Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
Incognoto, what you are talking about is mainly the same old problem - the "traditional left" with unions and labor laws is essentially a big lobby of the employed protecting their from the unemployed and that is its biggest problem. However I am not sure that the typical "liberal" responses solve anything. Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. If there is a labor issue, it's in the inflexibility, the difficulty of firing people that are not needed or do not work well, but that really comes from the fact that most people are employed, so in a democracy, it's very hard to convince them not to work for such policies.
However, and I know that I keep pointing this out and people think it's postmodern nonsense, but I think that this is already a sign of thing to come - as the human labor is less and less naturally needed, there is gonna be a turmoil in the system, one way or the other. The problem is that in the optimal situation, the decline of the need for labor shouldn't mean a decline in quality of life, because the demand for quality of life is what drives the demand for labor, so there should be a natural feedback loop, but our system simply isn't set optimally to implement it. If less work is needed to achieve the same quality of life, people should be able to maintain it while working less, that is basic arithmetic - the problem is how to distribute the work and the products in such situation. Shortening the workweek is seemingly a natural response, but people will just work around it. The competitive nature of humans is a big obstacle in managing a situation where the reasons to compete decline.
I still think that we aren't really there yet, so that the post-scarcity issues can be postponed for a couple of decades still, but it is important to keep them in mind, not to try to overly force the old concepts on the changing world. So far, I still think a solution for the current times is in a combination of limited workweek, increased job flexibility and extensive social services.
On May 08 2017 18:43 Laurens wrote: Why did 3 million people vote white? What is the benefit over abstention? Seems like more effort for the same result or am I missing something?
None indeed. There was an insane propaganda campaign to make people vote to block the far-right (as if they had the slightest chance, even with 45% abstention...), maybe it's easier for some to go to the voting station and vote white instead. Due to habit, some people also never abstain.
On May 08 2017 18:43 Laurens wrote: Why did 3 million people vote white? What is the benefit over abstention? Seems like more effort for the same result or am I missing something?
I assume white is blank voting? It sends a different message Abstaining can be seen as "I don't care" while blank voting is a solid "I don't like either candidate".
On May 08 2017 18:43 Laurens wrote: Why did 3 million people vote white? What is the benefit over abstention? Seems like more effort for the same result or am I missing something?
None indeed. There was an insane propaganda campaign to make people vote to block the far-right (as if they had the slightest chance, even with 45% abstention...), maybe it's easier for some to go to the voting station and vote white instead. Due to habit, some people also never abstain.
It's not "insane propaganda" it's "many people expressing their opinion". I have been involved in many, many online and irl debates with friends trying to convince the "insoumis" of them to vote because I think, like many, many, many people, that it's the right thing to do in a second round when one of the side is beyond dangerous. And I know countless people who feel the same and have also talked to their abstentionist friends.
Funny how the french are so eager to listen to the people but when the people vote for a center candidate it's "the system" winning against the people, and when there is a debate, the guys defending the not extremist view are "insane propagandists". Has it crossed your mind that people could think by themselves and yet still not vote for ranting extremists?
And to make it clear, I voted Melenchon in the first round.
On May 08 2017 17:01 opisska wrote: Incognoto, what you are talking about is mainly the same old problem - the "traditional left" with unions and labor laws is essentially a big lobby of the employed protecting their from the unemployed and that is its biggest problem. However I am not sure that the typical "liberal" responses solve anything. Someone wrote earlier in the thread about increasing the pension age as a liberal pro-market policy, but that is actually even worse for unemployment. You can scoff the 35-hour week, but that's also quite helpful, everything that reduces the offer of work on the market, is good against unemployment. If there is a labor issue, it's in the inflexibility, the difficulty of firing people that are not needed or do not work well, but that really comes from the fact that most people are employed, so in a democracy, it's very hard to convince them not to work for such policies.
However, and I know that I keep pointing this out and people think it's postmodern nonsense, but I think that this is already a sign of thing to come - as the human labor is less and less naturally needed, there is gonna be a turmoil in the system, one way or the other. The problem is that in the optimal situation, the decline of the need for labor shouldn't mean a decline in quality of life, because the demand for quality of life is what drives the demand for labor, so there should be a natural feedback loop, but our system simply isn't set optimally to implement it. If less work is needed to achieve the same quality of life, people should be able to maintain it while working less, that is basic arithmetic - the problem is how to distribute the work and the products in such situation. Shortening the workweek is seemingly a natural response, but people will just work around it. The competitive nature of humans is a big obstacle in managing a situation where the reasons to compete decline.
I still think that we aren't really there yet, so that the post-scarcity issues can be postponed for a couple of decades still, but it is important to keep them in mind, not to try to overly force the old concepts on the changing world. So far, I still think a solution for the current times is in a combination of limited workweek, increased job flexibility and extensive social services.
Things have to be paid. There is no point creating extensive social services if they are to be paid by the masses. You are just forcing services down their throats that they don't want, creating extremist antisocial tendencies. That's the problem with our current welfare states, they primarily use work as a way to tax. So the paying classes and the consuming classes are similar. What you would have to tax is productivity. Which you can't because of international competition. Which is why the most important thing at the moment is a democratic European revolution.
On May 08 2017 18:43 Laurens wrote: Why did 3 million people vote white? What is the benefit over abstention? Seems like more effort for the same result or am I missing something?
None indeed. There was an insane propaganda campaign to make people vote to block the far-right (as if they had the slightest chance, even with 45% abstention...), maybe it's easier for some to go to the voting station and vote white instead. Due to habit, some people also never abstain.
It's not "insane propaganda" it's "many people expressing their opinion". I have been involved in many debates trying to convince "insoumis" to vote because I think, like many, that it's the right thing to do in a second round when one of the side is beyond dangerous. And I know countless people who feel the same and have also talked to their abstentionist friends.
Funny how the french are so eager to listen to the people but when the people vote for a center candidate it's "the system" winning against the people, and when there is a debate, the guys defending the not extremist view are "insane propagandists". Has it crossed your mind that people could think by themselves and yet still not vote for ranting extremists?
And to make it clear, I voted Melenchon in the first round.
Yes it was propaganda, when so many people were repeating non-stop lies such as abstain = Le Pen, null = Le Pen, blank = Le Pen.
I am not blaming you as an individual for trying to convince others to vote Macron, that's your right, I don't care. But the witch hunt in mainstream medias to force Macron down our throats while there was not any credible threat of a Le Pen victory was pathetic. Libération's cover (“do whatever you want but vote Macron”) was pathetic. They were simply fearing that a historic abstention would weaken their champion, that's all. They knew perfectly well that the FN was not going to win.
On May 08 2017 18:43 Laurens wrote: Why did 3 million people vote white? What is the benefit over abstention? Seems like more effort for the same result or am I missing something?
None indeed. There was an insane propaganda campaign to make people vote to block the far-right (as if they had the slightest chance, even with 45% abstention...), maybe it's easier for some to go to the voting station and vote white instead. Due to habit, some people also never abstain.
It's not "insane propaganda" it's "many people expressing their opinion". I have been involved in many debates trying to convince "insoumis" to vote because I think, like many, that it's the right thing to do in a second round when one of the side is beyond dangerous. And I know countless people who feel the same and have also talked to their abstentionist friends.
Funny how the french are so eager to listen to the people but when the people vote for a center candidate it's "the system" winning against the people, and when there is a debate, the guys defending the not extremist view are "insane propagandists". Has it crossed your mind that people could think by themselves and yet still not vote for ranting extremists?
And to make it clear, I voted Melenchon in the first round.
Yes it was propaganda, when so many people were repeating non-stop lies such as abstain = Le Pen, null = Le Pen, blank = Le Pen.
I am not blaming you as an individual for trying to convince others to vote Macron, that's your right, I don't care. But the witch hunt in mainstream medias to force Macron down our throats while there was not any credible threat of a Le Pen victory was pathetic. Libération's cover (“do whatever you want but vote Macron”) was pathetic. They were simply fearing that a historic abstention would weaken their champion, that's all. They knew perfectly well that the FN was not going to win.
How is that a bad thing? Better to win with the largest advantage, seems obvious.
On May 08 2017 13:43 m4ini wrote: Maybe french folks just need to wake up and face the harsh reality. You can't have everything, it's just not how it works. What works even less is rioting if you don't get what you want, or something happens that you don't like. That's a mentality that simply is incompatible with modern society. Now obviously not everyone goes out and throws stones, but i feel like the majority of french feel very entitled to everything (education, healthcare etc), but are very, lets say.. reluctant to accept stuff that isn't great like reforms that don't necessarily go into their favour. Including rioting, destroying other peoples property etc.
Let's just say that I have a different view of situations where we can't have everything because it's impossible and situations where we can't have everything because we have to make room for more advantages to be given to people who already are doing fine even though they don't have everything either.
On May 08 2017 18:43 Laurens wrote: Why did 3 million people vote white? What is the benefit over abstention? Seems like more effort for the same result or am I missing something?
That's exactly it. They don't want to be dismissed as 'doesn't care about politics', they want to show that they do care, they just can't support either candidate. I think it's a very good thing to do, myself.
It's not like I'm telling the French that they should get rid of their social benefits either. Never. That's good. However our labor laws are stifling our economic growth. The French hatred for money and people who "have more than I do" is a retarded mentality to have. I see it everywhere in France. I see it no where in the USA. People hate Macron because he's a banker for crying out loud. Do these imbeciles not realize that being a banker does not automatically make you the spawn of Satan? Fuck it.
i see what you're saying and thanks for your input, but i can already tell you why macron's plan is gonna fail : france is not a country of entrepreneur and business like the US or japan
i watched a 2h conference of carlos ghosn (succesfull ceo), and it says it all really : in the us or japan, in the top 100 biggest personality of each country, you have more than 50% that are related to business (ceo, etc)
in france, it's 0%
it's just cultural and you can't do much about it .. there is many reasons to it - if Le Havre was the capital of France instead of Paris during centuries, you can bet the country would have been more oriented in the like of the dutch or england
So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration.
Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this.
On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote: So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration.
Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this.
On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote: So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration.
Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this.
On May 08 2017 20:46 Spaylz wrote: So, I just watched Macron's victory speech, and I have a question for other Frenchies and TLers in general: did Macron's "entrance" make anyone else uneasy? To me, it was genuinely reminiscent of a royal consecration.
Just to be sure, I watched how Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande came onto the stage for their speech, and even Chirac, and as far as I've seen it was nothing like this.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U1GmbJc.jpg)
