The French Presidential contest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

:stop: Stop. Are you mad? I'd really like to see numbers on that. You really can't lump Europe into one big ball like that and I'm sure your numbers are off.

---

You're right, you can't lump Europe into one big ball, I was talking about France and most of western Europe. It's at least something almost all companies agree upon, we are incredibly productive.

It doesn't mean we actually work much faster than Americans (or other people) we just have more efficient systems so that a lot of 'overhead work' gets cut. This does mean that most jobs tend to be intense. I've never been to the US, but the difference in work efficiency between Eastern Europe and Western Europe is staggering. It's hard to put into words, but it's something you immediately notice. I've heard stories about people who've worked in the US who claim that the average job is also more relaxed there than here.

It doesn't mean you're lazy, it just means that we cut back on labour (costs) and thus try to achieve a very high efficiency, while in the US it's sometimes cheaper just to hire someone extra to do some dumb job. Perhaps also why we have a higher unemployment rate :laugh4:

Perhaps I should retract my baiting statement :embarassed: . I just found the claim quite odd as it conflicted with the "conventional wisdom." Plus it brought to mind what I read about certain fringe movements in France that protest Anglo-Saxon work ethics. Showing up to work and deliberately slacking off etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

but the difference in work efficiency between Eastern Europe and Western Europe is staggering.

---

Maybe that is because the eastern europeans are such great workers, just keep them away from the alchohol and they keep going untill they drop. Problem is, they can't, hopeless :laugh4: The only one that got legally sick was sick because I told him he was, and sick he was I can tell you, and he still didn't want to leave even when I promised full payment.

With workers like that :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

here you can take a look at some OECD numbers for 2005

In terms of GDP/hour worked the US is actually better than the EU on average. It should be noted though that France is slightly better than the US.

---

Hmm, interesting chart. Thanks.

If I were French I would vote for Sarkozy. Royal seems a little inexperienced to me.

I really do not understand the whole question about female president/head of state as a problem. Is that protestant legacy or something else ?

Or perhaps I see it differently because women had always strong position in Poland with voting rights as far as XVth century and strong legacy of their part in all those uprisings... whatever it sounds silly to me to think of a woman leader as someone unfit for the duties.:inquisitive:



Whatever. The good thing is that Chirac's reign ends - noone can be as bad as him...:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

noone can be as bad as him

---

It's possible. Imagine a French version of Bush.
And if you say it wouldn't happen because French Bush wouldn't be elected, well, Bush got elected, didn't he?

I thought it was topic about FRENCH presidential elections. Never liked changing subjects and hijacking threads especially to US politics which ends in a endless discussion between extremists, so please just don't.

We're just wasting time waiting for the results. I'm actually excited about this!

Interesting developments. After yesterday night's debate between Sarkozy and Royal, Bayrou told Le Monde that he 'will not vote for Sarkozy'.

That's about as far as Bayrou can go in view of his stated desire to turn the UDF into a sizeable 'third force' as well as his unstated but obvious desire to become the next Prime Minister (a position which he has already been offered more or less openly by Royal). I guess France could live with a Royal presidency + Bayrou premiership for a few years. I certainly could. It seems to be the best guarantee that zee French exception will persist.

Louis, mon vieux Bayrouiste, what is your take?

I saw a bit of the debate on tv last night...

after carefull consideration I am officially supporting Ségolène Royal on the basis of superior hotness! :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

In terms of GDP/hour worked the US is actually better than the EU on average. It should be noted though that France is slightly better than the US.

---

Interesting chart, but GDP/hour does not primarily tell us how hard people are working. It mainly reflects the capital, technology and other things that make our hours of work more productive. Thus Korea, Mexico and Turkey have much lower GDP/worker in the chart not because they are nations of slackers but because they have accumulated less productive capital (machinery, equipment) etc.

There are probably diminishing returns to labour too, so if you cut your hours of work, your GDP/hour may rise even though your GDP/head falls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

Interesting chart, but GDP/hour does not primarily tell us how hard people are working. It mainly reflects the capital, technology and other things that make our hours of work more productive.

---

That is actually a very valid point - these numbers are indeed only (somewhat) useful if you compare countries with simlar levels of technology/automatization (in the end they are actually more useful to draw conclusions about the productivity of the economy as such and not about the "individual" workers).

Considering this, I was actually always wondering how e.g., unions can argue that as productivity is increasing, the workers should be paid more (argueing that the workers became more productive and should therefore receive their share of the increased profit), when in reality a lot of productivity improvement is based on capital investments for better technology/processes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Considering this, I was actually always wondering how e.g., unions can argue that as productivity is increasing, the workers should be paid more (argueing that the workers became more productive and should therefore receive their share of the increased profit), when in reality a lot of productivity improvement is based on capital investments for better technology/processes.

---

The value of labour increases with increased schooling, too. Besides, higher wages and higher job satisfaction contribute to a good climate for investment.

I haven't looked into the labour prod stats above, but caution is advised with such stats. Productivity is sometimes measured in cost-effectiveness. As a consequence, wage levels are factored in (the lower the wage, the higher the profit per unit of working time). The result is a skewed statistic that attributes, say, the highest labour productivity to Bangladesh and the lowest to Denmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The value of labour increases with increased schooling, too. Besides, higher wages and higher job satisfaction contribute to a good climate for investment.

---

This is of course correct and you might certainly argue that workers should participate in the well-being of a company, however, the argument as such that the productivity improvement is achieved by the workers in general and that they should therefore automatically get their share of the improvement is flawed

Quote:

---

I haven't looked into the labour prod stats above, but caution is advised with such stats. Productivity is sometimes measured in cost-effectiveness. As a consequence, wage levels are factored in (the lower the wage, the higher the profit per unit of working time). The result is a skewed statistic that attributes, say, the highest labour productivity to Bangladesh and the lowest to Denmark.

---

The productivity numbers in these statistics give you the output (or better "value added") per hour worked - cost factors (e.g., wages) don't play a role in that calculation (which iis why the productivity here tends to be higher for countries with higher wages, as in this countries you of course try to reduce the labor intensity as much as possible)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Considering this, I was actually always wondering how e.g., unions can argue that as productivity is increasing, the workers should be paid more (argueing that the workers became more productive and should therefore receive their share of the increased profit)...

---

Ironically, having wages proportional to (marginal) productivity is the simplest paradigm of wage determination in a competitive economy. The idea is that, at the margin, profit maximising firms will not pay labour more than it brings in productivity - it would be loss-making. Conversely, if at the margin labour brings in more in productivity than it costs, the profit maximising firm will want to hire more of it until that is no longer true (through diminishing returns). This argument is wholly about firms maximising profit and not with trade unions sharing profit.

Note the argument is symmetrical with non-labour factors: capital, for example, will tend to be more productive when there is a lot of labour (and skills and technology etc) to work with it and so will be paid more in such an environment. That's why in theory capitalists may be expected to rather like immigration and indeed investing in poor countries with lots of cheap labour. Doesn't always work like that in practice, of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Productivity is sometimes measured in cost-effectiveness.

---

When talking about productivity in terms of GDP per hour worked, the big problem is measuring the output of services, particularly those provided by governments. They may often be assessed by the value of the inputs and if so, any "productivity" estimates are pretty meaningless. But still the broad picture that labour is more productive in rich countries because of all the machinery (and skills, technology etc) available is surely true (think about the labour and capital intensity of agriculture or manufacturing in rich and poor countries).

The suprising thing about the OECD figures to me is the rough parity between the US and Europe (e.g. France) in GDP per hour worked given that we know US GDP per capita is significantly higher. Contrary to the "Europeans work more efficiently" argument, this suggests that one reason America is more prosperous is because it works more. Some of that may be due to demographics - I suspect the US has a higher proportion of working age people than aging Europe, due to immigration etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

This is of course correct and you might certainly argue that workers should participate in the well-being of a company, however, the argument as such that the productivity improvement is achieved by the workers in general and that they should therefore automatically get their share of the improvement is flawed.

---

Agreed, the notion that any increase in productivity is due only to workers' input is wrong.

Interestingly, a reverse case can be made, as I indicated above with regard to France. Rising labour cost may force employers to invest more in land (workplace closer to workers' homes), fixed assets, efficiency, infrastructure and logistics (notably improved transport), schooling and even secondary worker benefits (resulting in fewer sick days, higher performance).
And of course in outsourcing. :embarassed: :laugh4:

EDIT
BTW the 'topicality' of this issue in Germany stems from recent wage claims by the biggest German union DGB, no?

May day is over guys. :juggle2: What date is the election?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian

BTW the 'topicality' of this issue in Germany stems from recent wage claims by the biggest German union DGB, no?

---

hehe - indeed ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Interesting developments. After yesterday night's debate between Sarkozy and Royal, Bayrou told Le Monde that he 'will not vote for Sarkozy'.

That's about as far as Bayrou can go in view of his stated desire to turn the UDF into a sizeable 'third force' as well as his unstated but obvious desire to become the next Prime Minister (a position which he has already been offered more or less openly by Royal). I guess France could live with a Royal presidency + Bayrou premiership for a few years. I certainly could. It seems to be the best guarantee that zee French exception will persist.

Louis, mon vieux Bayrouiste, what is your take?

---

My take is that I'm a centriste first and foremost and a Bayrouiste second - his career is none of my concern. ~;)

I like the position we've been in for the past two weeks.:
Socialists (Royal) got 26%,
the lunatic left 12%

Right / Sarkozy 31%
lunatic right 13 %

We can safely assume that most first round voters for Sarko and Ségo will vote the same candidate again. And that the lunatic fringes will either support the candidate closest to them or abstain. One doesn't switch from Le Pen to Royal, or from Besancenot to Sarko.
Even if they gain a perfect score from these sources, it's Sarko 44% and Ségo 38%. So winning the 18.5 % of Bayrou is crucial. :2thumbsup:

None of that will be news to any of you who have followed the elections, but the importance of it can not be overestimated. We're like this ravishingly beautiful young woman that unexpectedly made her entrance at the party. The men just learned a few minutes ago that she's unengaged and are now en masse vying for her attention and trying to court her. She, however, is not an innocent virgin but a top-class courtisane that comes with a high price.:kiss2:

I might in fact sell my vote to the highest bidder. Which as of yet, and this is not going to change anymore, is indeed mme Royal. If it gains Bayrou the position of PM, than good for him. He deserves it because, to his credit, he has used our position well after the first round. For a catholic peasant from the Pyrénées he is rather cunning in a sophisticated way.~;)

______

More in general, I am not entirely convinced this is the way forward for the centre. I understand the reasoning behind Bayrou's call for a politics of consensus, for overcoming the differences between the left and right.
Firstly all the candidates had to present their ideas as a fresh start, as breaking away from the old politics. Secondly, for a centrist candidate with a natural following of some six percent, the only viable strategy for gaining the Élysée Palace is to win a lot of votes from the traditional left and right. So for both reasons Bayrou came up with this 'end of the left/right dichotomy'-nonsense for these elections.
This is however neither the cause nor a solution to any problems of French politics. It serves a purpose during a presidency campaign, in which there can be only one winner so a small centrist candidate needs a program with a broader appeal than during parliamentary elections. And it was a clever move in the current climate of disillusionment with politics and politicians in general.
For the centre, it was a good tactic, but it's not a good strategy. I.e., it won us the battle, but it won't win the war for the centre in the long run.

Ah, it's yet again an illustration of one of the real problems of French politics, and maybe Latin politics in general: power is gathered around persons, not parties.

Instead, Bayrou should've driven a wedge between the left and right, to make room for the centre. Or maybe not instead of - the current strategy was perhaps an absolute necessity. Nonetheless, if it was up to me, the grand strategy would be to push the right to the right - Sarkozy is already dangerously close to being a copy of Le Pen, and indeed any rightist candidate has to be with those 10 / 20 percent of voters on the far right. The left should've been pushed to the left. Which is feasible, given the inability of the left to leave old fashioned socialism behind. This leaves a vast reservoir of 25 - 35 % of voters in the middle, the largest pool of all, to be picked up by the UDF, and creating a centrist dominance forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

None of that will be news to any of you who have followed the elections, but the importance of it can not be overestimated. We're like this ravishingly beautiful young woman that unexpectedly made her entrance at the party. The men just learned a few minutes ago that she's unengaged and are now en masse vying for her attention and trying to court her. She, however, is not an innocent virgin but a top-class courtisane that comes with a high price.:kiss2:

---

I wish she'd stop talking and finally take her clothes off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

My take is that I'm a centriste first and foremost and a Bayrouiste second - his career is none of my concern. ~;)

---

I stand corrected. As a matter of fact I have never known you to be jusqu'auboutiste in anything except matters of taste...

However I don't quite understand your reasoning, particularly where you suggest the center is both small and broad. It is statistically, if not principally, quite broad in any democracy, and there must be a discernible reason why Bayrou failed to rally it. A political reason, not just a marketing issue.

I don't know Adrian. On the surface, common sense tells you that the moderates would dominate in terms of numbers. But since most issues tend to be framed in bipolar answers, it's hard for moderates to put together a cohesive, resounding message. Taxes: people understand raising them for more social spending or lowering them to encourage industry. They don't understand 'well, it depends. Let's monkey with the formula for a while longer'. It's hard to whip up the masses with sound bites like "Well, it depends on the situation, let me think about it some more..."

I think Royal is going to win. Bayrou's support was all she needed. Besides, I cannot imagine France electing a fiscal liberal like Sarkozy (liberal in the free-market sense for my American friends). France voted to keep itself from fully joining the EU to avoid market reforms, I cannot believe they're going to elect a president that ran on promoting them. I'm surprised Sarkozy did as well as he has. I think comparing him to Le Pen is unfair and unfortunate. All anybody has to do is suggest relaxing regulation requirements on key industrial sectors, and whammo, they're extreme right-wing and ready to devolve into National Socialism at the drop of a hat (ironic, as they advocate a close relationship between government and industry).

Having watched the debate yesterday, I have to say that Sarko was by far the superior orator, rather than Sego who was too hot-blooded and aggressive, even if it was a "colère saine" (which is rubbish). However, one good thing came out of it: today at school we managed to really annoy our economics teacher (an ardent socialist) by periodically saying "Je vais discuter avec mes partenaires sociaux".

I am quite surprised by the pessismism for Sarkozy. I believe that his combination of tough law and order rhetoric combined with his promises to shake up the economy should have a broad appeal.
However, as a perfidious Englishman, I am of course hoping for Royal to win, since I believe that she will mean France's economic ruin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

However, as a perfidious Englishman, I am of course hoping for Royal to win, since I believe that she will mean France's economic ruin.

---

I was thinking the same thing... :2thumbsup: I know Economics is not a zero sum game, but still...

Better for Sarkozy to show pessimism so every one of his voters come out to try to help, and hopefully many for the opposition stay at home content they've already won.

~:smoking:

I just saw a snippet about that TV duel on the news, and one thing makes me wonder.
Why is the calm guy supposed to be better? We always complain about our politicians doing nothing etc and then we always elect the calm guys, wondering why they are all the same. Maybe the temper isn't everything, but it would finally be a change to have someone who puts his/her heart into things instead of just being cool all the time, doing nothing.

People that really believe in what they are doing, regardless of what anyone else thinks or says. People of vision who push the boundaries and get things done.

Such as Mao Zedong, Paul Pot, Hitler, Castro, Kim Il-sung.

Yup, they've managed to get more people killed than any number of bland bureaucrats.

A nice hotheaded French leader who decides to annex Monaco and Lichenstein as they're having a bad day?

~:smoking:

Well, on the other side of the fence, would you really have wanted Neville Chamberlain still waiting to come up with a suitable course of action in 1942?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Jean-Pierre, is that you!? I knew you were! :idea2:

It's me, Eric! :jumping:

---

You scared me. For a few seconds, I was like "What was this UDF dude's name ? I'm sure it wasn't Eric" :sweatdrop:

As for the debate, it sucked quite badly if you ask me. I watched it, waiting for some great verbal joust, but it was IMO really boring. :thumbsdown:
I expected something as good as "Bien sûr Mr le premier ministre", but nothing of that sort came up in the whole duel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

However I don't quite understand your reasoning, particularly where you suggest the center is both small and broad. It is statistically, if not principally, quite broad in any democracy, and there must be a discernible reason why Bayrou failed to rally it. A political reason, not just a marketing issue.

---

Well teh Don answered your first question: 'common sense tells you that the moderates would dominate in terms of numbers. But most issues tend to be framed in bipolar answers'

In a mature democracy, most votes end up at relatively moderate centre-right or centre-left parties. It's very hard for a centrist party to rally the centre and claim it for their own because it is so crowded there and the molochs from the left and right cover it as well. Look at the FDP in Germany or the Liberal Democrats in the UK. The centre is broad in number of voters, but parties operating exclusively in the centre are small. Everywhere they get crushed between a large Labour/socialist/social democratic party from the left and a conservative / Christian democratic / republican party from the right.

France's right-wing was consolidated by Chirac into a single union, the Union for a Popular Movement (the UDF, Bayrou's party, stayed out). And there is a strong Parti Socialiste plus a 'gauche plurielle' (left-wing coalition) of parties too. Both wings completely dominate the political landscape, so it's difficult for the UDF or (possibly, this new Democratic party based on the UDF) in the centre. My reasoning is, that with the left still being rather left and the right especially under Sarkozy being quite far to the right, there is a golden opportunity to create a lasting centrist party.

Bayrou did brilliantly though. 18,5 % of votes is very high for a first round, so there is no political or marketing failure. He rallied a huge number of centrist voters behind him. It has been a succes, and now I want more of it for the coming years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I think Royal is going to win. Bayrou's support was all she needed. Besides, I cannot imagine France electing a fiscal liberal like Sarkozy (liberal in the free-market sense for my American friends). France voted to keep itself from fully joining the EU to avoid market reforms, I cannot believe they're going to elect a president that ran on promoting them. I'm surprised Sarkozy did as well as he has. I think comparing him to Le Pen is unfair and unfortunate. All anybody has to do is suggest relaxing regulation requirements on key industrial sectors, and whammo, they're extreme right-wing and ready to devolve into National Socialism at the drop of a hat (ironic, as they advocate a close relationship between government and industry).

---

Nice post, but several things:

France voted in the referendum against the EU constitution, therefore it didn't go into effect anywhere in the EU. I mean, what!? You think the EU can move on without us!? Gah!! Gah!! Gah11!1!!1! :whip:
Maybe you are confusing it with France staying out of Nato's central command structure? Shame on you Don. France isn't out to always obstruct anything and everything in the same old way! That's nothing but a scandalous American stereotype.
We're way too creative for that and always come up a new way to frustrate the rest of the world. Tsk.

***

Not everything, every political or economical category or ideology crosses the Atlantic well. The French tradition of dirigism, of capitalism without capital, has always been very right wing. It's Gaullism, not socialism. Call it National Republicanism if you must, to use a better term than the historically unfortunatly chosen national socialism. And it has been, and to a large extent still is, very succesful. Rampant capitalism isn't the only path to a succesful, wealthy, open and free western society.

Me, I'm sitting here wondering how on earth a fractured wild west capitalist country like the US is not on the verge of collapse. Or rather, I would wonder about that if I didn't know any better. ~;)

Nuclear power, a competing car industry, space exploration, Airbus AND a humane social model - the successes of the French path can't be discarded. Combine it with the best health care system in the world and above all else a quality of life that in many respects is quite unrivalled, and you can understand the reluctancy of France to change her ways. I've said it before in this thread and I'll say it again: France is right and the rest of the world is wrong. :knight:

Unfortunately, you all insist on working like ants for eighty years, playing some weird game of 'he who dies with most things wins'. And globalisition means we're all in the same game now. So that leaves us with two options: oppose globalisation or figure out a plan B.
Some oppose globalisation, others realise that this cause is lost and give up in despair. Personally I have resigned myself to the fact France's War on Globalisition is doomed to fail. So that leaves figuring out plan B. The tyranny of inhumane capitalism shall not raise its bloodied flag over us.
As soon as we've find a way to overcome it, find another model, we'll be back on our march towards glory and grandeur, ready to amaze the world again.