5 ms·

Well we have Carrefour (second largest retail store chain after Walmart). I understand your position from an American point of view but I don't agree with it.

Well we have Carrefour (second largest retail store chain after Walmart). I understand your position from an American point of view but I don't agree with it. What you see as unnecessary regulation we see as the right way of governing, and what you see as protecting dying industries we see as preserving a way of life. Since 1981 (or so) the price of books has been fixed by law. Nobody can sell them lower than that price. If you walk through Paris (or most cities) you'll see a number of small library shops that contribute to local economy and culture. I find that very nice! Other retail industries have not been so lucky. Many smaller towns (10-50k inhabitants) have seen their city centers die out because of large outlets opening outside of town, and because of Amazon. I guess you could the say that the free market has decided what was the future. But these cities have become dead towns, people have moved to the suburbs, contributing to sprawl and car pollution. Social life has been reduced, and a recent study showed that the far right/protest vote was higher there. Today the political opinion is starting to shift and there's talk of more regulation to try and preserve smaller cities. Anyway, there's a lot more that could be said in this eternal debate between the "American" and "European" point of view. But I mean we're not Soviet Russia. We may not have Facebook (I can live with that) or Apple (that would be nicer), but regulations are only part of the issue. And we're not clinging to some antiquated world view, we're just trying to make sure change doesn't crush people too fast.

briandear 8y ago
But the French public chose to shop at the large outlets. But there are some that find it ok to restrict freedom to essentially subsidize a “way of life” that they value — despite other people not also valuing it as much (otherwise, why would they shop at Auchan?) The individual should be trusted to enjoy their own way of life without government forcing people into some idealized way of life devised by politicians who have tax-payer funded hairdressers making €11,000 per month as Hollande did. Meanwhile a typical French person has to deal with crazy-expensive taxes and ridiculous protectionism that, for example, prohibits buying aspirin at a supermarket. Or even a supermarket that stays open past 9pm. Allowing people to buy aspirin at a supermarket isn’t going to “crush people too fast.” Except maybe pharmacists. But solving my headache is worth more to me than saving a pharmacist’s “way of life.” Pharmacies do just fine in the US despite not having a monopoly on over-the-counter medicine. But, attempt to change the law, which rational French have suggested, and pharmacists go on a national strike. https://m.france24.com/en/20140930-french-pharmacists-strike-over-plans-liberalise-market https://m.france24.com/en/20140930-french-pharmacists-strike... There is a reason the French economy is stagnant — and stagnation crushes a country far more profoundly than innovation or market liberalization. French wine is the “best in the world,” (according to the French,) yet they have high tariffs on US wines to “protect” an industry they claim is the best? French winemakers hijack Spanish trucks and dump thousands of liters of wine into the streets to protest. And the French public allows these policies to continue — despite, ironically being fully in control of the wine they purchase at the supermarket. It’s a great illustration of people wanting to “preserve” a way of life — until it inconveniences them. Market liberalization doesn’t change anyone’s way of life unless they want it too. People could still avoid shopping on Sundays, buy only French wine and reject all things foreign. However, that isn’t what the public wants: they want freedom to live “their” way of life, not some idealized way of life imposed upon them. French people aren’t characters in a movie and they deserve the freedom to buy what they want, when they want and from whom they want. They deserve the freedom to engage in commerce in a way that optimizes for their needs. Certainly have some common sense regulation such as health and safety, but what business is it of the government if I want to buy aspirin at a fucking supermarket at 10:30pm and some supermarket is willing to sell it to me? If such freedom would “crush” people, then let the. Be crushed. I have a headache and don’t have time the desire or inclination to hunt around the countryside for the government-designated overnight pharmacy just so I can wake up a reluctant pharmacist to buy aspirin or whatever I need. For those not aware of the overnight pharmacy system in France, here is some interesting reading: https://excuseme-whereis.com/site/d58c88a9255a4289a5b812d3b3dc9787/default?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexcuseme-whereis.com%2FCote_d_Azur_P.html#2951 https://excuseme-whereis.com/site/d58c88a9255a4289a5b812d3b3... My point is that France is being crushed already — not from liberalization but from stagnation. Liberté sure — as long as it doesn’t piss off the pharmacists or farmers
- PeterStuer 8y ago
  In many cases, self-optimization by individuals is nefast in a socio-economic environment that actively seeks out concentrating benefits and externalizing detriments. Let's take cars as an example. For every 'individual' owning a car is better than not owning a car. After all, whether you own a car or not, you live in the same pollution and discomfort caused by everyone else having cars. So you might as well part-take in the benefits rather than only suffer the downsides. HN readers are a smart analytical crowd so they are not afraid of models and numbers. Here goes: Take a toy world with 1000 'people'. In this toy world, you get 500 'enjoyment' points from owning a car, a huge benefit, and you get -1 'enjoyment' points from someone else owning a car, a small detriment. It is clear that when nobody would own a car, the aggregate sum of all 'enjoyment' points would be 0. Nobody cares about the aggregate as each 'rational' consumer is trying to optimize their own benefit. For each and everyone, the 'optimal' decision is to get a car, even if they might notice at first the small negative impacts, as it immediately ups their 'enjoyment' by a serious amount. Sure, some other people buying cars brought my enjoyment to a small negative number, but getting one myself immediately offsets that. It is not until fairly late in this cycle, in this model when the number of cars exceeds 500, that the individual perception that the world was better off without cars altogether might set in. However, even when this occurs, the 'rational' decision for every consumer is still to buy/own a car. If everyone has a car, then everyone's enjoyment sits at an abysmal -500, yet getting rid of your own car immediately brings you enjoyment down to -999. These systemic 'race-to-the-bottom' scenarios exist in many forms in the real world, and are the underlying mechanic in many of the most detrimental situations we find ourselves in, environmentally, but also socioeconomically. They can only be curbed by collective restriction on 'freedoms', something that is blasphemy to many, I know, and nearly impossible to achieve through our current political organization. There are no easy answers to this. However, every time you hear someone utter things like 'vote with your wallet' when you object to the negative externalities something has , know that they are promoting a system that inherently leads to disaster.
- realusername 8y ago
  For the wine part, I don't know if you are aware but foreign wine still have a very bad reputation in France, foreign wine account for 5% of the total sales in France, so you have 5% for Spain + Italy + Portugal + the new world all together, that's pretty much nothing. The only common foreign wine I've ever seen is maybe Porto, that's the only exception and probably a good part of these 5%. They are an absolute niche and a tough sell even without any regulation. I know a lot of people who would not trust foreign wine at all. Additionally, France has not adopted the English way to categorise wine and still uses the French way, which does not help to sell foreign wines there. And for the pharmacists, I'm living now in Asia and I appreciate the French system even more because at least in France you can trust pharmacists without any doubt.
arkh 8y ago
> Since 1981 (or so) the price of books has been fixed by law. Nobody can sell them lower than that price. If you walk through Paris (or most cities) you'll see a number of small library shops that contribute to local economy and culture. I find that very nice! How many times have you bought something in one of those shop this year? I see lot of people trying to defend the postcard way of life. Even if people living there don't want to be part of the postcard and want to enjoy modern things. Like cheap books so you can read a lot for not too much. There's only one kind of shops offering the postcard dream for cheap concerning books: used book stores. You can enjoy trying to find some specific book but you usually end with a dozen books you never heard of and can discover new authors.
- ahartmetz 8y ago
  I've bought a few books in a physical store... well, last year at least. My go-to place to buy books is online but not Amazon: booklooker.de has a very nice no-nonsense user interface to buy used (and new, but I prefer used) books from... mostly small bookstores. By the way, small bookstores in Germany have incredibly good logistics and had them even before Amazon: Order a book until 15:00-18:00 (not sure / may also depend on location) and it's there for pickup next morning. Faster and more reliable than Amazon. Whether it's more or less convenient than Amazon depends.

briandear 8y ago

But the French public chose to shop at the large outlets. But there are some that find it ok to restrict freedom to essentially subsidize a “way of life” that they value — despite other people not also valuing it as much (otherwise, why would they shop at Auchan?) The individual should be trusted to enjoy their own way of life without government forcing people into some idealized way of life devised by politicians who have tax-payer funded hairdressers making €11,000 per month as Hollande did. Meanwhile a typical French person has to deal with crazy-expensive taxes and ridiculous protectionism that, for example, prohibits buying aspirin at a supermarket. Or even a supermarket that stays open past 9pm. Allowing people to buy aspirin at a supermarket isn’t going to “crush people too fast.” Except maybe pharmacists. But solving my headache is worth more to me than saving a pharmacist’s “way of life.” Pharmacies do just fine in the US despite not having a monopoly on over-the-counter medicine. But, attempt to change the law, which rational French have suggested, and pharmacists go on a national strike. https://m.france24.com/en/20140930-french-pharmacists-strike-over-plans-liberalise-market https://m.france24.com/en/20140930-french-pharmacists-strike... There is a reason the French economy is stagnant — and stagnation crushes a country far more profoundly than innovation or market liberalization. French wine is the “best in the world,” (according to the French,) yet they have high tariffs on US wines to “protect” an industry they claim is the best? French winemakers hijack Spanish trucks and dump thousands of liters of wine into the streets to protest. And the French public allows these policies to continue — despite, ironically being fully in control of the wine they purchase at the supermarket. It’s a great illustration of people wanting to “preserve” a way of life — until it inconveniences them. Market liberalization doesn’t change anyone’s way of life unless they want it too. People could still avoid shopping on Sundays, buy only French wine and reject all things foreign. However, that isn’t what the public wants: they want freedom to live “their” way of life, not some idealized way of life imposed upon them. French people aren’t characters in a movie and they deserve the freedom to buy what they want, when they want and from whom they want. They deserve the freedom to engage in commerce in a way that optimizes for their needs. Certainly have some common sense regulation such as health and safety, but what business is it of the government if I want to buy aspirin at a fucking supermarket at 10:30pm and some supermarket is willing to sell it to me? If such freedom would “crush” people, then let the. Be crushed. I have a headache and don’t have time the desire or inclination to hunt around the countryside for the government-designated overnight pharmacy just so I can wake up a reluctant pharmacist to buy aspirin or whatever I need. For those not aware of the overnight pharmacy system in France, here is some interesting reading: https://excuseme-whereis.com/site/d58c88a9255a4289a5b812d3b3dc9787/default?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexcuseme-whereis.com%2FCote_d_Azur_P.html#2951 https://excuseme-whereis.com/site/d58c88a9255a4289a5b812d3b3... My point is that France is being crushed already — not from liberalization but from stagnation. Liberté sure — as long as it doesn’t piss off the pharmacists or farmers

PeterStuer 8y ago
In many cases, self-optimization by individuals is nefast in a socio-economic environment that actively seeks out concentrating benefits and externalizing detriments. Let's take cars as an example. For every 'individual' owning a car is better than not owning a car. After all, whether you own a car or not, you live in the same pollution and discomfort caused by everyone else having cars. So you might as well part-take in the benefits rather than only suffer the downsides. HN readers are a smart analytical crowd so they are not afraid of models and numbers. Here goes: Take a toy world with 1000 'people'. In this toy world, you get 500 'enjoyment' points from owning a car, a huge benefit, and you get -1 'enjoyment' points from someone else owning a car, a small detriment. It is clear that when nobody would own a car, the aggregate sum of all 'enjoyment' points would be 0. Nobody cares about the aggregate as each 'rational' consumer is trying to optimize their own benefit. For each and everyone, the 'optimal' decision is to get a car, even if they might notice at first the small negative impacts, as it immediately ups their 'enjoyment' by a serious amount. Sure, some other people buying cars brought my enjoyment to a small negative number, but getting one myself immediately offsets that. It is not until fairly late in this cycle, in this model when the number of cars exceeds 500, that the individual perception that the world was better off without cars altogether might set in. However, even when this occurs, the 'rational' decision for every consumer is still to buy/own a car. If everyone has a car, then everyone's enjoyment sits at an abysmal -500, yet getting rid of your own car immediately brings you enjoyment down to -999. These systemic 'race-to-the-bottom' scenarios exist in many forms in the real world, and are the underlying mechanic in many of the most detrimental situations we find ourselves in, environmentally, but also socioeconomically. They can only be curbed by collective restriction on 'freedoms', something that is blasphemy to many, I know, and nearly impossible to achieve through our current political organization. There are no easy answers to this. However, every time you hear someone utter things like 'vote with your wallet' when you object to the negative externalities something has , know that they are promoting a system that inherently leads to disaster.
realusername 8y ago
For the wine part, I don't know if you are aware but foreign wine still have a very bad reputation in France, foreign wine account for 5% of the total sales in France, so you have 5% for Spain + Italy + Portugal + the new world all together, that's pretty much nothing. The only common foreign wine I've ever seen is maybe Porto, that's the only exception and probably a good part of these 5%. They are an absolute niche and a tough sell even without any regulation. I know a lot of people who would not trust foreign wine at all. Additionally, France has not adopted the English way to categorise wine and still uses the French way, which does not help to sell foreign wines there. And for the pharmacists, I'm living now in Asia and I appreciate the French system even more because at least in France you can trust pharmacists without any doubt.

arkh 8y ago

> Since 1981 (or so) the price of books has been fixed by law. Nobody can sell them lower than that price. If you walk through Paris (or most cities) you'll see a number of small library shops that contribute to local economy and culture. I find that very nice! How many times have you bought something in one of those shop this year? I see lot of people trying to defend the postcard way of life. Even if people living there don't want to be part of the postcard and want to enjoy modern things. Like cheap books so you can read a lot for not too much. There's only one kind of shops offering the postcard dream for cheap concerning books: used book stores. You can enjoy trying to find some specific book but you usually end with a dozen books you never heard of and can discover new authors.

ahartmetz 8y ago
I've bought a few books in a physical store... well, last year at least. My go-to place to buy books is online but not Amazon: booklooker.de has a very nice no-nonsense user interface to buy used (and new, but I prefer used) books from... mostly small bookstores. By the way, small bookstores in Germany have incredibly good logistics and had them even before Amazon: Order a book until 15:00-18:00 (not sure / may also depend on location) and it's there for pickup next morning. Faster and more reliable than Amazon. Whether it's more or less convenient than Amazon depends.