The Hill: Opinion: Vote in French presidential election should be a warning for America

[Predicto]

Greece elections are gonna be really fun.

Really, democracy is the absolute worst thing for most of the EU right now. What the people want is not what is good for them.

Absolutely. The people don't want to know the truth about the need to pay for things, and whichever politician panders to them better with fairy tales gets the votes.

(actually that could have been be the parallel with the USA. If you wanted to be a thread destroying troll, talk about how some Americans think they can still have government services and massive defense spending with no taxes :devil: Good thing I won't do that - it would not be constructive )

[No_Pressure]

All we need is for Larry to come in here and explain to us how the **** the people in Star Trek went from where we are today to living in an era without currency, where people only work to better themselves.

I think all we need is replicators and we can destroy these notions of economic systems!

Vive Piccard!

[jpyaks3]

Just total blind conjecture across the board he doesn't back up a single one of his assertions.

He makes assertions like this

The retirement system for many union and government employees allows a person to retire at age 55 at close to full pay. For a while they had in place a 35-hour work-week law

and simply pushes the assumption that a lesser work week and earlier retirement age equals automatic doom. These same arguments have been trotted out to fight against any advancement of workers rights from safety to 40 hour work weeks to a host of other things that were opposed by corporations in America throughout its history.

Furthermore he takes one unnamed candidates position who didn't win and spins this

One candidate, who was eliminated from Sunday’s runoff but whose ideas linger on, proposed that all income above $350,000 should go to the government. A cause célèbre of the campaign has been a $22 million euro bonus which reflected in large part accrued, deferred compensation paid to the head of one of France’s fastest growing and most profitable companies that has added hundreds of new jobs.

Once again he does nothing except assert that this unnamed candidates positions "linger on" providing nothing at all to back it up.

Here is another total blind assertion

But in the end reality has a way of setting in. Countries that choose this path see that, rather than all the boats rising on the incoming tide of massive government expansion in the name of goodness and light, the boats actually start to wallow and the wealth of the society as a whole begins to erode significantly.

He completely ignores the massive successes that the Scandinavian countries have had with a system far to the left of the French system in which this systems have been excelling in many areas and specifically in areas where his argues they wouldn't. Here is an example of Norways success with start ups and small businesses http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html#comment-133330193.

Good for France voting out Sarkozy who has been **** and rejecting his pandering to the far right and Le Pen and her ilk.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 01:01 PM ----------

That's just silly. The sky is purple too I suppose. Bottomline is Obama is on left half of the Democratic party which makes him left wing in this country (not far left but left, but compared to France I'd concede he'd be center right). Romney most definately is a moderate/centrist. And no history has already shown the left is wrong. Where the far left gains acendency poverty eventually follows.

Yes but the American government right now is a right wing government (even under Obama) for any other country on earth. So I think its fair to paint Obama as a center right politician and Romney as a far right candidate. History hasn't shown that the left is wrong either look at the "left" in Scandinavia compared to the United States of America. I think a major problem is the assumption that neo-liberalism is the only way forward when those policies caused a major economic crash that is still affecting the world today.

[PokerPacker]

Backwards is exactly where France is going. They came from a society where they worked for the Government or a Monarchy, which was the same thing basically. They are now going back to it.

So does this mean the Guillotine is coming back in 20 years?

[visionary]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-06/hollande-s-top-ministers-may-include-ayrault-aubry-moscovici.html

Francois Hollande, France’s first Socialist president since 1995, will consider party stalwarts including parliamentary leader Jean-Marc Ayrault and Martine Aubry, author of the 35-hour work week, as top ministers.

“We have to get away from austerity in Europe,” Ayrault said today in television interviews. “The election of Francois Hollande will allow the reordering of Europe.”

[ABQCOWBOY]

So does this mean the Guillotine is coming back in 20 years?

Could very well be worse then that. As I have said many times, the pendulum does swing and when it reverses course, it's usually very painful.

[Predicto]

"Martine Aubry, author of the 35-hour work week, as top minister"

Oh France is so screwed. :doh:

[twa]

He completely ignores the massive successes that the Scandinavian countries have had with a system far to the left of the French system in which this systems have been excelling in many areas and specifically in areas where his argues they wouldn't. Here is an example of Norways success with start ups and small businesses http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html#comment-133330193.

.

Norway is a bit different with it's outsized income from natural resources enabling successful socialist programs.

we could fund a lot with our own

[Predicto]

Norway is a bit different with it's outsized income from natural resources enabling successful socialist programs.

we could fund a lot with our own

Sweden and Denmark make it work too - and they don't have those same advantages as Norway.

[twa]

Sweden and Denmark make it work too - and they don't have those same advantages as Norway.

Sure by being nationalistic and protectionist....more than one way to skin a cat

[FrFan]

Oh France is so screwed. :doh:

Unfortunately, yes we are.

When a country chooses to reject its president mainly because of his personality while realizing that his politic decisions soften the impact of this world wide crisis, you know we hit rock bottom. As much as it pains me tro say it, that's a moronic attitude.

Alienate Merkel while Greece is on the brink? Good luck with that.

Hollandreou () has already alienated Merkel, she's pissed off, and she is ruling out any renegotiation of the European tax pact and all attempts to stimulate growth through deficits.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sweden and Denmark make it work too - and they don't have those same advantages as Norway.

Yes, but they control their Immigration very closely. This is really the key, IMO, to being able to make a Socialistic Government work. You have to be able to control this segment or you will fail IMO.

[Larry]

Sure by being nationalistic and protectionist

Gee, we wouldn't want that here.

[Bliz]

there is fairly limited comparisons between France and the US...

When the right in America complains about commies and hard core socialist Democrat Party... they are basically full of poop. In France, though.. there really ARE commie pinko parties.

When the left in America complains about facists and hard core nazi Repulican Party... they are basically full of poop. In France, though.. there really ARE Brown Shirt parties.

But, overall, the Sarkozies et al are the "center right" component of the country.. and are quite a bit left of teh mainstream Dem positions. The socialists (who just won) are WELL left of everything that is ever discussed in American circles from the mainstream Dem or GOP...

I'm glad we don't have that level of extremism in popular discourse here, but it must be interesting to have political parties that are substantially different from each other.

[jpyaks3]

Yes, but they control their Immigration very closely. This is really the key, IMO, to being able to make a Socialistic Government work. You have to be able to control this segment or you will fail IMO.

Interesting claim considering Scandinavian per capita immigration numbers are equal or exceed United States numbers. Yes it is difficult to immigrate to a Scandinavian country but that's the case for any first world country so there must be other factors.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Interesting claim considering Scandinavian per capita immigration numbers are equal or exceed United States numbers. Yes it is difficult to immigrate to a Scandinavian country but that's the case for any first world country so there must be other factors.

Not really interesting at all. Denmark has always been a country that keeps very close control over immigration and Sweden (I believe these are the two countries being discussed) is easy to gain citizen ship in if you are Scandinavian or even European. If you are not, then it's very difficult. One of the things you must be able to do is live in the Country for 5 years. However, you can not count time spent studying or working in the country as any sort of temporary capacity. First, you must actually get a temporary work visa, which is not easy to get in and of itself. What does this mean? It means that they do take immigrants but unless you are coming there to fill a specific need in the work force, you must have money enough to be able to live for 5 years and support yourself or your family. It is a very different thing all together then the people who are coming to the U.S. with nothing.

I would be interested in seeing the numbers that you indicate are equal to or exceed the numbers in the U.S. Heck, we can't even determine what those numbers are, plus or minus several thousand. I don't know how a claim such as the one you made can be accurate but I'm willing to look at the data.

[jpyaks3]

Not really interesting at all. Denmark has always been a country that keeps very close control over immigration and Sweden (I believe these are the two countries being discussed) is easy to gain citizen ship in if you are Scandinavian or even European. If you are not, then it's very difficult. One of the things you must be able to do is live in the Country for 5 years. However, you can not count time spent studying or working in the country as any sort of temporary capacity. First, you must actually get a temporary work visa, which is not easy to get in and of itself. What does this mean? It means that they do take immigrants but unless you are coming there to fill a specific need in the work force, you must have money enough to be able to live for 5 years and support yourself or your family. It is a very different thing all together then the people who are coming to the U.S. with nothing.

I would be interested in seeing the numbers that you indicate are equal to or exceed the numbers in the U.S. Heck, we can't even determine what those numbers are, plus or minus several thousand. I don't know how a claim such as the one you made can be accurate but I'm willing to look at the data.

I was looking at net migration per capita, here the United States ranks 34th with ~19,100 per million where Norway ranks 37th with 18,250 per million but Sweden ranks 28th with 20,600. I am using this site for reference (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_percap-immigration-net-migration-per-capita) but looking at immigration population per capita shows similar numbers. This may not be the best way to characterize immigration but I believe you are greatly overstating the immigration part of the equation.

[Larry]

Greece elections are gonna be really fun.

Really, democracy is the absolute worst thing for most of the EU right now. What the people want is not what is good for them.

There's an interesting piece of political philosophy that was hidden, in all places, in Robert Heileain's Starship Troopers, of all places, that really stuck in my head.

In that story, Heinlein has created a political system where things are a bit different from today. In Heinlein's story, citizenship isn't automatic. Rather, to become a citizen, a person has to sign up for what I guess you could describe as "community service". People could volunteer for any one of the jobs that the government needs people to fill. These jobs could be military service (the option chosen by the character in the story), or any other job that the government needs filled, like the government bureaucracy, or "Peace Corps" type jobs, bringing aid or education to underdeveloped places.

(Heinlein caught a lot of flack from people who claimed that he wanted only military people to be citizens. But his story specifically states otherwise. In peacetime (which it was, when the story began), very few people actually signed up for the military.) (It must also be pointed out that people in the military couldn't vote. They (and everybody else who's doing their "community service") became citizens when they completed their four years.)

And being a citizen really didn't carry a whole lot of advantages. There were a few jobs that were reserved for citizens only (like police officer, judge, or political office), and citizens could vote. But that was pretty much it.

The result was a system where anybody could

become

a citizen, but that very few people actually did. And most people felt like it was really a waste. That the benefits of being a citizen really weren't worth the effort to obtain.

Well, there's a scene in the book, where the character is reflecting on his high school class on "History and Moral Philosophy", in which the instructor (who is actually Heinlein) is talking about why they have this system.

The first thing the instructor does is to assert that in the Universe, all forces always exist in equal, opposing, pairs. that things like gravity or magnetism ot electrostatic attraction always exerts an equal and opposite force on both objects.

And, the instructor explains that, in the Universe, the opposing force to Power is Responsibility. That it is literally impossible for power and responsibility not to be equal. That you cannot hold someone responsible for something that was not within his power, nor can a person with power deny having responsibility.

(I thought that was a really interesting concept, that I'd never considered, before. Seems so obvious, once pointed out. But I'd never heard it expressed, out loud, before.)

And, the instructor continued, the reason the Great Democracies of the 20th century were doomed to fail, was because those societies tried to give the ultimate political power (the vote) to people who didn't feel responsibility. That the voters were free to vote for the impossible, and to then blame somebody else when the impossible didn't happen.

(Heinlein asserted his system worked because it gave the power of the vote to people who had demonstrated that they were able to place the good of society above their own personal, short term, benefit.)

----------

I'm not saying that I think we need a Constitutional Amendment supporting Heinlein's system. (Although I'm not 100% sure I'd vote against it, either.)

Simply bringing up what I thought at the time (and still do) was some thought-provoking ideas.

[Corcaigh]

It is a very different thing all together then the people who are coming to the U.S. with nothing.

I must be missing something here. How does this work in today's US immigration system?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I was looking at net migration per capita, here the United States ranks 34th with ~19,100 per million where Norway ranks 37th with 18,250 per million but Sweden ranks 28th with 20,600. I am using this site for reference (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_percap-immigration-net-migration-per-capita) but looking at immigration population per capita shows similar numbers. This may not be the best way to characterize immigration but I believe you are greatly overstating the immigration part of the equation.

In fact I am not. It is a fact that here in the U.S., we can not accurately determine how many people are here illegally. This would obviously impact the statement made earlier. However, if we just take the statistics we have, Sweden and the U.S., from a straight percentage is similar. The U.S. is still higher but roughly similar. However, Denmark and the U.S. are not similar at all. Denmarks % is 7.1 while the U.S. is 12.81. Not close. The other statistic I would point to is the percentage of population that is below median income. Sweden's per capita percentage is 6.6% In the U.S., the percentage is over 17%. Income distribution for the wealthiest in Sweden is 20%. In the U.S. over 30%. It's Income distribution for the poorest in Sweden is 3.7%. In the U.S., it's 1.8%.

Basically, this suggests that per capita, more people are working to contribute in Sweden and the burden is distributed much more evenly then here in the U.S., which suggests to me that the immigrant population for Sweden is a much more skilled labor force then here in the U.S.. All of these would seem to confirm what I originally said. Sweden controls their immigration much more tightly then we do here. They bring in people who fit a need in their society. They are not taking the poor, tired huddled masses.

Of course, I don't know how current the data referenced in your link is. The financial statistics were from 2004, according to the dates I could find so all of this could have changed dramatically. I would guess that it probably has.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 02:15 PM ----------

I must be missing something here. How does this work in today's US immigration system?

We do not regulate immigration in terms of skills. We have open boarders, for the most part so it is not something that provides for controls in certain vocations, like Sweden does, per say.

[Corcaigh]

We do not regulate immigration in terms of skills. We have open boarders, for the most part so it is not something that provides for controls in certain vocations, like Sweden does, per say.

What are you referring to? What visa can an unskilled foreigner apply for outside of a family connection, and how many of these are issued per year?

[ABQCOWBOY]

What are you referring to? What visa can an unskilled foreigner apply for outside of a family connection, and how many of these are issued per year?

Sweden's boarders are, for the most part, closed. Ours are not. Illegal immigration for Sweden is not really a problem. Here in the U.S., it's a huge problem. This is why Sweden can control their population numbers and the U.S. can not. As I said earlier, I don't believe that Socialistic Government can work unless you can have tight control of population, including immigration. Sweden can do this and I believe that it is a key reason as to why they have been successful, to a much greater degree, then many other countries who have tried Socialistic Government.

I don't see how you don't get this.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 02:27 PM ----------

I was looking at net migration per capita, here the United States ranks 34th with ~19,100 per million where Norway ranks 37th with 18,250 per million but Sweden ranks 28th with 20,600. I am using this site for reference (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_percap-immigration-net-migration-per-capita) but looking at immigration population per capita shows similar numbers. This may not be the best way to characterize immigration but I believe you are greatly overstating the immigration part of the equation.

In fact I am not. It is a fact that here in the U.S., we can not accurately determine how many people are here illegally. This would obviously impact the statement made earlier. However, if we just take the statistics we have, Sweden and the U.S., from a straight percentage is similar. The U.S. is still higher but roughly similar. However, Denmark and the U.S. are not similar at all. Denmarks % is 7.1 while the U.S. is 12.81. Not close. The other statistic I would point to is the percentage of population that is below median income. Sweden's per capita percentage is 6.6% In the U.S., the percentage is over 17%. Income distribution for the wealthiest in Sweden is 20%. In the U.S., it's Income distribution for the poorest in Sweden is 3.7%. In the U.S., it's 1.8%.

Basically, this suggests that per capita, more people are working to contribute in Sweden and the burden is distributed much more evenly then here in the U.S., which suggests to me that the immigrant population for Sweden is a much more skilled labor force then here in the U.S.. All of these would seem to confirm what I originally said. Sweden controls their immigration much more tightly then we do here. They bring in people who fit a need in their society. They are not taking the poor, tired huddled masses.

Of course, I don't know how current the data referenced in your link is. The financial statistics were from 2004, according to the dates I could find so all of this could have changed dramatically. I would guess that it probably has.

[jpyaks3]

In fact I am not. It is a fact that here in the U.S., we can not accurately determine how many people are here illegally. This would obviously impact the statement made earlier. However, if we just take the statistics we have, Sweden and the U.S., from a straight percentage is similar. The U.S. is still higher but roughly similar. However, Denmark and the U.S. are not similar at all. Denmarks % is 7.1 while the U.S. is 12.81. Not close. The other statistic I would point to is the percentage of population that is below median income. Sweden's per capita percentage is 6.6% In the U.S., the percentage is over 17%. Income distribution for the wealthiest in Sweden is 20%. In the U.S. over 30%. It's Income distribution for the poorest in Sweden is 3.7%. In the U.S., it's 1.8%.

Basically, this suggests that per capita, more people are working to contribute in Sweden and the burden is distributed much more evenly then here in the U.S., which suggests to me that the immigrant population for Sweden is a much more skilled labor force then here in the U.S.. All of these would seem to confirm what I originally said. Sweden controls their immigration much more tightly then we do here. They bring in people who fit a need in their society. They are not taking the poor, tired huddled masses.

Of course, I don't know how current the data referenced in your link is. The financial statistics were from 2004, according to the dates I could find so all of this could have changed dramatically. I would guess that it probably has.

---------- Post added May-7th-2012 at 02:15 PM ----------

We do not regulate immigration in terms of skills. We have open boarders, for the most part so it is not something that provides for controls in certain vocations, like Sweden does, per say.

Those numbers you pull for income distribution are a result of the difference in economic system. The United States has appallingly bad social mobility and that shows in your statistics. That difference is created by the United States economic system and Sweden and other Scandinavian countries have a much much better record dealing with social mobility problems through their economic programs.

[Corcaigh]

Sweden's boarders are, for the most part, closed. Ours are not. Illegal immigration for Sweden is not really a problem. Here in the U.S., it's a huge problem. This is why Sweden can control their population numbers and the U.S. can not. As I said earlier, I don't believe that Socialistic Government can work unless you can have tight control of population, including immigration. Sweden can do this and I believe that it is a key reason as to why they have been successful, to a much greater degree, then many other countries who have tried Socialistic Government.

So you are talking entirely about illegal immigration? Sweden certainly doesn't have closed borders and has a far more pro illegal immigrant policies than the USA. The difference is our proximity to large numbers of destitute people.

[DjTj]

Sweden's boarders are, for the most part, closed. Ours are not. Illegal immigration for Sweden is not really a problem. Here in the U.S., it's a huge problem. This is why Sweden can control their population numbers and the U.S. can not. As I said earlier, I don't believe that Socialistic Government can work unless you can have tight control of population, including immigration. Sweden can do this and I believe that it is a key reason as to why they have been successful, to a much greater degree, then many other countries who have tried Socialistic Government.

I don't see how you don't get this.

China's doing alright with their illegal immigration problem.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/11/content_9713105.htm