Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Nicolas Sarkozy elected the President in France
I Read This
May 24, 2018, 05:53:29 EDT *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you have any issues at all, visit our support site.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78
  Print  
Author Topic: Nicolas Sarkozy elected the President in France  (Read 104204 times)
Lissou
Guest
« on: May 08, 2007, 05:30:35 EDT »

As no one had started a thread, I thought I would...

He was elected with about 53% of the votes (out of the 84% of the people who did vote) and will be the next French president. He'll be President starting on May the 17th.

For people who didn't really follow the election, Sarkozy was the right-wing candidate. he'll also be the most right-wing president in quite a while. But to put things in prospective, he'd probably be a Democrat in the US (or maybe considered in the center).

He is pro-American and was in favour of France going to Iraq. Although he's changed his mind since then, he was personnally congratulated by Bush as soon as it was officially known that he was elected.

He's known for his tough stance on immigration ("chosen immigration", the immigrants have to love France and to speak, read and write French before they come to the country, even children who can't read or write their own language yet), his huge nationalism (to hear him, France is the best country ever and has never done anything wrong in its history) and his weird work policies (to reduce unelmployment, instead of giving jobs to more people, he wants to give more work to the people who already have jobs, and to supress a lot of jobs. He says that "work calls work" and that unemployment will be reduced this way, for some weird reason.)

As expected, people from the suburbs reacted violently (Sarkozy, then Minister of the Interior started the riots of 2005 with his talk about washing the suburbs from the scum with a pressur washer, and saying that the two teenagers who were chased by the police, hid in a huge electrical stuff and died were responsible, that if the ran they had done something wrong, and the police was just doing their jobs. of course, it was proven that the two boys had done absolutely nothing wrong and were simply afraid of the police.)
About 400 cars were burnt between the results and 6am, but the number of cars burnt after 6am won't be communicated.

French parliamentary election is to be held in June, one the 10th and the 17th. The majority will decide of who is the Prime Minister (the Prime minister has 80% of the power in France). Let's hope the socialists will.
Logged
Mycroft
Rational Anarchist
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1138



« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2007, 06:07:08 EDT »

What a shame.  Segoline Royale was much better looking.  Sarkozy looks like Kevin McDonald from Kids in the Hall.
Logged

The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic. –  H.L. Mencken
purplecat
Mad Scientist
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3499



« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2007, 07:46:43 EDT »

So the french public has voted for someone who insults them and will attempt to turn the country into a second-rate copy of the USA. If you want to see how that works out, just look across the channel. There you'll find a third-rate copy of the USA, run by a sucession of idiots who insult the population on a daliy basis.
Logged

Purplecat: Keeper of the political compass thread. Want to be on the graph? post your results here

Me: (No, seriously, this entire forum has the attention span of an..... oooh! shiny!)
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #3 on: May 08, 2007, 07:57:25 EDT »

I think Sarko will probably be much better for France than Royal would have been.  Still it was a choice of two not particularly appealing candidates.

... and his weird work policies (to reduce unelmployment, instead of giving jobs to more people, he wants to give more work to the people who already have jobs, and to supress a lot of jobs. He says that "work calls work" and that unemployment will be reduced this way, for some weird reason.)
Well, its conventional economics that increasing the productivity of the working population increases employment.  Since if those in work produce more then the output of the economy increases creating jobs elsewhere.  This doesn't mean that anyone should "suppress a lot of jobs though".

So the french public has voted for someone who insults them and will attempt to turn the country into a second-rate copy of the USA. If you want to see how that works out, just look across the channel. There you'll find a third-rate copy of the USA, run by a sucession of idiots who insult the population on a daliy basis.
Well, that's not the opinion of the British.  I think that the last few leader of the UK, Thatcher, Major and Blair have been on balance much better than many of those before them.  Even though they have had plenty of flaws.

Becoming like the USA is no bad thing, the USA is a very well run, affluent country.

Logged
Lissou
Guest
« Reply #4 on: May 08, 2007, 08:15:27 EDT »

Well, a lot of people say that you vote for a President by choosing a person, you vote for the Prime Minister (by electing the parliament) on a program. So we'll have to wait and see before we know were the majority is. Sarkozy, a former lawyer, could definitely speak better and looked stronger on his positions than Royal.
Plus, he's managed to make people think he's going to change things, even if he already was in the government before, and was therefore not the opposition candidate but the government one.

Also, everybody knows that Sarkozy is trying to "follow the example of anglo-saxxon countries", as he says, to "modernise France".
I honestly think a lot of French people were mistaken when voting for him and are going to hate his politics once he applies them.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #5 on: May 08, 2007, 09:24:07 EDT »

Also, everybody knows that Sarkozy is trying to "follow the example of anglo-saxxon countries", as he says, to "modernise France".
I honestly think a lot of French people were mistaken when voting for him and are going to hate his politics once he applies them.

I certainly agree with that.  He's going to have to do plenty of things the french won't like if he want to make France more like anglo-saxon countries.
Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #6 on: May 08, 2007, 09:54:19 EDT »

Well, its conventional economics that increasing the productivity of the working population increases employment.  Since if those in work produce more then the output of the economy increases creating jobs elsewhere.  This doesn't mean that anyone should "suppress a lot of jobs though".
The capitalist market is based on scarcity so higher productivity causes over production that causes over investment that causes economic down turn.  An example would be the US economy in the 70's and 80's where high productivity caused the rate of profit to fall, another being when the USSR switched to free markets, output that before was insufficient to meet the demands of consumers (thus the long lines in front of stores) was considered over producing under the free market and the market corrected by increasing poverty.

So the french public has voted for someone who insults them and will attempt to turn the country into a second-rate copy of the USA. If you want to see how that works out, just look across the channel. There you'll find a third-rate copy of the USA, run by a sucession of idiots who insult the population on a daliy basis.
Well, that's not the opinion of the British.  I think that the last few leader of the UK, Thatcher, Major and Blair have been on balance much better than many of those before them.  Even though they have had plenty of flaws.

Becoming like the USA is no bad thing, the USA is a very well run, affluent country.

The USA has the highest class disparity of the industrial nations, also the USA is the largest imperialist empire on the planet, the USA gets cheap resources through the intermediation of small nations.

Also, everybody knows that Sarkozy is trying to "follow the example of anglo-saxxon countries", as he says, to "modernise France".
I honestly think a lot of French people were mistaken when voting for him and are going to hate his politics once he applies them.

I certainly agree with that.  He's going to have to do plenty of things the french won't like if he want to make France more like anglo-saxon countries.

That is a understatement,  Sarkozy is declaring class war and Sarkozy will probably eventually spark another May 1968 as French workers also declare class war.  The riots we seen were just over him getting elected, think of how bad they would get when labor really gets mad at Sarkozy.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 10:03:12 EDT by Psy » Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #7 on: May 08, 2007, 11:47:35 EDT »

Well, its conventional economics that increasing the productivity of the working population increases employment. Since if those in work produce more then the output of the economy increases creating jobs elsewhere. This doesn't mean that anyone should "suppress a lot of jobs though".
The capitalist market is based on scarcity so higher productivity causes over production that causes over investment that causes economic down turn. An example would be the US economy in the 70's and 80's where high productivity caused the rate of profit to fall,

I don't necessarily agree with the view that I proposed as "convential economics" above. I think it's more correct than the view you propose though.  Why, for example, should higher productivity produce over-production?  Over-production never makes sense no matter what productivity is.  What causes profits to fall is generally high competition.  Why, in turn, should over production cause over-investment?  Most economists think the reverse, if the humans in the process are more productive then in the medium term there is less need to invest in plant.  Only in the longer term when those people reap the rewards of their productivity does the need to invest increase.

Still, some economists will certainly agree with your diagnosis.

another being when the USSR switched to free markets, output that before was insufficient to meet the demands of consumers (thus the long lines in front of stores) was considered over producing under the free market and the market corrected by increasing poverty.
It was much more complex than that.  Much of the problem was that western companies were more competative than russian one initially, so people bought from them.  Another major aspect was President Yeltsin more-or-less giving huge state companies to his friends, who then took as much money as they could get from them and sent it abroad.

Well, that's not the opinion of the British. I think that the last few leader of the UK, Thatcher, Major and Blair have been on balance much better than many of those before them. Even though they have had plenty of flaws.

Becoming like the USA is no bad thing, the USA is a very well run, affluent country.

The USA has the highest class disparity of the industrial nations,
What does class disparity have to do with anything?  Just because a few people make a huge amount of money doesn't change the fact that most ordinary people do better than Europeans too.

also the USA is the largest imperialist empire on the planet,
I am from Britain, which was once a real imperial power.  The US can only be considered an "imperial power" on a small scale, in their actions towards Iraq and Israel for example.

the USA gets cheap resources through the intermediation of small nations.
No cheaper than us Europeans.

I certainly agree with that. He's going to have to do plenty of things the french won't like if he want to make France more like anglo-saxon countries.

That is a understatement, Sarkozy is declaring class war and Sarkozy will probably eventually spark another May 1968 as French workers also declare class war. The riots we seen were just over him getting elected, think of how bad they would get when labor really gets mad at Sarkozy.
Which is all really rather ironic since he's trying to get them jobs.  So long as the French cost more than other europeans to employ there will remain large scale unemployment in France.

Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #8 on: May 08, 2007, 12:52:10 EDT »

I don't necessarily agree with the view that I proposed as "convential economics" above. I think it's more correct than the view you propose though.  Why, for example, should higher productivity produce over-production? 
Because demand under capitalism is limited to those that can afford the product, if only X people can afford the product and there is a stockpile of 10X then there is a glut in the market even if 100X wants the product but can't afford it.

Quote from: Current
Over-production never makes sense no matter what productivity is.
What difference does it make if a screw is used 1 year after it is manufactured, to a screw used 10 years after being manufactured?

Quote from: Current
Why, in turn, should over production cause over-investment?  Most economists think the reverse, if the humans in the process are more productive then in the medium term there is less need to invest in plant.  Only in the longer term when those people reap the rewards of their productivity does the need to invest increase.
Lets say you have a car plant that over produces cars, the owner tries to solve this by investing in new production methods to lower manufacturing costs (lowering his workforce) to expand demand, his competition follows suit and thus the owner does not get the same return on the investment (meaning neither does his investors), this causes over-investment.

Alternatively the owner can liquidate his industrial capacity which means higher productivity from the workers is counteracted by the owner lowering overall productivity.

another being when the USSR switched to free markets, output that before was insufficient to meet the demands of consumers (thus the long lines in front of stores) was considered over producing under the free market and the market corrected by increasing poverty.
It was much more complex than that.  Much of the problem was that western companies were more competative than russian one initially, so people bought from them.  Another major aspect was President Yeltsin more-or-less giving huge state companies to his friends, who then took as much money as they could get from them and sent it abroad.
Capitalism and abundance doesn't mix, capitalism can only work with scarily (the more scarcity the better).  The USA had the exact same problem in the 1970's as the US market faced industrial capacity reaching a point were it was creating abundance in the market place and like in Russia the market corrected by increasing poverty.


What does class disparity have to do with anything?  Just because a few people make a huge amount of money doesn't change the fact that most ordinary people do better than Europeans too.
In the USA you also have more people blow the poverty line.


I am from Britain, which was once a real imperial power.  The US can only be considered an "imperial power" on a small scale, in their actions towards Iraq and Israel for example.
Small scale?  The USA has the largest military budget on Earth and been in over 200 military interventions since the end of WWII. 


No cheaper than us Europeans.
Yes cheaper, throughout Latin America the US has puppet governments that allow the US to have cheap access to resources.

Which is all really rather ironic since he's trying to get them jobs.  So long as the French cost more than other europeans to employ there will remain large scale unemployment in France.
That is incorrect, Mexico is cheaper yet has high unemployment, US labor is now cheaper then it was in the 60's yet there is higher unemployment. 

All French workers have to do is look to Argentina to see what free market capitalism means for workers.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #9 on: May 08, 2007, 13:39:36 EDT »

I don't necessarily agree with the view that I proposed as "convential economics" above. I think it's more correct than the view you propose though. Why, for example, should higher productivity produce over-production?
Because demand under capitalism is limited to those that can afford the product, if only X people can afford the product and there is a stockpile of 10X then there is a glut in the market even if 100X wants the product but can't afford it.
Why would there be a glut on the market though.  That could only occur if those manufacturing had mistakenly believed that their market was about to increase in size significantly.  Not like, but it sometimes happens.

Quote from: Current
Over-production never makes sense no matter what productivity is.
What difference does it make if a screw is used 1 year after it is manufactured, to a screw used 10 years after being manufactured?
For 1 screw it makes no difference, for a proper comericial quantity like say 1million it does though.  The screws have value if used or sold.  Lets say each screw is worth 1cent, but can only be sold for 0.5 cents.  In this case the manufacturer may wait until the screws increase in value.  If it is unlikely that they will increase in value then it will pay to sell them straight away because the recovered money can be reinvested in the business to produce future profits.

This is why companies keep as little stock as possible.  The only purpose of keeping stock is if the market is expect to become more of a sellers-market in the future.

Quote from: Current
Why, in turn, should over production cause over-investment? Most economists think the reverse, if the humans in the process are more productive then in the medium term there is less need to invest in plant. Only in the longer term when those people reap the rewards of their productivity does the need to invest increase.
Lets say you have a car plant that over produces cars, the owner tries to solve this by investing in new production methods to lower manufacturing costs (lowering his workforce) to expand demand, his competition follows suit and thus the owner does not get the same return on the investment (meaning neither does his investors), this causes over-investment.
The owner of a car plant cannot expect that his competitors will not invest in new production methods.  What he should expect to get from his investment is continuing parity with his competitors or a small gain if his company is especially competent.  And this is exactly what they do expect on the whole.

Alternatively the owner can liquidate his industrial capacity which means higher productivity from the workers is counteracted by the owner lowering overall productivity.
Yes. But you're arguing from the other point-of-view now, saying that overproduction produces higher-productivity or unemployment.  What you said earlier was the opposite way around.

another being when the USSR switched to free markets, output that before was insufficient to meet the demands of consumers (thus the long lines in front of stores) was considered over producing under the free market and the market corrected by increasing poverty.
It was much more complex than that. Much of the problem was that western companies were more competative than russian one initially, so people bought from them. Another major aspect was President Yeltsin more-or-less giving huge state companies to his friends, who then took as much money as they could get from them and sent it abroad.
Capitalism and abundance doesn't mix, capitalism can only work with scarily (the more scarcity the better). The USA had the exact same problem in the 1970's as the US market faced industrial capacity reaching a point were it was creating abundance in the market place and like in Russia the market corrected by increasing poverty.
Interesting theory. Does it come from an economist?


What does class disparity have to do with anything? Just because a few people make a huge amount of money doesn't change the fact that most ordinary people do better than Europeans too.
In the USA you also have more people blow the poverty line.
Well, many governments define the poverty line in terms of income relative to the average.  This means that countries with less people below the mean, but a lower mean score better even though many people there are often less well off.

I am from Britain, which was once a real imperial power. The US can only be considered an "imperial power" on a small scale, in their actions towards Iraq and Israel for example.
Small scale? The USA has the largest military budget on Earth and been in over 200 military interventions since the end of WWII.
But, except in a few circumstance, the US does not continue to occupy countries after it has intervened.  And it normally intervenes for entirely proper reasons, though unfortunately not always.

No cheaper than us Europeans.
Yes cheaper, throughout Latin America the US has puppet governments that allow the US to have cheap access to resources.
Really, which ones are those.

Which is all really rather ironic since he's trying to get them jobs. So long as the French cost more than other europeans to employ there will remain large scale unemployment in France.
That is incorrect, Mexico is cheaper yet has high unemployment,
But it is not comparable in terms of the ease of doing business there.  Mexican have fewer skills and Mexico has worse services and more corruption.

US labor is now cheaper then it was in the 60's yet there is higher unemployment.
Of-course it is Wink

All French workers have to do is look to Argentina to see what free market capitalism means for workers.
Is Argentina the best argument you can find?
Market economics have helped people all over the world.  They have helped the UK, the Chinese and Indians are becoming rich at an incredible rate.
Logged
Psy
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3049


« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2007, 15:08:25 EDT »

I don't necessarily agree with the view that I proposed as "convential economics" above. I think it's more correct than the view you propose though. Why, for example, should higher productivity produce over-production?
Because demand under capitalism is limited to those that can afford the product, if only X people can afford the product and there is a stockpile of 10X then there is a glut in the market even if 100X wants the product but can't afford it.
Why would there be a glut on the market though.  That could only occur if those manufacturing had mistakenly believed that their market was about to increase in size significantly.  Not like, but it sometimes happens.
You miss the point, Capitalism defines demand differently then other economic system, this is why under capitalism one can have over production while still having scarcity.

Quote from: Current
For 1 screw it makes no difference, for a proper comericial quantity like say 1million it does though.  The screws have value if used or sold.  Lets say each screw is worth 1cent, but can only be sold for 0.5 cents.  In this case the manufacturer may wait until the screws increase in value.  If it is unlikely that they will increase in value then it will pay to sell them straight away because the recovered money can be reinvested in the business to produce future profits.

This is why companies keep as little stock as possible.  The only purpose of keeping stock is if the market is expect to become more of a sellers-market in the future.
Which is only found in Capitalism, in for use economies you only have the cost of managing the stockpile.

Quote from: Current
Why, in turn, should over production cause over-investment? Most economists think the reverse, if the humans in the process are more productive then in the medium term there is less need to invest in plant. Only in the longer term when those people reap the rewards of their productivity does the need to invest increase.
Lets say you have a car plant that over produces cars, the owner tries to solve this by investing in new production methods to lower manufacturing costs (lowering his workforce) to expand demand, his competition follows suit and thus the owner does not get the same return on the investment (meaning neither does his investors), this causes over-investment.
The owner of a car plant cannot expect that his competitors will not invest in new production methods.  What he should expect to get from his investment is continuing parity with his competitors or a small gain if his company is especially competent.  And this is exactly what they do expect on the whole.
Since investment is unplanned over-investment is unavoidable.   It doesn't matter if the owner plans his competition would also invest in new means of production, the owner would be worrying his competition would get the jump on him thus you still get investment into greater industrial capacity that undermines scarcity that weakens the capitalist market.


Alternatively the owner can liquidate his industrial capacity which means higher productivity from the workers is counteracted by the owner lowering overall productivity.
Yes. But you're arguing from the other point-of-view now, saying that overproduction produces higher-productivity or unemployment.  What you said earlier was the opposite way around.
Right but it still would mean no new employment.

another being when the USSR switched to free markets, output that before was insufficient to meet the demands of consumers (thus the long lines in front of stores) was considered over producing under the free market and the market corrected by increasing poverty.
It was much more complex than that. Much of the problem was that western companies were more competative than russian one initially, so people bought from them. Another major aspect was President Yeltsin more-or-less giving huge state companies to his friends, who then took as much money as they could get from them and sent it abroad.
Capitalism and abundance doesn't mix, capitalism can only work with scarily (the more scarcity the better). The USA had the exact same problem in the 1970's as the US market faced industrial capacity reaching a point were it was creating abundance in the market place and like in Russia the market corrected by increasing poverty.
Interesting theory. Does it come from an economist?
Yes, it comes from Marxists economists.


I am from Britain, which was once a real imperial power. The US can only be considered an "imperial power" on a small scale, in their actions towards Iraq and Israel for example.
Small scale? The USA has the largest military budget on Earth and been in over 200 military interventions since the end of WWII.
But, except in a few circumstance, the US does not continue to occupy countries after it has intervened.  And it normally intervenes for entirely proper reasons, though unfortunately not always.
US bases dot the globe and the US has time and again used those bases to intimidate the nations that host said bases.

Also I don't think a single one was done for proper reasons, all of the interventions in Latin America were done to exploit their wealth.

No cheaper than us Europeans.
Yes cheaper, throughout Latin America the US has puppet governments that allow the US to have cheap access to resources.
Really, which ones are those.
Puerto Rico
Guam
Dominican Republic
Grenada
and more

Which is all really rather ironic since he's trying to get them jobs. So long as the French cost more than other europeans to employ there will remain large scale unemployment in France.
That is incorrect, Mexico is cheaper yet has high unemployment,
But it is not comparable in terms of the ease of doing business there.  Mexican have fewer skills and Mexico has worse services and more corruption.
But business are there.

US labor is now cheaper then it was in the 60's yet there is higher unemployment.
Of-course it is Wink
In the 60's employers were looking for workers, now workers are looking for jobs.  In the 60's it was very common to just walk into a job due to low unemployment, today you can't say it is possible to just walk into a job.

Is Argentina the best argument you can find?
Market economics have helped people all over the world.  They have helped the UK, the Chinese and Indians are becoming rich at an incredible rate.
Chinese workers in nationalized industry have far better working conditions then those in private industries in China.
Logged
Lissou
Guest
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2007, 16:34:28 EDT »

... and his weird work policies (to reduce unelmployment, instead of giving jobs to more people, he wants to give more work to the people who already have jobs, and to supress a lot of jobs. He says that "work calls work" and that unemployment will be reduced this way, for some weird reason.)
Well, its conventional economics that increasing the productivity of the working population increases employment.  Since if those in work produce more then the output of the economy increases creating jobs elsewhere.  This doesn't mean that anyone should "suppress a lot of jobs though".

Well, it's common sense that if the boss doesn't have to pay charges for the overtime, he's going to choose giving overtime to his current employees over giving jobs to more people. Result: no less unemployment, possibly more.
It can also result in companies refusing to hire you if you don't agree to work 45 hours a week, because they know they'll find someone who agrees, anyway. And yes, it's forbidden to do that, but don't worry, they're not going to say that it's the reason they're not hiring you.

As a student, I know that finding a part-time job is already hard. People want to hire full-time workers so they don't have to give worker benefits twice instead of once. It's only going to get worse if overtime has no limit and becomes free of charge for the employer.
Logged
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2007, 23:32:05 EDT »

Quote from: Lissou
Sarkozy, then Minister of the Interior started the riots of 2005 with his talk about washing the suburbs from the scum with a pressur washer, and saying that the two teenagers who were chased by the police, hid in a huge electrical stuff and died were responsible, that if the ran they had done something wrong, and the police was just doing their jobs. of course, it was proven that the two boys had done absolutely nothing wrong and were simply afraid of the police.
I will be honest with you Lissou, I have very little empathy for the two idiots who thought an electric installation is less dangerous than a police patrol, and even less of it for the idiots who think the way to make a point is to burn down cars.

In the case of the two youths, they may not have commited any crimes but neither do I find normal the reaction of hiding in a facility of the electrical company because you see some police down the road. It shows either some pretty high degree of idiocy (I find it hard to believe there were no 'high voltage' signs around) or a highly anti-social vision of things.

Even assuming they had had previous bad experiences with the police, I doubt they were of the kind that would make honest and non-idiotic people risk electrocution rather than meeting the police again...

It was their decision to go in there, and no one forced them to. The risk they were exposed to otherwise was detention, THEY chose to expose themselves to the risk of electrocution. If they weren't responsible for their actions, then who was?

As for the rioters, I actually agree with Sarkozy that the high-pressure hose is the solution. No society should tolerate elements which attempt to de-stabilize it. Social revendication is one thing, but violent unrest is criminal and dangerous, and failure to suppress it quickly and completely will lead to its continuation and expansion.

I don't really agree with Sarkozy on most of what I know his opinions to be, but I definitely agree with him on this one.

And if the youth in the suburbs are too barbarous to accept a non-violent passation of power to a candidate they don't support, it's high time to beat civilization into their skulls, if need be with the kärcher, to which I'd add the tazers, the attack dogs and our good old friend the police club.

Quote from: Psy
Capitalism and abundance don't mix
Indeed, if there's one thing capitalist countries, from Victorian England to modern-day US, are remarkable for, it's the scarcity of goods and abjectly low level of personal possessions their members enjoyed...
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
rwpikul
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1961


« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2007, 00:21:03 EDT »

... and his weird work policies (to reduce unelmployment, instead of giving jobs to more people, he wants to give more work to the people who already have jobs, and to supress a lot of jobs. He says that "work calls work" and that unemployment will be reduced this way, for some weird reason.)
Well, its conventional economics that increasing the productivity of the working population increases employment.  Since if those in work produce more then the output of the economy increases creating jobs elsewhere.  This doesn't mean that anyone should "suppress a lot of jobs though".

Point of order:  He's talking about increasing the number of hours worked, not productivity.

Remember that productivity is how much you produce per hour you work, increasing the hours can actually reduce productivity, (e.g. 20% more hours to make 15% more <whatever> is actually a ~4% drop).
Logged

--

Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
rogue-kun
Dog of Lysdexics
Campaign Management Staff
Pundit
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4057


When I grow up I wanna be a kid


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2007, 00:38:26 EDT »

Becoming like the USA is no bad thing, the USA is a very well run, affluent country.

Tell that to those those experiencing, the seasonal tornadoes storm in the midwest, are finding there have been zero improvements in FEMA sense everything came to light with Katrinna.....as everything is in Iraq, you know the equipment they know they need every spring
Logged


 It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the dew of the mountain that thoughts acquire speed; the hands acquire shakes; the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
This message is encoded with ROT26. Decoding is punishable by law under the DMCA.
Rogue's Weyr Rogue's Rabblings
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 78
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!