3 ms·

this is a step too far... bailouts are preferred to this but if France wants to shoot itself in the foot I guess let them?

gmm1990 7y ago
If the government is competent the nationalization can be good. French govt already took control of their face mask supply. Ensuring at least more face masks to healthcare providers. It’s hard to argue this specific action hurts the French society. People need to analyze whether specific actions by the government are good or bad for society not if it fits into your ideological narrative
- jmnicolas 7y ago
  > French govt already took control of their face mask supply. I don't know about that. What I know is that they sent all the production to China and Iran a month ago and now that we critically need masks there are none to be found even for medical professionals deemed 'not essentials'. We're talking about a government that allowed elections to happen 3 days ago then quarantined the whole country today ...
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    > What I know is that they sent all the production to China and Iran a month ago and now that we critically need masks there are none to be found even for medical professionals deemed 'not essentials'. That may wind up being the right call. China's ramping up production dramatically; the goodwill engendered may be to France's benefit.
- megous 7y ago
  Why is it hard to argue that? In my country, the ban on private sales and mismanagement of forced central supply of protective gear lead to serious issues. Hospitals are asking for donations of protective masks and respirators from private citizens, because they can no longer buy them on the market, and are running low on their stock, and central distribution is a huge bottleneck, and any mismanagement there affects the whole country, not just one company or one hospital. It's actually a big fiasco. Noone can buy anything, and government is constantly apologizing and telling people to just wear whatever. Tomorrow it will be required to wear protection in order to do shopping, and noone can buy it, so people are shopping with scarves over their faces. I sewed up something together from a handkerchief, so that I could do groceries today. It's pitiful. Distributed supply means distributed failure (here and there). Central supply, means failure on the national level.
sputr 7y ago
Preferred ... for whom? Owners? Sure. People footing the bill? Hell no. If we (taxpayers) are footing the entirety of the risk than we're also be taking the entirety of the profits (if any). Why do you expect the public to NOT play by the capitalist rules? Low-term ownership of non-critical companies by government is usually a bad idea. Sure. But isn't it better to nationalize, save and then, when the market is good, sell it for a profit (or break even) than just ... give out high-risk money hoping you get it back? Besides ... if a company was going to collapse without government intervention that means it's irrelevant to the current owners anyway since they have already failed and lost everything. The fact society managed to stop that from happening with extraordinary measures is irrelevant to that fact. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for private enterprise. But I hate people who turn from "no government handouts for the poor" to "Companies need government handouts!" the second it's convenient.

gmm1990 7y ago

If the government is competent the nationalization can be good. French govt already took control of their face mask supply. Ensuring at least more face masks to healthcare providers. It’s hard to argue this specific action hurts the French society. People need to analyze whether specific actions by the government are good or bad for society not if it fits into your ideological narrative

jmnicolas 7y ago
> French govt already took control of their face mask supply. I don't know about that. What I know is that they sent all the production to China and Iran a month ago and now that we critically need masks there are none to be found even for medical professionals deemed 'not essentials'. We're talking about a government that allowed elections to happen 3 days ago then quarantined the whole country today ...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  > What I know is that they sent all the production to China and Iran a month ago and now that we critically need masks there are none to be found even for medical professionals deemed 'not essentials'. That may wind up being the right call. China's ramping up production dramatically; the goodwill engendered may be to France's benefit.
megous 7y ago
Why is it hard to argue that? In my country, the ban on private sales and mismanagement of forced central supply of protective gear lead to serious issues. Hospitals are asking for donations of protective masks and respirators from private citizens, because they can no longer buy them on the market, and are running low on their stock, and central distribution is a huge bottleneck, and any mismanagement there affects the whole country, not just one company or one hospital. It's actually a big fiasco. Noone can buy anything, and government is constantly apologizing and telling people to just wear whatever. Tomorrow it will be required to wear protection in order to do shopping, and noone can buy it, so people are shopping with scarves over their faces. I sewed up something together from a handkerchief, so that I could do groceries today. It's pitiful. Distributed supply means distributed failure (here and there). Central supply, means failure on the national level.

sputr 7y ago

Preferred ... for whom? Owners? Sure. People footing the bill? Hell no. If we (taxpayers) are footing the entirety of the risk than we're also be taking the entirety of the profits (if any). Why do you expect the public to NOT play by the capitalist rules? Low-term ownership of non-critical companies by government is usually a bad idea. Sure. But isn't it better to nationalize, save and then, when the market is good, sell it for a profit (or break even) than just ... give out high-risk money hoping you get it back? Besides ... if a company was going to collapse without government intervention that means it's irrelevant to the current owners anyway since they have already failed and lost everything. The fact society managed to stop that from happening with extraordinary measures is irrelevant to that fact. Don't get me wrong: I'm all for private enterprise. But I hate people who turn from "no government handouts for the poor" to "Companies need government handouts!" the second it's convenient.