Sarkozy Forces the French to Join the 1980

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hahahahaha. Awesome. Louis, you'll love this. It isn't really a current events thing, but I think that everyone will like it.

Sarkozy Forces the French to Join the 1980s:
Michael Lewis
Link (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_lewis&sid=azEdlWcgsj5M)

Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- A few years after Margaret Thatcher came to power and launched what at the time seemed a futile war to compel the English people to embrace business values, I found myself dazed and confused in a London corner shop.

Down one aisle and up the other, I paced but found no trace of what I'd come for: the world's finest pseudo-cookies. The shelf that once held those delicious McVitie's wafers coated with milk chocolate was now stocked with less desirable items.

At length, I went to the middle-aged shop owner and asked where she'd hidden my favorite treats -- this gift from the gods to those of us who want to pretend our cookies are merely crackers.

``We used to stock those,'' she said, sweetly, ``but we kept running out, so we've stopped.''

Right then I thought: Thatcherism is doomed. The English will never embrace efficiency, or money-making, or the-customer- is-always-right mindset, or any of those uneasy values that underpin modern capitalism.

I was wrong, obviously. The English have not merely embraced commercial values but have become so thoroughly imbued with them that London has displaced New York as the world's money hub. A nation of people once embarrassed to complain that their soup was cold is now among the first to demand to speak to the manager.

But that was England, and those were the English. This is France, and these are the French.

In case you missed it, Nicolas Sarkozy, the new French president, has decided that the French need to become more productive. He eliminated the law forbidding work weeks longer than 35 hours, and he's making noises about changing the rule that allows unemployed Frenchmen to turn down job offers that they feel are beneath them and remain on the dole instead.

More Work

No French person is likely to be required to work more than 35 hours a week -- that appears to be too much to ask for just yet -- but any French person who wishes to earn more money may, shockingly, work for it.

``Work more to earn more'' is Sarkozy's dully hopeful slogan.

The thing is, the French don't want to work more.

Sarkozy's poll numbers have plummeted. The very same middle- class, white-collar workers who elected him have taken to the streets to protest his callous disregard of the role of leisure in French life.

An engineer with Total SA named Michel Guyot told Helene Fouquet of Bloomberg News that he may no longer have time to travel to the south of France ``to smell the thyme and listen to the cicadas.'' Apparently, the engineer echoes the concern of a social class and, perhaps, a nation.

Specter Haunting France

``It's a specter,'' he said, ``a cloud over my head.''

From this safe distance -- 6,000 miles away -- it's hard not to admire Sarkozy's audacity. Here's an elected leader, serving at the pleasure of the French people, who has taken it upon himself to do the one thing certain to induce despair and hatred in the hearts of those people: force them to become more productive.

Inflicting market values upon the British circa 1980 felt a bit cruel, but visiting it upon the French circa 2008 feels almost like an unnatural act, like forcing a cat to fetch.

Of course, it's possible to change a society and to drag it into the global economic monoculture. Mrs. Thatcher showed how: Break up collectives and make people feel a little bit more alone in the world. Cut a few holes in the social safety net. Raise the status of money-making, and lower the status of every other activity. Stop giving knighthoods to artists and start giving them to department-store moguls. Stop listening to intellectuals and start listening to entrepreneurs and financiers.

Hate Becomes Love

Don't mind that artists and intellectuals hate you -- or even that, for a time, the entire society seems to hate you. Stick to the plan long enough and the people who are good at making money acquire huge sums and, along with them, power. In time, they become the culture's dominant voice. And they love you for it.

But the French are different.

For one, they enjoy feeling alone in the world. Their problem isn't an incapacity for selfishness, or for individual initiative. Anyone who has ever watched a middle-aged Parisian male muscle aside a pregnant lady with a baby and steal her taxi can see that the French have what it takes to succeed in the modern world. They just don't want to.

They want to take all those selfish impulses that might be directed into improving productivity and efficiency and wealth- accumulation and channel it into being ... French.

Smell the Thyme

And if you want to be French -- if you want to be able to describe the smell of thyme or the sound of cicadas or simply to lounge around some tropical island in a disturbingly small bathing suit -- you need time. And not just a little time. You need so much time that when your president puts an end to a preposterous law limiting the work week to 35 hours, you think nothing of going out into the street and marching around for hours protesting.

There is also the question of competitive advantage. Most nations gain their advantage by making things more efficiently, and at lower cost, than their competitors.

To the extent that the French enjoy a natural advantage, it is in their inefficiency: They are the world's most efficient producers of structured indolence. They are the kept women of the global economy; their status depends, in part, on their practical uselessness.

Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.

(Michael Lewis is a Bloomberg News columnist and the author, most recently, of ``The Blind Side.'' The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Michael Lewis at mlewis1@bloomberg.net

[LittleGrizzly]

Anyone who has ever watched a middle-aged Parisian male muscle aside a pregnant lady with a baby and steal her taxi can see that the French have what it takes to succeed in the modern world. They just don't want to.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: had to laugh at that one, ill comment on the rest at a later date....

[ICantSpellDawg]

Anyone who has ever watched a middle-aged Parisian male muscle aside a pregnant lady with a baby and steal her taxi can see that the French have what it takes to succeed in the modern world. They just don't want to.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: had to laugh at that one, ill comment on the rest at a later date....

That was very funny. I liked the English shopkeeper reference in particular.:playingball:

[Martok]

Anyone who has ever watched a middle-aged Parisian male muscle aside a pregnant lady with a baby and steal her taxi can see that the French have what it takes to succeed in the modern world. They just don't want to.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: had to laugh at that one, ill comment on the rest at a later date....
Yeah, that passage cracked me up as well. ~D


This one also made laugh out loud:

To the extent that the French enjoy a natural advantage, it is in their inefficiency: They are the world's most efficient producers of structured indolence. They are the kept women of the global economy; their status depends, in part, on their practical uselessness.

Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
:laugh4:

[Brenus]

This text is too late.
The French work de facto 41 hours per week and earn less.

I work in UK and the efficiency at work is laughable. In fact, in France, most of my colleague would get the sack…:beam:
I didn’t notice the English male (when not drunk and vomiting) were fast to give their seat to the pregnant Teen age either…
If the French can’t go in holidays (but we in UK can’t either) it is because Thatcherism and Sarkosism just don’t work. We work hard, but no money, all go for the shares holders.
This winter we will have to choose between eating and heating… Thank to the “liberals” who privatised the energy, you have a worst services and price with British Gaz and Electricity, the trains are always late, and break down more frequent.
In the mean time the State Controlled EDF is taking over the UK market and the SNCF is shown as an example each time when we speak about the Railways disgrace in UK.

The author should live in England and try it. You know, outside the City…
Just a text full of the English old fashion pre-concept about the French, by somedoby probably desesperate not to be French...:laugh4::clown:

Sarkozy just want to go to the 19tg Century. Thatcher did it. Sarkozy dreams it.

[PanzerJaeger]

To the extent that the French enjoy a natural advantage, it is in their inefficiency: They are the world's most efficient producers of structured indolence. They are the kept women of the global economy; their status depends, in part, on their practical uselessness.


Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.

:laugh4:

More! More!!

[Crazed Rabbit]

The English have not merely embraced commercial values but have become so thoroughly imbued with them that London has displaced New York as the world's money hub.

I think a big part of that is the increased regulations from the Sarbox law passed after the Enron and assorted scandals. Adhering to the regulation costs for that law costs something like 3million USD a year.

CR

[Tribesman]

I think a big part of that is the increased regulations from the Sarbox law passed after the Enron and assorted scandals. Adhering to the regulation costs for that law costs something like 3million USD a year.


Thats true , but that is the price you have to pay when free market ideals mixed with lax regulation and enforcement allow certain enterprising people to steal billions from customers , employees shareholders and government .
The reason Londons regulations are cheaper for the companies is because the regulation enforcements are better funded by the British tax-payer wheras the American model puts it on more on the companies involved .
Its a question of finding the right balance of state subsidy to create increased private investment .
But as you don't like your government spending money I am sure you are happy with that result .

[ICantSpellDawg]

Thats true , but that is the price you have to pay when free market ideals mixed with lax regulation and enforcement allow certain enterprising people to steal billions from customers , employees shareholders and government .
The reason Londons regulations are cheaper for the companies is because the regulation enforcements are better funded by the British tax-payer wheras the American model puts it on more on the companies involved .
Its a question of finding the right balance of state subsidy to create increased private investment .
But as you don't like your government spending money I am sure you are happy with that result .

I agree here.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Aah, this is the best thing Tuff posted since those pics of Meg McGruff. :2thumbsup:

That article calls for a careful, critical analysis with all the academic distance of my refined Cartesian mind. Which leads to the following balanced and objective conclusion: France is right, the rest of the world is wrong.

Think about it. We now enjoy a level of affluence that was completly unthinkable as recently as our grandparents generation. An eightfold increase in wealth in three generations.

So here is a thought experiment. You start your life over. Only this time, you are guaranteed eight times your present financial means. What will you do with your life? Work like a slave 'till you die? Or use part of your enormously increased wealth to enjoy the good things in life? Wouldn't you use your financial freedom to finally read all those books, see those movies, watch your children grow up, have elaborate meals with your friends, spend time with your parents before they die, see all those wonderful places?

Why is the thought that 'time' is one of the most precious and valuable commodities in man's life so alien to the extragallic world? One of the prerequisites of a quality life is time. Simply time to enjoy the good things in life.

Now, capitalism has a crucial trap. It is a winner takes all jungle system. If I work 30 hours a week, and my neighbour works a gruesome 40 hours a week, then I don't earn €30.000 and he €40.000. I will end up with €15.000 and he with €100.000. This forces everybody to sweat like a slave, just to keep up. It reduces man to the status of an ant. Forever slaving away until each man's end. An end, no doubt, full of regrets. Or to put it differently, quoting that Manhattan bumper sticker that so brilliantly encapsulates Anglosaxon civilisation: 'he who dies with most things wins'.

Our ancestors must think we are bleedin' mad. They revolt to end servitude. They revolt to give us rights. They toil and sweat to provide us, their children, with a better life. And what do we do with all this accumulated wealth? Nothing. We buy a plasma tv to watch an hour of crap programs each night, microwave dinner on lap, before it's off to bed already because we have to work again tomorrow and we are too exhausted to do anything fun or to have a proper meal with family or friends. Capitalism is slavery, befitting ants.

Is capitalism entirely without merit? No, competitional drive has it's benefits. Our wealth is based on it. But does it have to be unlimited? Worse, must wealth be an end in itself, instead of a means? Surely not, I'd say. This is why the 35-hour work week cap is such a good idea.

Alas, there is always that pesky outside world. Globalisation has caught up with France. And the others do not have the refined good taste to spend their life, this precious, single opportunity, this very brief sparkle of light between two eternities of darkness, in quality.
As with individuals, the laws of the jungle apply here too, between nations. So we need to move towards this state of capitalist unfreedom a bit more. Alas. Which means that France must postpone her 'mission civilisatrice', her holy mission to civilise the world, until we manage to seduce the world to the true essences of life.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The author should live in England and try it.The problem is, that talented Frenchpersons* are trying it. In London alone, 300.000 Frenchpersons live. And not cleaners. But the young and the highly educated.
And they are trying it, because London is beating Paris as a global centre. This is intolerable.

*Trying my hand at US style PC-terminology here.


Sarkozy just want to go to the 19tg Century. Thatcher did it. Sarkozy dreams it.I wanted a Blair or a Clinton. The two greatest postwar leaders of their respective countries. Alas, French socialism proved itself incapable of doing what they did: reforming itself into a modern social-democracy. So, Sarko it is, and shock-therapy we shall have.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Thats true , but that is the price you have to pay when free market ideals mixed with lax regulation and enforcement allow certain enterprising people to steal billions from customers , employees shareholders and government .
The reason Londons regulations are cheaper for the companies is because the regulation enforcements are better funded by the British tax-payer wheras the American model puts it on more on the companies involved .
Its a question of finding the right balance of state subsidy to create increased private investment .
But as you don't like your government spending money I am sure you are happy with that result .

It surely was retaliation against unscrupulous acts by Enron and company. But there is a lot to wonder about if perhaps, in the knee-jerk reaction from the govt, the law and regulations had gone too far.

Louis - Clinton? Clinton?! Gah, you crazy French. He was maybe the most visionary of democratic candidates in that he sought the centrist role, a first since Truman really, in politics, only to have the next few candidates tack back towards the fringe.

CR

[InsaneApache]

I wanted a Blair or a Clinton. The two greatest postwar leaders of their respective countries.

You been at the vino, havn't you? Own up now. :furious3::laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I had a tenner firmly on IA taking issue with it. Was wondering about which conservative it was gonna be over Clinton. The Crazed Rabbi it is!

No mistake though, I do admire both men!

Not IA and CR, Clinton and Blair :smash:

Both have glaringly obvious deficiencies, yes. I admire them for the modernisation of their parties, and their emphasis on realistic economic policy. Both based their policy on the realisation that 'it's the economy, stupid'. France missed out on one like them. So now Sarkozy is trying to make France realise that 'it is the stupid economy'. It's what you get when you are ten / fifteen years too late. ~:mecry:
I had some hopes for someone like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, but he couldn't pull it off. Nor anyone else from the left. Fancy stuff like trains running on time, plus top-notch healthcare AND great schools AND extensive cultural support AND a social system to make Sweden jealous adds up pretty quickly. Like those two bottles of great Bordeaux I downed earlier tonight, quality comes with a hefty price tag.

[Banquo's Ghost]

That article calls for a careful, critical analysis with all the academic distance of my refined Cartesian mind. Which leads to the following balanced and objective conclusion: France is right, the rest of the world is wrong.

...

Wonderful post in its entirety, Louis. If that is an example of your new cynicism, bring me more. (And if written with that wry irony, I don't care - still you have stated a truth that the world needs to hear).

:bow:

[naut]

in London alone, 300.000 Frenchpersons live. And not cleaners. But the young and the highly educated.
I was thinking the entire of Arsenal's squad, until you mentioned highly educated.

Interesting article, a good laugh. :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

As it was a quality claret I'll forgive you this time. :laugh4:

[King Henry V]

Personally I don't understand the adulation of "market values", that the be-all and end-all of life is to make money, and how competition, aggressiveness and ruthlesness are all somehow ideal states. Though all your free-marketeers extoll the virtues of perfect competion, in studying economics it is perfectly obvious that no one likes perfect competition, since it means having to give the most for the least, and that is why everyone actually tries to avoid it. Making lots of money is certainly nothing to proud of, it only shows for the most part that one is selfish, ready to stab any one in the back if it means that one will come out tops, and that one has an unhealthy obsession with hard work, probably due in my mind to a lack of friends and, dare I say it, sexual frustration.
Despite what Mrs Thatcher would have had us believe, the point is not to win, but rather to play with flair and panache, and I find this obsession with being the first in everything dashed unsporting.
You know, and I never imagined that ever agree with this, but France is right, and the rest of the world wrong.

[InsaneApache]

Despite what Mrs Thatcher would have had us believe, the point is not to win, but rather to play with flair and panache

You obviously didn't live in the UK in the 70s. Nothing worked, everything was very, very expensive, inflation was rampant and unemployment was through the roof.

To give an example. When I left home in 1977 I wanted a telephone line connected. In those days you did indeed have a choice. Post Office Telecommunications or no 'phone line. After applying for a 'party line' (look it up :sweatdrop:) I was told that I would need a deposit of £80 and a connection fee of around £50, then I was told that it would take between 6-8 months to install. I was drawing about £45 a week in those days, so it wasn't really viable for a working class kid setting up home for the first time. Ahh, the joys of socialism.

[LittleGrizzly]

Why is the thought that 'time' is one of the most precious and valuable commodities in man's life so alien to the extragallic world? One of the prerequisites of a quality life is time. Simply time to enjoy the good things in life.

Couldn't agree more, time is the most valuable thing i have and i wouldn't want to spend more than 30 hours a week working if i manage to get through university, to be honest i would be happy to have a fairly modest wage and only work part time say 20 hours a week, earn just enough so i can enjoy all my time off (i seem to naturally live cheaply only one or two expensive vices)

At the end of my life im sure i would rather up with a small house and an average car and have had a relaxed life only working 2-3 days a week than a busy stressful one working up to 5 days a week where i have lots of nice things, a cars just there to get you from A to B (im never going to be able to afford a really beautiful like a gallardo or something so im happy to settle for something cheap that does the job) and a house doesn't need to be big, i don't even mind a terraced house, my time is more important than fancy things, but its worth a bit of time to live a comfortable (rather than extravagent) life (the basics and one or two luxurys as my entertainment)

[Tribesman]

You obviously didn't live in the UK in the 70s. Nothing worked, everything was very, very expensive, inflation was rampant and unemployment was through the roof.

Rampant inflation in the 1970s eh ? Would that be the worldwide rampant inflation that was sparked first by the oil crisis and then again by the other errrr....oil crisis .
Unemployment was through the roof ? Yet Thatcher still manged to quadruple it in a very short time .

Are you doing that old person thing where you is wearing rose tinted glasses apache ?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Personally I don't understand the adulation of "market values", that the be-all and end-all of life is to make money, and how competition, aggressiveness and ruthlesness are all somehow ideal states. Though all your free-marketeers extoll the virtues of perfect competion, in studying economics it is perfectly obvious that no one likes perfect competition, since it means having to give the most for the least, and that is why everyone actually tries to avoid it. Making lots of money is certainly nothing to proud of, it only shows for the most part that one is selfish, ready to stab any one in the back if it means that one will come out tops, and that one has an unhealthy obsession with hard work, probably due in my mind to a lack of friends and, dare I say it, sexual frustration.
Despite what Mrs Thatcher would have had us believe, the point is not to win, but rather to play with flair and panache, and I find this obsession with being the first in everything dashed unsporting.
You know, and I never imagined that ever agree with this, but France is right, and the rest of the world wrong.

Sounds like
A) Someone doesn't make much money, and
B) doesn't come in first often.
~;p

CR

[Kralizec]

Personally I don't understand the adulation of "market values", that the be-all and end-all of life is to make money, and how competition, aggressiveness and ruthlesness are all somehow ideal states. Though all your free-marketeers extoll the virtues of perfect competion, in studying economics it is perfectly obvious that no one likes perfect competition, since it means having to give the most for the least, and that is why everyone actually tries to avoid it. Making lots of money is certainly nothing to proud of, it only shows for the most part that one is selfish, ready to stab any one in the back if it means that one will come out tops, and that one has an unhealthy obsession with hard work, probably due in my mind to a lack of friends and, dare I say it, sexual frustration.
Despite what Mrs Thatcher would have had us believe, the point is not to win, but rather to play with flair and panache, and I find this obsession with being the first in everything dashed unsporting.
You know, and I never imagined that ever agree with this, but France is right, and the rest of the world wrong.

Perfect competition eliminates huge profits to a point where newcomers decide they can't be bothered to set up another company in a certain branch, reaching an equilibrum where all wasteful costs are eliminated. It's not so much about screwing everyone, it's about everyone realizing that they're responsible for their own success.
That said, perfect competition doesn't exist except as an economic model and in some branches of the economy it's not even close. It's worthwile to approach it as closely as possible though, and to dampen the damage where it can't be.

I work over 50 hours per week at the moment, but it's only a summer job and I'll quit when college starts again. When I've got my degrees I intend to work around 40 hours at least until I have children, and maybe less until I retire in my 60'ties. If other people prefer to enjoy more free time spending less money, that's up to them. Just don't expect me to work less because it makes you feel bad.

[JR-]

Both have glaringly obvious deficiencies, yes. I admire them for the modernisation of their parties, and their emphasis on realistic economic policy. Both based their policy on the realisation that 'it's the economy, stupid'. France missed out on one like them. So now Sarkozy is trying to make France realise that 'it is the stupid economy'. It's what you get when

fortunately for Blair, he was handed the reins of an economy in tip-top condition, the legacy of which has been utterly squandered in the 10 years since.

[JR-]

Rampant inflation in the 1970s eh ? Would that be the worldwide rampant inflation that was sparked first by the oil crisis and then again by the other errrr....oil crisis .
Unemployment was through the roof ? Yet Thatcher still manged to quadruple it in a very short time .

Are you doing that old person thing where you is wearing rose tinted glasses apache ?
that would be more to do with corrupted keynsian economics as practiced by the UK labour party in particular, whereby one tries to spend ones way out of a recession by 'pump-priming' the economy with massive public spending.

What it actually creates is a dependent client-state with mountains of rubbish and unburied bodies, topped off with inflation north of 20%.

[Tribesman]

that would be more to do with corrupted keynsian economics as practiced by the UK labour party in particular, whereby one tries to spend ones way out of a recession by 'pump-priming' the economy with massive public spending.

What it actually creates is a dependent client-state with mountains of rubbish and unburied bodies, topped off with inflation north of 20%.
Errrrr...excuse me but wasn't that down to the credit fueled bubble burst that coincided with a worldwide financial crises that was under the tenure of the tories and their desire to pump prime the economy with massive dodgy credit deals ?
A policy they tried again in the 80s and failed at rather spectacularly and which "new" labour have since adopted and gone down the same path of failure .

So I think the lesson there is that attempting to spend your way out of a financial mess isn't a very good idea be it the Tory and new labour easy credit approach or the old labour government credit approach .:yes:

[InsaneApache]

I wasn't going to reply to Tribes as I felt it would tug the thread off topic. I will just to try and put the record straight with the Wilson/Callaghan regime.

Labours economics policies were woeful, printing more and more money in an effort to prop up a disasterous prices and incomes policy. That combined with high taxation and borrowing, ala IMF loans in 75/76 just pressed the accelerator on the inflation motor. Never belittle the effect of inflation, it is corrosive and wealth destroying. Yes the oil crises begat by the Yom Kippur war initially stoked inflationary pressures but the treasuries solutions often exacerbated the problem.

Like her or loath her Thatcher did get a grip on inflation that she, rightly, identified as the main block to economic stabilty. Something that has stayed in place until the last 6 or 7 years. The medicine was harsh and uncompromising, however it was necessary.

As for the French, one has to wonder if the 35 hour week they'd employed until recently would have been possible at all without EU largesse. They've got away with it up to now but the medicine will be bitter to swallow. You see, reality has an awful habit of coming back to bite you on the bum.

[Tribesman]

Like her or loath her Thatcher did get a grip on inflation that she, rightly, identified as the main block to economic stabilty. Something that has stayed in place until the last 6 or 7 years. The medicine was harsh and uncompromising, however it was necessary.

Did she though ? even after her one trick pony of selling off all the family silver(yet keeping all the associated debt) and when even after years of her harsh medicine inflation was 3X that of comparable western economies and the gap was rising not falling....leading to another usual repeat of the boom bust cycle .