EU Constitution - No Information

[doc_bean]

Yes, and it has always been like that. Even in the late 19th century (which was probably the most capitalistic era), France achieved to be a major power while being protectionistic and not having a lot of big industries.
And hmmm, a lot of country tend to become protectionistic when it comes to protect their interests (US, China, and so on)

I never said protectionism was wrong, in fact I think we might need more of it, but at the borders of the Union, not between nations belonging to the EU.

True, yet peasants are massively going to vote against the treaty, though they couldn't survive without EU.

I think they prefer to be referred to as 'farmers' these days.

Well, that's not really the problem. I'm not yet on the work market (I've already worked during summers, to get some money for my studies, but that's about it), but I will never accept to work more than my parents did, and to earn less money in the end.
What you're blaiming is currently the goal of each society. You can't just jump back 50 years later. I know I would attempt a revolution if my governement was trying to do that, wether it would be required or not.

There are ups and downs, certainly in a free market environment. You've got to accept the downs. If you don't recognize the need for cheaper labour, so national companies can stay competitive in a globalized market, a lot of companies will move to other countries were they can get cheap and flexible labour. This will lead to unemployment, which will require the working part of society to pay for the unemployed which will further raise labour costs, which will lead to more companies moving....

I don't like it, but you have to face reality sometimes. The sooner you react to a crisis, the better you can contain it.

Furthermore, I don't want to sound like a far leftous guy (you might have noticed that I don't really like them), but the current problem is IMHo mostly caused by capitalism and neo liberalism. When an american pension found (I hope that's how you say it) can fire 2.000 workers in another country just to earn more money, or when a major industries leave its native country to go to China, I think there's a serious problem.

Welcome to the free market my friend. Whatever adam Smith might have said or thought, it IS a bitch.

However, those are the rules we chose to play by, and those are the rules we'll have to follow (I don't see another communist revolution coming).

Globalization has many downsides that i fear are ignored too much because big business does benefit from it. And I'm not just referring to how it impacts on poor South American or African countries (where it leads to horrible situations), I mean that globalization, in the long run, will undermine our, rich, Western society.
I think the EU, over time, might become a powerful instrument to protect ourselves, as is demonstrated by the farm subsidies.

[Adrian II]

Welcome to the free market my friend. Whatever adam Smith might have said or thought, it IS a bitch.

A free market is not the same as a fair market. We don't need free markets because they are directed (instead of served) by monopolistic or oligarchic industries, often based on premodern institutes (such as the industrial conglomerates in Japan and South Korea). The formula for fair markets has yet to be found, it is waiting for its Adam Smith. Sorry to sound so 'profound', but I have little time. Just to say that as a socialist I find nothing wrong with competition, it is essential for freedom, progress and growth. There should be no Bill Gates's and no closed French wine markets in this world. And markets for ideas should be opened/kept open at any price.

Just 2 cts.

[Crazed Rabbit]

There should be no Bill Gates's and no closed French wine markets in this world.

No Bill Gates? You want to take away 90% of the operatings systems in the world?

And has it ever occured to the miimum wage increase-happy socialists in Europe that raising wages means the companies have to raise costs, thus raising the cost of living, thus causing the unions to whine for another increase in wages? When the nanny states put controls and regulations over every single aspect of a person's life and business, they dramatically increase the cost of living.

In India and China, people are willing to work for less. This helps the western consumers, but causes the wester workers in those fields to whine for protection since they don't want to have their wages cut.

Speaking of protectionism, the US is relatively un-protective economically.

Crazed Rabbit

[doc_bean]

No Bill Gates? You want to take away 90% of the operatings systems in the world?

I think he was giving an example of how wealth can accumulate with one person, instead of being more evenly spread out across society.

I don't like the Gates example, Microsoft is mostly focused on one thing (Windows, with related activities in the software/hardware industry) and they spend a ton of money on innovative ideas 'just because'. I never heard about them treating their employies badly either.

Better examples of an 'evil' corporations would be Proctor and Gamble, Macdonalds, and (arguably) the whole pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry is difficult to judge, on the one hand they keep the cost of medicine artificially high and they spend most money researching drugs for 'trivial' matters such as impotence, while spending very little on things like malaria. They also didn't want the third world to have cheap (aids) medication. On the other hand, most of the money they receive is probably invested in researching new drugs, which of course does benefit society a great deal.


I think an ideal socialist system (although this might even be considered communist I guess) would be one where the employees owned a significant part of the company. That way their interest coincide with those of the company, which would minimize the migration of manufacturing plants to third world countries, but also, imho, would minimise strikes and other 'sabotage' actions. It is, in a very direct way, in the employees best interest to keep the company viable.
This system does require a 'low' social security. At least when it comes to unemployment benefits.

And has it ever occured to the miimum wage increase-happy socialists in Europe that raising wages means the companies have to raise costs, thus raising the cost of living, thus causing the unions to whine for another increase in wages? When the nanny states put controls and regulations over every single aspect of a person's life and business, they dramatically increase the cost of living.

I don't think minimum wage is such a problem. Unions are far more powerful in Europe than in the states. They determine what wages are given by a company, much more than the government setting a minimum wage.

In India and China, people are willing to work for less. This helps the western consumers, but causes the wester workers in those fields to whine for protection since they don't want to have their wages cut.

And this is what I was warning for. Companies are bigger than nations now, they will move to where they can operate the cheapest, and if necessary, they will fly in qualified people from wherever in the world they can be found. The average, and let's be honest, relatively unskilled employee in Europe will lose his/her job. The rest will not be able to, or not be willing to pay for their welfare. And this will turn into the third world.

Of course, I'm dramatizing, but there is a real threat, and these ostrich politics that are so popular now will only worsen the problem.

I fear, as much as it pains me to say, the Europe might need its Reagan.

Speaking of protectionism, the US is relatively un-protective economically.

About the same as the EU I think, strong protection for the agricultural sector, the steel, car and defense industry.

[Adrian II]

I don't like the Gates example, Microsoft is mostly focused on one thing (..)

Making profit through monopolisation, just like the French wine producers. We should radically change the range and lifecycle of intellectual property rights. Such changes made capitalism into what it is. Without decisive legal rulings and new laws on this point in 1750's Britain, there would not have been an Industrial Revolution to begin with. Changes which, by the way, constitute Britain's true contribution to mankind, not the afternoon tea-Empire-cricket nonsense. And we make capitalism into something different than it is now by changing them again.

The notion that a company should have any 'right' to the genetic make-up of a traditional Indian healing plant (the naim) that was developed over millennia of cultivation is not just a crime, it is a mistake, just like the foolish notion that French winemakers somehow 'own' a particular grape.

Oh, an nanny states have little to do with minimum wages. Collective bargaining is the operative principle here, the outcome being a more egalitarian, generally more pleasant society with less violence, higher mean education levels, more holidays, good work-life balance, etcetera. I like it that way. Europeans like it that way. Americans who think that notions of social progress somehow lack economic acumen should remember where capitalism (and any other worthwhile social and intellectual movement) started.

[Meneldil]

Yes, major companies are more powerful than States now, but IMHO that won't last forever.
They can't just always move to cheaper contries, because in the end, no one will be able to buy their goods. It might sounds naive, but I can't see anything else happening, because the country they move to aren't becoming wealthier, while the country they left usually become poorer.
Btw, the fact that consummers (sp?) are always looking for cheaper goods make them guilty for what is happening now.


And no, chineses are not *willing* to work for less money. They don't have the choice. I guess if you were to ask a chinese worker if he prefers to work in the chinese or european way, how many will chose to work 16 hours a day for nothing ?

I think an ideal socialist system (although this might even be considered communist I guess) would be one where the employees owned a significant part of the company. That way their interest coincide with those of the company, which would minimize the migration of manufacturing plants to third world countries, but also, imho, would minimise strikes and other 'sabotage' actions. It is, in a very direct way, in the employees best interest to keep the company viable.
This system does require a 'low' social security. At least when it comes to unemployment benefits.

This idea sounds indeed cool, but a similar system already failled in some communists states.

[doc_bean]

Making profit through monopolisation, just like the French wine producers. We should radically change the range and lifecycle of intellectual property rights. Such changes made capitalism into what it is. Without decisive legal rulings and new laws on this point in 1750's Britain, there would not have been an Industrial Revolution to begin with. Changes which, by the way, constitute Britain's true contribution to mankind, not the afternoon tea-Empire-cricket nonsense. And we make capitalism into something different than it is now by changing them again.

The notion that a company should have any 'right' to the genetic make-up of a traditional Indian healing plant (the naim) that was developed over millennia of cultivation is not just a crime, it is a mistake, just like the foolish notion that French winemakers somehow 'own' a particular grape.

In Europe, you can't own anything that is naturally occurring, you can however, patent any modification to it, and (I think) any possible use for it. (quite a few patents needed for that), as long as the use is 'new' and non-trivial.

Intellectual property is one of the most important aspects of today's economy, you surely can't just dismiss them, it would halt or seriously slow down progress.

Oh, an nanny states have little to do with minimum wages. Collective bargaining is the operative principle here, the outcome being a more egalitarian, generally more pleasant society with less violence, higher mean education levels, more holidays, good work-life balance, etcetera. I like it that way. Europeans like it that way. Americans who think that notions of social progress somehow lack economic acumen should remember where capitalism (and any other worthwhile social and intellectual movement) started.

I agree, but sometimes we need to be able to make sacrifices, in a zero growth economy like Belgium, unions are still demanding as much as a 10% increase in wages next year, often in companies that are already in financial problems. Add to that the use of 'pre-emptive strikes' that seems to have become pretty popular (we had such a train strike two weeks ago) and you get a very twisted system.
We need to be socially responsible, but this means that we should also be responsible for what happens to and with 'our' companies.

Yes, major companies are more powerful than States now, but IMHO that won't last forever.
They can't just always move to cheaper contries, because in the end, no one will be able to buy their goods. It might sounds naive, but I can't see anything else happening, because the country they move to aren't becoming wealthier, while the country they left usually become poorer.

Yes, but then we'll have a global economic crises and we're still screwed, We'll have to start all over again.

Btw, the fact that consummers (sp?) are always looking for cheaper goods make them guilty for what is happening now.

Very true, a few years ago Renault closed a factory here which led to quite a drama. The next year, Renault sales had gone up in Belgium. Costumers are unaware of their responsibility. France might actually be the exception here. A lot of people seem to buy 'local' there.

And no, chineses are not *willing* to work for less money. They don't have the choice. I guess if you were to ask a chinese worker if he prefers to work in the chinese or european way, how many will chose to work 16 hours a day for nothing ?

But they DO work for less money, regardless. Companies are interested in cheap labour, how it is achieved concerns them very little.

This idea sounds indeed cool, but a similar system already failled in some communists states.

I think after the French revolution people experimented with similar systems and also failed, it might be that the system is not flexible enough.

I do believe me need a second democratic evolution, instead of 'we the government' it should also be 'we the companies'. People should by domestic products, support their companies when they are in need (not kick 'em while they're down at least) and create a healthy economic climate (lowering labour costs through the government), in exchange, companies will have a greater interest in staying were they are, and in employing locals. (They have to if they want us as costumers.)

[JAG]

I would rather die than see any government state 'we the companies' rather than 'we the government', that is a step backwards beyond recognition, even the US pretends it is a government even though it is run by companies, it would be disturbing if we went down that path.

I totally agree that we should have a system where the workers get a share of the company they work in, that not only breeds worker / company bonds which mean that they work in mutual interest but also clearly helps create a fairer society.

I don't think we should all buy local goods, I am all for free trade - maybe surprisingly :p I do not mind having a system where we are all buying foreign goods but as long as it is fair and each country can specialise in specific strenghs. Through that we would have a stronger EU working better together and generating more economic growth and prosperity for each other.