28 Jul 08
Originally posted by dryhumpAbsolutely.
Sounds like a pretty conservative view to me. Isolationist even.
I suggest you travel around India, pooping your guts out for 4 months, then come back here and suggest that it's the way forward.
You won't.
And I see no reason why we should go down that road. And isolating our economy will benefit their's at the same time.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirSince when did you self-identify with the government of a particular piece of land? I thought you were all about having no borders and stuff.
Absolutely.
I suggest you travel around India, pooping your guts out for 4 months, then come back here and suggest that it's the way forward.
You won't.
And I see no reason why we should go down that road. And isolating our economy will benefit their's at the same time.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAbsolutely.
Since when did you self-identify with the government of a particular piece of land? I thought you were all about having no borders and stuff.
And until there are no borders, so people can move freely, then I don't see why goods should move freely either.
28 Jul 08
1 edit
The legal working hours of jobs in France are still equivalent to 35h/week, but now they will be counted on an annual basis to allow for seasonal peaks of activity.
What is open now is the possibility to negociate the premium of heures supplémentaires i.e. overtime. The overtime premium was previously fixed as a percentage of the regular wage.
Moreover, the so-called RTT (where workers get extra days of vacation if they work more than the legal working hours) are now extended to more types of contracts. It's true that this right can now be individually negotiated out but only if the collective work contract authorizes it. In practice, I don't see many unions authorizing it, so this will have very little practical effect.
This is just Sarkozy saving face and not much else.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirThis, in a nutshell, sums up exactly the disaster that is globalisation.
Absolutely.
And until there are no borders, so people can move freely, then I don't see why goods should move freely either.
It is a one way ticket, where the goods and industry can move to the most advantageous location but the people can't.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by WheelyIts a disaster if the people in democracies never vote into office people with a global agenda. Politics will always be a slave to that most fickle of masters, the unwritten consensus, and if the mood of the people is to be cautious and not embrace an issue then no amount of public posturing will ever change that one reality. Politicians who are also very canny at feeling the nations pulse usually only lead the people as fast as they can be led on an issue.
This, in a nutshell, sums up exactly the disaster that is globalisation.
It is a one way ticket, where the goods and industry can move to the most advantageous location but the people can't.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by PalynkaThis isn't a great example because the EU, though originally a trade block was also partly envisaged as a way to stop wars in Europe ever happening again. The agenda of the EU has always been more than one of trade.
Because the former can serve as an incentive to the latter. The case of the EU is a prime example.
However, it is not in economic interest to allow real globalisation. What is the point of DVD regions if we can all just get our mates in Asia to send a load of stuff to Europe. What is the point of re-locating your industry to China if we can all just move there ourselves and get the goods at the cheap prices too.
Globalisation only works economically if you don't let the general population move and work where they like.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by kmax87It is a disaster because it is unbalanced. You and I can not take advantage of it. Only corporations can.
Its a disaster if the people in democracies never vote into office people with a global agenda. Politics will always be a slave to that most fickle of masters, the unwritten consensus, and if the mood of the people is to be cautious and not embrace an issue then no amount of public posturing will ever change that one reality. Politicians who are also very ca ...[text shortened]... t feeling the nations pulse usually only lead the people as fast as they can be led on an issue.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by WheelyAgain, the example of the EU proves you wrong. There is massive trade between EU countries all while having freedom of movement. Trade also happens within countries. If anything, trade within the EU has continued to increase after the EU citizens were given the ability to move freely within it.
This isn't a great example because the EU, though originally a trade block was also partly envisaged as a way to stop wars in Europe ever happening again. The agenda of the EU has always been more than one of trade.
However, it is not in economic interest to allow real globalisation. What is the point of DVD regions if we can all just get our mates in Asi ...[text shortened]... only works economically if you don't let the general population move and work where they like.
That this also fosters peace can also only be seen as a good thing.
Maybe it might not be in the best economic interest of some corporations, but I don't see why policy should be based on that single fact alone. Sound economic policy is not simply pandering to corporate interests.
28 Jul 08
Originally posted by PalynkaPlease re-read my post.
Again, the example of the EU proves you wrong. There is massive trade between EU countries all while having freedom of movement. Trade also happens within countries. If anything, trade within the EU has continued to increase after the EU citizens were given the ability to move freely within it.
That this also fosters peace can also only be seen as a good ...[text shortened]... n that single fact alone. Sound economic policy is not simply pandering to corporate interests.