France hails fast (expensive) train

  Let me bring a railway train into the heated argument here this week on the relative merits of the French and "Anglo-Saxon" ways of organising life. In French eyes, the sight of a sleek express hurtling through the countryside at 357 miles per hour (574.8 kph) has done more than a ton of statistics to prove Gallilc excellence to the world.

The new world speed record for a conventional train was set on Tuesday by a souped-up TGV express running on the new Paris-Strasbourg line in the Champagne region. [read  on-board report from The Times' transport specialist Ben Webster and English-language official site]

President Chirac and all the candidates to succeed him next month saluted the feat as France put aside its grumbling to admire an achievement that is seen as a slap in the face for the nation's detractors.

Everyone agrees that le train à grande vitesse, which has transformed French life since 1981 [September post] demonstrates the benefit of wise state planning and massive public investment for the long-term good.

In the heat of the presidential election campaign, some even saw the exploit as proof that immigration enriched France. La Charente Libre newspaper reached this conclusion because Eric Pieczacz, the train driver, has Slavic origins.

L'Alsace newspaper summed up the French consensus on the speed record: "This is proof that the market economy is not the solution. If the TGV exists, it is because the state invested to improve the rail network and project it into the 21st century. Private networks do not take this kind of risk." 

Another eastern paper, L'Est Republicain, said: "There is nothing better than this railway prowess to remind people that our nation is not a champion of sleepiness and idleness. The TGV East shows that when it gives the best of itself, France always aims for the highest."

To rub it in, France-Inter radio regaled listeners this morning with The Times' man's remark that the TGV had never in 26 years suffered a single fatal accident while British trains regularly kill their passengers although they never go faster than 125 mph.

Britain's chaotic, accident-prone and expensive railways are always cited in France as proof of the folly of allowing public services to be run by private enterprise. It is impossible to defend British rail services but you can argue that France's superb fast rail network comes at a cost that citizens of many other countries would question.   

The TGV system, which was ordered into existence in 1974, has cost billions in tax francs and euros that have not been recovered. To build the special record train and prepare its run, Alstom, the company that makes it, together with the state railways, have spent 30 million euros and employed 300 engineers over the past two years.  No-one questions the argument that the investment will boost France's image in the world and promote the national engineering champion in the contest with the Germans, Japanese and others to equip the world with ultra-fast rail service.

This is not criticism, just an observation on French priorities compared with those elsewhere. Few in France question the wisdom of spending huge amounts of money on prestige projects, especially if the result is national glory. As the newspaper quote above indicates, the mega-euros are always seen as coming from that outside entity, the state. The notion that it is tax-payers' money -- l'argent du contribuable -- is rarely discussed. You can of course find good "Anglo-Saxon" examples of such thinking, starting with the US public's willingness to tolerate billions of waste in defence spending.      

Comments

[Frank Schnittgerf]

As the Chinese philosopher said when informed that Ben Johnson had just shaved .03 seconds from the World 100 Metre record: "What did he do with the time he saved?"

Is the increased train speed matched by improved access to train stations and efficiency in the train stations themselves?

Who gets to use these super fast trains and do the fares reflect the economic cost of providing the service - or are taxpayers just subsidising increased convenience for the already well off?

There is something wrong with an economic model which makes it cheaper to fly with Ryanair from Dublin to Stansted than it is to then get the train into London - even though the tracks were originally built with public money.

The private enterprise model often doesn't work where long term infrastructural investment is concerned, and the private sector will always want to cherry pick the profitable bits of a service.

Equally, however, there is no incentive for efficiency where a monopoly is in control: The customer has to have a genuine choice to force service providers to compete for business on quality and price.

As trains are generally more energy efficient - and electric trains less carbon dependent - it could be argued that there is also a national strategic imperative to reduce dependency on oil.

Ultimately, it would be great if there were a TGV -like infrastructure throughout Europe to reduce dependency on road and air travel, but how do we prevent it becoming another state monopoly which can hold customers to ransom?

[Richard Huxley]

Yeah i was there to see it go past...I'm english but live in Strasbourg.

It is truly a great achievement and puts to shame the UK rail network.

It also shows that government ownership of these things can pay great dividends. I am very sure France will benefit greatly from the TGV Est...linking Paris right through Strasbourg to Budapest and many other destinations.

True about the celebrations though, although deserved the French don't half know how to make everyone know when they've achieved something!

[Robert Marchenoir]

Only the most naïve or disingenuous of Frenchmen would consider the TGV speed record as a slap in the face for the nation's detractors, at least the domestic ones.

Admittedly, there are plenty of both.

What the unanimous "nation's detractors" have been saying for eons now is that the so-called "French model" cuts France in half.

With, on one side, successful people, big companies and a few higher education institutions, often of world-class level, able to compete in the globalized arena. Such as the engineers and companies which have produced the commendable TGV.

And, on the other side, second-class citizens, small businesses, ordinary schools and universities, who are desperately stuck on the lower rungs of the ladder, with little means and no hope to climb out of their predicament. Such as immigrants living in council estates, the unemployed, university students and assorted paupers.

The former being called, in French, the "insiders", and the latter, the "outsiders".

With a very important sub-group within the insiders: the public-sector workers and their political arm, the Left and the unions.

And it is this sub-group which makes sure that the outsiders stay outside. They constantly take advantage of genuine achievements such as the TGV to defend the French model that also ensures high unemployment, high debt, low growth, racism and permanent exclusion for the worse-off. In exchange for their own perks and cosseted positions.

So having the TGV doing 500 km per hour while yobs from ethnic minorities smash up the Gare du Nord in Paris and start a riot against the police does not disprove home-bred "detractors of the nation". It vindicates them.

[unkle]

Funny to see the argument of prestige and money spending on TGV, which from my side, a weekly user of the TGV, has truly changed my life. No prestige here, just a bare fact.

I could have seen it coming for the Rafale, for instance, to stay on the french side, which does not change life (well not mine, at least I hope...).

[rocket]

I think the TGV is a pretty good train albeit a bit dirty sometimes. I could care less about the flag waving speed record (I'd hate to be aboard if it ever derails)though as it still doesn't solve any of the real problems that France is facing. I hope for the day when fast trains will link most of the major cities in Europe. Unfortunately it will be at the taxpayer's expense especially in France but I don't think private industry would pay for such a project.

I've ridden the "shin" shinkansen in Japan and it's a beautiful train. Much more stylish and cleaner inside than the TGV. The Maglev magnetic train still hold the world speed record for trains

As far as the USA being interested, I am friends with the former Comissioner of Palm Beach County Florida (she presided the wedding ceremony of my wife and I). I think it was about ten years ago Florida was interested in buying TGV technology from France for a run from Miami up to Disney in Orlando. This woman headed the group that came over from the US to investigate a possible agreement with Bombardier and SNCF. They were flown over in First class and stayed at the best hotels and wined and dined. They went back to Florida very impressed, to say the least. But Gov Bush vetoed the funding as it was an extremely costly project.

http://www.floridabullettrain.com/content/history.htm

So Florida still toys with the idea of a high speed train but I don't think it will ever happen. As for other US states being interested, let's not confuse being wined and dined in France with taxpayer preferences back home.

[Donald DuBois]

It is always interesting to see a Western European refer to the "billions of dollars of waste" of the U.S. military. Every military in the world wastes money. The U.S. taxpayers funded for 45 years (during the cold war) a military umbrella that allowed Western Europe to prosper in relative freedom and economic well being - despite the "waste". How much was that worth, I wonder?

Might not an example more appropriate to the industrial (i.e. made for paying customers) French TGV be the British-French Supersonic Transport which never paid for its state funded R&D and which resulted in the average taxpayer subsidizing the well-heeled jet set that could afford it?

To have any government - bureaucrats and politicians - pick the technologies of the future is always a bad idea. Their track record (pun intended), across the world, has almost always been an exercise in waste and inefficient use of resources. That is why France has been trying to privatize what it formerly took by force (i.e. nationalized.) The same is true of most other governments around the world.

[selwyn]

I understand that the subsidies to SNCF are vast, but also that, France being France, no one quite knows what they are as they are all well hidden in the national accounts.
This is typical elitist stuff as they, the elite/government, don’t want the people to know what it costs even if it is the citizens who have to pay for it; it all just gets added onto the ballooning national debt.
At least the trains are fast, clean, and a great way to travel. The enormous waste involved in the grands projets of Mitterrand cannot be justified. I don’t know one that I like and all are to a greater or lesser extent bloated and unworkable. For example the hideous 'Bibli Tonton', the expensive disaster of a national library that Mitterrand built. You don’t hear too many French citizens boasting that these projects “demonstrate the benefit of wise state planning and massive public investment for the long-term good.”

[John Gregory Flinn]

I felt pride, and for 'La France' when I saw this TGV complete its record-breaking run. Also as an Engineer I can apreciate the technical achievement that Britain, sadly, seems unable to sustain let alone equal.
It has indeed proven Gallic excellence in the world of technology, but there are other examples as well not least of which is France's programme of nuclear generated electricity which, inter alia, provides a stable price regime when conventional energy prices are inflating rapidly.

The State industry does need stamina and technical foresight especially with those technological projects that often require a decade or so to show fruition.
Whereas, such attributes are hardly to be found in the UK where the State sector is bedevilled by political interference. Activists of one sort or another generally hold the balance of control over the Professional, and many technical objectives are lost to short term issues in the see-saw politics of post-WW2 UK parliaments.
Many good ideas originate in Britain and, for example, the maglev rail system started life at Cambridge. I believe the original track still remains there.

I would not claim that political interference does not exist in France, I'm sure it does, but it does not determine the outcome. Administrations here appear to have the vision and confidence to allow projects like the TGV, domestic Nuclear Power and Airbus the space and time to develop. And as a result they enjoy the ultimate accolade of enduring export success and the concomitant necessary employment opportunities.

By the way, were there any of those oxymoron Greenpeace/FOE demonstrators against the speed record run?

[Roger Goodacre]

Remove the TGV dedicated high-speed infrastructure from the comparison, and I'd suggest there's not a huge difference between the performance of the railways in France and the UK. France has the space - and the willingness to invest huge sums of public money in prestige projects - to cover large tracts of land with rails that are reserved for one type of train only; the UK is a small crowded island where that option is politically unrealistic. (Incidentally, I don't believe it's strictly true to say there have been no fatalities involving the TGV: three railway maintenance workers were killed by a TGV in the Yonne in 2000. And TGVs have come off the rails on various occasions: it's possible that the rigidity provided by the fixed carriage construction has prevented human fatalities).

The ordinary SNCF services are not obviously better than those in the UK. Just try to cross the country, say from Bordeaux to Lyon, or even Lyon to Geneva, all major cities: the time involved makes the train completely uncompetitive with the car. The railway network is still essentially planned around the central Paris hub. The SNCF is plagued by strikes (something that's almost disappeared from UK railways), and carries a debt of more than 30 billion euros (which strangely is not often mentioned).

In other words, the admirable TGV is the smiling face of an otherwise typical public service where the customer's requirements generally come second to those of the employee's (notably those stressed out train drivers who can retire on full pensions at 55..).

[rocket]

Here's another take on the TGV from spiegel online. It's a very interesting read

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,475641,00.html

[christopher muir]

France should indeed be proud of the TGV. It's a wonderful service. Two countries with free market obsessions and inhabiting vast areas - the USA and Australia - will one day regret their obstinate ways. Their reliance on air transport for fast journeys between cities will be adversely affected by carbon footprints and oil prices. Large countries without very fast trains will find themselves in a self-imposed quandary. The article in Der Spiegel (thanks, rocket) is extremely informative.

[Sarah Hague]

Yesterday TGV record set amid applause and back-slapping.
Today, a train from the banlieue crashes into Gare de l'Est to bruising, and whiplash.

[Ros]

I quite agree with"Unkle" - why does everything have to become political & financial - I think it's wonderful to be able to do Paris-Marseille in 3 hours non-stop and not expensive either- I go at least once a month.

[Dominique]

I have always wondered why some people always say that a project is useless as long as it does not make any money.

Do hospitals make money? does democracy make money? Does philosophy make money? Did going on the moon make money?

[Actu75]

Sarah
England does not know anything like TGV, yet had more than its share of suburb trains' crashes.
Conclusion?

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

Why do French trains drive on the left?

[Maggie]

So more proof of the French doing what they do best, Self promotion.
The UK could easily match the TGV network, if the government threw as much tax payers money at it & had the spare land mass of France.
The point well made already here is, priorities, France should have put this huge sum of money into some of it's many problem areas, instead of a showy self agrandissment.

[Ros]

"Priorities" maybe - and the London Millenium Dome ?

[Actu75]

Peter Kinsley:
Why do french trains drive on the left? Elementary : it's because of that socialist state and these lazy public trade unions who vetoed the right.
Maggie:
Could the UK.... et caetera?
Well, just do it.
Is TGV money wrongly spent?
Ask businessmen if they prefered to do business without it.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Dominique, your argument is a tired one. At best, it proves total ignorance of the economic notions you use. At worst, it is disingenuous.

Nobody has ever said that "a project is useless as long as it does not make any money". I challenge you to find any thinker, writer or political leader, whatever their political leanings, who has ever said or written such a thing.

You ask: "Do hospitals make money? does democracy make money? Does philosophy make money? Did going on the moon make money?"

Well, hospitals, for one, do. There are plenty of private hospitals over the world, and plenty in France also, which make money, and provide outstanding health care, and -- because I see you coming here -- cater to patients regardless of their revenues.

As a matter of fact, you might be surprised to learn that private French hospitals have significantly lower costs -- not higher -- than public French hospitals.

As a result, they are more virtuous from a public service standpoint than the public service itself, since, as you well know, the patient's bill in France, regardless of whether he choses a public or private hospital, is mainly picked up by the Social Security state system.

This is one of the most blatant scandals in the French civil service. The for-profit hospitals are much more respectful of the taxpayer's money than the non-profit ones. Just imagine the waste going on in the state hospitals.

But the core of your argument is to pretend that liberals -- as opposed to socialists and crypto-socialists -- object to public services not making any profit.

This pretense is often applied, by the French Left, to free state schools, free state hospitals, paying state trains and the such.

It is pure hogwash, of course. What we liberals -- and true democrats -- oppose to, is public services wasting citizens' money. This is very different.

Wasting money, when you are financed out of the taxpayer's pocket, is one of the most heinous crimes that exist. It is tantamount to stealing money at gunpoint, with the full weight of the law, out of the poorest's pocket. And these days, in France, it also means stealing money out of the pocket of their unborn children.

Pretending to be socialist, pretending to be from the Left, pretending to defend the worse-off and defending such a policy is a downright fraud.

So I do not know whether your own brand of philosophy makes money, but it sure does not cut any ice with me.

[richard jones]

European trains drive on the left because the Brits put the signal technology in place and by the time they had got their own systems going there were too many kilometers of line to make any change worthwhile

[Robert Marchenoir]

About this train speed-record business, I advise French-reading people to have a look at this liberal blog:

http://www.u-blog.net/liberte

It has some interesting facts -- repeat: facts -- about the Potemkin village that France is fast becoming, train-wise (but you could, of course, find similar examples in all walks of life).

Such as: state-employed train drivers going on strike because they are asked to work 5 minutes longer. (Would that be per day? per month? they are not shouting about it from rooftops, anyway.)

After the strike, state-employed station employees refusing the promised compensation discount on monthly passes unless the commuter surrenders his original coupon -- which he cannot do, because he needs it to reclaim the 50% of his travel costs paid by his employer (by law).

After one more incident on one of the many commuter lines running perennially late, state-employed station employees handing out empty envelopes to travelers, in lieu of the legal certificate needed to prove to their bosses they are late to work because of train delays.

French TV crews, traveling with commuters in order to report on trains regularly running late by half an hour or more, being physically intimidated by a group of state-employed train employees into not filming and not interviewing angry citizens.

Commuters having taken pictures of the incident on their phones being physically intimidated into erasing said pictures, under the implied threat of calling the police (which never fail to appear when summoned by train employees).

All this, of course, has not been, and will not ever be, broadcast worldwide on the evening TV news.

The title of the post is: panem et circenses.

Apart from such little quirks, France is the country of Freedom and Human Rights.

Right.

Some public service, indeed. You need such insights to understand the real workings of the French so-called public so-called service.

[dada]

for those interested in the tribulations of an englishman in the french political landscape, you can catch on mr bremner tonight on the ondes of france inter radio at 7.20 PM
http://www.radiofrance.fr/franceinter/accueil/

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

Mathematicians, please work this out: How far could the great TGV (I love it)travel in the time it took my step-son to buy a Metro ticket at the Gare du Nord (mentioned in an earlier comment)to go to the Gare du Lyon a fortnight ago during the famous 2-hour lunch break? Having come on the lovely Thalys from the Hague in 3 hrs 30 mins, he found huge queues at the automatic dispensers. Those in front were having trouble and he knew why when he tried to use his credit cards, Visa, Mastercard, valid in all European countries The whole frustrated queue had moved to the the kiosk. Only one window open out of six. It had taken him an hour and a half to get his ticket. On his return trip he took a No 65 bus Lyon to Nord which took 20 minutes.

[Dominique]

Robert (Marchenoir)
"What we liberals -- and true democrats "

Donald DuBois :
"To have any government - bureaucrats and politicians - pick the technologies of the future is always a bad idea. Their track record (pun intended), across the world, has almost always been an exercise in waste and inefficient use of resources. That is why France has been trying to privatize what it formerly took by force (i.e. nationalized.) The same is true of most other governments around the world. "

Please let me remind you what democracy is about :

French definition : "Régime politique, système de gouvernement dans lequel le pouvoir est exercé par le peuple, par l'ensemble des citoyens"

So, the question of efficiency as nothing to do with it. If a people decides to organize in such a way, it is called "democracy". Robert, there is nothing like "us, the true democrats". Your definition sounds like "i am right, those who disagree are wrong and are not democrate". That's pathetic in a way. Please note that we need to make with people's will. You sound like "the people did vote wrong, so change the people"

Like calling nationalization "taking by force" is a very "owner centered" point of view. Donald, there is nothing like "this is mine and only mine" on earth. That's an illusion. For example, We are now facing this mistake with global warming today. Air and atmosphere belong to humanity

[Donald DuBois]

To: Robert Marchenoir

Thank you for the URL for the liberal blog; it's very interesting. This French economist says that American train workers are 2.5 times as productive as French train workers.

Of course, you are right about private vs public enterprises. Keeping an eye on the bottom line to increase profit has been proven to incentivize people to not waste money. Also, it motivates people to innovate in order to provide the same goods or services at lower cost. In this way, society has more wealth left over to do many more things like increased medical research, more money to find alternative fuels, a higher standard of living, better houses etc.

[Robert Marchenoir]

Dominique: typical French nitpicking, as opposed to genuine debate. Very common on French blogs. Less so on The Times.

I stated that liberals were the true democrats (as opposed to statists and socialists from the French Left: this was implied; I hope you understood it).

Obviously this is an opinion, and as such, open to discussion.

You tell me that, basically, I do not have the right to argue that my worldview is more democratic than the one you seem to support, because the people gets to vote and might express a dissenting opinion.

This strikes me as a contradiction in terms.

If the people gets to vote, and I am part of the people, then I am certainly allowed to voice my opinion?

Except, that is, if you exclude from the start anything that steers away from the politically correct mindset du jour, which I have to admit is yours. But that would not be very democratic, would it?

How very kind of you to prove my point through your choice of arguments.

What you conveniently chose to omit is that I also offered a demonstration in support of my opinion, by the way of two rather lenghty posts, bringing numerous facts to the table.

Maybe, if you really care to comment on my views -- and you also wish to convince readers from all over the world that your opinion on the French being jolly decent people is the correct one -- you could take the trouble to discuss these facts and arguments, or even bring your own, instead of just copying from the dictionary and stooping to tit-for-tat schoolyard tricks.

[Ros]

Peter says"On his return trip he took a No 65 bus Lyon to Nord which took 20 minutes" - I praised parisian buses on 20th march in "How to annoy Parisians" and no one seemed interested but they are really the best way to get around on public transport.

[Dominique]

Robert,

We disagree on what is the reality and what is an opinion.

What you describe as "reality" or "facts" is just an opinion(a way of describing your reality) to me (and to some others as a matter of "fact"!)

If you believe that liberals are the true democrats, then please write "i believe that the liberals are the true democrats" and not "liberals are the true democrats". Claiming at start that your opinion is a fact is arrogant and therefore does not lead to an interesting and quite debate. I recognize i sometimes do the same.

As for the rest, where did you read that you do not have the right to argue that your worldview is more democratic than the one I seem to support?

Democracy is two fold : one is about being allowed to tell what you think. But the other one is about people's will and the ability to decision making and definition of rules (the rule of law). The secund one is no less important.

You may claim that these laws are bad, inefficient and that you disagree with. But this does not mean that those who believe in it are not democats. That is exactly where bias starts.

About efficiency and ressource allocation, of course we all know that liberalism is better and more efficient, if efficiency means "more production" leading to "more distribution". But is it more efficient if efficiency means "better living condition"? I am sorry to say that the "more" does not always means the "better". This, of course, is open to discussion.

You may considere this kind of discussion "disconnected from reality and economic constraints" that are your reality, but once again, it is not disconnected from "my reality". By the way, what is economy for?

"typical French nitpicking, as opposed to genuine debate"? So be it!

[Isabelle]

Concerning the debate about liberalism vs. public service.

Although believing that liberalism has its benefits in most cases it won't work in all. Particularly where high development costs are involved, where the break even point may be achieved only after several years or a decade later and where high industrial risks are involved. This is the case of the aeronautic and space industry. Airbus and Boing do get state funding but not always in an open form (Boing for instance is benefitting from hidden subsidaries running under a different label than "Boing airplane subsidary") as do all active space transportation system. If the states never had invested into a space transportation system it is hard to believe that there would be any telecommunication satellite now in Earth orbit delivering our so dearly loved possibilities of world wide communication. Not one enterprise would have ventured in spending billions of dollars into the development of a launch system since it would have been too risky and with too little benefit.
An enterprise is driven by profit maximisation for its share holders who's only interest is to increase their win share. Liberalism only improves services with reduced costs when cost reduction are possible and there's enough competitors forcing it to improve.
But pure liberalism has its limits. That is: there should be limits. To the benefit of the enterprises themselves. If the tendency of an enterprise is to reduce costs this spells mainly reducing working costs either by reducing the working force or by reducing wages. Both lead to reduced consumption by the customer. Either because many customers don't have money since out off work or they earn too little to buy much.
As a result profits are reduced leading to even more pressure to further reduce costs. This is what happend in Germany between 2000 and 2006 when consumption broke down (while it was exporting goods like no one else).
To make an economy work money has to circulate from up to down and vice-versa.
Liberalism in its purest and most consequent form won't do that.
No private enterprise has the luxury to think in long term strategic dimensions since share holders tend to get profit sooner rather than later.
Furthermore state services have to exist to secure access to basic services for everyone. That is for instance that small postal office in that small village where many old people live but which recieves only two customers per week. This may be not efficient but I firmly believe that even these old people living in a remote village shall have the possibility to write a letter to their dear ones. Public service means to have schools in small towns and not only in larger ones. Public service means that small towns are connected to the railway system and not only the economic centres. Public service means that everybody can afford education for their children. Public service means that everybody has access to health care and not only those living in big towns and having big wallets.

[terry]

Dominique said:

Democracy is two fold : one is about being allowed to tell what you think. But the other one is about people's will and the ability to decision making and definition of rules (the rule of law). The secund one is no less important.

My math may be a bit rusty, Dominique, but isnt that fourfold?
Dominique's view of Democracy is 1) the right to free speech 2a) the people's will, 2b) ability to decision make and 2c)rule of law. I see you have thought the matter over very carefully. I have never heard of a sillier definition. Democracy is not just the right to free speech and the rule of law. There are many more elements; the right to own property, freedom of religion, to be free from unwarranted search and seizure, etc.

Of course, your problem, Dominique, is with the cornerstone of all democracy, the right of the individual to his own property. You clearly state so when you replied to Donald saying:

Like calling nationalization "taking by force" is a very "owner centered" point of view. Donald, there is nothing like "this is mine and only mine" on earth. That's an illusion.

That theory you expressed is the very cornerstone of socialism. Every individual's property belongs to society if society deems it has a better use for it. But as Ayn Rand aptly points out, there can be no freedom when there is no right to property.

Dominique, I would say that you argue in a circle when you write. However, your lines never seem to come around all the way. You throw in unanswered random questions like "what is the economy for?". Please tell us, what is the economy for?

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

Yes, Ros (viz 7 April) "no one seemed interested". In recounting his Paris metro experience my step-son thought that 99.9999% of people would not be interested,and that is why it takes an hour and forty five minutes to buy a Metro ticket and cross from the Gare du Nord to the Gare du Lyon. The functionaries should put up a notice in half a dozen languages: THESE MACHINES DO NOT ACCEPT YOUR CREDIT CARDS. FIVE OF THE SIX KIOSKS ARE CLOSED AS THE CLERKS ARE HAVING THEIR 2-HOUR LUNCH BREAK, AND SO ARE THE TAXI DRIVERS. TAKE A BUS. WELCOME TO PARIS. This way the visitors will be warned that if they ignore the advice of the dinosaurs and the trahison des clercs who made the rules, the driver of the brilliant new TGV will have spotted his first olive tree before visitors to France can join the other queues for tickets at the Gare du Lyon.

[Dominique]

Terry,

" the right of the individual to his own property" : please open your dictionnary. It's in your mind, not in democracy's definition.

And please note that there is no contradiction between socialism and democracy. We've been in France led very often by socialist governments and i do not believe that France was no longer a democracy at that time. A lot actually even believe it was more. This can be said of most european countries like the UK, Sweeden, Germany etc...

Your problem i think is that you believe that everything should belong to some one. I clearly don't. Eventhough it is clear that a book or place to leaveshould, it is not so clear about water, air, space etc... That's disagreement. Of course, you'll anderstand that i actually believe that you argue in a circle. So long

[Valentin]

Terry actually said, "the cornerstone of all democracy, the right of the individual to his own property"

Even if it’s not in the dictionary, it is still true.
Democracy had no meaning at all in the former USSR and has no meaning in today China, with people having no property, totally dependent on the state and under the fist of the security services.
Another cornerstone of democracy is the separation of powers.

[Terry]

Dominique:

Since I am an attorney, I do not use dictionaries as a source for guaranteeing individual rights. We have a written constitution, which specifically protects an individual rights to his own property. The majority of our statutes are also designed to protect an individual's right to property.

If that does not suffice, logic, rather than the dictionary, should lead you to the same conclusion that one cannot be free in democracy without property rights. If society was free to take as much as your income or property as it liked to give it to someone else (perhaps the more needy), then you wouldnt really be free then would you. Everything you earned basically would belong to society to be disposed as society saw fit.

According to an article in the UK times today by Ms. Right, France takes 53% of private wealth. (The US, unfortunately, is steering toward that same iceberg). That certainly reduces the individual freedom of the french taxpayer.

I am still awaiting your answer. What is the economy for, Dominique?

P.S. Dominique, if you are ever in legal trouble in the U.S., I will gladly represent you using nothing more than my dictionary. Pro Bono.

[Isabelle]

Sorry to contradict you but I agree with Dominique on this point. Although I admit that it is rather a pure theoretical stance. The right of property is not a condition sine qua non a democracy can't exist. Democracy means governing by the people that is politics following the people's will.
If a society decides to abolish all property this would be just an expression of democracy. But in reality people are tuned to wish for property and better to have more property as their neighbourghs. This seems actually be a part of human nature as it is built today. Therefore I doubt that there will be a society that will abolish any private property in the future. This is why China and the Soviet Union would have deprived people of their property if this is what both countries really did (in fact they didn't, even in communist countries private property existed and Marx never required the abolishment. The idea of communism was that everyone has the same amout of property, unlike capitalism where property is unequally distributed).
I don't see a contradiction of abolishment of private property and democracy as long as a majority wants it that way (though I believe this never will actually happen due to human greed). Of course the minority would consider this as something dreadful. But even there an opinion minoritie will always feel that way even in a democracy ...

[Martin]

As far as I can see, it's the British and German taxpayers who are subsidising the TGV through our financial support of the Common Agricultural Policy, from which France is by far the major beneficiary. If France wasn't receiving billions of Euros from the CAP, it couldn't afford to spend the money on the TGV - it would have to use it to placate the French farmers' lobby.

It makes me laugh, albeit hollowly, when I see the wonderful infratructural projects around Europe, such as Spanish motorways, paid for with our money, which we then have to pay for again as tourists or as business people when we use them on our travels, while our domestic infrastructure rots.

What do we get in return? The occasional tiny handout with a great big EU label attached, as if the EU were doing us a favour, and a vast and oppressive albatross of regulation.

No wonder so many Brits are following their tax money to settle in France, Italy, Spain, etc. At least there they can experience some gain from their subsidy. Here in the UK, we only get the pain.

[Martin]

I was interested to read the comments of Peter Kinsley on the frustration felt by his step-son and fellow-travellers when their credit cards would not work in the metro ticket machines in the Gare du Nord.

I and a group of friends had a similar experience in Lyon last year, following a previous one in Marseille a couple of years before, on trips to see rugby internationals.

In Marseille, at the metro station on the Vieux Port, no foreign credit-cards accepted, a couple of coin machines that were not functioning properly, and one ticket counter open, trying to service hundreds of supporters of both teams attempting to get to the match. The station manager opened the platform gates in order to prevent a riot.

In Lyon, I and two friends were trying to buy metro tickets in advance, to save a repetition of the Marseille experience, but not one of half a dozen different Visa cards would work. A visit to the Lyon Tourist Information Bureau elicited much scratching of heads and shrugging of shoulders: "Your credit cards should work, it is a mystery if they do not. Ours all work. We have not heard of this problem before."

We walked to the next metro station to see if we would have better luck with different card machines (we didn't), but by pure chance we encountered a functionary whose job it was to empty the coin ticket machines, and who very kindly obliged us with 50 Euros' worth of tickets for our group. He told us that the metro ticket payment system for non-French credit-cards is suspended at weekends and on public holidays.

He personally thought this was insane, since weekends are clearly the time when many tourists are attempting to get around, and said it was because the ticket foreign payment system administrators don't work at weekends or on public holidays.

Et voila! Now you know. Only in France...

[Valentin]

Basically, communism wasn't about equality, but rather "no one own anything at all as an individual, everything belongs to the community". The fundamental difference between communism and christianism in this respect, was that while the latter invites every one to share fortunes, communism takes them by force, in the name of the People. And so the cancellation of any liberty begins. Any individual difference of opinion or of status ultimately becomes a crime against the People, and this tends to bring everyone to the base level (nivellement par le bas). Individuals don't exist anymore, except as ant-like members of the all-powerful Community. It's a bit like Star Trek's Borg, if you like.
This is the theoretical part.
The practical one, is that by the People, it is understood the ruling class. This is why western theorists of communism said the philosophy was right, only the implementation was bad - a good idea perverted by ill-willed people.

Personally I go with the american style of democracy (see De Tocqueville's book on that). A republic is made by independent, equal in rights (but not identical) autonomous individuals who freely unite their will for the common good of all - common good not in the abstract sense (the People is happy, while all the citizens are miserable) but in the realist meaning: each and every one is happy THEREFORE we can say the People is so.

This is diametrically opposed to the French republic, which tends to be an abstract entity above the "little people", providing for them as a mother for her children, protecting them from the Big Bad Wolf and so on.
As an exemplary consequence, this is why PMOs (small companies) are much more active and strong in England and Germany than in France. It's the powerful, active little people that taken together make a strong, active, export-oriented economy, not the other way around.

I won't go into details about social security, it would take too long. Suffice it to say that true democracy is made by strong (property), independent (freedom, separation of powers), responsible (the power of the vote) adults, for the good of each and everyone. Not by an abstract, monarchical kind of entity.

[Valentin]

---
I don't see a contradiction of abolishment of private property and democracy as long as a majority wants it that way (though I believe this never will actually happen due to human greed)
---

...and this is how the communist horrors began, from Vietnam to Cuba, passing by USSR and the rest: defining property as pure greed. This is passing moral judgement, thinking we know better what others' happiness means.
Americans were right to be afraid that France and Italy would turn to communism, even without the soviet boot crushing down.

Democracies can make disastrous mistakes. Abolishing property would be one, denying a core democratic principle. Germans voting Hitler to power and following him afterwards is another example of democracy gone evil.

[Terry]

Isabelle:

Isabelle said: I don't see a contradiction of abolishment of private property and democracy as long as a majority wants it that way...

Here is the fatal flaw in your argument. You believe that democracy is simply the will of the people. The majority rule. Whatever it says, goes. Well, if the majority voted to exterminate the minority, that would be democracy in action under your reasoning. In a true democracy, laws protect individuals from the rule of the majority. That is the point. The majority just cant simple take private property because it wants it. The "Bill of Rights" in the U.S. Constitution's sole purpose is to protect the individual's rights against majority rule (government). I do not know if France's constitution is similiar.

Your argument that the USSR and China permitted private ownership only goes to prove my point. The U.S. government does not permit me to own private property. The Constitution guarantees it to me. The government can only take my property for a public use (roadway, hospital etc) but must pay me for it. No such guarantee existed in the USSR or China. That is democracy.

[Dominique]

Valentin,

Your view is so biased and simple. Sharing something does not mean "not owning anything". Who does the atmosphere belong to? i am still waiting for an answer that does not come.

France the last communist country blablabla...

Getting tired...

By the way, note that communism was not really the only horror in vietnam. You're right, democracies do make mistakes.

[Isabelle]

@Valentin
Your quoting me out of context shows me that I haven't apparently been sufficiently clear so that you could understand what I'd try to say.
I said that democracy is the reign of its people. That is it is the people who make law and politics. Actually. Unfortunately, while this might still have worked as such in the Polis of Ancient Greek with their small numbers of habitants such a direct democracy no longer is possible in such structure as the states we all live in. The population is just too big to allow every individual wish to be taken into account. This is why nowadays democracy is defined as the will of most people. That is the majority in an election. If a people decides by voting for a party who's goal is to abolish private property and assuming that everyone agrees to that then it is just an expression of the democratic right of each citizen. Such a law abolishing private property only becomes undemocratic when such a law cannot changed afterwards through free elections where people could vote for a party which reinstaurs private property.
I think you confound cause and consequence. China and the former SU weren't (or aren't in the case of China) undemocratic because they were communist or - as you pretend - no privat property existed but because the people had no possibility to change it.

Communism never worked because! people want ever more. I don't condemn it (although you just do accuse me of that and you moralize around that in your last post) though sometimes it often comes close to greed. People compare themselves to their neighbours counting their wealth and comparing it to their own and trying to get wealthier than their neighbour. Most people will wish for a big limousine if their neighbour drives a Mercedes without thinking about the fact that many people are starving in Africa. Imho this "greed" (and I may call it that way while not pretending to be free of it) is what it is: "greed". A big limousine won't increase significantly anything else than the self confidence of people showing off their social status. Since I firmly believe that this desire for showing of is inherent to human nature communism would never work for long in a democracy (with the exception of small communities as the Kibbutz in Israel). But only because of that. This is the true reason for why privat property will never be forbidden in a democracy: because everyone wants privat property and have an unequal high share of it.
Btw. reading your post it springs to my mind that probably your ideal state would be a no state at all since any state imposes restriction upon its citizen, requires taxes payed. This is so in the UK, the USA, Germany, France or Sweden. The question here is not if taxes shall be paid but how much. Where do you draw the line between the responsibilities taken by the state (for which you pay your taxes) and your own personal responsibilty of your own situation. Different people may find different distributions more fitting for themselves. While the US tend to reduce state power and solidarity to a minimum level for more individual responsibility for oneself France (and the Nordic countries btw who's economic system works perfectly though even more statist than the French model -- hinthint) may choose another ...

[Terry]

Isabelle:

Your post underscores the difference between individualist and socialist thought. You project your greed and envy of people who have nice things onto everyone else. Most socialists are jealous people. They got A's in social studies and they just can’t understand why their neighbor has a Mercedes and they do not. The neighbor must have done something criminal to get it. Or perhaps it is the unfair market system that gives the neighbor a higher salary. So, rather than go out and earn a Mercedes themselves, they advocate a economic philosophy that would make that Mercedes unaffordable for their neighbor. Now the socialist doesn’t have to feel inadequate every time his neighbor drives by. That is the true psychological basis of socialism, not helping the poor.

When I see my neighbor driving a nice car (bmw actually), I don’t get jealous. If I want a car or a nice house, I say to myself "What do I need to do to earn one".

Fewer people are joining Kibbutzim in Israel. This is because of the freeload factor. In a kibbutz, everyone is basically equal in what they receive depending on how many children they have. Everyone has to share equally in the work. However, there are always several members who work substantially harder than many others. Usually, there are also a number of members who do substantially less than their fair share. Yet, the rewards for the hard working member are the same as the freeloader. At some point, the hard working member tires of the fact that he receives no extra benefit for the extra work while the freeloader sits around. Guess which one leaves the kibbutz.

(The same experience happened in many "utopian" societies in the U.S. in the late 1800's early 1900s, and 1960’s.)

And that is who the socialists are; freeloaders. I am sure some really care for the poor. But the real reason socialists advocate confiscatory economic policies is that they feel inadequate under a free market system. They dont like the idea that their neighbor has a nicer car or a nicer home than they do. So, they advocate a freeloading system that penalizes individual effort so their neighbor can’t drive that Mercedes. This is always cloaked under the guise of helping starving people in Africa.

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

Someone is interested, Ros: see 11 Apr. horror story of Martin and hundreds of rugby supporters and a near riot in Marseille with ticket machines not working and guichets closed. Then the comment by the Lyon Tourist Office: "Ours (French cards) all work" The Gallic shrug; the "could't care less" attitude of the functionaries. So foreigners are angry again: the metro ticket payment system for non-French credit cards is s u s p e n d e d at weekends and on public holidays! Whoever wins the Presidential election next month should make it a priority to grab these cushioned, comfortable cretins by the scruff of their necks and drag them into the 21st century.

[Isabelle]

"You project your greed and envy of people who have nice things onto everyone else."

Now I could argue that you project something upon me ...

You even don't know my political convictions since I haven't even revealed them up to now.

In opposition of what you interpreted into my posting I didn't present my own ideology (unlike you).

My point - and actually the only one of political relevance - has been that I said that private property is not necessarily an unseparable feature of democracy. I never promoted its abolishment. So stop projecting your own prejudices upon others. As like calling socialist people jelous (btw. how do you know that I am a socialist? You know more than me then!)...

When I say "greed" and call it one of the major driving forces for people to earn money (in our western world where most people work to buy the latest entertainment device, not for survival or the basics for a decent living) than it is an observation of my environment. Perhaps there's a better word for it. Call it "ambition" is just the same thing except from its perception as something positive while "greed" has a negative conotation. I don't know an English word that is actually neutral. So I had to make a choice. "Greed" fitted better to my purpose.

"Fewer people are joining Kibbutzim in Israel. This is because of the freeload factor. In a kibbutz, everyone is basically equal in what they receive depending on how many children they have. Everyone has to share equally in the work. However, there are always several members who work substantially harder than many others. Usually, there are also a number of members who do substantially less than their fair share. Yet, the rewards for the hard working member are the same as the freeloader. At some point, the hard working member tires of the fact that he receives no extra benefit for the extra work while the freeloader sits around. Guess which one leaves the kibbutz."

Did you ever live and work in a kibbutz or are you just guessing. Or should I say "projecting"?

@Terry
"Here is the fatal flaw in your argument. You believe that democracy is simply the will of the people. The majority rule. Whatever it says, goes. Well, if the majority voted to exterminate the minority, that would be democracy in action under your reasoning. In a true democracy, laws protect individuals from the rule of the majority. That is the point. The majority just cant simple take private property because it wants it. The "Bill of Rights" in the U.S. Constitution's sole purpose is to protect the individual's rights against majority rule (government)."

No, it hasn't a flaw unless I am misinterpreted (again). As many you take a statement and stretch it into extremics to make a point. Obviously, basic human rights that are universal to every human being whereever he or she lives are untouched by the principle of majority rule. Of course, some societies extend this domain of untouchable rights but to which extend may vary from country to country, from society to society. While - as far as I know - the pursuit of happiness is a billed right in the US constitution this is not so in other countries. In Germany's constitution the unalterable law is that human dignity is untouchable. This paragraph cannot be changed whatever the majorities for its abolition may be.
I must admit that I don't know if privat property is part of basic human rights. If so you're right but then it is still not an intrinsic feature of democracy but should (unfortunately rarely does) apply to any form of government.
My point is not that I preach the abolishment of private property (even though some seem to project just that on me ...) but that private property (unless it proves to be a basic human right. I would be pleased to be given some official links - U.N. for instance - stating just that) is not intrinsincly a feature of democracy.

BTW: as so often many people try to oppose two things by painting them black and white while they are both just shades of grey. For instance, socialist societies do allow private property while "capitalistic" or "individualistic" (I leave it up to you which term you prefer) societies take some of private property away to keep the state running (it's called "tax").
The question is how much "individualism" and how much "solidarity" people want. I cannot believe that a 100% individualistic in its purest expression - after your definition - is what you want. There are a lot of people who simply aren't able to earn their lives (the mentally or physically ill for instance. Shall we leave them to die simply because they can't affort the hospital bill? I cannot imagine that you would favour such a thing even thoug solidarity in such a case would be in contradiction to your own ideology of fully self responsibility.

But one might get further:
Poor parents may not afford the college for their nonetheless bright child condemning it to low paid jobs or unemployment. How many people are unemployed simply because they are victim of (racial) discrimination? Should they be left alone? Obviously some societies might say: yes, they have to work harder then. Period. Others would say: no, it is not their fault, so society should help them to at least get around in dignity.

Of course other societies might still be more generous. That's the choice of a society.

Btw: there are few countries with such a generous social security system as the Scandinavian countries. Nonetheless, they are economically extremly successful and anything but poor. Actually I dared say that they are more prosperous than most of their more liberal European collegues ...

Again this model is left out of the discussion as it doesn't seem to fit into the black-and-white painted world ...

[Dominique]

Peter,

As Sarkozy said, France, like it or leave it...

[Valentin]

Dominique":
Sharing something does not mean "not owning anything". Who does the atmosphere belong to?

You misunderstand, I‘m sorry. We do share oceans etc, no one denied there is ’shared property’ - d’ailleurs I wouldn‘t even call it property.
But in the communism, people are not allowed their own property.People share in theory - lands, factories etc, but they are forced to it, they are not personally involved, hence not motivated to work for others, especially for rulers or freeloaders - so they ran away to places where talent, intelligence and effort are worth something (materially, but not only).

«France the last communist country blablabla..»

What other free country in the world displays the sad show of 6 extreme-left candidates to presidency, simulating democracy available to everyone? Do any other but the big 4 have even a shade of political program, that can be put into practice? Is a democratic system where candidates are such ONLY to gather enough votes to benefit from state subsidies for 5 more years, really serious? What about the show of the ‘union of the gauche anti-liberale‘ last autumn, when they pretended they can’t agree on a common candidate, when all they looked for was the media attention for one, and the fact that, being 6, the extreme left has much more ’temps de parole’ than any other one candidate. LCR, as much time on TV as PS or UMP, who each employ hundreds of specialists working to prepare the governing of the country? This is not equality, but egalitarianism. Which other country in the free world makes such a laugh out of democracy?

[Valentin]

Isabelle:
«Communism never worked because! people want ever more. I don't condemn it (although you just do accuse me of that and you moralize around that in your last post)»

Communism didn’t work because people do exist as indiduals, with their own personality, likes, dislikes, talents and dreams. They do not live for and through the Community (oh and simplyfing, in this case, is called stating philosophical principles).

And you do condemn it, I’m sorry to contradict you. Defining the desire of material things as greed is, as you are no doubt aware, by definition, pejorative as Greed is a morally negative quality. Therefore you do pass moral judgement on me for my desire for a BMW, when you qualify it as ’greed’.
I don’t want a nice BMW or a famous painting out of greed or to impose to or impress others, but out of pleasure of possessing something beautiful or exquisitely made. One would expect a French person to understand this sooner rather than later :)

[Martin]

First Star Wars, then Email Wars, now Blog Wars.