Logan

Recent events have illustrated what a complete charade the Socialist Presidential election campaign really was. Displays of unity and comforting stories of their ‘complete’ relationship. How nauseating to read he was effectively living with another woman. The muzzled French press could not tell the truth. Imagine for a moment if Royal had been elected. I guess under those circumstances Hollande may have sacrificed his love life for a taste of power. I am just happy the French people could see through her. The vindictive and spiteful nature of Royal was apparent in that one to one TV debate with Sarko. If I were Francois Hollande I would be watching my back. 

[quote user="KathyC"]We bought a wall mounted split air conditioning unit in Brico depot for 175E![/quote] Were you able to install it correctly and change the electricity amp breaker? Very tricky. They need a 20ampC type. I have been quoted 500 euros for an installation.

Have no fear. The new President has just announced proposals to abolish inheritance tax completely between husband and wife and a great deal more. [:D]

From my own personal point of view your web site is very confusing. I travel a lot and if I were seeking to spend a holiday break in that region I would not be tempted by what you offer on the site. It’s much too vague and amateurish; you need to completely revamp it. Concentrate on the positive accommodation aspects; drop all references to the negative stuff. (No need to mention you don't have a pool). No children and pets is a problem. It sounds unfriendly. It also narrows your market. You are either in the accommodation business offering comfort and hospitality or not. People seek hospitality, comfort and cordiality when they travel. Forgive me but your site is like offering a week’s retreat at a monastic school for aspiring accountants with a painting hobby. You did ask. Good luck for the future.

Gluestick wrote:- One of the problems with political power and significance of course, is that expediency gradually creeps in, until it overwhelms original pure volition. As an example, a career politician who seeks cabinet office must inevitably abandon pure cause in order to accord to the whips direction. Yes it's called political pluralism. Representing as an elected official the whole constituency rather than a vocal minority or his/her personal views. That is the skill and responsibility of politics. Attempting to change things for the better, spreading influence, transforming or improving entrenched attitudes without alienation and within a collective discipline. I believe very much in democratic politics. It represents our principal hope for a better world. Sometimes and often it becomes staid and a caricature of its reason for being. Yet improvement still continues slowly even with lousy governments. Optimism is all we have to cling to when a world’s minority is bent on self destruction. Pressure groups do make a difference but only in my view when they engage main stream political opinion and thought. Politics is the only effective vehicle for change. It would be very odd if Greenpeace and the like stood aside and refused to engage with it. Likewise the market where other real influences and power lie.  

Activism and politics surely are part of the same beast. I don’t know why you are constantly confused TV. Politicians and activists engaged the market for a variety of reasons. For example, seeking media publicity for a particular cause is engaging the market. Commercial endorsement is another. Activism and politics does not inhabit a separate world from the rest of us. It is part of the same capitalist process. Do you imagine that an activist who writes a book or makes a film on a particular subject is not engaging the market? I could write a worthy essay on this subject rather in line with your posts but I have not the time. Unfortunately for you and your philosophy the market rules. Long may it continue to give us all an opportunity to shine.[:D]

Here is a suggestion for you TV which may give you cause to consider and ameliorate your frustrations with the forum. If you accept that climate change is caused mostly by the behaviour of man then an effective solution might be restrictions on population growth. Over population of the planet by humans is a major problem. It is in my view a cause which sooner rather than later will need to be dealt with by the world’s politicians. It is odd that this subject is almost totally ignored in the climate change debate by almost everyone. It’s a taboo. I suspect it is not spoken about because of religion and the implications which will inevitably follow any controls or sanctions. It will also address your concerns of over consumption since less people will mean less of almost everything. The growth of capitalism will be halted with a limited workforce and less supply and demand. Employment opportunities would rise as the global job market contracts. Less electricity used, oil consumption would drop and fewer people would fly round the world. Nirvana for the ecologist since the rain forests would be safer. Wild creatures could flourish without the pressure of man consuming their habitat. Common sense really.  

Quillan wrote: "Green Peace has turned in to a multi million dollar industry and has stopped being an activist group and become a political group so it has succumbed to power in the end." Should this statement be true then I commend it as an example of how the ecologist movement and the market can work together to achieve results. To change anything in society politics has to be engaged with action. 

I have always believed that if you want to see the future you only have to simply look at the past. History is a resource of past human mistakes and the natural worlds progression towards an evolutionary end. It always astonishes me that politicians seem to needlessly repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. Capitalism and climate change has evolved throughout that history. Through the generations some negative effects of human development have been corrected. There is still a long way to go. As a consequence our present is still much better than our past. Still better than any of the alternatives history has come up with. That process will continue as long as relative freedom prevails. The natural world will progress to it's inevitable conclusion. Human existence I believe will make little difference. Tom said:- I don’t know what you mean by “the market” and “ecology” “working together”.  I really don’t.  The market is system of exchange.  Ecology is the study of entire eco-systems.  Do you mean that sometimes some environmental concerns need to take precedent over strictly market mechanisms?  Something like that?  And if so, how about social concerns sometimes also taking precedent?  The market is much more than a system of exchange. I could describe it as a systems solution for solving problems. When a problem arises in society so a market demand is created in parallel, which in turn fosters a solution. The market responds with options and resolutions which if proven solves the problem. So working together ecologists and capitalist free marketeers can improve the environment together. Why? Because they both have a motivational stake in a successful conclusion. You can apply this theory to almost any situation in society which needs ideas and inspirational action. Society provides the demand and the market the supply based solution. Risk is part of the fabric of the free market. We cannot live our lives without risk either financial or personal. Risk is factored into almost every human action. Most of us accept risk in a philosophical manner until things go wrong. Then some of us seek someone or something to blame. Risk can be minimalised but never eliminated. Imagine a risk free society for a moment. Impossible and undesirable in my opinion. Tom said:- I believe the rules need to be set up fairly, and that the flaws in the market system have to be looked at and corrected by NON-market systems. What are NON-market systems? Do you mean regulation which stifle ideas? Laws which prevent us solving problems. Government quangos or useless committees investigating the obvious? Please explain.

In most capitalist western democracies the arguments of the nineteen thirties have largely been won. The conflict between the ideologies of socialism and capitalism were settled generally through long social experience. No system is perfect but people expect one that works and elect governments to regulate as best it can the negative effects. Capitalism is now generally accepted as the only system that really delivers on our aspirations and ambitions. These expectations are general in the majority population. Financial security, good health care, a high standard of education for our children. There are many others and are self evident. Unfortunately these aspirations have to be paid for through general taxation or private financial initiatives. There really is no such thing as a free lunch for anyone. The market economy in my opinion provides the means to deliver a high standard of service for the community. This also involves working hard and universal effort by the population in mild competition with each other. Benefits of course produce problems and negative effects. Rather like the generation of electricity with nuclear fuel. The waste problem is greater than the benefits. However capitalism has not yet reached that watershed. I believe that the market and ecology working together can and will eventually solve the crisis of global warming and waste disposal. Governments working alone or in co-operation with each other cannot deal with it alone. The problem and the threat it poses is simply too great. If you put two people in a room and present them with a large problem to solve. One will see only difficulties the other an opportunity. Without the market economy I would argue that difficulties would overwhelm our societies and backward we would go.

Perhaps there is more to the behaviour of Chirac than we originally suspected. Turning over old stones is becoming a national pastime. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1845282.ece

Interesting profile of Bernard Kouchner. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1845225.ece The new President of the Republic is appearing at least to embrace new political ideas and opinions other than his own. I personally think Kouchners appointment is a piece of inspired leadership.

In this post Trizevent seems to write about two distinct worlds. Perhaps a better description put simply might be two systems of a main stream social and political philosophy. Those who embrace a work ethic in order to improve their lives within a market economy. On the other side are those who believe in an alternative culture of personal improvement. Working outside a systematic or structured mythology. Or living on the fringe of main stream society and embracing a less materialistic culture. Both values systems can live together because one does not impinge on the other. Tolerance of alternative ideas can thrive when one group in society does not feel threatened by the other. Secularism, democracy, understanding and political pluralism are the tools which engineer that happy state. Problems arise when one section of the belief system ridicules or tries to undermine the other. In reality most people who inhabit the mainstream world realise from an early age that the key to advancement and personal development for themselves and their families lies with financial security. Materialism is often used as a dirty word to sell alternative ideas. Particularly since the environment became such a hot political topic. However I would argue that financial security is not the same as materialism. Put simply financial security means having enough for your own and your families needs both now and for the future. Not enough to waste on the flashy goods of consumption. The rewards of the work ethic are much more than that. We relate to the societies in which we live through our own moral philosophy. In embracing the work ethic within the free market I would argue provides an avenue to such a state. Anything else will likely fall short. Leaving you behind or on the edge. I do not say this is a less than desirable state of being. Simply put the market and in my opinion only the market gives us all that choice to take the direction we want. Freedom of choice is a dangerous luxury to be enjoyed and used to enhance, fulfill potential or destroy our lives.

So are we discussing retribution and punishment here or human political expediency? I agree with everything you have said in your post. The law applies to everyone or the law becomes an ass (meaning a large donkey like creature, smaller than a horse) and quite often is. However sometimes grey areas appear in life for whatever reason. As a consequence black and white solutions suddenly seem inappropriate. That’s what makes the law, politics, state and justice seem human and more acceptable to most of us. I suggest fair minded people know where the line is. That line also applies to flexibility, equity and justice. We expect elected officials to have the same degree of savvy and lightness of touch when it’s needed. We expect our elected governments to act with humanity and balance. Almost every politician in recent history has been guilty of raising political party funds by dubious means. Helmut Cole, Tony Blair to name but two. Unfortunately Chirac went too far. I don’t seek to justify their behaviour. I simply offer the suggestion that humanity is capable of greater things than black or white. When people act with good intention that needs to be acknowledged. I am very happy it’s not my decision to make.    

To include those two named examples and compare their crimes with Chirac’s misdemeanours is completely erroneous. Pinochet committed mass murder for political ends. Papon was a pen pushing functionaire who wanted to please his Nazi masters and became instrumentally responsible for thousands of deaths. Chirac is not as far as I know a murdering dictator or fascist sympathiser. Any decision to mount a prosecution has to be in the best interests of justice and the country as a whole. I don’t believe that having the former President of the Republic before the courts for illegal political fund raising and fraud committed some time ago will serve those interests. The French people are actually quite fond of the old buffer on a personal level. He has served his country with arguable distinction for a very long time. He did some good things and also sat on his hands. I accept fraud is a serious offence but he did not do it to enrich himself. There is a mitigating difference.

We are back to retribution again. I suppose it depends which side of the political divide you see things from. I do agree that Chirac was a lousy President and corrupt during his time as Mayor. However would it be good for France to have him prosecuted now? I think not.

Cynicism is a form of melancholy TV. It can eat away at the soul. Juppe was indeed the fall guy for Chirac. He was an ambitious politician who served his master with devotion when he (Chirac) was Mayor of Paris. Party coffers were filled from corrupt schemes invented and sanctioned by the Mayor. Chirac was protected from prosecution by his Presidential office. Juppe served the party by taking the flak and now is rewarded by a job in government. Rehabilitation of offenders is very desirable. Juppe is an able and skilled politician who has paid a price with the disgrace and ignominy. Chirac on the other hand waits for his fate. My gut feeling is Sarkozy will give him a Presidential pardon. I believe the country has no appetite to see an old man dragged through the courts. I think that is probably right on balance.

The President of the Republic appoints political opponent to Foreign Ministry. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1811115.ece

[quote user="cooperlola"] Longer hours do not necessarily make for greater productivity. Who's this "rest of us" Logan?  Protection yes; retribution - pointless.  Discuss.  But then again, maybe not...[6] [/quote] If society is to be protected from criminal behaviour then punishment or retribution is a necessary tool in it's prevention. You say retribution is pointless. How then does society deal with criminality? Most alternatives have been tried and generally failed. I accept also that prison sentences also fail in the rehabilitation of offenders. However punishment should fit the crime otherwise criminality would become a desirable career move. Judges are supposed to have the skills to do that effectively and sometimes they do fail. They are only human. Victims of crime and society in general expect criminal behaviour to be punished. That retribution acts as an agent to prevent the crime taking place in the first place. The threat of detection concentrates the criminal mind. A prison sentence is not a desirable ambition even for old lags. If you are ever unfortunate enough to become a victim of a serious offence believe me retribution is what you would expect.

These posts by Treizevents are a bit like knitting toffee. It's a bit sticky and difficult to make any sense of. In my view 35  hours a week of work in France should be increased to a minimum of 40 across the board. Then overtime after that. At least 3 bank holidays should be abolished. French and Brits all need to work harder and longer in order to compete in the global market place. I believe that hard work is creative and good for the human spirit. Work also sets an example to our children. We all need to feel a sense of worth in the society in which we choose to live. France and everywhere else needs to make a living and past glories mean little. If you break the law and cross the line then the law should teach you the error of your ways until you actually get the point. With some folks it takes a lot longer to learn error and the point but in my experience law breakers know where the line is better than most. They cross it because usually they care nothing for anyone but themselves. In the meantime the rest of us require protection and retribution. Punishment and law is the tool society uses. Nothing else really works.

Well this innovation is looking like the new Government are seriously intent on bringing France into the wider world. French inward navel contemplation perhaps is now a thing of the past. Vive la change![:D]

[quote user="united"] There is undoubtably an over supply of property for sale in the tourist areas, however, the crash headlines were created by the fall in value of Spanish property companies. I agree the property away from tourist areas will probably still have a reasonable market.   [/quote] United is correct. The property market in Spain is really 2 markets. The second homes on the coast and the rest of Spain where it is stable and affordable. However from an investment prospective it's very similar to France and Italy with a slow capital gain. Principally on coastal Spain the massive over building of apartments and so called 'town houses' has stalled everything else. I recently read that there are currently 200,000 unsold properties in these areas of Spain. Simple really when supply exceeds demand the prices falls until the market can sell off excess supply. Like apples and oranges there is little difference in market economic terms. The sad fact about Spain is the costal regions have become phoney tourist gettos. The rest of Spain is just like anywhere else where working people live their lives and raise a family.

[quote user="Mel "]But if, like my wife and I, you have bought your French house with no intention of selling it, there are no problems...[/quote] The words ' no intention' is a very long time. Change happens. Selling at a profit in France is tough because the market is restricted by low incomes among the French. Dutch and Brits will pay more for the right property but there's a huge choice. Not just in diverse property for sale but also within differing regions. As we write the property market is collapsing in Spain. Massive over building and selling 'off plan' has created a market glut. Pre-owned homes now will not sell unless massively discounted. The future investment potential is dire unless you are brave or rash enough. My advice is sit tight. The market everywhere except France is heading south.

The best thing about Wales is the M4 and the Severn bridge heading eastward.[:D] TriezVents wrote:- "Its just that I find it incredible that you are bewildered." TW. You find life very perplexing, ce n'est pas ? I should lie down in a darken room for a while and contemplate swans swimming on a lake. Or the smell of scented flowers in the cool of a summers evening.[;-)] 

"But you can be sure that the well off will benefit."  I see nothing wrong with rewarding those who have worked hard, built a business, taken risks, provided employment and created wealth for themselves, share holders, employees and the country. The politics of envy favoured by the left has failed to impress. Why? I suggest because people want very much to better their lives and give their family an improved future. The French have decided the route to that lies through market forces not socialism, phoney government jobs, high taxation and regulation, regulation. France is now optimistic, forward looking and will eventually be more dynamic. Like the man Sarko himself, energy and hard work in a competitive environment will eventually reap its rewards.