One thing you notice about the English is that they have a strange desire for discomfort. From their clunky phones to their clunky faucets, they seem to revel in being slightly “behind the times.” But, to their credit, they don’t generally carry this viewpoint over into actual legislation. You may be expected to be miserable, but you aren’t really required to be.
If only the French would learn to do the same.
Their latest assault on the finer things in life comes in the form of repeated assaults on Internet businesses for, among other things, free shipping for books. Yes, it turns out that offering free shipping is considered a discount on the “publisher’s recommended price” of the books involved. And, in France, the publisher’s price is considered more sacred than, well, sacred writ itself. You can disregard the Holy Bible if you like, but never the Holy BIEF.
Of course the obvious, and intended, effect of this nonsense is to give local booksellers a clear advantage over remote ones. After all, the local bookseller certainly doesn’t pay the “publisher’s recommended price” for the book, so the shipping he has to pay for is carefully hidden from the customer within his profit margin. Amazon used to do the same with the final costs to cover shipment to the buyer, but, as the French High Court has ruled that shipping is a discount and not to be allowed.
Lest you think this is some odd byproduct of a particular French love of books and booksellers, such price controls and draconian regulation is commonplace throughout the French economy. Consider the mess eBay stepped in when it expanded to France. As a site offering goods for sale, matching buyers with sellers, and providing extensive support for, well, auctions, eBay would seem to be guilty of the French charge of being an auctioneer. And, therefore, of offering an online auction without a permit. There is no news yet whether the French will also try to close down physical auctions in the United States. After all, what’s to stop some unscrupulous American auctioneer from allowing proxy phone votes from France?
Ah, the French. All the hubris of an actual world power, if none of the actual power.
And before someone responds that these are clearly just holdovers from an older, more genteel age, and need to adapt to the Wired Century, consider that the auction authority which is attacking eBay was formed in 2000. Far from adapting to the modern age, the French are deliberately and systematically targeting it for destruction. Their hatred of competition and free trade is so great that they’re actively expanding government power to put a stop to it.
So, let’s give them the win. Since they want to be insulated from the vile freedom of the Internet, let’s acknowledge their right to do so and simply prevent any and all traffic in or out of France to any e-commerce site located in the United States (or in any nation that wishes to join our virtual embargo). If the French fear having to compete on a global stage so greatly, let’s remove not only their need to do so, but their ability.
In short, it’s time to wall France off…at least virtually.
January 3, 2008 at 11:08 am
Ah yes, classic “business gets protection from the government when it can’t compete in the open market.” Sadly on this one we’ve got quite a few stinking piles of elephant poo in our own living room, too. Off the top of my head:
-The massive agricultural subsidies, especially on corn. (And yeah, AM is going to argue this one but I don’t find the pro-subsidy arguments remotely persuasive.)
-The steel tariff of a few years back.
-The Copyright Term Extension Act, aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
I’m sure we’ll get another bailout of the auto industry soon enough….
We may look good compared to Europe but that’s like the D student saying he’s better than the F student.
January 3, 2008 at 1:26 pm
MPA,
Don’t forget the looming bailout of the mortgage industry or the way the airline industry was floated after 9-11. France may be many things, but it is not unique in its socialist bent.
January 3, 2008 at 4:10 pm
I look forward to the day when the Al Gore goes begging to Congress for a bailout of the environmental alarmist industry that is currently enjoying its heyday.
January 3, 2008 at 4:46 pm
While I have no love for the foolish tendency to reward inefficiency and failure, I have to take a bit of issue with giving the US a “D”.
Maybe on an objective laissez faire scale we do rate that poorly, but here, as in academia, we should probably grade on the curve (of real world states). And on that curve, we look pretty good, especially with things like *FTA, WTO reciprocity, etc.
On agricultural subsidies, for example, while we have them, at least we don’t have the brutally anti-competitive subsidies of the EU or Japan. That’s not saying we’re great, just better.
And, bailouts, as bad as they are, are at least a step up from the typical Euro-notion of perpetual subsidies for similar industries.
So “D” is a little bit harsh. I’d give us a solid “C” with a little note that says “B for comprehension, D for effort.”
Lazy we may well be, but at least we’re not ideologically addicted to this crap.
January 3, 2008 at 4:56 pm
With all that said, let me strongly condemn general agricultural subsidies as one of the most brutally hateful things in the world today.
The richest nations of the world spend billions upon billions to prop up a tiny few at the cost of economic ruin and starvation for millions upon millions of the poorest of the earth.
And that’s just terribly, brutally wrong.
The Earth produced enough food for some 12 billion people in 2006, yet hundreds of millions went hungry. Some of that excess is being consumed by us calorie hungry First Worlders, and some more is doubtless wasted, used for feed, etc. But a certain percentage was overproduced First World food shipped to the Third World at rates much lower than the cost of production in the First World, and somewhat lower than the going rate where they went.
Thus, the First World, at the cost of billions of dollars, deliberately ruined local agricultural production in parts of the Third World.
And that’s just plain wrong!
January 3, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Brian Says:
###Don’t forget the looming bailout of the mortgage industry or the way the airline industry was floated after 9-11.###
Oh, the mortgage industry. Great way to socialize losses when a whole lot of gains were privatized. Yeah, great example. 911 bailout of the airlines I understand a little more. If 911 doesn’t qualify as a “giant industry-wide disaster” I don’t know what would.
###France may be many things, but it is not unique in its socialist bent.###
I don’t really call this socialism, per se. More corporate welfare. [shrug]
Angry Immigrant Says:
###I look forward to the day when the Al Gore goes begging to Congress for a bailout of the environmental alarmist industry that is currently enjoying its heyday.###
That’s not an industry like, oh, agribusiness. It’s a pressure group. 😉
AOC wrote:
###While I have no love for the foolish
tendency to reward inefficiency and failure, I have to take a bit of issue with giving the US a “D”. Maybe on an objective laissez faire scale we do rate that poorly,###
I’m not a supporter of laissez faire anyway. I think there are very good reasons for government intervention (in particular a safety net of some sort to deal with the fact that real people aren’t perfect, rational actors), but in general the way that it’s done is dumb, dumb, dumb.
###but here, as in academia, we should probably grade on the curve (of real world states). And on that curve, we look pretty good, especially with things like *FTA, WTO reciprocity, etc. … So “D” is a little bit harsh. I’d give us a solid “C” with a little note that says “B for comprehension, D for effort.”###
Could be, though I for one am not very fond of grading on a curve. 🙂 IMO a curve often makes up for a crappy curriculum and an inability or unwillingness to decide what students should know, which means that actual standards aren’t chosen.
In any event, on the analogy, we’re not B+ or A students and I believe my general point is still valid: We’ve got plenty of examples of government protection of corporate interests hereabouts.
MPA
January 3, 2008 at 6:50 pm
While we are at it
what about: softwood tarrifs, Beef embargos, Sugar industry prop ups and the banana growers support. These are added to by the effects of embargoes on other growers.
More could be said about the money paid to the oil industry and how much money is paid by local taxpayers to support the entire N American professional sports franchises.
Indeed one of the most amazing anomalies in life is that Europe which is widely regarded by the US as socialist, has professional sports competitions that are organised on the most dog eat dog, capitalistic basis going with the weak perishing to make way for the new. Whereas here teams are allowed to return year after year, gaining weight at the expense of the product and the taxpayer.
It’s sports, it’s competition you should fight and win or lose and go away.
After all the entire country of Argentina was allowed to go to ruin thanks to the world monetary organisations, but it appears a US sports club is too important to see fail.
The US has always been protectionist it has just managed to bullshit the rest of the world into thinking that they weren’t. To be honest every country in the west is protectionist it would be electoral suicide to act in any other way.
January 4, 2008 at 10:10 am
While we are at it
what about: softwood tariffs, Beef embargoes, Sugar industry prop ups and the banana growers support. These are added to by the effects of embargoes on other growers.
Yeah, all great examples, although in the first there’s at least some decent non-economic reason. By limiting softwood imports we can exercise a bit more control over how they’re harvested. If you think US clear-cutting is bad, just take a look at third-world harvesting practices.
But the others are perfect examples of a rich nation subsidizing it’s producers at the expense of others.
More could be said about the money paid to the oil industry and how much money is paid by local taxpayers to support the entire N American professional sports franchises.
Well, the oil industry gets a bit of a pass from me only because of how critical oil is to our economy. While I’d prefer them to stand on their own, if you’re going to subsidize anyone, it makes sense to choose those industries absolutely critical to you economically and militarily.
Sports teams, of course, have absolutely no such justification. Great point about the European sports situation as well!
The US has always been protectionist it has just managed to bullshit the rest of the world into thinking that they weren’t.
Well, there are degrees, and while the US doesn’t live up to the free trade ideal, we do at least both pay lip service to it and actually take some steps towards it. Which is far more than we can say about Europe, Japan, or most places.
To be honest every country in the west is protectionist it would be electoral suicide to act in any other way.
Heck, not just the west, but every country anywhere. The key thing is to work towards changing the second part of your remark. Free trade will always hurt part of your society, but it benefits both the larger part and the poor of the world. Protectionism shields a few at the expense of the many—both at home and abroad.
Until people understand that protectionism kills millions of people a year, we won’t get past it. We may not get past it even then, but at least we should try.
August 16, 2008 at 12:28 am
Books Harry Potter Books Pc Magazine…
I didn’t agree with you first, but last paragraph makes sense for me…