France and Secularism

Ziggurat said:
That's all they've got to comfort themselves with. They're hated by their neighbors, their former power and prestige is lost forever, their culture has become so pathetic and reflexive that they import anti-Americanism from America, unemployment is skyrocketing - what else do they HAVE except long vacations? But even all that time off isn't enough to make them happy. I guess it can't really: the Onion hit pretty close to home with one of their "old" papers: "French playwrite says that Hell is other French people."
Click to expand...

Are the french more "hated" by their neighbours than say, the british or germans? Are you sure you're not confusing natural shallow chauvinism for hatred?

And what the hell does "importing anti-americanism from america" means? Do you think that "anti-americanism" is a recent phenomena? Do you think the french are particularly "anti-american" compared to other nations?

And where do you get your profound insights about France and the french?


This thread seems like another round of dumb french bashing!
 
Libertarian said:
Labor creates wealth. That's what many socialists refuse to believe. Wealth is not a pie to be divided, wealth is the pie our labor creates and which we strive to make bigger.

Someone help me here.............I read recently (Slate mag?) that Norway was not as wealthy as it thought. In fact, when compared to the 50 U.S. states, it ranked well down on the list.

If you have a society that passes out checks to anyone who claims to be unable to work due to a back ache, guess what? A heck of a lot of people are going to have back aches.
Click to expand...

Don't confuse wealth with quality of living. In absolute terms, Norway may not as rich as other countries, but it's wealth is more equally distributed amongst its citizens than in most other countries. Norway is the living proof that a little wealth fairly distributed is better than lots of wealth unfairly distributed.
 
Number Six said:
The government didn't earn the inheritance but neither did the heir. When someone dies with a lot of money their money has to go somewhere. No matter where it goes it will be going to someone/something that didn't earn it so the question is, where should it go?
Click to expand...
I would suggest a common fund, administered independently from government but with plenty of democratic oversight, to be divided equally amongst everybody born in the relevant period (to be defined). I might even start a thread.

The common argument is that a body has the right to leave their unspent goodies to another, but that avoids the question of the heir's right to inherit. We've long ridiculed inherited political power, but inherited economic power is sacrosant. (Especially to people who decry any political power at all.) Well not to me it ain't.
 
Ex Lion Tamer said:
Don't confuse wealth with quality of living. In absolute terms, Norway may not as rich as other countries, but it's wealth is more equally distributed amongst its citizens than in most other countries. Norway is the living proof that a little wealth fairly distributed is better than lots of wealth unfairly distributed.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. "Fairly" according to who? "Distributed" by whom? And let's not forget, "fairly" does NOT mean "equally." There are too many around who believe it's better to have a society where wealth is evenly distributed than to have a society where it is not, EVEN IF THE LATTER has MORE wealth.
Here's the link to the story I was thinking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/w...080000&en=30684244603f0572&ei=5070&oref=login
 
Libertarian said:
I strongly disagree. "Fairly" according to who? "Distributed" by whom? And let's not forget, "fairly" does NOT mean "equally." There are too many around who believe it's better to have a society where wealth is evenly distributed than to have a society where it is not, EVEN IF THE LATTER has MORE wealth.
Here's the link to the story I was thinking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/w...080000&en=30684244603f0572&ei=5070&oref=login
Click to expand...

I hope you are not going to argue that "free markets" pay people "fairly" i.e. according to the value of the work they do. 'Cause, you know, the US is supposed to be a pretty "free market oriented society", and let me tell ya, I'm not particularly impressed with the way how the US economy and gov. treats its working poor and its middle classes (i.e. the overwhelming majority of the US population)... It seems to me that both Canada and Norway treat their common citizens much better than the US do, by any measure you might decide to use.
 
BPSCG said:
And what has the government done to "earn" that money, other than hang around until its owner died?
Click to expand...
The government managed the society that enabled them to create that wealth; all the heirs did was be born.

I find it unusual that people can will things to go certain places once they're dead. They're dead and they left their stuff- the people still alive should be able to decide what to do with it. That society has decided to respect the dead's wishes if they wrote them down is a convention that can be changed. If the dead wanted to do something with their stuff, they had opportunity when they were alive.

Wasn't the law in Rome that all property was taken by the state upon a person's death? The only exception being if they committed suicide- then they could determine beforehand what was to be done?
 
kimiko said:
Wasn't the law in Rome that all property was taken by the state upon a person's death? The only exception being if they committed suicide- then they could determine beforehand what was to be done?
Click to expand...

Heck, no. Wills were very big in Rome.
 
Ex Lion Tamer said:
Are the french more "hated" by their neighbours than say, the british or germans?
Click to expand...

Or Americans for that matter.;)

And what the hell does "importing anti-americanism from america" means? Do you think that "anti-americanism" is a recent phenomena? Do you think the french are particularly "anti-american" compared to other nations?
Click to expand...

Don't forget, since the whole Iraq thing, guys like Ziggurat have to bash the French. Don't you know nations must be taunted and ridiculed when they don't bow to the will of the USA.
 
Ziggurat said:
As pointed out, in demonstrably did not have that effect. But to believe that it WOULD have that effect, you have to basically buy into a lump theory of labor - that is, that there's a fixed amount of work to be done. But this is as false as the lump theory of wealth, which also leads to disastrous economic policy, whereby governments become obsessed with the distribution of that wealth and stifle the creation of more wealth.
Click to expand...
The question was the opposite: Would it create more jobs in France if the weekly working hours were increased? Or, would it create more jobs in the US if we adjusted the working week back to 48 hours?
 
Libertarian said:
Someone help me here.............I read recently (Slate mag?) that Norway was not as wealthy as it thought. In fact, when compared to the 50 U.S. states, it ranked well down on the list.
Click to expand...
From your own source:

After adjusting the figures for the different purchasing powers of the dollar and euro, the only European country whose economic output per person was greater than the United States average was the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg, which ranked third, just behind Delaware and slightly ahead of Connecticut.

(Norway, not being a member of the union, was not included.)
Click to expand...
For the purpose of his article I would say conveniently not included. From the CIA factbook:

Norway: The GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) $40,000 (2004 est.)

USA: The GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) $40,100 (2004 est.)
 
Shane Costello said:
Abolition of Pentecost Holiday Causing Ructions in France

Considering that France has banned overtly religious symbolism from it's schools, why has it retained an overtly religious public holiday?
Click to expand...

Common oversimplification, and the two subjects are not as related to each others as they seem.

First, most holidays and school periodicity in France (and in other European countries like Switzerland, where officially "reformed" cantons observe catholic holidays, and vice-versa) have always been based on the religious calendar, for organisational and political reasons (religion has been expelled from governmental matters up to a point. It still has -too much to my views- some influence and dreams of more, on the model of the USA nowaday).

Believers or not, the French are used to that calendar, and the Wall Street Journal has got it partially right "In France , the real state religion is vacation", except it is not a state religion, but a folk one (together with good food).

Second, banning religious symbols has everything to do with curbing the influence of a recently imported fundamentalist islamic faction (hardly any Muslim women did wear the veil until a few years ago, and there's a recent -~10 years- trend going with it, namely trying to limit education for women and other discriminatory practices, in healthcare for example). Trouble is that our current government is particularly inept at dealing with those questions, wanting to look fair towards Muslims - which would be a first -, thus pretending to give some compensation by targetting other religions too, and let the religious institutions (especially the catholic church who will get to bed with anyone in order to establish its influence on civil life) lead the discussion on the religious terrain instead of the political where it belongs.

Why has it got rid of it in the name of economic, rather than constitutional, reform? Anybody know something I don't?
Click to expand...

4 reasons:
1. make the French feel guilty about the deaths during the heath wave, rather than making the government accountable for its cuts in healthcare for the elderly and the emergency services.
2. placating the catholic church by changing the suppression of a religious holiday into something like a "day of atonement".
3. free gift to the economy (especially the big companies) of one day of unpaid work.
4. preparing the progressive return to a 40+ hours work week .

Since the French are not all idiots, they don't like being told they are, hence the mess on that day.
 
Number Six said:
If they inherit huge fortunes then they're in a position where they (and their heirs) can live off the efforts of others in perpetuity, which is what I consider sponging.
Click to expand...

Do you really think that wealthy people (or those that are affected by inhetitance duties) actually pay?
 
It seems to me that both Canada and Norway treat their common citizens much better than the US do, by any measure you might decide to use. [/B]
Click to expand...


As as an American who is smack dab in the middle of the middle class, I'd like to ask you how the government is mistreating me. My answer to that is that I'm taxed too much. For some reason, I don't think that is going to be your answer.
 
Bjorn said:
From the CIA factbook:

Norway: The GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) $40,000 (2004 est.)

USA: The GDP per capita (purchasing power parity) $40,100 (2004 est.)
Click to expand...

Golly, I wonder how AFTER TAX, DISPOSABLE income compares??
 
Libertarian said:
Golly, I wonder how AFTER TAX, DISPOSABLE income compares??
Click to expand...
Which wasn't what he was comparing in the paragraph I quoted.

After adjusting the figures for the different purchasing powers of the dollar and euro, the only European country whose economic output per person was greater than the United States average was the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg, which ranked third, just behind Delaware and slightly ahead of Connecticut.

(Norway, not being a member of the union, was not included.)
Click to expand...
DISPOSABLE income after tax is, of course, different.

When calculating it, are you going to deduct the estimated costs of e.g. college education and healthcare for those countries where it's not free?
 
Bjorn said:
The question was the opposite: Would it create more jobs in France if the weekly working hours were increased? Or, would it create more jobs in the US if we adjusted the working week back to 48 hours?
Click to expand...

No and no.

Read aout the "lump of labour" fallacy.
 
Drooper said:
No and no.

Read aout the "lump of labour" fallacy.
Click to expand...

Well, then it follows that decreasing the hours worked per week wouldn't create unemployment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom