[quote]pookie wrote:
lixy wrote:
STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTHS!
Mouths? Would that be one for each of your two faces?
[/quote]
There is no room for words when lixy continuously puts both feet in his mouth.
ECONOMIC MISINFORMATION PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN FRENCH ELECTION
by Mark Weisbrot
April 27, 2007
The elections in France demonstrate the power of faulty economic analysis, and more generalized problems with arithmetic, to shape ideas and possibly the future of not only a nation, but a continent.
The United States has faced similar problems with its debate over Social Security, in which the majority of Americans were convinced - based on verbal and accounting trickery - that the program is facing serious financial problems when the baby boom generation retires. (It isn’t).
In France, Nicolas Sarkozy, the right-wing candidate, has taken the lead after Sunday’s election with 31.2 percent of the vote, against S?gol?ne Royal, the left-of-center candidate of France’s Socialist party, who garnered 25.9 percent. They face a runoff election against each other on May 6.
The general theme that has propelled Sarkozy into the lead is that the French economy is somehow “stuck” and needs to be reformed to be more like ours. It is also widely believed that France needs to be made more “competitive” in the global economy, since competition is tougher now in a more globalized world.
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has been the most popular proponent of the idea that French workers must lower their living standards because of the global economy. “All of the forces of globalization [are] eating away at Europe’s welfare states,” he writes . . . “French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day.” For Friedman and most of the pundits, this is impossible.
It is important to understand that there is no economic logic to the argument that the citizens of any rich country need to reduce their living standards or government programs because of economic progress in developing countries. Once a developed country has reached a certain level of productivity, there is no economic reason for its residents to take a pay or benefit cut, or work more hours, because other countries are catching up to their level. That productivity, which is based on the country’s collective knowledge, skills, capital stock, and organization of the economy, is still there, and in fact it increases every year. To the extent that international competition is being used by special interests to push down the living standards of French or German or U.S. workers - and it is - it just means that the rules for international commerce are being written by the wrong people. It is a problem of limited democracy and lack of representation for the majority, not a problem that is inherent to economic progress.
Another mistake that is commonly made in this debate is to compare France’s income or GDP per person to the U.S., by which France lags: $30,693 for France versus $43,144 for the U.S. (these are adjusted for purchasing power parity). But this is not a fair comparison, because the French do not work nearly as many hours as we do in the United States. Economists do not say that one person is worse off than another if she has less income simply due to working fewer hours. A better indicator of economic welfare in such a comparison is therefore productivity, which is as high or higher in France as it is in the United States.
Now for some arithmetic regarding France’s notoriously high unemployment rate among young people, which shaped politics there and influenced world opinion during the youth riots in 2005. The standard measure of unemployment puts the unemployed in the numerator, and unemployed plus employed in the denominator (u/u+e). By this measure, French males age 15-24 have an unemployment rate of 20.8 percent, as compared to 11.8 percent for the US. But this difference is mainly because in France, there are proportionately many more young males who are not in the labor force - because more are in school, and because young people in France do not work part time while they are in school, as much as they do in the United States. Those who are not in the labor force are not counted in either the numerator or the denominator of the unemployment rate.
A better comparison then is to look at the number of unemployed divided by the population of those in the age group 15-24. By this measure, the U.S. comes in at 8.3 percent and France at 8.6 percent. Both countries have a serious unemployment problem among youth, and in both countries it is highly concentrated among racial/ethnic minorities. But the problem is not much worse in France than it is in the United States.
Sarkozy proposes making it easier for employers to fire workers, cutting taxes (including inheritance taxes), pushing back against the 35 hour work week, and other measures that will favor upper-income groups and owners of corporations. These measures will certainly redistribute income upward, as we have been doing in the United States over the last 30 years. But once again, there is little or no economic evidence that these measures will increase employment or economic growth.
Royal proposes a series of measures to boost economy-wide demand - including raising the minimum wage, unemployment benefits, and state-subsidized employment. These make some economic sense, since they at least have a chance - mostly by boosting aggregate demand and spending power of consumers - to create more employment.
If France makes a historic shift to the right in this election, it will be largely due to economic misinformation.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
etaco wrote:
I would have preferred Bayrou. Royale couldn’t run a newspaper stand and Sarkozy’s most prominent trait is his authoritarian streak. Moreover while German nationalists may be more dangerous, French nationalists are certainly more annoying.
Not sure I agree with you. France has all kinds of huge structural economic problems, and Sarkozy is the only one who is going to make an effort to change the course of his nation. I’m not a fan of authoritarians either (see: Giuliani, Rudy), but banlieu rioting was no joke.
I agree, france needs Sarkozy right now. They need a man not afraid to do what it takes to improve on the situation. France needs to get the economy back on track, to slow down the immigration until they have the apparatus to integrate those they already have recieved.
The problem in Europe is that the leftists shout “racism!!!” as soon as someone make comments like I just did… “WHAT?! reducing immigration?! YOU RACIST!!”… it really pollutes any serious debate.
[/quote]
The same happens here in the U.S.! You must be a racist if you want borders secured and people to come here by legal means. Comical but true!
[quote]lixy wrote:
…
The United States has faced similar problems with its debate over Social Security, in which the majority of Americans were convinced - based on verbal and accounting trickery - that the program is facing serious financial problems when the baby boom generation retires. (It isn’t).
…
[/quote]
This must be an op-ed, and judging just from this point. This guys is on one side of a debate, and he just cavalierly dismisses the opposite (majority and more respected) view (he’s dismissing Alan Greenspan out of hand as a spreader of economic disinformation, apparently).
It would be akin to throwing a line in saying the world has been misled about anthropogenic global warming, which is an analogy to this other misleading thing I am going to point out.
Here’s his homepage: http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=94
Looks as if he specializes in far left economics (to the left of Krugman).
This, I think, requires us to take his claims with a large salt shaker.
[quote]lixy wrote:
ECONOMIC MISINFORMATION PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN FRENCH ELECTION
by Mark Weisbrot
April 27, 2007
…[/quote]
The guy opens and closes with the claim that Americans have duped into thinking that Social Security will eventually become an albatross on our economy because of faulty numbers, and then proceeds to write an entire claiming that France’s economy is just fine.
His evidence? A whole lot of number gymnastics.
He implies that the Right is wrong because they fooled us by twisting numbers, and then tries to convince us otherwise by twisting a bunch of numbers.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
ECONOMIC MISINFORMATION PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN FRENCH ELECTION
by Mark Weisbrot
April 27, 2007
…
The guy opens and closes with the claim that Americans have duped into thinking that Social Security will eventually become an albatross on our economy because of faulty numbers, and then proceeds to write an entire claiming that France’s economy is just fine.
His evidence? A whole lot of number gymnastics.
He implies that the Right is wrong because they fooled us by twisting numbers, and then tries to convince us otherwise by twisting a bunch of numbers.[/quote]
As usual, lixy is not able to argue on his own, he has to use leftist propaganda to speak for him…
sad.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
His evidence? A whole lot of number gymnastics. [/quote]
Can you refute this bit? No numbers in here to confuse the weak mind.
It is important to understand that there is no economic logic to the argument that the citizens of any rich country need to reduce their living standards or government programs because of economic progress in developing countries. Once a developed country has reached a certain level of productivity, there is no economic reason for its residents to take a pay or benefit cut, or work more hours, because other countries are catching up to their level. That productivity, which is based on the country’s collective knowledge, skills, capital stock, and organization of the economy, is still there, and in fact it increases every year.
Lixy, does it hurt your pride to know that every time you say something stupid you get a verbal ass kicking?
And your not helping your case by saying these people will RIOT if this guy gets elected, hmmm threating violence if you don’t get your way, sounds alot like TERRORISM. No you did not say this but the article you put up sure as hell did.
[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
His evidence? A whole lot of number gymnastics.
Can you refute this bit? No numbers in here to confuse the weak mind.
It is important to understand that there is no economic logic to the argument that the citizens of any rich country need to reduce their living standards or government programs because of economic progress in developing countries. Once a developed country has reached a certain level of productivity, there is no economic reason for its residents to take a pay or benefit cut, or work more hours, because other countries are catching up to their level. That productivity, which is based on the country’s collective knowledge, skills, capital stock, and organization of the economy, is still there, and in fact it increases every year.[/quote]
These variables are not constants, and can in fact decline.
Some parts of Europe have insanely high taxes to support their welfare states, and those high taxes sometimes drive off large corporations, and skilled and educated individuals.
Guess what makes up most of a country’s “collective knowledge, skills, capital stock”?
It is no secret that France needs to get off its butt and get to work if it doesn’t want to be passed by most other industrialized nations.
[quote]lixy wrote:
ECONOMIC MISINFORMATION PLAYS A MAJOR ROLE IN FRENCH ELECTION
The United States has faced similar problems with its debate over Social Security…in which the majority of Americans were convinced - based on verbal and accounting trickery - that the program is facing serious financial problems when the baby boom generation retires. (It isn’t).
[/quote]
I stopped right here…
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
His evidence? A whole lot of number gymnastics.
Can you refute this bit? No numbers in here to confuse the weak mind.
It is important to understand that there is no economic logic to the argument that the citizens of any rich country need to reduce their living standards or government programs because of economic progress in developing countries. Once a developed country has reached a certain level of productivity, there is no economic reason for its residents to take a pay or benefit cut, or work more hours, because other countries are catching up to their level. That productivity, which is based on the country’s collective knowledge, skills, capital stock, and organization of the economy, is still there, and in fact it increases every year.
These variables are not constants, and can in fact decline.
Some parts of Europe have insanely high taxes to support their welfare states, and those high taxes sometimes drive off large corporations, and skilled and educated individuals.
Guess what makes up most of a country’s “collective knowledge, skills, capital stock”?
It is no secret that France needs to get off its butt and get to work if it doesn’t want to be passed by most other industrialized nations.[/quote]
The thing is, most socialists doesen’t understand the most basic economic theory (they wouldn’t be socialists if they did… would they? 
). Things like how markets function most effectively and how raw materials and rescourses are best used… neeeh, why bother about that? WE CAN PRETEND TO HAVE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND!! WE ARE SOCIALISTS!!
…
eat batshit, that is what i have to say to dumbfucksocialists.
Lixy whines:
Well…
Everything single policy initiative mentioned in the above paragraph can raise prices in the economy. Employers will pass along the raised wages. As such, while trying to boost demand - which it should be noted that they already see low demand as a problem to be remedied - when prices go up, it tends to cool demand.
Second, more government expernditures take resources from the private sector - money has to come from somewhere - which takes money away from private sector actors who need it to improve productivity: to lower prices, make more competitive products (boosting demand), etc.
Third, France’s economic situation admittedly needs repair. The socialist choices of the past created the problem they have now - why would anything think that doing more of the same can cure the socialist malaise?
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result being the definition of insanity, and all that.
Minimum wage will have a huge impact on spending power? How big a segment of the French labor force actually works for minimum wage? And as prices go up in the sectors of the economy where minimum-wage employees work, doesn’t that erode the newfound purchasing power, especially of the people on minumum wage?
And how can this increase employment, as businesses - forced into new costs that are not part of ordinary market input - have to cut hours and jobs to stay competitive?
Interesting - it is a good thing “think tanks” keep guys like this employed. It’s no wonder he favors higher minimum wage - if he ever had to go work a real job subject to something other than wishful theory of socialist economics, he’d be pushing a broom.
But then, no doubt Lixy would believe anything he said.
[quote]John S. wrote:
And your not helping your case by saying these people will RIOT if this guy gets elected, hmmm threating violence if you don’t get your way, sounds alot like TERRORISM. No you did not say this but the article you put up sure as hell did.[/quote]
You are confusing educated prognosis with terorist threat. One takes into consideration the cascading events and deteriorating climate that will ultimately lead to riots while the other says “if I don’t get my way, I’ll make you suffer for it!”.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Some parts of Europe have insanely high taxes to support their welfare states, and those high taxes sometimes drive off large corporations, and skilled and educated individuals. [/quote]
It drives off large corporations, that’s for sure. Educated individuals would rather live in a nice environment where they can safely let their kids walk to school than get a few more bucks.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Everything single policy initiative mentioned in the above paragraph can raise prices in the economy. Employers will pass along the raised wages. As such, while trying to boost demand - which it should be noted that they already see low demand as a problem to be remedied - when prices go up, it tends to cool demand. [/quote]
Who exactly sees low demand as a problem? The people perfectly happy with what they have? Or the corporations that need to maximize their profits so a handful can buy yet-another jetplane? Last I checked, there was plenty of demand for qualified artisans.
Nonsense! Things cannot think.
Seriously, when was the last time a leftist or socialist president been at the Elys?e? Your knowledge of the political, economical and social situation in France is mediocre.
[quote]lixy wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Some parts of Europe have insanely high taxes to support their welfare states, and those high taxes sometimes drive off large corporations, and skilled and educated individuals.
It drives off large corporations, that’s for sure. Educated individuals would rather live in a nice environment where they can safely let their kids walk to school than get a few more bucks.
[/quote]
The problem is that both sweden and norway (norway far more than sweden though) chases away companies that make money, increases the amount of people that work for the state, not producing anything and well… without the oil money, norway would be a third world country in the west.
Socialist strategies result in nothing but corporations running away leaving the dumbfuckistanians (read: socialists) to drive themselves into poverty.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Everything single policy initiative mentioned in the above paragraph can raise prices in the economy. Employers will pass along the raised wages. As such, while trying to boost demand - which it should be noted that they already see low demand as a problem to be remedied - when prices go up, it tends to cool demand.
Who exactly sees low demand as a problem? The people perfectly happy with what they have? Or the corporations that need to maximize their profits so a handful can buy yet-another jetplane? Last I checked, there was plenty of demand for qualified artisans.
Third, France’s economic situation admittedly needs repair. The socialist choices of the past created the problem they have now - why would anything think that doing more of the same can cure the socialist malaise?
Nonsense! Things cannot think.
Seriously, when was the last time a leftist or socialist president been at the Elys?e? Your knowledge of the political, economical and social situation in France is mediocre.[/quote]
High demand = high prices = lower demand = lower prices = higher demand = higher prices = lower demand = lower prices… etc.
Governmental control over prices, will fuck this mechanism up, simply put.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Who exactly sees low demand as a problem? [/quote]
Well, moron, how about the candidate herself, from [i]your[/i] own article?
“Royal proposes a series of measures to boost economy-wide demand”
That is the entire impetus of her economic package. Are you just pretending to be dumb? Or are you caught yet again getting hoisted by your own petard?
No, one needs only a basic understanding of economics and reading comprehension skills - neither of which you have demonstrated.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, moron, how about the candidate herself, from [i]your[/i] own article?
“Royal proposes a series of measures to boost economy-wide demand”
That is the entire impetus of her economic package. Are you just pretending to be dumb? Or are you caught yet again getting hoisted by your own petard? [/quote]
Royal has done nothing but copy the points on which Sarkozy campaigned. And since when did I give her any credibility?
Understand that when someone posts an article, it’s because SOME points it makes are worth pondering and NOT that the poster agrees with EVERYTHING in the article.
Here’s something you might find of interest;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6599675.stm
Meanwhile, you didn’t answer my question about the last time a leftist president ruled over France.
[quote]lixy wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, moron, how about the candidate herself, from [i]your[/i] own article?
“Royal proposes a series of measures to boost economy-wide demand”
That is the entire impetus of her economic package. Are you just pretending to be dumb? Or are you caught yet again getting hoisted by your own petard?
Royal has done nothing but copy the points on which Sarkozy campaigned. And since when did I give her any credibility?
Understand that when someone posts an article, it’s because SOME points it makes are worth pondering and NOT that the poster agrees with EVERYTHING in the article.
No, one needs only a basic understanding of economics and reading comprehension skills - neither of which you have demonstrated.
Here’s something you might find of interest;
Meanwhile, you didn’t answer my question about the last time a leftist president ruled over France.[/quote]
Somehow, it seems like lixy thinks that France has a all powerfull president with 100% power… interesting view, especially when 50% of his arguments in this debate is “well, you guys don’t know anything about french politics”…
Lixy has yet to come with ANY arguments of his own… he posts a blogpost and then goes “well, I don’t agree with everything the writer says” when the blogpost gets shot down…
What a simple way to avoid a serious debate… 