3 ms·

Is this guy supposed to be educated ? I was raised in France and I feel less alienated than the author of this article. He sounds like Moses coming down from hi

by ldambra 19y ago

Is this guy supposed to be educated ? I was raised in France and I feel less alienated than the author of this article. He sounds like Moses coming down from his hill with the tables of laws. United States are the epicenter of the economical world without any doubt, the ultimate place for entrepreneurs for sure, "the place where it happens", but history teaches us at least 3 things : 1/ Portugal was this place before (hello America), Spain was before (gold from America), Holland was before (beginning of world commerce, main Harbor of the world), England was before (industrial revolution), etc. So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place, but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy). 2/ France has never been the epicenter of the economical world in it's history, it has never been the #1 power in the world, never. And with our strategic geographical position in Europe it's pretty ironic. It's not that we didn't try, but the reasons are cultural, and they take their roots far beyond socialism. 3/ You can't have it all. The reasons why France is #1 tourism destination in the world are also the reasons why we weren't the #1 power at any time in our history. France is undergoing a serious cultural crisis right now, and economy is certainly not our strongest skill, but a lot of our problems come from deliberate choices of lifestyle. You cannot have it all. It should not be so hard to understand that there are different kind of lifestyles that all come with their pro and cons. Especially for a traveled reporter.

Xichekolas 19y ago
I think your assertion that "you can't have it all" is telling. We are raised in the US being told that we can indeed have it all, if we work hard enough. I'm not arguing that this is reality, I'm just saying our attitude is such that anything is achievable. Maybe that makes us naive, but it also makes us much more likely to take a big risk for a big payoff. I confess I don't know France well enough to add to your views on it's economic attitudes, but I do know the US well enough to say what I just said. I think the point of the article is that since we are not taught to fear capitalism, we are more likely to do stupid things that sometimes actually pay off, and the pay off is generally worth it for society, if not for the individuals that failed en route. And I think France was the #1 power in the world briefly... the Napoleonic Era. Either way, it has been one of the top powers for quite a while. I, as an American, am still envious of your prowess in Nuclear Energy.
- ks 19y ago
  > "I think your assertion that "you can't have it all" is telling. We are raised in the US being told that we can indeed have it all, if we work hard enough." But unfortunatly, not everyone can have it all. That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness. 60 minutes had a story about Denmark, which is the happiest country in the world. Their secret is to try to get it all, but also know that you might have to settle for less. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833... Video is here: http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness
  - Electro 19y ago
    The best advice I'd have to anyone wanting to begin a start-up here is that the RISK always has to be GREATER than the REWARD for there to be a PROFIT. RISK > REWARD = PROFIT. It's that simple. I find the saying "you can have it all" to be idealistic bullshit that dooms an economy and its people to failure and exploitation. It merely justifies the reason not to have a welfare system because it is your own damn fault if you take a leap against common sense that is never able to pay off. Example: 50 years ago AT&T invented the picturephone AKA video phones. The reason it took almost 40 years for it to even become marketable was because it wasn't worth the risk for people. There wasn't enough reward to justify the risk of changing, so no one did. Simply put it gave 10 frames per second of picture, gave no benefit over voice and cost a fortune. $20 vs $1200 for a handset, it was a retarded product and took 50 years to even get uptake and by that time it was on broadband phones and the housephone market is already beat by VoIP and Webcams. Would a start-up have survived 50 years with no selling product?
  - yummyfajitas 19y ago
    >That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness. Not necessarily. It may be a source of unhappiness, but it may just be a calibration effect. Consider the question, "on a scale of 1-10, how happy are you?" I know 1 == sad (not me) and I know 10=="a marijuana forest full of strippers?!?". But what does 5 or 8 mean? Say I'm the sort of person who might rate myself a 9. But If there is a person, real or hypothetical, who is "happier" than me (1), but not quite a 10. So that leads me to conclude HE must be 9 and I must be 8. But I'm not less happy, I just don't know how to answer a "how happy are you" question. Similarly, I might want to rate myself a 5, but then I think about how I wasn't eaten by velociraptors, and jack myself up to 7 (my understanding is that something of this nature occurs in Denmark). (1) His beer comes from further away than my beer and his wife's ass is higher up than my wife's ass.
mynameishere 19y ago
The reasons why France is #1 tourism destination in the world are also the reasons why we weren't the #1 power at any time in our history. Your whole comment strikes me as incoherent. France came very close to being the major world power, if it wasn't, several times. It's power was limited by having a relatively small population, not by wine or architecture or art galleries, which are the reasons it is a tourist destination. I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy) Huh? He sounds like Moses coming down from his hill with the tables of laws. Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell. Portugal...Spain...Holland...England Yes, so? Each one in turn was full of people taking ventures rather than welfare checks. Do you think Columbus read about how he should organize a conference for lazy bitches to appeal to the Queen for handouts? That's evidentally what European kids are actually being taught. You seem to be implying that the welfare state is a lifestyle choice, but France's culture didn't grow up in a welfare state.
- Electro 19y ago
  Please, quote properly. Don't hack sentences in half without even an elipsis to denote that you're altering the context. > So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place [#1 economic power], but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and [you see that AND it means CARRYING ON] I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle [They have state controlled communist media, that was a blatent fault on your part not the authors] (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy)[< those braketed comments, they're the writers side remarks, saying simply communism = bad]. Now that that is out the way; no France was never the worlds #1 economic power in the world. It's a country that has been habitually invaded repeatedly and its only point of success in the Napoleon Era crippled its economy through conscription and a complete halt in technological advances. > Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell. You obviously agree with the articles author, but its patently poor writing. It's barely above tabloid journalism and merely written to inflame. It's poor, it's biased and it's written like utter capitalist garbage and not credible criticism. Simply put: It's the same shit I've heard for years about socialism, the only thing is that Europe is a bigger faster growing economy than the US. Uhh that means socialism WINS and capitalism LOSES, the market is the ultimate truth and that is capitalist doctrine #1. EU 3% growth, US 2.2% growth. EU $16.37 trillion GDP(OER), US $13.79 trillion GDP(OER) US inflation is also .9% higher, which means the US GDP(OER) is going to get worse every year. The US currently beats the EU on poverty line by about 3%, however the EU keeps bringing in countries with unemployment and poverty lines well above acceptable levels, and hey go figure the EU is still growing better than the US. I'm sorry, but all 'evidence' of a benefit to capitalism is bull. It's already been proven that people in the US spend on average twice as much on health care as people in the UK(with the worlds largest nationalised health survice) and the poor in the UK are as healthy as the US' rich. That means there's a proportionally larger, healthier and more productive work force in the UK than the US. So EU has the #1 economy in the world, it has several of the best health care systems in the world (competing for #1 between UK and Germany really) that are slowly spreading throughout Europe... and the US has what now? The #1 country for citizens behind bars?

by ldambra 19y ago

Xichekolas 19y ago

I think your assertion that "you can't have it all" is telling. We are raised in the US being told that we can indeed have it all, if we work hard enough. I'm not arguing that this is reality, I'm just saying our attitude is such that anything is achievable. Maybe that makes us naive, but it also makes us much more likely to take a big risk for a big payoff. I confess I don't know France well enough to add to your views on it's economic attitudes, but I do know the US well enough to say what I just said. I think the point of the article is that since we are not taught to fear capitalism, we are more likely to do stupid things that sometimes actually pay off, and the pay off is generally worth it for society, if not for the individuals that failed en route. And I think France was the #1 power in the world briefly... the Napoleonic Era. Either way, it has been one of the top powers for quite a while. I, as an American, am still envious of your prowess in Nuclear Energy.

ks 19y ago
> "I think your assertion that "you can't have it all" is telling. We are raised in the US being told that we can indeed have it all, if we work hard enough." But unfortunatly, not everyone can have it all. That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness. 60 minutes had a story about Denmark, which is the happiest country in the world. Their secret is to try to get it all, but also know that you might have to settle for less. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833... Video is here: http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness
- Electro 19y ago
  The best advice I'd have to anyone wanting to begin a start-up here is that the RISK always has to be GREATER than the REWARD for there to be a PROFIT. RISK > REWARD = PROFIT. It's that simple. I find the saying "you can have it all" to be idealistic bullshit that dooms an economy and its people to failure and exploitation. It merely justifies the reason not to have a welfare system because it is your own damn fault if you take a leap against common sense that is never able to pay off. Example: 50 years ago AT&T invented the picturephone AKA video phones. The reason it took almost 40 years for it to even become marketable was because it wasn't worth the risk for people. There wasn't enough reward to justify the risk of changing, so no one did. Simply put it gave 10 frames per second of picture, gave no benefit over voice and cost a fortune. $20 vs $1200 for a handset, it was a retarded product and took 50 years to even get uptake and by that time it was on broadband phones and the housephone market is already beat by VoIP and Webcams. Would a start-up have survived 50 years with no selling product?
- yummyfajitas 19y ago
  >That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness. Not necessarily. It may be a source of unhappiness, but it may just be a calibration effect. Consider the question, "on a scale of 1-10, how happy are you?" I know 1 == sad (not me) and I know 10=="a marijuana forest full of strippers?!?". But what does 5 or 8 mean? Say I'm the sort of person who might rate myself a 9. But If there is a person, real or hypothetical, who is "happier" than me (1), but not quite a 10. So that leads me to conclude HE must be 9 and I must be 8. But I'm not less happy, I just don't know how to answer a "how happy are you" question. Similarly, I might want to rate myself a 5, but then I think about how I wasn't eaten by velociraptors, and jack myself up to 7 (my understanding is that something of this nature occurs in Denmark). (1) His beer comes from further away than my beer and his wife's ass is higher up than my wife's ass.

mynameishere 19y ago

The reasons why France is #1 tourism destination in the world are also the reasons why we weren't the #1 power at any time in our history. Your whole comment strikes me as incoherent. France came very close to being the major world power, if it wasn't, several times. It's power was limited by having a relatively small population, not by wine or architecture or art galleries, which are the reasons it is a tourist destination. I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy) Huh? He sounds like Moses coming down from his hill with the tables of laws. Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell. Portugal...Spain...Holland...England Yes, so? Each one in turn was full of people taking ventures rather than welfare checks. Do you think Columbus read about how he should organize a conference for lazy bitches to appeal to the Queen for handouts? That's evidentally what European kids are actually being taught. You seem to be implying that the welfare state is a lifestyle choice, but France's culture didn't grow up in a welfare state.

Electro 19y ago
Please, quote properly. Don't hack sentences in half without even an elipsis to denote that you're altering the context. > So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place [#1 economic power], but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and [you see that AND it means CARRYING ON] I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle [They have state controlled communist media, that was a blatent fault on your part not the authors] (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy)[< those braketed comments, they're the writers side remarks, saying simply communism = bad]. Now that that is out the way; no France was never the worlds #1 economic power in the world. It's a country that has been habitually invaded repeatedly and its only point of success in the Napoleon Era crippled its economy through conscription and a complete halt in technological advances. > Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell. You obviously agree with the articles author, but its patently poor writing. It's barely above tabloid journalism and merely written to inflame. It's poor, it's biased and it's written like utter capitalist garbage and not credible criticism. Simply put: It's the same shit I've heard for years about socialism, the only thing is that Europe is a bigger faster growing economy than the US. Uhh that means socialism WINS and capitalism LOSES, the market is the ultimate truth and that is capitalist doctrine #1. EU 3% growth, US 2.2% growth. EU $16.37 trillion GDP(OER), US $13.79 trillion GDP(OER) US inflation is also .9% higher, which means the US GDP(OER) is going to get worse every year. The US currently beats the EU on poverty line by about 3%, however the EU keeps bringing in countries with unemployment and poverty lines well above acceptable levels, and hey go figure the EU is still growing better than the US. I'm sorry, but all 'evidence' of a benefit to capitalism is bull. It's already been proven that people in the US spend on average twice as much on health care as people in the UK(with the worlds largest nationalised health survice) and the poor in the UK are as healthy as the US' rich. That means there's a proportionally larger, healthier and more productive work force in the UK than the US. So EU has the #1 economy in the world, it has several of the best health care systems in the world (competing for #1 between UK and Germany really) that are slowly spreading throughout Europe... and the US has what now? The #1 country for citizens behind bars?