France approves law stopping Amazon from shipping discounted books for free

[crich70]

Originally Posted by aceflor

But... processed foods = NO BANANAS !!!!

Black market bananas?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by ApK

Sounds like what you'd like to see is government telling everyone what kind of society they should want to see, and making sure they make the 'right' decisions by criminalizing or penalizing the 'wrong' ones. Because you seem to believe that the population would be incapable of choosing to patronize newsagents and tea rooms, if in fact the population DOES want them in society, unless the government makes laws making any other choice less desirable.

I'm sure I never opted into the P&R section. How did I get here?

ApK

I guess because P & R has always been a part of French Society? Or else they ran out of baguettes....

[piperclassique]

"bon marché" stands for "good price", not necessarily "cheap/inexpensive".

In France it means cheap.


Whatever it might mean in Canada.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by ApK

Sounds like what you'd like to see is government telling everyone what kind of society they should want to see, and making sure they make the 'right' decisions by criminalizing or penalizing the 'wrong' ones.

ApK

Well, if it's composed of representatives voted into office via democratic election, then what you just said is pretty much exactly the duty of government (er, I think). Personally I prefer benevolent dictatorship, but it's so hard to come by these days.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Well, if it's composed of representatives voted into office via democratic election, then what you just said is pretty much exactly the duty of government (er, I think). Personally I prefer benevolent dictatorship, but it's so hard to come by these days.

True enough, but needlessly meta
A representative government, ideally, allows the choice of electing reps who want make one sort of economy, or the other (or, in a better world, an array of alternatives....)

So we (that is, for the purposes of this thread, the US and France) seem to agree on the format of government, but not on the sort of economic policies that we should want the people we elect into that government to enact.

In fact, rereading my comment and yours, I guess I don't think it's true. Government is NOT supposed to tell us what we should want, even if we elect the reps. WE are supposed to tell the THEM what we want, by electing the reps who agree with us. (in a 30000ft view at least...I can think of lots of exceptions and qualifications.)

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by ApK

Sounds like what you'd like to see is government telling everyone what kind of society they should want to see, and making sure they make the 'right' decisions by criminalizing or penalizing the 'wrong' ones.

Actually I wouldn't. However, I'd take that one over that other one every time.

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by ApK

Sounds like what you'd like to see is government telling everyone what kind of society they should want to see, and making sure they make the 'right' decisions by criminalizing or penalizing the 'wrong' ones. Because you seem to believe that the population would be incapable of choosing to patronize newsagents and tea rooms, if in fact the population DOES want them in society, unless the government makes laws making any other choice less desirable.

The job of a government is to do what is best for a country and for the people as a whole. The "whole" doesn't necessarily mean "the majority". Most people don't really think about political or economical matters that exceed their own personal needs or their own purse. People may well want a local tearoom, but unless they work in one or depend economically on it very directly, then they'll prefer to save $1 on that grocery product that they can get cheaper at Walmart. (There's a reason they let us vote only once every four years and why it's exceedingly rare that there are plebiscites (referendums?) on important matters.)

"Anything goes" is not what a fair market is about. Amazon is ruthless when it comes to annihilating regional competition. They don't mind losing money in order to kill off their competitors to increase their market share. Independent book stores cannot do that. You can't reasonably expect the owner of one of those shops to go to the bank, take out a 100k loan, then sell stuff at or below cost, or offer free home delivery, just to stay in business. Local stores nevertheless provide an important service (social, too, it goes beyond just protecting regional jobs) to the local communities, and that is why it's crucial to preserve them.

So what can be done? Either economical termites like Amazon get told they can't utilize these methods to take over the regional market, or the postal service is required to ship new books without charging for it (in which case then the postal service, which has been privatized in many European countries over the past two decades, pays for it). Seems easier to tell Amazon to quit exploiting their economical power, because what they do is not essentially different from what monopolies do, and those are frowned upon even in the Land of the Free. In case of monopolies people understand why it's bad, because it's immediately bad for themselves and not just others.

So, yes, sometimes the government has to help the weaker elements, even if it is unpopular or tax-money-expensive. Sometimes that is bookstores, sometimes that is the chronically ill, and sometimes it is the coal plant. The uncompromising "survival of the fittest" approach made the US to what it is today, and some of us feel that it's not what we envision the entire world to be like.

It's not the only feasible and viable model, and above all, it's not a role model.

[ApK]

When "the weaker elements" are human beings, yes. When they are businesses that people choose not to patronize, no.

[roger64]

Originally Posted by ApK

That makes no sense at all.

I of course agree with you. My quote made exactly no more sense than the previous one it was intended jokingly to mimick. Just forgot to add the smiley... Here it is now, look:

Originally Posted by afv011

Funny that there is no word for "cheap/inexpensive" in French, and you have to revert to "not expensive". I guess it says it all. .

The only thing right is that "bon marché" (in French) means really cheap or inexpensive. Here in Paris, you can speak about "des chaussures bon marché" (cheap shoes). It does not mean you will find them though...

[aceflor]

Originally Posted by roger64

I of course agree with you. My quote made exactly no more sense than the previous one it was intended jokingly to mimick. Just forgot to add the smiley... Here it is now, look:



The only thing right is that "bon marché" (in French) means really cheap or inexpensive. Here in Paris, you can speak about "des chaussures bon marché" (cheap shoes). It does not mean you will find them though...

Si, mais il faut savoir où chercher...

[roger64]

indeed

[Laridae]

This thread seems to have devolved into a political debate between left-leaning French and other Europeans and right-leaning Americans. It would be so much easier to follow if people would specify their country in their info so we could quickly see where they were "coming from", instead of having to infer it from their comments.

As to the matter at hand, the OP clearly indicated that this was a duly-elected *Socialist* government in France. So presumably French voters and citizens are now getting what they wanted. I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable with it, but that's OK; I'm not French. Their country, their rules.

I don't believe Amazon or any other company has a god-given right to dominate in every country in the world. OTOH, if French consumers don't mind paying extra in the pursuit of some social goals, well, it's their money. Think of it as a tax on ..... nostalgia, perhaps?

[Mivo]

Originally Posted by Laridae

It would be so much easier to follow if people would specify their country in their info so we could quickly see where they were "coming from", instead of having to infer it from their comments.

Why, though? It would allow for quicker stereoptyping, but it's a little inaccurate. It's less slippery to look at someone's opinion as just that person's view instead of dumping them in the "Oh, they're American, no wonder." or "Oh, they are from Scandinavia, uh-huh." boxes. It's too sweeping a generalization.

Just looking at my country, here in Germany we have everything, from the nationalist parties to leftovers from the East German communists (the latter even made it into the parliament, the former haven't in a while), with all sorts of political views in between. And then there are confusing people like me whose political views tend to be highly contextual and can't easily be generalized.

I felt that we were mostly discussing a more general topic, not the French situation specifically: The economical impact of multinational, or otherwise huge, chain businesses on local stores, and the question whether governments should interfere on behalf of the local and regional businesses. I'm not actually sure one has to be on either side of the center to agree or disagree with this approach. It doesn't surprise me that both the French left and right agreed on this.

[aceflor]

Originally Posted by Laridae

This thread seems to have devolved into a political debate between left-leaning French and other Europeans and right-leaning Americans. It would be so much easier to follow if people would specify their country in their info so we could quickly see where they were "coming from", instead of having to infer it from their comments.

As to the matter at hand, the OP clearly indicated that this was a duly-elected *Socialist* government in France. So presumably French voters and citizens are now getting what they wanted. I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable with it, but that's OK; I'm not French. Their country, their rules.

I don't believe Amazon or any other company has a god-given right to dominate in every country in the world. OTOH, if French consumers don't mind paying extra in the pursuit of some social goals, well, it's their money. Think of it as a tax on ..... nostalgia, perhaps?

You know, as a general rule, if you don't know Jack, you should abstain. Your post is the most absurd thing I have read here in a long while, I don't think you qualify to participate.

I am French, I am participating in this thread, and where on earth can you deduct form that that I am left-leaning ? French = left, American = right : nice shortcut dude .

[roger64]

OTOH, don't forget that "toutes les Anglaises sont rousses... "

(this time, i did not forget to put the smiley)