Who do you want to make those decisions? You do realize the 8 hour day and such did involve the US government...and pretty much every government influences or controls that around the world? First, you don't understand the French and the history of France since 1789. The French economy, while not great, has not suffered as much as many during this global economic downturn. When they reduced their work week (at the behest of the people, mind you) outsiders said they would suffer greatly. That did not happen as the French are more productive (GDP per hour worked) than Americans. So they work fewer hours but are more productive on that hourly basis. That said, they have serious issues but they also are part of the bigger EU which complicates things further. They have massive debt, as does the rest of the EU and the UK...and the US. Otherwise, the US works more overall, works less efficiently, has lower overall health as a result of working so much more, is falling behind in education, overconsumes consumes like nobodies business (the individual and governmental level), and has a mostly nonfunctioning representative democracy that has been allowed to atrophy into a corporate oligarchy or something super scary sounding. So, in answer to the question, France is not our future because they have a unique history on a personal and societal level that the US does not have. It is true that ideas of representative democracy, implementing laws to mitigate abuse of labor force, and social programs in general all originated first in Europe and were adopted here. And we are all going to die. Sooner than you think. Or hope. Or want.
Do you think this is even possible? Everybody consuming more than the wealth they produce? If they were doing that, wouldn't you see it in the national debt as the current leeches borrow from their unborn children to pay for their lavish lifestyles and lazy work habits? But France is no worse than the USA in this regard. So, is there system any less sustainable than ours? I think it's sad that our productivity in the US has increased so much in the last century and yet people are working as hard as ever. We generate all this wealth and can't take a break to enjoy it.
No, it’s far more than that. Although, I suppose, that assumes you possess a level of cognitive reasoning capable of justifying such an oddly dystopian capitalist purview. Perhaps I am being gracious. And the solution is for them to demand less? Don’t get me wrong – you’re statement is accurate. But what you advocate in this thread is absolutely in line with continuing what you claim to lament. When you blamed the poor for causing them to leave. “Horrid” unemployment is rather sensational; France is currently at 10% unemployment. The USA is at 9.6%. Oh those idyllic corporations! So pure, so beneficial – one wonders how we came to be so blessed with their presence. Because you’re a nonsensical rhetoric machine? One wonders how you feel about the massive government subsidies provided to each and every corporation from each and every so-called first-world capitalist democracy? Although it may have been too much for you to comprehend, such was the underlying motive for the “what can we do for them today?” comment that obviously proved too cerebral for your rhetoric-driven soliloquy. Shocking. Your writing is deplorable; I do not know what you are trying to say here. If I had to guess I’d wager on sensationalistic capitalist nonsense without factual basis. I want more populist involvement a la France. The US has very successfully depoliticized it's citizenry so as to maintain exactly the ideological purview you trumpet throughout this thread. Despite what you may think, governments exist to serve their people, not the economic interests of massive multi-national corporations. There is more to life than the monetary value one can extract from it, particularly when little to none of that extracted wealth is distributed equitably. As I said, this issue is far deeper and more complex than you probably care to comprehend (or could even fathom, honestly - you seem very much the prototypical slave to the corporate capitalist image).
I felt the urgency of the OP's call to action. I responded by calling up a french girl I had a crush on for years. We talked for an hour about 3rd wave feminism and Lacan, and I was happy to find out her PhD at Cornell is going well. Thanks for the inspiration!
I've traveled France, spent about a month and a half touring the country. I spent alot of time in the south of France, 2 weeks in Montoulieu, week in Carcassonne (the fortified city is spectacular) I'm guessing the really strong negative opinions on France/French are from people who haven't been there. Or talked to one. Or know where it is on a map. But they are EXPERTS! I'm also guessing you don't understand how democracy works, or just refuse read books or learn in any other way except blogs/biased media. Good for France. They are happy, enjoy life and actually have some say in their government. In the US? Not so much. People have been warped to value corporation profitability more the health and well being of the tax paying citizenry. Bonkers.
Even accepting your view of what are problems, I am not but will leave that aside for the moment, getting rid of democracy would be a cure worse than the disease. Your argument seems remarkably disjointed in that one hand you are worried about more government yet are essentially endorsing a solution that will deny a fundamental freedom.
The US is a reverse monarchy. We have a permanent, hereditary underclass who we can exploit, isolate and marginalize whenever times get tough.
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time the wealthy discover they can buy themselves generous advantages in public policy. From that moment on, the wealthy always buy the candidates who promise them the most benefits, with the result that every capitalist democracy will finally collapse due into loose campaign finance and public information policy, which is always followed by oligarchicy. Dubious 2010
The funny thing is, I hear people are saying the same thing about the U.S. in countries like Sweden, Denmark, etc...
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time the wealthy discover they can buy themselves generous advantages in public policy. From that moment on, the wealthy always buy the candidates who promise them the most benefits, with the result that every capitalist democracy will finally collapse due into loose campaign finance and public information policy, which is always followed by oligarchicy. And that's exactly what I want. Chief Justice Roberts, US Supreme Court 2010
