U gradovima na jugu Francuske doci ce do velikih sukoba sa muslimanima.

Francuska ce se podeliti na tri dela: katolicki,protestantsi i arapski.

Ivan Dimkovic: U EU hrle svi, ukljucujuci i najgori olos, kako bi se oteli malo o vise nego veliki welfare (koji placaju radni clanovi drustva ekstra haracem kao porezom na dodatni rad) - a zauzvrat umesto rada se od njih trazi da se nasilno odricu svoje kulture i necega na sta vecina ljudi nije spremna da se odrekne na taj nacin - i na njih se gleda kao na nize slojeve drustva - cist rasizam, 100%.

Kontinentalnoj EU bi trebalo da se ugleda malo na kontinent malo zapadnije (ili bar prvo ostrvo malo zapadnije)- gde se ljudi integrisu na mnogo prirodniji nacin - tj. nikog nije preterano briga kako se neko moli i sta oblaci, nego sta i koliko radi - a od welfarea nema ni W, pa neradnicima i nije tako zanimljiv kontinent jer znaju da bez rada mogu da se slikaju.

Ko ne veruje - nek pogleda bar UK - koja je puna muslimana, azijata i sl... a nema nikakve probleme sa njima (osim sa imbecilnim teroristima - al to je duga prica), jer od tih ljudi samo trazi da rade i privredjuju (nema sirokoruki welfare) - a ne trazi od njih odricanje nekih elementarnih stvari (tipa nosenje tradicionalne nosnje i sl) - oni sami shvate da im to ne treba ;-)

Mnogi ovde ce napasti te ljude sto prave nerede - ali iskreno, oni su tu ipak manje krivi

A ko prima taj "najveci olos"? I, kad je vec tako, kad taj "najveci olos" (ne samo trenutno u Francuskoj, vec i "nasi" na "privremenom ali pre(ko)vremenom (k)radu", itd.) divlja, kad je u najvecoj meri odgovoran za stepen kriminala u TIM zemljama(EU), a kad smo uprkos svemu tome upravo mi "anatemisani" pa nas zato ne primaju ili nerado primaju, drze u redovima za vize, itd., koliki smo onda mi tek "olos" (za koliki tek NAS smatraju)?! Jedna stvar koja meni licno smeta je ta "pasoska" diskriminacija, iako se svi ti kojima navodno stremimo, protive diskriminaciji po bilo kom osnovu, kao jednom od temeljnih principa na kojima upravo i pociva njihovo demokratsko drustvo. Ko je bio u EU i video kakav sljam tuda hoda, svakako zna o cemu govorim.

Ivane, pa zamisli sebe da nosis sajkacu/subaru, jelek, caksire na bridz i opanke na posao i da to svi rade? Kakav bi to globalni folklor bio.

Hm... a da: da li se blizi trenutak kad ce "imbecilni teroristi" (inspirisani i vodjeni duhovnim ciljevima i ideologijom) konacno dobiti konkurenciju - neke nove (imbecilne?) krstase (inspirisane i vodjene delom duhovnim ciljevima i ideologijom, a delom zbog toga sto kao radni clanovi tog drustva placaju extra harac protiv svoje volje, a istovremeno zive sve losije pa i neretko ostaju bez posla)? Ili su ih vec u izvesnom smislu dobili, u obliku "Dabl-ju"-a & Co. (inspirisane i vodjene materijalnim ciljevima, citaj "naftom i extra profitom")?

Ivan Dimkovic:
Razlika izmedju "najveceg olosa" iz Alzira i "najveceg olosa" sastavljenog od lokalnog stanovnistva koje krca welfare i cirka pivo je samo u tome sto ove prve mrze ovi drugi - i sto ovi prvi zbog toga imaju zesci kompleks.

Mozda je razlika i u tome sto drugima to pravo i pripada, a prvi su dosli sa strane i uzimaju nesto sto nije njima namenjeno.

Jel ti mozda palo ikad na pamet da posoje ljudi kojima welfare stvarno treba, koji ne zloupotrebljavaju sistem nego jednostavno imaju tezak zivot ???

Evo, gledajmo to na primeru Srbije. Ja licno nemam nista protiv da mi se debelo izdvaja od primanja ako ce se na taj nacin pomoci nekim ljudima koji su siromasni i ne mogu da nadju posao ili koji su izbegli, itd. I to je sasvim normalno jer je to moj narod i hocu da se necega odreknem da bih im pomogao. I sad lepo dodje milion alziraca i naseli se ovde,

svi dobiju drzavljanstvo i svi se nakace na moju platu.

Znaci poenta je ne dozvoliti da ti milion aliziraca (ili bilo kojih drugih muslimana i slicnih koji imaju obicaj da im broj raste geometrijskom progresijom nakon sto se nasele negde jer imaju 10-oro dece) udje u drzavu, jednostavno ih zaustaviti u startu,

a ne kad vec udju i kad se napravi frka da se ukida welfare i zavodi sto suroviji kapitalizam ne bi li sad svi bili toliko zauzeti poslom da ne stignu da prave toliku decu ili da se bune ..... :)

Uostalom, postoje i jos "socijalnije" drzave (u smislu socijalne pomoci itd, a ne u zargonu da nemaju nista) od Francuske pa super zive i nemaju ovih problema jer nisu dozvolili nikome sa strane da ulece i kaci se na ono sto su generacije pre njih ostvarile za svoje potomke, a ne za neku rulju koja ce da dodje ko zna odakle.......

Tacno tako, zato i smatram da drzava treba da raspolaze sa welfare-om odgovorno i da iz toga izopsti bilo koga kome welfare objektivno ne treba - dakle svodjenje welfarea na minimalnu meru, i to samo onima kojima je neophodan.

Alzirci nisu "dosli" vec su pozvani otvaranjem granica upravo da rade i izgrade te zemlje - jer je bila neophodna radna snaga - dakle prost ekonomski supply & demand - da nije tako, ne bi ni imali sta da traze in the first place.

Takodje, jos jedna greska u rezonu je da se welfareom nesto postize osim podmirivanja elementarnih potreba - pruzi bolje tim ljudima sansu da rade otvaranjem radnih mesta, a ne drzanjem na sisi decenijama.

Sto se tice drzavljanstva - na drzavljanstvo drzave ima pravo svako ko boravi i radi N godina u njoj - isto kao i ti i ja - nema tu nesto specijalno, jednostavno to su neki elementarni zakoni koji vladaju u civilizaciji zvanoj Zemlja - i nisu oni sami po sebi losi.

Divno - u tom slucaju se Evropa ne bi ni izdigla iz rusevina WWII da nije bilo Turaka, Alziraca, Jugoslovena i slicnih koji su rmbali za male pare ;-) Osim toga - zaustavljanje na osnovu vere i slicnog je danas nesto sto se smatra fasizmom, a da ne zaboravimo da se pokazalo kao jako lose.

jer ti domaci "drzavljani" ne prave dovoljno dece - pa neces imati cime da isplacujes penzije niti da imas mlad workforce... sta ces onda? ;-) Dakle - poenta je i motivisati tu decu da postanu workforce... a to se nece desiti diskriminacijom i zabranom elementarnih sloboda i getoizacijom.

jer su ti ljudi originalno dosli upravo jer su granice i otvarane, a otvarane su iz prostog razloga - da bi dosli da rade, jer nije postojala adekvatna i dovoljna domaca radna snaga (kao sto ne postoji ni danas) - a kasnije su njihovi potomci zloupotrebili sistem koji je los sam po sebi kako za njih tako i za "prave" (pod znacima navoda) drzavljane koji se isto ne libe od zloupotrebe.

Uostalom - Azija se razvija, free trade polako pocinje da cveta - a onda ce zasticeni i zatvoreni sistemi polako odbrojati poslednje dane - ipak se mora naci neko bolje resenje a ne otvorena konfrontacija ili zacaurivanje.

Kapitalizam kao drustvo nema sanse da uspe na duze staze.

Pa... mislim da gresis. Po meni kapitalizam je do sada najbolje ekonomsko resenje, nema boljeg i mislim da sam od sebe ne moze propasti.

Uglavnom, na kraju se gledaju rezultati. Komunizam se u praksi pokazao kao los i to je cinjenica ali opet s druge strane bilo je onih koji su vikali da nije komunizam kriv sto je to tako bilo... isto tako postoji islam koji se nazalost u praksi dokazuje kao veoma "cvrsta" vera i mnogo losih stvari se desilo u ime islama, i naravno sad se isto tako pojavljuju dve grupe, oni koji ce reci da je islam los i da islam nije kriv za to sto se desava u njegovo ime, jer su u pitanju pojedinacni fanaticni slucajevi. Sad, sta reci, ako cemo istom metodom kao kod komunizma gde se gleda rezultat, onda nazalost (neka se niko ne uvredi) i islam (i ne samo islam, nego sve vere) je los za drustvo.

Ivan Dimkovic: Razlog odakle afrikanci, muslimani i sl... je vrlo prost - bili su neophodni da bi se uopste i izgradilo to bogatsvo 60-tih koje danas trosi, izmedju ostalog, i generacija posve belih i domacih EU neradnika (kao i dece tih Alziraca, da ne zaboravimo nikog iz ove price) i slicnih nezaposlenih koji i ne zele da rade. Mozemo, eto, problem da posmatramo i sa te strane ;-)

Ivan Dimkovic:"Najveci olos" je deo bilo kog naroda koji ne dolazi da bi radio vec iskoriscavao nesto sto ja smatram losim socijalnim sistemom kakav se instalirao u mnogim zemljama EU.

Ivan Dimkovic: ...............................

Ivan Dimkovic: To je upravo i razlog zasto mislim da mnogi ovde (i na drugim mestima) problemu pristupaju sa te lose, impulsivne i fanaticke strane - sirenjem i rasplamsavanjem netrpeljivosti... ljudi, netrpeljivost je odraz nemoci - siromasni muslimani su netrpeljivi ne zato sto su muslimani, nego sto su siromasni i imaju brojne komplekse zbog toga.... jer treba bacati ulje na vatru ili uraditi nesto da se status promeni?

Ako se ukine socijalna pomoc kako ce to poboljsati polozaj muslimana? Oni koji su primali socijalnu pomoc ce onda biti jos siromasniji, zar ne?

Tacno je da drzava mozda moze bolje ekonomski da napreduje ako je socijalna pomoc manja ali i tu ne sme da se pretera jer se tako povecava kriminal jer oni koji nece da rade ce onda poceti da se bave kriminalom.

Tako je recimo kriminal u Americi veci nego u Svedskoj gde i ako ne radis opet ne moras da se bavis kriminalom.

Takodje je i Interpol svojevremeno Beograd proglasio za najbezbedniji grad na svetu a to je bilo vreme kada je socijalna pomoc bila dosta velika. Secam se da su moji retko kada zakljucavali kucu i nikada me dok sam bio klinac nije bilo strah da nocu kasno ostajem da se igram zmurke.

Kasnije kada sam bio peti-sesti razred pocelo je propadanje i porastao kriminal pa onda ipak nisam kasno uvece ostajao na ulici iako sam bio stariji. Naravno da to nije moglo doveka da bude onako da grdjani imaju veliku socijalnu pomoc i da bude mali kriminal ali ipak mora da postoji neki balans i ne sme sa socijalna pomoc previse smanjiti.

Recimo kada je u Engleskoj Tacerka smanjila socijalnu pomoc drzava je postala uspesnija ali je ipak na kraju preterala pa su bili protesti '90. pa je morala da ode sa funkcije.

Smanjivanje welfare-a uopste nije resenje, pa i u USA su bile pobune manjina. Naravno uvek postoji neki uzrok pocetka slican kao ovom u Francuskoj ali razlozi ne verujem da su mnogo drugaciji. Ja ipak mislim da je koren ovih nereda u Francuskoj sputavanje prava manjina. U Engleskoj i na Novom Zelandu niko ne brani muslimanima, indijcima i ostalima da se oblace kako zele na javnim poslovima i cesto vozaci u autobusima nose turbane i ne znam sto bi nekome to smetalo. Meni ne smeta. Ti gradjani tamo u Francuskoj sto se bune se bune sa pravom jer kao gradjani Francuske imaju pravo da zahtevaju svoja prava (koliko sam puta upotrebio rec "pravo"? :-))

Zamisli sada da tebi neka drzava dozvoli da dodjes (jer joj trebas) i ti odlucis da dodjes jer znas da su ti zagarantovana razna prava i onda kada im vise ne trebas da ti ukinu prava. Pa ne moze to tako, trebalo je taj zakon protiv religioznih oznaka da uvedu jos pre 40 godina (pa bi onda dosli samo oni koji hoce da se prilagode francuskom nacinu zivota) ili da ga uopste ne uvode. Naravno nacin na koji se demonstranti bune je potpuno pogresan i uopste ga ne podrzavam. To sto pale i divljaju im nece dati poslove i veca prava i manju diskriminaciju. Mogu samo da povecaju mrznju.

A ako se Francuzi plase da im se firme ne presele neka smanje corporate tax a povecaju income tax za bogatije gradjane i neka smanje subvencije francuskom seljaku i onima kojima zaista ne treba subvencija. Ukidanjem i smanjivanjem socijalne pomoci nezaposlenima nece nista postici i ti ljudi ce samo biti nezadovoljniji. Da ponovim da su i u USA bile pobune. Mozda ce biti i u GB, uopste ne verujem da veci walfare moze da bude uzrok, nema logike. Veci welfare moze da bude uzrok tome da svi budu nezadovoljni kada iskrckaju to sto imaju kao sto smo i mi uradili.

A Question of Integration
By George Friedman

...

For the most part, the rioters have been citizens of France. But to a great extent, they are not regarded as French. This is not rooted necessarily in racism, although that is not an incidental phenomenon. Rather, it is rooted in the nature of the French nation and, indeed, in that of the European nation-state and European democracy -- an experience that distinguishes Europe from many other regions of the world.

The notion of the European nation stands in opposition to the multinational empires that dominated Europe between the 17th and 20th centuries. These were not only anti-democratic, dynastic entities, but they were also transnational. The idea of national self-determination as the root of modern democracy depended first on the recognition of the nation as a morally significant category. Why should a nation be permitted to determine its own fate unless the nation was of fundamental importance? Thus, in Europe, the concept of democracy and the concept of the nation developed together.

The guiding principle was that every nation had a right to determine its own fate. All of the nations whose identities had been submerged within the great European empires were encouraged to reassert their historical identities through democratic institutions. As the empires collapsed, the submerged nations re-emerged -- from Ireland to Slovakia, from Macedonia to Estonia. This process of devolution was, in a certain sense, endless: It has encompassed, for instance, not only the restoration or establishment of sovereignty to the European powers' colonial holdings in places like Africa or Latin America, but pressure from groups within the territorial borders of those recognized powers -- such as the Basques in Spain -- that their national identity be recognized and their right to democratic self-determination be accepted.

Europe's definition of a nation was less than crisply clear. In general, it assumed a geographic and cultural base. It was a group of people living in a fairly defined area, sharing a language, a history, a set of values and, in the end, a self-concept: A Frenchman knew himself to be a Frenchman and was known by other Frenchmen to be French. If this appears to be a little circular, it is -- and it demonstrates the limits of logic, for this definition of nationhood worked well in practice. It also could wander off into the near-mysticism of romantic nationalism and, at times, into vicious xenophobia.

The European definition of the nation poses an obvious challenge. Europe has celebrated national self-determination among all principles, and adhered to a theory of the nation that was forged in the battle with dynastic empires. At the heart of its theory of nationalism is the concept that the nation -- national identity -- is something to which one is born. Ideally, every person should be a part of one nation, and his citizenship should coincide with that.

But this is, of course, not always the case. What does one do with the foreigner who comes to your country and wants to be a citizen, for example? Take it a step further: What happens when a foreigner comes to your country and wants not only to be a citizen, but to become part of your nation? It is, of course, difficult to change identity. Citizenship can be granted. National identity is another matter.

Contrast this with the United States, Canada or Australia -- three examples where alternative theories of nationhood have been pursued. If being French or German is rooted in birth, being an American, Canadian or Australian is rooted in choice. The nation can choose who it wants as a citizen, and the immigrant can choose to become a citizen. Citizenship connotes nationality. More important, all of these countries, which were founded on immigration, have created powerful engines designed to assimilate the immigrants over generations. It would not be unreasonable to say that these countries created their theory of nationhood around the practice of migration and assimilation. It is not that the process is not painful on all sides, but there is no theoretical bar to the idea of anyone becoming, for example, an American -- whereas there is a theoretical hurdle to the idea of elective nationalism in Europe.

This obstacle has been compounded by the European imperial experience. France was born of a nationalist impulse, but the nationalism was made compatible with imperialism. France created a massive empire in the 19th century. And as imperialism collided with the French revolutionary tradition, the French had to figure out how to reconcile national self-determination with imperialism. One solution was to make a country like Algeria part of France. In effect, the definition of the French nation was expanded to incorporate wildly different nationalities. It left French-speaking enclaves throughout the world, as well as millions of citoyens who were not French by either culture or history. And it led to waves of immigrants from the former francophone colonies becoming citizens of France without being French.

Adding to this difficulty, the Europeans erected a new multinational entity, the European Union, that was supposed to resurrect the benefits of the old dynastic empires without undermining nationalism. The EU is an experiment in economic cooperation and the suppression of nationalist conflicts, yet one that does not suppress the nations that created it. The Union both recognizes the nation and is indifferent to it. Its immigration policy and the European concept of the nation are deeply at odds.

The results of all of this can be seen in the current riots in France. As evident from this analysis, the riots are far from a trivial event. These have involved, by and large, French citizens expressing dissatisfaction with their condition in life. Their condition stems, to some degree, from the fact that it is one thing to become a French citizen and quite another to become a Frenchman. Nor is this uniquely a French problem: The issue of immigrant assimilation in Europe is a fault line that, under sufficient stress and circumstances, can rip Europe apart. Europe's right-wing parties, and opposition to the EU in Europe, are both driven to a large extent by the immigrant issue.

All societies have problems with immigration. In the United States, there currently is deep concern about the illegal movement of Mexican immigrants across the border.

...

The United States, and a few other nations, are configured to manage and profit from immigration. Their definition of nationhood not only is compatible with immigration, but depends on it. The European states are not configured to deal with immigration and have a definition of nationhood that is, in fundamental ways, incompatible with immigration. Put simply, the Europeans could never quite figure out how to reconcile their empires with their principles, and now can't quite figure out how to reconcile the migrations that resulted from the collapse of their empires with their theory of nationalism. Assimilation is not impossible, but it is enormously more difficult than in countries that subscribe to the American model.

This poses a tremendous economic problem for the Europeans -- and another economic problem is the last thing they need. Europe, like the rest of the advanced industrial world, has an aging population. Over the past generation, there has been a profound shift in reproductive patterns in the developed world. The number of births is declining. People are also living to an older age. Therefore, the question is, how do you sustain economic growth when your population is stable or contracting?

The American answer is relatively straightforward: immigration. Shortages of engineers or scientists? No problem. Import them from India or China, give them advanced education in the United States, keep them there. Their children will be assimilated. Is more menial labor needed? Also not a problem. Workers from Mexico and Central American states are readily available, on a number of terms, legal and illegal. Their children too can be assimilated.

Of course, there have been frictions over immigrants in the United States from the beginning. But there is also a roadmap to assimilation and utilization of immigrants -- it is well-known territory that does not collide with any major cultural taboos. In short, the United States, Australia and Canada have excellent systems for managing and reversing population contractions, which is an underpinning of economic strength. The Europeans -- like the Japanese and others -- do not.

The problem of assimilating immigrants in these countries is quite difficult. It is not simply an institutional problem: A new white paper from Brussels will not solve the issue. It is a problem deeply rooted in European history and liberalism. The European theory of democracy rests on a theory of nationalism that makes integration and assimilation difficult. It can be done, but only with great pain.

It is not coincidental, therefore, that the rates of immigration to European states are rather low in comparison to those of the more dynamic settler-based states. This also places the Europeans at a serious economic disadvantage to the immigrant-based societies. The United States or Canada can mitigate the effects of population shortages with relative ease. The influx of new workers relieves labor market pressures -- encouraging sustained low-inflation economic growth -- and the relative youth of immigrants not only allows for steady population growth but also helps to keep pension outlays manageable. In contrast, the European ideal of nationality almost eliminates this failsafe -- so that while, as a whole, Europe's population is both aging and shrinking, the dearth of young immigrant workers spins its pension commitments out of control.

These are the issues that, over the next few generations, may begin to define the real global divide -- which will be not only between rich and poor nations, but between the rich nations that cannot cope with declining populations and the rich nations that can.

i problem je sto se kapital polako seli tamo gde nece biti oporezivan 50% - Svaki put kada je, recimo, Nemacka odlucivala da poveca porez u proteklih 10 godina se desila jedna jedina stvar na kraju fiskalne godine - naplaceno je manje poreza nego pre povecanja - zasto? Zato sto se kapital seli, svako ko ume i moze onda lepo prijavi residence negde drugde (Dubai, Monako, sad i istocna Evropa)... pa umesto vise poreza naplate exactly nil - how smart ;-)

Ivan Dimkovic: Sto se licnog income taxa tice... pa slobodno ga povecaj - ali ce ti onda svi vredni naucnici i menadzeri odjedriti preko okeana (kao sto sad i rade) ili u neki tax haven

Opponents note that by limiting the flat tax to paid wages, wealthier people who earn proportionally more money from investments and savings are not taxed for their additional revenue at all; similarly, the loss of deductions means that some tax reliefs for the middle class will disappear. The wealthy would actually be paying less, as a percentage of their monetary gains, than the less wealthy. Therefore, opponents point out that the flat tax is deceptively advertised as fair, when in fact it shifts the tax burden off the upper class onto the middle class -- the real issues are deductions and what money counts as "income", not where the tax brackets are set.

- jer je to "ekstra oporezivanje" tako pokvareno da nemam reci - ispada da ako radis vise da imas sankciju. Bas slusam kako se u "Staroj Evropi" zale kako im intelektualna elita ide u USA... pitam se zasto.

Q. What about a national sales tax?
A. This would be an even bigger punishment for the poor. Rich people spend only a tiny proportion of their incomes in stores. Poor people spend most of their income buying necessities. To be fair, a national sales tax would have to tax purchases of stocks, bonds, property, etc. Nobody in Congress would dare make this proposal. Under a national sales tax, local communities now using the sales tax would have to look for a new tax (an income tax?), otherwise, the total sales tax would double.

pretpostavljam da su pre dolaska Francuza zemlje subsaharske afrike bile cvetne oaze demokratije, ekonomskog prosperiteta, resenog socijalnog programa, jednom recju drustva visoko svesnih pojedinaca sa pismenoscu od 99%.

Francuzi su doneli lekove, pismenost, podizali bolnice, upravne zgrade. Pametan narod zeli da i u kolonijama ima korisno stanovnistvo !