-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
France to run out of fuel in days as strikes escalate
- Thread starter NotWii
- Start date
- Status
If you guys were okay with 40 years of employment as a requirement for obtaining full retirement in the first place (which sounds ridiculous), how much difference does adding two years make? I don't know much about the French retirement system so this is rather confusing to me as to why this is such a problem now that the country feels they need to strike.Kurtofan said:
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Cooter said:
My father is going to be 70 in a year. He would be the first one to punch the cops in the face in that protest if they tried to prevent him from protesting. He could talk to you for hours about how important the construction of a social justice-oriented society has been for the past decades. My grand parents used to work for TOKENS instead of money, just a few decades ago, while being taught in school by catholic nuns, and they were telling their kids how school was not important. They had the little-people syndrome that you carry.
We have made immeasurable progress in the past decades thanks to the kind of protests you are seeing in France, and will continue to do so.
The only things I'm thankful for is for what WE HAVE BUILT and hence WILL CONTINUE TO DEFEND against conservatives' whose only goal is to tear everything down for the sake of corporations. They are NOT doing this to be fiscally responsible. They are doing this because any alternatives would go against the hand that feeds them, which is NOT the people.
harriet the spy
Member
I am sorry but this was a prodigiously idiotic statement. What do you think, that without the US insane defense spending you'd have hordes of barbarians ready to invade France? It's not like the US is on a selfless mission to defend Europe from angry arabs. The US has a large defense spending to protect their own interests, and that's pretty much it.Cooter said:
Ether_Snake said:
Social justice? Yeah, I'll pass. Not the Govt's job to dole out social justice.
Protest all you want. I'm all for protests. Real change comes one of two ways; through the political process or a revolution. Protesting isn't gonna change much unless you get enough of them to vote for their priorities or overthrow the Govt.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
rpmurphy said:
Have you not bothered to inform yourself? Just because the MINIMUM retirement age is at 62 doesn't mean people will retire at 62! It is EXTREMELY likely that they will only be able to do so at around 70!
AND, just because we live longer doesn't mean we are stronger than we were in the past at the same age. Fact is we could plug people to machines a la Terri Schiavo and keep them alive for another ten years, it doesn't mean they would magically be more efficient at 60 than if they died ten years earlier than then.
And that's without even talking about the impact of keeping so many people employed past a certain age with so much unemployment affecting young people who would be contributing MORE to the economy if THEY worked compared to someone nearing retirement.
Cooter said:
You know NOTHING. Protests have succeeded countless times around the world for decades. You're just a self-defeated naysayer. You are afraid.
harriet the spy said:
Yeah, that's exactly what I think. I'm sure your opinion would have been different during the cold war. I agree that our military budget is not as necessary as it was in the past but don't pretend that Europe doesn't benefit from the ability to devote more resources away from defense because the USA will protect them from whatever might happen. Russia and China, while not threats now, could very well pose a threat in the not so distant future. Just because there hasn't been a large scale war in many of our lifetimes does not mean that there won't be. It seems to be part of human history and I have a hard time believing that we have changed that much if at all.
empty vessel
Member
Cooter said:
Of course you can. And it's not on the government's dime. Society has X amount of wealth. Devote required amount Y (some amount less than X) to top notch health care, months off, and a comfortable life as a senior. Problem solved, and incredibly easily. Your position appears to boil down to nothing more than an assertion that humans are destined to live miserable lives. It is nonsense. There is plenty of wealth in the world to pay for these things. It's just a matter of getting the allocation right (e.g., less on making useless bombs and yachts for wealthy people).
fortified_concept
Banned
Cooter said:
Representatives elected by the people.
fortified_concept
Banned
Alx said:
Corporations and banks wouldn't have them by the balls.
Alx
Member
fortified_concept said:
And how would you be sure of it ?
Anyway, what you're suggesting is exactly what's in place now : representatives elected by the people, taking decisions about how to manage the wealth of the country. And we even have strict laws about political financing, to prevent too much control by corporations.
The representatives of the people have decided to increase the age of retirement, that's how our democracy works.
fortified_concept
Banned
Alx said:
Because banks would be public and noone could become rich and powerful enough to be able to influence governments. It's that simple.
As for the rest, yeah, you're completely wrong about that. The "representatives" priority is the banks and the corporations otherwise they wouldn't screw the middle class every time there's an "emergency". An emergency that 90% of the time is made up that only serves the interests of the upper class, a pretense from them to slowly change the social structure of a nation.
I'll give a a simple example because I was reading an article about it yesterday. Greece's defense expenses compared to GDP are the biggest in Europe and one of the biggest in the world. Do you know that EU and specifically Germany and France insisted on cutting expenses that decimate our middle class on everything except our enormous defense budget? Do you know why? Because German and French weapons dealers are profiting from it. It's the same reason your country has enormous defense expenses, billions wasted on shit that provide nothing to your society. Not to mention that there are specific reports that say that one of the terms of the debt agreement was for Greece to continue buying weapons, in other words the french are partly paying for Greece to buy worthless crap.
Alx
Member
Banks being public wouldn't change much. They would still have to be managed by someone, and that someone will have all the power that comes with money. At best this management will be independent from the government, and it would make no difference with private banks, at worst it would be controlled by the government, and it would not be banks pushing political power, but owning it.
As for preventing people from being rich and powerful, I'm sorry but you're living in a fantasy world. In all political/social system in history, from extreme communism to extreme capitalism and everything in the middle, there were figures of power, and power calls for wealth and wealth calls for power.
About countries having their own agenda in international trade, yes it's a reality. It's sad when it happens inside the european union because its point was to defend common interests, but otherwise it's part of the government tasks to defend the country's interests. And products exportation are part of it.
As for preventing people from being rich and powerful, I'm sorry but you're living in a fantasy world. In all political/social system in history, from extreme communism to extreme capitalism and everything in the middle, there were figures of power, and power calls for wealth and wealth calls for power.
About countries having their own agenda in international trade, yes it's a reality. It's sad when it happens inside the european union because its point was to defend common interests, but otherwise it's part of the government tasks to defend the country's interests. And products exportation are part of it.
fortified_concept
Banned
Alx said:
You can't be serious. That someone would be a civil servant, he wouldn't own the bank. Are you implying that a civil servant would become powerful enough -even though he doesn't own the bank- to be able to corrupt politicians? Why would he even care to do so when the money are going back to the state? This only deserves a smiley.
No, you're wrong. There could be powerful people but it wouldn't even comparable to the accumulation of power capitalism allows. Not. even. close. And if you think it would be possible you need to read about how socialism works (key word: means of production)
No this isn't about countries' agendas. You make it sound like they're working for the good of the country. This is about politicians acting like salesmen for the corporations. This is about scum putting corporate interest in front of the interest of their own citizens who pay for other countries' debt that is created by buying useless crap to make weapons dealers rich. This isn't even about countries. The same way the French weapons dealers are forcing other countries to buy their worthless crap they're doing it to France too.
Alx
Member
fortified_concept said:
Well, of course. Whether you are a civil servant or not, it's all about power. And when you have billions at your disposal, even if they're not your own, that you can decide where to invest, who to lend, then you have a huge power. The same power a private CEO has ; not because he owns the company (most of the time he doesn't), but because he makes decisions.
fortified_concept said:
Well, I know how socialism works. Actually the current governments are balanced between capitalism and socialism, compared to the US. And we all know how the 100% socialist systems turned out...
fortified_concept said:
The governments don't help the big companies because they're friends with their owners. The benefits also appear on the country's wealth : more contracts means more jobs created, and more income means more tax revenue.
If it were only a matter of control by private individuals, it wouldn't be exclusive to the companies of the country.
Of course having such important common interests helps politicians and companies to become "big friends", and they sometimes abuse it. But it doesn't mean that everything is based on corruption.
fortified_concept
Banned
Alx said:
Even if that civil servant somehow managed to influence the government the profit would return to the state. This doesn't even deserve a reply. You're comparing completely different things and you're comparing them badly.
No, we don't. Stalinist authoritarian bullshit is not socialism. Hell, it isn't even communism.
Again, the same tactics used for other countries are being used within the country. If they were doing it for the good of the country they'd only screw other countries (even though it is obvious that by screwing other countries within the union they're screwing their citizens too).
But France is #4 in the entire world in defense expenses. That alone it evidence enough that they don't give a fuck about the good of the country... unless you're like some paranoid republicans who think that the boogeyman will invade them if they don't waste billions on defense every fucking year.
Alx
Member
fortified_concept said:
And you think that somebody with such power will not use it for his own interest ? Like what's happening everywhere, everyday, by civil servants and others ? You know, presidents and members of parliament are civil servants, too...
fortified_concept said:
But it started by socialism. Socialism means centralization of power, which is the best ground for dictatorship. It happened in USSR, most eastern europe countries, Cuba, North Korea, and we can't really consider China as a model of freedom. Give a man power, and he will abuse it. The best way to limit it is to have counter-powers, not putting all your eggs in the same basket.
fortified_concept said:
Selling planes, weapons or anything is not "screwing" anybody. It's called trade.
It's not exclusive to weapons, even if we can argue about the point of a big army today (and the army budgets have been scaled down for some time, actually).
fortified_concept
Banned
Alx said:
Dude, you're talking about a civil servant not a CEO. This is like saying that the head of the tax agency in France will get drunk with power and start influencing the government.
No it didn't start with socialism. It started with a revolution, the wrong guy getting in change of the newly formed government and uneducated poor citizens that made it possible. It continued with that model of authoritarian "communism" spreading all over the world because the Soviet Union became a superpower and helped and influenced these nations. Soviet Union would have turned out differently if Trotsky was put in power instead of the fascist prick. Afterall the original model of the Soviet Union involved each Soviet voting and electing their representatives. Not to mention that I keep falling into your trap and replying to offtopic subjects since you keep confusing socialism with communism which tells me you don't really know a lot about it.
Selling useless shit to someone that doesn't need it and using debt to blackmail him into buying it falls withing the category of screwing as far as I'm concerned. And since you agree with me about the point of big army budgets you should agree too that politicians are being influenced by weapons dealers and put corporate interest in front of the interests of the people of France.
empty vessel
Member
Cooter said:
Whoever is in charge of it now? We as a society already organize wealth allocation according to a scheme that we have socially established (i.e., it is not the physical laws of the universe that require the wealth allocation we have). If that scheme is distributing our wealth in a way that is no longer meeting our social needs, we can change it. This isn't rocket science. That you are confused about this speaks to how indoctrinated you are.
Cooter said:
You already live in a controlled society, i.e., a society that distributes wealth and resources by a scheme it has ostensibly agreed upon. There is nothing sacred about that scheme, and it can be tweaked, modified, or wholly scrapped as appropriate or as necessary to better achieve our aspirations as members of a particular human society. Dig? If we want less bombs and more leisure in our old age, it is a rather easy thing to do.
empty vessel said:
Wow, can you be more condescending? You are advocating basically scrapping defense and telling people what they can and cannot buy. Currently, for the most part, citizens choose what to do with the money they earn and the Govt chooses what to do with the tax revenue. How would you change this? Would you just tax the wealthy 95% so they don't have the opportunity to buy that yacht or forbid them to do so as indicated by your previous post. Also, there is a way to get your desired goal of no defense spending and it's quite easy. Vote people in that share your view and it would get done pretty quickly.
empty vessel said:
Clever but an attempt to minimize the loss of control an average citizen would suffer from a truly socialistic system. Although you assert it as fact the world does not have plenty of wealth to pay for all these things you desire. It's like you live in an alternative reality where everyone is peaceful and no nation would dream of building up a powerful military to invade a resource rich country with no military. I'd love for everyone to hang out all day, play videogames, have sex and spend time with family and friends but in order to have a productive society with options people must work and the talented must have wealth to lure them in or they will move to somewhere that offers it.
empty vessel
Member
Cooter said:
Yes, it does, and many times over. It boils down to priorities. I have mine in order. You seem to prioritize suffering for some reason that you haven't really adequately explained. It's very weird, almost fetishist, to be honest.
empty vessel said:
I guess my definition of suffering is much different from yours. How would you as a (insert country) man stop the true suffering in much of Asia, Africa, and middle east? I'm not talking about the poor in the west who get food stamps and have running water and heat. I'm referring to the places where making it to 30 is not anywhere near a certainty.
You didn't address much of my post either.
Enosh
Member
I love this onefortified_concept said:
it's my favorite line to hear from a socialist/communist since it's just reeks of desperation
fun fact, communism was tried, it failed spectaculary
the thing is that communist (aka rich kids that have been near communism) belive in some ultimate utopia of communism where everything is fair, an utopia that compleatly removes the human element from it and then they act suprised when it fails again and again and again, always pointing out how it never was "real communism", it's just beautifull
but I do agree with you that rich people should be taxed more, so there is that
fortified_concept
Banned
Enosh said:
Scandinavian nations have been much closer to socialism than Soviet Union could ever even imagine and they've been models of society for years (too bad they joined EU which is already corrupting and changing their social structure). Strange though, considering your fascist ideology I thought you'd like Stalin. You people have to rethink your stance on him, think about it, he really liked oppressing people, isn't it great?
empty vessel
Member
Gallbaro said:
You are delusional.
Earthstrike
Member
I always find it quite peculiar that people make the argument that life isn't fair when talking about communism.
The impression I get from the argument is that it does not make sense to make everyone's lives fair, since life isn't fair to begin with. But if that's the case, communism is just a bunch of people unfairly fucking over the rich and wealthy. Why should unfairness to the poor have greater value than unfairness to the rich?
The impression I get from the argument is that it does not make sense to make everyone's lives fair, since life isn't fair to begin with. But if that's the case, communism is just a bunch of people unfairly fucking over the rich and wealthy. Why should unfairness to the poor have greater value than unfairness to the rich?
empty vessel
Member
Earthstrike said:
Life is exactly as fair as we collectively choose to make it.
Some interesting numbers: http://www.english.rfi.fr/economy/20101020-are-french-bunch-lazy-slackers
Meanwhile the bill is going along pretty nicely, should be passed by the 15th. Good, so we can get with other business. The strikes are costing between 200 000 000 and 400 000 000 a day (with the zeros makes it nice).
Meanwhile the bill is going along pretty nicely, should be passed by the 15th. Good, so we can get with other business. The strikes are costing between 200 000 000 and 400 000 000 a day (with the zeros makes it nice).
JzeroT1437
Member
Drkirby said:
...aren't those ultimately determined by financial experts and...bankers?
fortified_concept said:
Another favorite leftist canard. It's a mixed economy and has been beating a path away from socialism for some time now. And guess what? It's improved things greatly.
EVAL RIGHT-WING LINKS:
http://reason.tv/video/show/508.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/248263
fortified_concept
Banned
Cooter said:
What planet are you living on? According to your logic human societies are as fair as they were in the dark ages. Following your logic even now every society is just as fair as the next one. Of course we can make our societies a lot more fair if we choose to.
140.85 said:
Yes it's capitalism that has shaped the Scandinavian counties' societies into what they are. :lol Jesus Christ, you're dense.
Dai Kaiju
Member
Smash88 said:
I'd be more embarrassed of my fellow Americans than I already am (most of the time) if they protested a change in policiy like this one. Those French students remind me of little kids who get sick but don't want to take their medicine because it's too yucky. It's for your own damn good, so drink up.
Oh, and as for the "idiotic morons" fighting against health care reform...Hard working Americans don't feel they should have to pay for the health care of the lazy ass Americans who find it more comfortable to be social parasites. Most of the people who want free health care in the US also want lower taxes...which shows who the real idiotic morons are. I mean, I'm not saying our current health care system doesn't need fixing..but what the current administration is trying to do is absolutely ridiculous.
empty vessel
Member
Dai Kaiju said:
It's not for their own good. It's for the good of a narrow segment of their population, and to the rest's detriment. Hence, the protests.
Dai Kaiju said:
Social parasites tend to be wealthy. They take enormous amounts of wealth for themselves through financial machinations (the equivalent of gambling) that move wealth around and do not create anything. They are net drains. Health care reform is not about paying for somebody else's health care. It's about making your own health care cheaper for you by eliminating inefficiencies. That you cannot grasp this continues to allow social parasites at the top to take advantage of all of us. Wake up and pay attention, for the love of god.
(Incidentally, I do not support the current health care reform, but that is because it does not nearly far enough in eliminating the waste in the system created by the existence of for-profit health care companies.)
And I know I missed a lot of stuff but I'm not exactly wired right now....
anyway :
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/artic...es-retraites_1431600_3224.html#ens_id=1305816
reform have been voted (as expected)
http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/art...un-conflit_1431534_823448.html#ens_id=1305816
http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/...aisit-la-perche-que-lui-a-tendue-la-cfdt.html
There will be talk about how to make sure old and young actually get jobs, not sure how that's even close to the reform but heh.
And -.45% On CAC40 when I read this
And Layton 3 is fucking addictive
And with that I'm off
edit :
and the strikes are officially OVER
anyway :
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/artic...es-retraites_1431600_3224.html#ens_id=1305816
reform have been voted (as expected)
http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/art...un-conflit_1431534_823448.html#ens_id=1305816
http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/...aisit-la-perche-que-lui-a-tendue-la-cfdt.html
There will be talk about how to make sure old and young actually get jobs, not sure how that's even close to the reform but heh.
And -.45% On CAC40 when I read this
And Layton 3 is fucking addictive
And with that I'm off
edit :
and the strikes are officially OVER
Eric Cantona: "Kill the banks"
December 7 bank run organized across Europe!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loAkxdji-G4
December 7 bank run organized across Europe!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loAkxdji-G4
Hey might as well rename the thread "FranceGaf discussing stuffs".
So I don't like to gloat but can I have 'you were right all along, protests changed nothing'?
On another note I decided to take my advice and get my hands dirty in politics this time.
Currently there's only a handful of parties I can go to :
UMP
PS
Modem
Nouveau Centre
Ecologie stuff.
So currently,
UMP was nice but actually take people for morons (my depute is actually Tardy who is the only deputy worth a damn incidentally, very good at his job, I was surprised too)
PS was interesting but too dogmatic for my taste ('we must be warry of Sarkozy, this little dictator')
Modem and Nouveau Centre couldn't be found in my town so that didn't help
and ecologie was actually closed (on top of that they're actually morons in my locality).
I may do a new topic to make it a little more formal and all that.
So yeah I still don't know but I'm still searching.
And seriously we don't need a debate explaining that politics serves no purposes when this very topic's subject proves the contrary. (as in politic prevailed over mindlessly protesting whether you agree on if it was good for the people or not)
So I don't like to gloat but can I have 'you were right all along, protests changed nothing'?
On another note I decided to take my advice and get my hands dirty in politics this time.
Currently there's only a handful of parties I can go to :
UMP
PS
Modem
Nouveau Centre
Ecologie stuff.
So currently,
UMP was nice but actually take people for morons (my depute is actually Tardy who is the only deputy worth a damn incidentally, very good at his job, I was surprised too)
PS was interesting but too dogmatic for my taste ('we must be warry of Sarkozy, this little dictator')
Modem and Nouveau Centre couldn't be found in my town so that didn't help
and ecologie was actually closed (on top of that they're actually morons in my locality).
I may do a new topic to make it a little more formal and all that.
So yeah I still don't know but I'm still searching.
And seriously we don't need a debate explaining that politics serves no purposes when this very topic's subject proves the contrary. (as in politic prevailed over mindlessly protesting whether you agree on if it was good for the people or not)
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked