test

I think that American students view capitalism as simply a way of being successful through hard work, whereas French students think of capitalism as something that can create problems if it is not regulated.

The Americans tend to focus on the fundamentals/theory of Capitalism, mentioning competition, supply and demand, and free trade. The French, however, focus on the idea that although Capitalism is a savage concept, they seem to think that it equates to money, that is, lots of it. The French also mention the inequality and anti-social nature of it, condemning its lack of unity and the discords resulting from it.

Although Capitalism is based on free market trading, very little mention of Globalisation and International trading is mentioned, at least by the Americans. Do you believe savage Capitalism destroys unity via class inequality or creates it with world trade?

Pour répondre à Aline Thomas, a propos de la différence de point de vue sur le capitalisme entre Français et Américains. Vague débat, comment faire court sans oublier une montagne de choses. Principe même du capitalisme est de faire de l’argent avec de l’argent, soit capitaliser une somme d’argent qui fructifiera en épargne ou sera réinvestie afin d’augmenter à court, moyen ou long terme, les bénéfices. Rapide définition du capitalisme j’en convient. Le côté négatif qui vient à l’esprit des Français selon moi est le clivage patronal / salarié, les entrepreneurs veulent sans cesse augmenter les bénéfices, souvent sous la pression des actionnaires, au risque de devoir licencier et exercer une pression supplémentaire sur la productivité. Je ne sais pas de quel milieu tu es issue, mais demande à un ouvrier à la chaîne faisant les trois huit si il ne pense pas que le capitalisme creuse ne vise pas à conserver les inégalités. Quand tu as un minimum vital d’argent tu ne penses pas à investir, mais juste à joindre les deux bouts. De nombreux reportages sur les USA, montrent des travailleurs, mère de famille cumulant jusqu’à 3 à 4 jobs pour nourrir ses enfants. Quand arrives tu ne serait-ce qu’à voir tes enfants si tu dois travailler ainsi, et ce à cause du manque de salaire minimum. Proposer du travail le moins cher possible, laisser le marché de la demande s’autoréguler pour atteindre des coûts minimums, ce principe se veut résolument capitaliste.

J’espère répondre à ta question et attend avec impatience tes commentaires.

Do French people associate the United States with the idea of savage capitalism?

Nicolas Valleroy, I have to disagree with you. A lot of people view capitalism as an evil form of economics, where management is only concerned about money and not about the welfare of the workers. Such a view is also placed on Communism. This is all untrue. First and foremost, that mother working 3-4 jobs to support her kid, that is her fault. If she knows that she will have trouble feeding them, she shouldnt have given birth to them. As for corporations, they are not evil. The decision to close out an affiliate or subsidiary company is based on the economic welfare of the people, not based on the money. Sure, many people may lose their job at that company. However, in the long-run, this move is wise. Those people were going to lose their jobs anyway. It is simply a matter of time when they lose thier time, and executives analyses data to find out when is the optimal time. In economics, many times it is a matter of long-run verses short-run, or simply this generation verses the future. I believe that it should be a righteous thing to always think of our grandchildren before thinking about us.

Pour répondre à Dong Truong, ton message m'a beaucoup intéressé ...et beaucoup choqué ! Je te parlé d'une femme sans mari, cummulant 3 ou 4 emplois pour éléver son unique enfant, quoi de plus méritant ? La vie ne se veut pas aussi facile pour tout le monde, je ne sais pas de quel milieu social tu es issu, mais le fait que tu sois en université (MIT) je suppose que tu fais parti de la classe moyenne voir bourgeoisie (sans être péjoratif). Avoir du respect pour les gens n'ayant pas eu ta chance me paraît être le minimum. Bref je suis pas là pour être moralisateur, mais j'avias envie de réagir à : " First and foremost, that mother working 3-4 jobs to support her kid, that is her fault. If she knows that she will have trouble feeding them, she shouldnt have given birth to them ". Bref. Le bonheur ne passe pas forcement par l'argent, avoir des enfants me paraît être une source bien plus abondante joie. Pour en revenir au capitalisme, les délocalisations ne sont pas toujours motivées par des obligations. L'esprit capitaliste est basé sur l'optimisation de la rentabilité, prenons le cas de Nike, ou decathlon une marque française, qui sont toutes deux en très bonne santé financière depuis assez longtemps et qui ont tout de même choisit de délocaliser leurs chaînes de production en Asie. Combien d'entreprises ont fait de même ? L'argent appel l'argent. J'espere que tu n'es pas rouge de colére et j'attend avec impatience tes prochaines réactions. Cultura power :-)

I have to agree with Nicolas Villeroy. I don't think that corporations care much about the welfare of people. To see my point, notice that a lot of corporations move to Asia or Latin America or other places where labor is cheap. They do this to reduce costs. But if they really cared about the welfare of people, they would pay Asians or Latinamericans the same that they would pay an American to do the job. So corporations only care about what's best for them.

Thanks a lot Javier, I feel more understood now. Por étayer le débat, avez vous déjà fait des stages en entreprises, eu des experiences dans des grandes compagnies ?

Hey guys. Sorry for taking so long to reply. To answer the first question, I am not from a middle class family. In fact, back in Viet Nam, I was of the lowest class. Before the American War, my family was of high class, but it was ruined. My grandfathers used to be scholars as occupations. However, we lived in poverty for many years. I stand that it is my parents' fault if they have children that they cannot feed. However, they do not complain about the fact that they are poor. That is what makes them heroes. You are right, if you draw joy from your children even when you are poor, then that is nothing to be ashamed of. Love is powerful. It is sickening to me to see the sight of poor people who complains about how they do not have food to feed thier children and expects to draw sympathy from others. If they work 3-4 jobs for a child to feed them and nourish them, that is an ultimate joy for being a parent, provided that they do not complain about them having to work so hard for their child. That is a disgrace, in my opinion. No matter what happens, I believe that a parent should always put the happiness of the offspring ahead. Now that has been clarified, I shall move on to corporations.

Yes, a lot of companies are moving to Asia and other countries for labor. However, have you guys thought that it is cheaper there? If they can produce things for cheaper, then the products and services you receive will be cheaper and more efficient, and saving money on development and research. For those who argues that this steals jobs away from the US, so what? It is giving jobs to other people. The jobs arent lost, they are being replaced, at a higher efficiency. They cant pay these people the same rate, because the economic standpoints of each country is different. Had they not come, these people would not even have jobs at all. If the job is unbearable, then they would not work. As long as a man can put food on the table for his family, he will work. There is a good balance of labor and leisure in everybody. Should that it is totally unfair, then they will quit.

I think that in the ends and in the longrun, the gain is more than the loss. The key to civilization advancement is population. The outsourcing allows more people to live in other countries. These countries will gain population and advancement increases at a faster rate ( due to human minds ). As for the US, how many of those who lost their jobs will die? Corporations do care for themselves, of course. Dont you care for yourself? They are run by people. So, they care for what is best for them, and them are people.

Don't bite my head off for this. I don't like that corporations are going abroad, exactly because Americans are losing jobs. It's great that people abroad are gaining work, and it's great to see people care we're helping them to do that. The problem is, while we're improving the lives of people in other countries, no one outside of the US is helping Americans obtain work. It's not easy getting a job anywhere, including the US, and if corporations are going elsewhere, we'll have less job oportunities for Americans and a bigger welfare burden on our government, which is already taxed in its budget (whether or not we engage in the Iraq war).

In my opinion, to think for Americans alone is selfish, no? I admit, I am a devout capitalist. However, I also believe in pragmaticsm, in that if the good outweighs the harm, then it is necessary. I know I talk like an economist, but it is true. We cannot for one tree and cut down an entire forest. To me, saying that it takes away American jobs is like saying American lives are more valuable, which is untrue. A life is a life, regardless. There are people out there that have much deeper worries than being able to find a job within an alotted amount of time.

I'm not saying think only of Americans. I'm just saying I'd prefer to think of them (citizens in my country) first, just as every other citizen for every other country does or should do. If I always put everyone else's needs above my own, soon enough, I won't have anything left to give.