TreizeVents

The point about "minimum sentences for repeat offenders" is slightly confusingly put according to the other stuff I have read.  I think the idea is something like "three strikes and you are out".  That is, a compulsory MAXIMUM sentence for repeat offenders.  That is what I have read.  This is quite a conflictual policy even WITHIN the UMP, but no doubt Sarko will sweep the wets before him.  His other problem however will be to persuade the magistrates, who still have some degree of independence.  They are not Sarko's big pals, he does not like them being indepdendent, and trying to find a way to take autonomy from them.  The French tradition (and the British) is to fit the punishment to the individual and the specific circumstances.  I could find stories of people in AMerica (not surprisingly poor people) who are put away for maximum sentences, when the actual crime they have committed is no really big deal.  So if there are compulsory sentences, the magistrates will cause problems.  Maybe they too wil be steamrollered, there is no way to know.  If I were Sarko I woudl throw them a bone before I tried to basically deprive them of their sentencing autonomy. And of course, this policy will also fill up the prisons.  Already France has been critiqued by nearly every independent enquiry for having prisons that are way to crowded and not up to standards for democratic rich coutnires.  So more money needed to keep them in prison.  From where?  Growth again I suppose.  That hypothetical, not specific, Sego type policy again.

Risking the wrath of Panda, I thought someone (maybe no one), might like to know some problems with the 35 hour proposal.  They are not insurmountable, but they are problems that do not have obvious solutions.  First is the very French problem of equality before the law.  If one person works 35 hours and another a few more, then they will not be paid the same amount for the same hour of work.  That is, the person who is working the extra hours will be paid more, on account of not paying tax.  The Constitutional Council made a decision in 2000 (after the first 35 hours reform), which dealt with this and discouraged inequality of payment by companies.  The other problem is similar to letting the well off get a lightening of various taxes.  The State loses money.  Quite a bit sometimes.  So its going to have to either cut public services in some way (more trouble either from unions or from consumers/clients?) or find the money elsewhere.  No doubt the prediction will be for more growth to take care of it all.  But when Sego made this point, then Sarko laughed at her as "having no plan"..  So who knows.  The waged people at the bottom don't have much to gain with lightening of tax, and for white collar workers, they usually don't get hours counted anyway.  So its a policy with problems. And of course, there will have to be a small army of bureaucrats to process these new proposals too.  That law should get written in September or so, with the new laws on finance.  Might be an interesting time if the unions react or if they have not been consulted.  We shall see what our president does.

As for inheritance tax, it is important to look beyond the soundbites.  This proposal will, of course, cost the budget about 5 thousand million out of the 7.3 thousand million that they collected in 2006.  Naturally economies will have to made after giving this money back to the well off.  But actually this benefits only 10% of the most well-off people in France, although it is strictly true that 90-95% will not pay tax.  The crucial point is that 80-85% NEVER DID.  Today, the highest tax is 40%, but it only applies to people with an estate of over 520,000 euros.  No doubt this applies to many of you with high priced property in France or more high priced property in Britain, or perhaps a particularly high salary compared to French wages.  The average inheritance in France is 100,000 euros, so this affects almost no ordinary folk at all.  Only 10% of inheritance in France is over 100,000 euros.  Silvio Berlusconi also made this same policy change in Italy.  Bush only made this a temporary measure.  In France there have recently been changes so that you can give away wealth while still living, thereby reducing the tax when you die.  A certain limited amount every year (30 grand per child I think).  There are pressures within the right to do away with it altogether.  How this squares with doing something about the national debt, and who exactly will face the cuts to pay for this (and the threatened tax cuts) is not clear. (data from Liberation, 7 May)    So it pays to look behind the soundbite.  I must do some other stuff right now, but I will try to respond or explain some of the other soundbite policies you have quoted.  But you can be sure that the well off will benefit.  That’s what Sarkozy is all about.  Everyone is agreement about that, even if they don’t like it.

[quote user="Cjb"]When one thinks of the number of people that have lost their lives fighting for democracy, I find it very difficult to sympathise with those who are violently protesting against it. Would we be so understanding of far-right violent protests in reaction to a Segolene Royal victory? Me thinks not! Extremism is extremism whether it be on the left or the right - in fact the two extremes tend to have quite a lot in common.[/quote] Actually I am not sure I have noticed much understanding, either in the sense of sympathy, or in the sense of ability to explain and relate to this violence.  The reason I have been intervening, and not very successfully, is to find out if anyone has anything very different to say about such people and their actions.  That is, anything other than that they should not do it, that they are probably people not worthy of understanding, that they should be busted and put in jail like any other criminals, and that their actions are without any kind of rationality or logic.  So far that's all we have got.  Mabye that's all there is, either on this forum, or for any people who do any kind of politically motivated violence.  Fair enough.  Its not like its a new phenomenon though.  And its not like it will stop.  Perhaps the usual hand wringing, wishing it would not happen and putting them in jail (or just beating them up a bit) is not the solution that works.  The jails are very full in the the UK and in France. What is it that you think the "extremes" have in common, other than being not in the centre?

Just in case any of you would like to read a personal acccount of the violence at Place de la Bsstille.  I got sent this via another list.  I find that many people have no real personal experience of such events, and this begins to give a bit of the flavour.  Just for information, NOT for advocacy.  Its not always like you see on television. "I (David who signed at the bottom NOT TV) was there, as you'll see, but this is mostly a report by my friend Jen Dick who was on the other side of the square. As I am writing you, it is chaos outside.  Just now I had to get up and watch the street explode with tear bomb casings, kids rushing this and that way, hemmed in on both sides by police.  And I mean on my little street. I am not even speaking of what has been happening on Place de la Bastille.  And it is now 1am.  I took some water out for a few protesters whose eyes were bright red from repeated tear gassings.  Now some of the smoke rises up to my window, floating in to sting lightly my nose.  This is what the new election has already wrought, and no press anywhere.  A bit frightening, really, the absence of the French press.  Makes one wonder whether this will be the new attitude to protesting "report nothing, as if it never happened at all, then continue on your merry way". I talked to some guys filming for Czech news earlier. Earlier, when there were masses (of mostly young people, anti sarko and pro segolene voters) outside, I watched as people were cannoned with water at the corner tonight, in front of Hippopatamous, and groups massed and then fled in circles, constantly forced to circle back into la place de la bastille by police blockades.  Long before anything was happening, the police had formed barriers around la place.  They were decked out in their plastic shields, helmets, shoulder and body pads.  They were waiting to get to do something. And certainly, the extremes of what I have seen here tonight would not have broken down into such a series of conflicts as are still going on this late had the police not attacked the quiet protesters who had amassed simply to share their disappointment, their traditional flares flowing bright red off place de la bastille around 9pm.  But the police had been sitting round in their giant trucks all afternoon, bored and ready, so.... that is what happens. What, may you asked, happened?  A little after 10 some kids getting bored with the nothingness of standing round la place in a quiet mass came across those green construction tin sidings that you see on the streets around parts of the road under work.  They started to drum on them, making an impressive racket, and suddenly the soporific crowd decided to flow towards them--and I do mean suddenly there was this flow, this mass energized, like a river flodding all of a suddent, and I started to flow AWAY from them as did some others--because you could feel what this would lead to.  The beating on the panels was loud and the police along Richard Lenoir behind them seemed mal at ease with this shifting, more active crowd, and then--before I knew it--standing as I was, just watching people amble here and there, people suddenly were running, in droves, towards me then past then stopped head to head with the little blockade on rue de la bastille.  It was obvious that over by Fbg St Antoine there had been the tear gas start, and things degenerated from there.   Some students confronted outright the very staunch, immobile line of CRS cops on rue de la bastille, screaming hysterically into the unperterbable police faces things like "Why?  What were we doing to deserve this?  You don't have the right to gas us!" etc. Others took a more diplomatic tack, but none got a single response from this last-of-the-fallback police lines. Eventually, the Place de la Bastille was just a huge smoke cloud, there were bonfires that the pompiers came and put out on occasion, and fireworks and flares went off here and there.  Humourously, a man asked the line of CRS by my house whether he could cross through their line and go home.  They said no, he'd have to cross bastille to take blvd de la bastille.  The man laughed outright into the policeman's face and pointed at the now-deserted (temporarily) place de la bastille full of huge clouds of billowing smoke and tear gas.  He pointed and laughed, like "yes, right, I am going to just stroll into that to head home". Things kind of stayed in this space for awhile until the police decided to advance, pushing their trucks into the place (on this side, I could not see roquette or Fbg St Antoine).  Then the water cannon was brought out, shooting people with massive gusts of water.  It was impressive how some people just stood and took it.   A lot of people scattered I don't know where, perhaps went home, too, others tried to leave and found themselves stuck because of police barricades, whereas others dispersed and regrouped over and over to face off with CRS groups.  I did see police surrounding an injured person thus keeping them from being further trampled.  But did they also injure them in the first place? That was not clear.  A guy behind me on his cell phone was saying "C'est mai 68 ici" though I did think that was a bit exagerrated.  I heard glass windows had been broken on cafés and shops across the way, but could not go out and verify that myself.  Black smoke paired with the light grey tear gas smoke in place de la bastille as bonfires filled the air.  Later, people dispersed even more, then regrouped at the edge of my street, then dispersed again until I thought everyone had gone home.  A silence ensued, but on occasion there are these groups running round, confronting and being confronted by the police.  I can hear them now, far off, on occasion BOOOing, on occasion chanting or shrieking, on occasion accompanied by sounds like what that watercannon sounded like, but I cannot see it anymore.  But now that it is 2am the traffic is starting to return to the center and this is a sign that people have generally headed home for now. Another friend (David B) says he also was out on the opposite side of bastille where, it was "tear gas, full on riot....we were on bastille... didn't get water canonned... we weren't on the steps or near the column by that time.. because we fled tear gas down roquette and sheltered in Quick... for a long time there was so much gas you couldnt get out for more than a minute... and police sealed off the street at rue de lappe...windows were broken down charonne and also ledru rollin...opera stpes looked good because above the gas" He says he could see broken windows at "that furniture shop at the metro sortie faubourg st antione... then a crowd running down charonne from tear gas smashed lots of stuff" He also said, and this is what I noticed too: "Atmosphere was so strange - half "this is a game" and half "you bastard fascists how can you do this? lets get the fascists" Well thought you all might like to know that this is what Bastille was like, since it may never make the news.  Night Jen I hadn't realised that it was banging on the metal screens that made that noise - I thought it was the police banging on thier shields. I saw a couple of things thrown at the police before they attacked but I agree that it was a brutal attack on an almost entirely peaceful crowd. Spoke to people who'd been clubbed for no reason as well as gassed and girls who'd done a peaceful sit-in protest who were watercannoned... the water had some agent in it like the tear gas that made your whole body burn all over where it soaked through your clothes or touched your skin.   What was the police intention, I wonder? To punish people for protesting? Maybe it was a premeptive attack? Intended to start a riot?   I think if they'd ignorred us we'd have continued to feel depressed and disempowered by the election vote. Attacking us made us oddly elated and gave us a chance to vent our anger - whether by shouting, or by refusing to move despite tear gas and water cannon ("Resistance" was one of the chants) or - for a small minority - by starting bonfires and throwing bottles and stones.   Cheers all, David

Obviously those guys (gals?), like all the violent types throughout my lifetime who have protested or damaged property after this event or that event can just be called racaille or worse.  It can alse be pointed out that they are supposed to have accepted meekly and easily the veridct of the urns or whatever event sets them off.  But they don't.  I don't disagree wiht any of that.  I just wondered if anyone had thoughts other than "lock em up".  This lock em up strategy has not made them go away in France, or in America or in England.  They still pop up.  This strategy has not diminished their number, new generations take up the "scum behaviour", different colours, different countries, and people wring their hands.  I have heard the lock em up or shoot em (depends the country) response for ages.  Does anyone have other thoughts? 

As far as anyone can tell, there would not have been those violent manifs if Sego had been elected.  What does that actually mean?  I mean when you think about it hard.  You could say it means that the rioters, who will forever be known as "anarchists" or "extremeist leftists" during the Sarkozy years, are just waiting for an excuse to fight.  Maybe.  But maybe there is something else a little less superficial.  Maybe Sarkozy is well hated and well feared, for every good reasons, unless you are rich.  However, the easiest thing to do is to demonise the violence, show that they are scum, and bust them.  I wonder if that is really the smartest way to do it, even if that is the Sarkozy, law and order way.  There are only a few of them now.  And lots of them were white.   Later? Do any of you have thoughts other than they are violent scum and should be busted?  Although maybe that is all there is to it.

[quote user="Tresco"][quote user="Iceni"] I didn't realise that African-Americans existed in 1965 but thanks to LF I learn something new every day. [/quote] Would 'people of African ancestry born in America' suit you better John?  [/quote] Actually, at that precise time they were often "Afro-Americans".  But to this day, ni***rs, blacks, coloureds, jig***os, negroes, african americans, Americans of Sub Saharan African ancestry, people of colour ... all those exist.  The problem is for each person, in each situation to decide what term to use.  And which ones to make a joke about.  Then you see how apt your choice is.  Perhaps you also see what the others present in the situation think of your choice.   I myself, in my own history have used at least negro, black, african-american and person of colour.  I expect there might be another one before I die. Oh dear, isn't life complicated.  On the other hand, I am sure there are people who have use "coloured" and "ni**er" all their lives with no trouble at all.

Royal.  No "e".

I would certainly not agree with that.  I am not sure that elections choose "the best person".  I am not sure that Sarkozy didn't make as many gaffes.  Its not clear why she got defeated and why he won, although the outcome is not in doubt.  I suspect its simply because the French were not ready for a woman as big chief.  All we can say is that it is over.  Sarkozy will shortly be president and we shall see what he gets up to.  I remember when Sego first started being a candidate.  I thought to myself that they are reporting every single thing she does slightly differently as a "mistake", as something which shows lack of presidential character.  I couldn't really figure it out.  Sarkozy who fiddled his property deals, who had much to do with inciting the youth with his off colour use of words while being filmed, whose wife doesn't even like him that much ... He seemed like he had teflon clothes.  Although many people suggest that he had the media in his pocket.  He probably was the better candidate.  He has been rehearsing for the role longer.  So you coud say the better candidate won, but not necessarily the better person.  As for France, we shall all be around for a few years and find out what, if anything, changes.  And who it benefits.  Count on Sarko's pal Bouygues doing well out of it though.

Since I know little about Scotland, and can always learn something new, I checked out a few sites on Scotland and population etc.  I left the UK some time ago, and I never even knew that there was "free personal health care" in Scotland.  Bloody good idea I say (from what I have read), although apparently it is not evenly distributed.  It certainly would be a good reason to move to Scotland, but I have read nothing so far about some large number of either Scots or English moving north to get it.  The rest of the Brits should try it.  It keeps people in their homes longer, costs less than keeping them in the old folks' homes.  The French tend to do this as well.  Course it costs money, especially for Alzheimers patients, so the most economical thing is just to let these old folks die sooner rather than later.  Maybe Sarkozy will try that policy in France.  http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=767242004 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Scotland http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/26/nunion26.xml

Good work.  Hope some people from the forum are able to attend.

[quote user="RumziGal"] So?   In a multicultural society, how come politically correct lefties would never say "Asians go home" but feel at perfect liberty to say "Scots go home"?    Scotland is such a small and insignificant country.   I really, truly can't see why the English feel so threatened by it.   It's very strange and not entirely healthy.   But there, it's nice to have someone to blame, non?  [:D]  [/quote] Sorry, we must have misunderstood.  I have never heard a "lefty" in my life say that Scots should go home.  Have you?  What I read some 15 years ago or more, is that for the first time in many decades more Scots were going back to Scotland than leaving.  I don't think anyone told them to.  I think they just figured it out all by themselves. And I must say, I am not famliiar with English people being threatened by Scotland.  Not sure what you mean.  Usually people go on about how much the Scots are feeling inferior (or used to), or want to beat the English at sports.   I am not sure the English care all that much about Scotland.  I guess I have not heard anyone "blame" the Scots for anything either. Funny what different realities we inhabit. 

[quote user="RumziGal"]What a lovely debate!   Try replacing "Scot" with "Asian" and see how it sounds.  [:)]  [/quote] Well, let's see.  Most Scots are white, not brown.  Asia is not a country, but a continent.  Scotland and most of Asia have a completely different relation to England historically.  Russethouse said something.  Hmmmm. Nope, sorry, can't replace Scot with Asian, any more than I can replace apples with oranges.  Makes no sense, except logically. And besides, an independent Scotland would make a bit more sense when they have an independent football team and Rugby team .... at the least.  Vive a Europe of small countries and difference.  Actually, Scotland would make a nice wee country.  About the same population as Denmark, Bosnia and Herzogovina, Croatia, bigger than Georgia, Norway and Costa Rica, and a bit smaller than Bulgaria, Finland, Israel, Laos, Nicaragua Paraguay and Slovenia.  Some respectable countries in their league.

Well, I also hold nearly every single person I talked to about the elections responsible too.  They all suggested that it would be a hot time in France (although not on TV, I admit).  I don't know where you all live, or what world you inhabit, but nearly every politically knowledgable person is or will be expecting some kind of "chaud" after the election of Sarkozy, either when policies begin to be revealed or at some other time.  Remember that the riots a couple of years ago happened soon after two kids ran away from the cops and were unwise enough to hide in a power station in their own neighbourhood and then got electrocuted.  Riots can start for any or no reason.  As they do in Britain.  But after the fact, many people can figure out why.   There are often reasons, underlying reasons that have little to do with the trigger event. So let me ask you why you think poor, young, often not-white, French men riot?        Right, now that you have thought about it, do you really think it has anything to do with a vague prediction by a presidential candidate?  You think maybe Sarko didn't think it might happen.  Surely you can see there are other deeper reasons.  And if any of you think there are not going to be demos, strikes and violence in France over the next year, then I really would like to know what little hameau in the middle of nowhere you live in.  There is a serious social conflict going on in France now, and the Great Concilotor is not our Nick.  You do surely remember the violence when Thatcher tried to put through her "reforms".  It really is to be expected.

There have been loads of poppies around backwoods Herault.  Less herbicide.  Old-fashioned ways.  But of course you all know that the poppy was the symbol of the campaign of Jose Bove, for reasons outlined already on this thread.  A healthy agriculture produces poppies all over the place.  So fragile, yet they survive.  It is impossible to see a field of poppies and not smile.  Everyone loves poppies. 

Many of you live in the Correze and might be able to help sate my curiosity about something.  As you might know, there is a wealth tax in France for well-off people.  This tax is a total joke, a few hundred euros a year for hundreds of thousands of wealth.  The Chiracs have to move and apparently just revealed the value of their houses.  Previous values “estimated” by the other politicians have appeared to me to be way below what is the real value.  But these self-estimated values seem not to be questioned by the Fisc.  So I wondered how accurate the estimates of the Chiracs might be.  I figure one or two of you might know the houses, since people talk about such things.  The house in the Sainte-Fereole is estimated at 60,000 euros.  Around here you could buy a one bedroom flat for that, so I was curious what this houses “inherited from Jacque’s mum” might look like, and what it might be worth.  The Chateau de Bity in Sarrran was estimated at  500,000 euros.  Around here, although its not a pricey area, ordinary big houses with a pool and view and some land can get that expensive.    So my question for you detectives out there is how much the Chiracs’ houses are actually worth.  Thanks.  The apparently also own a 1984 Peugeot 205 as well.  Value undetermined.

[quote user="RumziGal"]It's just one of the things that make France France, nesspa?   The difference between the belief and the reality.   Their belief in their revolutionary nature is so strong that they get other people to believe it too, but I look around me and I see a population that is conservative, traditional, and that doesn't like change.   Quite sweet really.    [/quote] I guess you don't get my point.  Its not at all the difference between (the French) "belief and reality".  Its that there are many realities and many beliefs in France, as anywhere.  The one I was trying to point out was the one, in fact quite global in rich countries and poor, which consists of French and other people who are very much critical, opposed to and acting against capitalism.  They are obviously a minority here and elsewhere, but they are there.  Even in Britain.  They live a "slightly" different reality and have quite different beliefs, even though they go shopping, although none of them Iknow go to McDonalds.  I also know that someone who is well embedded in other realities might not even know that anti-capitalist reality exists, and if they find out about it they make fun of it or minimise it.  It is, after all, a bit threatening.  That wee poll indictates that there is something a bit different with the French (for which I love them dearly), but it is also the case that some of the so called critics of the free market live IN it and also benefit from it.  There is no "elsewhere".  There is no "dropping out".  Contradictions and tensions in life are quite normal.  The people who "don't have contradictions" or don't see them are either being dishonest, or they just can't see well.  And I do agree that overall, in spite of that poll, in the majority, the French are very conservative, afraid of innovation, not keen on risk taking, and happy with what is.

[quote user="RumziGal"]Who fights against capitalism?   I think it's just talk.   People stampeded to find the cheapest phone operators when the phone system opened up.    They'll do the same with electricity, and with everything else.    Up till now I think they've been very controlled, but as soon as they have the choice, the vast majority will base their choices on their purse, just like the rest of us. France is perfectly good at globalisation.   There are Carrefours all over the world, there are French jets and weapons all over the place.   They're as keen on exporting as anyone else is.   When they stop eating McDonalds and shut down their foreign supermarkets, I'll believe the talk.  [;-)]  [/quote] Are you serious or does the smiley mean you are making a joke?  As a joke your post is a tad ponderous.  If you are serious, and think that there is actually no one in France, or on earth, who by their actions, or their lives, or their part-time activities fights capitalism, then I feel a little longer post coming on.  If you mean that no one, even those who fight capitalism is able to totally and completely avoid interacting with it, then I won't bother with the post, as that is totally obvious and there is no debate.  I mean, nearly all the "altermondialistes" I know do SOME shopping.  If you think that those who fight capitalism should not use mobile phones with the best deal, then you are just making a point about logical consistency that is true, but not all that interesting.  Even people who are totally capitalist, free market nutters do nice things and non-profitable things for some people.  No one is consistent.   No one can live outside existing society.  So do you really think that there is no one who fights capitalism?  If so, I think you should get out a bit more. By the way, I agree that France is very far from being the worst coutnry at competing in the global market for more profit.  Just on the arms export front they are number four, maybe five.  They do very well in retail and energy.  Unlike the Brits, they still make and sell abroad a few cars.  And I am told their McDonalds are the most profitable in Europe.  What does that have to do with the people who fight against capitalism?  The vast majority of French people think, as do the vast majority of Brits that not only is capitalism a fine thing, but that "there is no alternative".  There are, however, a few others living in France, who disagree.  All French are not the same.  More I think of it, this sounds like another thread.  Sorry for the diversion, but I just couldn't resist a reply.

[quote user="Charlotte3"]Our eldest daughter works for the CAB in rural N.Ireland. She works particularly with immigrants who are experiencing problems. She tells us that our little market town is now over run with immigrants from the Balkan states. [/quote] Interesting story.  Must have been repeated throughout, or perhaps not, Northern Ireland.  I guess we have to wait for publication of some kind of data that is actually accurate. But on the down home level, how does a town get "over run"?  I assume that all,or nearly all, the residents stayed there in their own houses.  How was there enough empty housing to accomodate enough new immigrants that would "over run" a place.  Where do they live?  I presume some of them must work?  Is this the case in all the surrounding villages?  Maybe just that one?  I do know that it is quite normal historically for immigrants to go where they have a mate, a fellow villager, a member of the family, etc.  So they are never spread out evenly throughout a country.  But where do they live?   Was there that much unused housing?  Do they squat?  Live in tents or caravans?  How does it work in a small village?  In a big country its hard to figure it all out, but in your daughter's town, it must possible to see things clearly. Thanks for a response.  I always wonder about this use of "over run" and how it can happen.

[quote user="Logan"]I don't accept that a 'have' and 'have not' situation is reasonable. Please explain how you would create incentive without that rational? People need motivation to get them out of bed in the morning. [/quote] Maybe, like most people I know, they like living their life, they like their family, they like their friends, they have food one their table and they get up each morning with no problem.  You are really beyond belief.

[quote user="Logan"]  Of course markets are regulated by governments; of course government benefits from markets. I didn't think I needed to point out the blindingly obvious. In some successful countries such as the USA regulation is relatively light. In France and Germany it’s over the top in my opinion. You suggested the housing market in France should be regulated more than it currently is. In your view this would create more social equality. Did I not understand your point correctly? I disagree fundamentally if that’s what you think. Lighter regulation of markets creates increased prosperity. That battle has been won in all but a few countries. Globalisation of trade means greater competition. To compete in world markets you need less regulation, restrictive practices and a flexible labour market. The world has moved on and no one can buck the dynamics. The only route in my opinion to greater social equality is through hard work and motivation in a free market.  [/quote] You have indeed understood my point.  I think.  I should add that I am not normally an advocate of strong government regulation, its just that I see no other group or organisation that can stop the rampant property speculation and profiteering that goes on in our world.  You know, when I first came to Britain, in 1970, loads of people owned their own homes, but no one knew “the current price”.  Now everyone knows the price and people talk about like its interesting or stimulating.  A house should not be a commodity, any more than health, education, fire fighting, road building, clean water and air, public transport and other common goods.  Your world will turn them all into commodities, for sale to those who have the money.  And those who don't, well, they are not flexible enough, competitive enough, selfish enough ... they are just losers, so let them die, or be ill, or badly housed or without mobility.  Who cares.   My point was that throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century in England, France, Germany and America, governments regulated, controlled, subsidised and protected domestic markets.  This is the way it works.  And the way it still does work, without exception.  The "free market" is not free.  It is controlled in the interests, nearly always, of those that have, and not in the interests of those who have not.  For example, the large, rich farmers in France and Britain get by far the largest subsidies.  Same in Britain.  The tax system always hits the poor harder than the rich, although maybe the middle classes take the biggest hit in some places.  The flexible labour market does not penalise the well off, but makes sure the poorer ones have to take any job at all (McJobs), just to live.  So those who talk about "free market" are simply describing something that does not exist, and never has.  It just gives them the “logic” to commodify more things, and let people be losers and die.   Let me ask you a question.  Would you say that the distribution of income (or wealth) in Britain or America has got worse or better in the last fifty years, or thirty years if you like.  Not the actual amount of money, but the proportions that people actually get.  In other words, simply put, do you think the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer or the reverse or what.  You can choose the world at large, or any country you like.  The debate that has been won, (and I do agree with you there, AT THE MOMENT) just lets the poor get relatively poorer, and the rich get relatively richer.  If that's the world you want, go for it, you are on the winning team.  And if you actually think the rich have got poorer or the poor have got richer, well, I guess you don't look for data, just repeat your mantra.  With all respect, even though I am sure you are nice guy, I doubt if there is much point in carrying on, besides the fact that this is not really on the topic of the thread.  Of course many of the people on this forum are on the comfy end of things, so they are, globally, and maybe even in their neighbourhoods, the rich.   So for most of them what I say is nonsense or irritating or something they don’t want to hear.  In fact, sometimes I wonder why it is that I sit here typing this.  I might not be alone however.  I am not going to change your totally extremist (majority, for sure) view that capitalism, the "free" market, competition, less regulation, and a flexible labour market will bring progress and benefit to all mankind.  I don't think you are right, and you don't think I am right.  So we carry on, each of us on our path.  Mine requires a few hours a week of activism to try and change the trend you love to promote.  Yours, well, I guess you just sit back and enjoy it, ignoring the actual effects on the distribution of wealth , income and opportunities for the losers.  But you are definitely in the majority, especially in Britain.  Here, in France, there is still a bit of resistance to this "new world".  I am glad I live here ... in that respect. So we will just have to disagree.  But do remember that, although we might not win, there is a small and growing number of people who are trying to change the trend you promote.  We might get lucky.  And we might be right.  If you want the last word, its yours.

[quote user="Logan"]You cannot control the free market. Or as one famous lady once said, “If you try and buck the market then the market will buck you”. The market economy is the life blood of the world and you tinker with it at your peril. It’s been tried before and always with disastrous results. To advance yourself materially and provide some financial security you need the market. Without the market we all stagnate. The market rewards those in society who are prepared in their lives to make personal effort and take risks. If you regulate markets you remove individual incentive, inventive creativity and socio- economic progress. I agree that some negative aspects of the market should have some light controls. However I believe that in the end the market regulates itself through simple supply and demand. The rising housing market provides ordinary working people with a future and an opportunity for life enhancement beyond that of their ancestors. In life there will always be winners and losers. The idea that governments should constantly meddle in the free market and in direct consequence our lives, for me is unacceptable and wrong.    [/quote] I would say in reply to you, Logan, that there has never been and never will be any free market anywhere in the world.  Check it out.  Every single government, local and national regulates, subsidises, and controls the market.  It also takes something right out of the market, like education, medical care, fire prevention and often roads or some forms of transport.  Most writers I have ever read also recognise the protectionism and control of the market that all rich countries had during their early industrial history.  Your rather extreme, but eloquent and lyrical view of the history of the world and the working of the market is simply wrong.  But I doubt there is anything that I could say that would change your mind.  Do you honestly think that the British government does not regulate, control and deal with all the aspects of the "market"?  The truth is that I have never in my life come across someone who thinks that what you said is an accurate description of life.  In fact, I think you got me.  Its a joke, right.  I fell for it. Perhaps I could add that I am not against all forms of market, but only extremist, fanatic marketeers.  But I do take the joke.  I just didn't get it.

My problem with this story is two fold.  The second bit is really stupid, full of exaggerations, sad attempts at jokes and levels of maliciousness and selfishness that are beyond the limits.  I guess its just silly.  The first part, The Rest of the World, is simply not true.  In most of the world there are families, communities, welfare states, friends etc who make sure that someone who for reasons of frivolity, reasons of bad luck, reasons of bad health or even reasons of being a bit lazy, do not just DIE.  Depends a bit on the level of wealth whether there is state action or only community and family action.  So the whole story is basically nonsense.  And not even very funny.  Ford Anglia thinks rings with truth.  I suspect he has a tin ear.  Does he not know anyone in his family who is a bit lazy?  Should they die?  Does he not know anyone with serious illness?  Should they die?  Does he not know a single human being who is happy to live on very little money rather than work at a stupid meaningless job for a bit more money?  Has he never met an actual immigrant person who works hard and sends money back to family?  Does he really believe all that stuff?  Does he realy think that all immigrants come to countries like France or Britain for the welfare benefits?  What world does he inhabit?   And I freely admit there are some sleazebags who take advantage of any system, whether it is families, communities, state welfare or whatever.  So what!  Me, I am glad the world is not full of selfish individualists.

Hi Chief, I think you have pinpointed one of the big problems.  How can there be rules so that money is not the only criteria for buying and selling?  Buying and selling anything.   And how can prices be regulated so that they don't go up and up?  On anything.  I can think of no one to do that except elected local or national goverments.   Local governments or national governments make price regulations.  They have also forbidden the sale of certain things, like slaves or in some cases automatic weapons.  It has happened before and still happens with some commodities.  They just forbid prices to go up on housing.   There are various ingenious schemes that can be thought up by anyone who knows that market, but the problem is that ordinary people have to be convinced there is some value other than money, and some calculation other than individual accumulation.  Values like solidarity and equality come to mind.  These days, individualism and getting loadsa money seem to be on top.  People and their governments must recognise that insance housing prices do no one any good, except people who like money.  I have friends who live in London, normal folks, with normal houses.  And they are rich.  Just because they live in London.  This is market madness.  Its not so hard to imagine regulations.  Best to do it nationally, but it can start locally.  For example, how can traffic problems in big cities be solved.  Keep the cars out.  It can be done, but you need to have good public transport.  How to regulate prices?  You just forbid stupid prices.  Don't allow them.  And make sure everyone has a house to live in, even if it is not their ideal house.  Plus spend a bit of time pointing out to people what the advantages of controlling the market are. We sometimes have to remember that Parisians (and no doubt a few Lyonnais, etc) are very much responsible for this house price problem and for the empty hameaux problem.  It not entirely foreigners.  It is, essentially richer people.  People who can buy whatever they want.  The problem at the base of all this is the distribution of wealth.  The more it is unequal, the more the richer people will trample on the poorer.  That is quite normal, to be expected.  In countries where the wealth is more equitalbe, I should think the prices are not qutie so mad.  But I would have to do serious research to find that out.