Free market competition in EU treaty.

[Logan]

Today at the EU summit in Brussels the new French President Nicholas Sarkozy demanded all references to free market competition as the stated aim of the EU be removed from the new EU Constitutional treaty. This treaty has been previously rejected by France and Holland in a referendum. The Politicians are now passing a watered down version through the back door. Very predictable. What part of the word NO don’t they understand? Sarkozy now seems to intend that France will continue with protectionist policies and a restricted free market ethos based on a constitution that voters have not approved. The foundation of the common market as it used to be called was based on free market competition between member states. That is now dead in the water. Why then should Britain remain a member? Blair has given up all the hard fought rebates and has now signed up to a restrictive common market where the protectionist philosophies of socialist dogma can prevail.

I thought Sarkozy was different. He is beginning to show he is simply more of the same. [:(]

[Gluestick]

Come on Logan!

You don't really believe that Free Competition exists in the EU or anywhere else do you?

M. le President Chirac avoided opening up French energy markets most sensibly for years: and if one does not change the core contract the structure is still state controlled.

So-called "Free Competition" is precisely the same as "Free Market" theory: it exists only in the minds of those who seek to unfairly exploit the majority. The UK company Centrica springs to mind.............

 

[Logan]

I do believe some free market competition exists in the EU. However it is restricted to only some areas of the economy and not others. That is my point really, it is an aspirational thing. France is an example of where free market competition is held in check for protectionist reasons. Previously the EU to some extent policed countries who consistently did not toe that line. However I accept it is weak and patchy. Protectionism lies at the heart of French economic and political philosophy. I have been hoping there would be signs that would change under Sarkozy.

The new EU treaty was aspirational in attempting to include undistorted free market competition as a core aim. This aim incidentally was included in the original Treaty of Rome 50 years ago. This has now been removed under pressure from Sarkozy. As a result of that I believe some EU states will continue to resist the advance of competition to their own detriment. The market will however eventually force change through in the face of political obstinacy. I believe its market competition which creates value and choice for the consumer. Interventionist politicians, unions and interest groups hate it because it restricts influence and power.

I don’t know what you mean by the statement “So-called "Free Competition" is precisely the same as "Free Market" theory: it exists only in the minds of those who seek to unfairly exploit the majority.”

Free market competition and deregulation has the opposite effect in my opinion. It liberates the majority and gives us all value and freedom of choice.

See this link:- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1975217.ece

[Gluestick]

[quote]The new EU treaty was aspirational in attempting to include unfettered free market competition as a core aim. [/quote]

Just like 99% of ideaology from politicians.

When Thatcher negotiated Britain's terms in exchange for Spain's Green Aid package, she and her team believed fondly that the open borders would result in a flood of british banks and insurers enjoying a boom time in Europe. Huh!

People consistently forget national devotion to their home brands and institutions.

If an example of Free Market Theory and Free Market Competition is represented by the UK's energy suppliers not much more needs to be said!

Sadly in a World where most markets are totally contrived (e.g.s diamonds; oil and gas; coffee, cocoa; etc), it is hard if not impossible to actually indentify any open market. Take food; Tesco in Britain dominate to the point where they now call the shots to producers! It is impossible to any smaller business to compete, as Tesco and their ilk have sewn up the available land.

If one examines the effective state hegemonies of Italy, Spain, Germany etc as well as France, it makes a nonsense of any EU claims to effective regulation of competition!

Interesting that the late Sir James Goldsmith in his book The Trap, like so many, advocated protectionism for Europe; the spectre of a French-based Enron, centred around the idle philosophy of stealing EDF-GDF's assets base (which has been paid for by the French tax payer!) and exploiting the effective cheap energy resource by re-selling elsewhere in Europe and ramping domestic prices would destroy the French social state and economy; as those foolish enough to have moved outside EDF's state-protected pricing structure have already found out to their cost!

 

[Logan]

If an example of Free Market Theory and Free Market Competition is represented by the UK's energy suppliers not much more needs to be said!

Actually Gluestick if you go to a UK energy comparison web site and compare the costs with those of EDF in France you might be suprised. It's very difficult of course to hone it down to real like for like, exchange rates etc but not impossible if you have a few hours to spare! I found that some UK energy suppliers come under the costs of EDF in France. TVA and the infamous 'contribution to infrastructure' makes at least EDF comparable with the UK. 

People consistently forget national devotion to their home brands and institutions.

That's because marketing in areas of little or restrictive areas of Europe is limited. Therefore customers go with what's familar.

EDF are doing very well thank you in UK and benefiting from market de-regulation. I wonder if that will happen for others in France once the energy market is opened up. I doubt it. As a result of this new treaty the stone walling will continue.

[Gluestick]

I wish you could persaude British gas to be more competitive!

Not only have they lied to me: they have mispresented their charges! Which shot up to the stratosphere last year and early this. They were simply following the oil majors and "Stiffing" consumers, using the basis of the spot market gas prices; neatly ignoring that they were buying under term contracts.................at far lower (-80% >) prices.

All now a matter of a formal complaint with the regulator.

People tend to stick with their home brands from ethnicity and national loyalty; that's why large US companies trying to ride roughshod over local businesses develop such a bad reputation.

 

[WJT]

Logan, I too am very disappointed in Sarkozy. I thought he would be different but he is just more of the same, as you said. [:(]

It is very sad for the millions of French that voted for him and was hoping for a change. I have never been one for tit for tat but it really doesn't seem fair that French companies such as EDF have the luxury of doing business in the UK and other countries but France may not allow the same.

[Gluestick]

[quote] it really doesn't seem fair that French companies such as EDF have the luxury of doing business in the UK and other countries but France may not allow the same.[/quote]

Fair? What is really fair in economics and politics?

When Thatcher foolishly decided to flog off the family silver, Japanese institutions stagged every flotation, particularly British Gas and BT.

When Nippon Telegraph and Telephone where floated, most sensibly, non-Japanese investors were precluded from bidding! There was no real reciprocity.

Who were the capital and economic mugs?

If you look at most major British utility companies, they have been bought and sold between French, German, Australian and whatever owners and are now inceasingly being bought up by private equity buyers: to the whole and total detriment of the British consumer.

And this is smart? And, of course, this is precisely what US and UK capital market wheeler dealers want for France; state assets "In Play" in order that they can extort more millions, ruin the operation for the end consumer and scuttle off to Switzerland or Monaco to avoid paying sensible and fair taxes on their millions of ill gotten gains.

As the UK Revenue and Customs has just started to realise!

Interesting article here: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=25665

 

[Logan]

I suspect Glustick has an anti-globalist agenda. I do not. I believe in a global market place but ONLY when there is a level playing field. The French do not philosophically embrace globalism. The idea runs contrary to every sinu and fabric of the country. So they form cartels and adopt the bits that suit and block the rest. So far France has been allowed to get away with it. Hence Sarkozy trying to stitch up this treaty with the removal of free market capitalism as a core EU value. Apparently Merkel and he did a deal and it was only noticed by accident and late in the day that the clause was missing in the draft treaty. In any subsequent legal move to prevent France blocking attempts to modernise and deregulate their industries they have a legal device in this reformed treaty. That’s why it was done. It is simply untenable to allow France and also Italy to resist foreign buy out’s of their public quoted companies. I believe Glustick is completely wrong in suggesting this results in exploitation. What it does do is modernise companies into leaner more efficient enterprises capable of being competitive in today’s modern world. I am sure Gluestick can quote examples of where things went wrong due to poor management such as Centrica. However this is meaningless unless the contrary example of success are placed along side for comparison. The list is long.

Sarkozy showing his colours:- http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2701327.ece

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Logan"]

I suspect Glustick has an anti-globalist agenda. [/quote]

 

Not at all: I am against non-empiricism.

After 25 years of analysing global economies and business, providing international consulting services and writing and lecturing on this area to MBA level, I have a raft of actual examples.

The core problem with globalisation in it current incarnation is that it does indeed stand for and demonstrate blind exploitation with little or no sympathy to extant ethnicity and social structure.

France is fundamentally a working man's state: and more strength to its elbow! Unlike the UK it does not want to become yet another remote quasi-US state, awash with tasteless manufactured junk food, brainless and uncultured populace who are glued to their 50 cycle flicker boxes enraptured by celebdom extolling the non-existant virtues of pointless intellectual lightweights.

Unlike either the USA or UK, France actually still enjoys a pretty effective industrial base.

In an age where silicon engineering is critical to both self-defence and strategic economic stability, the UK has not one serious silicon foundry! Not one!

Interesting that IMOS's core asset, the Transputer, was acquired by Thorn-Emi and allowed to be acquired by what is now SGS-Thompson, which is now a top ten global business in various divisions.

Even the mighty USA puts out a majority of its silicon now to such as Taiwan Semi Conductor (the largest silicon foundry in the World!) and Korea. Dangerous.

Renault (Formula One) and Rover and Detroit. Nuff said.

France does not want its culture and regional difference homogonised: example, Anheuser Butsch and Budweiser and what they are attempting to do in destroying Eastern European beer.

Globalisation in its current incarnation means using internation capital markets to make a few mega-wealthy, whilst at the same time destroying social bases, throwing hundreds of thousands onto the employment scrapheap (having cynically exploited them firstly!), stealing state owned assets and thereafter stripping them.

In its current form, globalisation has about as much to recommend it as does the idiot Lord Stokes's much vaunted trumpetings on economies of scale; as he went about ruining Britain's motor industry.

Having a global basis for true free trade, or agreed tariff basis trade (such as EFTA, ACP et al)  is a wholly different animal to the current post GATT, WTO encapsulation of globalisation. Japan didn't allow reciprocity; China and India don't currently.

Of course they don't! They are too busy building an industrial power base and amassing massive capital reserves! Anyone who honestly believes they might, has been reading too many theoretical text books written by professional academics!

It is very nice to have good ideas: in the harsh real World in which I live they rarely if ever actually work.

Russia was led rather stupidly(which is not totally surprising of course, as its then president was a raging dypso out of his skull on over-proof vodka when he was actually awake!),  to adopt the concept of Saatchiesque "Privatisation" of state owned assets, by a Harvard academic, who also encouraged Russia to change the currency overnight!

What a surprise that these assets gravitated to mainly Mafiya figures who all then smuggled out billions of billions of US dollars and took up residence mainly in the UK where they are tax evaders. Vladamir Putin has the uneviable task, now, of wresting back as many of these assets as possible, for the long-term benefit of Russia, rather than the short-term benefit of a few emigreé oligarchs.

[quote] So far France has been allowed to get away with it. Hence Sarkozy trying to stitch up this treaty with the removal of free market capitalism as a core EU value. Apparently Merkel and he did a deal and it was only noticed by accident and late in the day that the clause was missing in the draft treaty. In any subsequent legal move to prevent France blocking attempts to modernise and deregulate their industries they have a legal device in this reformed treaty. [/quote]

So, who is smart?

Of course France resists anything which threatens their continuum!

The UK's idiot politicians, from Heath onwards didn't bother to check half the wording of the treaties they have signed and in process given away swathes of the UK's independance and sovereignty in the process!

When I went back to full time education in the early 70s (Management School), one core subject was the EEC and one lecturer, Phil Howard was a customs officer who had lead Britain's contingent on negotiations over the Brussels Nomenclature.

And Phil spoke not a word of French!

The Telecommunication Treaty was another wonderful example of Whitehall's sheer brilliance! When Red Hot Dutch  started beaming satellite porn TV at the UK, Thatcher was outraged! To be quietly told that it was her minister who had agreed and signed off on the treaty! Which allowed such programmes.

Pathetic!

Bearing in mind that he was an arch capitalist and an early globalist, I do commend you read the writings of Sir James Goldsmith MEP in "The Trap" and the concept of Fortress Europe.

Amongst others...............................

Or like me, you could study Stakeholder Theory and realise that globalisation has already killed itself by greed and amorality.

 

[Logan]

Some interesting ideas and theories Glustick. The trouble with the world is that in practical use theories often and invariably don’t work. Or they are adapted to fit diverse and changing circumstances. Politics is often described as the art of the possible. Business is essentially also just that plus the art of what you can get away with. These motivations are similar, unattractive and yet indispensable to our economic life. I believe the benefits of globalisation override the unattractive side effects, real though they may be and painful to some. All economic systems have their downsides it's just a question of degree and acceptability. 

The real point about Sarkozy’s recent behaviour is that it’s not fair. France wants to be a member of a club, reap all the benefits but not take part in any obligations. That cannot be right. That is power without responsibility. It’s not acceptable in my view to simply cherry pick the goodies and then fend off all the undesirable side effects of being part of a collective global venture. That is also amoral. The EU is plainly a collection of capitalist free market states that operate a competitive economic system. That’s the rules. No propping up ailing companies with state aid, no state golden share holding to prevent corporate take over’s. Sarkozy seems to want to allow France to be an island in this sea of conformity to protect an outdated vision of what you describe as a “working mans state.” I believe that the market will in the end force France off its perch or the ongoing slide into decline will continue.  

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Logan"]

Some interesting ideas and theories Glustick. The trouble with the world is that in practical use theories often and invariably don’t work. Or they are adapted to fit diverse and changing circumstances. Politics is often described as the art of the possible. Business is essentially also just that plus the art of what you can get away with. These motivations are similar, unattractive and yet indispensable to our economic life. I believe the benefits of globalisation override the unattractive side effects, real though they may be and painful to some. All economic systems have their downsides it's just a question of degree and acceptability. [/quote]

 

How did I start my last post?

 

Empiricism! What's that got to do with theories? Did you actually read what I wrote?[8-)]

 

Apparently not!

 

[quote] The real point about Sarkozy’s recent behaviour is that it’s not fair. France wants to be a member of a club, reap all the benefits but not take part in any obligations. That cannot be right. That is power without responsibility. It’s not acceptable in my view to simply cherry pick the goodies and then fend off all the undesirable side effects of being part of a collective global venture. That is also amoral. The EU is plainly a collection of capitalist free market states that operate a competitive economic system. That’s the rules. No propping up ailing companies with state aid, no state golden share holding to prevent corporate take over’s. Sarkozy seems to want to allow France to be an island in this sea of conformity to protect an outdated vision of what you describe as a “working mans state.” I believe that the market will in the end force France off its perch or the ongoing slide into decline will continue. [/quote]  

 

Of course the EEC and the EU are not fair! That's precisely why the UK ought never to have joined on the terms and conditions it did, with the UK's economy in the mess it was in at the time!

How can any system be "Fair" when Commissioners are not elected and thus not accountable! When no one is prepared to sign off its acounts!

None of this is cricket: it's all about winning! Period.

Sadly, you seem determined to cling on to the myth of the markets, when any reasonable level of analysis will rapidly provide you the evidence that there aint no such thing as a free market! What there is is a series of cabals and illegal combinations aimed at fixing prices and supply.

Further, you want to believe that France is doomed and on some accelerating downwards path economically and socially. If you have bothered to read the article I earlier referenced by Higgins, you would soon see that France is streets ahead of both the USA and the UK (both which boast of free markets!), in various ways and according to various denominators including child poverty.

[quote] Sarkozy seems to want to allow France to be an island in this sea of conformity to protect an outdated vision of what you describe as a “working mans state.” I believe that the market will in the end force France off its perch or the ongoing slide into decline will continue.  [/quote] 

 Fine words and rounded rhetoric which could almost have emerged from a New Labour politician!

But tosh! What "Sea of conformity"??

How can you, for example, try and compare India and China (the two fastest growing global economies) with the USA for example? You can't! Anymore than Japanese industrial management systems can be transplanted and grafted onto UK or European models.

Conformity? Globally, despite huge US influence via the International Accounting Standards Association, there isn't even one standard for corporate reporting! And there never will be, as laws are far too diverse, state by state.

The only probably conformity is the simultaneous greed and short sight demonstrated by the  international capital markets!

Have you seen, for example, how many billions of write down provision HSBC has made over its crazy US exposure recently?

 

 

 

[Logan]

 

 Wikipedia writes thus:-

In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.

OR:-

In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.

You have a very combatative style of writing Glustick. Unlike you I have no wish to emphasise that my views are an example of an absolute truth. I simply would like to float discussion which may give me or others ideas or food for thought. I don’t agree with your analysis of the world economy or your vision of French society. Some of your ideas are interesting and I may follow up some of the principals.

In the meantime you might find that communication and debate is more satisfactorily conducted without polemics.

 

[Bugsy]

Just a quick thank you to Logan & Gluestick.

This thread is streets ahead of the 'Readers Digest' Enrich your Word Power feature................[geek]

[Clair]

I have to admit I lost interest some posts ago...[8-)]

[Gluestick]

I don't mean to be combative, Logan and if so I apologise.

Most of the time I can't really be bothered to become embroiled in this stuff anymore as I focus on other things these days.

However I am a member of a major US based initiative which seeks new wave concepts and ideas outside the established and quite obviously failed economic and social hegemonies. Interestingly the founder and his wife are billionaires but gifted most of their money to this foundation.

Most of the thinkers involved seek fresh ideas and Stake Holder Theory is just one.

Yes, I do become somewhat exercised when I read the same old tired myths being perpetuated! I admit this!

I have done my share of arguing with idiot politicians to expect no miracles of any of them: and to not be dissappointed when they screw up and renege on their promises; expediently of course!

 

[Paysages de France]

Why does Clair's post not surprise me?

   Gluestick, you are pretty much on the right track in my view except that you have made no mention of the fact that the quasi sect like allegiance of all the major politicians and their parties to continued economic growth is leading us all down a short, rocky  path to planetary disaster.

  As I've said before, I'm actively involved in the Décroissance movement in France.  'Décroissance' (for once a French word that is more concise than its English equivalent - 'abandon of economic growth') -.

Décroissance is a shock word that is used to counter the religious

fervour of the partisans of economic growth ('croissance', in French).

Serge Latouch, one of the theoricians of the French décroissance

movement, prefers to speak of acroissance (as in atheism).

Continual economic growth on a finite planet is impossible.

Economic growth is untranslatable in the non -european languages -

but it has been a virtual state religion for three hundred years in the

industrialised countries.

The planet has received several 'pedagogical' warnings these past

20 years starting with Chernobyl and including the mad cow disease and

Hurricane Mitch.

Mankind is adapting slowly and GM crops for instance are largely

rejected in europe and our eating habits have changed as a result of

health scares. (traceability, adoption of organic foods etc).

To continue to prescribe economic growth in the face of the

climatic change caused by our inconsiderate use of natural resources

you have to be either mad or an economist.

        Will you please check out the views of the few dissenters like Serge Latouch, who are fast becoming prophets .

       Your arguments are interesting but to completely ignore the threat to mankind's continued existence that the present worldwide economic growth poses (or the slightly watered down 'developpement durable' version) gives me the impression that you are far from being rationnally minded - and your above debate is invalidated by your blindness to the fact that the world's population is already living on borrowed time.

   

[Gluestick]

When writing on matters of the economy, I have in fact highlighted the facile reality of the continual strive for growth in the post Keynsian economic model.

One example I use, is the USA.

If their oil imports stop, then the US economy can last circa six weeks (including access to the Reagan inspired SOR) before it all grinds to a halt and growing civil unrest leads to anarchy.

One of the core problems has been the shift to fiat currencies: without minimal annual growth of 2-3.5% the USA is dead: and worse, the resulting Domino Effect topples the global financial and fiscal systems! Fun!

In a Micro as against Macro Economic sense this effect can be seen in UK Council Tax: circa 35-40% of Gross Income is being used to fund extant pension commitments. Which is precisely why it has risen and risen so far above the core rate of admitted inflation (based RPI).

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6232734.stm

The main problem with most Western economies has been deficit financing; with the USA being the worst culprit.

But there, Paysages de France, you have started me off again when I determined to focus on plumbing and bricolage and I am boring Clair again!

[IMG]http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i278/Michaeleff/smiliefrvnad.gif[/IMG]

 

[chris pp]

By and large I'm in agreement with PDF and Gluestick, and no, I'm not bored....but I can't really see how France is any different, its National debt is truly enormous (to the money men) and it's as much part of the globalisation scam as any other Country except that it protects some of its prized "possessions". It's environmental policies are crap (that's a technical term) and it has a corrupt ruling elite.

The debt of a Country is shared by all the population, so although I have no personal debt I am saddled with the debt of the Nation, basically I don't own my house and land, it's in hock to the bankers via the French State debt.

Chris

[Paysages de France]

 There's something important to add  concerning France - its leaders are scared stiff of  their fellow countrymen This is probably  a throwback to the revolution of 1789 and the chaos and terror that followed.

       Everything is done to mimimize the importance of events that could have an effect on the population (ex. Chernobyl, asbestos related illnesses, blood transfusion scandal, aids information - up till 1992). An elite, based in Paris, is well informed and the rest of the population is pretty much kept in the dark about most situations.

     Up until fairly recently, French TV was one of the most consensual and timid in europe.

 Revealing documentaries (sometimes Frenchmade these days)  are only just beginning to be broadcast at peak viewing times.

 .

[Paysages de France]

Lets hope that Clair is safely at home watching TF1

Would the West actually be happier with less? The world

downscaled

By Serge Latouche, Le Monde diplomatique, December

2003

What if the very idea of growth—accumulating riches, destroying

the environment and worsening social inequality—is a trap? Maybe

we need to aim to create a society that is based on quality not

quantity, on cooperation and not competition.

PRESIDENT George Bush told leading meteorologists last year:

Economic growth is the key to environmental progress, because it is

growth that provides the resources for investment in clean

technologies. Growth is the solution, not the problem (1). That is

not only a rightwing position: the principle is shared by much of the

left. Even many anti-globalisation activists see growth as the

solution for the world, expecting it to create jobs and provide for a

fairer distribution of wealth.

Fabrice Nicolino, an environment reporter, recently resigned from the

Parisian weekly Politis (which is close to the anti-globalisation

movement) after an internal dispute over pension reform, an issue that

has dominated French politics (2). The debate that followed

illustrates the left's malaise (3). As a reader put it, the

conflict happened because Nicolino had dared to go against an

orthodoxy common to almost the entire French political class, which

says the only way to happiness must be through more growth, more

productivity, more purchasing power and more consumption (4).

After several decades of frenetic wastefulness storm clouds

threaten. As our climate becomes increasingly unstable, we are

fighting oil wars. Water wars will no doubt follow (5), along with

pandemics and the extinction of essential plant and animal species

through foreseeable biogenetic disasters. In these conditions the

expansive and expanding growth society is neither sustainable nor

desirable. We must urgently consider how to create a society of

contraction and how to downscale as serenely and convivially as

possible.

The growth society is dominated and often obsessed by growth

economics. It makes growth for growth's sake the essential aim of

life, if not its only aim. This is unsustainable because it pushes the

limits of the biosphere. Calculating the impact of our lifestyle on

the environment in terms of how much of the Earth's surface each

person's consumption uses reveals a way of life unsustainable in

equal rights to natural resources and those resources' capacity

for regeneration. The average person in the United States consumes 9.6

hectares, in Canada 7.2 and in Europe 4.5. We are a long way from

planetary equality and even further from a sustainable civilisation

which would require consumption levels below 1.4 hectares—even

before accounting for population change.

TO RECONCILE the contradictory imperatives of growth and

environmentalism, experts think they have found a magic formula,

ecoefficiency—the centrepiece of the argument for

sustainable development and its only credible aspect. The idea is

progressively to reduce the intensity and impact of our use of natural

resources until it reaches a level compatible with the Earth's

recognised maximum capacity (7).

There have been improvements in ecological efficiency. But they have

been accompanied by extreme growth, so that our overall impact on the

environment has actually worsened. More products on the market cancel

out the reduced impact of each individual item—the rebound

effect. And though the new economy is relatively immaterial or anyway

less material, it does not so much replace the old economy as complete

it. All indicators show that our consumption of resources continues to

rise (8). It takes the unshakeable faith of an orthodox free-market

economist to believe that in future science will find solutions to all

our problems and that nature can endlessly be replaced by artifice.

The planned demise of the growth society would not necessarily be

grim. Ivan Illich once wrote that it wasn't just to avoid the

negative side-effects of an otherwise good thing that we had to

renounce our current lifestyle, as though choosing between the

pleasure of a tasty dish and its risks. The dish itself was

intrinsically disgusting and we would be happier without it. We need

to live differently to live better (9).

The growth society causes inequality and injustice to rise; the

well-being it does produce is often illusory; even for the rich,

society is neither convivial nor agreeable, but an anti-society, sick

with its own wealth. The high quality of life that most people in the

North believe that they enjoy is increasingly an illusion. They may

spend more on consumer goods and services, but they forget to deduct

the costs of these things: reductions in the quality of life because

of poor air and water and a degraded environment. These increase the

costs of modern living (medicine, transport), including that of

products made scarcer (water, energy, open spaces).

Herman Daly has devised a measure, the genuine progress indicator,

that adjusts a country's gross domestic product according to the

losses from pollution and environmental degradation. In the US this

indicator has shown stagnation and decline since the 1970s while GDP

has risen continuously (10). Growth under these conditions is a

myth, even in well-to-do economies and advanced consumer societies.

Increase is more than compensated for by decrease.

So we are heading fast and straight for the wall without an escape

route. We need to be clear about this. Downscaling our economy is a

necessity. It is not an ideal, not the only objective of a post-

development society or of that alternative world we believe

possible. Let us make a virtue of necessity and consider the

advantages of downscaling (11) for people in the North.

Adopting the word downscale will underline that we are giving

up the senseless doctrine of growth for growth's sake.

Downscaling must not be confused with negative growth, which is an

oxymoron: it means progressing backwards. What the French call

décroissance does not have an easy English equivalent since shrinkage,

decrease and reduction all have negative connotations that

décroissance, which means de-growth, does not. This says a lot about

the psychological domination of free-market economics.

We have seen how even a slowdown in the rate of growth plunges our

societies into disarray, causing unemployment and destroying social,

cultural and environmental programmes that maintain at least the

basics of a decent life for most people. So what would happen if the

growth rate were actually negative? Like a work-based society without

work, there would be nothing worse than a growth society without

growth. The mainstream left will remain trapped within this thinking

unless it can radically revise its most deeply held beliefs.

Downscaling can only be thought about in the context of a non-growth

society, which we should attempt to define. The policy could start by

reducing or removing the environmental impact of activities that bring

no satisfaction. Many areas are crying out for downscaling: we could

review the need for so much movement of people and goods across the

planet and relocalise our economies, drastically reducing pollution

and other negative effects of long-distance transport. We could

question the need for so much invasive, often corrosive,

advertising. We could ask ourselves how many disposable products have

any real reason to be disposable, other than to feed the mass

production machine.

Decrease does not necessarily mean a reduction in well-being. In

1848, when Karl Marx declared that the time was ripe for social

revolution, he believed everything was in place for the communist

society to be one of abundance. The astonishing overproduction of

cotton fabric and manufactured goods was more than enough to feed,

house and clothe the population, at least in the West. Yet there was

far less material wealth then than there is now—no cars, planes,

plastic, computers, biotechnology, pesticides, chemical fertilisers or

nuclear energy. Despite the unprecedented upheavals of the industrial

revolution, the needs of mid-19th century society were modest, and

happiness, or at least the material basis of happiness, seemed within

reach.

To imagine and construct a downscaled society that works, we must go

beyond the economy. We must challenge its domination of the rest of

life, in theory and in practice, and above all in our minds. An

essential element will be the imposition of a massive reduction in

working hours to guarantee everyone a satisfying job. As early as 1981

Jacques Ellul, one of the first thinkers to propose downscaling,

suggested that no one should work more than two hours a day (12).

Another starting point could be the treaty on consumption and

lifestyle drawn up by the NGO forum at the 1992 United Nations Earth

summit in Rio, which proposed the Six Rs programme: re-evaluation,

restructuring, redistribution, reduction, reuse and recycling. These

objectives could lead to a virtuous circle of cooperation and

sustainability. We could add more to the list: re-education,

reconversion, redefinition, remodel ling, rethinking and relocating.

THE problem is that values currently domin ant, including selfishness,

the work ethic and the spirit of competition, have grown out of the

system, which in turn they reinforce. Personal ethical choices to

live more simply can affect trends and weaken the system's

psychological bases, but a concerted radical challenge is needed to

effect anything more than limited change.

Will this be dismissed as a grandiose utopian idea? Is any transition

possible without violent revolution: or rather, can the psychological

revolution we need be achieved without violent disruptions?

Drastically reducing environmental damage does mean losing the

monetary value in material goods. But it does not necessarily mean

ceasing to create value through non-material products. In part, these

could keep their market forms. Though the market and profit can still

be incentives, the system must no longer revolve around them.

Progressive measures, stages along the way, can be envisaged, though

it is impossible to say whether those who would lose from such

measures would accept them passively, or even whether the system's

present victims—drugged by it, mentally and

physically—would accept its removal.

[Clair]

[quote user="Gluestick"]... and I am boring Clair again! [/quote]

[:)] Gluestick, the topic is interesting, but to be truthful, the bit where you and Logan where trying to impress each other with your economics knowledge turned me off the thread! It reminded me too much of my uni lectures...

I 'll catch up when the flu is over...[:(]

[Gluestick]

The last thing I need to do these days (or want to which is probably more important to me!) Clair, is attempt to impress anyone.

Far from trying to impress Logan, I was arguing against his series of standard myths concerning the Free Market and the amazing benefits of globalisation.

And when I argue, (in a debative sense) I  use empirical examples, rather than rely on words like politicians!

 

[Gluestick]

Chris:

All Western states with the exceptions of a few (Switzerland etc) demonstrate huge national debts. The UK and USA being amongst the worst.

At least in France, however, they enjoy one of the best health services anywhere: SNCF is arguably the best railroad system globally (in a total sense and price, reliability, punctuality and cleanliness terms) and the road system is extraordinary.All of which has cost and still costs.

On the environment of course I agree: again all Western states only actually play lip service to the ecology.

France is no worse than most! But could be much better: can't they all!

To me, the main saving grace of France is that the majority can still exercise their citizenship by bringing the country to a standstill and gaining the instant attention of the politicians. Oh that the UK could do the same!

However, the last abortive fuel protest demonstrated how far along Fuhrer BLiar and his Storm Troopers have come in turning what was once the parliamentary envy of the World into a fascist state. Brown's automatic rise to the throne and BLiar's treachery over the EU constitution being excellent examples!

 

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Paysages de France"] There's something important to add  concerning France - its leaders are scared stiff of  their fellow countrymen This is probably  a throwback to the revolution of 1789 and the chaos and terror that followed.
       Everything is done to mimimize the importance of events that could have an effect on the population (ex. Chernobyl, asbestos related illnesses, blood transfusion scandal, aids information - up till 1992). An elite, based in Paris, is well informed and the rest of the population is pretty much kept in the dark about most situations.
     Up until fairly recently, French TV was one of the most consensual and timid in europe.
 Revealing documentaries (sometimes Frenchmade these days)  are only just beginning to be broadcast at peak viewing times.
[/quote]

To me, there is no excuse these days for ignorance of common facts as so much is accessable in the public domain. (And pre-interent I was able to be better informed on current affairs than most for my professional work and writing than most by reading and researching on an eclectic basis.) To me, the average Brit, today is more ignorant than ever, being totally so pre-occupied with celebdom, soap operas and football. That's how Blair managed to pull the wool over their eyes repeatedly: and get re-elected!

Scared of their fellow countrymen?

Surely, the fact that the absolute right to free demonstration is enshrined in the code of the Fifth Republic is precisely why French politicians are wary of the electors? As Dominique de Villepin and Lionel Jospin discovered!

And this is one of the things I really like about France: to me, most o the French are only really concerned with how their commune is run and will vote the Mayor back in if he or she does a bang up job. If not: out!