French presidential elections - Who would you vote for ?

[Marla_Singer]

On paper the 35H work week looks great and flawless. Much like leftist ideologies.

Well... where to start. Let's put it bluntly, Marx was wrong, and it's scientifically proven.

Many left-wing ideologies are based on mathusianist principles. To explain a malthusianist principle, here's an example. Because there is a limited amount of arable land in the country, the population cannot exceed a certain level. Of course, the alarmist projections from Malthus never happened. So what is the mistake ? The mistake is simply that productivity of arable land can grow.

Global wealth is not a cake in which each person getting richer necessarily empoverish another one. Global wealth are continuously growing, and there is no other way to fight poverty than to devellop the economy.

Malthus believed there was a fixed amount of wealth which consisted in arable lands. This has been proven as wrong because the same size fo arable land can see its productivity being multiplied by 100. Marx believed that wealth consisted in work, this is proven as wrong since we produce 1,000 times more for the same amount of work today than we did at the beginning of the century.

Wealth is nothing else than freely granted exchange. When I buy a pencil costing 80 cents, I consider that a pencil is more valuable to me than 80 cents, otherwise I wouldn't buy it. On the other side, the guy selling me the pencil considers that 80 cents are more valuable to him than a pencil, otherwise he wouldn't sell it. As such, both me and the bookstore's guy are "richer" once we have exchanged. The more we exchange, the richer we are. Hence, the only way to fight poverty is to exchange more, not to steal the pencil from the bookstore. Many economical theories are still disputed, but this one is scientifically proven.

I'm sorry to talk that theorically, but this is something which is very important to understand. We can't talk about economics seriously if we haven't assimilated that principle which is at the basis of the economy. This is the e=m.c² of the economics.

As a result of this, no, enforcing very experienced workers to get retired at 50 years old doesn't necessarily reduce unemployment, since this represents a huge loss of productivity. And no, reducing the amount of time being worked doesn't necessarily fight unemployment since this necessarily leads to a loss of productivity. Once you've understood that wealth isn't something fixed, that it is not a big cake that can be divided in more even shares, then both facts sound totally obvious.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Why did we let [35 hours week] happen then?

Because French people have a significantly lower economical culture than others. Otherwise, why has no other country on earth copied France on this ?

We are I believe one of the few country on earth where Malthus and Marx are studied in litteracy class in High School and where 90% of the population has never heard about Adam Smith.

 

[Masquerouge]

Well... where to start. Let's put it bluntly, Marx was wrong, and it's scientifically proven.

Many left-wing ideologies are based on mathusianist principles. To explain a malthusianist principle, here's an example. Because there is a limited amount of arable land in the country, the population cannot exceed a certain level. Of course, the alarmist projections from Malthus never happened. So what is the mistake ? The mistake is simply that productivity of arable land can grow.

Global wealth is not a cake in which each person getting richer necessarily empoverish another one. Global wealth are continuously growing, and there is no other way to fight poverty than to devellop the economy.

Malthus believed there was a fixed amount of wealth which consisted in arable lands. This has been proven as wrong because the same size fo arable land can see its productivity being multiplied by 100. Marx believed that wealth consisted in work, this is proven as wrong since we produce 1,000 times more for the same amount of work today than we did at the beginning of the century.

Wealth is nothing else than freely granted exchange. When I buy a pencil costing 80 cents, I consider that a pencil is more valuable to me than 80 cents, otherwise I wouldn't buy it. On the other side, the guy selling me the pencil considers that 80 cents are more valuable to him than a pencil, otherwise he wouldn't sell it. As such, both me and the bookstore's guy are "richer" once we have exchanged. The more we exchange, the richer we are. Hence, the only way to fight poverty is to exchange more, not to steal the pencil from the bookstore. Many economical theories are still disputed, but this one is scientifically proven.

I'm sorry to talk that theorically, but this is something which is very important to understand. We can't talk about economics seriously if we haven't assimilated that principle which is at the basis of the economy. This is the e=m.c² of the economics.

As a result of this, no, enforcing very experienced workers to get retired at 50 years old doesn't necessarily reduce unemployment, since this represents a huge loss of productivity. And no, reducing the amount of time being worked doesn't necessarily fight unemployment since this necessarily leads to a loss of productivity. Once you've understood that wealth isn't something fixed, that it is not a big cake that can be divided in more even shares, then both facts sound totally obvious.

Because French people have a significantly lower economical culture than others. Otherwise, why has no other country on earth copied France on this ?

We are I believe one of the few country on earth where Malthus and Marx are studied in litteracy class in High School and where 90% of the population has never heard about Adam Smith.

Three points:
1. the 35-hour week is not only about economics. It's also about a certain view of society that is not completely driven by economics. You might argue that EVERYTHING is driven by economics, and I will agree, but if the 35-hour week was really destructive to the economy I think it would have shown by now, and France has not imploded (if you say that France WILL implode, then welcome to the pessimists' club that has predicted the ruin of France for the past 30 years).
Experience shows that it is rather neutral on an economical standpoint - which again can be seen as economically negative, since you want growth, not stagnation, but it certainly improved the quality of life for a lot of people, and that's why I believe the GLOBAL impact is on the whole slightly positive.
Much better and more efficient economical measures would be to ease the "charges patronales" and to extend the age of retirement.
2. So you think the 35-hour week is not enough. Then please, tell me what's enough? 40-hour? 50? 60? And why? Just saying "but other countries do not have a 35-hour week so it's bad" is a completely useless argument. Recipes and regulations that work for other countries are not guaranteed to work for France, and vice-versa. Furthermore, people like you protested against the 40-hour week. People like you protested against the 5-day week. I'd like to know what allows you to demonstrate that 35-hour is not enough, and incidentally, if you can prove that a 35-hour workweek is bad, then it should be easy to come up with the "optimal" work week, the one that will help a given society the most.
3. I'm fine with studying Malthus and Marx in literacy class. Because it's a LITERACY class. Malthus and Marx are also taught in ECONOMY classes, along with Adam Smith, and Smith comes out on top in economy classes.

 

[Marla_Singer]

1st point : I can understand that the 35 hours week isn't about economics but about limiting production in order to give people more free time, then it's rather selfish to apply them when there are 3 million people unemployed.

2nd point : Listen to me. All this is a simple matter of productivity. Paying 35 hours the same as 39 hours is a lie. Removing 4 hours of work has lead to a stagnation of wages. If France is today among the EU countries where real wages are the lowest, if the purschasing power is so low in France, it is because of the 35 hours week.

You ask me what is enough, I can return you the question. If the number of hours worked don't matter, then why not the 20 hours week ? The 10 hours week ? Why not simply stop working ?

3rd point : It's fine to study them as long as we tell that they are outdated. What next ? Ignoring Galileo Galilelei and teaching that the word is flat simply because people thought that way during milleniums ?

Frankly, what I don't understand with you Masquerouge is that you left France to live in the evil ubercapitalist USA. You simply can't stop saying that France is a country which has no future. And meanwhile, you haven't understood a single thing about all this ? Do you know what ? There is simply no limitation in the number of worked hours in the USA, and meanwhile, you can't stop repeating that you will never go back to France and that your life will be done in the US. How can you be in such a contradiction with yourself ?

 

[Masquerouge]

1st point : I can understand that the 35 hours week isn't about economics but about limiting production in order to give people more free time, then it's rather selfish to apply them when there are 3 million people unemployed.

People are not unemployed because of the 35-hour week. They are not hired because of it, either.

2nd point : Listen to me. All this is a simple matter of productivity. Paying 35 hours the same as 39 hours is a lie. Removing 4 hours of work has lead to a stagnation of wages. If France is today among the EU countries where real wages are the lowest, if the purschasing power is so low in France, it is because of the 35 hours week.

You ask me what is enough, I can return you the question. If the number of hours worked don't matter, then why not the 20 hours week ? The 10 hours week ? Why not simply stop working ?

Well you're the one who's saying 35-hour is not enough.
I agree that 35 hours paid the same as 39 hours is stupid. I don't understand why, however, 35-hour is "not enough".

3rd point : It's fine to study them as long as we tell that they are outdated. What next ? Ignoring Galileo Galilelei and teaching that the word is flat simply because people thought that way during milleniums ?

In high-school French economy classes, Marx and Malthus ARE considered outdated. You were trying to show that Marx and Malthus were still taught in French school as if they were economically valid, and that's not true.
Galileo has nothing to do with our debate.

Frankly, what I don't understand with you Masquerouge is that you left France to live in the evil ubercapitalist USA.
You simply can't stop saying that France is a country which has no future. And meanwhile, you haven't understood a single thing about all this ? Do you know what ? There is simply no limitation in the number of worked hours in the USA, and meanwhile, you can't stop repeating that you will never go back to France and that your life will be done in the US. How can you be in such a contradiction with yourself ?

WTF are you saying? Honestly I'm about to report this.
Show me ONE SINGLE POST that I ever wrote where I say I will never go back to France, or retract that comment and apologize for it.

I'm really, really pissed of Marla. On this forum, I keep trying to bridge the gap between France and the US. I keep repeating that both are two different countries, two different systems, and the pissing contest about who's better is stupid. I keep explaining to French posters that no, America is not an ubercapitalist country, and I keep explaining to American posters that no, France is not a Communist hellhole.

I did not move in the US because I was annoyed with France. We moved to the US because we wanted to see something else and we had a good opportunity. We love it here in California, but I've never said that I will never go back to France.

Please do not confuse me with those angry French that leave their country and tell me they will never go back if Royal is elected.

And I'm really expecting an apology and a retractation here.

EDIT: how can I write this in post #123 "(if you say that France WILL implode, then welcome to the pessimists' club that has predicted the ruin of France for the past 30 years)." and have you say with a straight face that I keep on saying France has no future? What I keep on doing is making fun of people who for the last 30 years have predicted that France is doomed.

EDIT2: wow, two posts and you already have me pissed off. I guess that's proof you're the real Marla

 

[Steph]

Why did we let it happen then?

The socialists did that, they hzd the majority at the time. Welcome to the wonderful world of democracy and demagogy.

 

[Steph]

The problem with the 35 hours is not the time limit in itself. As you both said, it has little economical benefits. Contrary to the promise of the left, it did not magically solved the unemployement problem. It did not really make the work easier, as we had to increase productivity, so to work more intensively when at a work. It did not increase our purchasing power (see my post above about some companies that used it as an excuse to freeze raise).
It wasn't so good for Civil Servants either, as their weekly working time suddenly doubled!

Spoiler :

Poor joke, I know

However, I agree with Masquerouge, it gave us more leisure, and some people enjoy to have more time to spend with their familly, or do some private business, like build shelves in their garage (completly random exemple ).

The problem was to make it mandatory. If it has been a choice, where the legal working time was 35 or 39 hours a week, freely chosen by the employees, knowing that if you made 35 hours you are paid 90% (kind of partial time), then people who wanted to work more could have, people who wanted to have more leisure could have, and it would have had even less impact on the companies.

 

[Steph]

WTF are you saying? Honestly I'm about to report this.

Oh, Masquerouge, did you lose your gallantry in a little corner of California? I'm sure you can explain to Marla you are offended in a less aggressive way.

 

[MCdread]

Well, let's get things straight. Actually, looking at the proposals, it's clear Bayrou is closer to my views than Sarkozy is.

More less what happens to me, however from my limited knowledge I feel you have Bayrou too lightly painted. His left-right coalition for example is a very nice thing, but what's the realistic prospect of any of that working and he still maintain authority when his support in the Assembly is less than 10% of the seats? Also, his stances don't look to me as liberal as they seem, and on top of that I find it funny how he managed to transform himself from a decades long professional politician to a countryside farmer, which smell of agriculture protectionism. I also read somewhere he hinted at renationalising electricity and gas. Hardly liberal...

Half of the other candidates came from Mars or were brought in a time machine from some workers paradise in Albania, Le Pen should be sent there, and Royal is a mix of marketing, international gaffes, old socialism, demagogic "Power to the people and the new generation" ideas and some weird signs of an awkward social conservatism.

Therefore, my vote is for Sarkozy. He's not exactly from my own political agenda, and at least while in office promoted some old school anti-liberal "dirigisme" policies (v. his intervention on Alstom). I don't live in France, so I don't have any direct way to validate the urgency to reform that is often pointed out by some media and some analysts. But in any case, he seems the most suited to it by far.

However, the analogy to Bush isn't so far fetched. Bush is a great polarizer, his election divided the political tribes in America more than ever, and Sarkozy, although much different to Bush, also carries the same aura: he became a manicheistic figure, either loathed or enthusiastically supported. If elected he can probably count on a lot of opposition, and that will surely be his biggest test.

 

[Phlegmak]

Frankly, what I don't understand with you Masquerouge is that you left France to live in the evil ubercapitalist USA.

Huh?? You lost me there, even though you weren't addressing me. Evil? Ubercapitalist?

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well Steph, demagoguery exists in both sides. This isn't an excuse. Aubry and Jospin wouldn't have made the 35 hours week if they hadn't find so-called economists explaining them it would reduce unemployment without harming people's wage. And today, French people, having a job, can't buy enough. It's been more than 5 years that French wages stagnates. How the economy could devellop in such conditions ?

What has been sold as a winner-winner policy turned out into a loser-loser policy.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

If theres a foreign economic model that France should be studying right now, its Chinas, not the US.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I'm sorry if I've pissed you off Masquerouge. But your idea about accepting France and the US having two systems is completely flawed. We live in the same planet, and the rules are the same for everyone. Overall, I don't believe that a model leading to so many people being excluded from the rest of the society has any good. I don't believe that an average growth of 1% is satisfying to anyone. Where is the so great French savoir vivre in a country where youngsters are rioting and burning cars ?

In France, it's almost as if economic growth was considered as some kind of luxury that we could offer to refuse. Economic growth is no luxury, it is what allows people to feed their family !! Which country could handle 10% unemployed people during 25 years without considering the social cost this has on the population ?

Granted there are people who aren't in such a bad situation, but is this a reason to let the others living hell ? Don't say that there's no solution to solve unemployment in France. Germany, Spain, Italy, all our neighbours have suffered from mass unemployment and we are the last one to still have an unemployment rate of 9%. Even Germany, despite the reunification, has less unemployment than France !! How can you vote without solving those issues in mind ? Don't you believe it would be better for France if the economy was back on track ? Are what you considers as French "choices of society" more important than the misery this is generating every day a little more ?

 

[Marla_Singer]

If theres a foreign economic model that France should be studying right now, its Chinas, not the US.

China is a catching back economy. France performed well from the 50's to the 70's when it had also a catching back economy. In the 50's, when each American already owned his car, a large part of the French population was still farming with donkeys.

The big problem in France is that it failed to convert from a succesful catching back economy to a succesful economy of innovation. Indeed, when you are late, you know what you have to do, so the state can interfere succesfuly in the economy. The US had motorways so we had to build motorways, the US built their economy thanks to a strong steel market so we had to create a French giant steel company. However, when we've caught back, the only way to develop is to be innovative. The government can't guess what will be the next emerging market, the only way to find out is to try at a small level and see if it grows. That's where the US are strong, and that's where France is weak.

We've lived those long 25 last years thinking that we were so great in the 60's, with a growth twice bigger than the US, simply because our model was fantastic. Never had we realize that we were simply catching back, and that such a comparison was necessarily silly.

Arf. Whatever. Why trying to explain all this ? People believe I'm only motived by my own selfishness anyway.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Arf. Whatever. Why trying to explain all this ? People believe I'm only motived by my own selfishness anyway.

And what's wrong with that? Reading through this thread, I'm much more inclined to put my vote behind Sarkozy now, it would appear that whether people think he is right or wrong, he will take the action he thinks is best for France. Of course it is the job of the French president to protect the interests of France, and with high unemployment and a stagnant economy, voting for someone who will relax regulations on businesses seems like a good choice.

Of course you are going to vote for your own self-interest. Shouldn't you vote for the candidate who will better the country for your own benefit? What good is a shorter workweek when you can't get a job?

-

As a side note, I can't remember ever having any interest in international politics before when it didn't directly affect my American life, thanks for sucking me in, French posters!

 

[Yeeek]

Arf.

That's Frenchy video gaming word! Though I've seen it used by Germans and Dutch. I had to point it out because I use it often but still never know why to say when asked what does it mean.


Off topic aside. It's true Marla has this "snoby" touch, or . . . hm don't really know how to describe it, in his posts when explaining something that annoys him.

That said, this is why I hate debating about politics. Most people wants the same thing. A job, comfortable in their life with their salary a future for their children, stability in the economy ect . . . ect . . .

But everyone has different opinions, don't want to see they are wrong even if the facts are in front of their faces (probably my case by the way). So it always go on and on, ranting, venting and what not. Can't we go along and just vote Bayrou and put all those years of left wingers versus right wingers behind us?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Indeed, when you are late, you know what you have to do, so the state can interfere succesfuly in the economy. The US had motorways so we had to build motorways, the US built their economy thanks to a strong steel market so we had to create a French giant steel company. However, when we've caught back, the only way to develop is to be innovative. The government can't guess what will be the emerging market, the only way to find out is to try at a small level and see if it grows. That's where the US are strong, and that's where France is weak.

I think if the government would create a positive business environment and then stay out of the way as much as possible, emerging markets would take care of themselves.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Off topic aside. It's true Marla has this "snoby" touch, or . . . hm don't really know how to describe it, in his posts when explaining something that annoys him.

Well, I'm not a boy but that doesn't matter. Anyway, if I sounded snobby, then it confirms I'm a loser. If I sound obnoxious, then it means I'm indeed pathetic. I don't consider anyone being stupid. Who would I be to consider more succesful people than I am in such a way ? Just like anyone, I simply want to share my own little and partial understandings of the economics. Just as I want to learn in reading the others, I want to give something back. If it sounds obnoxious, than it means I didn't succeed.

 

[Steph]

China is a catching back economy. France performed well from the 50's to the 70's when it had also a catching back economy. In the 50's, when each American already owned its car, a large part of the French population was still farming with donkeys.

That's simply not true. I think more were using oxen than donkeys.

Well, I'm not a boy but that doesn't matter. Anyway, if I sounded snobby, then it confirms I'm a loser. If I sound obnoxious, then it means I'm indeed pathetic. I don't consider anyone being stupid. Who would I be to consider more succesful people than I am in such a way ? Just like anyone, I simply want to share my own little and partial understandings of the economics. Just as I want to learn in reading the others, I want to give something back. If it sounds obnoxious, than it means I didn't succeed.

Well, you seemed more enthousiastic than obnoxious to me, but as we have similaer views on these points, it probably helps

 

[Masquerouge]

But your idea about accepting France and the US having two systems is completely flawed. We live in the same planet, and the rules are the same for everyone. Overall, I don't believe that a model leading to so many people being excluded from the rest of the society has any good. I don't believe that an average growth of 1% is satisfying to anyone. Where is the so great French savoir vivre in a country where youngsters are rioting and burning cars ?

Solutions that are good for a federal union of 300 million people are not always good for a centralized state of 60 million people.
There are too many macroeconomical differences to have the exact same rules.
Credit for instance. To get a credit in France you must prove that you have a steady source of income, i.e. that you're employed.
In the US you simply must show that you've been able to pay off your past debts, regardless of whether or not you've had a job.
As such, it is much more easier to get a credit in the United States than it is in France.
The macroeconomical differences implied are huge. On the one hand we have an economy completely driven by consumption, in which the average person is in debt. On the other hand we have an economy where consumption is not as important, but where savings are huge.
We could also talk about differences in taxation on the business level, retirement plans and health care, regulation vs deregulation, but you can't simply assume that both countries have the same macroeconomical structures and that thus there is a good-for-all magical formula that can be applied to both.