On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.
Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.
Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.
The Welfare State decreases societies progress and prosperity. Poor is relative. There will always be poor folks. The poor in the USSR were the saps unlucky to be born outside of the Party and its apparitchiks, and those not attached to the State (e.g. pretty much 90% of the country). They had much worse lives than the poor in the US, and other relatively more free societies. I'd much rather be a poor man in wealthy country than a poor man in a poor country. You may think you are doing the poor a service, but you aren't. You are making their standard of living much worse especially so by advocating for Open Borders and a Welfare State, and it is as worse if the advocates are for closed borders / immigration + Police State to enforce it. The humane and beneficial position for the poor is Open Borders + No Welfare State.
Another one of those people who can't see further than the nose on their face. Do you ever think through your position further than a cursory glance? See what the consequences are down the line? To society as a whole?
David B. Grusky shares an insight generally ignored by the center-left: The real problem of inequality is not inequality of after-tax income resulting from an inequitable tax system, but the inequality of pre-tax income generated by the economic system itself (“What to Do About Inequality?” Boston Review, March-April 2012).
Income inequality results, not — as in the standard liberal narrative — from a highly competitive market, but from “lack of market competition.” “The core idea is that powerful players have built self-serving and inequality-generating institutions that are often codified in law and come to be represented — through an ingenious sleight of hand — as laissez-faire capitalism.” There would be less income inequality, Grusky writes, if the economy were more competitive.
The State through the environment it has codified (either a Corporatist or Socialist) creates the massive income inequalities we see around us today. It is precisely the lack of a laissez-faire economic environment that is the cause. The enormous barriers to entry in nearly every Industry thanks to the State inculcates the Corporate giants from most competition. Take for example, the early 20th compared to the 21st. There has never been a time of more competition and relative openness than the late 19th and early 20th (prior Fed and Sherman / Clayton), and precisely this period we saw the origins of the middle class as wages increased by over 50% and productivity soared, as well as the purchasing power of the monetary unit (Gold/Silver), as you cannot inflate/print it.
Contra everything you've been taught at State-schools, a hard currency is the peoples money. It cannot be counterfeited, trifled with, defrauded on mass scale by a Politburo serving its customers (The Corporatist rich) who feast off the taxpayer. Similarly, the market, not the State is the peoples opportunity to a more prosperous, free, and less violent society. It is the voluntary associations that make society, not the violent coercive State. The Welfare State far from opportunity, creates dependance, lethargy, and envy amongst each other, pitting us in conflict while we become looted by those who actual control the Government and always have -- the parasitical Corporate-Complex, whether it be folks like Northropp, GE, or Chrysler.
As the saying goes, if you want to take the money out of Government, take Government out of money. In other words, as long as the Government interferes in economic affairs there will be those lining up to buy those privileges, immunities, and monopolies that it confers. You're chasing an illusion fed to you by the very people (whether knowingly or not) who are the gatekeepers of the system itself.
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
On April 24 2012 18:32 Microchaton wrote: Welp, with Le Pen not calling for a Sarkozy vote and most leftists rallying around Hollande, seems like Hollande will win the election, unless some kind of miracle happens. Wonder which right wing candidate will be elected in 2016 after Hollande's catastrophic mandate.
That's the thing that I predict: Hollande wins election. The UMP implodes. Hollande do a shitty mandate. Lepen president in 2017.
On April 24 2012 19:53 treekiller wrote: How socialist are the socialist candidates in France? I remember reading Sarkos speech on the financial crisis and being suprised on how people in Frnace viewed it as a defense of capitalism. In America, it would be viewed as a far-left attack on the free market. Do the French Socialists really favor state ownership of most private property? Or just a lot of regulation, taxes/spending and redistribution of wealth?
The last French socialist government (97-2002) privatized most of the remaining State owned firms (Something i find quite funny to be honest).
On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.
Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.
Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.
The Welfare State decreases societies progress and prosperity. Poor is relative. There will always be poor folks. The poor in the USSR were the saps unlucky to be born outside of the Party and its apparitchiks, and those not attached to the State (e.g. pretty much 90% of the country). They had much worse lives than the poor in the US, and other relatively more free societies. I'd much rather be a poor man in wealthy country than a poor man in a poor country. You may think you are doing the poor a service, but you aren't. You are making their standard of living much worse especially so by advocating for Open Borders and a Welfare State, and it is as worse if the advocates are for closed borders / immigration + Police State to enforce it. The humane and beneficial position for the poor is Open Borders + No Welfare State.
Another one of those people who can't see further than the nose on their face. Do you ever think through your position further than a cursory glance? See what the consequences are down the line? To society as a whole?
David B. Grusky shares an insight generally ignored by the center-left: The real problem of inequality is not inequality of after-tax income resulting from an inequitable tax system, but the inequality of pre-tax income generated by the economic system itself (“What to Do About Inequality?” Boston Review, March-April 2012).
Income inequality results, not — as in the standard liberal narrative — from a highly competitive market, but from “lack of market competition.” “The core idea is that powerful players have built self-serving and inequality-generating institutions that are often codified in law and come to be represented — through an ingenious sleight of hand — as laissez-faire capitalism.” There would be less income inequality, Grusky writes, if the economy were more competitive.
The State through the environment it has codified (either a Corporatist or Socialist) creates the massive income inequalities we see around us today. It is precisely the lack of a laissez-faire economic environment that is the cause. The enormous barriers to entry in nearly every Industry thanks to the State inculcates the Corporate giants from most competition. Take for example, the early 20th compared to the 21st. There has never been a time of more competition and relative openness than the late 19th and early 20th (prior Fed and Sherman / Clayton), and precisely this period we saw the origins of the middle class as wages increased by over 50% and productivity soared, as well as the purchasing power of the monetary unit (Gold/Silver), as you cannot inflate/print it.
Contra everything you've been taught at State-schools, a hard currency is the peoples money. It cannot be counterfeited, trifled with, defrauded on mass scale by a Politburo serving its customers (The Corporatist rich) who feast off the taxpayer. Similarly, the market, not the State is the peoples opportunity to a more prosperous, free, and less violent society. It is the voluntary associations that make society, not the violent coercive State. The Welfare State far from opportunity, creates dependance, lethargy, and envy amongst each other, pitting us in conflict while we become looted by those who actual control the Government and always have -- the parasitical Corporate-Complex, whether it be folks like Northropp, GE, or Chrysler.
As the saying goes, if you want to take the money out of Government, take Government out of money. In other words, as long as the Government interferes in economic affairs there will be those lining up to buy those privileges, immunities, and monopolies that it confers. You're chasing an illusion fed to you by the very people (whether knowingly or not) who are the gatekeepers of the system itself.
On April 24 2012 19:53 treekiller wrote: How socialist are the socialist candidates in France? I remember reading Sarkos speech on the financial crisis and being suprised on how people in Frnace viewed it as a defense of capitalism. In America, it would be viewed as a far-left attack on the free market. Do the French Socialists really favor state ownership of most private property? Or just a lot of regulation, taxes/spending and redistribution of wealth?
France = USA with high taxes, no religion, free education and almost free healthcare in short. Everything else is almost similar.
And the two bigger parties follow this path. Socialist is just a name to make people thing that they are not that much capitalist, because its not politically correct to be capitalist in France.
On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.
Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.
Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.
The Welfare State decreases societies progress and prosperity. Poor is relative. There will always be poor folks. The poor in the USSR were the saps unlucky to be born outside of the Party and its apparitchiks, and those not attached to the State (e.g. pretty much 90% of the country). They had much worse lives than the poor in the US, and other relatively more free societies. I'd much rather be a poor man in wealthy country than a poor man in a poor country. You may think you are doing the poor a service, but you aren't. You are making their standard of living much worse especially so by advocating for Open Borders and a Welfare State, and it is as worse if the advocates are for closed borders / immigration + Police State to enforce it. The humane and beneficial position for the poor is Open Borders + No Welfare State.
Another one of those people who can't see further than the nose on their face. Do you ever think through your position further than a cursory glance? See what the consequences are down the line? To society as a whole?
David B. Grusky shares an insight generally ignored by the center-left: The real problem of inequality is not inequality of after-tax income resulting from an inequitable tax system, but the inequality of pre-tax income generated by the economic system itself (“What to Do About Inequality?” Boston Review, March-April 2012).
Income inequality results, not — as in the standard liberal narrative — from a highly competitive market, but from “lack of market competition.” “The core idea is that powerful players have built self-serving and inequality-generating institutions that are often codified in law and come to be represented — through an ingenious sleight of hand — as laissez-faire capitalism.” There would be less income inequality, Grusky writes, if the economy were more competitive.
The State through the environment it has codified (either a Corporatist or Socialist) creates the massive income inequalities we see around us today. It is precisely the lack of a laissez-faire economic environment that is the cause. The enormous barriers to entry in nearly every Industry thanks to the State inculcates the Corporate giants from most competition. Take for example, the early 20th compared to the 21st. There has never been a time of more competition and relative openness than the late 19th and early 20th (prior Fed and Sherman / Clayton), and precisely this period we saw the origins of the middle class as wages increased by over 50% and productivity soared, as well as the purchasing power of the monetary unit (Gold/Silver), as you cannot inflate/print it.
Contra everything you've been taught at State-schools, a hard currency is the peoples money. It cannot be counterfeited, trifled with, defrauded on mass scale by a Politburo serving its customers (The Corporatist rich) who feast off the taxpayer. Similarly, the market, not the State is the peoples opportunity to a more prosperous, free, and less violent society. It is the voluntary associations that make society, not the violent coercive State. The Welfare State far from opportunity, creates dependance, lethargy, and envy amongst each other, pitting us in conflict while we become looted by those who actual control the Government and always have -- the parasitical Corporate-Complex, whether it be folks like Northropp, GE, or Chrysler.
Ah, those who believe in the invisible hand. Don't do anything, things will fix themselves. People who a have a clue call this the 'just-world fallacy" - too much Disney, not enough Zola.
A simple remark : the late 19th century was also the hell of the working classes, the time of a rampant "epidemy" of alcoholism. Not only that, but the middle-class appeared post-WW2, the biggest factor being... the end of the war - reconstruction, transfer of technology, industrial growth. How can you even speak of competitivity as the most important point of them all?
On April 24 2012 19:53 treekiller wrote: How socialist are the socialist candidates in France? I remember reading Sarkos speech on the financial crisis and being suprised on how people in Frnace viewed it as a defense of capitalism. In America, it would be viewed as a far-left attack on the free market. Do the French Socialists really favor state ownership of most private property? Or just a lot of regulation, taxes/spending and redistribution of wealth?
We like state ownership when its benefical for our entire nation. For examples highways are owned by private companies that make you pay everytime you have to use them. You're basically obliged to use them if you want to travel far distances in France because every other roads are very complicated wich makes you lose a lot of time.
I think most of French people would agree that a state ownership of highways would be very benefical. These highways have been reimbursed something like 10 times already. Why do companies would make profit over such vital things for users and for the state ?
Plus it has the advantage of controling you own destiny. A lot of people in France would agree that a state having power over energy, transports and education etc is extremly important. Because you ensure that everyone can access it. Equality is extremly important in France. Much more than liberty and fraternity (wich is French moto : Liberty Equality Fraternity).
European countries have been invaded a lot of times during their history. We consider that a state having a lot of power is something that can ensure our survival in some kind of way during trouble times. Im sure theres a lot of that in European societies. Something that USA never had to suffer.
Our concept of liberty is also very linked with equality. In France, liberty means that you can access basic stuff that can ensure a human being to live a decent life. Like social aids and different kind of way to help poor people.
I love the invisible hand. First thing to know about the invisible hand. We don't see it because it is invisible.
Only basis for the inivisble hand is that Adam Smith prophetized it to us. But wait! He never did.
This invisible hand is such a mystery. Adam Smith used the term 'invisible hand' but he used it about something different than what we now understand. He only used it referring to people preferring domestic products over overseas product, referring to the danger of UK manifacuting being outperformed by US manifacturing. People irrationally preferred domestic products. And that was the invisible hand. That's it.
Later it has become to be understood that the only way in which one can be immoral is not being selfish enough. If only you are selfish enough, the invisible hand of the free market will come and solve any problem. I guess the bankers in the financial crisis weren't selfish and fraudelant enough to entice out the invisible hand from its supernatural realm.
This strange ideology has done so so much damage over the last few decades. It was never foundend on anything. It has been proven not to happen time and time again. Yet people still worship this as an idol. It must be the biggest sham ever besides religion. But in fact, it is kind of a religion itself. Somehow it is a really effective meme. Just like believing in life after death and justice for everyone in the afterlife is a comforting thing to believe, in the same way believing one can only be immoral in not being selfish enough is also a comforting thing to believe, by this method do these memes multiply and outcompete different memes.
On April 24 2012 02:56 Kukaracha wrote: You didn't understand what I said. I said that to stop immigration, and in particular illegal immigration, there is no other short term solution than violence. This is why people in Calas, or if you want to be picky about it, Saint-Denis, have a hard life, because it's the people's barrier to foreigners. To decrease drastically illegal immigration, you need to drastically raise violence.
This is NOT what I want, but this is how it works. If you refuse citizenship to people who were born in this country, then they become sub-citizens. It's a form of violence. It's all done to discourage migrations towards our territory. And foreigners can only legally stay in France for a short period of time unless they obtain a visa. What happens when it expires? They have to be physically expelled from the country. Reducing the number of people allowed to become French would require to send back "home" thousands and thousands of people.
So, yes, any of those problems quoted above end up with violence, because violence is the easiest way to force or prevent migrations.
And yes, it's important in Le Pen's campaign, where you often hear the phrase "la France aux français", which translates to "France belongs to the French", implying that the country belongs to white people who have lived here for an arbitrary amount of generations. They are close to the Vlaams Belang too. I don't see how you can deny that.
Ye sure, violence is at the origins of each country on the planet. It's through violence that France unified itself, and defended its borders and sovereignty through history.
Borders are actually what define countries, and once people stop fighting for their owns, they get crossed, and the natives get either annihilated, conquered or colonized.
Nothing wrong with immigration, the problem is the Welfare State which subdizies and encourages the poor of the world rushing into the country, which results in a heavy drain of the countries prosperity and wealth. So, then, what's the answer? Get rid of the Welfare System. The last thing you want is a Welfare State and a Police State. As long as that incentive is there to come into your country no matter what (surely better to be in a French prison with food and shelter than languishing in a third world hell hole or more than likely on the dole without need of work and toil), then if you want to stop the flood of people it requires massive violence and Police State. Not desirable. Immigration in sustainable numbers (e.g. without a Welfare State) is highly desirable and wanted.
Open borders + Welfare State = a disaster. Welfare State + Police State = disaster. Open borders + No Welfare State = healthy & desirable.
Brilliant line of reasoning: let's worsen the living conditions (at least for the poor) in our country so that immigrants won't want to come anymore. Genius.
The Welfare State decreases societies progress and prosperity. Poor is relative. There will always be poor folks. The poor in the USSR were the saps unlucky to be born outside of the Party and its apparitchiks, and those not attached to the State (e.g. pretty much 90% of the country). They had much worse lives than the poor in the US, and other relatively more free societies. I'd much rather be a poor man in wealthy country than a poor man in a poor country. You may think you are doing the poor a service, but you aren't. You are making their standard of living much worse especially so by advocating for Open Borders and a Welfare State, and it is as worse if the advocates are for closed borders / immigration + Police State to enforce it. The humane and beneficial position for the poor is Open Borders + No Welfare State.
Another one of those people who can't see further than the nose on their face. Do you ever think through your position further than a cursory glance? See what the consequences are down the line? To society as a whole?
David B. Grusky shares an insight generally ignored by the center-left: The real problem of inequality is not inequality of after-tax income resulting from an inequitable tax system, but the inequality of pre-tax income generated by the economic system itself (“What to Do About Inequality?” Boston Review, March-April 2012).
Income inequality results, not — as in the standard liberal narrative — from a highly competitive market, but from “lack of market competition.” “The core idea is that powerful players have built self-serving and inequality-generating institutions that are often codified in law and come to be represented — through an ingenious sleight of hand — as laissez-faire capitalism.” There would be less income inequality, Grusky writes, if the economy were more competitive.
The State through the environment it has codified (either a Corporatist or Socialist) creates the massive income inequalities we see around us today. It is precisely the lack of a laissez-faire economic environment that is the cause. The enormous barriers to entry in nearly every Industry thanks to the State inculcates the Corporate giants from most competition. Take for example, the early 20th compared to the 21st. There has never been a time of more competition and relative openness than the late 19th and early 20th (prior Fed and Sherman / Clayton), and precisely this period we saw the origins of the middle class as wages increased by over 50% and productivity soared, as well as the purchasing power of the monetary unit (Gold/Silver), as you cannot inflate/print it.
Contra everything you've been taught at State-schools, a hard currency is the peoples money. It cannot be counterfeited, trifled with, defrauded on mass scale by a Politburo serving its customers (The Corporatist rich) who feast off the taxpayer. Similarly, the market, not the State is the peoples opportunity to a more prosperous, free, and less violent society. It is the voluntary associations that make society, not the violent coercive State. The Welfare State far from opportunity, creates dependance, lethargy, and envy amongst each other, pitting us in conflict while we become looted by those who actual control the Government and always have -- the parasitical Corporate-Complex, whether it be folks like Northropp, GE, or Chrysler.
Ah, those who believe in the invisible hand. Don't do anything, things will fix themselves. People who a have a clue call this the 'just-world fallacy" - too much Disney, not enough Zola.
A simple remark : the late 19th century was also the hell of the working classes, the time of a rampant "epidemy" of alcoholism. Not only that, but the middle-class appeared post-WW2, the biggest factor being... the end of the war - reconstruction, transfer of technology, industrial growth. How can you even speak of competitivity as the most important point of them all?
You live in a world of fantasy.
Are you serious? I have no time to bother to debate with someone who believes the middle classes didn't develop until the late 1940s. So bad for the working classes seeing their wages almost double, as well as the purchasing power of their monetary unit, as well as productivity and opportunity (aka fluidity between income brackets -- either up or down). People saw the greatest rise in the standard of living of any age since or before. Imagine that accounting for inflation the average wage from 1970 to now would be nearly 72,000 as opposed to the 41,000 it is now. How bad, that's not even accounting for the increase in purchasing power of the monetary unit as opposed to a flat 0% assumption.
You want to know what hell is? Try living in the agrarian eras. Working and toiling from dusk til dawn - the entire family, just to feed yourselves and maybe have some extra left over to sell in the local commons. That's hell. The Industrial Revolution which was enabled by a much more freer environment than we have today (aka pre-Corporation / Welfare / Regulatory environment / Pre-Fed / Pre-Income - Domestic Taxation / etc.). Taxation was less than 1% of GDP (this includes local, state, and federal). The lot of the masses is raised out of poverty and hell by a laissez-faire environment. It creates an environment that produces a more equal society both economically and civically (liberty).
You can't say handing someone a fish is providing opportunity. Teaching someone how to fish is an opportunity. The Welfare State and its antecedent growth of the State is the former and the Market society is the latter.
PS: I don't even like Adam Smith. He was a Statist. He didn't even bring anything original to Economics, except to make the Profession worse off. I much prefer Turgot and Cantillon and the Scholastics who originated Economics, and a lot of the knowledge we have today.
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
And as always you are name dropping some random CNRS pseudo-thinker because you just want to appear knowledgeable. Now if you were not a pompous bobo and if you actually tried to read what you have posted maybe you could understand that it is not contradictory with what i said. Alas you can't even read your own posts.
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
And as always you are name dropping some random CNRS pseudo-thinker because you just want to appear knowledgeable. Now if you were not a pompous bobo and if you actually tried to read what you have posted maybe you could understand that it is not contradictory with what i said. Alas you can't even read your own posts.
I will let you argue with the Libertarian =)
I love how "bobo bien pensant" spread (thx to the cyclic Zemmour). It's used by far right the same way communists used "fascist".
On April 24 2012 18:32 Microchaton wrote: Welp, with Le Pen not calling for a Sarkozy vote and most leftists rallying around Hollande, seems like Hollande will win the election, unless some kind of miracle happens. Wonder which right wing candidate will be elected in 2016 after Hollande's catastrophic mandate.
That's the thing that I predict: Hollande wins election. The UMP implodes. Hollande do a shitty mandate. Lepen president in 2017.
Small chance.
Being a candidate that gets a 20% first round vote at age 44, M. Lepen might in time make it to the second round - but her support in this first presidential election comes probably more from her father's party, than from herself. She has tried to soften its extermist image in this election - It shows both in media reports and in her communication - but the rearguard of the party is still lurking around and she has a long way to go before the party is considered "mainstream" (Kukaracha's posts are a good example of the Front National image early 2012).
If she made it to the second round in 2017, the result would still be like 2002 : an overwhelming win for the other candidate as a protest vote against extremism.
She would need either to get read of the xenophobic rearguard that surrounds her and stear the Front National away from its current image, or to leave the party altogether (create a new one or rename it). Very slim chance of success in both cases : she is still strugling to prove she has a legitimacy other than being her father's daughter.
I guess Sarkozy would again be a clear favorite in 2017 if Hollande's mandate is a disaster. If not him, there are a few right wing potential candidates that he has managed to shut down this time around.
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
And as always you are name dropping some random CNRS pseudo-thinker because you just want to appear knowledgeable. Now if you were not a pompous bobo and if you actually tried to read what you have posted maybe you could understand that it is not contradictory with what i said. Alas you can't even read your own posts.
I will let you argue with the Libertarian =)
I love how "bobo bien pensant" spread. It's used by far right the same way communists used "fascist".
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
And as always you are name dropping some random CNRS pseudo-thinker because you just want to appear knowledgeable. Now if you were not a pompous bobo and if you actually tried to read what you have posted maybe you could understand that it is not contradictory with what i said. Alas you can't even read your own posts.
I will let you argue with the Libertarian =)
I love how "bobo bien pensant" spread. It's used by far right the same way communists used "fascist".
By "communist" you mean the whole left ?
Go somewhere else. You are purposefully trying to nuke the discussion here. Stop now.
On April 24 2012 08:03 Zooper31 wrote: Stupid question and maybe a little OT, are most countries states/counties/etc drawn like France's?
Each state in US usually has several straight lines, sometimes it's a complete square or rectangle. But with the diagram, each state is so uniformly jagged, almost seeming identical to every other state, imagine it would be difficult to memorize them without lots of practice, as you can't go by shape.
Sorry for any ignorance, just not something I've really thought of before. Seen Mexico and Cananda's before and they weren't anywhere near as randomly uniform as France's.
States in USA are draw like that because it was splitted between european country. Easier to draw lines :p
On April 24 2012 19:53 treekiller wrote: How socialist are the socialist candidates in France? I remember reading Sarkos speech on the financial crisis and being suprised on how people in Frnace viewed it as a defense of capitalism. In America, it would be viewed as a far-left attack on the free market. Do the French Socialists really favor state ownership of most private property? Or just a lot of regulation, taxes/spending and redistribution of wealth?
Socialist doesnt have the same meaning in France that in USA. Communist are not even 'socialist' anymore. But left and right are basically the same. And french do favor a more strict regulation by state and less by free market.
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
And as always you are name dropping some random CNRS pseudo-thinker because you just want to appear knowledgeable. Now if you were not a pompous bobo and if you actually tried to read what you have posted maybe you could understand that it is not contradictory with what i said. Alas you can't even read your own posts.
I will let you argue with the Libertarian =)
I love how "bobo bien pensant" spread. It's used by far right the same way communists used "fascist".
By "communist" you mean the whole left ?
On a certain measure, but was very consistent with the communists. My point is that treating every political opponent of "fascist" or "bobo bien pensant" is ridiculous.
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
And as always you are name dropping some random CNRS pseudo-thinker because you just want to appear knowledgeable. Now if you were not a pompous bobo and if you actually tried to read what you have posted maybe you could understand that it is not contradictory with what i said. Alas you can't even read your own posts.
I will let you argue with the Libertarian =)
I love how "bobo bien pensant" spread. It's used by far right the same way communists used "fascist".
By "communist" you mean the whole left ?
On a certain measure, but was very consistent with the communists. My point is that treating every political opponent of "fascist" or "bobo bien pensant" is ridiculous.
Specially when they are "Bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet" (Exactly the same)
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
And as always you are name dropping some random CNRS pseudo-thinker because you just want to appear knowledgeable. Now if you were not a pompous bobo and if you actually tried to read what you have posted maybe you could understand that it is not contradictory with what i said. Alas you can't even read your own posts.
I will let you argue with the Libertarian =)
I'm not going to argue with a man who believes the middle classes didn't develop until nearly the 1950s. Appear knowledgable...well, you know appearances they are quite deceiving. :p
I don't know why I even try with leftists, they are so stuck in their ways. They won't even listen to some of their own historians like a Gabriel Kolko or William Appleman Williams. ..in any event onwards!
On April 24 2012 19:25 Boblion wrote: It is hilarious how everyone is demonizing the FN when they are one of the few parties talking about nation, values, poor working people and with a reasonable foreign policy for a mid-power (i.e: isolationism). Boo hoo racists !
As always, there is little to no substance in your posts.
"Le vote front national est un vote de classes populaires. Dans les beaux quartiers, on ne se reconnaît pas dans l’idéologie du FN. D’abord parce que le discours du Front national est politiquement trop primaire pour correspondre aux classes moyennes et supérieures diplômées, qui contrairement aux gens du peuple, ont la possibilité de mener une analyse de fond, de mobiliser des références culturelles, de mettre en perspective historique. Pour les habitants des beaux quartiers, c’est un vote inélégant, brutal, xénophobe."
"The FN vote is the vote of the lower classes. In the fashionable areas, people don't recognize themselves in the FN's ideology. First because the line of the National Front (FN) is poilitically too simplistic to correspond to the acedmically educated middle and higher classes, who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective; For those who live in the wealthy neighbourhoods, it's an inelegant, brutal, xenophobic vote."
- Monique Pinçon-Charlot, sociologist, retired director of research in the CNRS
Find it really contemptuous, "gens du peuple" means nothing.
"who, to the contrary of the common people, have the possibility to analyze throughly, to mobilize cultural references, to put things in a historical perspective", TL:DR poor people are ignorant bastards, they can't analyze shit. Poor people are just the more scared, and they have less to lose with a political earthquake (like getting out of the eurozone). That's why they vote tend to go to extremes. Not because they are dumb, they are on average obviously less educated. But you have some "educated" people dumb as shit (paying for a diploma in a random business school).
EPT
