Tag: France

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism political challengers responsibility too much government

French Beacon

France, French, election, Macron, Le Pen, democracy, press, freedom, right, left, centrist

“Since the French Revolution,” the New York Times pontificated online, “the nation has often been viewed as a beacon of democratic ideals.”

Really? Can a nation of constitutional turnovers — kings and republics and revolutions and foreign occupation — be a beacon? Most often we in America compare our Revolution to France’s, focusing on The Terror: mob rule and proto-totalitarianism.

On Friday, “the staff of the centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron said… that the campaign had been targeted by a ‘massive and coordinated’ hacking operation, one with the potential to destabilize the nation’s democracy before voters go to the polls on Sunday.” A few minutes later, the campaigns fell under the country’s election gag rule, unable to debate immediately prior to the voting. The government told the media not to look at what was dug up in the “hack” (which everybody said was by Russians). Though Macron’s putative Islamization plan is worth looking at, surely.

Much talk (at the Times and elsewhere) of how the hack destabilized democracy. No talk, for some reason, about how the election regulation gag rule did.

The idea that information might destabilize democracy? Awkward.

Still, we can see how an info-dump’s timing might destabilize an election.

But since Macron won by a large margin, the Late Exposure Strategy may have backfired, Russians or no.

The most obvious oddity in reportage? The continued reference to former Socialist Party hack Macron as “centrist” while Le Pen is called “far right” ad nauseam. Macron is pro-EU; Le Pen is nationalist. Neither are reliably for freedom. The fact that Macron packaged his En Marche ! Party as centrist doesn’t make it so.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
ideological culture political challengers too much government

Forwards ! Backwards ?

Emmanuel Macron, Marine Le Pen, France, French, elections, immigration, government,

France held an election over the weekend. Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen came out on top, and will face each other in a runoff on May 7th.

Current polling puts Macron over Le Pen, 62-38. But a SkyNews reporter cautions: there is no certainty.

We in America have reason to respect that cautionary note. Our last election was an upset against the establishment candidate in favor of a wild card often dubbed “far right” and even “fascist” — which is precisely what Ms. Le Pen is being called.

Indeed, pitting a Big Government “centrist” (Macron) against an anti-immigrant protectionist (Le Pen) in the context of an economic slump and rising terrorism, and with neither candidate having much contact with limited-government principle, eerily echoes the 2016 U.S. presidential race.

But, on closer inspection, the parallels between the American and French contests appear inexact. Macron’s En Marche ! party* was created just over a year ago, while Le Pen’s National Front has continually found itself on the margins of power, despite its rise in popularity.**

Still, it is hard not to suspect that Ms. Le Pen could come from behind to upset the status quo. Macron is not invulnerable. The man worked, after all, in Hollande’s government, and Le Pen has characterized him as a socialist in a snazzy suit.

Macron is way ahead in the polls. And TV experts talk about how reliable modern polling is, while we in America . . . snicker.

But, since France lacks an Electoral College, can Le Pen really “Trump” the odds?

France will be in for a bumpy fortnight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Amusingly, the party’s initials are identical to those of its founder, Emmanuel Macron. “En Marche !” (the extra space is there in party material) translates into English as “Forward!” or “On the Move!” and is formally designated as the Association pour le renouvellement de la vie politique (the Association for the Renewal of Politics).

** All the established, formerly governing parties are on the outs.

Printable PDF

 

Categories
too much government

Is “Less Big” Possible?

The idea of a streamlined welfare state is utterly foreign in today’s political climate. Offering some social services, but not others? Anathema — at least to our “progressives.”

It is also, even more obviously, not nurtured by current political process.

After all, we’ve witnessed two major expansions in “welfare” programs in the last decade, the bipartisan Medicare “Part D” and the Democrats’ “Obamacare.” The first was underfunded from the start, and the second was and remains a mess. Both are financial time bombs.

But if you think America has it bad, it’s worse in France.

Jean Tirole, the new (just announced) Nobel Laureate in Economics, calls the condition of the French labor market “catastrophic.” And he thinks France’s government has to be smaller.

Now, he’s no heir to J.-B. Say and Fredéric Bastiat. He does not support an extremely limited government, a “nightwatchman” state. He says he likes France’s basic model. But it has grown too far in size and scope:

Tirole remarked that northern European countries, as well as Canada and Australia, had proven you could keep a welfare social model with smaller government. In contrast, he said France’s “big state” threatened its social policies because there will not be “enough money to pay for it in the long run.”

He’s basically just demanding that government live within its means.

It’s not too far from common Tea Party sentiment.

But tell that to your average progressive pol. Or blogger. Or activist. Given protective cover for ever-growing spending by the likes of New York Times’s Nobel columnist, Paul Krugman, any idea of federal spending cutbacks have been and remain off limits.

Maybe Professor Tirole can convince them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
ideological culture tax policy

An Actor’s Act

Think you can raise taxes without negative consequences? Consult Gerard Depardieu.

The great French actor (known for his prominent schnozz) moved across the border to Belgium, and is giving up his French passport. While other well-off folks who have moved out of their native land, such as billionaire Bernard Arnault, pretend that their moves are for non-tax reasons, Depardieu has no problem admitting that he’s leaving his country to avoid next year’s whopping new wealth tax.

For this, he has been criticized by France’s prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, who publicly censured Depardieu for a lack of patriotism “at a time of cutbacks” and judged the actor’s decision “shabby.”

“Paying a tax is an act of solidarity,” Ayrault intoned on TV, “a patriotic act.”

Depardieu rightly objects, accusing the socialist government of President Francois Hollande of “driving France’s most talented figures out of the country”:

“I am leaving because you consider that success, creation, talent, anything different, must be punished,” he said.

Depardieu said that during his long career he had paid 145m euros (£118m) to the French taxman.

“At no time have I failed in my duties. The historic films in which I took part bear witness to my love of France and its history,” he said.

But it’s hard to maintain “solidarity” with a beloved country going socialist. Depardieu will find a lot of sympathy with his plight from even not-so-rich Americans. You know, we who put freedom and achievement and principle above kleptocracy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Don’t French-Fry Les Riches

French voters were in a mood to eject the incumbent, often a good idea. But, alas, the president they picked to replace Nicolas Sarkozy is an ardent socialist. And socialism, sanctified or not by centuries-old fealty to notions of French Revolutionary egalité, is always a très mauvaise idée.

President François Hollande has vowed to impose a 75 percent tax on all income over a million euros, or about 1.25 million dollars. Such a steep levy is supposed to be moral because making lots of money is per se morally suspect — at least according to the egalitarianism in which Hollande is steeped.

The tax gouge is also supposed to be practical in that it will supposedly help cure France’s debt crisis. Sure, looting les riches will cover but a smidgen of France’s debt pileup. But because even not-rich Frenchmen are also likely to pay higher taxes to appease the EU, it’s best to pave the way by first flogging the envious not-rich man’s favorite target.

Meanwhile, more sensible measures — like freeing up the French economy and slashing the government’s social welfare programs — don’t seem to rank very high on Hollande’s to-do list.

In response to the danger, many of the wealthiest and most productive Frenchmen are doing the only moral and practical thing. They’re packing their bags, just in case their new leader fulfills his vow. If so, they’ll flee to lower-taxing places like Belgium and Switzerland, where jobseekers will be delighted to have them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
tax policy

French Rolls

Jim Dixon, Kingsley Amis’s infamous Lucky Jim, put the logic of wealth redistribution in everyday terms: “If one man’s got ten buns and another’s got two, and a bun has got to be given up by one of them, then surely you take it from the man with ten buns.” Remarkably simple, leaving out, as it does,

  1. the making of buns;
  2. the effect of expropriating buns now on future bun production;
  3. trade in buns and
  4. consequent changes in ratios of bun ownership, sans expropriation;
  5. what effect the nabbing of buns has on the demand to take more buns in the future; and
  6. the necessity of taking buns in the first place (which Lucky Jim’s interlocutors noted).

Think about it longer than a minute, and it’s easy to see that the “soak-the-rich” plan quickly runs into trouble, one bit of difficulty neatly stated in the old adage often attributed to Margaret Thatcher: “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Sometimes you even run out of other people. As France may show next.

Socialists there have won the recent elections. They promise to reinstate the old, ugly wealth tax, as well as up the income tax on “the rich.” And so of course some of the richer French folks contemplate exile — at least as far as the welcoming cantons of Switzerland.

There are problems with this option, though. Under Sarkozy, the French government had instituted a whopping exit tax. But, if Mathieu van Berchem is to be believed, even this will prove “unlikely to stop any ‘exodus.’ There are often more reasons to leave than to stay, while the Socialist government could turn on the wealthy even more.”

If so, expect future French buns to have Swiss crosses stamped upon them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.