France's political crisis grows as 3 million take to streets

Police fought running battles with rioters in central Paris last night as youths attacked officers with bangers, bottles and concrete at the end of a mass demonstration against a youth employment law that has caused a political crisis for Jacques Chirac's ruling party.

Trade unionists and student leaders said up to three million people took to the streets across France yesterday - the second time in eight days that the country has seen its biggest street demonstrations in almost 40 years. The protests, including one by hundreds of thousands of students and scholars who marched through central Paris, were mainly peaceful.
Read More

I can not contain my chortles watching france burn. It will be fun to see who tears down the france first; the communist or the muslims.

I'm personally rooting for the muslims, it would be great to see france under sharia law.

I feel the same way about the U.S.A, ElTiante. Lots of fun watching you ridicule others troubles' when you've got enough of your own; Gives me something to do when Hockey seasons over and I'm downing beers and eating bacon. Personally, I hope the good ol' reds bring you down; Preferably starting with your house, then the white house...and mabye then leaving the rest of the decent and compassionate American civies alone.

I would love to see America without ignorami such as yourself. Perhaps when the protests and riots are on your street you will have a change of perspective and grow up, but I think that may be asking too much. You'll probably just curl up into a ball and cry for your mommy.

What makes YOU so mighty as to revel in the misfortunes of millions of Frenchmen? What have YOU done to make your country a workers paradise? When was the last time YOU excercised your right to demonstrate? When will you grow up and get on the side of humanity instead of playing the imaginary lines on a map discrimination game? Is it gonna be when your play pen gets flipped over and you find yourself in the big bad world without the protection you now enjoy? It's probably gonna be too late by then.

When it does happen, I won't be laughing or enjoying your pain from the comfort of my home. In fact, I'll probably be in the same kettle of fish as you. Excercise a bit of empathy in the realization that YES, Frenchmen are just like you, flawed but human (flawed=human?). So come on. I mean...come on...

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 6-4-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I dislike france because they are an enemy of America. France is LITTERED with American dead. They died to liberate those ungrateful vermin from nazi occupation. In payment, france has consistently opposed America. In fact, they see themselves as leading American opposition. Remember when france would not allow US F-111 to use french airspace to attack Lybia? That is not the behavior of an allie.

With regards to America troubles; what are you talking about? GDP is chugging along at nearly 4%, unemployment is 4.6% the stock market is at its highest levels in more than 5 years. The deficit will be cut in half from it peak by ’08 and while the debt is large, as a percent of GDP is quite manageable. This economy is roaring along despite a stock market crash, terrorist attacks, oil shocks and a war. By virtually any economic measure the US is burying europe




The US has an immigration problem, but unlike the violent, dispossessed muslim diaspora in france, illegals in the US want to work and be Americans. Witness; despite 12+ million illegals in the US, the crime rate has been dropping for more than ten years.



[edit on 6-4-2006 by ElTiante]

[edit on 6-4-2006 by ElTiante]

What could have been an interesting discussion about France's domestic troubles has been sidetracked with rant-like posts. :shk:

So, I'm moving this to Slug-Fest.

Originally posted by ElTiante
I dislike france because they are an enemy of America.

France is not an enemy of America. France is merely an enemy of President Bush.

So am I.

Great post, ElTiante. Since nobody else took the time to comment on it, I'm glad someone finally posted the truth about our economy. Most people just like to assume, because of what they've heard from the news and comedians, etc., that our economy is going down the tubes. In reality, as you have demonstrated, it is not. If I might ask, where did you find your statistics? I'd love to have them for future reference.

Thanks,

Here you go:
www.optimist123.com...

Check out his dept and GDP clock. You’ll see the debt is SHRINKING as a % of GDP (which is the only meaningful measure)

America has the largest, most efficient, most productive economy on earth. Given all of the hurdles America has face in the last 6 years; American economic performance is nothing short of astounding. It offers stark testimony to the power of the individual when free of the shackles of government.

Average growth during the Bush admin has EXCEED that of the “boom” Clinton years. Of course you won’t hear this because the leftist media hates Bush and desire a return of democrat control of Washington.

The poison that is socialism is working its magic in eruope and especially france. A government that punishes success and rewards lay-abouts has created a lazy populace that seems to believe they’re owed a living at someone else’s expense.

A cradle to grave welfare systems require a growing populace and because nihilistic, post Christian Europe won’t have children; they’ve been force to import a violent 5th column.

Good luck that that euros.

France aren't your enemy. Without France, there wouldn't even be an America. True enough, you did help out the allies in WW2. A little late, but who cares right?

The riots in France are due to rising unemployment, thanks to corruption within their government and the Euro. Folk are entitled to have jobs. If they stay silent and do nothing, they die. This has been bubbling for years in France, thanks to them closing their eyes to the problems that were affecting France, the underlying racisim and all doesn't help either. Folk want a fair deal and have a right to live on a good enough wage to live by.

What's wrong with that?

"We are in a war with America, a permanent war."---former French President Francois Mitterand

From the Deerfield Massacre in 1704 to Citizen Genet, to the XYZ Affair of 1797-1798, to spoiling the Versailles treaty, to Vichy france, to hosting the Ayatollah Khomeini, to forbidding frech airspace to US bombers , to oil-for food to today france has never turned down an opportunity to oppose America.

When the mullahs take over frogs, America won’t be coming to your rescue AGAIN. Count on it.

Originally posted by ElTiante
America has the largest,

True.

most efficient,

Not even close.

most productive

Depends on how you measure productivity. In total production, yes; that's another way of saying it's the largest. In production per person-hour, no. In production per dollar invested, no.

economy on earth. Given all of the hurdles America has face in the last 6 years; American economic performance is nothing short of astounding. It offers stark testimony to the power of the individual when free of the shackles of government.

Surely you jest. The American economy, "free of the shackles of government"? Considering the amount spent every year on business subsidies, and the government efforts encouraging the flight of capital overseas to countries where workers' rights are not respected, that's an absurd characterization.

If you want to see an economy free of the shackles of government, I think you'd need to go to -- let me see -- how about the Bushmen of the Kalahari? Or perhaps if you can find an Australian aborigine tribe still living an indigenous lifestile. Or the Eskimos.

Average growth during the Bush admin has EXCEED that of the “boom” Clinton years.

Total nonsense. The Bush administration years included a steep recession in his first term. No one of any brains would EXPECT the economy during his administration to exceed the Clinton years in growth, nor is that necessarily a reflection on Bush.

Besides, essentially the same economic policies have been in place during both administrations, the differences being only in trivial details, so what would it indicate even if it were true, which it's not?

Also, weren't you trying to be boosterish about America? And wasn't Bill Clinton the president of the U.S.? Not as if he were some kind of foreigner.

Certainly he's not French.

Of course you won’t hear this because the leftist media

Dontcha just love this?

Care to identify the "leftist media" so I can check 'em out? I've heard rumors of the beast before, but certainly never encountered it myself.

hates Bush and desire a return of democrat control of Washington.

The American media are a mouthpiece for corporate control of the government. Bush exemplifies that. Unfortunately, so did Clinton. As long as the Democrats in control in Washington were in the Clinton mold, the media, like the rest of corporate America, wouldn't give too hoots about it one way or the other.

A government that punishes success and rewards lay-abouts has created a lazy populace that seems to believe they’re owed a living at someone else’s expense.

Well, we have that here, too, only in the U.S., it's the big corporations who have that kind of entitlement thinking and demand special privileges in law and hefty government subsidies.

Wow two steps, what a impressive collection of lies you got there!

The most meaningful measure economic efficiency is per capita GDP. As of 2005 the US had a capita GDP is $42000 (2005) Look here (CIA Fact Book)
That make the US #1 ( among the many, many things in which the US is #1)

I shall address the rest later when I have more time, as I am going out to dinner with the GF.

Originally posted by WithinyouWithoutyou
Gives me something to do when Hockey seasons over

A TRUE hockey fan knows that hockey season is never really over.
The summer is when we watch all the games that we have taped
during the winter!! We HAVE to tape them... we'd never make
it through the summer without the tapes!!

HOCKEY RULES!!

Edited to add - and we have STANLEY!! ha ha ha

[edit on 4/7/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by ElTianteThe most meaningful measure economic efficiency is per capita GDP.

No, it's not. I'll illustrate why.

Take a country with 100 people who live a hunting-gathering lifestyle in a desert. This society uses its meager resources with desperate efficiency, because it must. Yet its total GDP, and so its per capital GDP, is very low.

Now consider a country with 100 people who live in a similar desert that includes an oil field. The people invite a foreign oil company to come in and pump the oil, and live in luxurious indolence and waste on the profits, doing as little work as possible. Their economy is far less efficient than the first example, but their GDP is much higher.

The U.S. is a country of vast natural resources compared to many, that also uses its material power to ensure a flow of cheap resources from abroad where necessary. In terms of resource throughput and efficiency of use, we are not efficient at all, we are the most wasteful country in the world. And our per capita GDP is built on that inefficiency and waste, sustainable only so long as we can sustain the resource flow that keeps it afloat.

Actually, per capita GDP isn't even a good indicator of wealth for an ordinary person. I'll illustrate that, too.

Consider a nation of 100 people who produce $5,000,000 per year in GDP and share it with perfect equality. Their per capita GDP is $50,000 per year, and that is what each person actually lives on.

Now consider a nation of 100 people who produce $50,000,000 per year in GDP, but among whom 10 people garner $4,900,000 each and the remaining 90 people share the remaining $1,000,000. Per capita GDP in this country is $500,000 per year, or 10 times that of the first example, but the great majority of people would be living on a hair over $10,000 per year, or 1/5 what they do in the first country. Life for most people in the "poorer" country would be much richer than it is for most people in the "richer" country.

Statistics must be understood in depth before they yield their true lessons.

I shall address the rest later when I have more time, as I am going out to dinner with the GF.

I look forward to reading your response with great anticipation.

[edit on 7-4-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Sorry for the delay, it was the weekend and my Red Sox were in town so my time was taken up by the GF and baseball.

Your less-than-pithy post seems to be little more than an argument for less government, which I could not agree with more. Of course government shouldn’t be handing money out the corporations, but I never said is should. If government had less of America’s money, it would have less of it to spend on wasteful things.

While income disparities exist and you lefties love to tout them what is never mentioned are the age disparities that accompany them. In America, wealth correlates strongly with age, that is older people tend to be richer than the younger. Sadly, thanks to the democratic party, we confiscate 13% of young people’s income and give it to the older folks who tend to be sitting on lots of assets like pension and homes. No, it doesn’t make sense to me either.

Regarding economic efficiently; if want to know how efficient a car is, I look to see how many miles it will take me for a gallon of gas. Similarly, if I want to know how efficient an INDUSTRIALIZED economy I look to see how many units of GDP I get per worker. By that measure the US is tops*. It’s sophistry to compare the US economy to those that exist largely/entirely on things like oil.

With regards to our resource use, America gets about 3X more GDP per bbl of oil than it did in the 70’s

The following chart should clear up the rest




Taken from: Reflections on Structural Reforms in the EU

Productivity isn't everything, but in the long run it is almost everything. A country's ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.
—Paul Krugman


*Note: Luxemburg has a higher per capita GDP than the US, but Luxemburg barely counts as a country.


[edit on 11-4-2006 by ElTiante]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by ElTiante]

Oh and regarding Bush vs. Clinton.


Of course this is just the first three years, the full 8 look even better for Bush. And this was despite of a recession (which began before Bush took office), a stock market crash, terrorist attacks, hurricanes, oil shocks and war.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by ElTiante]

Originally posted by ElTiante
Of course government shouldn’t be handing money out the corporations, but I never said is should.

You never said it should, but you implied that it didn't. Only if it didn't, would your characterization of our economy as free from the shackles of government possibly be accurate.

While income disparities exist and you lefties love to tout them what is never mentioned are the age disparities that accompany them. In America, wealth correlates strongly with age, that is older people tend to be richer than the younger. Sadly, thanks to the democratic party, we confiscate 13% of young people’s income and give it to the older folks who tend to be sitting on lots of assets like pension and homes. No, it doesn’t make sense to me either.

Surely you don't think that is the main cause of income disparities.

I could of course point out that Social Security taxes are so high because the Reagan administration performed a bit of a shell game, raising them to offset the loss of income-tax income his cuts produced, and so lower the deficit. But that would be falling into your confusion about whether you want to talk American versus foreigners (especially the French), or party politics in the U.S.

Anyway, there are other government policies that contribute to the income and wealth gaps far more than SS taxes. These include:

1. High federal deficits as a standard operating procedure. This obligates the government to pay from future tax revenues an interest-income stream to wealthy investors. In effect, they generate a transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.

2. Government trade policies that reward foreign countries for policies that deny basic rights to their workers, and encourage American companies to invest overseas rather than at home.

3. Subsidies, favorable court policies, and other government actions at the legislative and judicial level that lean heavily towards favoring corporations and those who gain their income from investments, over those who gain theirs from labor.

Regarding economic efficiently; if want to know how efficient a car is, I look to see how many miles it will take me for a gallon of gas. Similarly, if I want to know how efficient an INDUSTRIALIZED economy I look to see how many units of GDP I get per worker.

That gives you an incomplete picture, because a lot of the work done in an industrialized economy is done by machines, which means by artificial energy, not by hand. If you look at the output of U.S. industry per BTU of fossil fuels, you will find that it is very bad compared to that of, say, India. And that is the main thing I mean by suggesting that the U.S. economy is inefficient. It is non-renewable resource inefficient, and only by being so is it able to be labor-efficient. And that amounts to eating our seed corn.

Why is it like this? Again, due to government policies that favor corporations, who would have to retool for greater energy efficiency, and in some cases find their profits actually hurt by that efficiency (though only the energy producers are in that position).

With regards to our resource use, America gets about 3X more GDP per bbl of oil than it did in the 70’s

That's to be expected. U.S. energy efficiency improved dramatically as a result of the oil crisis of the early 1970s. However, it has not improved much since the 1980s. And it remains far worse than most other countries.

AND, regarding Bush and Clinton:

Your claim was that the economy grew more under Bush. Of all the statistics you quoted, only one relates to the measure of economic growth, and that shows higher growth under Clinton.

Again, though, of what significance is that? Bush continued Clinton's economic policies with little variation except to increase the federal deficit (which always spurs growth). Just as Clinton continued Bush's father's policies, and he continued Reagan's.

Also, as I said, Clinton was the president of the U.S., not a Frenchman. So it's not at all clear here what your point is. You ARE talking about the relationship between the U.S. and France and claiming France is our enemy, aren't you?

[edit on 11-4-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Renewable, non-renewable; who gives a crap? We either use it to make us wealthier, leave in the ground or let someone else use it to make them wealthier. The most import resource any country has is the unbound ingenuity of her citizens. There's a renewable resource for you.

In reality all commodities  have an infinite supply. That is, as prices rise demand decreases. What's the supply of Vermeer paintings? Infinite and you can have one if you have the money.

History shows, unequivocally, that countries that shackles their citizens with taxes or other forms of oppression are poorer. Consider Hong Kong vs China or Taiwan vs. China.

Freedom = wealth.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by ElTiante]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by ElTiante]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by ElTiante]

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
AND, regarding Bush and Clinton:

Your claim was that the economy grew more under Bush. Of all the statistics you quoted, only one relates to the measure of economic growth, and that shows higher growth under Clinton.


[edit on 11-4-2006 by Two Steps Forward]

Now you're just being picayune, I couldn't put my hands on the full data. but it shows during the WORST years (economically) of the first Bush term he was only slightly behind Clinton.

5% unemployment & 3% gdp growth when a democrat in office = greatest economy every
5% unemployment $3+% gdp growth when a Republican in office = Hoover economy

Originally posted by ElTiante
Renewable, non-renewable; who gives a crap?

Quite a lot of people will, very shortly, as the oil begins to run short and prices go through the roof. The reality of this, on the ground, is that we will no longer be able to grow enough food to feed the world's people, as we are currently dependent on fossil fuels to produce what we do. Oil not only powers the farm machinery and makes fertilizer, it also pumps the water for irrigation, transports food to market, and allows us to use more land for growing food than we would if we had to use part of it to produce wood, ethanol, solar power, or whatever for energy. We face a famine of massive proportions in the near future. With the worst energy efficiency of any advanced nation, the U.S. is heading for an economic disaster, and all of our government policies seem designed to make sure we go there.

The sensible course of action would be to invest -- or better, have invested -- massive in energy-efficient technology, which would give us extended time to make the transition away from oil without enormous suffering. That we have not, that we insist on living high by eating our seed corn, is nothing to brag about.

History shows, unequivocally, that countries that shackles their citizens with taxes or other forms of oppression are poorer. Consider Hong Kong vs China or Taiwan vs. China.

Those comparisons don't make your case. First of all, Hong Kong and Taiwan are developed economies that got that way through foreign assistance while China is a developing economy with a long way to go still (and, quite honestly, little prospect of ever getting there). If you want to make meaningful comparisons, compare the living standards in Germany versus those in the U.S., or between Cuba and Indonesia.

Freedom = wealth.

Who's freedom, to do what, = who's wealth? There is no such thing as everyone's freedom, and no such thing as everyone's wealth.

I will certainly agree that one person's freedom to become wealthy = (potentially) that person's wealth. But in too many cases, it also = other people's oppression and poverty.

Back to Clinton and Bush. I still don't know why you're bothering to bring this up. Bush's economic policies hardly differ from Clinton's at all. And anyway, why are you comparing two different U.S. administrations on a thread about foreign relations? Are you saying President Clinton was a Frenchman? You still haven't made that clear at all.

[edit on 12-4-2006 by Two Steps Forward]