Most Holy

I have to agree that the French pension system sucks in terms of return.  In particular comparing ANY state-run system versus a pension fund is going to be laughably in favor of the pension fund. I lack the expertise to compare the "lousiness factor" of the French state-run system versus that of any other country, but I suspect -- I could be wrong -- that if we stick to comparing apples and apples (and not oranges), they're roughly the same.  One point I was making -- or trying to make -- was in effect that it's not JUST France. En passant, one may also note that state-run systems are also worse for self-employed persons (as opposed to salaried employees). Let us note that the French system will allow you to make a lump sum contributions to in effect "purchase" the "missing years" of your pension plan at a discounted rate and still pay you the expected pension later on. A self-employed late entrant in the French system -- and possibly any other comparable countries' -- is indeed being grossly disadvanted, especially if he were to invest the same money privately.

Let me preface this by stating that while I have a background in legal/financial matters, my comments do not purport to be legal or tax advice and besides, there are several grey areas that largely depend on how things are represented and honest experts may disagree on the best way of handling things on a case by case basis and depending on how much is at stake. Devil, details, etc. In fact I'll welcome fact checking, additions and corrections. You all presumably know that you are considered a French resident for legal, tax, etc. purposes only if you spend more than 183 days (not necessarily in continuity) in France. If you spend less than that here, you may not have to be in the French system at all. In you are in the French system, I'm going to be simplifying a bit, but you can either be (a) employed by a company, (b) self-employed (commerçant, artisan, artist, etc.) or (c) rentier (ie: making money from dividends, royalties, etc. but not "working" - the devil here is in the definitation of "working"). There isn't really any other choice. If (a), you are either (a.i) working for a French company or the properly registered French-based subsidiary/branch, etc. of a foreign company, or (a.ii) working for a foreign company without any establishment in France while you yourself are living (and in effect working) in France. (a.i) is very simple, the entire French system is geared towards employees. The company is the one with all the headaches. Just watch the deductions on your payslip. Ouch! (a.ii) can be tricky and will lead to all kinds of arguments, possibly prosecutions, with the various French entities who will try to force you into (b) because they can't get at your employer but they can get you. Right now there is an interesting lawsuit pending where the French are trying to force French lawyers living in Paris but working for British lawfirms not registered in France to, in effect, become self-employed (ie: (b)) in order to pay all the social contributions etc. which currently no one is paying. I don't recommend a starring role in a David v. Goliath fight. So..... (b) if you are in effect self-employed (artisan, commerçant, artist) or small business owner (micro-entreprise), you will in effect have to pay all the social contributions that the company employing you would otherwise pay. Leaving aside income tax and VAT, there are really only three other types of payments that you incur when you run a business in France, and two of them would be roughly the same (although administered differently) in most western countries: 1) Retirement : the money that you pay will be accrued to you & your spouse (if registered as a conjoint collaborateur); yes, you would do better off if you invested it yourself on the stock market, and yes, you won't get as much as your French neighbor at age 65 because he/his employer contributed during his entire working life, BUT YOU WILL BE GETTING SOMETHING! It's not money being thrown away! Every country has a somewhat similar system. It is neither peculiarly French nor unfair. 2) National Health Insurance (what the French call Social Security): Ditto. The minimum payment for a year if you make no money is like 300 or 400 euro and it gives you access to a rather good system. The scale is proportional to your revenues and not unfair. Honestly, if you're whining about either of these two payments, it's likely because you're comparing apples and oranges and haven't quite grasped the full picture. 3) URSSAF: That, on the other hand, is totally weird and entirely French. In effect you're paying to subsidize other people's kids, even rich families'. If you do have children, take advantage of it; if you don't, tough luck. However, if you do not make much money, URSSAF will be prepared to negotiate a lower payment; go and talk to them. But that payment is basically pissing away money. The French system does grab a larger bite out of a business' revenues and they don't give you the choice to opt out, but for the two categories above, you get good value for your money, or at least comparable to what you would get elsewhere. Except for the URSSAF. The category we have not yet discussed here is (c) rentier. To be a "rentier" is like being retired, you must not "work" at all in the common usage of the word, but you can receive dividends, royalties, etc. (subject to French income tax, of course -- it gets complicated when it involves different countries with different rules about the taxation of dividends, royalties, etc. and even different definitions according to bilateral tax treaties.) If you own or have a stake in a foreign corporation, that corporation is not you; it can conduct its own business in the country where it's incorporated, and its profits will be taxed in that country. The French have nothing to do with this; this is perfectly legal and besides, they have no way of finding out. The tricky part comes in getting some of the money out of the corporation and into your pocket.  If you're paid a salary or a freelance fee etc. for any kind of "work" that you appear to be doing for said corporation, then the French will look at you as a (b) above and will try very hard to force you to pay the social contributions mentioned above. But if the corporation pays you dividends or royalties (this gets very complicated very quickly and that is where I must recommend a set of good tax advisors in both countries) then it becomes purely a matter of income tax. Obviously this last category, (c), is not accessible to a large number of people; only those already owning or partners in an ongoing business in Country A, but choosing to reside in Country B, need look into it. It's like relocating to Luxembourg or Andorra, not everyone can do it.

The ONLY point I tried making earlier was that IF a country can regulate drinking & its resultant behaviors, as well as a whole range of other human activities (e.g.: urinating in public, etc) it sure can regulate smoking. That's what laws are all about. I find nothing wrong with anti-smoking laws.

[quote user="Deimos"]To me smoking seems only one of many habits that cause problems. At least with smoking the effects are limited to specific rooms and people who don't like it just don't go in those rooms !! As others have pointed out e.g. drinking can cause abusive behaviour outside the "room", driving dangers to others, etc. Ian[/quote] Actually, drinking is already controlled by a number of laws or regulations: you can't be drunk and drive, drunk and disorderly, etc. If you're drunk, for example, and you throw up on someone, or spit on them, you'll incur a fine (and possibly a punch on the nose). So your analogy doesn't quite work. Following your logic, I should be free to throw up on any smoker I meet without suffering the consequences.

[quote user="louweezel"] Problem is MH, how do we know what the truth is. How do we know that such things never happened? Just because the American government said so?? This is what made it interesting, seeing it from a different perspective. Louise [/quote] At the risk of being simplistic, we DO know because there was a commission that took testimonies under oath from a number of independent witnesses, etc. Now I'm not saying that we know what is NOT in the Official Commission's Report, but we certainly know what IS in it. The American Airlines vs US AIR confusion is just one of the many deplorable mistakes due to laziness and lack of adequate fact checking. To return to my earlier example, if I pen a docudrama on the death of Princess Di, one advertised as the "real truth" as it were, it is certainly okay, though controversial, to hint at a conspiracy (if I so choose), but it is NOT okay to show that her car crashed in Berlin, or to create a scene showing Tony Blair ordering her assassination. Or do you support that sort of rewriting of known facts?

[quote user="louweezel"]Yes but they would say that! It also had a disclaimer at the start and end of the film. It wasn't a documentary, so i wasn't taking it all as 100% accurate. It's was just interesting about how much we didnt know about, even if events were not entirely as shown, there was still a lot going on. Chances are we never will know the exact story. Too much propaganda going on, from all sides. Louise [/quote] I confess that I generally do NOT like "docudramas" because they blend fact and fiction and simply make up stuff. But PATH TO 9/11 was far worse than any docudrama in recent memory. For example, it shows a scene in which Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to capture or kill bin Laden, even though the spooks had him in their sights. Only problem: it never happened. Another example (of many): the movie blames American Airlines for ignoring a warning on their computers about Mohammad Atta boarding their flight. But in fact the warning came up on US Airways' computers for his Portland flight; American at Logan had nothing to do with it. There is "propaganda", yes. For example, Oliver Stone's JFK was clearly a docudrama with a strong point of view. But then there is sloppiness, which is inexcusable. And even more so when dealing with an event like 9/11. I'm afraid it was a piece of sorry tripe, on the level of, say, claiming that TonyBlair had personally ordered the assassination of Princess Di, and the BBC ought to be ashamed of having broadcast it.

Why would anyone chose to relocate to France? I would like to argue that one of the reasons should be that one is a Francophile, otherwise (if you allow me the analogy) the body will eventually reject the transplanted organ or vice-versa. I think foreigners who've moved to France and are not, at the start francophiles, are eventually bound to become alienated and whingers. This is, of course, also true of Frenchmen moving to America, England, etc. You must already know and love the local culture, warts and all, if you are to build a reasonably successful new life. That includes speaking the language, and more, sharing at least some cultural references in your hobbies; e.g. if you're into comics as I am, and you have fond memories of the Beano and 2000 AD, it would behoove you to have read some Tintin, Asterix, Lanfeust or Titeuf. I confess to being surprised by foreigners who move to a country with little or no knowledge of the local language and the culture and expect to live undisturbed. (This may be nuanced for nationalities with large migrant communities already present in the host country, such as Chinese, Hispanics in America, Turks in Germany, etc. though even then, I think speaking the language makes things immeasurably easier.)

[quote user="SaligoBay"]I just don't see the point of quoting statistics to say that this is better than that, or there are two points of difference between x in Thailand and x in France. It doesn't help anyone, and is just a way of avoiding the real discussion.  You know, like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, while people are starving outside your door. I haven't run out of arguments because I was never arguing! [;-)] [/quote] My humble suggestion would then be either to not post at all (there are a number of things I read here that I disagree with, but I don't feel I have enough of an interest in the matter or an expertise to contribute to warrant a post) or post something personal, and therefore unarguable. For example, instead of saying: "it's interesting that electricity is so expensive in France" which was a general statement which begged the reply "no more than in the UK", a more challenging contribution would have been: "I'm on a fixed income and I find electricity very expensive" or "electricity is major % of my budget" which would have hopefully elicited  thoughts on  how  you could reduce your bill, save power,  etc. For example I've heard about these blue days, red days, white days that EDF has. I don't know if it saves money or not. There's plenty to talk about when discussing the cost & consumption of power. In any event, no offense taken here. Let's all strive to remain civil.

[quote user="SaligoBay"]Sorry, I thought we were talking about ordinary people. It must be nice to live in the protected world of ivory towers, where everyone spends their days quoting statistics and saying how lovely everything is.  If I had the money, I'd love to join you! [/quote] Don't be bitter. I'm comparing apples and apples; you're comparing apples and oranges. In fact you haven't compared anything, you just made a blanket statement. As to the statistics, I'm doing it on the spot, using google. You could do the same. It takes maybe 15 minutes. It's uncivil for one who has run out of arguments to turn to personal attacks. I would hope that you wouldn't want to lower the standards of discussion of this thread.

[quote user="SaligoBay"]It's interesting that electricity (overall, including the abonnement) is so expensive in France. [/quote] According to NUS Consulting (NUSINC.COM - a professional cost management and recovery company specializing in solutions to reduce electricity, gas, oil, petroleum costs) (via the old reliable ECONOMIST), I found a table that spells out energy costs in Europe. (I don't know how to post images so I'll type it out): First, the price of electricity expressed in Euro Cents / KWH in April 2005, for the supply of 1000 KW for a business with a monthly usage of 450 KKWH (excluding VAT): - France: the graph bar looks like it's near 5.2 - Britain: 6.3 - Netherlands: 7 - Belgium: almost 8 Only Finland and Sweden have prices below below France; Italy, Spain, Denmark, etc. are all more expensive. Now, the prices of natural gas taken in September 2005 for an annual supply of 2.9 MKWH, (excluding VAT): - France, Belgium and Britain are about the same, around 2.8 cents, though I understand there was a sharp increase in the UK recently; Spain, Finland are below that; the most expensive country is Denmark with 8 cents. As a rule, countries with political control over their energy policies (France, Germany, Spain, in particular) deliver better prices to their citizenry. More than 3/4 of France's electricity is generated by nuclear power; is that a good thing or a bad thing? I don't know. I think it depends on who you talk to and what factors are taken into consideration.

[quote user="WJT"]Good point Most Holy, but still have to put my resources in the UK not France. But as I said will reap all of my rewards in a country that I could not work in or contribute to. Just my experience.  [/quote] I completely agree with you - my point was never to put down the UK though I am very "bearish" about the US economy (another discussion), only to point out that gap between France and the UK wasn't as wide as occasionally perceived. There are many features, including employment, where the UK, at a price, is better off than France, indisputably; there are others, such as energy, where it is (IMHO) on shakier grounds (another discussion as well).

[quote user="WJT"]Wow, well, I for one am a bit shocked and disappointed as well, I guess mob rules well in France. I too have to agree with Deby, SB and Hastobe and also have to admit that I personally believe that Socialism just doesn't work. [/quote] Regarding your first point, I read somewhere that in a recent poll, 80% if the French disapproved of the CPE. It doesn't seem untoward for a government elected with a dubious mandate (Chirac/Le Pen) to withdraw a law passed by a minority of MPs (51 vs 23 on a Sunday night).  Right now, in the U.S., 66% of Americans are against the Iraq War; yet the Government continues steadfastly its failed policies. Of the two, I think the French Government is the wiser. As to "Socialism doesn't work," it depends how you define "socialism".  Certainly, the totalitarian travesty that was the USSR didn't work, in the long-term. Is China today more or less Socialist than, say, Sweden or Denmark? Is China an economic miracle or not? Are you saying that our friends the Danes and the Swedes have been living in abject failures since the War?  What about the NHS in the UK? Total and  EDF in France? Airbus?  In America, certain industries such as Boeing, the major airlines, the entire aerospace industry, only survive because of Government help... Such labels can be quite meaningless, like the word "liberal" which has one meaning in the US and another in France.

For those who wonder about my "Most Holy" pseudonym it is a reference to the Canadian comic book CEREBUS, most particularly this passage. http://www.cerebusfangirl.com/freecerebus/page19.html

[quote user="Gluestick"]I do agree with most of your post: there is a sort of economic envy, which causes many analysts to rubbish France and it is anecdotal rather than factually based. [/quote] Actually, my own experience is that the real pros, the MONOPOLY men with money bags, are not fooled at all; the media and the public might be, but they're not, they know pretty much what France is worth; what they do NOT like is the "message" that -- unwittingly -- France has come to embody, which is its stand in the age-old conflict between labor and capital. Too much "common wisdom" nowadays equate labor with costs, which are "bad" and must be reduced, in order to maximize profits, that will go and enrich a minority. The price paid by society overall for such a transfer of wealth is never taken into account. For better or worse, the French -- I'm not even sure most realize that is what they're doing -- "smell" that transfer of wealth -- the French economic elites would certainly be happy to do to France what their counterparts have done elsewhere -- and fight desperately to block it. Despite the propaganda you hear and read about, there's nothing intrinsically unavoidable about such a transfer of wealth from the middle to the upper classes. Let us remember that even a Hight Priest of Capitalism such as Henry Ford though that the Middle Class should be driving the economy. Mr Ford would likely be appalled by the economic picture in the US today. I'll spare you the data but in the last decade, the middle classes has seen its wages (and wealth) stagnate, while the rich have indulged in an orgy of consumption that makes it appear that the country's economy is doing great. But that orgy of consumption is not sustainable, especially if it is paid by debt. If you take out debt, GDP growth looks less perky. On most cases GDP Grown less Net Borrowing is actually negative. These are problems that go beyond France and, differently but not unlike the 1920s, threaten all of our societies.

[quote user="SaligoBay"]  This forum (not run by French people) is the only place I've seen anyone trying to say that France doesn't have an unemployment problem. [/quote] If we're going to discuss this seriously, one must really make an effort to be more precise. No one here has claimed that France does not have an unemployment problem. At best, one might have inferred from the stats posted that France has an unemployment problem that is reasonably similar (a little worse, not very much worse, depending on countries) to that of its neighbors, which is a vastly different thing. One might argue that France has chosen to have more unemployment in exchange for better working conditions for those who are employed. One might also conclude that the French are more sensitive to the unemployment problem, OR alternatively, that the non-French are more insensitive to it. Finally, what was specificially discussed (by me, at least) was the employment of the 15-to-24-year-olds in the EU as a ration of the overall youth population. That is a quantifiable figure. The unemployment rate for the under 24s in France has often been quoted by the media as being around 23%. My my OECD/INSEE sources quote the rate of employment, the proportion of 15-to-24 youth that actually  work, at only 30.4% in 2004! Not good at first sight, especially against 55.4% in the UK! Note that it is 27.6% in Italy and only 21.7% in Poland, the darling of "reformers" but no one writes editorials about it. But you have to remember that the unemployment rate is always calculated as the ratio of unemployed to active population (i.e. those working or seeking work). Now, using that traditional ratio, French unemployment among the youth drops to 8.1%, against 7.6% in the UK. A very different picture. I would explain the high overall French figure by the fact that a lot of French youths are students, and unlike in America, for example, they do not need to work to pay for their studies. For instance, in the UK, 42% of youth have to work while being students; in France that % is only 6.8% (and 1% in Italy! gadzooks!). That is bound to impact the overall statistic. What conclusions can one draw from this: (a) that the media through ignorance or incompetence generally follows a narrative that is simple to understand (and colorful to write about, lazy frogs, etc.) yet misleading; (b) the ones in the know (bankers etc) are not fooled but the streets are.

I am an ex-banker so I'm bound to have a different perspective than most; still, some of you might want to ask themselves why many (including the French) have a different view of reality than what reliable data keeps telling us. Let's look at the figures. Certainly, the ECONOMIST and the FINANCIAL TIMES are not objectively pro-French model, and the OECD has never been accused of being biased. Their figures are one of the business world's most widely accepted bibles. So the figures stand, and are macro enough to tell a general truth. Indeed, French business is thriving... For example, let's look at the CAC 40 -- an indicator of the Paris Stock Exchange; it went up from 3000 in 2003 to 5100+ today. Interestingly, although the CAC 40 is composed of French companies, about 45% of their shares are owned by foreign investors, mostly American funds (acquired during the last 20 years in a long series of provatizations of formerly state-owned companies). This tells us that (a) French business is indeed thriving, it is not an illusion; and (b) the world business community thinks so too and is more than eager and willing to grab French assets. If that is not a sign of confidence -- "put your money where your mouth IS NOT" in this case -- I don't know what is! So why would the street (as it were) believe differently? The answer lies largely on anecdotal data / personal experience, usually gathered from the media and among the class of people one is familiar with (friends, relatives, business relations). If one is more likely to belong to a less economically favored class, one has a view of society very different from that of a wealthier person, of course. An interesting experiment that I would suggest is to find an identical class of people in America or in England, and ask them how they feel. I suspect the answer would be equally gloomy (whether such an outlook is justified or not is besides the point, for the purpose of this discussion). Again, I do not wish to paint an excessively rosy picture of France; the only points I'm trying to make are: (a) ignore the common misconception that France is doing badly because, in fact, it's doing just as well as, and sometimes better than, the other EU countries; and (b) more arguably, than it is better poised to face an impending "Great Depression" than the US and UK economies. (a) is pretty much a fact; (b) is highly debatable, another discussion entirely; time will tell.

Deby: Yes, the world is indeed changing, and alas, not for the best.  But the French brand of capitalism and societal model appears to many much better positioned at having a shot at pulling through the forthcoming crash that threaten the US (and by extension, the UK) models. (This is not necessarily a French viewpoint as many French are equally gloomy about what they see as their own failings; it's more an enlightened international point of view.) The combination rising energy shortages/prices, the growing US trade inbalance and is ballooning budget deficit ($2.9 billion a month spent on Iraq with no end in sight), plus the burst of the real estate bubble, are going to deal a very severe blow to the US economy within the next 2 to 5 years. Mark my words, many who are (wrongly) criticizing the French system right now will be singing its praises in 5 years. PS: If you are interested in discussing economic trends, energy issues and the likes, may I recommend the EUROPEAN TRIBUNE forum: http://www.eurotrib.com - it's in English, it's free, and it's frequented by a large number American and European business folks (from all over Europe) of reasonable political stripes (no raving extremists).

May I suggest that those of you interested in European economics and growth and comparisons about GDP follow the link below to an article recently published in THE ECONOMIST, hardly a bastion of socialist thinking : link http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5504103 France and Britain, when the statistical playing field is levelled, are actually richer than the US, France being a bit ahead of the UK. The FINANCIAL TIMES, also no suspect of leftist bias, explains why: "it was not a rise of profits or other non-labour income that squeezed the middle-ranking US citizen but an increase in the share of the top 10 per cent of wage and salary earners who have captured almost half the total income gains in the past four decades. Within that, there has been a vast increase of the share of the top 1 per cent, who gained more than all of the bottom 50 per cent."

I'll give you another example that will disprove the notion that labor is being coddled and privileged in France (especially as it is more productive already). According to a 2006 study on Competitive Alternatives conducted by the international consulting firm KPMG (hardly a bastion of socialist thinking)... I'm quoting now: "For manufacturing operations, labor costs typically represent 55 to 73% of total location-sensitive costs. For non-manufacturing operations, this range is typically 76 to 87%. "Labor-related costs vary significantly among countries: "Singapore has the lowest salary and wage costs among the nine countries examined, followed by Italy, France and the United Kingdom. "Costs for Statutory Plans as a % of payroll are lowest in Canada, followed by the US, the Netherlands and Singapore. "Costs for other employer-sponsored benefits as a % of payroll are lowest in Japan, followed by France, Singapore and Canada. "Combining these three elements, total labor costs are lowest in Singapore, followed by Canada, Italy and France." The bottom line expressed a a % of cost advantage (if minus, disadvantage) relative to the US is as follows: 1. Singapore: 22.3% 2. Canada: 5.5% 3. France: 4.4% 4. Netherlands: 4.3% 5. Italy: 2.2% 6. UK: 1.9% 7. USA (baseline) - 0 - 8. Japan: -6.9% 9. Germany: -7.4% Here is the methodology for the study: Competitive Alternatives represents KPMG's guide for comparing business costs in North America, Europe and Asia Pacific. The 2006 study is the most thorough comparison of international business costs ever undertaken by KPMG, and contains valuable information for any company seeking cost advantage in locating their international business operations. The study is an expansion and update of previous KPMG publications, and measures the combined impact of 27 significant business cost components that are most likely to vary by location. The study covers 17 industry operations in 9 industrialized countries: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. The basis for comparison is the after-tax cost of startup and operations, over 10 years. Here is the link to KPMG: http://www.choixconcurrentiels.com/download/default.asp

The problem with Deby's statements is that they are not backed by facts, but mostly by anecdotal data or so-called "Common Wisdom" or "idées reçues" that often prove to be false when subjected to fact-checking. For example, the statement <i>It is possible to fire people too, but believe me it is very difficult</i> is misleading. There is one figure which should help to understand that it is possible to fire employees in France: according to the the Public Employment Services(ANPE), every year, around one million people are fired in France, part of them (300,000 in 2004) for economic reasons, and part of them (600,000 in 2004) for personal reasons. Of course, the vast majority of them find a new job. I am not trying to argue that France is some kind of perfect state where everything is just 100% fine; what I'm trying to say is that by most recognized economic and social indicators, France is doing about as fine as, say, the UK, or even the US, a bit better in some areas, a bit worse in others, but not so significantly as the media would like you to believe. The debate, if theree is one, is not about France per se, it's about economic policies favoring the corporate classes vs the labor, as in laborand investments = costs which must be reduced in order to maximize short-term profits which benefits sut a few. France being the country that expresses most forcefully a different view on economic policy and capitalism -- and let us remember that despite that different view, French multinational corporations are still amongst the most profitable in the world -- there is a "shoot the messenger" aspect in the media, i.e. make France look back and policy prescriptions coming from France can be safely demonised.

From The Independent Two grandmothers from Yorkshire face up to a year in prison after becoming the first people to be arrested under the Government's latest anti-terror legislation. Helen John, 68, and Sylvia Boyes, 62, both veterans of the Greenham Common protests 25 years ago, were arrested on Saturday after deliberately setting out to highlight a change in the law which civil liberties groups say will criminalise free speech and further undermine the right to peaceful demonstration.(...) ...protests are curtailed under the Home Secretary's Serious Organised Crime and Police Act. Campaigners expressed their outrage yesterday at Charles Clarke's new law, which they say is yet another draconian attempt to crack down on legitimate protest under the guise of the war on terror. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article356033.ece

The coverage in the US and British press has been so bad that I am not surprised that some people are shocked by the seemingly irrational behavior of the French. Most of the coverage that  I have seen is either wilfully ignorant or purposedly lying, and they repeat a number of falsehoods about the French labor market that are, quite simply, shocking. Let me try to correct the record. The youth unemployment rate is extravagantly high The unemployment rate for the under 24s in France is indeed 23%. But you have to remember that the unemployment rate is the ratio of unemployed to active population (i.e. those working or seeking work). Counted as a ratio to the overall youth population, unemployment is 8.1%, while it is 7.6% in the UK. It's impossible to fire people in France Eurostat indicates that the main indicator to assess the flexibility of a labor market and the mobility of workers is the proportion of workers who have been in their job for less than 3 months. That proportion is 6.7% in France, higher than in the UK and than the 4.9% EU average. France does not create jobs Between 1996 and 2002, according to OECD, France actually created more jobs than the USA in the private sector, and more jobs both overall and in the private sector than the UK - precisely at the time when supposedly irrational measures like the 35-hour week were in force. This is not to say that everything is perfect, far from it, but the problem is much smaller than everybody (including in France!) is led to believe.

[quote user="Dicksmith"]You might be interested to read a sceptical point of view on this at the Randi Foundation forums. [/quote] You mean, the magician? Surely you're not suggesting we take the viewpoint of a stage magician seriously, over that of professional doctors, professors and medical journals? Other than debunking Uri Gellers the man has no qualifications. He's an American showman who knows how to exploit the gullible "skeptiks" and has made a fortune doing so.

[quote user="SaligoBay"] I'm not denying that these things happen.  I'm not denying that they're worthy of study in themselves.  But the best thing would be to separate them altogether from any connection with religion, and study them scientifically.  That way there's at least a chance of getting a reasonable answer.  If you add religion in it just becomes a big mess - it's faith, it's lack of faith, it's God's love, it's God's punishment, it's because this, that, or some other  thing. [/quote] I'm in perfect agreement with you.  Religion does complicate things somewhat. I'm an agnostic myself (the "pseudonym" is a homage to a famous comic-book character that pointedly satirized religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular.) If you're willing to take my word for it without tons of data dumped here, you should keep in mind that (a) these unexplained cures happen a lot more than you seem to think, and it is not that unique thing you seem to think it is, and (b) 1963 is not very "old" -- it takes 10 to 20 years to comprehensively review and study those sort of phenomena. Ideally, if we could understand how a person can be cured thoroughly, quickly and definitively (that's where the time factor comes into play, remission, you know) of things that are incurable by our current level of medical science ... I need not spell out the enormous benefits.

[quote user="Teamedup"] Who knows why these things work. I do not believe in entity induced miracles. I do know some things are incredible and miraculous though and I daresay that one day science will have an explanation.  [/quote] That is exactly my attitude, and that of all the scientists interested in investigating the frontiers of medicine.  Antibiotics might have seemed miraculous to a 10th century man. The fact we do not yet have an explanation, or even the framework of one, does not mean we will not find one someday.