Free Markets, Free People


A Million French Can’t Be Wrong …

Yes, it is spring and that means protest season in France (note the previous attempt in January didn’t turn out too well due to global warming effects).  This time, though, it’s not the “youths” doing the protesting.  Instead we are treated to union driven protests.

 The reason?

The protests, which drew substantially more people into the streets than a similar outpouring Jan. 29, were depicted by union leaders as part of a sustained campaign to pressure President Nicolas Sarkozy to do more to defend French people against the economic upheaval that has unfurled across the planet since the fall. In particular, they called on him to raise low-end wages and unemployment benefits and to make it harder for business leaders to fire employees when profits sink.

It's a win-win - Kerry goes too!

It's a win-win - Kerry goes too!

And we complain about our liberals being economic ignoramuses. Per the French mob, the ticket to recovery is to raise wages, raise unemployment benefits and prevent businesses – which most likely pay for those unemployment benefits (not to mention higher wages) – from letting workers go when their profits sink. Wow … economics worthy of Timothy Geithner, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

See, the French really deserve our Congress for their legislature. They’d be absolutely perfect together. Simpatico. Nancy Pelosi would be the toast of Paris and Harry Reid – ok, even the French wouldn’t put up with Harry Reid, so let’s not get too carried away. But seriously, have you ever seen a mob and a Congress (or administration for that matter) that thought so much alike?

It’s like a marriage made in heaven. The Congress and administration could transfer themselves to a country where the economic damage has already been done and the economy is already chronically lethargic, the welfare state is established to include universal health care and the control they seek over industry and business is already in place. They’d be happier (and have much less work to do ruining their economy even further), we’d be happier (trust me, we would), and my guess is the French would just swoon over Obama.

And he’s about right for them – they’ve always believed in style over substance, always thought more of themselves than others have and always had a sense of hubris which never equaled their performance.

It’s freakin’ perfect.

Why didn’t we think of this before?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

12 Responses to A Million French Can’t Be Wrong …

  • I will make the French a deal…

    I will give them Nancy Shmancy, Harry “Dimwit” Reid, John Kerry, AND The Clown™, and they can choose the right French wine to send in return.

    One bottle will do. I won’t even be picky over the vintage OR the year.

    Still, we would definitely get the better of the bargain, even if we added Barney “Dunce” Frank to the deal.

    • A well-aged Alsatian white wine would go perfectly with all the pork that’s been spent…

  • You guys love to insult the intelligence of people who think differently than you, as if the last eight years of tax cuts, deregulation, war after war, have been brilliant.  The fact is the policies that the right have been advocating have led us into this morass, both failed wars and failed economic policies.  So maybe the ones you guys think are ignoramuses are actually on the right track.  Time to try it, because GOP rule sure failed big time.   I mean, if you had an inkling of success you could point to then your insults of the other side might be a bit more tolerable.  Now you’re like General Custer in his final minutes, muttering about how stupid the Sioux tactics had been.

    • deregulation

      We’re all still waiting for you to give us some examples of deregulation that led to our current problems. Or do you just want to complain some more about how no one takes you seriously?

    • Sometimes I think you might be some sort of idiot savant.  Read the first line of what you just wrote, “You guys love to insult the intelligence of people who think differently than you . . ”  And then you proceed to do exactly what you accuse “you guys” of doing?  Of all the persons who visit or comment in this corner, no one but you has been critical of the GOP failures for the past 8 years?  No one but you have criticized the former adminsitration for failed policies – economic, war and others?

      Do we think differently than you?  Thank God – YES!  So when you point your fickle finger of fate at the bumbling fools that lurk in the comments of this Blog, don’t forget that we also see you in these same comments. 

      By the way – how are you related to George Armstrong?

      • No insults from me, I focused on noting the the policies you’ve been advocating have failed.  I did not call anyone an idiot or say they weren’t fit for their jobs, and all the other personal stuff people put in blogs.  I am forceful and provocative, but I try to focus that on substance (attacking policies, stating policies have failed, showing contradictions between principle and policy, such as G. Bay), not on personality.  That’s the difference.  None of us knows each other well enough to really honestly insult the other — all we have our impressions based on how our imagination fills in the gaps from posts.  That tends to lead to a “reverse-halo effect.”   The halo effect is when you fall for someone and don’t know them well, so you assume all the stuff you don’t know is good.  As you get to know the person, you realize they’re not so perfect.  The reverse-halo effect is when in response to web debates and the like you disagree with someone and then imagine traits to their personality that are mostly bad, and then you attack that image.  That happens in web debates all the time.  I’ve tried to learn from that, and hence do not carry grudges or have any personal dislike for anyone — I simply don’t really know who any of you are.

        • So Erb has time to ramble on some more about insults, but STILL can’t provide one shred of a detail about a deregulation policy that led to these economic problems.

          You’ve been asked several times in several threads to provide some data based on what you have decreed to be true.

          THAT is why you are still being insulted. Now run along and whine some more.

        • “Now you’re like General Custer in his final minutes, muttering about how stupid the Sioux tactics had been.”
          But that’s not an insult, just an observation.
             Erb makes it clear that he expects students to provide well documented evidence for all their positions and as JWG pointed out, he rarely provides any for his own arguments here. On the other hand any statement made on this blog could just be for his own entertainment, and maybe they don’t actually represent him in any way.  Because the main interaction is through the blog, the assumption is that everyone is typing what they beleive.     
               The real problem for Prof. Erb is that we do know enough about him. Some of Erb’s wrtings to his students were available on the internet.  And the fact is that he lied to his students several times in his case study on Iraq on numerous points of history from 1990 to 2003. We don’t know enough about him to say exactly why, and if someone’s threatening your kids, I could see lying to your students. Short of that, I’d venture most people agree that feeding false information to your students as part of the background discussion is reprehensible. In the interest of not blowing your cover, we’ll treat your comments at face value and show them the disrespect they deserve. 

            The case study is no longer available on line, but some statements were so far out they left quite the impression. Among them were claims that in early 1991 no one could have have reasonably predicted  that sanctions would not drive Iraq out of Kuwait; so the first Iraq war was unnecessary at that time. In addition; our conduct of the war was supposedly a humanitarian disaster (bombing Iraqi tanks that had already left Kuwait and the loud rock music among the violations). All evidence to the contrary was waved off as ignorance.

  • It’s not one deregulation policy, it’s the whole deregulation series of policy from Reagan on.   But if you’re not convinced, that’s fine.   I don’t have time to go policy by policy for you, and at this point I don’t need to — you’ve already lost politically on this.   The era of de-regulation is over.  Keep defending policies that led to economic collapse, the decline of the US, over a trillion dollars to fight wars that now seem increasingly pointless and harmful to the country’s security, human rights violations and torture, and, well, some of the worst governance in our country’s history.    This fall I’m teaching a course on the international political economy, and there I’ll go into specifics on the nature of the policies and the inability of a deregulated market to operate effectively.  (Hint: one of the problems is that national regulation itself is not enough in a period of globalization, we need transnational regulation in order to have effective markets).   I’ll post you a link to those notes when that course happens.

    This  is a different world than it was just a couple of years ago.  I think a lot of you are going to find that the old ideology-based arguments aren’t going to work, and personal attacks on Democrats or Obama are simply going to end up as inbred right wing blog narratives.  You’re where the liberal Democrats were in early 1981.    The hard part is going to first admit you’ve been wrong (as the 70s era Democrats were) on many policy positions and ideological perspectives.  Second, you’ll have to veer between either tacking to the center to try to win votes (Clinton’s approach) or developing a new vision of change (Obama’s approach — much like Reagan).   The good news for you is that your party will come back.  We need two viable, distinct parties, and whenever one gets too out of touch with reality they get forced to rethink their positions.  In that the Democrats and Republicans are quite alike.

    • I don’t have time to go policy by policy for you

      No one here actually believed you would provide even one fact. Thanks for proving the point. All you have time for is to spout your decrees and whine about no one taking you seriously. Boo freakin’ hoo. You’re a joke.

    • Once again you are wrong, Erb.  It is not deregulation that is the problem – the market, when allowed, always corrects itself.  It is the cycle of ups and downs called the economy.  It is government intervention, regulation enacted as knee jerk policy,  that is the problem – from both sides of the aisle.  There is a certain amount of market stabilization after deregulation – when corporate structures that cannot compete fail under the ever present pressure of competition.  But the deregulated component of the economy seeks stasis.  But that seeking may take decades.  The Airline industry was deregulated in 1978 and airlines are still failing, merging and seeking competitive ground.

      It may be unpopular to state the above but being unpopular does not make it wrong.  Government intervention directly caused the current crisis, regardless of where the polls indicate – and our government’s attempt to fix things is to insert itself ever more emphatically into the market?  Unintended consequences can be a powerful thing.  Examples?  Just one is all that is needed for the moment – Ask Barnie Frank if he would like a “Reset” switch for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

      Grab your knickers, Erb.  We are on the precipice and it looks like Obama and company is taking the plunge.  I hope you are closely monitoring your investments because we are on the verge of enterring a hyper-inflation period that may very well make the Carter/Reagan years look like a cakewalk.  And to bring us back on point, that is the very essence of this post – when you knee jerk to the mob, you get what you deserve – and France today is an example of that very idea. 

  • It’s not one deregulation policy, it’s the whole deregulation series of policy from Reagan on. As I’ve decreed to you a hundred times, Reagan was vicious and evil, and all deregulation is just bad, bad, bad because it takes control away from wise leftists and bureaucrats and leaves people to actually decide what to do with their own companies and money. That’s the old “freedom” hoo-hah you dense righties are so fond of, and it’s just so twentieth century. Since the Bush regime is over (finally!), you’re just going to have to give it up. Suck on it, righties.

    But if you’re not convinced, that’s fine. I don’t have time to go policy by policy for you, and at this point I don’t need to. Yes, I know I said I wanted real discussion and all that, but you don’t seem to understand that such real discussion includes my right to simply decree something, and you have to accept it because of my godlike powers of political science. Don’t you dense righties get it yet? Come over to my blog to learn learn more if you don’t.

    Besides, you’ve already lost politically on this. The era of de-regulation is over. Over, over, over, I tell you! And those silly tea parties and Obama’s sinking reputation and poll numbers don’t mean a thing, because with his wisdom (he thinks just like me, you know) and his Christlike visage, he will inspire and lead us through a magical transformation that will make everything OK. You’ll see. And just forget this stuff about getting majority in 2010 because our glorious Lightworker will make everything work our great before then. And if I’m wrong, I’ll admit it. Stop laughing!

    But you thick righties just keep on and on about debt and bad business incentives and moral blizzard, whatever that is, and other irrelevant stuff. Just keep it up. Keep defending policies that led to economic collapse, the decline of the US, over a trillion dollars to fight wars that now seem increasingly pointless and harmful to the country’s security (they are pointless, I tell you, because I decree it!), human rights violations and torture, and, well, some of the worst governance in our country’s history. That odious Bush – how can you even stand the sight of those chimplike ears. And Obama’s ears are not the least bit chimplike, so stop saying that! Besides, it’s a racist thing to say! We on the left would never stoop to such insults anyway. Nope, we would never in a million years make fun of blacks or women or handicapped people or anyone like that. And don’t start up with that Leno thing, you hear me, just don’t start!

    This fall I’m teaching a course on the international political economy, and no that’s not a contradiction in terms so stop laughing, and there I’ll go into specifics on the nature of the policies and the inability of any market based on the obsolete concept of freedom to operate effectively. (Hint: one of the problems is that national regulation itself is not enough in a period of globalization, we need transnational regulation in order to have effective markets. Yep, we wise leftists need to rule the whole world instead of just individual nations, which would definitely keep you dense righties at bay forever.).

    I’ll post you a link to those notes when that course happens. And I don’t care what you say about them, I’m right, do you hear? Your precious enlightenment “facts” are no match against my godlike postmodern pragamatic powers of political science, and you should thank the stars that I’m around to teach your sons and daughters how silly the stuff they learned from you growing up truly is. Cause I know you dense righties. It was all “freedom” this and “responsibility” that and “Constitutional” the other thing, and of course none of that matters now. Because the Constitution is a living thing, which means we get to reinterpret it however we want, so that those greedy businessmen standing in the way of the glorious leftist revolution can get squashed by federal law any time we feel like it. Suck on it righties.

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet