vice-president of his electoral campaign staff at the head of TF1, the first private TV channel), and he'll increase his usage of the police for his own private interest.

And of course, internationally, France will become a US puppet, with the lovely Kouchner (one of the few in France who supported the invasion of Irak) at the foreign affairs.

Maybe, give Sarko a bit of time. I'm quite on the left, but we cannot judge Sarko yet.

He was the second man of the government (or the first, if you count the number of times he appeared on TV) for 5 years. We saw the result...

Without meaning to sound like a cynic, I doubt this 'inclusiveness' will last much longer than the elections to Parliament, but as you say, it is too early to tell.

Which "inclusiveness" ? He did the real exploit of chosing someone from the PS who is, on the field on which he was chosen, more to the right than most of his own party ! Kouchner was one of the few who supported the invasion of Irak, on foreign affairs in general, he's much more to the right than the majority of UMP ! Sure, he doesn't care whose party someone is member, as long as he's as far as possible to the right...

France has been an economic laggard ever since the 1970s. The response has been an expanded state and tighter labor regulations and protectionist policies.

That's about the opposite. The changes since the 1970s have been to destroy the social system, and *that* leaded to damaging french economy.

Try to change policy in France, and protests break out everywhere.

Depends what you try to change and how. People don't like when you destroy their social system - and even if they elected Sarkozy (for their fear of immigration and insecurity, not for his economical program), they don't want it to be destroyed. A recent poll showed that more than 65% of the french oppose the will of Sarkozy to lower the part of healthcare paid by the state.

I support Sarkozy fully. Somewhere between his admirably resolute stance regarding the riots of 2005

You mean, how he created them ? By insulting people, then supporting cops who leaded to the death of two teenagers before any inquiry was done (and the inquiry concluded that the cops were partly responsible) and then ordering the police to fire a teargas grenade inside a mosque at prayer time ?

Bad. Very bad. He'll destroy the social system, increase poverty and sufferings, give tax cuts to the wealthy, and make those who have a job work more instead of creating jobs for those who don't. As he did during those latest 5 years...

And at the same time reduce everyone's civil and political rights. The police will continue to act as "hunters" (as they describe themselves), harrassing the population of poor areas and committing violence without any fear of sanction, and this population will react violently feeding the violence infernal loop. Arresting children at schools' door, beating/arresting protesters, sending people to jail for little stuff while protecting those who steal millions will be the norm. The media will be more and more strictly controlled by him (he just put the vice-president of his electoral campaign staff at the head of TF1, the first private TV channel), and he'll increase his usage of the police for his own private interest.

And of course, internationally, France will become a US puppet, with the lovely Kouchner (one of the few in France who supported the invasion of Irak) at the foreign affairs.

He's a Euro-Bushevik. Short and to the point.

I don’t think anyone in modern mainstream politics is your man/woman.

There has never been a single state since the Industrial Revolution that hasn’t been protectionist in some manner.

True, it isn't popular to throw the doors completely open. It would be political suicide. But I don't think Sarkozy is any different from those before him in France as far a protectionism of 'the champions of French industry' go. There will labour market reforms but a foreign company wants to buy a major French industry it will be blocked.

That's about the opposite. The changes since the 1970s have been to destroy the social system, and *that* leaded to damaging french economy.
Nope.

You have precisely zero evidence for your claim.

The standard explanation - that an overly rigid economy and labour market has hurt efficiency and flexibility and thus limited economic growth and cemented high unemployment - on the other hand has quite a bit: economic logic, evidence of pre- and post-Thatcher Britain, the successful growth of the US and now the resurgence of Germany after the labour market reforms. And soon we can add Sarkozy's success story to that list.

Nope.

You have precisely zero evidence for your claim.

The shift of the capital-work split. And the fact that french economy was doing better than other european countries during Jospin (center-left), and worse doing Balladur/Juppé and Raffarin/De Villepin (right).

The standard explanation - that an overly rigid economy and labour market has hurt efficiency and flexibility and thus limited economic growth and cemented high unemployment

The more logical explanation is quite the opposite: unregulated labour market and economy leads to competition of workers against each other, lowering wages, and therefore hurting the economy (if people can't buy, companies can't sell).

The other more logical explanation is quite the opposite too: unregulated labour market and economy amplifies any problem that could happen (if you can fire people easily, the snowball effect of firing in company => less demand => firing in other companies => even less demand grows much faster).

on the other hand has quite a bit: economic logic, evidence of pre- and post-Thatcher Britain

Indeed, Britain. Highest poverty (after USA) of the 17 wealithest countries, lowest hourly productivity of the "powerful" european countries, highest internal debt (140% of the GDP, that's insane), non-working basic services (dreadful public transports, disastrous state of health system , ...), many people having to work TWO jobs because one isn't enough to live decently. A clear example of where right-wing policies lead: a disaster.

Which "inclusiveness" ? He did the real exploit of chosing someone from the PS who is, on the field on which he was chosen, more to the right than most of his own party ! Kouchner was one of the few who supported the invasion of Irak, on foreign affairs in general, he's much more to the right than the majority of UMP ! Sure, he doesn't care whose party someone is member, as long as he's as far as possible to the right...
I was only quoting NL's source, but you undoubtedly know more about Kouchner and Sarkozy's cabinet than I do.

Indeed, Britain. Highest poverty (after USA) of the 17 wealithest countries, lowest hourly productivity of the "powerful" european countries, highest internal debt (140% of the GDP, that's insane), non-working basic services (dreadful public transports, disastrous state of health system , ...), many people having to work TWO jobs because one isn't enough to live decently. A clear example of where right-wing policies lead: a disaster.
Well, I'd take the French way of life over the British way of life any day.

If you looking for someone that isn't protectionist, I don't think Sarkozy is your man.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/aa3e0d70-d133-11d9-9c1d-00000e2511c8.html
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910083_mz054.htm

That being said, I am hopeful he will put forward some reforms and won't back down to protests. Some reforms are needed but there aren't many people in France that would have Thatcherite style reforms, the new president included. It is more likely there will be reforms more fitting of the European "Third Way."
Well, he'd certainly be far less protectionistic than Royale, and certainly more pro-business than her. I don't know what Bayrou would've been like, but hey, he was really a non-factor from the beginning.

I think he's a badly good politician

That's about the opposite. The changes since the 1970s have been to destroy the social system, and *that* leaded to damaging french economy.
Aspects of the French economy have become less capitalistic, but mostly in the corporate sector, and only very slowly. In other aspects, such as taxation and the work force, the government's policies, while well-meaning, aggravated the problem. Take the 35-hour work week. That, combined with wage regulations and rules that make it hard to fire workers, plus incredibly strong unions, discourage employers from highering. The end result is the high unemployment.


Depends what you try to change and how. People don't like when you destroy their social system - and even if they elected Sarkozy (for their fear of immigration and insecurity, not for his economical program), they don't want it to be destroyed. A recent poll showed that more than 65% of the french oppose the will of Sarkozy to lower the part of healthcare paid by the state.
I get the impression, however, that the French would be oppose to all changes, unless they are sweeping and revolutionary. That doesn't mean that Sarkozy can't push reforms through, but they'll be unpopular. The thing that has always fascinated me is that France has, for centuries, been Europe's most unstable society, and yet they thrive on it. But that's off topic.
In which Parisian suburb do you live in, btw?

The shift of the capital-work split. And the fact that french economy was doing better than other european countries during Jospin (center-left), and worse doing Balladur/Juppé and Raffarin/De Villepin (right).

Can you cite any statistics to corroborate this fact? If you have any historical facts regarding France's unemployment and GDP growth, I would love to see them.

The more logical explanation is quite the opposite: unregulated labour market and economy leads to competition of workers against each other, lowering wages, and therefore hurting the economy (if people can't buy, companies can't sell).

That is not only less logical than Neu Leonstein's explanation, but it is downright illogical. Lower wages, in most cases, lead to lower production costs for companies, allowing them to produce more. Furthermore, it allows them to be more competitive globally and export their goods to other markets. Entrepreneurs will also find it easier to establish a business if they are not assailed from all direction with bureaucratic red tape, including costly labor constraints. This all leads to boosted production and decreased prices, which is an excellent economic state. In virtually all cases where the labor market was deregulated, economic advantages became almost immediately apparent; the UK during Thatcher's time is but one example, but there are numerous others.

The other more logical explanation is quite the opposite too: unregulated labour market and economy amplifies any problem that could happen (if you can fire people easily, the snowball effect of firing in company => less demand => firing in other companies => even less demand grows much faster).

Do you understand the classical economic concept of flexible wages? Basically, if wages are downwardly flexible in the long-run, a decrease in wages will correspond to an equal decrease in demand, resulting in no change in the overall GDP level. If companies are free to alter wages however they choose, the economy will always produce at its long-run full-employment output. However, if companies fear that they cannot lay off workers if a recession occurs, they will be loath to hire them in the first place. This was especially evident in Germany prior to reforms, as it currently is in France. Cyclical unemployment can be avoided if instead of firing workers, their wage rates could be easily adjusted; unfortunately, unions and labor market restrictions get in the way of such a simple and elegant solution, causing many more headaches in the long run.

Indeed, Britain. Highest poverty (after USA) of the 17 wealithest countries, lowest hourly productivity of the "powerful" european countries, highest internal debt (140% of the GDP, that's insane), non-working basic services (dreadful public transports, disastrous state of health system , ...), many people having to work TWO jobs because one isn't enough to live decently. A clear example of where right-wing policies lead: a disaster.

Britain is thriving. Its unemployment rate is down below 3%, which is a remarkable achievement in any country. Furthermore, Britain's poverty rate is lower than leftist Italy, socialist Spain, and other countries such as Ireland (http://www.euractiv.com/en/socialeurope/72m-eu-citizens-threatened-poverty/article-145627). GDP per capita in the UK has surpassed that in France, despite lagging behind its neighbor for many decades; this surge can be attributed to economic reforms undertaken in the UK during Thatcher's tenure. Britain's state health system, like any other state-run industry, is a huge failure; complete privatization would easily rectify this problem, however. Additionally, Britain's growth in productivity exceeds France's (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/18/36396770.xls). Your most outrageous claim regards Britain's debt. In fact, its public debt accounts for only 42.20% of its GDP, as compared to France (64.70%). It is also lower than such left-wing countries as Finland.

In the long run I expect he will do more good than harm. France has problems and could certainly use a shaking-up. If he doesn't do well, he can always be put out in the next election.

In other aspects, such as taxation and the work force, the government's policies, while well-meaning, aggravated the problem.

The governement policies, those latest 30 years, except a tiny few exceptions, were to lower taxes (especially to companies and employers), to disband the work force protecting laws, and to privatise massively. That aggravated the problem, I agree.

Take the 35-hour work week.

That was one of the few exceptions... and that one created many jobs. France performed much better than Germany just *after* this 35-hours work week, and then started to perform bad again when the gov started again to do neoliberal reforms.

That, combined with wage regulations and rules that make it hard to fire workers, plus incredibly strong unions, discourage employers from highering. The end result is the high unemployment.

High unemployment is bad, but much less bad when you have unemployment protection than having wages so low than many people who work live in poverty and need to do two jobs to live decently, as it's the case in UK and USA.

Workers protection also acts as a safety net, preventing (or at least slowing) the snowball effect of free market (problem (whatever it is) => less income => workers fired => less demand => less income => more workers fired => ...), the snowball effect which resulted in the 1929 crisis. Disbanding the safety net that was created after WW2 to prevent a new 1929 crisis from happening is totally irresponsible, it's creating the conditions for a new crisis of this scale and all catastrophic consequences we know.

I get the impression, however, that the French would be oppose to all changes, unless they are sweeping and revolutionary.

That's a very wrong, but very widespread, cliché. French people oppose changes that disband a social system they like. They want to go ahead, they refuse "reforms" that are in fact not "reforms" but "counter-reforms", destroying the (welcomed) changes done in 1936 and 1945.

The thing that has always fascinated me is that France has, for centuries, been Europe's most unstable society, and yet they thrive on it. But that's off topic.

France is still an "unstable society". That's why french people revolted them against the kings, revolted themselves in 1848, 1871 or 1936, and that's why they revolt (in non-violent forms this time) when a government try to break our rights (like 1995 or in 2006).

In which Parisian suburb do you live in, btw?

Epinay/Seine, in the (in)famous "département" 93, the poorest of the country... I see everyday the disaster of 30 years of neoliberal policies, and I saw the situation going worse very quickly during those latest 5 years in which Sarkozy was vice-prime-minister.

Oh my love France, now it has been swept down into the dustbin of reaction and we won't see it again, it seems the royalists won after all, so long my love, so long Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.... welcome Travail, famille, patrie...

Can you cite any statistics to corroborate this fact? If you have any historical facts regarding France's unemployment and GDP growth, I would love to see them.

You can google them, I don't have the time right now. Just a warning for the latest 2-3 years: the right-wing government lowered the time during people receive unemployment money. And stricly tightened the rules for unemployed people, hundred of thousands were removed from the lists because they came late to an appointement and such. Agreeing or not with those decisions is not the issue, but both leaded to an artificial lowering of unemployment numbers - so much that the statisticians working at the INSEE refused to publish the numbers at first, saying they were completly pointless.

Lower wages, in most cases, lead to lower production costs for companies, allowing them to produce more.

How do lower production costs allow companies to produce more ? They do it at constant wage - but not if you lower wages. You forget that workforce is only a part of prices. There are two parts in prices: work and capital. Lowering wages lower the "work" part, not the "capital" part. So it lowers the prices _less_ than the wages were lowered, which lowers the purchasing power and therefore the demand of workers. And it increases profits, which is the goal... and the result of 30 years of neoliberal policies, the work/capital split in France was 85% for work, 15% for profits from 1945 to 1975; it is now 70% for work, 30% for profits, and the shift is accelerating.

Furthermore, it allows them to be more competitive globally and export their goods to other markets.

How is that good for french people ? And anyway, if we wanted to export, the first thing to do would be to lower the value of the euro, which insanly high value harms euro-zone country. Strangely, this lowering of the value of the euro (by printing a bit of money, which in turn could be used to pay for infrastructure or social help) is only proposed by... the radical left.

Entrepreneurs will also find it easier to establish a business if they are not assailed from all direction with bureaucratic red tape, including costly labor constraints.

That's false. More social countries like France or nordic countries have a higher ratio of small companies, while less social countries like UK or USA have a higher ratio of big companies. The reasons are many.

One is infrastructures, a dense, cheap and reliable public transportation system is more important for small companies (especially local services) than for big companies.

The other is the "safety net" which works also for "entrepreneur". Knowing that if you fail, if your company goes bankrupt, you'll still have at least the "RMI", mostly free healthcare, and all other social help makes it easier to take the risk then knowing that if you fail, you'll have nothing. On the same level, many "entrepreneur" receive unemployment money during the first 6 to 18 months in which they create their company, first months during which the company doesn't make money.

Another one is the effect of global insurances (healthcare, retirement, ...) on workers. Where you don't have such global, state provided insurances, most big companies can provide their worker with such insurance, and are in a strong position to negociate with insurance companies. While small companies can hardly provide it (meaning they have to pay their worker higher to compensate), and are in a weak position to negociate with insurance companies. The global insurance lowers the gap between "small" and "big" players, which makes creating companies easier.

In virtually all cases where the labor market was deregulated, economic advantages became almost immediately apparent; the UK during Thatcher's time is but one example, but there are numerous others.

Economic advantages ? What became apparent is an increase of poverty, a lowering of median purchasing power, a lowering of quality of services in fundamental areas (healthcare, education, transport, ...), and an higher instability.

the economy will always produce at its long-run full-employment output.

More exactly, it'll produce the NAIRU. But at what cost ? People forced to cumulate two jobs, people working AND living in misery, insanly hard working conditions, and low quality fundamental services.

Britain is thriving. Its unemployment rate is down below 3%, which is a remarkable achievement in any country.

If that's your goal at any cost, then Cuba is your dream. It has an unemployment rate down below 1%. But I don't consider lower unemployment being worth whatever price you have to pay for it, and the price Britain paid for it is catastrophic. And don't forget that real unemployment is much higher, the less unemployment protection you have, the less likely unemployed people will register themselves as unemployed. And don't forget the amount of forced part-time work, which is similar to unemployment, but not counted in those statistics, and much higher in UK than in France.

Furthermore, Britain's poverty rate is lower than leftist Italy, socialist Spain

Leftist Italy, socialist Spain ? Are you joking ? Italy is just out of 7 years of far right Berlusconi ! Socialist Spain ? Spain never fully recovered from Franco (hardly a socialist), and the right-wing PP was in power since 1996. As for the PSOE, if it's leftish on issues such as gay rights, it's more center-right than anything else economically.

GDP per capita in the UK has surpassed that in France

But still UK stays way behind France in HDI.

Britain's state health system, like any other state-run industry, is a huge failure; complete privatization would easily rectify this problem, however.

That's completly ridiculous. State halth systems *always* were more efficient than private ones. France health system is much better than UK or USA ever was, while French spend much less money in it (the cost of French health system is 9% of their GDP, the cost of USA health system is 13% of their GDP). And, even if you can disagree with many things in Cuba, their health system is undoubtly the best of the world.

Additionally, Britain's growth in productivity exceeds France's (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/18/36396770.xls).

That's growth in *production* not in *productivity*. Productivity is the amount of wealth produced per working hour. When people work less (as we do in France), they produce less in total with the same productivity. Or as it's the case of UK vs France, we produce nearly as much (GDP/capita is roughly the same) while working much less (35 hours/weeks, 5 weeks of paid holidays), which is very good. Producing always more is not a goal, people having more free time to enjoy life, take care of their family, discover the world, ... is at least as important as producing more wealth, as long as the basis (food, education, healthcare, ...) are assured.

Your most outrageous claim regards Britain's debt. In fact, its public debt accounts for only 42.20% of its GDP, as compared to France (64.70%). It is also lower than such left-wing countries as Finland.

I was speaking of *internal* debt, not of public debt. Internal (household) debt is much more problematic than public debt. Many people in UK have so low wages that they live on credit, even common expenses are not done with their wages, but with loans. That cannot last forever, and will end up in a collapse (which will be even worse thank to unregulated labour market), in 5, 10 or 20 years I can't say, but it's not sustainable.

I find it almost undefendable that some people would claim rights like the minimum wage and the like are 'bureaucratic red tape', they are the fundamental rights of workers.

I find it almost undefendable that some people would claim rights like the minimum wage and the like are 'bureaucratic red tape', they are the fundamental rights of workers.

Well, saddly, those people don't consider workers as human beings, but as a ressource. And what they care about is growth rate and economical statistics only, not well-being of the population. But even on this level, they are wrong, the myth of free market being economically efficient was dispelled long ago.

Many people in UK have so low wages that they live on credit, even common expenses are not done with their wages, but with loans.
Come on, you know that's not true. The reason household debt has exploded is that house prices have soared, meaning that people have taken up bigger and bigger mortgages. They're not living off that money, they're living in it.

Anyways, regarding your whole "wage growth = economic growth" theory, this article is actually pretty good at pointing out the basics:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2074121,00.html

Basically the French economy has outperformed the German one in the past few years because consumption remained stronger there. The reason for that was that in Germany real wages were falling. So in that respect you're right.

Unfortunately, you can only do that for so long until the steam runs out. If you continuously shift economic surplus away from producers and towards consumers, the producers will end up suffering (and other red tape does the rest) and competitiveness falls.

So that's why we see the reversal in the trend now, with Germany outperforming France due to greater competitiveness having translated in good economic growth which in turn created extra employment and lifted consumer's spirits. The good thing about this way of doing it is that now the previously unemployed end up earning money to spend as well. That means the state saves unemployment benefits (which can either be spent or given back in tax cuts, or in Germany's case used to repair the budget deficit), there's extra tax income (again, can be used to solve problems) and, most importantly, consumption actually increases despite the previous drops in wages simply because there are now more people earning money.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,479149,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,484835,00.html

I find it almost undefendable that some people would claim rights like the minimum wage and the like are 'bureaucratic red tape', they are the fundamental rights of workers.
Fun fact: There is no job security in Denmark. People can be fired at virtually any time for virtually any reason.

But even on this level, they are wrong, the myth of free market being economically efficient was dispelled long ago.
Do explain...

Come on, you know that's not true. The reason household debt has exploded is that house prices have soared, meaning that people have taken up bigger and bigger mortgages. They're not living off that money, they're living in it.

You know that's only a tiny part of the truth. House prices have soared in France too, and our internal debt is still much lower, while house prices didn't soar in USA, and their internal debt is even higher than in UK.

You also forget than most people who are deeply in debt are usually the poorest people, those who don't *buy* but *rent* their homes.

Oh, and btw, should I remind you that the hugh price of housing is a consequence of speculation, another inherent evil of a "free" market ? And that those who want to regulate the market of housing in order to prevent this speculation are the "radical leftist" ?

Basically the French economy has outperformed the German one in the past few years because consumption remained stronger there. The reason for that was that in Germany real wages were falling. So in that respect you're right.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, you can only do that for so long until the steam runs out. If you continuously shift economic surplus away from producers and towards consumers, the producers will end up suffering (and other red tape does the rest) and competitiveness falls.

Producers ? Producers are those produce goods, that is, workers. Producers are the consumers, and high wages are good for them. If you speak of capital owners, well, the shifting is actually done the other way around: they take a higher and higher share of the GDP. Having some policies to counter this is required, but none were efficient or radical enough to change the global direction of the shift, in the latest 30 years.

So that's why we see the reversal in the trend now, with Germany outperforming France due to greater competitiveness

First, you compare two right-wing governments and reforms. Since 2002, France is governed by a very right-wing government, which spent most of its time and energy giving tax cuts, lowering worker protection, fighting unions and disbanding the social protection (lowering time during which people receive unemployment money, much stricter control to receive it, massive cuts in public healthcare, privatisations, ...).

Then, we fall into a Nash equilibrium (prisonner's dilemma). Germany played the dumping, the "non cooperation" card. France didn't play it, or more exactly, not as much. So Germany took some of the markets of France. Because Germany doesn't take markets away from China. Germany boosted its exports by taking markets from France, mostly. But if France did the same as Germany, none of the "export boost" would have occured, but the negative effects of lowering wages would have damaged both economy.

That's one of the other major evil of "free" market. In "free" market, if one plays "cooperation" while another plays "competition", the one who plays "competition" wins. But if both play "competition", both have less than if both play "cooperation". Germany is playing "competition", France is playing half/half. So Germany gains more. But as soon as France will start playing "competition", both will lose much more than if both played "cooperation" (or "half/half"). Thank you, Germany.

That means the state saves unemployment benefits (which can either be spent or given back in tax cuts, or in Germany's case used to repair the budget deficit), there's extra tax income (again, can be used to solve problems)

Which is exactly what happened in France after the 35 hours law. But for the complete opposite reason: this law forced employers to employ more people, which created more income for the state, more purchasing power in total for the population, lower spendingin unemployment, ...

Fun fact: There is no job security in Denmark. People can be fired at virtually any time for virtually any reason.

I totally disagree with that for ethical and human reasons, but you forgot to say that in Denmark workers who are fired received a very high compensation (90% of the former wage, IIRC) from the state. So it's a very specific model, you can hardly use it to justify any of the two "sides" as is. It would require a much deeper analysis of the situation of Denmark, and a lot of hypothesis on which will probably disagree.

You know that's only a tiny part of the truth. House prices have soared in France too, and our internal debt is still much lower, while house prices didn't soar in USA, and their internal debt is even higher than in UK.
The US had always had more debt, mainly because there's less savings there (a mix of generally lower interest rates and cultural factors), French houseprices haven't seen anything like what happened in the UK.

Oh, and btw, should I remind you that the hugh price of housing is a consequence of speculation, another inherent evil of a "free" market ?
Ask the Spanish whether rising house prices (which translates into a construction boom) is that evil. It largely prevented banlieues from popping up all over Spain.

And that those who want to regulate the market of housing in order to prevent this speculation are the "radical leftist" ?
I wouldn't call it radical, just stupid. All you would do is to make it less attractive to build houses, which ends up having demand exceed supply even more. So a black market develops in which the few sellers of houses have complete control because buyers have no alternatives.

Producers ? Producers are those produce goods, that is, workers.
:rolleyes:

If you speak of capital owners, well, the shifting is actually done the other way around: they take a higher and higher share of the GDP. Having some policies to counter this is required, but none were efficient or radical enough to change the global direction of the shift, in the latest 30 years.
You keep saying this, but it makes no sense. The share of "capital" is rising because we've reached a point where marginal returns to the use of more and more labour are falling quite rapidly. Most extra value can today be created by figuring out new ways of using labour and by inventing new technologies and processes, both in manufacturing and services. Workers don't do that, "owners of capital" do.

To counter this, you would have to move the world back into the sixties.

First, you compare two right-wing governments and reforms. Since 2002, France is governed by a very right-wing government, which spent most of its time and energy giving tax cuts, lowering worker protection, fighting unions and disbanding the social protection (lowering time during which people receive unemployment money, much stricter control to receive it, massive cuts in public healthcare, privatisations, ...).
Everything that doesn't fly a hammer and sickle is right-wing to you. Compared to most of Europe, the French right wing is actually left of centre.

Not to mention that Schröder's government was a coalition of SPD (centre-left) and the Greens (Green left).

Then, we fall into a Nash equilibrium (prisonner's dilemma). Germany played the dumping, the "non cooperation" card. France didn't play it, or more exactly, not as much.
Hehe, I have to congratulate you for your creativity.

German firms don't engage in dumping because it's illegal. They have lowered their prices to overseas consumers by more than French firms, so much is probably (I don't know the figures) true.

Germany boosted its exports by taking markets from France, mostly.
Proof?

But if France did the same as Germany, none of the "export boost" would have occured, but the negative effects of lowering wages would have damaged both economy.
So lower prices don't mean that people actually want more European exports? You reckon the quantity demanded is fixed? Why?

And besides, even if exports didn't exist, lowering wages would have encouraged firms to higher more unemployed people, still raising aggregate consumption.

That's one of the other major evil of "free" market. In "free" market, if one plays "cooperation" while another plays "competition", the one who plays "competition" wins.
Except that there are two which you seem to ignore.

1. There's a third party here: the customer. The customer wins if both play "competition", and usually that outweighs the losses to the producers. That's why there are laws against price fixing and so on.

2. In game theory, the pay-offs are set. In a free market, they are not. The pay-offs actually increase over time, and competition increases them by more than cooperation.

Which is exactly what happened in France after the 35 hours law. But for the complete opposite reason: this law forced employers to employ more people, which created more income for the state, more purchasing power in total for the population, lower spendingin unemployment, ...
Any statistics to back that up?

I totally disagree with that for ethical and human reasons, but you forgot to say that in Denmark workers who are fired received a very high compensation (90% of the former wage, IIRC) from the state.
I didn't forget, I just wanted to point out that many of these so-called "worker's rights" aren't rights at all, but simply rules that differ from country to country and aren't even needed to make workers well-off. Unemployment in Denmark is very low and poverty near nil. In happiness indices the Danish score highest (whatever that may mean).

Part of the reason for that is that they run a modern welfare state, as it were, which combines the need to work and the need for flexibility with a safety net if things go wrong. If the voters want that, I'm not gonna complain (though probably emigrate). It seems like the system is working for them.

The thing about France is that their system is not working. Public employees and people with generously protected jobs are gaining at the expense of the unemployed (and particularly the relatively unskilled young, often with foreign backgrounds). You can disagree with Sarkozy's solution, but you have to provide some working alternative. The big issue politically for the Socialists is that they haven't yet made the shift into the 21st century. They're still hanging on sepia-coloured policies which people just don't seem to want to vote for.

Trust me when I say you have ZERO influence over what people on NSG think.

You are already thinking while writing.

Mr Jean-Marie Le Pen should have won instead of Mr Sarkozy! Mr Sarkozy simply stole Mr Le Pen's votes by using his ideas! However, if he is genuine than the FN will accept him.

K

High unemployment is bad, but much less bad when you have unemployment protection than having wages so low than many people who work live in poverty and need to do two jobs to live decently, as it's the case in UK and USA.

Workers protection also acts as a safety net, preventing (or at least slowing) the snowball effect of free market (problem (whatever it is) => less income => workers fired => less demand => less income => more workers fired => ...), the snowball effect which resulted in the 1929 crisis. Disbanding the safety net that was created after WW2 to prevent a new 1929 crisis from happening is totally irresponsible, it's creating the conditions for a new crisis of this scale and all catastrophic consequences we know.
This is the central point of your argument. Will it prevent a large-scale economic depression? Maybe, maybe not. But it does not allow for much wiggle room for growth. France can keep its system, but if she chooses to do so (and her people and policymakers are slowly saying "no"), she risks falling behind every other nation in the 21st century. The depressing part is that France is well-positioned for growth. It has a highly educated work force, and incredible manufacturing quality. Are there risks? Sure. But there's no growth without risk.


That's a very wrong, but very widespread, cliché. French people oppose changes that disband a social system they like. They want to go ahead, they refuse "reforms" that are in fact not "reforms" but "counter-reforms", destroying the (welcomed) changes done in 1936 and 1945.
Semantical point, mostly, indicating an admirable command of the English language. Do you work with English speakers?


France is still an "unstable society". That's why French people revolted them against the kings, revolted themselves in 1848, 1871 or 1936, and that's why they revolt (in non-violent forms this time) when a government try to break our rights (like 1995 or in 2006).
Oh, I agree. But the French thrive on such dramatic instability. Like all creative people, they are most creative when they are unstable. Maybe some more market reforms can add to the instability. I wonder how exciting Paris will be, then.


Epinay/Seine, in the (in)famous "département" 93, the poorest of the country... I see everyday the disaster of 30 years of neoliberal policies, and I saw the situation going worse very quickly during those latest 5 years in which Sarkozy was vice-prime-minister.[/QUOTE]