Don't kill us, say French shop-keepers

  Imagine a country where stores could cut prices year-round, trade on Sundays and hold sales whenever they want to. Imagine if just about anyone could offer taxi services, open a pharmacy or a hair salon where they choose.

Americans and others may have no trouble doing this, but not the French. These ideas have caused such anger that some of them have already been dropped by an expert panel that is advising President Sarkozy on how to "liberate growth".

Sarko gave the job of running the commission to Jacques Attali, the banker-guru who started out in the 1980s as ideas-man to François Mitterrand, the Socialist president.  After three months, he handed in their interim proposals last night. Grabbing the headlines are suggestions that France should drop or loosen its strict regulations over retailing. These were designed in recent decades to protect small and medium stores from discounting by large chains. Stores may, for example, only hold sales for two six-week periods every year, on dates set by the state.

France holds conflicting views on all of this. Everyone wants to preserve the town and village bakers, grocers and bookshops that give the country its charm -- and attract all the home-buying foreigners. At the same time, everyone flocks to the out-of-town centres commerciaux to load up at weekends and they do not like paying more for goods and services there than their European neighbours.

The suspicion has grown that the big hypermarket chains -- Carrefour, Auchan, Leclerc and the others --  are exploiting the regulations to limit competition among them, keep prices high and gouge the farmers who supply them. In a typical piece of state interventionism, Sarko knocked hypermarket heads together when he was Finance Minister in 2004 and forced them to drop prices on a range of goods.

Resistance to Attali has poured in this morning. The leftwing intellectual and his expert friends are of course being denounced for selling out to "Anglo-Saxon liberalism". Jean-François Roubaud, president of the Confederation of Small and Medium Enterprises, accused Attali of seeking to destroy small shopkeepers and hence the quality of French life. "If they scrap the ban on selling at a loss, they will quickly kill local traders (commerce de proximité)," said Roubaud. "It's the only link that binds little villages. Out of 36,000 municipalities (communes), there are only 18,000 left with local shops."

The Attali group argues that the small traders can survive precisely because they are valued and people are ready to pay for the convenience of shops in the town and village centres which have survived more in France than elsewhere. The complex price laws mainly choke competition among the big retailers, they say.

The group argues that prices could drop by up to four percentage points if the constraints are eased. But they abandoned more radical proposals for the time being. These included letting shops open on Sundays and any hours they want and lifting the volumes of regulations that protect pharmacies, hairdressers, taxis and other services from competition. The rules mean that there are almost no taxis in Paris from early evening and only pharmacies sell basic pain-relievers. They have backed off from the revolutionary idea of ending the ancestral right of notaires to pocket large whacks of cash from each property transaction that they handle. Foreigners who buy houses and flats in France are always amazed by the transaction costs, of which notaires fees play a large part.

On other fronts, the Attali group wants some classic state intervention, with a massive programme for the building of Green new towns with state-subsidised housing.

It has also stirred up a hornet's nest by proposing a change to the constitution to water down the so-called "precaution principle". This was inserted a few years ago after scandals over contaminated blood and mad cow disease and fear over genetically modified food. The clause outlaws the taking of any risk if there is deemed to be a possible threat to the environment or life. Attali notes that anti-biotics, the motor car and the aeroplane would never have been invented if the French "precaution principle" had applied. The constitutional clause is restricting research in biotechnology, he says.  Sarko's own environment minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, is upset by Attali's idea, which he says flies in the face of modern thought.

We shall see what survives of the Attali proposals once they have been through the mill of interest groups, lobbies and old-fashioned French resistance to change.    

  [Typical stretch of French grande distribution -- foe of the commerce de proximité, Amelie's épicerie in Montmartre, in top picture]

Comments

[Jorg Andersen]

It's not just France that has laws regulating everything about shopping. We're only just slowing getting rid of them in Germany and Austria. Until lately you couldn't buy anything on a saturday afternoon in Germany, let alone a Sunday.

[John]

Charles Bremner, where did you hear that the Attali Commission dropped the proposal to let shops open on Sundays? This is actually a key promise of candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, and the Fillon government have repeatedly said that the law will be changed next January or February to allow stores to open on Sundays. Probably they won't allow all the stores to open (like hypermarkets and supermarkets, I doubt they'll allow them to open), but the law will definitely be changed and most shops and stores will be allowed to open on Sundays.

[John: They dropped the Sunday opening line from the interim proposals. There's AFP's report:

D'autres mesures potentiellement explosives ont également été étudiées par la commission mais sont absentes du rapport d'étape: la suppression de la "trêve hivernale" pour les expulsions, l'ouverture des commerces le dimanche ou la limitation des monopoles de certaines professions réglementées (pharmaciens, notaires).

CB]

The minister in charge of changing the law on Sunday opening is Luc Chatel if I'm not mistaken. What about you go interview him?

[Chris D.]

"Imagine a country where stores could cut prices year-round, trade on Sundays and hold sales whenever they want to."
This results in what Henry Miller would call An Air Conditioned Nightmare.

[azloon]

c'est dommage que les marches (?) comme ca en le flic 'amelie' probably won't exist 50 years from now. at least not in great numbers. they will survive in affluent arrondisements, and in suburbs where shoppers are willing to pay for perceived quality, quaintness and physical proximity. otherwise, the remotely located supermarche will prevail.

this really is the tragedy of france, the real gist of the much of the subject matter that gets debated to death on this blog: the attempt of the french to avoid the worst aspects of comercialization/modernization.

the quaintness, the sense of preserved beauty, is what brings millions of visitors to the country. the country's unwillingness to go along with the "crowd" of western economies to preserve this quaintness is often mocked and ridiculed, since the resistance to modernization, and french difficulty with compromise, has created so many other social problems.

i've written before about the rampant and ugly commercialization of almost everything in the u.s. (and is being emulated to a fault by the chinese). it's a trend that will basically change (ruin) the quality of small town/neighborhood culture everywhere in all but a few affluent international cities and their suburbs (and even then, the quality is often lower, if still preserving a bit of "pretty.").

france might consider becoming a subsidiary of disneyland. that company has a good record of preserving and profiting from fantasy. maybe that's why there was such initial resistance to the building of disneyland france. the country knew it was already a giant disneyland and feared the competition.

if france resists the disney takeover, traditional, quaint old france may only be found in disneyland before too awfully long.

[rocket]

I have no problem with any of these changes.

[John]

From what I understand, this is only an interim report, and the final report which will be issued by the commission in December should contain a reference to Sunday opening.

In any case, whether or not the commission mentions it, the government seems determined to change the law on Sunday opening. No later than two weeks ago the consumers minister Luc Chatel said the law would be changed in the beginning of next year: http://www.challenges.fr/actualites/business/20071004.CHA1472/ouverture_le_dimanche__chatel_promet_une_loi_debut_2008.html

That's why, Charles Bremner, I thought your mention that the proposal to open shops on Sundays had been abandonned was not accurate.

[Dot KING]

When I was dealing with property transactions (up to 2004) the notaire's fees were about 7% of the total transaction costs, in reality a little lower, but gave a good rounded up figure for a realistic estimation of the final outlay. Of these 7%, the notaire gets less than half, the rest goes to various government departments. When I started out in 1992, the figure was 11 - 12% and if I remember rightly, it varied from département to département, and was then equalised at the reduction.

[Dominique]

Charles,

We can already tell what will be left the Attali group : nothing. All this is just political spin from both Sarko & Attali.

Nothing will pass because we live in a democracy and no one wants this (not even the UMP parlement). The most interesting project (building of green cities) will not pass either because ...it does have a cost.

As usual when it comes from Attali : words, books, theory etc... interesting though, but not real.

[azloon]

if this post doesn't bring Terry out of the woodwork, we can presume he's dead.

[richard jones]

Be this the Attali J. who managed the
European Development Bank in London many moons ago.

It did more to help Asia than Europe, did more to support the past than develop and was a bank rather of the order of Débit Lyonnais.

[Maggie G]

"if this post doesn't bring Terry out of the woodwork, we can presume he's dead."

Exactly what I was thinking, Azloon.

[richard jones]

Be this the Attali J. who managed the
European Development Bank in London many moons ago.

It did more to help Asia than Europe, did more to support the past than develop and was a bank rather of the order of Débit Lyonnais.

[Lilly]

France without its small shops is i-n-c-o-n-c-e-i-v-a-b-l-e! Carrefour and the small grocery stores coexist peacefully, and everybody is keen on those sale's weeks which are an important part of French culture. Hypermarkets might be closed on Sunday, but some are open on Sunday mornings along with small village stores that have a Sunday market nearby. Doesn't seem THAT rigid.

BTW: Terry, I read some Hayek. Surprising that he is less well known in Germanic countries. (Azloon, do you think something has happened to Terry?? --)

[Valentin]

Terry is better than all of us: instead of empty talk, he's out there in the wild defending New Jersey shopkeepers !

[Daniel Strohl]

Richard Jones,

"was a bank rather of the order of Débit Lyonnais".

This is a sharp one ! Attali will be pleased ...

[Sam Young]

1) Re Buying property in France
If you buy an existing property in France for 200,000 euro, the breakdown is: notaries fees 2321 €uro; Stamp duty (i.e tax to the Government) 10180 €uro; Other fees: 1000 euro. The problem is not the notaire; the problem is the State engaging in what it does best: robbing its' citizens.
2) Re Country losing its soul.
I remember a country where taxis were regulated like in France (i.e. chronic shortage) and where shops closed on Sundays. Now go to Ireland: you have 7*24 shopping centers and taxis galore. The liberalization of taxis significantly increased the number of taxis available and significantly increased the number of people using taxis. The local village shop is still there and doing fine.
The liberalization which took place in Ireland over the past 15 years has been good for the people using the liberalized services, for the people providing the liberalized services and for the State through taxes on these services.
The reaction to the Attali report was entirely predictable. The fate of this report is also entirely predictable: nothing will come out of it.
Why do the French say "non" to everything? The DNA law has been watered down to a point where it is meaningless and expensive to implement; the Unions will strike Thursday and 43% of respondents in a BVA phone survey support these strikes; these Attali suggestions will come to nothing.
We all know that when Nicolas Sarkozy leaves office, the labor laws will be just as restrictive as they are now (... "mais c'est pour protéger l'employée contre la précarité et le méchant patron, monsieur). At most, he will be able to make a few cosmetic changes.
The French psyche is one of negativism and stupid head-in-sand conservatism.
I hope this country gets the comeuppance it deserves before i am too old to see it.

[christopher muir]

In many countries with the 24/7 "shop till you drop" disease, you can see heavily laden family SUVs drawing up to their front gates after having incurred yet more credit card debt on a Sunday afternoon. Instead of a family walk in the park or a visit to a museum, this quality time (as they say) has become a tension-filled excursion to crowded malls involving the purchase of often unnecessary goods - usually bought on short-term credit. Once this addictive buying cycle sets in, it rarely stops before the inevitable payment of debt plays havoc with family budgets.

[Lilly]

"Terry"

Maggie G., Azloon,

If he's not dead, I shall presume that Terry has become a communist, collaborating with the Russian secret service. He will pop up again. He's now working on language skills and spying techniques. Big challenge..-

[Hope]

Apparently, Sarkozy promised Attali that whatever he proposed would be done. Attali also proposed to scrap départements and to reclaim land in towns which don't confirm to the social housing quotas (like Neuilly!) The liberalisation of commerce ideas are practically being dictated by M Leclerc, a self-proclaimed warrior against high prices. Everyone is focussing on the price of food, but the scrapping of backward- margin laws would affect all goods, thus creating ridiculous situations like when Tesco decided to sell the latest Harry Potter at cost price. The victims will be the suppliers

[Richard Huxley]

Shame about not removing the 7% notaire fees (10% after all charges)...a complete disgrace that is and the main reason many cannot afford a home.

Good to see closure on Sundays. Very inconvenient on first arrival from the UK but now I appreciate it.

Sales don't bother me either.

Someone needs to change that taxi law..complete pain in the ass and one that costs lives too in the less urbanised areas. People often drink and drive as they cannot get home, with disasterous consequences.

[John]

I am English and live in the UK and France, I enjoy the fact that France is shut on a Sunday. There is no need for 24/7 shopping, 6 days are enough. Sunday is a day of rest, enjoyment and to be with ones family.

[Valentin]

"The French psyche is one of negativism and stupid head-in-sand conservatism"

...or maybe plain old fear of change...

[Dominique]

Sam Young,

"The French psyche is one of negativism and stupid head-in-sand conservatism."

I had never read such a racist post on this blog yet. I thought Charles B was regulating this.

[Valentin]

"There is no need for 24/7 shopping, 6 days are enough"

Once again Sarkozy has the good approach: everybody doesn't have to be open 24/7, but there must be a lot more exceptions allowed than is the case now.
It often happens that you desperately need something and there's nowhere to find it.

[John Styx]

I agree with Jorg. Your article almost makes it sound like France is the only country in the world with shops regulations. In most European countries at least, you can't open a pharmacy anywhere you like. Until very recently, Portugal had heavy regulations about pharmacies and you could not buy drugs in Italian hypermarkets. Pharmacy chains are still a big no-no in Germany.

[Guillaume]

"The French psyche is one of negativism and stupid head-in-sand conservatism"
I'm very unhappy to nod that truth...I hope it will change sth but, as you sam, I'm quite desillusioned...

[Dominique]

Guillaume,

Don't be desillusioned, just learn to deal with it and make up your own life....stop blaming others

[Frank Schnittger]

Who's Terry?

This debate seems to be getting bogged down in the usual ideological battle between the "socialist" regulators and the "capitalist" free market liberalisers.

The reality is that all countries (including Ireland) regulate the provision of goods and service to ensure that some social objectives are achieved. Thus, there is ongoing debate in Ireland about where supermarkets should be located to avoid killing the traditional small town centre shops and having regard to other considerations such as traffic congestion.

The problems arise when the regulatory process is hijacked by vested interests to damage the best interests of society as a whole. Thus the taxi drivers in Ireland (quoted by Sam Young) had used the taxi regulations to create a closed shop providing inadequate services at high cost.

Once their stranglehold on the regulations was broken, the number of taxis increased 3 fold greatly improving the quality of services at all times of day and night and also having a moderating effect on price inflation.

The problem in France, it seems to me as an outside observer, is that key vested interests have managed to secure a monopoly of control over key services and are using this to charge high prices for poor services.

What I find amazing is that a sophisticated, politically aware, French electorate have been duped into believing that the self-interest of these vested interest groups represent some kind of socialist ideal or the common good.

It is ordinary people who suffer from high prices, poor service, and incessant strikes, and yet it is these same people who have been persuaded to support the strikers who are trying to screw them.

I believe this may have something to do with the vested interests managing to portray themselves as the inheritors of a romantic tradition of revolution and protest against big government and big business (now re-branded with the globalisation bogey word).

This must be one of the best marketing trick of all time. The petit bourgeoisie are using socialist ideology to screw ordinary workers and consumers into believing that they should pay high prices, taxes, and obey all sorts of onerous and often pointless regulations in order to be allowed to receive poor quality services!

What passes for “Socialism” in France today, is actually the counter-revolution of the bourgeoisie (often ensconced in secure state jobs) against the modern proletariat who are the workers who have to compete in an increasingly global economy to survive.

Far from protecting the “proletariat” from this global competition, the state bourgeoisie are actually making life much more difficult for the proletariat by imposing all sorts of costs and regulations which makes it far more difficult for the proletariat to achieve a reasonable standard and security of living.

When will the French realise they are being duped by the very people socialist theory said would have to be overthrown to achieve social justice, and who have managed to invert socialist theory to achieve the very reverse of what socialism was supposed to be all about – i.e. a fair deal for everyone?

[Dominique]

Franck,

"key vested interests have managed to secure a monopoly of control over key services and are using this to charge high prices for poor services"

Can you please tell us what key services in france are high priced for poor services? Thanks.

[rocket]

Dominique

"I had never read such a racist post on this blog yet. I thought Charles B was regulating this."

Dominique, welcome to a blog that is run by someone who is not French. That means we don't get censured. That means we have to read your bullshit too. Like it or not!

[rocket]

Frank

"What I find amazing is that a sophisticated, politically aware, French electorate have been duped into believing that the self-interest of these vested interest groups represent some kind of socialist ideal or the common good."

Frank, in case you don't know it yet. The French are sheep afraid of their own shadow.

[Brandon Payne]

This must be one of the best marketing trick of all time. The petit bourgeoisie are using socialist ideology to screw ordinary workers and consumers ------
awesome comment when will Chomsky's critiques of global capitalism filter down to the minds of the ordinary man in Texas?

[Lilly]

"That means we have to read your bullshit too. Like it or not!" (Rocket)

You could have written bullsh* to keep my screen clean. I just wiped it with "lingettes nettoyantes écran" and there you come. So, next time, if you don't mind...

BTW: I think Dominique was ironique. There are many 'racicsts' on the blog though I wonder: Is there a French "race"?

[Dominique]

Lilly,

Racism is not only about "race". I remind you that human races do not exist (see http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_humaine). It can be about religion (antisemitism), woman (sexism), sexual orientation (homophobia) or any kind of identity.

Being french is not a race, but it is an identity. Choosen by some, not by others.

Sam Young's comment "The French psyche is one of negativism and stupid head-in-sand conservatism" tends to say that there is an Innerent negative and stupid dimension in the french identity : it's psychée.

As all french people do share this french identity, that means all french people are some how negative and stupid.

This is as stupid as any racist stereotype (jews like money, chimeese work like aints, africans do not work etc...). In this particular case, this racism can be precised : that is called francophobia : racism toward the french identity.

You can criticize France and the french republic as much as you like, complaining about it's rules and habits, criticize it's laws and business habits as much as you want.

But claiming that "being french is somehow being a little bit stupid" is called racism. I am sorry but that is the word for it.

[Guillaume]

Dominique
A key vested interest for a poor service at high prices: SNCF. Frankly, the SNCF' costs are so high (for the users, the State...) that the services appear poor in comparison.

Brandon:
I'm interested in what you're saying about Chomsky. But, poor of me, it hasn't filter to me in Paris (not Texas huh ;) ), could you give some reference plz?

[azloon]

[There are many 'racicsts' on the blog though I wonder: Is there a French "race"?] Lilly

Lilly, i wonder the same.

i claim irish ancestry (and the madness that often accompanies this circumstance), although i am told, my ancient ancestors were normans who originally went to england by way of france (if i probably don't remember my history correctly), and only after that to eastern ireland. so voila, even I AM FRENCH. i take back everything nasty thing i've ever said about frogs, i mean, the french, on this blog or in any public or private conversation i've ever had, or in any 'rant' i've ever engaged in, since i became a sentient human being (at conception?). and i hereby renounce any claim to anglo-saxon superiority/priveledge and also, any accompanying obnoxious personal characteristics.

my only wish is that the normans had gone directly to ireland. :(

:)

[Valentin]

"This must be one of the best marketing trick of all time. The petit bourgeoisie are using socialist ideology to screw ordinary workers"

Trick alright, but true to the bone !

Rocket also is right, in that there is a lot of fear of unknown, of change, of unchained capitalism, of others trying to get an upper hand over you.
This is France. Italy is the same.
I prefer to call this fragility and sensibility though, rather than fear.

This will go on as long as long as the world itself: southerners will call northerners thick, slow and heavy, and they will be called superficial, unreliable, and cowardly instead.

[Donald]

Frank:

"What I find amazing is that a sophisticated, politically aware, French electorate have been duped into believing that the self-interest of these vested interest groups represent some kind of socialist ideal or the common good.

It is ordinary people who suffer from high prices, poor service, and incessant strikes, and yet it is these same people who have been persuaded to support the strikers who are trying to screw them."

Frank, I think your analysis is spot on and very insightful. An example of these "vested interests" are the transport workers and taxis drivers in Paris. According to CB there are few taxis available at night in Paris and they certainly are not cheap. An example of high prices and poor service. The state run ferry service from Marseille to Corsica is another example - especially when compared to the private ferry that runs the same route.

Don

[Dominique]

Guillaume,

SNCF poor service? i am afraid you probably never went abroad...If you know a better train service in the world than SNCF, let us know (and i have seen many!)

Donald,

Taxi is not exactly what i would call a "key" service. As for Corsica ferry, you are writing in your own sentence that there is no monopoly because you compare it to the private service for the same route.

So? what exactly are you up to? If you complain about the poor taxi service in paris, i agree. But then you need to aknowledge that taxis are the only transportation services that are private owned. The rest (Metro and Buses) are not. And they are top services.

[Valentin]

"jews like money, chimeese work like aints, africans do not work"

LOL Dominique, you could have at least picked some better examples :)))

(or else you can add: indians are all dirty, arabs are overproud fanatics that get angry over nothing and work even less than africans, russians are the heaviest drink addicts in the world...)

[Valentin]

.... and the Brits have no cuisine worthy of that name ! lol

Azloon: Normands were actually as French as the Bretons :) They came from Scandinavia and were thus anglosaxons themselves. So the wheel turned a full circle, you really are an anglosaxon :)

[jmcconnel]

Dominique

SNCF provide a good service, when they are not on strike. Twice in the last five years I have had to adjust travel plans to avoid the CTG's annual SNCF strike.

Plus every time I travel SNCF I appreciate that the French taxpayer foots more than half of the real cost of my ticket. If I were a French tax payer I would not be quite so happy about this fact.

[Dominique]

Valentin,

You're right : being french is much wider than being anglosaxon ;=). It encompasses it. It also encompasses being latin, celt, franc, saxon, gallic, mediteranean, antillais, white, black, arab etc...

But for the normands, no one in France can say he comes from the normand invasions of the 9th & 10th centuries...This invasion had this particularity that it did integrate so well that we can't even see it. It is historically known that the normands did not even try to keep their language nor any of their habit once they were given Normandie by the traité de St Clair in 911 after JC. It is very likely that all those who believe they are from "normand descent" are as much of celtique, breton, saxon, latin, roman, franc, mediteranean descent..

Being "pure normands" is one of those racist concept...

Azloon says "my only wish is that the normans had gone directly to ireland". Well, Azloon, you are your own decision maker. Irland is in the EU. You can go whenever you want.

And do not forget that if the normands did not stop in Normandie, you may just not be born at all...

After all, may be i agree with you : if only they went to Irland ;=))

[Ros]

Lilly & Others
Yes, I DO understand that you are joking but .... I think these remarks about Terry are in very bad taste. He may be too busy to write on this blog, away on holiday or worse have had an accident or be ill - we should M.Y.O.B. ("mind your own business") for those too young to know this old expression!
It would be much more clever if Charles could put this page into HTML - then we could express ourselves in italics, underline words & even add a Smilie - why not?
Have been told by someone who knows that this is quite easy to do with "typepad".

[John Gregory Flinn]

"The problem in France, it seems to me as an outside observer, is that key vested interests have managed to secure a monopoly of control over key services and are using this to charge high prices for poor services."

An understandable comment from an
outside observer, but hardly true in conclusion.

Railways and Electricity supply are key services for any nation, yet prices on SNCF(including the subsidies for students, senoirs etc) and EDF are highly competitive with any in Europe. Inasmuch as they both 'export' these services to Britain, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Spain they must be in competition in some sense with similar services there.
The prescient choice of nuclear energy as fuel must be a significant competitive factor for SNCF and EDF.

Thus, the economic laws that Frank Schnittger may have in mind behind his analysis do not always seem to apply in France. Generally speaking, efficiency can be patchy but this is not only confined to 'vested state interests', private enterprise can be as bad.

Pharmacies are a monopoly that appear to exact a high price, but do provide a good service.
Prices in Supermarkets are not so much cheaper to those of the local French Shop-keepers, which generally have the advantage of better personal service than the Supermarkets. The convenience of one-stop shopping at 'les centres commerciaux' is, however a fact.

What I find worrying is the adoption of a "precaution principle" which is referred to in Mr Bremner's final paragraph. This seems very retrograde and positively luddite (sorry for the oxymoron), and if M.Borloo supports it I am very suprised because risk is the necessity of invention!

[Sigognac]

The high transaction charges when buying a property n France are 1/ stamp duty and 2/ excessive estate agents fees (up to 15% of the property price, vs about 4% in the UK.
In fact, it would be cheaper to buy through a notaire or use one of the many direct sale sites that are developping fast.

[azloon]

V, Dominique --

ok, then i guess i'm not french. i am both relieved and disappointed. i so much want to be a 'citizen of the world.' so i take back all i said, favorable and unfavorable. (i told you my history probably was mistaken).

and it really doesn't sound like the norman(d)s are all that popular with you two? c'est vrai? why didn't they intermingle with the french natives? because the french didn't bathe or use deoderant?

i did attempt to get an irish passport but i was too far removed from a generation standpoint to get it -- an american whose grandparent emigrated is eligible, but not one, such a i, whose great-grandparent emigrated.

Dominique, my reference to going directly to ireland, was a reference to bypassing britain (a small tweak), not bypassing france. i was TRYING to claim a 'french connection" but apparently neither of you are will to permit this, in other words, to claim me as "one of yours."

oh well, your loss. or maybe not.

:)

[Valentin]

"I think these remarks about Terry are in very bad taste"

Mais non, Ros, c'était sympa ! :)

As to normands, they were such big trouble for France that they were calmed down a bit with that land along the Channel coast. Then they crossed the channel and conquered England. Then came back and conquered 2/3ds of France. Normands. Not French. At that time everybody knew the difference.

[Dominique]

jmcconnel,

Twice in 5 years is very few indeed. I thought it was more.

" If I were a French tax payer I would not be quite so happy about this fact." Well, the world is a wonderfull place : you're not a french tax payer, so everything is fine.

As a french tax payer myself, i am pleased to pay for good infrasructures and quality of service. Don't mix taxes with corporatists strikes. It seams that lot's of people always mix the two concepts : both the strickers and the "public services bashers".

Sigognac,

So what? don't you know the purpose of stamp duties? The idea of looking at taxes as "devil" is boring and so simple minded. Taxes do pay for public services for all citizens. No tax means no public service. The market does not take care of everything. Can't you just move on something else?

[Dominique]

Azloon,

"why didn't they intermingle with the french natives? "

I said the very opposite! The fact is that the normands did intermingle very much with the natives!

Language mistake probably : Azloon! please intermingle with the natives!

At least once they were offered a land by the poor old "rois fénéants" of this time who were completly unable to protect the french from on century of war and looting along the river Seine. The normands were not that nice...they actually did loot from their "drakars" as long as the natives of that time give them the land..... The normands (vikings)took the natives habits once settled....and intermingled

[azloon]

Ros -

Terry is missed. that's the only point i believe any of us were trying to make. i realized when i said he 'must be dead' that he, indeed, might be dead. oh well, let's hope that's not so. we may have bored him to death.

Valentin, Dominique: you CONFUSE me. did normans intermarry and thus are many present day french of norman descent? or did they remain a separate ethnic group, merely plundering the french coast and then moving on to britain? one of you said they conquered 2/3rds of france. that would have been very difficult to do that without impregnating a few of the local jeune filles.

NO MORE FRENCH WAFFLING ---maybe yes, maybe no, gallic shrug of the shoulders. i want to know now:

AM I FRENCH OR NOT ???????????????(or if you prefer, are you normand as well?)

[Frank Schnittger]

John Gregory Flinn and Dominique: My argument is not a "public" versus "private" enterprise argument. In my view, the one thing that is worse than a public monopoly is a private one. In Ireland the state telephone company was privatised. It promptly raised prices and reduced investment and employment.

Consumers have no choice but to pay up because it has a monopoly of landline infrastructure - which it effectively acquired at a knockdown cost and which made it unattractive for other suppliers to enter the market.

This has resulted in a slow roll-out and take up of Broadband services, and thus damaged Ireland's competitiveness as a "knowledge economy".

The old state monopoly was however incredibly inefficient which meant that individuals and businesses could have to wait a long time to get something as basic as a phone - damaging Ireland's competitiveness even more. As a result the political climate for privatisation was created.

However, the issue is not public ownership per se - especially where important national objectives such as competitiveness are at stake. The issue is productivity, efficiency, and customer service.

Generally, competition is the best way of ensuring that services are delivered at high quality and low cost. However, this isn't always possible in industries - such as communications, electricity, airports and trains - where it is not possible or desirable for each supplier to set up their own infrastructure.

In this case effective management and political oversight is required to ensure that services are provided at high quality for low cost, and it is this effective management which is frustrated when the real powers lies with the state sector trade unions, because their only remit is to look after the best interests of the employees, not the customers.

I have no problems with trade unions per se – especially in the private sector – where they can act as a necessary counterbalance to unscrupulous employers. However, in the state monopoly sector where employees are provided with job security and pensions for life, other rules should apply – such as a legal duty to provide a minimum quality and continuity of service.

The state is there primarily to look after its citizens, not its employees. It is time that citizens ensured that state employees provide the highest standards of quality, efficiency and customer service – or else lose the privileges of state employment.

It is this lack of democrat accountability which needs to be addressed. State sector employees who effectively hold the public to ransom should simply be sacked. They no longer deserve the title and privileges of being a “public servant”.

[Maggie G]

Frank,

I understand everything you say, but I don't see the connection with the small shop-keepers versus the hypermarchés. Maybe you meant to put this in the Bernard Thibault section (The man who can stop Sarko, perhaps)?

Anyway, can you tell us what you think about the small shops, and the idea of letting the hypermarchés build in the town centres. I'd like to know what you think about this issue specifically.

Thank-you!

[Dominique]

Azloon,

Do you have an french ID card? if yes, you're french, if not you're not! The rest is blablabla.

Regarding you "normand" identity, i don't know. Is that blood, land or DNA identity?

[Valentin]

"Do you have an french ID card? if yes, you're french"

Oui, mais lui il veut savoir s'il est DE SOUCHE, lui :)

[Sandrine]

I miss Terry too... But don't worry, he's not dead. Il se fait juste désirer un peu !

[Terry]

Who is Terry? Frank asks?

Rumors of my death are greatly exaggerated.

Yes, I want in on this one. As usual, government meddling in the price system distorts the market and causes unintended consequences. At least, unintended as far as the government is concerned. Adam Smith, another Scotsman, also noted several hundred years ago, that certain industries get the government to grant them special favors. It's always in the guise how it will protect the government. But it also always results in protectionist policies designed to grant those certain industries an edge in the competition enforced by law. The result is the consumer always pays more for everything. Some day France might realize that the entire economy runs on pleasing the consumer. The US is starting to forget that.

[Frank Schnittger]

Maggie G. - I clarified my position re: public vs. private enterprise here because supporters of public enterprise always quote infrastructural public utilities in support of their argument.

I believe the have a good case in that instance. What is less clear from their argument is how they propose to deal with the rampant inefficiency and poor quality of service that the public service (in many countries) often provide due to a lack of the disciplines otherwise imposed by exposure to competition.

The use of socialist ideology to justify high cost/poor efficiency is a betrayal of socialism and a con-trick on the consumer.

The issue of small shops versus hypermarkets is a complex one. Consumer patterns are changing because of the high levels of car ownership, traffic congestion, the prevalence of family units where both partners are working, and high levels of disposable income.

This puts a premium on out of town shopping centres, longer opening hours and the convenience of "one stop shopping" in a hypermarket. On the other hand greater disposable income and ethnic diversity also provides a market for more specialised (and expensive) shops in town centres.

The British experience seems to be that out of town hypermarkets can kill town centres by attracting away all everyday and discretionary recreational shopping.

In Ireland, rapid population and income growth has created a demand for many new town centres based around one or more hypermarkets located in new towns or close to old town centres. It has also led to the rejuvenation of some town centres with more expensive specialised shops benefiting from the passing trade generated by the nearby hypermarket.

A second trend is for smaller "convenience" stores selling basic and convenience foods and household consumables charging higher prices and catering for a market where consumers want to buy a few basic goods in a minimum of time. These are often based in petrol stations for convenient parking and are often open 24 hours a day.

Traditional small grocery shops and pubs are suffering because they find it difficult to compete on either choice or price. Many failed to invest, modernise, innovate, and generally improve their offerings as consumer tastes changed and became more sophisticated. Those that developed a reputation for particular excellence in a more specialised area thrived even when located next to a hypermarket selling similar wares.

I think it is a valid planning objective for municipalities to want to maintain traditional streetscapes in town centres with a vibrant and diversified retail sector. Where there is only one hypermarket in town (or close by) there is no effective price competition in any case, and consumers are often prepared to pay more for a more personalised service.

There is an important social and recreational aspect to shopping which can not always be provided by a hypermarket. Planning objectives should include avoiding the creation of a complete dependency on one hypermarket and the need to use a car to get there. As always, in planning, it s about proving a balance that best meets a communities need for quality and service at the best possible price.

Long live diversity. Change is inevitable. And no one has a right to a guaranteed living if they fail to invest, innovate and provide a good service. However sometimes the smaller retailers need a little help to allow them to compete effectively with the big multi-national hypermarkets and thus some restrictions on the size, location, and traffic implications of major (hypermarket) retail developments is justifiable.

Its down to what local communities want and whether they are prepared to pay the price for maintaining or getting it!

[Lilly]

“Lilly & Others
Yes, I DO understand that you are joking but .... I think these remarks about Terry are in very bad taste. He may be too busy to write on this blog, away on holiday or worse have had an accident or be ill - we should M.Y.O.B. ("mind your own business") for those too young to know this old expression!” (Ros)

Ros,

I sincerely hope that Terry didn’t take it that way and that he is fine, just busy, bored with this blog, etc. I did not intend to disrespect his privacy or make remarks of “bad taste”. If this has happened somehow, I feel very sorry about it.

Should everybody really mind his/her own business only? I understand what you mean but indifference (ignorance) is the other side of that coin.

It was nice to read that Azloon was fine and with his son, some time ago. The blog is anonymous but still…

Dominique,

I understand how you explain the definition of “race” or “racist”. Thank you. Is this perceived/defined the same way in France and in Anglo-Saxon countries?

When you fill in official government forms in the US you have to indicate the ethnic group you belong to. They don’t use the term “race” but will know your skin colour anyway. Americans don’t consider this to be racist, I think.

You offer a definition that has left the ‘original’ meaning. I think Azloon feels French according to the old meaning.

Everyone might want to add some specification at the end of their posts, i.e. (humour or lol), (serious), (ironical) to keep misunderstandings to a minimum (??)

[Dot KING]

Azloon, On the night I was born, a terrible storm was blowing, out of season snow, drifts, wind - you name it. My theory is that the stork lost its way and delivered me to the north-west of England. I'm still looking for the poor so and so who got delivered here to south-west France and should really be in Lancashire!
I don't have a French ID card, but have always felt more chez moi en France than the UK.
Maybe I'm normande too? The man I grew up believing to be my father was of Irish descent. The woman I grew up believing was my mother made me wear a MacDonald tartan kilt for YEARS, (god! was there a big hem on that thing), because she was of Scottish descent.
Send for Officer Krupki "Golly Moses, that's that's why I'm a mess"

[Lilly]

I'm relieved. Boredom hasn't killed the cat.

[Dominique]

As a good market promoter, Terry was only making his apearence rare in order to make it's value rise! ;=))

Unfortunaltly, same old wording of poor value ;=(

"Some day France might realize that the entire economy runs on pleasing the consumer"

If polluting water is pleasing the consumer, should we go on pleasing him? Warming the atmosphere undoubtly pleases the consumer and should we accept it?

If the destruction of the planet is pleasing the consumer, let get rid of the consumer!

More, going to the hospital when i am sick does not really "pleases" me. I go because i "need" to. And health care is undoubtly part of the economy.

I am afraid you are mixing "pleasure" with "need".

Terry, we more and more live in a world of consumers. That drives us into the wall. May i ask you if you would not prefere a world of citizens?

[Frank Schnittger]

Welcome back Terry! I think some of the French folk here really miss you flogging them on a regular basis!

Government "meddling" for some = planning for others. Yes it can distort markets, increase prices and have unintended consequences. That just means intervention has to be smart and not driven by vested interests who have a special interest in protecting themselves from competition.

It was Marx who observed that unfettered competition leads to monopolies which can then charge what they like. Governments thus have a strategic duty to maintain diversity of supply and the competition which flows from that.

Having worked for a global multinational I can assure you that it was always in our best interests to kill off the competition. Without regulation in many markets, we would have. Where we succeeded, we upped the prices. The costs of entry prevented new competitors from emerging (or else we squashed them with temporary price cuts).

We are the world leader in our field so we can set the rules if Governments don't. In a democracy it is the Governments job to ensure social objectives are met. For all our PR about social and environmental responsibility, we are in business to make as much money as we can.

It is not for us to set the social objectives of the countries we operate in.

Adam Smith worked in the era of Colonialism and robber barons who profited from slavery and abject exploitation of child labour.

Without some regulation monopolies develop, the rich get richer, and everybody else get screwed - by armed force if necessary. Even the U.S. is gradually learning that overweening military and corporate power isn't everything in terms of providing even for its own citizens - whilst the third world gets screwed.

Adam Smith is strictly for the dinosaurs who yearn for a return to unrestricted military, political and economic power. The Iraq war may have been very profitable for Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al (who personally made billions out of it) but it is ordinary American soldiers and taxpayers (not to mention the Iraqis) who are paying the price.

[Maggie G]

Where's that betting guy? Sam Young?

What are the odds that we're going to get a marathon economics debate between Frank and Terry?

[Guillaume]

@Dominique:
Contrary to jmcconnell, I am a french taxpayer and, as I said, from my point of view, sncf service is poor if we compared it with what it costs to us. 0,5% of our PIB, at that price, a strike is always /"trop"/too much.
Plus: really look at the web site. Unusable. To get a real good railway website (times and so on) I use the Deutsche Bahn one!
Today in Le Monde (p.18), there is a magnific article on the fret service which is not poor, only bad...

[Dot KING]

Lilly, it's curiosity that kills cats, boredom could kill the blog :(

[Terry]

Frank:

It's nice to be missed. First in line for flogging, though, is you.

"Government "meddling" for some = planning for others. Yes it can distort markets, increase prices and have unintended consequences. That just means intervention has to be smart and not driven by vested interests who have a special interest in protecting themselves from competition."

Yes. Lenin gave us a wonderful example about how well government "planning" works. With disasterous consequences for Russia. What many either fail to understand or choose to ignore is that the beauty of free markets is that they run without ANY planning. Pricing, etc. is based on thousands or millions of economic decisions made by thousands or millions of other people. It is impossible for any one person or group of people to have all the information necessary to plan markets. I have not seem much smart intervention from governments. That's probably because governments are made up of people who couldnt cut it in the business sector (the others become teachers-Hi Dominique). And these are the people you want to plan an economy, Frank?

Quoting Marx does not exactly help your cause. Where was Marxism successful again? ~crickets chirping~. You might as well quote the Easter Bunny. That dinosaur Adam Smith correctly observed that monopolies arise because one group gets the government to stifle its competition with THE FULL FORCE OF LAW BEHIND IT. He noted how we are always told its in the public interest but in the end only benefits a preferred group of businessmen. And it seems to me that is precisely what Charles has written about here.

I've posted this link before, but here it is again. Uncle Milty (Milton Friedman) explaining how the pricing system works using a common pencil as an example. Please, Please give it a view.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d6vjrzUplWU

[Terry]

Dominique:

"As a good market promoter, Terry was only making his apearence rare in order to make it's value rise! ;=))"

It's nice to see you have finally grasped (perhaps accepted?) the concept of supply and demand.

Just so you know, it's possible that everyone is both a citizen and a consumer. They are non-exclusive. Everyday you are a consumer, Dominique. Like it or not. You buy your croissant in the morning and your copy of Le Monde (Pravda). Perhaps, you buy lunch during the day, petrol at some point, ride a velib and many other things. You dont get these things for free. And you cant make any of them on your own. You buy them. You buy them with what you earn for your time teaching (not much eheh). And you do this every day with millions of other people. Perhaps, you don't like the word consume. Think of it as trading. All day long, every day we trade with other people. For some reason consuming or trading for things that "we need" offends you. Well, that's called life.

Your other "arguments" defeat themselves. So, there is no need to respond to them.

[Terry]

A note on supermarkets, etc.

There are reasons why many people prefer supermarket chains. They are convenient. You dont have to go to the butcher and the cheesemaker and the baker, etc. Because its a larger store, they have more purchasing power and can buy goods cheaper. So, more people will want to shop there because it is cheaper and more convenient. That is the whole purpose of a market economy. To offer better services and prices to get more customers and earn a larger profit. The purpose is not to guarantee some people a living. If smaller stores cannot compete because they are ineffecient and more expensive, then they go the way of the Dodo. If the smaller stores offer better service or better quality, then people may continue to go there. But these are decisions that should be left to the buyers, not stupid, government bureaucrats. Because there are no other kind (other than Sandrine).

[Terry]

Oh, and since I am making up for so much lost time on this blog. Nothing anyone said offended me. Some of you might have noticed that I like to tweak people every now and then. So, I can take death rumors. Although, I appreciate the love Lilly. Hope you are enjoying Hayek. He is not popular in Austria or Germany because he left there to teach in England before the war and never went back.

[Pierre Bernardi]

Come, this is silly. Capitalism works fine for the superstructure. Not so well for the infrastructure. This is pure marx. French transport workers are striking because they feel that the contract which binds them to their employer (the state) has been, or is about to be, broken. Nothing political about it.

The logical next step for the state (failing privatisation) is to hurry replacement of rolling stock by driverless trains - as exist already on line 14.

By the way, Richard Coeur de Lion, John Lackland, Henry IV and V were Plantagenêt, from Anjou. And therefore of French descent.

[Dominique]

I now know why i disagree on everything with Terry.

He thinks supermarkets offer better services while i see bad services : you need to buy a car, drive it, pay the parking ticket, pollute the planete, walk hours to buy a piece of meat, wait hours to pass the cashier, yell at the person who tried to pass you, go back to the car, drive the way back for hours because of the traffic and finally get home exhausted with the feeling that you lost your saturday "consuming". That's what Terry's calls "more convenient"...

That explains it all. We just dream of different worlds. We're not in the US here, we still try to avoid the spreading of car when useless eventhough it means less "car consuming".

Small shops = convenient and excellent service, saves the planet, right next to your own home! More, you then you have time doing something else! for instance losing your time blogging!

Of course, that means that cities of 21th century will need to look like the cities of the 19th century, not like Los Angeles. And that's exactly what architects are preparing.

[Dominique]

By the way, we all descent from Lucy...in the sky, with diamonds

[Lilly]

Dot King,

"Face it. Curiosity will not cause us to die - only lack of it will..."
(A. Reid) - Lack of curiosity means boredom, though a cat was involved, indeed....

[Frank Schnittger]

If markets work so well, Terry, why didn't Bush simply BUY the oil from Iraq rather than try to take over the oil wells directly? The powerful only trumpet markets when it suits them - when they want others to buy THEIR goods. When they can't buy what they want at a price they want to pay, they simply use military force to take over the assets directly. If THAT isn't "distorting the market", I don't know what is?

I'm afraid your mystical, almost religious belief in the power of the free market doesn't always work out quite so well in the real world where there are real inequalities of power. The whole point of monopoly capitalism is to gain control of the market so you can stop the competition from competing with you on equal terms.

Those who spout most about their quasi religious belief in free markets tend to have very little real experience of actually working in world leading global companies which largely control their respective market sectors. And as to that stupid reference to Lenin and planning - have you ever worked in a really big business? Senior corporate managers do almost nothing but planning and “managing” (i.e. manipulating) the market!

The call to stop state planning is simply a call to let the corporate planners have their way in all things to maximise corporate profit without regard to the public good. The Adam Smith theories work fine for small traders in “a nation of shopkeepers” He didn’t live in the era of global monopoly capitalism.

Marx’s theories on the concentration of capital are not particularly controversial. You don’t have to be a Marxist to see some merit in some of what he said. If you had read my earlier contributions to this thread you would know that I argued that modern Marxist theory has been appropriated by parts of the French petit bourgeoisie to do the exact reverse of what Marx intended. You don’t judge Christ by the actions of Christians throughout the ages do you?

[terry]

Pierre:

"Capitalism works fine for the superstructure. Not so well for the infrastructure. This is pure marx."

Why do you insist on using discredited theorists like Marx, who wasnt even an economist? Where has Marxism worked, Pierre? Citing Marx is the economic equivalent of citing Custer's tactics on Indian fighting.

Pure marx=pure bollix.

[azloon]

[The logical next step for the state (failing privatisation) is to hurry replacement of rolling stock by driverless trains - as exist already on line 14.] -- Pierre Bernardi

Pierre -- right on, brother.

the shame of france right now is not l'affaire sarko/ceci. it's the strike.

this is a civic blasphemy of the first order.

french citizens should rise from their shackles, and demand that these slackers be fired (or, as per you suggestion, be rendered obsolescent).

[Lilly]

"He [Hayek] is not popular in Austria or Germany because he left there to teach in England before the war and never went back." (Terry)

Terry, there must be some different reason. Hayek was born in Austria in 1899 and was formed/inspired in the Anglo-Saxon world, but he taught in Germany and Austria, too: from 1962 to 1992. He had lived and taught in Freiburg (Germany) the last 15 years of his life.

I think post-war Germany wasn’t ready to receive his theories. He criticises the ones who claim to know what’s best for the others - which is one of his central ideas. I lack distance but it seems I have never met that person who believed the good of the other came about automatically through self-regulating processes. You would have to trust nature. It’s always better to logically foresee any unwanted consequences and regulate beforehand. That’s why Germans are so good at engineering. It could explain German reluctance to embrace Hayek.

I have a book with Hayek quotes covering different fields of interest (not limited to the economy), very interesting since he is multidisciplinary having started out with psychology.

Terry: http://www.kevinhenkes.com/mouse/04.asp - that’s not me!

[Terry]

Frank:

I do respect your intelligence. But it is difficult for me to take your economic opinions serisously when you start out by quoting Marx. What were examples of successful marxism, Russia, Cuba, the eastern bloc? His views have been soundly discredited. But you can hold onto him if you want. I prefer to listen to the economists whose theories have proven correct. Friedman, Hayek, etc.

"If markets work so well, Terry, why didn't Bush simply BUY the oil from Iraq rather than try to take over the oil wells directly?"

The assumption you are making is that the 2nd Gulf war was about oil. It was about democracy, not oil. Your still stuck on the first war.

"And as to that stupid reference to Lenin and planning - have you ever worked in a really big business? Senior corporate managers do almost nothing but planning and “managing” (i.e. manipulating) the market!"

Just because you are a cog in some big corporation doesn't give you any special insight into economics. Especially, when you are citing that relic Marx. Of course, senior corporate managers do lots of planning and managing. The difference is that they are trained in business. Government bureaucrats do not have any specialized knowledge that makes them capable of proper economic planning. If they did, they wouldnt be bureaucrats, would they? They'd be in the private sector. Also, senior corporate managers specifically plan to make that terrible thing lefties call "profit". So, good business planners consider human nature, costs and profits in the attempt to make sound economic decisions. Government bureaucrats have other concerns that have nothing to do with business. So, they are less likely to care about the economic costs or the social costs of their decisions. Lastly, there is far more accountability in corporations than in government. Poor business "planners" get fired when losses occur. Bureaucrats never get fired for their awful decisions. Ironically, they usually shift the blame on business.

"The whole point of monopoly capitalism is to gain control of the market so you can stop the competition from competing with you on equal terms."

This is not the point of capitalism. But it can be a consequence. This is why government intervention is BAD. Industries that tend to be monopolistic pay politicians to enact laws that stifle competition. Adam Smith wrote about this some 300 years ago. If government stuck to regulating price fixing and other monopolistic practices, that would be sufficient. But that's not what government does. It starts granting special favors to monopolistic industries in return for campaign contributions.

We do have different religions. Yours is government. You pray to it like is some God that will protect you. Well, governments have set up concentration camps, sterilized its citizens and taken property without just compensation. What corporation has ever done that?

[Terry]

Dominique:

"Small shops = convenient and excellent service, saves the planet, right next to your own home!"

I like small shops too. But that is a choice we make. Others, have the right to choose supermarkets. These choices do not happen by accident. They are the result of millions of people deciding what is best for them, supermarket or small shop. If more people choose supermarkets, we have no right to impose our voluntary choice on others by governmental edict. That is tyranny. Small shops must adapt to be competitive i.e., better service or they will not survive. Government bureaucrats are always trying to change the free choices people make by creating disincentives that end up distorting market prices. It's a bit like pissing in the wind, if you will.

"Of course, that means that cities of 21th century will need to look like the cities of the 19th century, not like Los Angeles."

Cities in the 19th century were choaked black with coal dust. People used to dies from disease caused by horse dung left in the street. The car represents progress and individual freedom. No wonder socialists are against it. They want to take us back to the 1800s.

[Terry]

Frank:

"The call to stop state planning is simply a call to let the corporate planners have their way in all things to maximise corporate profit without regard to the public good. The Adam Smith theories work fine for small traders in “a nation of shopkeepers” He didn’t live in the era of global monopoly capitalism."

Two poorly thought out notions. First, corporations do not make profits by putting guns to people's heads. They offer a service or a product that people voluntarily buy. In other words, they exist because they SERVE the public. Second, Adam Smith lived during the Mercantile Period. He wrote about monopolies. Why don't you re-read (or read) Wealth of Nations? We already know you are too familiar with Das Kapital.

[Frank Schnittger]

"What were examples of successful marxism, Russia, Cuba, the eastern bloc? " - Terry

No Terry, all the counties you mention are are/were relatively unsuccessful dictatorships. The most successful examples of Marx's influence are the Western European social democracies who all provide a good standard of living and quality of life to their citizens through a mixture of (often c. 50/50) market and social or state provision.

The efficiency of this model is attested to by the fact that most of them have a higher level of GDP per Capita (e.g. Ireland $52,000 in 2005 vs. U.S.A. $44,000 in 2006 and the gap has widened since). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Even with the recent inclusion of 10 relatively underdeveloped eastern European states the EU as a whole is developing faster than the US because of (not despite) a generally much higher level of social provision.

Compared to the US, the EU is characterised by higher levels of social provision, public healthcare, environmental awareness, and political freedoms. Neither have the western European social democracies been as responsible for the widespread human rights violations you enumerate as the U.S. (and its privatised, market led, contractors) in Iraq and numerous other countries world wide over the past 50 years.

However, I don’t think this “debate” is going to get us anywhere and I have better things to do than trade insults with you. I happen to believe the U.S. will probably move closer to the European model over the next few years despite the opposition of people with your views. Perhaps we can revisit the topic in ten years time. Ciao.

[Daniel Strohl]

Terry,

Nice to see that you are back, and intellectually fit as usual. However, I was somewhat concerned by your absence - I was wondering whether you had been hired by the Governor of the state of New Jersey to manage their Civil Servants in order to get the best out of them ... Not an easy task !

"It was about democracy, not oil. Your still stuck on the first war."
Almost nobody will believe this statement in Europe. Europeans have a big experience in the matter, with what was called in history books "la diplomatie de la canonnière" (gunboat diplomacy).

Democracy can not be enforced at gun point; the same is true for religion - it took a long time to Europeans to understand the latter.

[Dot KING]

You see Terry, now Frank has taken his ball and his frizbee and gone home, quite right too.

[Terry]

Frank:

It's quite something that you call one of my ideas "stupid" and then cry like a baby when you receive a response in kind. You can take your marbles.

Europeans, as I understand it, have very little disposable income. It has been especially hard on the Italians and Portugese. Of course, eastern countries are "developing" faster. That didnt have anything fifteen years ago thanks to the marxist ideas you cherish so much. We are already there.

Interestingly enough, the talk in Europe always seems to be moving back to a U.S. style economy with less government. Gee, I wonder why.

[Dot KING]

I think he meant it Terry . . .

[Valentin]

"Almost nobody will believe this statement in Europe. Europeans have a big experience in the matter"

Ahh Daniel's diplomacy (or is it French goût for euphemism :))

Let's put it more plainly: europeans may be wiser (since older) but it is rather that americans are réally a gullible lot, to digest the b**t about terrorists and democracy that Bush threw at them. Astonishing.

[terry]

Dot King:

Yeah, Frank does that when he cant compete in an argument. He likes to make snide comments and then claim foul when he gets hit back. Always heading for the high ground rather than just making an argument. A usual leftie tactic that one just has to get used to. It has no effect on me. Yawn.

Dealing with lefties is like dealing with children.

[terry]

Daniel:

I really dont care what europeans believe. Especially, after the what they are responsible for in the last century.

"Democracy can not be enforced at gun point;".

Germany, Italy, Japan. All democracies now thanks to the gun point.

[Dominique]

Terry,

" I really dont care what europeans believe. Especially, after the what they are responsible for in the last century"

I really wonder what i am responsible for...

"Germany, Italy, Japan. All democracies now thanks to the gun point. "

Vietnam, Irak, Grenade, Chili, Argentina, Brasil etc... do not quite thank the gun point.

Terry, don't make a fool of your self...

[Valentin]

"Germany, Italy, Japan. All democracies now thanks to the gun point."

That they're democracies and they returned to the top, is their own merit. Gunpoint was a bad shock, they knew how to overcome.
They were established civilizations in their own right, long before the barbarians come :)

They didn't fight the occupation, they knew how to digest it, how to do a hard work of self-analysis, and how to go back to work to rebuild after destruction.
Nothing to do with Iraq. Frank is of course right.

[Dot KING]

Valentin "Frank is right" ????
Gosh, Valentin, you're being fair to a "leftie".
I feel so overcome . . .
I must go and lie down in a darkened room with an Eau de Cologne-soaked lace hanky on my forehead.
No, no, please, don't worry, I'll be alright in an hour or so. . .

[Pierre]

Frank, I couldn't have put it better myself.

[terry]

Valentin:

"That they're democracies and they returned to the top, is their own merit."

They returned to the top only because they were conquered by allied forces and we IMPOSED democracy on them.

[terry]

Domininque:

"I really dont care what europeans believe. Especially, after the what they are responsible for in the last century"

I really wonder what i am responsible for"

You. Nothing. But I laugh at the notion that Europeans are somehow wiser or have some deeper insight when you spent the last century slaughtering each other.

[terry]

Pierre:

"Frank, I couldn't have put it better myself."

I agree. You couldnt.

[Valentin]

Terry's back alright :))

"and we IMPOSED democracy on them"

Well not really. Germany was democratical before WW2. Italy was too, sort of, only very unstable. But then Italy has ALWAYS been unstable. Just like France. (or Spain, or Greece...)
Italy actually IS still very unstable politically, with governments changing every 8 months or so, terrorists, anarchists, betrayals and deep corruption...

What the US did good, was to keep them out of the touch of the Soviets.
But that good is shadowed by the bartering over the Central and Eastern EUrope, fed to the monster so that he let go of part of the prey.

Dorothy:
Frank is not really a left-winger. I'm not really a "capitaliste sauvage". For instance I also agreed 110% with his older posts on social security (or was it public medical insurance), or the newer ones on the fake French socialism.
And Irish are ok, anyway :)

[Valentin]

"I laugh at the notion that Europeans are somehow wiser or have some deeper insight when you spent the last century slaughtering each other"

That's exactly why. We've been to hell and back. You never had fullblown war on your own land, or total destruction on your cities, you have no idea what that really means.

[Daniel Strohl]

Terry,

"But I laugh at the notion that Europeans are somehow wiser or have some deeper insight when you spent the last century slaughtering each other."

There is a difference between the US, which suffered the last war on their OWN territory from 1861 to 1865, and for instance France which suffered THREE wars on its OWN territory (1870/71, 1914/1918, 1939/1945), with heavy casualties, especially in WWI. Germany, for instance, did also pay a heavy price in destructions and casualties, including civilian ones, during WWII on its OWN territory.

Therefore, European nations, taught by dreadful experience, do look twice before opening the Pandora box of a war, and may be even more in the Middle East, which is a highly volatile region, where religion mixes with politics and economics.
And if Chirac was unwise to provoke the US as he did at the UN, he was nevertheless right to refuse to participate, as did also several European states, notably Germany.

And they refused because it was clear that Saddam did not intent to attack the US or even Israel (which is strong enough to defend itself as everybody knows, including with nuclear weaponry), since it was clear that Saddam did not have any significant weapons of mass destruction. First, this was verified by the United Nations (Dr. Blix) which had made many inspections. Second, Europeans have also their various intelligence sources, including observation satellites (France and may be the UK - I am not sure about the latter). And in case of the Middle East, human agents speaking Arabic and living in the region may be more reliable sources than highly complex computerized systems intercepting myriads of information, but difficult or even impossible to process due to lack of Arabic speaking operators (in France, no problem to find knowledgeable manpower fluent in Arabic).

Now, regarding the real motive of the war, oil or democracy, this is a question of personal interpretation.

[Lilly]

Now, Frank, isn’t that boring to always be right?

You know what you talk about, you are in a position that gives you the right to speak with authority – and you do so intelligently.

Now, is Terry all wrong? I think Terry represents some of what many Americans hold true. I don’t see anything positive in either Iraq war. I don’t believe anyone outside the USA believes the second Iraq war was about democracy whatsoever.

Your economics discussion started out with opposing views on ideal economic models. Frank didn’t run off because he lacked arguments, Terry. He felt that your discussion didn’t lead anywhere.

Was it supposed to lead anywhere?

Frank’s views based on his Irish (European) background and his work experience qualify him to speak for a “European” point of view: The BIG European achievement is a social safety net for everyone that even libertarians in Europe will defend.

The BIG American achievement is freedom. People who were at risk to die from starvation or oppressed or both or persecuted for their belief found safety within the principle of American freedom.

Frank and Terry, you both want to feel safe.

The European way has it that those in need can expect to get help. Those who can care for themselves might feel less motivated because they’re obliged to share what they earn. There is little incentive to leave mediocrity, people aren’t pushed to excel. There is material security for very many. Life is more regulated than in the US; governments are more involved with the individual. Decisions are made that leave a state with a negative balance sheet or people dissatisfied. Not always. Not everyone will be unhappy.

The Americans allow for personal achievement with hardly any limits, in theory. It is important to be born in the right district, to have parents who can afford to pay for College and the like. With some positive financial background, intelligence and eagerness the individual can grow beyond mediocrity, raising standards. As many will do, the average living standard will go up.

European democracies have always had governments that were society’s regulators, restricted freedom in order to protect the individual. It worked at times, and it turned against different unwanted groups of society or all at other times (religious prosecutions through the ages culminating in the Third Reich) or else failed such as seen in Eastern European communism.

The American model has Guantanamo, poor and dangerous neighbourhoods in large cities and crazy wars.

Neither model is to be praised only.

Now, it will depend on the individual what mode he will prefer. Both come with advantages, both have their drawbacks.

It sounds very compelling when Frank says that governments need to be there as market regulators because markets regulating themselves will make prices rise because monopolies are no social or environmental entities. That is because we humans are egoistic to the bone. I agree with Frank about the advantages of some regulations.

It all sounds as if there were only winners in Europe, especially in Ireland. There is only Frank to tell us about Ireland. Is the European model a ‘win-win’ model with little worries for everyone?

Trouble is that the social security schemes overdid it, and people adapt poorly to a new situation with less financial security because they always relied on those safety measures. It is difficult to think of going to work if you haven’t done so for longer than a decade. The security that is supposed to protect the individual has a stifling effect.

I won’t disagree with Frank. He is right. There must be some regulation in the economy. This requires a lot of wisdom and moral integrity on the part of those governmental regulators… -

Nonetheless, I find Terry’s model more compelling. Social security Europe works well for very many, the majority, but for some it doesn’t. I feel like a “loser” in this system and regret not having grown up in the US. I know that the European way of security comes with limitations of freedom that I have always felt and suffered from. This is personal.

I don’t know whether there might be some potential one day for European ‘socialism’ (including all governments running a social security scheme) to turn into anything totalitarian. It seems unlikely.

Terry, Frank, why do you discuss this in the first place when it doesn’t lead anywhere and one – feeling right – runs off when he’s done?

You discuss this anyhow because Terry expresses great scepticism towards anything that has the word social in it. People who claim to know what is best for you, are the same egoists as anyone and socialism potentially gives them power over you.

Frank, you discuss it because you want to prove that Terry is wrong because you are convinced he is.

I believe, you should continue to discuss, allow this to lead somewhere because – our economy has become a global economy and everything one does will somehow affect the other. If you look at the effect climate change (warming or cooling...) has and will have, it becomes clear, that there needs to be as much common ground as possible to find solutions for all concerned. Real life everywhere will have some of many different models or else, someone will have to rewrite economic theory pertinent to a globalised world economy. It could be terrific or frankly bad or terribly stupid or frankastic... -

I doubt Americans will ever take Europe for an example. If the Americans look out for examples of growing economies, there are China and India who operate on very different principles. While Terry feels leading in theory and Frank in his sector of the economy, others might ultimately be the true winners or simply the ones in power.

Terry, what Frank says is true for Europe.

Most Americans – themselves or their ancestors left somewhere because of problems back home. They were attracted by the pursuit of happiness – or simply by their will to survive. That explains why America’s safety lies in its freedom. [We must not forget: There were Native Americans, too and there were slaves who didn’t choose to come to America.]

It is difficult to transport the principle of freedom back to Europe that has a very different history. It is not that obvious in Europe to see that some/many Americans think, Europeans should adopt their way. There are many Americans whose roots go back to a Europe where democracies had people die or run off.

Terry, you see that the danger is innate to socialism. But socialism in a very broad sense (because you appear to take all Europe as left-wing), i.e. decent living standards for very many – IS what Europeans are proud of. This relative material security (for very many) requires that freedom of the individual gets curtailed. That’s the price that Europeans are prepared to pay.

American freedom comes at a cost, too. There’s a huge gap between rich and poor, there is crime, there … - Most Americans value their freedom more important than a caring and controlling government because misuse of government control is part of so many an American individual’s family history.

Besides, it takes some courage to seek freedom but once people take the risk and find it, hardly anyone will want to let go of it.

Terry, Frank, what would be that economic theory required for a global economy, valid for everyone, satisfying everybody’s desire to feel safe and the American craving for freedom along with guaranteed economic growth?

Once you’ll have worked that out, you’ll be “right”, both of you.

BTW: Since this is only a blog comment, I am probably inexact and simplifying too much but I hope that I got my message across.

[terry]

Valentin:

"That's exactly why. We've been to hell and back. You never had fullblown war on your own land, or total destruction on your cities, you have no idea what that really means."

Read a book about the american civil war.

[Pierre]

Terry, Das Kapital is a little broader in scope than Hayek or Mein Kampf. It has more to say about the human condition. A better narative, if you like.

[terry]

Daniel:

"and we IMPOSED democracy on them"

Well not really. Germany was democratical before WW2.

We are not talking about what these countries used to be. At the time of their defeat, they were all dicatorships. Two had brief flirtations with democracy. Japan had none. We (allies) set them up with stable governments and constitutions.

What did Europe learn? They sat back and did nothing permitting the genocide to continue in Serbia until the U.S. motivated you. All of europe was involved in the first Gulf War because oil was the issue. When democracy was at stake in Iraq, half of europe took a powder.

Dot,

You’re new on this blog. You don’t know Terry very well. He has some good ideas, but he is not a very honest debater. He has a habit of twisting things around, insinuating that people have said things they didn’t say, and taking comments out of context. Generally, he does not respond to what the other person has said, but to what he ASSUMES the other person has said. Also, if he can’t think of a good answer to a point someone has made, he resorts to taunting.

Here are some examples of Terry’s style of debating for you:

Terry to Dot: “Yeah, Frank does that when he can’t compete in an argument. He likes to make snide comments and then claim foul when he gets hit back.”

Terry to Frank: “It's quite something that you call one of my ideas "stupid" and then cry like a baby when you receive a response in kind.”

What Frank actually said: “However, I don’t think this “debate” is going to get us anywhere and I have better things to do than trade insults with you.”

Terry to Frank: “Quoting Marx does not exactly help your cause. Where was Marxism successful again? ~crickets chirping~. You might as well quote the Easter Bunny.”

What Frank actually said: “ It was Marx who observed that unfettered competition leads to monopolies which can then charge what they like. Governments thus have a strategic duty to maintain diversity of supply and the competition which flows from that.

Having worked for a global multinational I can assure you that it was always in our best interests to kill off the competition. Without regulation in many markets, we would have. Where we succeeded, we upped the prices. The costs of entry prevented new competitors from emerging (or else we squashed them with temporary price cuts).
We are the world leader in our field so we can set the rules if Governments don't. In a democracy it is the Governments job to ensure social objectives are met. For all our PR about social and environmental responsibility, we are in business to make as much money as we can.”

Terry to Frank: “Yes. Lenin gave us a wonderful example about how well government "planning" works. With disasterous consequences for Russia.”

What Frank actually said: “"Government "meddling" for some = planning for others. Yes it can distort markets, inc