Socialism Disappoints French: Hollande Most Unpopular President in 32 Years

[celtic_crippler]

When are people going to learn? Socialism does not work, it has never worked, and it never will.

Hollande’s popularity fell in February, leaving him the most unpopular French leader since 1981, a TNS-Sofres poll showed. More than two-thirds of the French and 44 percent of those who voted for him in the second and decisive round of the May election say they’re disappointed with him, according to a BVA poll in Le Parisien on March 3.
Worse, a majority -- or 51 percent -- of the respondents in the BVA survey said Sarkozy would have done a better job in fighting the crisis and the morosity gripping France.

And what is Hollande’s plan of action?

To appease an increasingly irritated population ahead of a late March television presentation of his strategy for rekindling growth and employment, Hollande launched this week a new agenda item: regular visits to “real France” with a sleepover in the nearest small town.

Brilliant! ROFL

Article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...-charm-offensive-to-show-he-s-no-sarkozy.html

 

[K-man]

Three and a half years after leaving office, a survey Thursday shows that former President George W. Bush remains unpopular among a majority of Americans — the only living president with an under 50 percent approval rating.
Only 43 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Bush, compared with 54 percent who had an unfavorable view, according to a CNN/ORC poll.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77150.html#ixzz2NPskEiHp

Seems to be a popular number! Bush was a socialist? Right?

 

[K-man]

Just in case you thought I was US bashing, here is that well known Socialist British Prime Minister ....

During her premiership Thatcher had the second-lowest average approval rating, at 40 percent, of any post-war Prime Minister. Polls consistently showed that she was less popular than her party. A self-described conviction politician, Thatcher always insisted that she did not care about her poll ratings, pointing instead to her unbeaten election record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

 

[K-man]

When are people going to learn? Socialism does not work, it has never worked, and it never will.

Mmmm!

OSLO — When capitalism seemed on the verge of collapse last fall, Kristin Halvorsen, Norway’s Socialist finance minister and a longtime free market skeptic, did more than crow. Norway’s economy grew 3 percent last year as many nations plunged into a recession.


As investors the world over sold in a panic, she bucked the tide, authorizing Norway’s $300 billion sovereign wealth fund to ramp up its stock buying program by $60 billion — or about 23 percent of Norway ’s economic output.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html?_r=3&em&

I don't claim to be a Socialist, but credit where credit is due. :asian:

 

[celtic_crippler]

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[K-man]

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:

 

[Sukerkin]

It's the old 'labelling' problem again. The likes of Tez and I used to try to correct the misconceptions about what Socialism actually is in a Western European context; but the messages (here) didn't change in light of the revealed data, so we rarely bother any more.

I know that that means that the majority of readers of this board will therefore be bombarded with wrongly faceted views on the political spectrum but, at the end of the day, people being wrong on the Internet is a given. After all, that same Internet can also be a channel for correct information, if people are prepared to search for it a little.

The core problem seems to be only taking on board half an understanding of what a socialist government can be.

If we take this Oxford English Dictionary definition as a reliable source:

Definition of socialism
noun

[mass noun]

• a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
• policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
• (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy


What seems to happen is that the third bullet point is the one taken to stand for the whole without taking into account the explanatory text after it. It seems to make no difference if we, who live in countries that have governments that are to a greater or lesser degree socialist, say until we are blue {Yay! Political colour pun attack! } in the face that there has never been a pure Socialist society yet, let alone a true Communist one.

The meme continues to be that Socialism = Evil and it is a shame that there can be no more nuanced discourse than that amongst otherwise seemingly intelligent and educated people.

 

[billc]

Norway doesn't count because they have all kinds of oil money that they use to finance their welfare state, a homogeneous population and a work ethic that keeps people working...

Here is a look at the Norwegian miracle...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_norwegian_miracle.html

Liberals love Norway (for example, see this). First, it is a European country. Second, it is a liberal country; it gives out the Nobel Peace Prize. Third, it is considered a welfare state, maybe even a socialist one. In 2011 its tax revenues were 57% of its GDP, the highest of all advanced economies.

And fourth, and what liberals really love about it, it beats the U.S. in multiple economic categories. In fact, Norway is one of the richest countries around. Its GDP per capita was 10% more than the U.S.'s in 2011. Its net government debt was a negative 168% of GDP. That is, it is one of the few countries with no net debt at all, but instead a huge surplus.

Let me bring that down to earth. First, Norway's population is about 4.7 million, or about the same South Carolina's, or a bit more than half of New York City's. That population is at least 98% white, and almost all of that is Norwegian. It is also about 90% Christian. About four out of five Norwegians live in cities, with almost one in five living in Oslo itself.

Norway might be liberal, but it is not diverse. (The U.S., for comparison, is 80% white and 70% Christian. So whites outnumber minorities 4-to-1 in the U.S. In Norway, the ratio is 50-to-1.)
But perhaps the two charts below might give us some insight into Norway's economic success.

Norway's Crude Oil Production

Source: U.S. Dept. of Energy.Crude Oil Prices

Source: U.S. Dept. of Energy.​

It just so happens that Norway's success over recent decades coincided rather nicely with two explosions: North Sea oil production and oil prices.

To call Norway the Saudi Arabia of Europe would be an insult. Saudi Arabia has been producing about 125 barrels of oil per year per person. Norway produced between 135 and 250 barrels per year per person from 2001 through 2011.
Even on an absolute scale, Norway is a huge exporter of oil. In fact, it is the 5[SUP]th[/SUP]-biggest oil exporter in the world. Bigger than Iraq. Bigger than Kuwait. And Canada. And the U.S. And Venezuela. It is behind only Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and the UAE. And remember, its total population is about the same as Saudi Arabia's second-largest city, Jeddah.
Multiply those recent production rates by the price of oil, and you get about $6,250 per person per year in 2001, and $13,500 in 2011. Oil has been very, very good to Norway.
And where does good little liberal Norway get that oil? From drilling in the ocean. Most of its oil was drilled in the North Sea. You know, offshore, like the U.S. used to do in the Gulf of Mexico, but won't do on either the Pacific or Atlantic coasts.
Here's another one: CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions from fossil fuels. From 1990 to 2009, the U.S.'s emissions went up 6.7%. Norway's went up 31.9%.

And here's another little secret about Norway. Relatively speaking, it's not all that socialist. In 2008, all government in Norway spent 39.8% of GDP. At the same time, the "free market" U.S. was spending 39.2%, almost exactly the same. (France was spending 53.3% then.)

In fact, Norway has been cutting the size of its government: from a high of 51.6% of GDP in 1992 to a low of 39.8% in 2008. That is a huge drop, roughly equivalent to the federal government of the U.S. cutting its spending in half.
One more little tidbit: Norway's tax system is regressive, not progressive. The top 10% make 28.9% of the income but pay only 27.4% of taxes! The U.S. has the most progressive tax structure of advanced economies, in which the top 10% make 33.5% of the income but pay 45.1% of the taxes.
Liberal Norway-lovers don't like to advertise these parts of Norway's policies: slimming down its government, regressive taxes (not even flat), being part of Big Oil.
So the simple-minded story is that Norway is some great socialist state yet its economy is humming along just nicely. Let me summarize its real keys to prosperity.

• A tiny, non-diverse, predominantly white and Christian population.
  
• Drilling in its ocean for oil to become one of the biggest oil exporters on the planet, and the biggest by far on a per capita basis, all during a time when oil prices quintupled.
• Letting its carbon footprint grow at one of the fastest paces in Europe, a pace almost five times faster than the U.S.'s.
• Shrinking its government spending, the equivalent to the U.S. federal government cutting its spending in half over 16 years. Shrinking its government spending to about the level of the U.S.'s, and smaller than most of Europe's.
• A tax system that is flatter than flat; it is regressive -- the rich pay less than the non-rich.

And while the U.S. government is "investing" in high-speed rail, solar energy, wind energy, etc., look at this Statoil website to see where Norway put its money. (Norway owns 67% of Statoil's stock.)

I'm convinced. Let's imitate Norway.

​

 

[celtic_crippler]

At any rate... the French asked for it (in whatever incarnation) and it's now biting them in the derriere.

I'm sure they could give a rat's patooty about Norway at the moment.

Moral of the story? Be careful what you ask for, you just may get it.

 

[K-man]

Many people confuse Socialism with Communism. The fact that the Soviet Union was a Socialist Republic really clouds the picture. In reality most countries have elements of Socialism. In Australia one of our major paries is basically Socialist. Same for the UK. The US is probably the only significant country in the world with two right wing parties as the major players. :asian: