No to incompetent policticians ? It means getting rid of all french politicians ? lol

No to too many taxes ? It can be discused, as far as I know, Norway and Sweden have far more higher taxes than France, and they do live better than us, (yeah I do know that Norway has a lot of oil supplies, but it can't be the only reason).

"as far as I know, Norway and Sweden have far more higher taxes than France, and they do live better than us,"

LOL! So, give me your money, you'll live better!

By the way, you don't know far enough about Norway, who pay less taxes than the French, considering *all* taxes and not only income taxes and VAT. When the French start to use real calculation methods with actual numbers, the national debt jumps from €1,100 to €2,000 (and it doesn't include *all* the actual numbers, in fact it is more). That's only an example, the same applies to taxes, which are all in all about 75% of GDP, quite close from the Cuban workers' paradise.

Sorry for this, I meant Finland, not Norway.

In comparisons with US states' household wealth, Sweden scored lower than Mississippi, the poorest state. If france is worse off than Sweden, poor france

Interventor :

There's no talking about wealth here, but about human well-being. And it means the indication of human developpement.

Here's the "top 5" of 2002 :

1. Norway
2. Sweden
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Netherland

Stéphane,

You mean like homeless dying in the streets and old people dying in heatwaves?

How are you supposed to acquire the "human well-being" without the wealth? There must be wealth for the tax to exist. Only in France we're reaching the point of no return of the tax with no wealth left.

Do you sincerely expect the French "social model", "social health system" and pension system, all of them "stated-funded", to "work" another 10 years?

Carine :

Of course no I don't expect that. But the indication of human developpement do takes into account the wealth.

I wasn't dealing with french social model, but the social model of Sweden and Norway (and Finland as well). They perfectly work, with higher taxes.

They perfectly work, with higher taxes.
No, and no.

It should be the 1000th time you're told so: get a clue! BTW, have you just once visited the US?!

Tip: take a look at this report from the Timbro institute in Sweden. As any clueless, arrogant leftist, you look intellectually lazy, I get it for you: go directly to page 14, there's a cute chart. You can read charts can't you?

Yes, and yes

The indication of Human Developpement has always been considered (by all economists and sociologists) as the best way to see in which country people live the best.

It's doesn't only take into account GDP, but life expectancy, scholarship, the percentage of people who can read and write etc...
Yes I've been to the US (twice), and I've spend a lot of time in Sweden and Norway, I had time to take a look at how do peoples lives in those countries.
Besides, I didn't insult you.

Thank you for providing much evidences, links and references, it makes your rants so relevant!

BTW, you didn't list long enough your glorious UN-led "investigation" (avaliable here): France is far after the US... According to you, that makes no sense:
- Americans are less taxed, therefore less happy
- I presume you assume (without the least evidence of course) that Americans are less educated than French (BTW they're better rated according to your very source), therefore less happy
- Americans have a life expectancy a little smaller than France, therefore they're less happy

Kid, this is just an example asserting why those reports just make serious analysts laugh their ass off: UN is a corrupt, useless bunch of raving bureaucrats.

This rating is even more ridiculous when looking at a map of suicide rate... Pick up a "shiny happy people all around" country in your rating, then look at what color it is your on the second map, then you and your UN fellows can add a new rule: the higher suicide rate, the happier people!

Was I comparing France to the US ? Was I talking about happiness ? Where did you see that ?

UN-led investigation ? That's not an investigation ? That's mathematics !!!!

UN is a "corrupt useless bunch of raving bureaucrats "? So what are the words to define the Republican party ? A bunch of liars, under the control of those who rule wall-street, not representative of the population (just like the stupid French UMP), who are just good to make some fake promises, and useless speeches on TV ?

Stéphane,

George W. Bush, whether you like it or not, was elected by the American people, democratically, twice.

Chirac was elected in 2002, undemocratically, like the dictators he so revere.

That's right, but I wouldn't say undemocratically, it's just that people didn't vote for him, they voted against the Front National.

I used the word "undemocratically because the media launched a generalized propaganda campaign against Le Pen while they are not allowed to do so during elections.

Whether you like him or not - I personally don't, but some do - Le Pen ran for the presidency in so-called democratic France, 20% of the French voted for him in the first run. Those 20% have the right to vote for him. Otherwise, this is not democracy. When you are told by everyone, everywhere - and especially all the media - that you have to vote for one candidate and not for the other, do you know how it is called?

So don't come criticizing the US and the Republican party here, thankyouverymuch. Clean your own house first.

ahm,
Carine,
out of curiosity, would your argument still stand if it read
'Your personal hatred of GWB or a more generalized hatred of the GOP is only justified upon learning to personally hate JC?'
and pls tell me do you believe democracy translates to individual rights? you've just given the perfect example it doesn't

Bob,

out of curiosity, would your argument still stand if it read 'Your personal hatred of GWB or a more generalized hatred of the GOP is only justified upon learning to personally hate JC?'

What?? What the hell are you talking about?

and pls tell me do you believe democracy translates to individual rights? you've just given the perfect example it doesn't

Democracy is not supposed to "translate to" - ahem - individual rights. I'm not sure that's what you meant though.
Some forms of democracies can indeed be dangerous for individual rights. That's the case when the rule is the one of the majority. I'm not the biggest supporter of democracy precisely for that reason.

Anyway, my point was regarding Stéphane's and the French's attidude in general regarding America as undemocratic compared to "the French model".

Stephene,
Is there no cheese in England? According to my sources, Wallace & Grommit films, England has a plethora of cheese. And not just cheddar. Try something new eh? Then report back to us. You can be our Journalist de Frommage!

Merry Christmas! Joyeux Noel!

(Psst, Damian...let's get Steph one of those Cheese Girl calendars for Christmas.)

Sorry to be on topic here but I'm curious about the French scarf campaign. If anyone has any thing to comment about it, please leave a note for us at nodhimmitude. Merci.

It's likely a bit late for this, but I'd like to point out that per-capita GDP is a really, really poor measure of the wealth of the man-on-the-street, because it can be grotesquely skewed by outliers.

Consider a town with a hundred people living in it. Five are CEOs, making a million euros per year. The other ninety-five are manual laborers, making ten thousand per year. The average income for this town is about sixty thousand a year.

Consider a town with a hundred people living in it. Five are CEOs, making a hundred thousand euros per year. The other ninety-five are manual laborers, making twenty thousand per year. The average income for this town is less than twenty-five thousand per year.

By your lights, the first town is much better off than the second--but I doubt the residents would agree with you. This is the reason that per-capita GDP may be a good measure of a nation's economic well-being as a whole, but it doesn't say much about the well-being of the actual people inside it, because a few very, very wealthy people can skew the results.

If you'd like to see how skewed income distributions are around the world, see this lovely map at Wikipedia. If you'd like to compare median income for the Scandinavian states against median income for the United States, by all means do so. But GDP per capita is a useless metric.

Five are CEOs, making a hundred thousand euros per year. The other ninety-five are manual laborers, making twenty thousand per year. The average income for this town is less than twenty-five thousand per year.