2012 May 18 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2007/05/07/the-socialist-disaster/
0
0
  |   107 comments

From the Financial Times:

Let the finger-pointing begin. Ségolène Royal’s defeat on Sunday night left the French Socialist party in disarray and searching for someone to blame. There is hardly a shortage of scapegoats.

It is the party’s third consecutive presidential defeat. The Socialists now face the question of whether they can ever regain power without ditching their anti-capitalist rhetoric, as the mainstream left has done across almost all of Europe.

Ms Royal can argue that she did better than Lionel Jospin, who in 2002 led the Socialists to a humiliating third place behind Jacques Chirac and far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen. But France’s main opposition party still faces a wrenching crisis.

Well, it’s very simple: they can all point the finger to themselves. They are all too blame, as is their socialist ideology. Socialism has had its day; socialism has brought moral decline, high unemployment rates, weak, unstable economies, huge governments, regulation in just about every area of one’s life; it has caused something called personal responsibility to disappear; it has brought moral relativism; it has learned us that we cannot be proud of our respective country; it has made large groups of people unnecessarily dependent on the government; it has forced us to accept the failed concept of multiculturalism; it has taught us (I mean Europeans in general with that) that whatever you do, you have to be politically correct; it has created an environment in which one is not allowed to name problems, let alone deal with them; it has taught us that criminals are not to blame for their crimes, society as a whole is and that they, therefore, should be kuddled instead of punished… oef, the list goes on and on.

Socialism has weakened France, and Europe as a whole; it is time to get rid of it.

Cross posted at The Moderate Voice.

  1. Posted by lthomas
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #3061
    lthomas Well at the CIA there are no secrets. If you have a secret then you are not a good employee. Therefore if you do not be up front with all your wants and needs you are not acceptable. Sides the background check is going to turn up a scheduled vacation anyways so you might as well be up front with it.
  2. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #3056
    Interested
    I don’t consider the motivation of driving stock prices up to help executive compensation and bonuses to be adequate to hurt thousands of people.
    That's the other key. If business has to cut profit margins so razor thin, or loose money just to keep employees hired - what then happens to the stock value of a company. The stock that thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people have invested in for their retirement. What then. In my tenure as a manager or owner, I've had to try to balance that line to make a profit for the owners (or myself) and keep valued employees hired. It is a chicken and the egg thing. But in an us vs them - Business will always win.
  3. Posted by Jim Satterfield
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #3053
    Jim Satterfield I have asked well into an interview how the interviewer felt about a vacation I already had scheduled. Not because of my demands but of the demands of the hotel and airline industry. For some reason the airlines especially don't like the idea of giving your money back just because someone sees your resume on Monster or Careerbuilder and is interested. Eating over a thousand dollars isn't a fun thing to contemplate, folks. Demanding is one thing. I think explaining a situation to an interviewer and asking what they think is another. Interested, Neither of the examples I noted had anything to do with cutting profits to the point of being razor thin.
  4. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #3049
    C Stanley Jim, I agree that is reasonable once you and the interviewer have gotten far enough into the discussion that you are obviously in contention for the job, and reasonable to let them know about it and see what is possible or not possible (but not in the way it was put to me which was pretty much from the outset of the interview, something like "anyone who hires me needs to know that I have scheduled a vacation on xx date so I will need to be off at that time). I also think, it depends on how badly one needs or wants the job. There are definitely situations when I think it would be warranted to say nothing until an actual offer is made, and then in the process of accepting to just say, "I feel I should say that I have a scheduled trip that would conflict with my work schedule; if it would not be possible then it is more important to me to take the job and cancel the trip. However, if there is a possibility of me taking unpaid vacation at that time, I would prefer to not forfeit the deposits that I've paid and I feel it is best to ask you how you feel about this now rather than after I've accepted the job." That way you are making it clear that the job will be your priority but you want to make a reasonable request and don't want the employer to feel that you withheld this information from him until the ink was dry on the contract.
  5. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #3054
    Interested
    Neither of the examples I noted had anything to do with cutting profits to the point of being razor thin.
    Your examples are also on the far end of the spectrum and also do not consider the masses that have invested in that stock for their retirement, the masses that depend on that stock going up - not down. In addition, your examples also do not show what profit levels may be needed to stave off a hostile takeover that will most likely result in layoffs. It's a two-sided coin, not just one sided.
  6. Posted by Jim Satterfield
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #3051
    Jim Satterfield But maybe our reliance on increased stock valuations instead of the slow and reliable method of good dividends is a mistake in the long run. Isn't it entirely likely that we have made a serious error in relying on unrealistic expectations for profits and growth?
  7. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #3050
    Interested
    But maybe our reliance on increased stock valuations instead of the slow and reliable method of good dividends is a mistake in the long run. Isn’t it entirely likely that we have made a serious error in relying on unrealistic expectations for profits and growth?
    That's when the market corrects and adjusts itself. But in either case. Those very same every day Joe's, have their life savings invested in companies that need to turn a profit. Theres very little difference between - for example - a bank laying off 15,000 people. And a bank being taken over and having branches dissolved. And for what it's worth, I agree. People rely too much on higher risk for a return on investment for far too long. Most would be better served running a lower risk investment strategy incorporating a higher percentage of bonds, T-Bills and the like.