Sarkozy is hardly Barry Goldwater, but this does seem like a positive sign.

Or maybe the French just weren't ready to elect a hot chick to the presidency.

Dave

Some how I doubt it was because Royal was a woman... and it's true Sarkozy is not Goldwater, but the response from the opponents was similar... for instance, having people who have never seen the candidate psychoanalyize them and come (to the prefabricated) conclusion that the candidate is insane.

Don't jump to conclusions just yet, guys. DeGaulle was no socialist or leftist and it was his model that I suspect was being followed here.

Just because Sarkozy is for maintaining law and order and French values does not mean a change for the better in Franco-American relations.

It does appear to indicate that Moslems in France who resent the country's values will have to watch their "p's" and "q's" while Sarkozy is President.

First, Royal is hot.

Second, Sarkozy may not be a bowl of cherries to look at for us gents but he is indeed good for France.

The country is not on a good path. Sarkozy is conservative but does he have the courage to reverse the socialist mindset? That means many riots and grief. Will the concept of "l'etat, c'est la France" be challenged with Sarkozy? Will he set France on a newer and more dynamic path? Can Sarkozy be to France what Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were to their respective countries? I don't know. After all, Chirac was supposed to be conservative yet look at his record. Pitoyable.

I watched the Royal-Sarkozy debate. Royal was ridiculous in her attacks. It reminded me, as the writer points out here, at how desperate and hyperbolic socialists can be. It's over. Time for new ideas.

By the way, I know it's hard for Canadians to see this but Conservative leader Stephen Harper too made Canada respectable again.

France tacks to the right as the US tacks left... interesting; at least this gives the right wing in America some consolation after losing first in 2006 and again in 2008.

Whoever mentioned deGaulle is right on the money. French conservatism and American conservatism might have one word - conservative - in common but they're poles apart in other respects. Sarkozy isn't anti-American, but don't mistake that for pro-American.

It wasn't just De Gaulle - most French politicians are this way. Except the ones who don't have a chance to get elected - then they stay true to their colours. Once you get to that second ballot, that means you have to go after the "centrist" vote and that means talking a little less conservative or socialist or whatever.

Conservatism in Canada is not the same is in Britain or the U.S. While I wondered if Sarkozy was going to radically change France this may not happen. He may disappoint. Since the 70s, leaders thus far traded socialist policies (and this is just an observation now) for social peace. As we all know, socialism only sweeps your troubles under the rug. But once the rug has to be changed or cleaned the dust is still there. What will Sarkozy do with it? Especially with the immigration issue.

considering Sarkozy's actions during the Paris riots, somehow I doubt he'll change tracks and move towards going along to get along. He might not move fast, but I think he'll move.

As far as him being pro-American... I could buy a French politician railing against the US to buy votes, I can't see a politician in France gushing over the US to buy votes... there just aren't American-lovers in large numbers in France. I would imagine most are neutral. Speaking pro-US won't buy votes, so unless he meant it, I can't understand why he'd say it.

Sure, he's environmentalist, he's European, but he's also for controlled immigration and already has that reputation when he was interior minister. There's a reason the left went bonkers over him running, it's because they saw a threat and I think that threat is justified. Goodbye 30 hours work week.

Why must any politician of another country gush over the US? That would be weird.

Also we should be grateful for Frances stance against us when we loose our minds. If they weren't so expressive in their disdain for our cockiness, attitudes against the West would be far worse. We probably would have more to contend with than the Islamic extremist. So thank you France for keeping things sane and balanced.

I still blush about the freedom fries thing. It was stupid on so many levels. To think that legislators actually spoke about it in the halls of Congress (flush).

If a politician in the US were identical to Sarkozy in left-right credentials and policy stands, he/she would probably be a 'moderate' Democrat and John B and company would be excoriating him/her instead of singing praises. In fact, an equivalent candidate might well be...Hillary Clinton.

Or possibly Giuliani before he started pretending to have new opinions on social issues like abortion, gay rights and gun control. Sarkozy's tendency to shoot his mouth off first and ask questions later would support this comparison.

Except Hillary isn't a "controlled immigration" type, or a "anti-welfare state" type. And it's not just things he made up on the campaign trail, he has a record to back him up.

My point was that "anti-welfare state" in France is far, far from the meaning that phrase would have in this country. Sarkozy is from the same party as Chirac and the changes he makes will still look socialistic from our rather more laissez-faire perspective in the US.

His hot-headed rhetoric about immigrants may come back to haunt him...we'll see. That too is a very different issue in Europe from the immigration debate here.

I'm not attacking him. But I do find it amusing that red-meat conservatives are praising him.

If Sarkozy is such an exemplary 'conservative' does that mean he's going to break up the monopolies that totally control French mass marketing? Does it mean he'll get rid of the onerous fees that an entrepeneur must pay, if he can get approval, to start a business? Does it mean he'll attack the French corporations that openly exercise monopoly power in markets and vertically control both their suppliers and their retailers?

I don't think so. I don't think Sarko is a conservative at all, but a royalist who will be quite happy to let traditional powers rule as long as he can make a few symbolic gestures.

Would Royal have been better? Not a chance. She was chosen (by the people who make such choices) as a foil for Sarko. She never had a chance, and she knew it.

Ho hum. More of the same.

"So thank you France for keeping things sane and balanced."

Zedd, if you're looking to France for sane and balanced perspectives you're looking in the wrong place. The French can be every bit realpolitik and cynical as any.

Franco says:

"The French can be every bit realpolitik and cynical as any."

More so than most, in fact.

Sarkozy wants to go back to the 40hr work week when it was proven that the French were just as productive in 35hrs, making them the most productive people/hr in the world. I suppose they will go back to not being as productive?

It's true the 35hr work week worked - notbaly in creating jobs but it doesn't necessarily mean or translate into better productivity. Not sure if it made them the "most productive people in the world." I think this is specious at best. France's present GDP and unemployment figures are right in line with the Euro Area.

I know that the Spanish economy basically doubled in five years since 2003 and unemployment rate tumbled to acceptable levels - it stands at around 8% down from 22%. Does that mean they were suddenly "productive?" It's amazing what cutting siesta can do.

In any event, I trust Prof. Bambenek can speak to this better than I.

Clavos, I said it!

I think you basically made the point, alessandro.

If France was the most "productive" nation in the world, they'd have far different economic numbers.

Re #16:

I'm sorry, Alessandro, you did indeed say it.

Must have had a senior moment...:>)

Considering the political bent of the overwhelming majority of commentors on this site, I'm not surprised that there's been no mention of the left-wing riots in response to his win:

Post Election Riots

Ah, those peace-loving leftists. :-)

Vic

John Bambenek #9
there just aren't American-lovers in large numbers in France.
correction John-there just aren't American-lovers in large numbers in the world.

Alesandro

The 35hr work week did not create new jobs. Because the workers were just as productive working 35hrs as they were working 40hrs, the employers did not hire more workers as predicted.

What makes them the most productive is not the fact that the output changed but that the amount produced per hour is better than any country in the world.

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Sarkozy's reign is not anticipated to be all that revolutionary. We forget that they are going from one centrist conservative to another centrist conservative.

Listening to his acceptance speech it became even more clear that France will remain France. While is style is considered more American however I don't think it would resemble anything we know to be conservative.

Remembering that the Europeans have a respect for the welfare state. Also Sarkozy is actually considering an Affirmative Action like proposal for the second and third generation French who cant seem to get hired because of prejudices (racial/religious).

His comments on how he welcomes the relationship with the US and that friends can tell each other when they are wrong was also telling that he will remain French (thankfully).

His focus will be domestic. I suspect that all of the fervor about a new France will die down once he encounters the reality of office. The good thing for him is that he has an ally in Germany's leader.

Productivity is over-rated. viva la siesta!

Socialist candidates won in Italy and Spain on running against the Iraq war. And Jaques Chirac was expected to be a conservative like them by American conservatives. Just some additional facts.

"John Bambenek #9
there just aren't American-lovers in large numbers in France.
correction John-there just aren't American-lovers in large numbers in the world."
- Joe

Preemptive invasions and occupations of foreign countries will do that to a nation.

Hope that helps clear things up for you.

Clear as mud, Zedd. Thanks. What about the criminal penalties for employers who pay workers to stay and work overtime voluntarily? How did that help out?

Dave

You know, the mere fact that Royal's supporters rioted after she lost the election is a pretty clear sign that Sarkozy was the right person to vote for.

Dave

Can anyone tell me what Sarkozy's French values are?

I always thought such things included supreme arrogance, duplicitous behaviour, bad waiters, poor service, a seriously lacking work ethic, intellectual pretence, poor personal hygiene, and shocking men's haircuts (in fact, most of the things the French say say about the English but without the bad food) - but I fear I've been wrong all these years. Perhaps in the new France, Sarkozy will put all this to rights.

I will give 'em one thing, though: nowadays, they make bloody good cars.

Dave #29, Yup. Protests always indicate that protestors are wrong.

"The fact that such a large turnout fell strongly behind Sarkozy indicates that France will not go silently into the night."

Refreshing indeed. Give all due credit to the French for having something resembling a backbone after all!

Re: Dave Nalle, comment #1: "Or maybe the French just weren't ready to elect a hot chick to the presidency."

Nah, the French idolize the female form. Put it this way, if Sego had had the same policies and convictions as Sarko, it would have been a Sego landslide!

At least I'm going to give the French the benefit of the doubt on this one!

I'm a Swede, so perhaps I shouldn't be defending the French, but on work ethic, it's true that the French work few hours and have long vacations, but they are more productive per hour - about 10% more. They work hard when they work.

By the way do you ever look anything up before commenting on it? Or is that too radical?

Re: Alessandro Nicolo, #4: "Second, Sarkozy may not be a bowl of cherries to look at for us gents but he is indeed good for France."

I must disagree. Sarkozy isn't bad-looking at all. The charisma he exudes can be seen in his face. He is not like most French politicians, e.g. Mitterand, Chirac, De Gaulle, De Villepin, etc., in that he is not afraid to smile. And he has got a winning smile.

#25 -- May 8, 2007 @ 03:26AM -- Christopher Rose

"Productivity is over-rated. viva la siesta!"

Indeed. Once outside the precincts of such degenerate Americanized areas as Paris one finds the "Midi" fully in effect. Chased from Bricoman a few days ago for daring to try to find some post-war hardware at 12:05, I was forced to drive all around the parking lot as they had chained the gates as punishment for my being on the premises at a time when any decent person would be at home spreading his viands, bread and wine on the outside table under the dappled sunlight of a tree with his entire family present. Finding a tiny exit I was condemned to drive home observing the many content French families gathering for their midday feast and other activities.

Bengt writes:

I'm a Swede, so perhaps I shouldn't be defending the French, but on work ethic, it's true that the French work few hours and have long vacations, but they are more productive per hour - about 10% more.

Actually, Bengt, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics data indicates that, currently, the most productive European nation is.........Sweden!

As a Swedish-American with lots of family there, I'm not surprised.

BTW, productivity in this context has little to do with how "hard" individuals work; it's a measure of output, which is much more affected by hours worked per worker per year, degree of automation of industry, etc.

STM, actually they make better rockets and helicopters now. :<)

Someone muttered something about leftists and riots. Isn't it a given that France is socialist?

Mark Edwards, I meant in relation to Royal. Never thought anyone would pull out that line. Yes, he's easy on the eyes. Though I can see im in an SNL skit.

Zedd, yes. Clearer. Some argue it did lead to better employment figures. France had double digit unempployments around the time the 35-hour rule came in. Now it hovers around 8.5% according to The Economist. Remember, that five hour saved gives an employer a chance to higher another body - thus in theory leading to better productivity. But real productivity remains weak according to many observers. I took for granted GDP PER CAPITA and NOT HOUR. I generally don't look at this for a multiple of reasons. But you're right on the surface France's numbers are high - too high.

However, you'll have to produce your source because the ones I use do indeed have France performing well but NONE categorically assert France (Bank of France, OECD) is the best performer despite in some cases higher numbers. As is the case with economic figures, they are debateable.

According to the Bank of France "after thorough analysis" the EU and France trail U.S. levels and this sounds about right. There are a bunch of things to consider (observed rates, unemployment etc.) than just the final numbers and "10% higher' conclusions. In this light, Germany, Japan and USA have always (historically) been far more productive. In some years even Italy and Canada outperformed France in the G7. That's why, I think, GDP/PER CAPITA is the most used stat given that it probably gives a better overall reflection. Breaking them down to per hour does not necessarily tell the truth.

Though I have always read about economic figures, I'm no economist so I'll stop here. That said, I agree with people: it's not all about economics. You need some siesta - but not too much.

Mr Larsson, good enough for you? Don't be presumptuous. We could do without the smug sarcasm. I thought Swedes were polite.

Zedd, I just want to add; after I reread my note. This is not to outright dismiss the high per hour figures in France; there is something to be said of them. I put a little too much weight on the Bank of France who are perhaps are a little too hard on France.

What I like about France (even though I often disgaree with their politics) is that they mix in a good balance of work ethic (which wasn't always the case which is another reason why I was skeptical) and joie de vivre. I see this in parts of Italy too(by the way in case you are wondering I visit both countries often thanks to friends and family). There's a time to work, take vacation and play. Spain is also learning to balance things out as their recent astounding economic performance shows.

Economic figures are not the be and end all.

Anyway, just wanted to add this.

Dave: You know, the mere fact that Royal's supporters rioted after she lost the election is a pretty clear sign that Sarkozy was the right person to vote for.

This is assuming that the protesters voted at all, and that the riots were pro-Royal rather than protesting Sarkozy's intemperate rhetoric about immigrants. And the protests don't prove anything about either candidate anyway. What a silly and superfluous thing to say.

"Refreshing indeed. Give all due credit to the French for having something resembling a backbone after all!"
- Mark Edward Manning

Are they any less than yourself?

Now this

whenever conservatism is on the ballot (unhindered by corruption, bad implementation of policies, or personal problems) conservatism wins.

Is just a silly comment, JB, because you could replace the word "conservatism" with "liberalism" and it would not be even slightly less true.

Now this

"whenever conservatism is on the ballot (unhindered by corruption, bad implementation of policies, or personal problems) conservatism wins."

Is just a silly comment, JB, because you could replace the word "conservatism" with "liberalism" and it would not be even slightly less true.

Truth, accuracy, and reasonableness are not high on the list of priorities of several writers here, including some who are editors. Controversy, deliberate exaggeration and distortion are instead given more importance. To drive traffic, I suppose. Not very inspiring, is it?

#25: Christopher, thank you for challenging (albeit with tongue in cheek) the notion that a reduction in the work week is necessarily a bad thing - which many writers and commenters on this site seem to regard as a given.

Not everyone, even in the work-crazy US of A, wants to toil away endlessly until their fingers fall off and they forget where they live. There's also a lot of evidence to suggest that working excessively long hours has a detrimental effect on health, family life and, yes, productivity.

I mean, seriously, Americans: the frontier's been conquered and you're the world's only superpower. You can relax now!

Dave #29, Yup. Protests always indicate that protestors are wrong.

That's certainly the case when they're mainly just excuses for looting and burning cars.

Dave

vive la revolution!!! finally a conservative in France...hopefully willing to develop a partnership with Supreme Warlord Bush!! verrry nice!!

alessandro

If only you could be cloned. I seriously enjoy your commentary. I don't always agree with you but strangely enough if I held all of your views, I would say exactly what you respond with (except in a girlized way :o). I also apreciate your clear desire to have meaningful dialouge as aposed to just wanting to be right.

Despite figures showing a higher productivity per hour worked than in the US, France's GDP per capita is significantly lower than the US GDP per capita, being in fact comparable to the GDP per capita of the other European countries, which is on average 30% below the US level. The reason for this is that a much smaller percentage of the French population is working compared to the US, which lowers the GDP per capita of France, despite its higher productivity. In fact, France has one of the lowest percentages of its population aged 15-64 years at work among the OECD countries. In 2004, 68.8% of the French population aged 15-64 years was in employment, compared to 80.0% in Japan, 78.9% in the UK, 77.2% in the US, and 71.0% in Germany.[25] This phenomenon is the result of almost thirty years of massive unemployment in France, which has led to three consequences reducing the size of the working population: about 9% of the active population is without a job; students delay as long as possible their entry into labour market; and finally, the French government gives various incentives to workers to retire in their early 50s, though these are now receding. France.com

I will look for other sources online to support my statement regarding the GDP per hour . Again, France does fall below the US in overall productivity. They are more productive in the time that they work.

Now I KNOW you are not American. Are you???

Dr Dread,

What causes the frantic behavior (over working) partly is the myth of the American dream. What happened with a few in the last century (J.P Morgan and Co.) caused EVERYONE to believe that they too can become wealthy if they just try hard. Sort of like the gold rush.

Yes all strive to do better economically but in this country its as if one HAS to strive for complete wealth or they are lazy. This notion also causes us to pretend as if we are all doing well. 70% of us live from pay check to pay check, yet we spend insanely to uphold the image of "up and comer". Because we over spend, we have to work to support our ruse. We don't save and we are in debt. Dave will say otherwise.

Its sort of cyclical.

What is wonderful however is that there are enough jobs to support our habits.

@Dave

What about the criminal penalties for employers who pay workers to stay and work overtime voluntarily?

Please tell me more about that and how it relates to the work week reduction for the purpose of decreasing unemployment.

Just trying to understand what you are saying.

After reducing the length of the work week, the French government discovered that people were voluntarily working more than the legally allowed 35 hours, often without additional pay. They formed a special police task force to watch workers at certain companies and then brought criminal charges against the workers for working illegal overtime.

This kind of stuff is why Sarkosy was elected.

Dave

#49... "What is wonderful however is that there are enough jobs to support our habits."

Yes. I understand that McDonald's can't find enough help to support our habits of eating their low-cost, high-fat burgers and sugar-laden soft drinks to fill our size 52 pants.

But as I understand it, things will get even better as we graduate more engineers and scientists than other countries such as India and China.

There is no telling how good it will get.

Dave: Well mate, if the government sets the working week at 35 hours and conditions of pay for overtime, then if you work over that, you should be bloody well paid for it. That's the whole idea of overtime, and as other commentators have pointed out here, French workers (and methods of construction) are actually extremely productive for the most part.

They are so productive, I can buy a French-designed car in Australia built in a UK French factory for the same price it would cost me to buy a locally made product. While Aussie-built cars are of good quality, there's no getting away from the fact that I can buy a fully-imported imported European equivalent of French origin for much the same price. Aussie workers, BTW, work a standard 38-hour week, not 40. Our annual vacations are on par with the French though, and as an example, because I work shifts, weekends and public holidays, I can have seven weeks a year or four with three weeks' extra pay at Christmas. We also get paid leave loading on our leave - mine is an extra 17 per cent, which is a decent whack.

Besides, what is wrong with workers wanting to earn extra? It's an exchange with the employer for higher productivity and higher profits. It shouldn't all be one-way traffic - you help an employer increase profits, you get remunerated at the proper overtime rate.

However, the French government should have been charging the employers for making people work unpaid overtime, rather than the workers.

Stan,

I think you misread Dave. He said:

the French government discovered that people were voluntarily working more than the legally allowed 35 hours, often without additional pay. (emphasis added)

And:

They formed a special police task force to watch workers at certain companies and then brought criminal charges against the workers for working illegal overtime. (emphasis added)

If the workers weren't being coerced in any way, it's none of the government's business, IMO.

Hey there Clav old boy. Here's my leftist bent coming out - no, I didn't misread it. What I'm saying is, the companies obviously have had a role in that, and if they want workers to do extra work, they should pay them.

And it's the employers who allow them to work the voluntary, unpaid overtime who should be charged, not the workers.

In many cases, people often volunteer to work the extra hours because they are made to feel their jobs might be at risk if they don't.

Under the generous labour laws of France, anyone working overtime - voluntary or not - should be paid overtime by their employer.

I'll reiterate: France is a place with a great standard of living, generous wages and high productivity - and is at the forefront of many tecnologies (dang, I hate giving the buggers a wrap). Because it's different from what you know in the US, it doesn't make it wrong. It has worked for them, and will continue to do so. I don't see that much changing in Sarkozy's France.

You will also find that Sarkozy's party, considered quite right of centre in Europe, will have policies that will be like those of a middle-of-the-road Democrat, which gives you some idea of how far to the right politics are in America.

if the government sets the working week at 35 hours and conditions of pay for overtime, then if you work over that, you should be bloody well paid for it.

Absolutely. The problem is that the French government made it illegal for them to work overtime whether or not they were paid, no matter how much they wanted to do it.

A lot of those workers - as you pointed out - were very productive and dedicated to their jobs. They wanted their projects to be successful and to be completed on schedule regardless of how much they had to work, but the government made that kind of dedication to their jobs illegal.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

Dave

Mate, I believe you are quite wrong as my understanding is that the French government had not banned paid overtime at all, and that is at the heart of the problem here.

The illegality is is working overtime without pay, and companies allowing workers to do so, because the regulations are very strictly enforced. Any work in France under the current legislation must be paid as overtime (or given as time off in lieu or a combination of both) after reaching the 35-hour threshold, with a 10 per cent per-hour wage premium involved up to the 40th hour. Between the 40th and 47th hour, the premium is 25 per cent and it rises to 50 per cent extra per hour thereafter.

So, you either get paid overtime - or you don't do it, under the law. But there is no law that says workers can't work overtime, and indeed, many French employers and employees rely on it.

In my view, that's fair.

If the French are voluntarily working unpaid overtime for the benefit of their employers rather than being coerced into it, I'm a je ne sais quoi!

Dave

I thought thats what you were saying....

It is just as illegal to work an hourly employee over 40hrs here without over time pay.

Whats the issue?

The companies were supposed to hire new workers to work the hours that were no longer being worked. They got greedy. The productivity stayed the same with less hours worked but they wanted more without commiting to an employee (its hard to fire an older employee in France).

I hope NOW you see things clearly.

No, you're not getting it, Zedd. This is a great example of how completely alien to our cultural expectations what they've been doing in France is.

It's not that it's illegal there to work more than 35 hours without overtime pay, it's that it's illegal to work more than 35 hours whether you're paid or not. If you stay at work 1 hour over those 35 then you're a criminal, even if they pay you $1000 an hour overtime. Even if you voluntarily stay there an extra hour and freely choose not to be paid you're breaking the law.

Are you getting it yet?

Dave

Dave

What is wrong with that? I still don't see where your contention is. They also have 5 weeks vacation. American companies are flocking to France, because of their superior engineers. They work 35hr work weeks and are still among the world's strongest economies. Where is the bad part.

Would your biggest contention be that they are not us? Perhaps they should import millions of illegals to work outside of the books for nothing to support their economy.

Zedd, comment #49:

Agreed. America's whole ethics system is structured around the Horatio Alger myth: the idea that anyone can rise from rags to riches through sheer hard work. But in reality that's just not true. Most of America's richest folks come from families that have been monied for generations. Even those who don't (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett) didn't exactly start out on the bottom rung. There's a lot of data which shows that the social class you're born into is the one you're likely to stay in.

So why does the myth persist? It's just one of those things that's seen as quintessentially American; something to hold onto despite the reality. Every nation has myths about themselves, like the British believing that their country is still 'Great' - and (segueing neatly back into the original topic of this thread) the French believing that they are a world power despite all evidence to the contrary (such as consistently losing every war they get themselves involved in).

Maybe someone else could explain this to you better, Zedd. My point is that you are not ALLOWED to work extra hours, paid or unpaid, even if you want to. If you don't see how that's a problem, then you should probably move to France.

Dave

There's a lot of data which shows that the social class you're born into is the one you're likely to stay in.

Actually, the data suggests only about a 14% chance that you'll stay in the lowest income group and about a 86% chance you'll move up into a higher group during any 10 year period, including about a 14% chance you'll move from the lowest income quintile to the highest.

Dave

including about a 14% chance you'll move from the lowest income quintile to the highest.

That sounds like an awful lot of rags-to-riches millionaires. Where are they all?

My point is that you are not ALLOWED to work extra hours, paid or unpaid, even if you want to.

Not quite as black-and-white as that, Dave, as I understand it.

Within the insistence on an average 35-hour work week, the law does allow for quite a bit of flexibility. I suspect that the reason a lot of businesses don't like it is because it gives them very little leeway for screwing their employees over.

Dave

Don't fancy yourself so deep that what you say perplexes anyone :o).

I understand your words. I don't see the problem. However I forget that I am supposed to have a voluntary response supposed good and bad when conversing with some of our countrymen.

I don't see a problem with that because that is their country and their system. That part belongs to their puzzle not ours. In this country if you don't put in the extra time, you are not a team player. Is that good?

Also many jobs are categorized as managerial so that they can not be classified as hourly. People HAVE to work well over 40hrs in order to keep their jobs. That is OUR system.

The French think that by making such laws they will provide jobs for THEIR people and thus make their state a more PERFECT "union". They are coming up with solutions to try and solve THEIR issues. Unlike us who make a rule and hope it will work for eternity no matter what. If people fall off of the unemployment rolls we still keep moving pretending as if the world is just so..... When people are uninsured we just keep trucking pretending as if they don't exist however deluding ourselves that we are a more perfect union when in actually we are just a more delusional one.

Every organization whether it is a local league of the Lions club or a nation, has its problems. The solutions that work for one will not work for another.

What is important is the big picture.

In this case, quality of life would be the ultimate big picture. One has to decide for THEMSELVES which they consider to be superior.

Dave #64

Seems as if you have a love affair with those social sciences or is you IQ diminishing as you quote those stats.

Clavos

Is that you in the "why not you" add up top?

hee hee!! I had to do it. Sorry.

Dave, it's bollocks that the government has made paid overtime illegal in France ... sorry mate, but bollocks is bollocks. There have been some systems in place supported by government funding where companies in some industries have agreed to hire more workers rather than pay overtime, which is where this might come from.

The real issue is, it's illegal to work UNPAID overtime in France.

And just because the French workplace laws don't meet American cultural expectations, it doesn't mean they are bad. French workers would find the American system doesn't meet theirs, either.

Bambanek wrote: "Today France joins the world in adopting more sane economic and governmental policies."

According to you, and viewed from an isolated American political perspective that doesn't relate in any way, shape or form to how the view might be from elsewhere.

Sarkosy's centre-right government will be roughly of the equivalent in its policy making as that of a centrist US Democrat administration.

Which should give everyone some idea of how far to the right American politics are skewed.

Clavos

Is that you in the "why not you" add up top?

Which one do you think is Clavos? I don't see anyone wearing a Aussie 'at...

Come on Doc, you know we inherited the silent H from you Londoners. What's it called there? A titfer?

Titfer. Previously thought to be rhyming slang, the origins of this curious term have recently been traced by etymologists from the University of Dubbo to an ancient Cornish word which, loosely translated, means: "Soft, floppy item of headwear which, when worn by English cricketers, has no beneficial effect whatsoever on performance."

Clavos

Is that you in the "why not you" add up top?

Which one do you think is Clavos? I don't see anyone wearing a Aussie 'at...

I haven't seen the ad, but if no one's wearin' an 'at, it ain't me, cobber...

Lol. My, aren't we having fun!

Clav, don't pay no mind to Doc Dread ... an 'at is a titfer here too, as we also have inherited the poms' use of rhyming slang, but I must correct you on the Cobber bit. While my father in law still uses it sometimes (shortened to cob), it's an archaic term used only by 80-year-old WWII veterans when they're ordering schooners at the front bar of the RSL club. I hope you've noticed that the 'at badge also has a Crown on it? Yes, THAT crown.

BTW Doc, what are you doing in the US and how did you end up in a place outside England that sadly has no Union Jack in the corner of its flag?

Doc, what are you doing in the US and how did you end up in a place outside England that sadly has no Union Jack in the corner of its flag?

I'm here for lurrve. Met my American wife when she came to work in England and followed her back! Normally, of course, the Union Jack criterion is paramount when determining which nationality to fall in love with but unfortunately, while I was in the process of courtship, I slipped through a wormhole in the space/time continuum into an alternate universe in which Britain won the War of 1812 and, as a condition of the surrender, forced the USA to replace the stars with a mini Union Jack in the corner of their flag. By the time I had found my way back to my own universe, it was too late.

Still, I'm working on it. All job vacancies in Hawaii, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji etc. are perused with great interest in our house; and strenuous efforts are made to "lose" return plane tickets when visiting those places.

Stan,

Speakin' of cobbers, mate...

Actually Doc, contrary to the oft-touted US view on this, Britain actually DID win the War of 1812. It lost the peace, though. It did LOSE the War of Independence, which was probably the key one and (only partly, in view) explains what happened to the flag. I believe there's also a case to answer for the foundings fathers' poor idea of what constitutes good design. Still.

You could easily get your wife to love Oz, as it's not that different to America except that the Yanks speak with funny accents and drive on the wrong side of the road - and let's not forget that aforementioned mistake with their flag.

You could do it, Doc. Imagine being able to roll out of the pub and eat kebabs again at 2am, going to the cricket Tests, watching six Super 14 games (no fun watching the bye) live any Friday or Saturday night, pommy soccer on ESPN live, and being partially understood. The more the merrier, I say ... you too Clav - you should bloody move here as well. This is boat city.

Heaven on a stick, really. Just don't tell any other bastards.

Clav. Lol. That's the best clip i've seen on You Tube. Geez, I hope I still won't be listening to The Clash or The Smiths, et al, when I'm 90.

The good thing would be, if you turned it up loud at the old folks' home, none of the deaf buggers would hear it. You could just go for your life.

No, Stan. The War of 1812 was a draw. No territory was exchanged and no reparations were made. No one gained or lost anything.

It's perceived as a victory by Americans because of the overwhelming, even humiliating victory at New Orleans at the end of the War, even though that battle actually took place 5 days after the peace treaty was signed. Because of travel times news of New Orleans reached the major cities on the east coast a week before news of the peace treaty, creating the erroneous impression that the treaty was the result of the victory, making it look like we won the war.

From the British perspective, they were looking at Sir Isaac Brock's devastating defeats of the Americans at Detroit and Queenstown Heights and his remarkable success in defending Canada with almost no troops, and they didn't hear about New Orleans until more than a month after the treaty was signed, so it seemed irrelevant. To them the war also looked like a victory.

This mutual misunderstanding of the outcome of the war is what made it possible for England and the US to become trading partners again so quickly after the war, because we both felt like we had the upper hand.

Dave

Wrong Dave. The US invaded Canada and got punted. It copped an absolute pounding and achieved none of its war aims, paramount among those being the expulsion of the British once and for all from North America. It also sued for peace with the British, rather than the other way around. The big victory of note (New Orleans) occurred after the Treaty of Ghent had been signed but before anyone in America knew, and was not the last battle of the war. That was the Battle of Mobile Bay, which was a resounding victory to the Poms and a humiliating defeat for the US garrison.

What you are proposing is like arguing that America won the Vietnam War. It doesn't wash with me old boy, and respectfully, because not all Yanks are the same, is just another example of some Americans not being able to admit that sometimes their country loses (unlike the Poms, who have had to admit it quite a bit).

I will say too, Dave, that if you want to get a really good and accurate picture, Pierre Burton's books The Invasion of Canada, and Flames Across The Border. I have heard some Americans describe The War of 1812 as the Second War of Independence, but the truth is, it's a misnomer.

It could be better described as The Canadaian War of Indepedence, because in concert with the British they defeated America's first war of aggression and gave rise to the nationalism required to make Canada a nation.

:)

I concur with Dave in that it was a tie. Even if the British had won, there's no way we would have been able to keep the Americans subdued and defeat Napoleon back home in Europe.

You could easily get your wife to love Oz

She already does love the place, Stan. First time we came over, she cried when it was time to go home. The only consolation was that due to a combination of factors including a night departure, the International Date Line and a six-hour layover in Honolulu, we were able to walk on arguably the world's two most famous beaches - Bondi and Waikiki - on the same day!

Only problem with the place, from what I've been reading, is that you ain't got no water left.

I will also add to this, that the magnanimous negotiationg positions of both parties at Ghent is what forged the peace from that point on, and set the stage for one of the greatest trade/military alliances the world has ever seen, so some good obviously did come out of it. 200 years down the track, it endures.

I understand Americans being nationalistic, and why not, I say, they have much to be proud of, but on this one, they are actually wrong if they claim it as a victory or a draw. By any standards, it was a defeat, particularly as the US opened the hostilities. Interestingly, and it's something you might have discovered during your time in the UK, this war is hardly remembered at all, probably because at the time Britian was engaged in a life-or-death struggle with Napoleon. Very few poms have even heard of the War of 1812.

"Only problem with the place, from what I've been reading, is that you ain't got no water left"

I don't agree on the 1812 thing doc, and I have no axe to grind either as I don't care one way or another. Here, it's been raining old chap. No problem with rain on the coast, mainly, except in south-east Queensland. Problem is, it's not falling in the cathment areas. So while you get enough to fill Sydney Harbour, if it's not falling in the dams, it's near useless unless you've got rainwater tanks.

I love telling our American friends that I am from the future. That I can leave Sydney, travel backwards in time, and arrive in LA before I left home.

I love telling our American friends that I am from the future. That I can leave Sydney, travel backwards in time, and arrive in LA before I left home.

LOL. Wonder what that says about the American education system if they actually believe you.

Like the college-level course Algebra 101, which in its opening weeks covers such mind-wrenchingly complex mathematical concepts as addition, long division and fractions. This course is always full. So if the students don't know stuff like that... what - exactly - are they teaching them in high school?!?

Ah, the Yanks, eh? Still, they are good folks. I've often wondered about the education system too, since America manages to churn out some of the best minds on the planet. It's a little mystery to me. I suspect that those who do make it to university and go on to do well do very well, and there are lots of them.

I just wish it wasn't such an isolationist place. Guys like Dave and Clav, even if we are at opposite ends of the political spectrum (I can't convince Clav this is true!) know a lot of things about a lot of things and fill me with hope in our discussions here that Americans are perfectly capable of seeing beyond the boundaries of small-town America and looking at the big picture.

It's absolutely vital for our collective wellbeing that this happens, particularly in regard to American foreign policy.

Until recently, the only issue among the majority of the American public has been how US foreign policy impacts on America, which is really at the heart of the problem.

I must say though, I do love the place and much of what it represents and hope beyond hope that America will ride out its current storm for the greater good of everyone.

Amen to that, Stan.

I'm reminded of a TV sci-fi movie I once saw called "Harrison Bergeron" (I think it starred Sean Astin). It depicted a future America controlled by a ruling elite, where the mass of the population wear mind-control headsets which sustain them in the illusion of a sort of 1950s utopia. There's a sequence where the President (an average Joe randomly selected by the elite) responds to a somewhat mild international incident by copiously exercising the F word while threatening to nuke the bad guys back to the Stone Age (or whatever the cliché of the time was) if they didn't back off.

Reading some of the comments on this and other blogs, that approach is actually what a lot of people think American foreign policy should be.

Somebody sez:

"...France's GDP per capita is significantly lower than the US GDP per capita, being in fact comparable to the GDP per capita ..."

GDP and GNP are on shaky ground as measurements of economy (probably a correlative relationship rather than a causative relationship). Different societies and economies have different ways of accounting for the cascading effects of changes as they ripple through the systems and the cascading itself is affected by tax policies, subsidies, etc.

So, my conclusion, many years ago, is that while GDP changes WITHIN an economy are monotonic with the "general economic health", if you will, they are not commensurate with the "GEH". And GDP changes BETWEEN economies are pretty bogus.

Thus, comparing GDPs between different economies is pretty bogus because the economies do not have the same rules AND the measurements do not have the same credibility.

One might be better off comparing rates of change of GDP, but even that is subject to some doubt.

YMMV.

Stan, Dave: Shall we compromise by agreeing that the War of 1812 was indeed a draw, but that Britain won after a penalty shoot-out?

No, Doc actually Britain was in front but America scored a controversial try to draw level after the hooter, which was allowed despite a foot in touch and without going upstairs to the TMO. They converted from the sideline to draw level, but with seconds to go in injury time and the ref busily consulting his watch, Britain kicked a penalty to go three points up and then miraculously seemed to pull ahead with a try under the posts that would have put the result beyond doubt.

But it was disallowed by the ref, who claimed time was up.

At the post-match press conference, the Americans, despite the scoreline, claimed a moral victory even though they'd been belted from pillar to post thanks to Britain's superb pick-and-drive game, which set the platform and opened up space for their backs out wide.

The British, with the scoreline leaving the real result in no doubt, made no such rash claims as they were distracted thanks to another world cup clash with France. All those who'd been watching the game, however, knew the truth: outclassed America scored a lucky one one at the death, and in very controversial circumstances, and most certainly against the general run of play.

:)

This is starting to remind me of an old Paul Hogan skit called 'World Series War', which involved footage of opposing armies blowing each other to bits, accompanied by the kind of breathless commentary usually encountered during the climactic stages of a rugger international or an Ashes series.

The Paul Hogan Show. Marvellous, that ...

Just waiting for that to re-run here on pay TV, sooner rather than later. Hogan is very clever, and very Australian. His mate Strop (remember him, in the stupid-looking lifesaver's hat - John Cornell) married Delvene Delaney, the extremely good sort who was also on the show, and they had a hotel at Byron Bay and are very successful (and wealthy) in their own right.

Didn't know Hoges had a following in the Old Dart. Fascinating. He went from Harbour Bridge rigger to TV star here in one quick step, after appearing nightly on a current affairs show in the early 70s, if I remember rightly - offering his hilarious warped view on Aussie life.

We used to get the Paul Hogan Show on late-night TV back in the early 80s. This was long before Neighbours and Home and Away and our exposure to Australian culture had up until then been limited to Rolf Harris (whom Hogan, I recall, ribbed mercilessly on the show) and Dame Edna. Even though there were a lot of Aussie-specific references ('Hoges' constantly wearing full footie kit, impersonations of TV personalities etc) which were largely lost on me, I still thought the show was hilarious, especially such creations as 'Leo Wanker' and the anti-Mastermind TV quiz show Thick Head.

Great stuff. I wonder if I can get it on DVD anywhere? (Or a snippet or two on YouTube even?)